Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 115 Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 Archive 122 Archive 123 Archive 125

Contents

Series character lists

More deletion?

After #More video game templates up for deletion I nominated some more articles and lists for deletion. I'm currently debating List of Killzone characters and List of fictional towns in video games. Now, I stumbled upon Category: Lists of video game characters, which has lists like List of Age of Mythology characters, List of Dante's Inferno characters, List of fictional humanoid species in video games and List of fictional cats in video games. Now, before I go on another deletion nomination spree, maybe it's a good idea to reach some consensus.

To me, most of these character lists are WP:GAMECRUFT. They describe the characters from an in-universe point of view, and have little or no information on the creation, development and reception of the characters. Like I pointed out the other day to our good friend from StrategyWiki, I think here at WP:VG we're moving more towards seeing and treating video games as cultural texts, not as mere entertainment. That's also a reflection of the video game industry and video game journalism. These lists do not help in that process. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying we should delete every video game character list, List of The Last of Us characters are good examples of how a video game character list should be treated, while LGBT characters in video games shows the depiction of LGBT characters throughout the years. We can use those lists. But List of fictional rodents in video games, not so much. What do you think? --Soetermans. T / C 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I need to state at this point that I agree strongly with you. Lists of characters have always been a pain in the eye to me. I would basically support the deletion of any list of fictional entities that does not have secondary sources. ~Mable (chat) 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
From the standpoint of fictional works and not so much video games, lists of characters from a series/franchise are generally considered acceptable spinouts from the main topic, regardless of sourcing quality, with numerous caveats:
  • The series itself is sufficiently notable and sufficiently long-running that including the list within the main series article would raise issues with WP:SIZE. A game series with three games and otherwise relatively unknown does not merit a separate character list, for example.
  • The character descriptions kept to concise plot summaries and avoid going off on full-length character bios.
  • The lists avoid going into every minor character in the game (for example, we should not include every named person in a Grand Theft Auto game) and focus on those that have the most impact on the narrative.
  • The list avoids other game-related fancruft (for example, a list of attacks that a random Pokemon learns)
  • There is some attempt to include concept and creation details, and reception/legacy aspect, though this does not need to be perfect (given WP:DEADLINE).
Note these are not hard-set rules, but it does mean with give some lenience to character lists. This is not say that the two in the list above are okay. The Killzone one seems okay but the Age of Mythology list begs some questions. The Dante's Inferno one is really questionable. If you strip out the enemies and minor character, that remains a list that should be really part of the game's plot description, as right now that seems to be reiterting the plot more or less, and that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I often feel like list articles like these are the "breeding ground" for the kind of things you suggest they are meant to prevent: character descriptions tend to get too long and include minute details (such as attacks), minor characters get listed, and concept and creation are ignored. To me, it seems making a "list of" article only moves the fancruft problem to a page that has less watchers. I would also think that general plot would be more important to describe than characters. Why would we have a "List of Killzone characters," but not an article on the "plot of Killzone"? ~Mable (chat) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTPLOT. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Trust me, there are character lists with problems, but it's an area that used to be a heated area (one of the central ones in the so-called inclusionists/deletionists war), and the allowance for character lists is a compromise solution, an extension of the WP:POKEMON test. Keep in mind that character names are reasonable search terms, so that while not every character may have an article, redirects to these lists can work. But absolutely we need to force more cleanup to avoid fan and gamecruft from spilling into these lists. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Izno, I'm suggesting that Wikipedia is NOT a character database, possibly as an extension of NOTPLOT. After all, many character lists describe the role the character plays in the plot of a story. Taking Killzone as an example:
  • "born in the slums of Vekta city ... He apparently went crazy and sought revenge after the Helghast wiped out his entire platoon ... He has tried to get Hakha killed or restrained from the moment they met ... By the end of the game, Rico and Hakha seem to respect each other ... He returns in Killzone 2 ... Rico now heads up Alpha Squad ..."
What I'm trying to point out is that, if you do this for every character in a game, you effectively describe the plot of the game.
Masem, I don't believe this is entirely equivalent to the Pokémon test, but if it was, it won't hold out much longer anyway. The project of replacing all Pokémon descriptions with table rows is nearly finished. Caterpie and Diglett might be about as notable as Dr. Hillary Massar from Killzone, but Massar gets two paragraphs of text and each non-notable Pokémon (soon) only gets a row so they can be put in the set. As Soeterman says, we're moving away from fictional information, so I don't see why the same wouldn't be the case for video game characters. ~Mable (chat) 18:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm coming from this from the view of fictional works, not so much video games, and I don't see that same trend there. But I do recognize that video game character lists have significant problems, and I think I can ascribe it to the fact that you get much more content in a video game on characters compared to most single works (6-10 hrs for a VG, 2 hrs for a movie), and so there is seemingly more information on characters to be added. I am all for, when there are few sources to support it, cutting character lists from single games or not-significantly important series to short embedded lists or prose, even if it gets a bit weighty, with the recognition that video game characters typically have a lot more content to distill down compared to other forms of media. But we need to consider some edge cases, like the Killzone list, as one that other areas of fiction would not have a problem with, otherwise we're going to reignite the inclusionist/deletionist war from the past. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we put List of Red Dead Redemption characters on the deletion path as well? I tried this back in 2010 but times were different then, and it reached no consensus. Yet there aren't sources to support an article for anyone but the protagonist, and the supporting cast deserves little more than a mention in the game's article. Another good candidate is List of Need for Speed: The Run characters, which I redirected in 2015. The game itself wasn't all that notable, and the characters surely aren't deserving of a list page. As I was directly involved we these I don't want to nominate them myself, but will support such in the AfD discussion. --Teancum (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    • RDR's list definitely needs to be merged down. It's literally rehashing the plot from different character perspectives, and as a single game, doesn't need that. It can be reduced to maybe 2-3 paragraphs of prose prior to the plot summary. Basically, it is going to be exceptional that a single game with no other series with that same narrative will need a separate character list. I suspect that the various GTA lists will be there too. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree completely with what Mable says. A lot of these character lists just repeat the plot, told from a character's in-universe point-of-view. That's not WP:VGSCOPE. --Soetermans. T / C 22:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

lists of characters from a series/franchise are generally considered acceptable spinouts from the main topic, regardless of sourcing quality, with numerous caveats

I'd be interested in developing a project consensus against this practice and codifying it in the guidelines. To my eyes, character list spin-outs are beholden to the general notability guideline as much as any other topic. If a set of characters has significant coverage, let it spin out summary style from the character section of the series article. czar 23:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It is probably worthwhile to point out this RFC back in 2008 in the midst of the "war". Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise and Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Keeping in mind WP:CCC, it shows that it's very difficult to get consensus on things like list of character articles and where they stand with respect to notability (in fact, WP:LISTN is basically our attempt to say "who knows?"). It's also probably worthwhile to remember the results of the ArbCom case on fictional characters, that while there's no content aspect there, its how we approach this that might be a problem. Now, I'm fine with us as the VG project in trying to put more emphasis on assuring notability and eliminating character lists that do not show any attempt at that (and particularly for single-game character lists), but I fear that if we start being too aggressive we will get significant pushback from newer editors and others that we're going against the grain of other fictional works from this previous decisions.
I would definitely see no problem in eliminating lists that strictly rehash plot elements, as the present RDR list has. We can force the issue that character lists should be approached as out-of-universe discussions and weigh more on concept/reception, and those that fail to show a glimmer of such information being available should be merged/deleted. There's stuff we can add to the VG GL to assure that VG character lists that have the barest amount of secondary sourcing, are not simply plot regurgitation too. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that would be great idea. --Soetermans. T / C 01:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: A WikiProject consensus cannot override a project-wide consensus per WP:LOCALCON. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Where is this project-wide consensus that runs counter to my proposal? Masem linked a 2008 proposal with no consensus. In fact, my skim reaffirms an underlying consensus that the need for sources (GNG) trumps all. (Also if it really comes down to lawyering, I say IAR. I think we're all tired of cleaning up endless character lists.) czar 13:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Masem's statement, just because it's not reflected in a guideline (though WP:FICT, WP:Stand-alone lists, WP:LISTN, and WP:SIZE all touch on it), makes it no less true. Aside from that, the WP:SILENT fact that there are numerous other non-VG topic areas which construe these pages as acceptable, if somewhat undesirable? If the logic for removing the VG lists (in some degree) is as strong as you think it is, surely you will be able to find project-wide consensus to remove their existence across-the-board?

Accusations of wikilawyering basically stoop to ad hominem. And as regards for IAR: You need to show substantial rationale to apply IAR when you know of consensus to the contrary. I would suggest that there does exist such a consensus to the contrary at a project-wide level. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How would we go about to try reach new consensus beyond WP:VG? We're not saying every character list should be gone, but that it should pass WP:GNG. I was wondering how you feel about it personally Izno, you're pointing to guidelines but I'm not sure what you think of the issue itself. --Soetermans. T / C 13:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
We'd likely need an RFC at WP:VPP for this, but I suspect you will get a lot of feedback blocking it, as you are basically asking for more definitive resolution of WP:LISTN, which has been troublesome to define further in the past. The basic aspect here is that because WP is a combination of general and specialist encyclopedias, that a list of characters, which one would find in some specialist encyclopedias, is appropriate to include. Bear in mind that we have no advice working either way here, just unstated principles and past discussions.
But I think we can still do something in the scope of VGs that should limit these type of lists knowing the typical coverage video games get (in that there is generally lots more content in the game relative to material written about it when you compare to other forms of media, taking examples of JRPGs and GTA clones). We can emphasis that character lists should not simply reiterate plot summaries and must be more beyond that, otherwise they are best trimmed to a few paragraphs for inclusion in a main article. We can emphasize that characters from a standalone video game should nearly never have a separate list unless that list is thoroughly sourced to secondary materials. We definitely can stress that gameplay elements of characters that are distinct from plot elements should be strongly discouraged unless they are elements brought up in secondary sources. This may not lead to removal of all poorly sourced character lists under the VGs scope but should help control ones that fail to recognize our standards without overriding WP-wide ones. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Masem that we, as members of WP:VG, have the power to control only what's within our backyard. I think there's local consensus among people who have weighed in on this particular discussion right here that we should refine our VG/GL to make clear that "character lists that primarily retell the plot from one character's perspective" does not meet guidelines within this project. The next step is to ensure there is project-wide consensus for this change via RFC. After that happens (if it happens), we'll be able to lead by example to projects and to the Wikipedia project as a whole. But first things first! Axem Titanium (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Review of series character lists

I'll probably go over the character lists tonight. I just redirect Age of Mythology characters to the main article. --Soetermans. T / C 18:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been bold and added a section to WP:VG/GL for discouraging such lists, based on points above. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a work-in-progress, but here's a small update.
Extended content
I've redirected these
I would like to redirect these, but I'll bring it here first
I'm not sure about the following
And not to be completely negative, these are good character list articles

That's it for tonight. --Soetermans. T / C 21:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Juhachi:, here was the discussion that was my reason for redirecting. I was being bold, sorry about that. --Soetermans. T / C 22:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand. I just believe that if another project like WP:ANIME has a stake in a given list, they should also weigh in, assuming they went to AFD.-- 22:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll leave the anime, visual novels and manga related video games for what they are. Since you're here @Juhachi:, what do you think of this discussion and proposal? --Soetermans. T / C 23:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
In general, I do dislike unsourced character articles and rampant in-universe info, and I believe it is in this project's best interests to deal with such articles that are under this project's scope, but once it goes into other projects' scopes, it can no longer be unilaterally decided by this project, at least at this time. I see that earlier you said "How would we go about to try reach new consensus beyond WP:VG?". Having worked extensively on anime/manga articles, it would be a very tough sell to redirect or delete character articles related to anime/manga, and most of the time, merging is preferred from outright deletion of such articles, but this is not really viable when the target article is a GA/FA. Character lists are obviously very popular across Wikipedia, from WP:TV, to WP:COMIC, WP:NOVEL and of course video games and anime/manga, and at least when it comes to my experience in WP:ANIME, most character articles are given a pass with the assumption that they may be improved eventually if someone put in the effort, but in cases where they are perhaps too short, have in some cases been merged back into a parent article, but then the content itself is still retained.-- 00:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I think WT:VG is the wrong venue for this stuff. It might take longer, but AFD is the correct (and ultimately, more sticky) process for stuff you're not comfortable BOLD redirecting. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh sure, but before it goes to AfD, I thought it would be a good idea how others feel about it. Speaking of which, @Torchiest:, here is the discussion that lead to redirecting List of Quest for Glory characters. The explanation in its lead ("The characters and related plot events are described, below, using the in-universe tone of the 5 Quest for Glory adventure games") was the reason I redirected it. --Soetermans. T / C 08:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've been monitoring this conversation. That's why I started trimming the worst of the cruft/fluff. I plan on doing more trimming and rewriting, but I hadn't noticed that ridiculous sentence in the lead. —Torchiest talkedits 18:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice work on this, @Soetermans. Did you go through the lists in the subcategories too? Or just the ones in the main category? I looked through the of "good" examples and I don't think they're ready to be lauded... The Chrono articles still need much more out-of-universe content. And I'd even say that List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters (FL 2008) is a candidate for merge! Look at its sourcing. The rest aren't so hot either. The only dedicated character list that I'd put on a pedestal is List of The Last of Us characters, with Uncharted and FF13 as a distant second. (It's possible that I'm missing a few but I've seen most of them.) czar 02:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to go through those. I'll get around them the upcoming week. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I created List of Digital Devil Saga characters but I'm not sure the cast needs its own article, especially due to lack of real world info. I also created Characters of the Final Fantasy IV series but it looks it needs some clean up.Tintor2 (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this thread since it was basically made and have kept quiet. I agree with how these character list should be in regards to sourcing and content. However, as an editor who does like character lists, maybe instead of just going on a big sweep and merging or straight up deleting these lists, why not contact the main editors (or at least the most recent ones) for the series that these respective lists belong to and let them know of this discussion. That may motivate them to bring these lists up to snuff (we could also give them a timeline; i.e., one week to respond, one month to improve the list). I for one have contributed to the Killzone list and would be bummed if it got booted. There are flaws with it in regards to secondary sourcing etc., but with enough time and research, it can be made into at least an acceptable character list. Now for character lists whose series does not have main or recent editors, then I suggest to see if someone in the project is willing to bring them up to standard, and if not, then delete/merge them would be the only choice. --JDC808 08:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, there's no WP:DEADLINE and if any editor can think they can make it a decent list, sure. If someone undoes one of the redirects, I think that's fair to ask. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@TheGnerd:, here's the discussion that lead me to redirect List of Overwatch characters. Since it has a single primary sources (Blizzard) and describes the characters from an in-universe point-of-view, I think it fails WP:VGSCOPE. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Just as a point of note, I don't think that the lists that clearly fail VGSCOPE should be deleted, but instead just redirected to the appropriate game or series article. "List of characters in X" is a reasonable search team, and there may be cases of redirects on non-notable character names (again that are reasonable search terms) that point to the list entry which then should just be double-redirected to the game/series. Now, if there happen to be "List of minor characters in X" or some variation from the standard titling above and definitely not involving principle characters, that's all fair AFD listing. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've redirected most of them, the ones that are reverted I'll go through AfD, just to get a specific consensus and history on the decision. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mijzelffan:, here is the discussion. I've AfD'ed Professor Layton characters. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Soetermans: I don't mind a whole lot if it's deleted but you gotta do a bit more groundwork first, like just redirecting the page to Hershell Layton breaks every redirect to characters that are not Layton. I got to the page via Lani Minella which linked to luke triton, then I got redirected to a page on hershell layton which has no section for luke triton whatsoever. That makes no sense and had me very confused for a moment. Just redirecting to Professor Layton would be a lot better for instance, even more so if you incorporate some parts of the old article there so the main characters are at least mentioned by their full names. Mijzelffan (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mijzelffan:, you're right, I should've gone over the links and redirects, sorry about that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I've withdrawn the nomination, as @Mr. Magoo and McBarker: will try to improve the article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess my suggestion is being ignored.... --JDC808 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey c'mon @JDC808:, most of the lists I redirected before you suggested that. I think it's a good idea to let contributors know, but most of these character lists are not being edited frequently. See for instance the history of Dante's Inferno, Dynasty Warriors or F.E.A.R.. There's no deadline, but we also have to be realistic. For some of these lists it'll be next to impossible to find sources on development and reception. If another editor undoes my redirect I won't revert and point to this discussion. For the articles I can't imagine being improved I'll take to (AfD, but even there I'll withdraw if someone wants to try and improve the article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion was made on the 21st, and you have done stuff with these lists after that. That is why I made the "ignored" comment. You are making an assumption that it may be impossible to find sources and that these lists cannot be improved. You might be right, but you might be wrong too. That is why we should go by my original suggestion before doing anymore AfDs or redirects. There may not be editors who edit the lists frequently, that is why (like I said in my original post) we should contact the editors of the series article and game articles that these lists belong to. Like you said, there is no deadline, so you do not need to rush on AfDing or redirecting these lists. --JDC808 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, we should keep in mind that the creators don't really own the list. But assuming they won't be interested in improving these lists is not entirely fair either. I do think redirecting doesn't do much harm, though: it's an action easily undone. ~Mable (chat) 18:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
In case there was confusion (since you brought up OWN), when I said "these lists belong to", I wasn't meaning editors who "own" the lists. I meant, for example, the Dante's Inferno character list belongs to, or rather goes with, the Dante's Inferno series/games, and we should contact the editors of the Dante's Inferno series/games' articles. Though you do bring up a good point that we should also contact the original creator if they aren't one of those editors who edits the series/games articles that go with the list. --JDC808 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
What "stuff" are you referring to? The AfD's? For Professor Layton, I checked the series' history, the list of characters' history and the character Professor Layton's history. I've withdrawn my nomination of the Professor Layton characters, because Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs), previously uninvolved with editing the Layton series, said they'll take a swing at it. Concerning Overwatch, thanks to our wonderful search engine it wasn't hard to see that the Overwatch character list doesn't meet notability at this point anyway. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for listing Characters of Chrono Cross as a good example! I've sunk a ton of edits into trying to clean up that one. Its still far from perfect, but that game is so complex you've really got to be in the right mood and mindset to be working through all its characters and scenarios...) Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jesse Viviano: and @Aria1561:, here's the discussion for redirecting List of Unreal characters (AfD) and List of Call of Duty characters (Afd). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
So I guess instead of doing as I had suggested, you're going to nominate the lists for AfD, and then contact the editors? --JDC808 08:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Cut me some slack, would you? These two editors were not involved with the respective character lists before, so should I assume they would be interested in improving it now because they undid my redirect? I don't think so. Regardless, the articles were both nominated before and I again looked through the WP:VG/RS search engine and I can't find reliable sources. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
That brings to point another part of my suggestion; if there are not active or involved editors with the lists, contact the editors who are active or involved with the series/game articles for which the lists go with. It could be something as simple as leaving a post on the series talk page that says something along the lines of: "The character list for this series needs cleaned up [and you can be specific if you want]. After one week at time of this post, if there is no response of interest to address the issues as discussed 'here' [linking to this discussion], it will be taken to AfD." There's no need to rush on AfDing/redirecting/merging these lists. --JDC808 18:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone. I know that the list of Bloody Roar characters is not in this discussion, but Czar recently took the article to AFD after I challenged his redirect of it. As the person who challenged his redirect, I voted keep, but it could use additional input, based on any available sources.
And by the way, I do agree with JDC808 on this matter. There's no need to rush at doing these, just because the article currently lacks in sources, per WP:BEFORE. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Rktat3:, here is the discussion that lead to redirecting List of Blue Dragon characters. Do you think you can improve it? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Bit of a category problem

Seems User:Neptune's Trident has taken it upon himself to redefine the term permadeath and has applied the permadeath category to a dozen or so games from Pong to Double Dragon to which it clearly does not apply. He has already reverted a couple of attempts to remove the category, so more concerted effort may be needed. Indrian (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've left a message at their talk page. At this point they're edit-warring already, so a block wouldn't be out of the question. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted their non-rpg additions back through to Pitfall before getting tired of it; looks like it goes back dozens and dozens of articles more. They've also removed the talk page message. That said, does this category even make sense? Is Permadeath a defining characteristic of the games that have it, or should the category be deleted? --PresN 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel like this has already been discussed, but I wasn't able to find the conversation. My take is that it could technically work as a category if we'd establish very restrictive inclusion criteria. Permadeath can be a defining characteristic of a game, but just having permadeath isn't enough. The "Roguelike" category is probably better anyway, and the two would have way too much overlap. ~Mable (chat) 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, @Neptune's Trident:, your actions have not gone unnoticed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like he has started removing the category from articles himself, so that may be the end of it. Indrian (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 4 March

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

February 21

February 27

February 28

February 29

March 1

March 2

March 3

March 4

Salavat (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

2K Games changed to 2K

Looks like the article on 2K Games is outdated. 2K Games no longer calls itself that. Shouldn't it be moved and info updated (see talk page)? Debeet (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I explained the confusion over at the talk page, so this section may be closed. Lordtobi () 09:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for opinions on AfD

I'd like to request more eyes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mud Connector. It seems to exist at a fraught boundary and could really use a broader infusion of consensus-based feedback. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Update

YES. FINALLY! --GameTimeFan2016 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Kirby: Planet Robobot coverart

Tasks - NPOV: "you're" to "your"

On the NPOV line in the Tasks section it says "Ensure that pages on professional gamers are written from a neutral point of view, even if they're you're favorite gamer!" Shouldn't "you're" be changed to "your"? I can't seem to find that text in the source so I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable in editing Wikipedia pages could do that instead. Zupotachyon (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I would change it since it an obvious typo. You're (short for you are) makes no sense in this context.--65.94.252.62 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
☑Y Done. – Rhain 06:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Shadow Madness

I have a problem with the Shadow Madness article. Yesterday, I classified the G4TV link as a "dead link" here, but Cyberbot II archived the link here, but with no title and a broken reference. When I noticed that the archived link is a video that doesn't play, I reverted it and tried to explain that the archived video link doesn't play here, but Cyberbot II keeps archiving it here, still with no title and a broken reference! Can you please tell Cyberbot II to stop archiving video links that don't work? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding the title (|title=titlehere) would have fixed the "broken" part of the citation. You seem to have fixed it in the present by actually providing the link to a working video.

In general, there's nothing particularly wrong with linking to the archived content of a video (which may not play). The preference here has moved toward citing transcripts (sometimes included with a video, sometimes separate) since this allows for better archiving. --Izno (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now. Thanks anyway. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to gain access to these sources? (for Madeline 1st and 2nd Grade Math)

Any Highbeamers out there..? :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to ask at WT:HighBeam. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. :D--Coin945 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations discussion

Hi everyone,

The mention of abbreviations in the lead of video game articles has not reached any consensus so far. @Izno: suggested I start a new discussion on the use of abbreviations in the lead at WT:MOSABBR. See this discussion. Input would be much appreciated. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

MFW TIL that MOSABBR was silly AF... smh. DAE agree? IMO someone should ELI5... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  · Salvidrim! ·  17:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry Ben, your Canadian dialect is hard to understand sometimes ;-) soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Steam games

Category:Video games on Steam seems to have been revived as Category:Steam games by Rampage470 and should be stopped to be added and deleted, by previous concensus. Lordtobi () 16:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Round... 4? 5? Not sure how many times a category for this has been deleted. CfD here. -- ferret (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This is WP:G4-able. --Izno (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
For reason I didn't connect that CSD applies to categories as well. Whoops. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Side-tracking, I wonder if we should have something in WP:VG/GL on categories in situations like this. For example, categories that simply exist to say "this game is available at this digital store" are clearly not appropriate, but other store-based classifications, such as Category:Steam Workshop games, make sense. There's clearly some distinction for a category like Category:Xbox Live Arcade games too but I don't know how best to distinguish this. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
There are already categories that sort games based upon platform, like Category: Xbox 360 games and Category: PlayStation 4 games. But there are also articles and categories like List of Xbox Live Arcade games, List of downloadable Xbox 360 games and List of download-only PlayStation 4 games. So is there any reason for Category:Xbox Live Arcade games and Category:PlayStation Network games? Because without those categories we can just say that having a category based upon distribution is not necessary. Perhaps we can have a larger, encompassing category like Category: Digitally distributed video games, without being distribution channel-specific. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:Digitally distributed computer games, but even that sounds much, much too broad to be useful. ~Mable (chat) 12:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that lists and categories can co-exist (and the latter should be more useful once we can do cross-categorization searches), there is something different about consoles and their sole storefront per console, compared to computers and the multiple possible storefronts. I do agree that a digital distribution category may make sense, but then should that mean we also include a retail distribution category too? (and many games would belong to both, but that's okay if we do do that). --MASEM (t) 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Category: Digital-only distributed computer games, perhaps? That would definitely be a defining trait, while the opposite ("retail-only") is not. Though simply having all-encompasing categories "digitally distributed video games" and "Video games available at retail" could work. Sounds like an awful lot of work, but I suppose there are reasons to do it. Of course, there will be overlap. ~Mable (chat) 20:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's avoid the phrase "computer game". I would agree otherwise with your assessment. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I just now remembered that categories like Category:DSiWare games would probably be subcategories to the suggested article, so yeah, you're right. ~Mable (chat) 13:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
For anyone interested in adding steam information to games we have P1733 on Wikidata. I've imported 1,500 from PCGamingWiki, but need to finish other scripts to improve the process. — Dispenser 18:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinion Sought - Merging individual games up to a Series Article

The Room (2012 video game), The Room 2, and yet-created The Room 3 are a series of mobile (and in some cases, also ported to PC) escape-the-room games that have been quite successful (millions of sales) and have earned several awards. However, the games are short, have generally consistent gameplay, and little story to speak of beyond why you are playing around with puzzle boxes, and what development there is is very much skimming the surface. I have been itching to merge the existing two and add in the third game to just make a series article. Does anyone see any foreseeable problems with this? --MASEM (t) 23:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If the material is better presented in a single article, then I'm perfectly fine with merging them. If we do, I'd like it to be done in a way where it's actually an article about a series, and not three game articles sharing one page, like I see with a lot of series articles (example).--IDVtalk 00:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The way I'd envision it would be a common gameplay section (only calling out the small changes in the two following games), a singular development section, a single plot section with a para for each game (since they are in narrative order) and then a reception section that might have to treat each game a bit separately to start. I definitely would not use the games as H2 headers for it, as you point out is more common when there's a series article to cap off the separate game articles. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Everquest Next

This game was recently canceled so there may be a lot of traffic to it. That said, the article is currently in a pretty terrible shape. It's full of WP:Proselines and announcements and dates that don't really seem relevant (IE: most new features have a date attached to them and where they were announced) I was hoping some people more familiar with the game could take a look at it. I --Deathawk (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image captions

Why is it that the majority of articles about video games do not feature a caption explaining the image in the infobox? I think every single image should have a caption telling the user what it is, even if it's obvious. Most video game articles have the cover art as the picture. What harm does it do saying that it's the cover art? I think it should be like film articles, where most pages have the caption "Theatrical release poster". Without going to hunt for it right now, I bet the relevant guideline would discourage having no caption at all. Either way, a consensus should be established to either caption every picture, or only not use captions when the image is the cover art or logo. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this would generally be the best thing to do. I think it would be nice for any Featured Article video game to have a caption for the infobox image. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, though. Optionally, one could add something along the lines of "American box art" or "European release poster" to the caption, giving a bit more context as to where the image came from and why the images the reader sees in everyday life may be different. ~Mable (chat) 08:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I spent around fifteen minutes going to as many game articles as I could. I just went to random articles about games off the top of my head. All but around six articles had no infobox picture caption at all. I counted 27 articles without a picture caption out of around 34 articles visited. Just thought I'd perform this activity to show I didn't just make up my "majority" claim above. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
After having a quick read of the relevant guideline, I have deduced that said guideline pretty much says that no image caption is best only when having one would be redundant. Most cover art images aren't clearly cover art so adding the caption "Cover art" wouldn't be redundant at all and would be more of a clarification or confirmation for the reader because it's never established that the image is the cover art. The only way you could say a caption would be redundant would be if the image had the platform banner but even then, it's not diminishing the quality of the article and still isn't really redundant as then you'd probably have to explain the rating in the corner by saying "European cover art" or whatever the case it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • For something as simple as just the game's logo (like what Stardew Valley has), I don't really see a need to caption it. But for box art, we should always state what region it's from, even though it might seem obvious to us. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I think vague logos are indeed a good exception. Those are probably trademarks used on related merchandise and may appear on box art, virtual banners, start screens, etc. It may be possible for something to have both an "American logo" and a "European logo", though. I such cases, you can still add a description: it just has to add something to the image besides being redundant ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 10:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, for any regional differences, it should always be mentioned. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This 2013 discussion at WP:CAP discusses infobox captions. I forget what the conclusion was, but it did use BioShock Infinite as an example, which is now caption-less. You may need discussion with the broader community, not just VGians. - hahnchen 23:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there was no real strong conclusion, though clearly the current wording of CAP reflects concepts in it: avoid captions if they are redundant, or stick to terse ones. For me, from the NFC side (Which nearly all video game infobox images are), that's a "free" non-free to use to try to explain any element from the game without adding a second image. BioShock Infinite shows who Booker is, that should be ID'd, similarly with GTAV's cover to show the three main protagonists. On the other hand, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a very generic image really needs no caption. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This smells of overkill. If the image is self-explanatory, there is no need to further explicate in the caption. Most infobox images fall into this category. We don't need "North American box art" on every applicable image—it would only add to the understanding of the topic if there is a discussion of difference in box art somewhere in the article. czar 18:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How about I make a clear proposal? I think video game article infobox images should be captioned in a very similar way to how film article infobox images are captioned. At film articles, the image is usually the theatrical release poster and the caption says just that. For video game articles, the image is usually the cover art and I think captions should say just that, "Cover art" and nothing else, with the only exception being if there's something more that's noteworthy about the image, such as who designed it, which is sometimes pointed out. When an infobox image is not cover art, common sense should be used. If it's the logo spelling out the name only, a caption is redundant. This matter is really simple and doesn't need to be complicated. Make it like film articles. Use the caption "Cover art" when the image is cover art. Having no caption at all isn't helpful and is only appropriate when it would be redundant, usually in the case of the image being the logo. Providing the caption "Cover art" for images of cover art isn't redundant for the same reasons that providing the caption "Theatrical release poster" for theatrical release posters isn't considered redundant, which would be because the reader is never actually told what the image is and cover art is most definitely not "self-explanatory". Logos for sure because it's just spelling the name of the game, but the average reader is not going to know for sure without a shadow of a doubt that an image is the game's cover art. How is good old average Joe supposed to know what exactly the image at BioShock Infinite is? It doesn't hurt one bit telling the reader what the image is so therefore a caption would clearly not be redundant (or "overkill"), which is the big thing concerning no captions at the guideline I linked above. The opposite is true for logos and it's as simple as that. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

To put what I'm saying in a more simple statement, video game articles in particular ignore the image caption guidelines. Why? —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why a small caption is inappropriate. Like Czar says, if it is self-explanatory there's of course no need to say something. So I wouldn't say that "cover art" is like the standard thing to have as a caption. Portal's caption "Portal's box art displays a figure falling into a portal" isn't very informative. But for BioShock Infinite, the cover art was a bit controversial, with Irrational Games offering an alternative. So in that case, I definitely think something could be said there, similar to the caption on Ico. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I would call "Cover art" the baseline or default caption. If there's something special about the image that's worth touching on in the caption, then it would of course be more than just "Cover art". "Cover art" could be substituted with anything really. When the image is cover art, there should always at least be something telling the reader exactly what the image is because cover art is not as self-explanatory as logos. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You know what, I think you're right. There are logo's like Rust, app icons like Dots, generic cover art like Fallout 3; Dragon Age: Origins has a very clean image, while Dragon Age II has a PEGI rating, the developer and publisher logo's on it. When I look at the image of Flower, I can't tell what it is just by looking at it. I think we should have a standard caption. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
We ignore the guidelines? I dug up the relevant part of the guideline:

Other images (especially within infoboxes) where the purpose of the image is clearly nominative, that is, that the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information – no caption needed.
— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Infoboxes_and_leading_images

If the image unambiguously typifies the article subject, I see no reason to distinguish what it's a poster or box art unless there is some interesting point to make about its representation. I see "Cover art" infobox captions as junk that someone else will eventually (and sensibly) remove. czar 17:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
"Typical example of the subject"? I can understand this about a physical object, but in the case of a picture that represents the subject (rather than being the subject), I don't think that holds water. I mean, unless it's literally a picture of the box the game is contained in, or a generic image (such as a logo), as discussed. ~Mable (chat) 19:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Czar, a vague image of cover art simply does not do that and I have already comprehensively explained why. I would be repeating myself I were to explain this part of this matter further. Would you say the same about film article infoboxes? The way film article infobox image captioning is done is not going to change because it's done the right way. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Also Czar, I already linked to that guideline above, saying it states the opposite of what you said it states, and if you had to do some 'digging' to find said guideline, you may have not even read my posts or the guideline itself, and if you haven't done that, you should have done so before commenting. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
In a related interaction, Lordtobi displayed his preference for always providing image captions, even if it's a logo. They may wish to comment here but seeing how they are already aware of this and haven't already done so, they probably aren't going to. Worth noting. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I have already comprehensively explained why Then why reply? Re: digging—you referenced a previous post, which linked to the captions guideline, not the infobox section. Re: Template:Infobox_film#Image: I don't write about film, but I could see how there might be a substantive difference between "Theatrical release" and "DVD" art, considering that most films have those separate releases. In our case, there is most often no major difference between cover art on versions of a release, and in fact, we try to use the most representative and neutral art. Does that mean we need to label each infobox "Windows cover art"? Come on. If there is a substantive difference between the N64 and PS1 release art that somehow matters to readers, sure, note it, but we have no need for generic "Cover art" captions because that much is assumed. czar 23:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
"Then why reply", I don't understand that question. This is a discussion isn't it? I'm not going to say nothing when you raise concerns. Even though I've already said this I'll stress it again: This is not a matter of what the caption says or having the caption explain differences in cover art or anything like that. This is about telling the reader what the image is because they are never even told what it is. "Why does the reader need to be told what the image is? Isn't it clearly cover art?" Most cover art images could be interpreted as anything, particularly the ones like the 27 articles I counted in 15 minutes, which I linked above. How is one supposed to know exactly what the image at (for example) Hitman (2016 video game) is? It doesn't hurt one bit to caption a vague image. Again, I'm not referring to logos simply spelling the game's name. When applied to this specifically, the guideline says "do not caption logos because it would be redundant", "do caption cover art because captioning it would not be as redundant as captioning a logo because cover art isn't as clear as a logo". Most logos are clearly logos of the games in question. Most cover art could be anything. Lastly, it's the same guideline (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions). You just were more specific. I chose to not point to a select spot because I was taking my information from the whole page. By "information", I mean what I stated in my post linking to the guideline. If I was to be more specific, I would have linked to where you linked because that's the most relevant thing here. (I might have said the next sentence already but I might as well say it again too.) The actual content in that section at the guideline is (for lack of a better way of putting it) on my side. It says no caption should only be done if having one would be redundant and having a caption for vague cover art would not be redundant, therefore the guideline essentially says to caption cover art. If you do not understand what I am actually proposing, say so and I will clarify further if need be. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Czar, about your edit at Rust removing the caption: To be clear, I'm not saying images like the one at Rust should be captioned. That is the type of image I refer to when I say logo. It's not cover art. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Anybody else have anything to add? If not, then I guess this discussion is over. Five Six editors to one in favour of captioning vague cover art but that's hardly enough participants for me to go around adding captions to the 27 articles I linked. I would have just done it as a non-controversial change but since I opted for a discussion, I haven't already done so. If I did decide to do so instead of starting a discussion, I highly doubt anybody would have had a problem. If there was somebody who would have had a problem, I doubt their disagreement would be big enough for then to decide to revert on the spot because most people just wouldn't care. Anyway, I'll be watching but if nobody else comments on this or the section is outright closed with a closing statement summing up the result, then this was a big waste of time. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Tangentially related, I made a tool AltEdit for adding a text alternative to images. — Dispenser 01:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm in favor of captioning cover art. In the overwhelming majority of cases it's obvious that an image is cover art to video gamers, but likely not to a general audience. And as noted, the inclusion of captions seems to be standard for other types of popular media articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory needs protection

You know, this Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory article has been brought to my attention. Take a look at its history. Since 2014, I added more scores and links, most of which had become old and obsolete or dead by 2015 up to 2016. I kept archiving dead links, but IP editors kept making them dead again. Even worse is that there were duplicates of Metacritic links. I removed them, fixed the IGN reference and classified one GameTrailers link as dead, but Eik Correll reverted my good edits by making everything broken again. I had to undo his edit and also archived dead links as shown in these two links. But I am afraid that someone else like Eik Correll or another IP editor will break everything again. That may be why I need help in protecting this article so that no one can break the references or undo them again. Can someone do that for me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I do't see that as necessary since so far Erik Corell has only made that edit once and the only type of protection that can prevent a registered user from ending would be full protection which would prevent anyone but administrators from editing and I doubt that the threshold to warrant that type of protection here is even close to being met. Also, i see discussing the matter with Erik first as being the first step.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Early id Software works non-notable?

Way back on Christmas Day, 2004, one of my earliest Wikipedia edits was to create an article on Rescue Rover, an early game developed by id Software to fulfill a contractual obligation to Softdisk. Now, over a decade later, it's been flagged for deletion as "non-notable". Are the early works of this significant game development group really non-notable? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You need more secondary sources, just because a big name software company made the game doesn't necessarily make it notable. That said, I think you can find sourcing, please start with the book "Masters of Doom: How Two Guys Created an Empire and Transformed Pop Culture" (hint, you can search thing on Google which appears to have RR mentioned a couple times). --MASEM (t) 17:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
To add, as part of the development, you might want to explain how the relationship between Softdisk and id worked at the time of this game's development. Which should help flesh out details and make it notable. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Magic School Bus (video games)

It is obvious that each individual game in this series isn't notable enough to warrant their own articles, but the sources demonstrate that the series as a whole deserves an article.

My question is: how exactly should such an article be structured? Atm there's a line of two of critical reviews under each game in the series. There's much more info to be nabbed from those sources too!--Coin945 (talk)

P.S. I know the Metacritic sources aren't notable in their own right, but I only included them because it would have been a pain to use the waybackmachine to locate every single AllGameGuide source. I might do it tomorrow but I have to go to sleep now. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you can't get sources that talk about the series as a whole, then it technically shouldn't be a "series" article, but a list ("List of Magic School Bus video games"). The usual pattern for a good list like that (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content e.g. List of Chocobo media) is tables with a few bullet points each; that might work well for this if you can condense the descriptions of the games down to 2-3 sentences per game. Alternately, if you'd rather have a short paragraph of description and think you can get some sort of review content for most of the games, then it may make sense to leave it as text, and just format each short section consistently- can't think of any examples off hand, but I've seen that done well before in other areas. --PresN 18:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Couple reminders as it is GDC week

GDC is not usually where major game announcements are made but if there are new games announced, we should avoid rushing off to create the article unless there's sufficient details on it. Also, remember that GDC's Flickr album, though not yet started for this GDC, is usually always published with CC-BY photos, making great for Commons and the like to get images of developers and the like. Eg, hoping for a few good pics from the GDC/IGF awards to help populate some articles. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is a good idea, however, if we add these games (if any) to their repsective entries at 2016 in video gaming and list of video games in development. Polygon and IGN are usually behind these things so we should keep an eye out for these. Lordtobi () 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo Games shutting down

Just a heads up. Archive what you need to and expect a lot more think-pieces reflecting on early web games from the major sites as this news spreads. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we actually use Yahoo Games links here? Also, so many websites are dying out. Anyone else noticing that? GamerPro64 00:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
91 instances of "games.yahoo.com". --Izno (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Which doesn't get any of the subdomains, or filter by namespace. LinkSearch should honestly be deprecated since the improvements to Special:Search have been made (most notably of course using ElasticSearch). --Izno (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
(Though I suppose the one thing over LinkSearch has over Search is that it only gets domains related to the domain in question, rather than false positives like archive.org.) --Izno (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
And here's a LinkSearch with subdomains. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion not showing up

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of console adventure games does not show up in WP:VG/AA for some reason. Anyway, feel free to drop by. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because said page doesn't have a WPVG banner on its talk page.  · Salvidrim! ·  13:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's why. Thanks for explaining. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

La planète de Donkey Kong vs. Donkey Kong Country

Hello

I saw some problems pages related to Donkey Kong Country.

Best regards --Archimëa (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Replied there.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible article Cross-platform (video gaming)

I may need a bit help with this. In light of MS's announcement that they want to enable cross-play between Xbox One + Windows users and potentially PS4, cross-platform gaming is an area we probably can discuss more. I do note we have some information buried at cross-platform but I think that's the wrong place for it as that article more suited to cross-platform development rather than interoperability. Hence, I'm toying with starting a Cross-platform (video game) article that focuses specifically on the gameplay factor for online gaming rather than development side. That way we can add the various attempts in the past, as well as some of the reasons this is a "holy grail" for game players. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion I do not think that there is enough content to fill one whole article with video game-only content, so I'd more likely point out that a section at the article you mentioned. Lordtobi () 20:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Cross platform#Video games is where this information is indeed currently living. The article as a whole seems to be suffering from an identity crisis. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The one thing that I found in researching this was that, in strictly limiting the topic to video games, there are two different uses of "cross-platform". You have the architecture one, like Unity and Unreal Engine are both cross-platform tools, and clearly are the type of cross-platform discussed in that cross-platform article, but that's not what is happening here. With this announcement, we're talking about cross-platform communication specific to video games, which doesn't quite fit into discussing the architecture, and why I think a separate article may be needed, being a problem unique due to console online services. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Go for it. There is plenty of coverage on the topic of cross platform games. Plenty to write about its viability, technical and design challenges, notable attempts, successes, failures, and perspective from media. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If anyone is interested in helping I started a draft here : User:Masem/Cross-platform (video gaming). Sourcing for the general issues is going to be the hard part because so far when limitations of cross-platform come up its tied to a single game and not the general situation overall. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy RFC

There's a discussion on whether to refer to Gamergate as a movement here. —Torchiest talkedits 19:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 10 March

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

28 February

3 March

5 March

6 March

7 March

8 March

9 March

10 March

Salavat (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • VicoVR is blatant advertising. - hahnchen 09:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it common practice to split off articles into stand-alone accolade lists? I mean, I know Witcher 3 is big, but come on... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
For video games, it's not that common. There are only six other cases: Category:Lists of accolades by video game. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the games that win multiple GOTY awards tend to get their own accolades article. I mean, it's better than cramping up the main article with every single award won. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Though on the flip side, these accolade lists come out of the film article sphere, which have a much more standard list of "important" awards that limit the length of the list- compare how long the table is in List of accolades received by Black Swan vs the Witcher list. The Witcher list contains literally every nomination by a notable source; the Black Swan list cuts it down to notable+actually respectable sources—no "cheat code central cody awards" there. --PresN 02:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
(Also, speaking as an FLC delegate and therefore the guy who promotes these lists to FL-status: I hate them all, and I want to delete them every time I see them as pointless trivia.) --PresN 04:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that I look at that list for the Witcher, that is far far too excessive and trivial awards. Things like BAFTA, GDC, and GOTY from sites like IGN and GameSpot are fine, but they're listing every possible allocade from even weak RSes. That should be culled and trimmed back into the main article. for exactly what PresN says above. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No disagreement about that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You could try to loosely limit the list to accolades that were noticed and re-reported by third party sources. That way, you can see if unrelated news outlets care about The Witcger III getting awards and if the list really is long enough to merit a separate article. ~Mable (chat) 11:57, 13 March 2016 (UT
The video games awards list are poor, The Witcher 3 one in particular for reasons given above. Even the "featured" lists such as The Last of Us and GTA V have no clear criteria for inclusion. "Cheat Code Central's Game of E3 award"? I'm not convinced by awards lists in music and film either, but at least lists like Arctic Monkeys seem to be limited to notable (covered by sources independent of the awarding body) awards. - hahnchen 15:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)C)
Another concern - I don't feel that Project X (series) is an actual, defined thing. Feels like WP:OR. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A plea

I know this might be unprofessional, but I'm really a bit uneasy. The FAC for Persona has been up since January: it only has two supports and one set of comments. I really need some active input: hopefully at least one more support and a source review, then I'd be less anxious. Can anyone here help? I can help with something of theirs in exchange. I'm already doing a GA review for The1337gamer, but I'm willing to take on something more if it will get Persona passed. I'm doing the request like this as the review threads seem to be becoming impotent. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I've been meaning to get on that, guess I need to jump now if I'm going to. No need for a review back. --PresN 18:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My profound thanks to IDV, PresN and Darkwarriorblake for their suggestions and support. I'm now at ease about this FAC. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I had been thinking about doing a review of it for some time already when you started this thread.--IDVtalk 21:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

March Main Page

On March 17, we'll have Final Fantasy Type-0 as the TFA - congrats to ProtoDrake! And on March 30, Jumping Flash! will be the TFA - congrats to Jaguar! --PresN 16:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

PresN, thanks for the congrats. But after the slew of silly edits, I'm seriously considering never putting one of my FAs on the main page again. It's just so sickening to see the page attacked like that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Luckily, TFA only lasts 24 hours. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Usually bots will get most of the junk. I just don't worry about the edits at all, just wait until 48 hours and then just do a complete diff comparison with the day before, copy the good edits out and then nuke whatever's left. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, same. Usually, the only edits I get are vandalism and "helpful" style changes (for example, someone edited FF Type-0 who is, apparently, allergic to not using redirecting links for individual minor characters). No point stressing about it, just let it ride and then revert it all. --PresN 19:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought there was some sort of cascading protection system that automatically protected TFA article while they were on the main page?  · Salvidrim! ·  19:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No, things that are displayed on the front page (images, subpages) are cascaded, but things that are linked like the TFA aren't. I know it used to be semi'd when it was on the main page, but that hasn't been true for a while. It seems to go back and forth, though. --PresN 19:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 18 March

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

10 March

11 March

12 March

13 March

14 March

15 March

16 March

17 March

18 March

Salavat (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Project X series"

Hello. I'm looking for more input over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_X_(series) - trying to figure out if this article is appropriate and necessary. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

On Kotaku

The trial between Hulk Hogan and Gawker Media has thus far resulted in the jury awarding Hogan 115 million in damages. As Kotaku is Gawker's gaming website, and some are saying that this case will bankrupt Gawker, I think we should expect the worst at this moment and archive every Kotaku article in use. Can't be like Joystiq and have its links redirected to somewhere else. We might be losing another source here pretty soon. GamerPro64 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to drop a note about this too. I think they said they're going to appeal the decision, so it may not be imminent, but still. We consider Gizmodo usable too, right? It would affect them too, which could affect some (albeit less) of our articles too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Also io9. —Torchiest talkedits 13:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe io9 was merged to Gizmodo a while back. Not sure when, though. GamerPro64 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Tom Clancy's

Is the use of Tom Clancy's in video game titles WP:COMMONNAME? A lot of VG/RS'es use The Division, Splinter Cell, EndWar, not their full, official titles Tom Clancy's The Division, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and Tom Clancy's EndWar. Shouldn't the titles reflect that? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

For The Division and EndWar it seems quite a lot of them still use the full name. While some (not all) are using titles like Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon in their titles, they did mention their full name in the body article. I don't think that there is a clear trend or pattern. For consistency sake I will prefer having the full title. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you need to use "Tom Clancy's..." as the title and introduce as the game in the lead as that, but once past that point, the short form is fine. This is not like the seconary title of a game, which usually can be dropped without issue, but reflect that it is within Tom Clancy's universe. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. We should use the common name as the title, right? Well, for the Rainbow Six games, plenty of RS'es don't use the full title. That being said, I would prefer to keep using the full, official title for article titles. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Character list discussions

As a continuation from the previous thread, these merge and deletion discussions could use more input:

czar 14:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Experts again

We're down to the end of the video games Category:All articles needing expert attention queue but I could use some help resolving the last bunch:

These have been tagged for a while, and usually indicate that something is seriously wrong with the tone (read: too technical) such that generalist readers would be lost in the content. So you can gut the content that is unsourced or jargon-laden and remove the {{technical}}/{{jargon}} tags. Feel free to strike the items above when they're finished. czar 04:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

For clarity: Fog of war needs experts in military (this is actually a tag I placed there myself), as the gaming-portion is fine. Game port needs experts in hardware. Habitat (video game) has MUD-related terminology in it, though it being too technical is disputed. Joystick is technical in that it explains how the device translates x-y movement into signals. MMORPG uses jargon and abbreviations, but I'not sure what the issue is exactly. I think Ryzom is technical because of its usage of open source terminology, but I'm not sure. Lastly, visual novel... I don't even know. If any of these topics sounds interesting to you to fix, go ahead. ~Mable (chat) 11:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
As someone who's worked with visual novel articles, let me see if I can take a look at it. Rather strange seeing visual novel needing experts, since it's arguably the genre with the simplest mechanics. In a pure visual novel, all you do is just scroll though text, with maybe an occasional plot decision. Obviously there are visual novels that include puzzle elements (Zero Escape, Danganronpa), but for the most part, they're pretty easy games to describe. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If you are looking at visual novel, it might help to also see about the size of the "visual novel" history section over at adventure game; its far too detailed and listing out what seems to be every title instead of highlighting critically-important ones for the purpose of "adventure game". (The detailed history should be at visual novel clearly, but even then the list of titles seems excessive.) --MASEM (t) 16:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Featured Portal milestone

I don't think this ever happened before in the project. We now have a Featured Portal under our belts with Portal:Halo. Congrats to SSTflyer for the accomplishment. GamerPro64 03:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This was basically promoted per WP:SILENCE, and shows the general inactivity with the Featured Portals process. sst✈ 04:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Did not know that was a thing. Personally I don't promote topics at Featured Topics until there are people actually voting. But to each their own, I guess. GamerPro64 04:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Big the Cat

Aaaaaaaaaand Big the Cat is up for merger. Again. Requesting input here. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Video game reviews for PC-like machines

Please comment at the (now-deactivated) request at Template talk:Video game reviews#Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2016 regarding new "PC" types. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Asuka 120% Burning Fest

Anyone have sources for this? czar 05:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Listicles question

Are these notable and worth having?

As far as I know, there isn't such a thing as a ghost video game, gangster video game, etc. Isn't making a list based upon a narrative element WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel as though the categories (Category:Ghost video games, Category:Organized crime video games, Category:Video games set in the Roman Empire, Category:Ninja video games) would suffice; the lists seem a little unnecessary to me. – Rhain 11:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, these type of lists are exactly what categories are meant for. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Project icon

Was there a discussion about changing the projects icon? Because this is being used here now. GamerPro64 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No discussion - but I like it! It's a lot more modern and in-line with recent design trends. Plus it scales amazingly better. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  15:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Urgh, I hate change.... But I guess it looks more modern >.> ~Mable (chat) 15:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
It would have been nice if there had been some discussion, considering how many people are active in this WikiProject and all, but that aside, I do personally like it better... Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If we are gonna have a new icon, we should probably discuss more options, given how many active participants there are. I'm not sure I personally like it being red. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind, but I wonder if there are more options. I'm not too sure on it being red either. Does it look too Soviet, or is that just me? JAGUAR  15:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

00s Flat > 90s Clipart. The new logo definitely looks better at larger sizes, not sure about its readability at small sizes - it just looks like a face. - hahnchen 16:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't mind change, but I'm not too happy with this particular proposal. I threw together a small edit, which I find more appealing:
Thoughts?--IDVtalk 16:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The more pinkish red is fine (I don't mind either). I would rather have the logo be flat than have the little shadow thing you added underneath. The bigger buttons and thicker cord is a great improvement.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the pinkish red one more too. Indifferent on flat/shading part. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: pinging the changer to get their thoughts. --PresN 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think both revisions suffer from being less legible at smaller sizes. It seems like IDV's edit comes off as blurry in normal resolutions due to the buttons having shadows and casting them on the controller. If using the same basic design I would boost up the size of all the elements as so. I would also add that whatever design people veer to, it would be better to not use red shades at all and go with something that'll keep the icon as the focus instead of an intense background. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the old icon, and see no reason to change it. It looks fine, and I like the muted colors much better. It's worked for years, I think since the beginning, and has become strongly tied to the project's public image, not to be too grandiose. But I see this as a case of don't fix it if it isn't broken. —Torchiest talkedits 20:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Torchiest here... Even though I appreciate CFCF's good faith efforts I reject the idea that the icon we've used for the past decade and which has become intimately associated with the project is "pretty much crap". Inasmuch as WP:VG is one of Wikipedia's biggest and most active WikiProjects, and considering that each WikiProject has its own unique "flavor", I consider the old logo a sort of cultural icon. To change it for little or no reason loses sight of the symbolic and representational meaning of logos. Are we rebranding ourselves as a hipper and more edgy WikiProject now? Anyway I know I'm late to the discussion and I wouldn't want to stand in the way of consensus anyway, but this strikes me as change for change's sake alone. -Thibbs (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, all of the current "controller in a circle" suggestions are pretty difficult to "read" at the 20px example given above. If we're going to use the icon at that size – are we? I don't know where it's used other than the 30px+ ones on WPVG and on this talk page – then I don't think any of them is good enough at this point.--IDVtalk 20:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A goal of a good icon is readability at small sizes. It may need to be redrawn or cropped, but should contain the same essences. Take a look at favicons next to each tab. And used on {{videogame-stub}} where its larger than normal. Among WikiProjects its good, only because many use photographs that need >50px of resolution [1].
Personally, it looks to much like Google's Material Design branding (Edit: wrong android uses more shadows). Maybe a puzzle piece for a background? — Dispenser 21:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The portal links use 28px icons, I believe. —Torchiest talkedits 02:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sizes currently in use: --PresN 03:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Gamepad.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-edit.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-D-Edit.svg

Gamepad.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-edit.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-D-Edit.svg

Gamepad.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-edit.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-D-Edit.svg

Gamepad.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-edit.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-D-Edit.svg

Gamepad.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-edit.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-D-Edit.svg

Gamepad.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-edit.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-D-Edit.svg

  • I like the new one over the old, but I do agree that the red is a bit startling- I threw it into paint and a nice light blue or green softens it up a lot. Can someone who has a better graphics program than paint (IDV?) see what it looks like with a cool color instead of a hot one? --PresN 02:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed that it's long past time to drop the 90s clip art. Agreed that the red background is garish. I like the work done on the controller, but I'd recommend that the background be light gray, which has been our themed color.
I'd also be interested in mock-ups with (1) a smaller d-pad on the D-Edit version, (2) the controller cocked diagonally, like our current one, or (3) either the Joe or Maico icons, which I've added above. czar 17:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, despite being the instigator of this change I haven't commented yet. I didn't realize that WikiProject VideoGames was such an active project, and as such it might have been a less than ideal starting point for what I was doing. Basically I've been working on icons for a while, trying to find a good replacement for many of the icons for WikiProjects and Portals. The icons we've been using are often pretty much crap, that was chosen in 2006-2009 because we didn't have anything better — and as you say, modern clip-art is superior to much of what was on offer when many of these projects got started.

I was positively surprised about the enthusiasm here, and many of you even went so far as to create alternative icons. I agree that the strong red color was not ideal, but as I didn't realize how active you were I just thought I'd experiment. So anyway, instead of lamenting how difficult it is to get these changes through I thought I might instead throw around a couple of other alternatives for you — I've picked up these icons from various places around the web. I think the round border is a very good style, one that is employed by Google, Apple (and to a lesser degree Microsoft) these days — and it is clear at a number of different scales. I've also drafted a very short/very early suggestion for a PAG on iconography on Wikipedia at User:CFCF/icons (I plan to cover shading, scalability, etc. etc. — feel free to edit or comment on the talk page)

Now the suggestions I have are:

Thanks, CFCF 💌 📧 17:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And, the 30/80pxs of the new options:

Circle-icons-gamecontroller.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-green.svg COloredversion.svg Circle-icons-gamecontroller.svg Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-green.svg COloredversion.svg

I vote for the Green IDV icon Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-green.svg, incidentally. --PresN 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not so hot on the green but if this is the vote, I'm also for Green IDV icon Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-green.svg. If there is room for edits, I would prefer a d-pad in-between the CFCF and D-Edit sizes (d-pads don't have rounded edges...) Also the buttons on the right are not circular but longer vertically, which is weird (so make them circles). czar 17:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I know I said I dislike change, but I like the idea of updating multiple WikiProject icons. From the ones brought up now, File:Circle-icons-gamecontroller.svg stands out to me because of it looking rather neutral. I don't think I've ever seen a controller that looks quite like it, but it does look perfectly normal. The issue with many of the others to me is that they are clearly inspired by the SNES gamepad. That being said, I love the SNES, so if nobody else cares, then it's fine by me :p
I definitely agree that the white version is the best. The contrast and the wire all look very nice. I personally also really like the muted green backdrop, as it's nicely calming. ~Mable (chat) 18:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Either IDV logo. - hahnchen 10:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Final opinions

Right, well, looks like no other options are coming forward, and I'd like the discussion to come to a resolution, not just die out. It looks like right now, the general consensus is for the Green IDV icon, with caveats- Hanchen is fine with the red as well, and Czar wouldn't mind some minor edits. As for the people who were commenting before the green icons were an option- @Satellizer, Salvidrim!, and Sergecross73: is the green fine as well as the red, and do you have a preference for one in particular? @The1337gamer: you like the red less than the original; is that true of the green as well? @Hellknowz and Jaguar: you weren't a fan of the red, how about the green?

Please note that, from the above discussion, 20px variants are not really used anywhere important, and honestly shouldn't be used anywhere. The common sizes are 30px and 80px. Note that if we do decide on a new icon I'd like to stick it in a "WPVG icon" template so that any future changes don't make us change an image link in a hundred places. --PresN 16:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Video-Game-Controller-Icon-IDV-green.svg is probably my favorite, though I think they're all good, so don't let my vote hold the process back either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I like the cyan better than red. I think white controller reads better. I would prefer the newer controller design but with 4 buttons. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Call me nostalgic, but I like the old one. However, if the tides are against keeping it, my preference is for one of the green IDV versions over the red versions. Of the IDV variants, I like the dark controllers, with my favorite being the more SNES-like style: COloredversion.svg -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I would vastly prefer the D-edit Video-Game-Controller-Icon-D-Edit.svg with red or green background, but I'm too inept to make it myself and I hate to be the one to make other people work :p I think the IDV's shadows are superfluous and muddy the visuals in smaller formats, and like Czar I prefer the square-cornered D-pad and the actually-circle buttons.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest a shade of blue for the background, but I think it's too late. Still, I like the green background with the newer controller design. JAGUAR  20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not particular about the bg color, I think the aqua/green is more subtle, but in either situation, the white/grey controller image is definitely more preferable and easier to recognize at a small size than the black versions. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've now gotten a common consensus down. People seem to prefer the green background over the red or original. Within the green choices, the favorite is the IDV version, with a non-negligible minority liking the "modern" controller instead, though often with edits to be white or have 4 buttons. There also seems to be a small preference to have the IDV version modified to drop the shadows, especially on the buttons.

At this point, we're hitting the downside of an open-ended poll- it's hard to come to a consensus when given a wide variety of options. What I'm going to do is call this for now in favor of the green IDV controller, and use that inside of the new {{WPVG icon}}, and use that everywhere. If anyone wants to update the image to drop the shadows or swap the controller type- tomorrow, next week, next year- then start a new discussion with just the 2 or so options so we can get an easy consensus for changing, and you'll only need to update the template. --PresN 16:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (alternately, if anyone hates my close, please just change the image in the template, don't revert all my edits)

Correction- if you want to change the image everywhere in the future, you'll need to update a) the {{WPVG icon direct}} subtemplate and b) the Module:Portal/images/v submodule, as I don't think Lua modules can take templates as arguments. --PresN

I'm all fine with the change, but we'll need to update a few other things like our project barnstar as well. Nomader (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

List of video game musicians

Hi WPVG,

Just came across List of video game musicians, which is in desperate need of some TLC. Does anybody have any background knowledge of the page? Like a working inclusion criteria? At this point it doesn't look like one exists, and the only one source cited for the very large list is IMDB. Asking here not to try to dump responsibility for the list on you, but because in my experience VG-related lists are typically relatively well attended by this project's members. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for example, it would be easy to trim out all the redlinks and use "notable musicians with an article" as inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Right. Especially given it's a list of people, per WP:LISTPEOPLE that's generally the best way to go. I was just curious if there was more to know before I cut that much content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
We can see if anyone else chimes in, but I don't think you're missing anything. I don't see any WPVG experienced editors maintaining it consistently, so to me, it just looks like one of those articles that has flown under our radar. As active as this project is, it still happens - just yesterday, I came across an article tagged for being unsourced for a decade.
My only other thoughts on this particular article is that, in my experience, it seems "video game composers" are documented much more than the actual musicians themselves. But with the list being so large, its hard to spotcheck just how big of a chunk of the people that would cut out. I suppose all the non-notable entries could be trimmed out, and then we could decide if the wording/scope should be adjusted too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I've been meaning to fix up this article for years, but never did. Some of the changes that I wanted to do was remove all composers without their own Wiki article, change the article name to "List of notable video game composers", and limit the games listed to three max (three most notable, if possible). Basically, it would eventually look like this when finished. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and got started. Moving redlinks to the talk page in case anyone wants to peruse the list and create some articles, following all bluelinked names, etc. Done through J. Will resume later if anyone else wants to keep going. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

FLRC discussion

I've opened a Feature List Removal Candidate discussion here Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s/archive1. Please note that this is based on a suggestion for maintaining the Guitar Hero good topic status, that this specific list is small enough and the main game article small enough that having a separate list makes little sense. Because that list is a FL, it does need to go through the process of FLRC to be removed properly (otherwise I would have just been bold to merge it up). --MASEM (t) 15:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 25 March

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

14 March

15 March

19 March

20 March

21 March

22 March

23 March

24 March

March 25

Salavat (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Non-free video game screenshot

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Non-free video game screenshot#Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2016 - new logo.2C simplify wording. There is a discussion about changing the wording in {{Non-free video game screenshot}}, a template that is within the scope of this wikiproject Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 21:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The edit request was made in response to our new logo, I took the opportunity to remove redundancy in the prose and align it with Template:Non-free video game cover. The edit-request to Template:Non-free video game cover was carried out by User:PresN. I do not believe the update is controversial and would have just been bold had I the rights. - hahnchen 13:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

4thletter

4thletter appears to be used a lot in Wikipedia but I don't know if it is a WP:Reliable source. If it is one then it could save tons of articles lacking reception. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of it before. Inglis-Arkell seems to have written for IO9 before, and Brothers has written for Comics Alliance (heard of those two sites, but don't know if they're reliable). Can't find much for Jasper. Anyway, this site seems to mostly write about comics - they do have some video game related articles, but it doesn't look like much we couldn't also find on other sites, and it looks quite blog-y. Even if they are considered reliable, they don't seem to add much to the articles within this project's scope.--IDVtalk 23:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bubsy series article and TV pilot

If at all possible, I would love some more input at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:What_Could_Possibly_Go_Wrong%3F - I'm getting a lot of reverting from passerby IPs at the article, and no one contributing to the actual discussion. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

XV suggestion

Hello. I'm wondering whether it would be best to put semi-protection orders on the main XV article(s) until after the Uncovered event has come and gone, for obvious reasons. It's not much different from the flurry that surrounds E3, only concentrated on a single game.--ProtoDrake (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(Final Fantasy XV) --PresN 12:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Technically, deep within the protection policy, I think it's not really allowed to protect pre-emptively. (I always remember that because I almost answered someone wrong about it at my WP:RFA, before reading up on it and finding it out.) I'll protect it the moment it starts getting disrupted though, if you just leave me a note on my talk page when it happens. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinions needed on Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney article

Hi. I just started a discussion thread over at Talk:Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney#Takumi's involvement about the involvement Shu Takumi had in the game's development. Please come over and weigh in on the issue.--IDVtalk 20:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  • It has now been resolved. Thanks.--IDVtalk 09:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sad news

I know this is old news, but I just want to pass the message along that Jinnai (talk · contribs), a regular who contributed to several Dragon Quest and light novel-related articles as a member of the WP:VG and WP:SQUAREENIX projects as well as the WP:VN task force, passed away four years ago. See also User talk:Jinnai#R.I.P. and Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2012#Aric Ferrell (Jinnai). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Tragic to hear; my condolences to his family. I don't believe I've ever collaborated with him on any article directly but always appreciated his contributions to the project. Guess he's playing with that big waifu in the sky now. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

PC as a standard term for Microsoft Windows

So, user @D-railer: claims that a game (Salt and Sanctuary) being announced for "PC" and not any specific OS, means we shouldn't be assuming which exact platform it will be. My argument for it is that PC has almost always meant Windows specifically, at least in the gaming realm, and that no modern game being ported to PC has ever been OS X/Linux exclusive. So I ask, how do we handle this? Do we simply list PC as the platform until the exact OS is known, or do we just keep the status quo and list Windows as the generic platform, even though it may come to others too? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This FAQ poses the question "Will it be on PC? Mac, Linux?" which is answered with "Yup! We have a short PS4 exclusivity window and a later release date on Steam." This leads me to believe PC is meant to mean Windows, since Mac and Linux are mentioned separately. It could also be taken to show Mac and Linux are coming too. The blog post that the RPS source links to never says PC or Windows (Or Mac or Linux), only that the PS exclusivity is launch only, not forever. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally, if I hear that a game is being released on "PC," I would not expect it to be on anything other than Windows unless specified otherwise. Lizard (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactly my argument, despite it potentially being a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, I can't ever think of a game being announced for PC that wasn't released on Windows. I know OS X only games exists, but I'm pretty sure they clearly state that whenever they get announced. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Not trying to cause trouble, just aiming to be accurate. Nice find on that FAQ, @Ferret:. With that answer from them, it looks like they might be able to easily port the game for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That means by saying just, "Microsoft Windows" on the Wikipage, then we're leaving out Mac and Linux as well. They didn't deny their question, they just said, "Yup" leaving me to believe that when Ska Studios says, "PC" they mean they're aiming to launch for all three major operating systems. D-railer (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I have the same feeling as D-Railer. Of course, if I were a game company, I wouldn't want to bring the bad news that a game won't be on Mac or Linux either, but the answer seems to imply that it will be on all three. ~Mable (chat) 04:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Which brings us back to the original discussion. How are we suppose to handle this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd just list it as "PC", though I am sure there have been many discussions about whether that is ever appropriate in the past that would apply here. Other than that... I think I would prefer listing all three while running the risk of being wrong. It's the closest fit for the source, anyway. ~Mable (chat) 04:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
If the release is "personal computers" or PC and there's no way to determine if they mean Windows or another platform, I would avoid assuming it at least includes Windows, until validated by the developer, and just say "the game is to be released on personal computers..." --MASEM (t) 05:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
So we just list Windows until more information is announced? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I would say "personal computer". Nearly all of the time (and I can't think of any exceptions), that will be Windows at minimum but if they've not spelled it out, let's not jump to conclusions. The only time I would say differently is if we're talking about an established studio with an established record of what platforms they produce on; if Telltale Games, for example, came out tomorrow to say a new episodic series is coming for PC among other platforms, it is very reasonable to assume they mean Windows and OS X (which all of their past 10-some series have been on too). --MASEM (t) 14:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Masem. Go with what the sources say; if they say PC with no elaboration, put it. A game can show up on Steam and be SteamPlay compatible, so just appearing on that platform doesn't tell you if it's Windows-only. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Extra eyes/clean up at Bob's Game

So, I stumbled across Bob's Game today. Its in atrocious shape, and seems primarily written by the game's creator. It needs a ton of work. I'm currently in the middle of a different massive clean up project, but I'm having a hard time overlooking this mess too, so I figured I'd see if anyone wanted to cleanup/trim this article some in the meantime. I believe some editors such as Beyond MOS issues galore, the "development" sections ramble well-off topic quite a bit as well in regard's the writer's "outrageous antics". Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: It appears ferret already acted on this and reverted the COI additions. That helps with a ton of my concerns, but its still in rough shape, and I fear issues with the COI writer could return too, so eyes on it would still be helpful... COI editor continues to edit in their version of the article. Issues continue to be present. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh my God what happened to the article? It looks like someone threw up all over it. GamerPro64 16:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, its insane. I counted 34 images in the article, 6 in the lead alone. He's reverted it to his preferred version 3 times now, and ignore all advice on the talk page. Thus, why I notified WP:VG... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
So he broke the 3 revert rule. That's grounds to block him. GamerPro64 16:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, he's at 3 reverts, so the 4th one would put him over. And since one revert was me, I'm involved. He does need a 3RR warning though, this much is true. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 1 April

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

25 March

26 March

27 March

28 March

29 March

30 March

31 March

1 April

Salavat (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Series icon

Vg icon.svg

Hi everyone,

Since we've updated our WP icon, maybe we can also go over the "part of..." icon. There's two things that bug me about this icon. First, it's that the controller seems to be attaced to the asteroid. Second, an asteroid reminds of, well, Asteroids. While it certainly is an icon game, it's not the archetypical video game; Asteroids is an arcade action game. I'd prefer to see just a controller, without a space ship and an asteroid. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be improved. I don't mind the Asteroids theme, as this icon could really refer to any shoot-'em up, but now you've pointed out that the controller seems attached to the asteroid, it's bugging me as well. We could use our current project Icon for the "part of" infobox as well, but that sounds rather boring to me. This icon is always shown in-article at the same size, correct? ~Mable (chat) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
On {{Video Games}} and the articles where it's used it's rather large. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's always that same size, then we should probably go with something a bit more detailed than our current regular icon, which was specifically designed to look good at smaller sizes. ~Mable (chat) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a whole bunch of ugly icons, many are an unholy mashup of two '90s clip art icons which are actually worse than the two separate '90s icons they replace. Here are some of the icons that we currently use (there are others) -

For series templates, I think we should use two icons, such as we now do at Template:Art and video games. Having two icons side by side takes up less space than a big central icon and is more easily readable. Stubs templates should only have one icon, so we should use our standard project icon.

I am open to the creation of new icons. They should follow the language of our new logo, we should keep the colour and the circle. For example, for {{VG Strategy}}, we could have the project logo, and then a new icon with a representation of a character on a hex grid. What do you think, User:IDV? - hahnchen 14:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the currently used mash-ups are pretty bad, and yes, that icon with the controller attached to the asteroid has bothered me for years, since before I even started editing regularly. The action-adventure icon strikes me as particularly odd, too - it's just a controller, but a different one from the regular VG icon controllers. I prefer spending my WP time on editing/writing articles, though, and I don't have a lot of experience in making icons and logos. The current wikiproject icon was just an edit I threw together in a few minutes.--IDVtalk 14:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I saw your user page, and thought you might have been a designer. A set of high visibility logos could look good on your portfolio. We can still get rid of most of these icons without anything new. - hahnchen 15:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't weigh in much on the icon change discussion above mostly because I had a nostalgic fondness for the old icon and was secretly sad to see it go. Now that I see this unholy menagerie, I think it was a good choice to update it and we should kill these with fire ASAP. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Axem Titanium describes my feelings perfectly. Perhaps @CFCF: would be willing to weigh in again? I don't know if anyone else here has any knowledge about graphic design, but we may need help from an outside source. Perhaps someone more active on Commons than Wikipedia would be interested in helping out. Does anyone know anyone? ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

inline — Pretty busy, but will take some time to try and create icons. I plan on going in a green theme like the main icon, does that sound okay? CFCF 💌 📧 16:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Using a similar color scheme sounds perfect :) ~Mable (chat) 21:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Official UK PlayStation Magazine #54

If it's no trouble and anyone happens to have it, I'm working on Discworld Noir and could use the scan for the January 2000 issue of Official UK PlayStation Magazine -- I'm pretty sure there's a review of the game in there. I think #53 also has a preview of the game, and I could also use PC Gamer UK #79 (that I found online on Archive.org, but only the first page). Drop me an e-mail, send me a link here or on my talk page, whatever works easiest for you.

If there's any other reviews or whathaveyou you remember and have and are willing to scan for me, feel free to send me them as well, or just point me to them. Got a few in the article already. Buckets of thanks from me to anyone who can and does help. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about splitting List of Pokémon Adventures chapters

This may be a little offtopic from the project, but the List of Pokémon Adventures chapters is turning quite long and there is now a discussion about splitting it here.Tintor2 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

GamePolitics.com is closing

I have no idea what is going on with gaming websites lately but we're about to lose another one. GamePolitics is closing down shop on April 18. Wasn't as used as a source compared to most but I've seen it be used a couple of times. GamerPro64 03:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup of "rescued external links" in video games articles

incategory:"Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links" hastemplate:"WikiProject Video games" contains the set of video game articles which have had an external link rescued from linkrot by Cyberbot II. We might want to be aware and make this a standing backlog to work through. Is the WikiProject to do template where that info lives? --Izno (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Religion and video games

Hi everyone,

For a while I've been working on a pet project: Religion and video games. I submitted it at AfC, more for feedback then expecting it to see it being created already, but to my surprise it actually was moved out of draft space. It isn't perfect shape right now, as I copy-pasted a lot of the references from my own thesis, with some of the references still with Dutch words ("bladzijde", "geraadpleegd op"). Besides these minor things, does anyone have some more feedback on how to improve the article? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I just quickly (almost automatically) translated those refs ("Bladzijde" to "Page", etc), which shouldn't be too bad. I didn't capitalize the month names, though. I think the article is already really cool, though it indeed needs some work, be it copy-editing, improving how the refs are rendered, or actually finishing sections such as "Religious video games". Do you know any other specific issues (perhaps in neutrality or coverage) that this article is facing? ~Mable (chat) 12:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Quick thought: Wouldn't Video games and religion be a better title? As the lead currently reads, "Concepts and elements of religion appear in video games in various ways"; the inverse certainly isn't true. In other words, while the topic is the relationship between video games and religion, the focus is very much on the former. —zziccardi (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It has kinda become the common practice to put religion first for some reason. See, for example Religion and sexuality or Religion and capital punishment. This habit has formed around other words as well, such as gender (food security; Judaism; emotional expression). I'm not sure what causes this "this word comes first"-dynamic, though. There are also exceptions, so it's not exactly a rule: Marxism and religion ~Mable (chat) 15:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I did think of which word to put first. Because a lot of the article is about religion in video games, I went for that word order. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Idea: the bit about Smite is good (especially the bit about Abrahamic religions, which should really be wikilinked), but I recall there was specific controversy by Hindu religious groups over the initial depictions of Kali as too sexualized, and that led to some changes to the character's visual design.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find a WP:VG/RS, but there is a bit on CinemaBlend. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am also wondering where to link to the article. Video game controversy and its related topics might be a good idea I think. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The article lists many controversies, so that seems proper. ~Mable (chat) 08:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Eye of the Beholder release date

Can anyone confirm with some surety whether the first Eye of the Beholder was released in 1990 or 1991? As far as I could tell, the sources supplied for the article stated 1990, but this IP editor suggests that it has to be 1991. Can anyone help confirm one way or the other? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Might help to know where the April 1990 release date even came from in the first place. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't have access to the magazines cited. Maybe someone like Ylee whom I have seen working on D&D video games a lot lately. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I updated the QuestBusters cite with a URL, and deleted the CGW one since it doesn't support any date other than "not yet published at press time". Caveat: QuestBusters only says that the game is scheduled to ship in January 1991, so it could've been delayed. Regardless of the month, April 1990 is certainly not correct. Ylee (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the Amiga version definitely came out in 1991 (see: https://archive.org/details/amiga-world-1991-11 , it's on the top 10 games of '91), but the article also currently claims that the DOS version came out first... don't have any sources for that, alas. SnowFire (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Discontinued parameter in VG infobox?

Hi everyone,

I stumbled upon a "discontinued" parameter in the VG infobox. Right now it isn't used of course, but it got me thinking, wouldn't that be a good idea for multiplayer online games that are no longer available? As the infobox should give a quick overview of the basic information, having a parameter that shows that a game isn't available anymore might be useful. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Last discussion on that was here [2]. I think it makes sense when its limited to cases of "official online servers required to play"-type games, and not simply because, say, a MP portion of a game is unplayable but an SP version still works. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it may may more sense to, rather than add a "discontinued" field that can only be used wrongly for the vast majority of articles, make an infobox MMO template that extends the existing infobox VG with the new field that only applies to those games. It may also make sense to replace "release date(s)" with "available". So, AoE Online would be "Available: August 16, 2011 – July 1, 2014", while WoW would be "Available: November 23, 2004 – Present". --PresN 14:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem with a separate MMO box is how many additional fields can it really add? The only other defining field that would be appropriate might be "payment structure" (between freemium and subscription based) but even then that's edging on NOT#CATALOG. I think if we nail down when it is appropriate to avoid misapplication, we should be okay adding that field into the main infobox. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Like every other time this has been discussed, I support its inclusion. Games as a service is only becoming more prevalent, and the shut down date is as important as the release date. - hahnchen 20:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The shut-down date of MMOs and similar server-based games should definitely be listed in the infobox. I don't know what the best way to do this would be, though I wouldn't worry too much about misuse of the parameter. ~Mable (chat) 20:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) The discontinuation date seems really important for online-only games, to the point where I'm surprised it isn't already part of the infobox. So yes, I support the inclusion of this. I see the danger of people using the discontinuation/availability parameter incorrectly, but I'm not convinced we need a new MMO infobox for just one extra parameter.--IDVtalk 20:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Some points that I would make sure are clear if we want to include "discontinued" to avoid issues:
    • This should only that games that are only playable if one requires a persistent connection to one of a number of official servers. This should not be for: games that require an internet check for DRM purposes (Ubisoft games), games that have any type of offline component, games that allow user servers alongside official servers (like TF2) or games that use ad-hoc server approaches (like Minecraft or Awesomenauts). It basically means that if the company running the game turns off their servers, the game is effectively unplayable.
    • Such disconnected aspects should be considered only with respect to official servers. I note that a recent DMCA exception allows people to create their own servers for video games that otherwise only could be played online; the fact that there may be unofficial servers run in the absence of official ones means that the game is still "discontinued".
    • "Discontinued" absolutely does not apply to a company simply ending support for a game (eg Spacebase DF-9 is not "discontinued"). As long as the last patched version out there still can be played, the product still exists.
    • It should not apply also to games that otherwise require obsolete hardware. For example, I don't think one can connect to Xbox Live via the original Xbox unit anymore, but just because one couldn't do that doesn't mean games like Halo are disconnected.
  • Basically, "discontinued" should only be used if you can classify the game's first line in the past tense, eg "FailedMMO was an MMO for the PC...". --MASEM (t) 21:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Also if we do add this, it would be nice if this autopopulated a "Discontinued video games" category, which we can periodically check for misuse. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Point of order- per MOS:TENSE, you wouldn't write "FailedMMO was an MMO", it's "FailedMMO is an MMO that was available" or "FailedMMO is a discontinued MMO". "By default, write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued." The game still exists, at least in part, it's just unplayable because it's missing the central service part. It's a bit weird. --PresN 21:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
We might want to rethink that (at the MOS level, not VG), as that MOS:TENSE language doesn't seem to consider the nature of services that are no longer accessible, which is effectively what MMO's are. That, however, is a discussion for there, not here; in light of present wording, you're correct. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I actually brought that point up a while ago :) soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, as stated earlier, and the category is a very good idea. ~Mable (chat) 06:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I gave it some more thought, and there's also the question of unofficial servers or people copying the source code and still having active games. Because the "official" publisher or developer no longer supports their game doesn't necessarily mean it can't be accessed, right? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This is, in my opinion, the main reason that we don't talk about discontinued MMOs in the past tense: the game indeed still exists and may even still be played. However, I can't emphasize enough how notable a "discontinuation date" is. I've tried to play an MMO on an unofficial server once, and it was a dreadful experience, particularly because there was simply no one around. The experience is very different. From a business perspective, this means that the developer and publisher are no longer making money from the game directly. Lastly, from a legal perspective, it probably really can't be accessed, due to copyright law, though this may not stop anyone. ~Mable (chat) 13:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Just hopping in to say that I support the discussed addition/implementation of a discontinued date (with autopopulation into a Discontinued games category, as suggested by Masem, perhaps not necessarily called exactly that; "Games whose official servers have shut down"????). Relatedly, and I haven't 100% convinced myself this is a good idea yet, but what about primarily multiplayer games whose official servers have shut down? E.g. EA Sports games (just Google search for 'EA servers shut down' for dozens of hits) or multiplayer shooters on consoles. Also the GameSpy shutdown comes to mind. I think that data would be valuable to document for a reader. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died and I want to bring it up again before it's archived. Is there some sort of consensus here to add |discontinued= to {{Infobox video game}}? Would this also cover games such as P.T., or would we stick to strictly multiplayer games? – Rhain 09:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think most of us like the idea, though correct me if I'm wrong. ~Mable (chat) 09:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
PT would only be a cancelled game (it never got to a full release), so it should not use any release dates, much less a "discontinued" parameter.
To Axem's question about some EA sports games - I would only include the discontinued parameter if the servers are required to play the game in any mode. If the single player mode still works even though one cannot launch the multiplayer segment, the game is not discontinued. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
P.T. is not a cancelled game – it is a demo for a cancelled game. Regardless, I believe this parameter should indeed only be used for multiplayer-only games where player's theoretically can't play the game without the service of a publisher/developer/etc. P.T., like most games created in the 80s and 90s, are simply no longer available for purchase/download. ~Mable (chat) 18:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, there can be SP games that require a server, unrelated to DRM issues. For example, if Blizzard turned off Hearthstone's servers tomorrow, it's SP component would be unplayable, and that would be "discontinued" to, in contrast to a game like Rocket League where you can easily still play the game's SP mode against AI opponents without their servers being available. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Some naming input help

Currently Adventure (1979 video game) for the 2600 is going a GA review. One issue brought up is that the 1979 release date is not firm, and various accounts suggest it could be a 1980 date. As such , there is concern that the date in the title is problematic, which I agree. Unfortunately, there is an Acorn Adventure game, and there is also Colossal Cave Adventure which is also often called just Adventure. But I would argue that while our guidelines suggest to use the year for all games that share the same name, this would be a case where the 2600 cart is the most recognized video game, and that via IAR the article can safely go to Adventure (video game) with hatnotes for the necessary disambiguation. Alternatively, this might be where to pull out the console disambiguation, so Adventure (Atari 2600 video game) is also a valid target. We're not going to move it until the GA is complete but we want to have plans for what to move it to during this to get rid of the current year problem before that happens. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer the console-specific disambiguation simply because the easy confusion between these three articles. I'd argue Colossal Cave Adventure is the best known of the three Adventure games of this time period. With there being at least four video games with the "Adventure" title, as well as the Adventure game genre, I think it is best to keep the redirect of "Adventure (video game)" to the disambiguation article. Putting only one of these games on the simplest title doesn't seem proper to me. ~Mable (chat) 17:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
NCVGDAB says if we go by platform instead of year, it shouldn't be Adventure (Atari 2600 video game), but Adventure (Atari 2600).  · Salvidrim! ·  18:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Well that was the original article title, so I would be fine with that. —Torchiest talkedits 18:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems reasonable. Maplestrip's point on potential confusion with the adventure game genre is right on, so it makes sense to use the proper console disambiguation to avoid the year issue. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Social justice warrior - move discussion

I've just taken the liberty of removing SJW from the WikiProject. I count 4 people more or less supporting such an action (GamerPro64, Maplestrip, Torchiest, and myself) and two who are more or less neutral (Sergecross73, Soetermans). It's a borderline case either way, since it mentions video games but isn't explicitly about video gaming, and as the project's editors clearly no interest in maintaining that article, a listing wouldn't really be beneficial. Removing would also prevent notifications such as this from clogging WT:VG in future, so it's a win-win for us. If you feel strongly about keeping SJW under WP:VG feel free to revert this though. Personally I find the focus of that article to be sociology, not gaming. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:43, 8 April 2016 (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.

Notifying this WikiProject talk page as article is relevant to the topic

There is a move discussion ongoing related to this WikiProject.

  1. Article = Social justice warrior
  2. Move discussion at Talk:Social_justice_warrior#Requested_move_6_April_2016.

Feel free to comment however you wish.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is Social justice warrior even part of our project's spectrum? Just because GamerGate is mentioned in the article doesn't seem like a tangible reason for SJW to be covered under us. Unless I'm missing something here. GamerPro64 00:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
As much as I'd love to distance the project from all that, there is a bit if a connection to the gaming world. The jrpg/otaku crowd loves to point the finger at them every time a company takes liberties with, or censors, the source content of Japanese games in the localization/translation process. Most of it's not quite to the level if what we cover on Wikipedia (arguing on message boards, social media, and comments sections, or failed "change.org" petitions), but every once in a while it reaches RS coverage level. Kotaku recently did an article I read about it recently after a feminist at Nintendo was fired. I'll try to find it, it covers some instances. Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Here it is. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Well WikiProject tagging is quite broad and can get very large as generally there's no harm done in categorizing articles; for example WikiProject Biography is tagged for every single Wikipedia biography. That said I doubt any WP:VG editors still care at this point; I myself subscribe to an "aggressive apathy" attitude of caring very much about not caring. Especially since I've long accepted that GG RS coverage is inherently biased and with the shitfest + ARBCOM sections going on editing there is opening a huge can of worms. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
That being said though I wouldn't mind removing the redirect from project scope if there's community consensus for it. That way we can focus on constructively building video game articles and leave the mudslinging to the, *ahem*, SJW crowd themselves. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I approve of removing the social justice warrior-topic from our WikiProject. Though it has some relation to video games, so do many other topics that we don't cover. I don't believe our WikiProject would ever collaborate on or discuss the content of that article. It doesn't matter much, but I don't think it should pop up in our statistics. ~Mable (chat) 07:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in GG or SJW, but I don't conceptually understand how we could remove it from our WP:VG banner, its pretty clearly tied to our subject area, and as Satellizer mentioned, WikiProject tagging is generally pretty broad. I wouldn't worry about it disrupting the project much though, outside of a few like Masem and Ryulong, it seems like most of the WP:VG regulars share the same disinterest that Satellizer and I have. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Ryulong isn't much of a regular anymore since he got banned. GamerPro64 14:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that's right, I forgot. Well, then its even less of a distraction then, especially considering it hardly bogs down Masem's editing these days either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was odd too, until I noticed the mention of Social Justice Warriors, a role-playing video game. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
...I forgot about that... Until that gets its own article, I suppose it does belong under our scope XP ~Mable (chat) 07:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I look forward to the day when that game has its own article so the main article is out of our purview. —Torchiest talkedits 16:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
If there was a video game based around the concept, with the same name, wouldn't that just tie it all to the project that much more...? Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I feel like we just walked into a Kafka-trap. GamerPro64 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
We have many more video games based on World War II, so I don't think that argument really stands. I think we're just tied up in an internet culture thing, as those tend to quickly relate to gaming. Take Youtube for example: it mentions gaming three times, but is not part of our WikiProject (right now). I think keeping us split from the internet culture WikiProject like that is beneficial, drawing a clear line and only crossing it when a topic is more directly related to gaming. But that's just how I feel, I suppose it technically doesn't matter much. ~Mable (chat) 17:23, 7 April 2016 (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.

Are failed crowdfunded games "cancelled"?

We have categories like Category:Cancelled Windows games for games that were announced but subsequently cancelled. Would this terminology apply to games that were put forward as part of a Kickstarter or similar campaign but which the campaign failed to make its mark? I recognize that in some cases, before the crowdfunding, a significant effort was put into a near-playable version of the title to show that the game is in progress, so I can see that calling the title "cancelled" is a reasonable call, but at the same time, it doesn't seem that if there was no officially "funded" progress, it wasn't cancelled as one would normally call a AAA-backed game. (The specific game here is Rock Band 4, where the PC crowdfunding campaigned failed, but its not clear how much work had been put into the PC port beyond logistics of how it would be done)

I do think we should have a category for failed crowdfunding efforts, but I don't see one, and before I run off to make it, wanted to check if anyone was aware of one. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd avoid adding that category to any article unless we have a source saying that the game (or the Windows/whatever platform version) has been cancelled. A developer might be looking for other ways to finance the development after a crowdfunding campaign has failed, while being unable to announce anything at the time.--IDVtalk 00:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In the case of ports, no. But if Rock Band 4 was just announced for Windows originally and still failed it's campaign, I could see the case for it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with IDV that in many situations, we may not know if a failed Kickstarter campaign actually resulted in a cancelled game. A "Failed Kickstarter campaign" category seems very useful, though, if it doesn't already exist. Red Ash: The Indelible Legend would fall under such a category, but not under "cancelled video games". ~Mable (chat) 07:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'd not be against the creation of that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
If a game hasn't been explicitly described as canceled, I wouldn't put it in that category, as a failed crowdfunding campaign isn't necessarily the end of the line. —Torchiest talkedits 08:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
So, if I understand the consensus correctly, we put failed Kickstarter video games in the "cancelled" category if some reliable source describes it as such? ~Mable (chat) 08:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer Failed crowdfunding project instead of specifically referring to Kickstarter -- it's a brand name, it's not the only crowdfunding platform, and it might die next year and other platforms emerge, making the category obsolete in name but still applicable in spirit.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I've created Category:Failed crowdfunding projects as suggested (it subcats into the overall crowdfunding category). --MASEM (t) 15:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
What about games that had 2 campaigns where 1st failed and 2nd succeeded, do we still put it in the category? --Mika1h (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I would. It's still part of the game's history. Just like we'd put a game in two different categories if it was released on year, then re-released years later in some new form. —Torchiest talkedits 12:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Same here, that was one thing I thought about before making it. Even if the second succeeded, it still had a failed CF campaign and would be a reasonable thing to search/categorize on. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The NeoGAF website is broken!

Something's terribly wrong with the NeoGAF site! When I try to connect to a link shown here, I keep getting a message that says that the website cannot be reached and refused to connect! When will the NeoGAF website be fixed? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Why ask us? Why do you think any of us has any control on NeoGAF?  · Salvidrim! ·  04:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
...That's only because NeoGAF is not a HTTPS site. Fixed it for you. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
My bad, there is a HTTPS version, it's just down right now. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
At least you provided me with a link without an HTTPS. Thanks. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Like usual, if the website is actually going down permanently, it'd probably be a big deal in the video game news world. You'd easily be able to Google what's going on. If a website isn't responding, and there's nothing going after a Google search, there's probably no need to freak out. It's probably just a minor temporary technical issue. (And its especially not a big deal on Wikipedia, where its not directly a usable source... Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 7 April

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

23 March

1 April

2 April

3 April

4 April

5 April

6 April

7 April

Salavat (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Video games containing microtransactions was created April 2nd. I renamed it but didn't take any further action. Just FYI. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

List of best selling PC games

Could use some uninvolved input. The previous editing regarding SteamSpy has resumed... Talk:List_of_best-selling_PC_games#SteamSpy -- ferret (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Sonic characters

Should this remain a separate template? Once upon a time it was quite large, but has since been significantly trimmed (and with Big the Cat likely headed towards merging it's about to become even smaller). I can see this easily merged into Template:Sonic games for instance, which would aid readers looking to navigate from one of the character pages to one of the games. See Template:Mario franchise for instance. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally think it's fine to keep the fiction and the franchise split like this, as the characters-template isn't too small to lose its effectiveness, but I also don't see any reason not to merge the two templates. I mean, I generally like smaller navboxes as they make it easier to find what you're looking for (to navigate), but it may also create confusion. ~Mable (chat) 11:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I have added the characters to the template and subsequently TFDd the characters template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 11#Template:Sonic characters. FYI there is another "family" template at Template:Sonic features; my inclination is to merge that as well. --Izno (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
And then I went and merged the second one, which is also TFDd at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 11#Template:Sonic features. --Izno (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread 23: A Thunderous Return

It's been a while since we've had one of these, but there's quite a lot of content awaiting review, so I figured I'd give this a go. Don't sue me.

FAC
FTC
GAN
PR
Misc

Of course, there's still a huge backlog over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests, so feel free to take a look and see if you can help. – Rhain 16:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Begging thread

I'll start this off. I'll happily trade any review for some comments on the Ellie (The Last of Us) FAC. Reward offered: potential Thanks. – Rhain 16:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I will check out the Ellie FAC if you check out the God of War series FAC. --JDC808 15:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll be sure to take a look soon. – Rhain 21:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Release dates by distribution service?

I know we've had discussions about all the different ways to handle release dates recently, but there wasn't a ton of consensus. But I have what might be a more straightforward issue: do we need to list multiple dates depending on which retailers are selling a game? I would think definitely not, but the case I'm looking at, there's a date for Desura, then a date for Steam about a year later, than a date for a Linux release about another year later. Would it make sense to just remove the Steam date and rename the Desura one to Windows or PC? —Torchiest talkedits 02:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, should only be used the first release date of the platform, regardless of storefront. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Releases are by platform, not distributor, even if a Steam etc. release has unique features. --PresN 02:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
As the others said, the first release on a platform is what we list (in the infobox at least). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, and do we distinguish Linux, Mac, and Windows? —Torchiest talkedits 03:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep, each operating system is considered a separate gaming platform. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think if it's particularly notable for some games, than it could be mentioned in prose in the development and/or release section. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
What exactly? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
If something gets discussed by reliable sources, of course it should be described in the article's development or release section, but that's usually the case. Whether each operating system is considered a "separate platform" for the infobox... I'll leave that to you. ~Mable (chat) 11:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of video game console releases in North America deletion discussion

Guys, am I wrong about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of video game console releases in North America? I'd appreciate some input there (if you don't agree also of course). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Its a little bit ugly, but I feel like if the formatting was tinkered with, and it was sourced, I think it'd be fine. I know sourcing can sometimes be a little trickier in the 70s through 90's, but we could probably at least source the year it was released for those ones... Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
My concern with the list is that on some of the type-specific lists, like List of handheld game consoles, we have the release dates for all the regions we can find, so there wouldn't be a point to a region-specific list. This list instead has "all" consoles, not just one type, but is missing a ton of them and the chart at the bottom is just for home consoles. --PresN 16:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: and @PresN:, would you mind sharing your thoughts in the deletion discussion? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

GANs closing too fast

Is anyone else concerned about the GANs these past couple of days closing and being promoted quickly? I feel like there isn't much effort being put into the reviews before they are closed. GamerPro64 14:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering how many GA Sonic character articles have been redirect over the last few years, (most recently Big the Cat) I've always kind of wonder about the thoroughness of the reviews. I mean, I know the GNG isn't technically a criteria of the GA, but really, how thorough of a review is happening if you don't see that the subject isn't ever being referenced by many sources that discuss it in detail? Anyways, just my two cents in general, I don't mess around with the GA stuff, so I don't know about any recent ones that may or may not have been rushed. Any in particular that concern you? Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I've passed a few in the last few weeks, but I think you will find that I offered thoughtful commentary, placed every article on hold for a period, and made many of my own edits to the articles in addition to the comments (I tend to fix obvious grammatical errors myself and leave organizational and factual stuff for the nominator). Are you referring to the large number of reviews conducted recently by User:Jaguar? Indrian (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Sergecross73, Indrian got it right that I'm referring to Jaguar. I think that he has not been doing thorough reviewing for a long time. First notice this when he passed Shantae's page, which I brought up to PresN once. I'm personally unsure of what else to do. GamerPro64 16:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It should be fine. I felt horrible for all the backlog that built up over the weeks, and am in fact in the middle of proposing a new GAN backlog drive for next month or so. I haven't really changed my style of reviewing; I will place them on hold almost all the time until all of the issues can be addressed. In this case, the nominators responded within the same day, which prompted what seemed like 'quick' promotions. With the VG GAN backlog gone at least, I'll take a break in reviewing this area. JAGUAR  16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First step would just to be to discuss with him, which hopefully Jaguar will after getting pinged. That may be enough for now, he may just take it under consideration and act accordingly, and the problem is solved. If you don't feel he's handling it appropriately even after this discussion, you could always nominate one for a WP:GAR and see what the reviewer says. The reviewer could be someone outside of WP:VG too, so the result of the GAR could be a good indicator of if the reviews WP:VG is doing are in line with what Wikipedia expects on a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
With Jaguar making his statement already I want to say I don't like how the GAR process has gotten these days. Especially community GARs as they take too long and barely anyone comments on them. Individual GARs aren't as bad but sometimes the original nominator is gone and no one will touch the article at it gets its status removed. GamerPro64 16:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Just looking briefly at the Grand Theft Auto III article, while it is certainly well written, I would not have passed it. There is an entire book written about the GTA series by noted journalist David Kushner (of Masters of Doom fame) called Jacked that is not referenced. Neither is the Retro Gamer Magazine "Making of" piece (though it was admittedly not one of their better ones) nor the book All Your Base Are Belong to Us which devotes a whole chapter to the GTA series based in part on a rare Houser interview. Also, the legacy section fails to discuss in any detail GTA III's leading role in pushing both open world, sandbox gameplay and mature gaming content in the PS2 era. It's not a bad article by any stretch, but I would have asked for more had I been reviewing. Indrian (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Having had my articles reviewed by Jaguar, I would not agree that "speed" is the problem, if any. Month long waits for review is a serious problem that he has addressed. Regarding the articles I nominated, many had been long curated and worked up before they were ever presented for nomination. The real question is whether or not there are specific elements of the criteria he omitted to cover or insist upon being fixed, and I'm not seeing it. The articles I presented were as complete as can be expected for GA, and though more is always better, there is still large qualitative difference between Good and Featured Articles that must be acknowledged. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
One other thing. The reason things have gone "quickly" is because @ProtoDrake: and I both responded exceedingly quickly and in fact beyond what was asked for in the GA Review, and usually within a day Jaguar affirmed we had fixed the concerns raised. It is not the usually week long process, but it was a ton of work and editing and expanding compressed into a single day. So let's not think the speed is a "laziness" thing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Good articles nominations should be reviewed quickly. It is designed to be a lightweight process. GTA III? Good article. The good article criteria require "broad" coverage, it does not require the "comprehensiveness", or "well researched" criteria as mandated for featured articles. I'd like to see more quick fails and quick passes at GAN instead of indeterminate holds, they can be renominated once issues are addressed. I'd also like to see reviewers create the nomination page only when they are about to review the article, not days in advance, essentially reserving their slot. I'm not that active with reviewing GAs, but there have been times when I've wanted to review an article, only to see it has been parked by someone else for over a week. - hahnchen 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Hahnchen. I would prefer GANs to be shuffled through quickly rather than being stalled for months like FACs do. Regarding GTA III, I wouldn't have asked for extra coverage if I didn't think it was comprehensive enough. It met the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria easily, so the works Indrian mentioned can be used in its future FAC, should Rhain decide to nominate it. I know that this is going to sound irrelevant to the discussion here, but by a happy coincidence I recently created a new GAN backlog drive set for May (I created it in my sandbox mere hours before this discussion, so this had no influence). This should encourage more people to decrease backlog and speed up reviews whilst maintaining quality. From what Hahnchen said, it would be good to encourage people not to be put off by quick-failing or passing reviews because Wikipedia's standards are always becoming drearily higher. Of all my 400 reviews, I've only quick-passed four or something, and I do think that all of those have been video game articles. I just don't want people to think that doing fast but effective reviews should be shunned. JAGUAR  19:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I review GAs quickly (done within a week and sometimes faster if the nominator corrects things quickly) and I most certainly do not hold the articles to the same standard as an FA. I do expect them to cover all the major points saliently (broad coverage) and demonstrate use of many of the most useful sources on the topic, though not all of them. No one is talking about dragging out a GA like an FA. That is a straw man. The fear is, though, that if someone does a bunch really quickly, it is far more likely something will be overlooked. Indrian (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, "Broad in Coverage" means that the article addresses all major points related to the subject in a good summary style. The GTA III article does not address the game's influence at all. A GA needs to stand as a complete overview of a topic, with the difference between a GA and an FA being the level (i.e. depth) of coverage. I would not have passed it, but I am not going to put it up for GAR either. GA is meant to be a single editor process, and there is nothing wrong with different editors having slightly different interpretations of what are deliberately broad and vague standards. Indrian (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I haven't gone through Jaguar's recent reviews but my opinions align with Hahnchen here. GAN should be a fast process and I wouldn't necessarily hold knowledge of available sources, as in the GTAIII example, as one of the things the GA reviewers should be responsible for knowing. If the article appears broad in coverage without major gaps, then I'd say it meets that GA criterion. It need not exhaust the literature on the subject. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It does have a major gap in the discussion of the game's legacy and influence. But again, I have no plans to take it to GAR. Indrian (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything Hahnchen said. I hardly think of GA as a sign of "quality" in itself—it's better considered as having passed a basic review for basic components, like a checklist. I especially agree that GANs should be reviewed fast, and add that the FAC/PR/A-level format is better suited for in-depth reviews. If there's an issue with the GTA article in specific, I'm sure the page maintainers would rectify it if informed on the talk page. Content over process. czar 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What you have described is actually process over content (do a quick checklist and not worry about article quality overmuch). Many articles will never advance beyond GA due to inadequate sourcing, so I find it important that GAs represent the topic well. Again though, I don't "draw out" GAs, which I usually dispose of less than a week after starting the review. I wish people would stop throwing around the straw man that anyone is comparing GA to the FAC process. Indrian (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that characterization is accurate. "Content over process" was directed at this thread's equivocation (if an editor has an issue with a review, raise the issue and propose a solution). It isn't a straw man to compare GA to FA when discussing the way our project treats its quality scale. I don't think any of the above is directed at you, so I wouldn't take it that way. czar 08:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with all the above: it's meant as a process that should be fast, with only one uninvolved editor needed to complete the review. GA has processes in place for reversing bad GANs that are passed quickly, and editors that do half-hearted or poor GAN passes are often prevented from participating in reviewing GAs in the future. I would say that if you find a GA that has passed that you feel was missing something major, just GAR it, and/or improve it. I think our project is pretty good that the few editors that participate there are doing a good job to make sure that video game articles labeled as GAs are reasonably complete to our project's expectations. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy maintenance

Looking for something to do this weekend? How about taking a swing at the 38 remaining project articles with factual accuracy issues? If you can't find the problem areas, it's fine to just remove the tag. Leave a talk page note if you think an issue can be easily rectified (otherwise, just cut the problematic areas yourself). czar 09:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Make a special content model

You guys have MassMessage enabled, so to make the adding members process easier, why don't you ask an admin to create a special content model. Also, you might want to hide the default signature. --QEDK (TC) 03:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. --PresN 12:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I assume they're talking about the Newsletter, which is sent out by MediaWiki message delivery. By default signature, I guess they mean that bot's sig? But it's supposed to be included for mass messages. I don't know what special content model refers to though. —Torchiest talkedits 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a special interface (new MediaWiki feature, I suppose). See, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/MassMessage list and 3rd diff from the bottom of this page. --QEDK (TC) 17:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That looks like it's a trial for some new software? I've never seen that on-wiki. --Izno (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Guitar Freaks and Drum Mania songs

Any ideas on what to do with this? It only cites primary sources and, as you can see, is a magnet for garbage. The list of games could likely merge back to its parent too. czar 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a big violation of WP:CATALOG, and a better fit for a dedicated, external Konami music wiki. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. I don't think the Rock Band/Guitar Hero should exist either, but nobody seems to object to having them. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I considered all these song lists trivial details that shouldn't have existed. To me they are as trivial as all the items listed in WP:GAMECRUFT#7. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
As always, I believe that any topic is notable when it is discussed (or listed, as the case may be here) by reliable sources. That doesn't seem the case with the list under discussion here, so it should probably be deleted. ~Mable (chat) 21:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Image help

Currently I'm confused to what image me and @Osh33m: use in the article Kazuma Kiryu. I think it all started with me using his original Yakuza (video game) image. Then another user replaced it one from the prequel "0." After Yakuza 6 was announced, an image about Kiryu replaced 0 and the infobox was replaced by one from 6. Any suggestions? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The current image is a nice-looking headshot. Assuming his appearance in Yakuza 6 is just as notable as his appearance in other Yakuza games, I don't see why you'd ever want to replace the file with that for another game. A full-body image is an option, but I personally think this looks fine as-is. The image is a bit big, though, and could use some cropping to make it more fair use-y. ~Mable (chat) 21:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There aren't enough sources dedicated to this topic to warrant its split from the series page. czar 22:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Dota series

At this point, there is a large number of articles under the Dota brand name, including the original mod, a standalone sequel, numerous players, a documentary, a multi-million-dollar champion series, and... You get the picture. Now, considering that there are more than one installments and there is a significant cultural framework, should we look at creating an article for the series? The main detractor from this concept would be that the main series is made up of one mod and one game, so I'm not entirely sure if it has the same ground rules as a franchise with a similar base, like StarCraft. What do you guys think? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 10:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, the players, championships, and film are all primarily related to Dota 2. Dota 1, though important in establishing he mechanics, isn't really related to The International or its contestants. I don't see what kind of value a "series" article would have until a part 3 or even 4 is released. Are there separate spin-off titles for the Dota series? Has the Dota series in general been adapted into novelizations, films, etc? It are those things that make the Starcraft article such a valuable endeavor. ~Mable (chat) 11:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You would not be particularly correct on the first two sentences. While Valve has indeed gotten a lot of the attention, they wouldn't have started 2 if DotA had not continued to be successful at MLG, Dreamhack, and elsewhere. A number of the players for 2 also started when DotA was a thing. --Izno (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no value to a series article at this time. Two games and not much in the way of "other works"/reception separate from the games or events themselves would not suffice for a notable article. --Izno (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks for the input, everyone. Such an article would probably only be necessary if there are spinoffs, or Dota 3... neither of which will happen in the foreseeable future. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Valve has been stuck on the number 2 for ever. Doubt we'll get over it. --QEDK (TC) 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 15 April

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space and redirected (the ones I have spotted) over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

5 April

8 April

9 April

10 April

11 April

12 April

13 April

14 April

15 April

Salavat (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

All of the "Video game set in X" categories should be deleted in my opinion. If not deleted, then all merged into either Category:Video games set in real-world location or Category:Video games set in fictional location. However, I expect nominating over 300 categories from deletion or merge will be immediately declined. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we have any active Japanese readers in the project? Are the sources used in Enako reliable? czar 02:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • From my limited knowledge: Ascii is good (they publish Famitsu), the Shueisha source is Weekly Playboy so I guess reliable if not the best thing ever, the 7 Enasoku.com sources are primary sources, as is the Enako0v0 one, as are the 3 twitter ones, nicovideo is just a Japanese youtube, Bemani is a game publisher, Sangokushi-Rumble is an official game site run by Square Enix, and I have no idea about panache-co and Buzzdol. --PresN 02:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Template Deletion Review

There is a deletion review for a deleted template that is in your purview. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

List of songs in Guitar Hero Live FLC

Poor List of songs in Guitar Hero Live is sitting at FLC with just a couple supports after 2 months, which is the unofficial cutoff time there where we promote or archive lists. It could really use someone dropping by to give it another review or two, to keep it from getting closed for lack of response. --PresN 21:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)