Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 122

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 115 Archive 120 Archive 121 Archive 122 Archive 123 Archive 124 Archive 125

Contents

Bubble Bobble/Bust-a-Move series

Hi everyone,

Is anybody familiar with Bust-a-Move/Bubble Bobble? There's {{Bubble Bobble series}} and has plenty of entries, but there's no main article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no "main article" for the Bubble Bobble series either, but that's fine, because there might just not be much to say about the franchise as a whole. Inspirations for the concept goes in the first game article; list of games goes in the infobox; reception varies from game to game; there may not be any spin-off material. Of course, I may be wrong and there might be various sources discussing the series as a whole, but I'm not really interested in looking for them. Feel free to make a draft if you have any idea of what such an article could talk about ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 17:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The "series" is more notable than many of the games in that template. Treat the first article (Bubble Bobble) as the series article—it introduces the game, its history, and expand the list on sequels to include a little on the release and differences of the other games. Then merge in the arcade games and anything else that cannot be sourced for a full article. The entries with dedicated reviews can stay separate. No need for a separate series article when it would entirely duplicate the purpose of the first game's article. czar 01:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting merging some of the less notable games into the first game's article? Wouldn't that result in an article that is too crowded, both trying to explain its own topic and listing off all of the sequels that have come out (some in more detail than others)? ~Mable (chat) 06:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. If the sequel articles are unsourced or barely sourced and have no major changes on the game's core mechanics, they shouldn't have more than a sentence mention in such a list anyway. czar 22:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Chocolatejr9

Could someone take a look at Chocolatejr9 (talk · contribs)'s edits? The editor is editing External links sections to remove whitespace and (incorrectly) move the stub template above the categories. I've already left a warning on their talk page but the edits continue. czar 22:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this. I don't think it's anything too disruptive, but moving the stub template can be seen as annoying as well as incorrect. If they ignore your warning and keep doing it, a short block might make them realise? JAGUAR  22:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I actually blocked him a ways back due to edit warring over categories without discussion. It was a pretty short one. A longer one may be in store if he's not responsive to this most recent warning. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason why stub templates are placed after categories? I admit I've always put the stub template above the categories (it seems incorrectly), my reasoning being that it appears above the cats when reading the article and there's a general rule of templates before categories. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
MOS:ORDER has more, especially footnote four: "every stub template generates a stub category, and those stub categories appear after the 'main' categories". Also because that's how the bots were programmed. I don't have a horse in that race, but I have an issue with junk edits not desisting after reasonable concerns. czar 14:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Asking for more input

Hello. I think more people should weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon#Japanese Titles Added. It looks like two people have decided that this one Pokémon page should be formatted differently than all of the other ones based on a guideline that no other Pokémon or video game page in general uses.--OuendanL (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Two people seem to disagree with you, yes, but I'm pretty sure they're stance is one backed by our WikiProject (which is a relatively active one too.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The guideline for it is here. Also, OuendanL's argument for it being "because no other Pokemon game has it" can by fixed easily by just doing the same to them, so it's not really valid. It's a recent change to the guidelines, and one that hasn't been enforced as much as it possibly should be, but it wouldn't have been made official unless a consensus of people wanted it. I say we either begin to enforce it across the project, like we've begun to do with the depreciation of GameRankings, or we just get rid of guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:JFN is for explanations of Japanese titles only - not transliterations; see the example given in the guideline. The vast, vast majority of Japanese game articles where the Japanese name corresponds to the English name just uses the in-line Nihongo template, as it should be otherwise it leads to redundancy. What you're effectively proposing here is adding an additional subsection to all Japanese game articles that 90% of the time would be superfluous. No other Pokemon game has this, and the precedent is perfectly fine. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
JFN was made in February, we remember what it was made for- JFN is for articles where the Japanese title is long enough that stuffing it into the very first sentence is awkward, and preferably for all articles, given that this is the English wikipedia and not the Japanese one. An argument could be made that it's not too long in this particular article, but there's nothing about titles getting a pass if their just English words in a Japanese pronunciation. --PresN 01:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Then the guideline needs to be edited to reflect this, or just be removed in general. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Yet WP:JFN literally reads, and I quote, "It is recommended that unless the Japanese name is critical to the understanding of the topic one should place the Japanese name explanation in a footnote to the official English title", emphasis mine. Notice how it says "Japanese name explanation", not "Japanese title". You just can't apply guidelines to situations which they aren't intended for, or tack on personal interpretations to them, otherwise the entire point of guidelines becomes perverted. From WP:VG/JP, "If a Japanese title has the same meaning as another regional title, use Template:Nihongo with the format {{nihongo|'''''English title'''''|kanji/kana|rōmaji}}" - that's a guideline that is actually applicable to this situation, so that's the format we should be following. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It's better if the conversation be continued at Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon imo, there's no need for two separate concurrent discussions on this. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the discussion that prompted JFN. (There was one other before as well). here is the edit where Masem put it in the guidelines. It was clearly meant to be titles, not "the explanation portion of the nihongo template". I understand how it could be interpreted that way if you want to, so I've corrected the guideline. JFN does not contradict VG/JP, which is the subsection just before it; JP says how to use the Nihongo template, and JFN says that unless you really need it to stick the Nihongo template in a footnote. --PresN 11:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed with PresN—this is a matter of the JP section being updated to match the existing consensus. Furthermore, it's not at all complicated when we ask what is most useful to our readership, which reads English and not Japanese. There are some circumstances under which it can be helpful to have Japanese in the lede, but those situations (e.g., transliteration of Japanese title) are far fewer than currently enforced. czar 18:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Video Game Review Templates

So I'm sitting here thinking the most recent Killer Instinct scores feel lopsided and it turns out that the template doesn't really support a nice way to set up multiple seasons. It has slots for consoles, but I'm trying to sort out the best way to fix this.

  1. Edit the template to put seasons in the console slot (Call it like, S1, S2, etc.).
  2. Edit the template to put seasons in their own slot.
  3. Create a new template that would fit the bill based on the one we have.
  4. Substitute the template and make it customized for KI alone.

So which sounds better? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you are absolutely not bound to having to use the given template. In this case, it sounds like you have every reason to figure out a better solution. My gut would tell me to simply summarize the MC scores per season as we do with the various Telltale episodic games, and then perhaps a table for the other scores from the main sites which do not seem to be reviewing by season (MC is pulling in sites we'd not normally include in the VG reviews table). --MASEM (t) 21:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Masem said what I came to say, see Minecraft: Story Mode, Assassin's Creed Chronicles and King's Quest (2015 video game). Instead of Video Game Review, Video game series reviews is being used to hold the aggregators for each episode. Currently, Video game series reviews is limited to MC, GR and Famitsu, as well as a Sales column. It could, with some work, potentially be expanded though. We've been steadily tweaking it the last couple months anyway. -- ferret (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-off topic question. What is it meant by seasons? Is that like DLC or is it an episodic game? --JDC808 22:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In the case of Killer Instinct, they are basically years of the game. If you have an XOne or Windows 10, download the game (its free) and see for yourself. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Still don't get it..... --JDC808 16:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

More input requested

Requesting input at Talk:Characters of the Mass Effect universe#Proposed merge with Illusive Man czar 01:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 22 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.

6 April

11 April

15 April

16 April

17 April

18 April

19 April

20 April

21 April

22 April

Salavat (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Some quick cleanup czar 18:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of Unseen64

Unseen64, a group that tries to document what they can from cancelled video games, has come up a few times in RSes (eg [1]), though they usually are not clear how they got their archival material. However, the fact that there are RSes like Gamasutra that document their efforts, suggests there's weight that these are probably legit sources. So before I go adding the above to the GH Series article, I just want to see if this would seem to be an acceptable source. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The only Unseen64 writer/researcher I follow is Liam Robertson, for whom individual reliability might be provable; I love Unseen64 but they remain a "volunteer effort" so I'm not sure you'll get any consensus towards its reliability. But you're probably fine with citing the coverage of their report in other RSes anyways.  · Salvidrim! ·  00:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Liam also writes for DYKG (which is roughly the same level as Unseen64 IMO), but is also often featured on strong RS Nintendo Life, where he's always described as "contributor". [2], [3], [4], and ocassionally writes articles there himself [5]; Gamnesia also said Liam is known for getting the inside scoop on cancelled games, and several other sources also confirm his status as a "trusted insider". [6], [7], [8], [9] Oh, and he gave a lengthy interview.  · Salvidrim! ·  00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I usually treat it more like a self-published source. I was under the impression that they didn't meet the requirements of an RS, but I would use the information that would be covered through other sources that are RS's. As you mentioned, websites like Gamasutra, IGN, etc, tend to cite it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
So treat it like we do with Steam Spy then. GamerPro64 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds I can use them , but citing them through a more RS source like Gamasutra just to say "this RS claims this source is reliable, so we'll hang our hats on that". --MASEM (t) 03:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Serge—it's more like you can repeat what a reliable source has confirmed through the video, but Unseen64 doesn't necessarily have editorial credibility on its own. czar 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've used the RS (gamasutra in this case) as the source, not Unseen64 directly. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't use them as a reliable source, but I have used them in the past as an external link. You think it's proper to use it in such a way for unreleased video games like Cabbage (video game)? Even if the text isn't particularly reliable, the website hosts scans of press releases (at least in this case). ~Mable (chat) 07:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hardcore Gaming 101

Do we have any standards for using this site for anyone outside of John Szczepaniak or Kurt Kalata? Is the basic assumption anyone with only a single review wouldn't be considered reliable? Are we only using people with credentials on other sites? Any other possible criteria? —Torchiest talkedits 21:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally use whoever on the site, as I personally haven't ever had any issues with any of their writers, and they write some really good retrospectives on some series from the 90's that can be hard to find information on otherwise. I don't tend to find opposition in doing this, though some of the articles I've used it for have been pretty obscure to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much the reason I'm interested in using the site. I'll go ahead and use them with impunity until someone complains. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 16:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
So should there be a conversation to upgrade HG101 to be a Reliable Source? GamerPro64 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's the previous discussion. —Torchiest talkedits 00:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow we actually tried to make individual journalists be vetted here? GamerPro64 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that's why the official listing only mentions two people. Seems tricky to manage otherwise, because that site has dozens of writers from what I saw. —Torchiest talkedits 01:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Does Hardcore Gaming 101 host any articles which we would not deem reliable? ~Mable (chat) 06:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

So, the site's editor, Kurt Kalata, is deemed reliable, and according to the page about sending pitches for articles, "all submitted articles are subject to fact checking and editing by staff". This sounds good to me - am I missing something, or should we consider the entire site usable and reliable?--IDVtalk 10:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Pinging editors from previous discussion: @Bridies, Thibbs, and Axem Titanium. I'm not so sure on giving HG101 carte blanche. I also don't think giving individual editors some kind of immunity makes any sense. We use experts as self-published sources—we trust their pedigree to be generally good, but I wouldn't go to Hillary Clinton's blog to get a balanced take on foreign policy. Unless HG101 has some sort of editorial policy making it more rigorous than a niche blog, we should proceed cautiously and treat only pedigreed authors as reliable, but even then use their stuff with skepticism (see SPS suggestions). The point of reliable sources is to cite claims with the greatest degree of irrefutability. And if HG101 is the best source we have on a subject, we should be asking other questions, such as what happened to its contemporaneous sources. czar 18:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly, this is starting to sound like a fantastic source just based on how other well-edited sources look at it. Maybe someone could try to contact the website to find out about its quality control? ~Mable (chat) 20:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help regarding consensus on soundtrack tracklisting on GTA4's article

Discussion here, and I'd like if this is resolved quickly one way or the other, as it's getting annoying. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Compromise and clarification for WP:JFN

@Dissident93, IDV, MysticFuryOfficial, OuendanL, Sergecross73, Nihonjoe, Czar, and DragonZero: Related to the Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon debacle, and probably an extension of that discussion, but this is about a guideline that concerns the entire WikiProject so I suppose this is the better venue.

Currently WP:JFN is written in a way that is ambiguous. The current title of the subsection to which JFN links to is titled "Readability issues", which suggests that the guideline should only be used in cases where the foreign title is so long as to hurt legibility. Yet the very next sentence reads "It is recommended that unless the Japanese name is critical to the understanding of the topic one should place the Japanese name explanation in a footnote to the official English title", which implies that JFN applies to all pages, regardless of readability or length (phrasing is also poor, name =/= name explanation, emphasis mine).

I'd recommend changing the wording of JFN to make it clear that the guideline should only be invoked in cases where readability is clearly an issue and the Japanese name is clearly too long, thus changing from

It is recommended that unless the Japanese name is critical to the understanding of the topic one should place the Japanese name explanation in a footnote to the official English title. Even if the Japanese name is important, in some cases there are several Japanese titles, or the fully-utilized nihongo templates are so long they hurt the readability of the lead paragraph;' these should also be placed in a footnote. This can be done using {{efn}} and {{notelist}} or similar mechanics as described in Help:Shortened footnotes. This retains the information about the original Japanese title and translation but avoids creating a "busy" first sentence in the article. In games where there is no official English title (such as Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan), the first sentence should retain the romanized Japanese title while the remaining translation information should be placed in a footnote.

to

In cases where the Japanese title is too long as to hurt the readability of the lead paragraph, or where the Japanese title does not correspond to its English variant and further explanation is required, they should also be placed in a footnote. This can be done using {{efn}} and {{notelist}} or similar mechanics as described in Help:Shortened footnotes. This retains the information about the original Japanese title and translation but avoids creating a "busy" first sentence in the article. In games where there is no official English title (such as Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan), the first sentence should retain the romanized Japanese title while the remaining translation information should be placed in a footnote.

Emphasis both mine.

This is because en masse removal of Japanese titles from all video game titles is certainly not going to happen without sitewide consensus through an RFC. It's a straight up violation of WP:ENGLISH, a Wikipedia-wide guideline that trumps WP:VG/MOS, which demands that "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin script, this representation should be included along with a Latin alphabet transliteration."

Examples of such:

All in which the foreign name is placed into the lead section. Plus thousands, if not millions, more.

Probably a non-controversial proposal and I probably wasted way too much time writing all that, but JFN is already a very controversial policy so I'd thought it'd be better to ask here first. Additionally I'm pretty very opposed to the existence of JFN in the first place and would love to see it repealed, but I understand the current consensus so I'm not going there. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 03:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think any explanation should be put into a footnote unless the explanation is extremely short (2-4 words). This is common practice anyway, across most of the project. As for examples like The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, the opening paragraph is pretty confusing. It took me a few minutes to fully figure out exactly what was being described there. I could see doing something like this to make it more clear:
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages are two action-adventure games [...] The first is known in Japan as Zeruda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Kinomi: Daichi no Shō (ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎの木の実 大地の章, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Mysterious Nuts: Chapter of the Land"). The second is known in Japan as Zeruda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Kinomi: Jikū no Shō (ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎの木の実 時空の章, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Mysterious Nuts: Chapter of Space-Time") [...]
As you stated, WP:ENGLISH supports having this information in the first paragraph, not relegated to the very bottom of the article. Almost all of the people coming to the article are going to know it is about a Japanese game, so having the Japanese information right there is what we need to do. Now, I would be fine putting the literal translations into a footnote if people think that may work better, but only in cases where there is no official English title, or where the official English title differs in meaning from the original Japanese title.
That would produce something like this (footnotes note included, but they would be the "lit." part):
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages are two action-adventure games [...] The first is known in Japan as Zeruda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Kinomi: Daichi no Shō (ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎの木の実 大地の章). The second is known in Japan as Zeruda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Kinomi: Jikū no Shō (ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎの木の実 時空の章) [...]
I would be fine with either of these. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the proposal misreads WP:UEIA. Yes, include the native name in its non-Latin script, but only when that native name is the literal title in use. So Vladimir Putin (your example), sure, and same for Otome wa Boku ni Koishiteru—no issues with including the Japanese characters. But with Pokémon Sun and Moon, come on, the Japanese is not the "native name" because we have an established English release. Our readers benefit in no way by having the Japanese in that case, while there is ostensibly some benefit in the Otome wa Boku ni Koishiteru example. Same reasoning goes for Oracle of Seasons above—there's no reader need to have lines of Japanese titles, nevertheless their transliterations, in the precious lede. I think JFN is on the mark as it is, and I think the proposal misses the point and does not explain how the reader would benefit. czar 12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Czar and Sergecross73: But that's moving the goalposts, as we've now gone from "we shouldn't include Japanese titles because we're the English Wikipedia" to "we shouldn't include Japanese titles but only when it's more than a few phrases" to the "we shouldn't include Japanese titles but only when there's no English release" comment above. This muddying of waters is unhelpful, we either include the Japanese titles or we don't and my compromise of including them unless they are so long as to hurt the legibility of the page makes the most sense as it is both UEIA-compliant and the reader "benefits" through knowing the native, original name.
Which brings me to my next point: "Native" doesn't mean what you think it means, it's literally defined as "the origin-place of something thus, being a Japanese game developed in Japan, it's Japanese name is it's native name. regardless of whether it's English variant is "official".
The "point" of this proposal is removing confusion from JFN's poor wording. It's ambiguous. Not only does it blatantly contradict the The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess example given in WP:VG/JP, the subtitle of JFN is called "Readability issues" yet the actual content suggests all Japanese titles should be moved to footnotes, readability notwithstanding. Either way clarification is required.
And more one issue, which was unaddressed, why should video games be an exception to site-wide rules of placing native foreign titles in the first sentence? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yet another problem: not only does JFN contradict the aforementioned WP:UEIA, the WP:VG/JP example, and MOS:JP, it also goes violates MOS:FORLANG of placing a single foreign language in the lead. WikiProject guidelines do not have the power to override the sitewide MOS, it only supplements it. To paraphrase a well-known (though crass) internet adage, if JFN goes against established Wikipedia consensus no matter where you look, perhaps JFN itself is the problem... Please respond to all points. Thanks, Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you're going to get much sympathy with this proposal. It reeks of sour grapes and the examples above show exactly why it ended the way it did. When we say Wikipedia works on consensus, it means that we find the common ground in each discussion and make it policy. This proposal is more interested in repealing what was a crystal clear consensus on JFN than solving a real problem (nevertheless expanding on the previous consensus). I have zero interest in point-by-point rebuttals when the above attempt to put consensus in double jeopardy doesn't even fit with the policy quoted (as I already explained...) Additionally, I wouldn't suggest that anyone bother wikilawyering over the definition of "native" or bother revisiting the WPVGJP subexamples that were simply not yet updated after the JFN consensus (and were easily rectified). We're fine with how JFN is worded (as is very clear from Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon), and if you had a friendly amendment vis-à-vis the few edge cases you have in mind, that would go over much better than attempting to revisit the discussion all over again. czar 13:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Your comment is basically "I don't have an actual argument or policy-based rationale to rebut my opponent's points, so I'm gonna assume bad faith, accuse him of "sour grapes", and call it a day." You're well into tone policing territory now, and trying to get a WikiProject guideline to fit in with sitewide rules is most certainly not "double jeopardy". Never even mentioned Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon, I'm trying to stop JFN from contradicting itself, and your smug attitude and trying to speak on behalf on the WikiProject is most certainly not helpful. Calling you out for blatantly misusing English words is not "Wikilawyering" and calling out contradictions in Wikipolicy is not trying to "get sympathy", especially as you've not cited a single guideline to back up your argument apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I tried to keep my tone friendly throughout the discussion, too bad it was not reciprocated. Have a nice day. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't really want to get too involved in this discussion, but to re-emphasize, we are literally talking about a guideline that was written 2 months ago based on a discussion that was also 2 months ago, and you are basing your opinions off of the specific words (2 words, in fact) that Masem used when he wrote up a summary. That "name explanation" only means "when there's a 'lit.' section of the Nihongo template", and not the rest of the name. When the people involved in the discussion (2 months ago) tell you that your interpretation isn't what they meant, you respond that what they meant contradicts MOS guidelines, because of course a video game released in English with an English name is the same thing as a Ukrainian province, and therefore the whole thing is wrong, and should be "clarified" by removing it. In my opinion, you can do as many appeals to authority as you want to the holy MOS, but I'm noticing that no one else is arguing that half of the first sentence of any game first released in Japan should be written in a language that 99.9% of both readers and editors don't understand. I would say that one person is, but apparently the article you started this discussion about is no longer relevant, so I suppose we can't look to that discussion any more. --PresN 02:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
But that's exactly what I'm saying - a two month old guideline written up through a group discussion by several editors at a WikiProject that contradicts, or at least can be interpreted to contradict, four other guidelines, is not comparable to the site-wide MOS that was established after years of consensus and multiple RFCs. Therefore, in a scenario where they go against each other, obviously the two month old guideline is at fault, instead of the MOS, so I don't understand where your mocking of the "holy MOS" comes from. The rest of your comment is filled with strawmen - I explicitly said I wish to clarify JFN, not repeal it (though I'd like to, but I understand how consensus works). If you guys want to apply JFN to all Wikipedia articles, then fine - but in that case get rid of the "readability issues" header. A Ukrainian province isn't totes same as a Japanese game, but they are similar, especially when you've got people advocating we remove all foreign languages from all article leads over at talk:Pokemon Sun and Moon. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Video game review score

Template:Video game review score is a new template I've created as an experiment to test the waters of using Wikidata as a source for review scores and references. It is currently being tested on pages related to the Souls (series), and I'm currently pretty happy with the results. One simple application is that this method keeps scores in sync between main articles and series articles, as they are both pulling the same score from Wikidata. Future expansion may include automatically populating Template:Video game reviews and Template:Video game series reviews from Wikidata (Unless locally overriden). Currently, it is limited by design to only work with GR and MC, but the rough for non-aggregator reviews is already in the module.

Other ideas that could come from this might be a template that pulls platform sales data from Wikidata, which could help to keep tallies (and sources) in sync across the many "List of top selling" or "x generation of console" type articles.

A few editors have already given me some feedback but I'm ready for broader audience for comments and suggestions, so please drop by and give me your two cents. -- ferret (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Does anyone object to pulling review data from Wikidata when available? Or can we start implementing this as the default in our review templates? Local settings will override whatever's on Wikidata, but the idea is to move the review information to Wikidata wherever possible (for use across the Wikipedias). czar 01:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please consider joining discussion at Template talk:Video game review score#Video game series reviews concerning demonstration of building this functionality directly into Template:Video game series reviews. -- ferret (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Construction is completed and draft documentation is available at Template:Video game series reviews/sandbox. Please leave feedback at Template talk:Video game review score#Video game series reviews. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Something disturbs me about my Reception chart sections

It has been brought to my attention that lately, I redid the ESPN NBA Basketball (video game) article with the advice that I use multi-platform Reception chart for two to four console platforms, and the single-platform Reception chart for a single console and five or more consoles, in following the "not too wide, not too tall" approach. However, DangerousJXD claims in my talk page that I "replaced the preferred reception chart... with one that contains redundant fields, an excessive amount of unnecessary publications, and crappy presentation." It seems to me that he doesn't like multi-platform Reception charts, let alone multi-platform ones for two to four console platforms. He claims I butchered the Reception section thing, which I did not do. I never messed up Reception sections like that one. How can I explain this? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the table looks great. There's not an overload of publications, nor too little, and almost all publications reviewed both versions of the game (obvious exceptions being OPM and OXM) so there's not an ugly amount of {{NA}}. Of course, per T:VGR, all of the reviews in the table should also be used in prose (this isn't currently the case—shouldn't be too difficult to rectify, although my issues with the prose go beyond this anyway), but if we're discussing the use of the table alone, I personally think it's an improvement over before. – Rhain 23:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
While I think the new table looks nice, I notice that none of the publications who reviewed both versions of the game gave different scores, so the use of a multiplatform table seems redundant. If the scores were radically different, then it would work to convey that with a multiplatform table and cover in the prose that "game on platform X generally scored lowered than on platform Y due to platform X's technical limitations" or something less synthetic like that. The original table is actually more suitable for this article, since there's no difference. OPM, OXM, and BBC Sport, are the exceptions, which explicitly reviewed the game on a specific platform, so you can put (PS2) or (Xbox) next to the score. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Or how about adding "GEN" (General) to the multi-platform Reception chart, since both console versions have same scores as before? That may work as well, while the exceptions (OPM, OXM, BBC Sport) remain the same. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you ran to the WikiProject. This was a matter for your talk page but I had no further interest in the matter anyway so it was really over. You comment on your talk page how you're not butchering things, I drop it as planned because I don't care, the end. But you came here, still not addressing my concerns. Your comments here are twisting what my points actually are. For one, you intentionally commented after you added some prose to ESPN NBA Basketball (video game), thus misleading anyone who commented here. You never would have added that prose if I didn't post at your talk page. Proof of that can be found in your contributions. The prose still isn't good enough anyway. Also note the intentional no ping and the misquoting of myself but that's not the point. The charts you are adding to articles are not an improvement over the regular charts. Simple as that. An excessive amount of publications, redundant fields, repetitive display of information, awkward presentation overall. The change of the chart should not be confused with the addition of publications or removal of GameRankings or anything else. Nobody would have had a problem if you say only added reviews to the existing chart. The second concern was the lack of a prose in all your chart modifying. I don't need to explain that. As for your latest comment, that has nothing to do with my concerns and is irrelevant for this section. That would be redundant anyway as that's what the regular chart is for. So in short, add a proper prose to the articles you butcher. Otherwise, I don't care and neither should you. I considered this matter over before you came here and and I consider it over now. One last note, I'm not the only person who has disagreed with these edits, nor are you the only one who has made these edits. Apparently, an IP troll has been doing this for over a year; they even mention you by name. Well, that's about an hour and a half total of my time I'll never get back. See ya. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
For completeness sake. The IP hopper has been editing receptions and scores for a very long time, and often edit wars with WPVG editors over WP:VGSCOPE, WP:VGAGG and various template docs. The IP has only in the last couple weeks used a multiple-platform style for the review score template, though. I run into the IP on a fairly regular basis. I can't say I can recall editing alongside Angeldeb82, and have no comment on their use of the template's multi-platform style. -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Just so you know, this IP hopper is Neverrainy (talk · contribs). --The1337gamer (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
See, there he is again! DangerousJXD is breaking the rules, replacing Game Revolution's letter grading with a five-star rating system (even though I redid the article and explained that the five-star rating system was NOT implemented until 2012) and claiming, "Why was the 1UP review removed? These are things that one should explain." He never understands that the "1UP.com review" was actually a review from Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine BEFORE it belonged to 1UP.com. He doesn't even follow the code for the template guidelines and STILL acts as if he is in the present instead of the past. Can you please teach him a lesson? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────You alright? You are taking this a lot more seriously than I am. Clam down a little and move on I like I have done. To address your comments: "even though I redid the article and explained that the five-star rating system was NOT implemented until 2012". You did that after my edit, again twisting what's actually happening. "These are things that one should explain" is me asking what the deal was with that. You never explained that until here. Why the hell do you care so much? When somebody essentially says "you win, I'm going", why would you go on as if they are still disputing your edits? —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I understand now. And I apologize. Let's all move on and let bygones be bygones, okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo FY2015/2016 sales breakdown

http://www.siliconera.com/2016/04/28/nintendo-recaps-3ds-software-hardware-sales-data-fiscal-year-ended-march-2016/ Multiple Nintendo games' sales breakdowns which is something you NEVER see. This is the only place I found reporting on these specifics. Definitely a gold mine for those looking to improve current Nintendo game articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Similar breakdowns for Wii U software and DLC (excluding digital versions of retail games). I've already used the latter for Fire Emblem Fates. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Really? I thought Nintendo always released this sort of info at investor's meetings, at least they have whenever I last checked. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Lightning (Final Fantasy) TFA argument

Having a discussion with a new editor at Lightning (Final Fantasy) about whether it's appropriate to add some text to the article (today's featured article) about Lightning face being a female version of Cloud's, with the only source being a photoshopped picture combining their faces. They seem to be not understanding about the purpose of RSs, moreso than just missing the general etiquette on adding unsourced information to an FA, so it'd be helpful to have some other people join the discussion so it isn't just me v. them. --PresN 19:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment. Additionally, this editor seems rather similar to Andiar.rohnds in both name and demeanor. He was blocked for continued disruption at the Final Fantasy Type 0 talk page, where he continued to complain that Final Fantasy was being shown in too positive of a light, without offering a single example of a source to show other stances. Actually, now that I think of it, that happened right during/after Type 0 was a featured article too. The more I think about it, the more I'm certain this is a sock. (His block is still active - it was expanded to 2 months after he was found block evading multiple times.... Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
They does seem quite similar, if nothing else in their remarkable inability to take in anything anyone else says. --PresN 20:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@PresN and Sergecross73: I've had a look at the photo. It's got the wrong licensing for the image: it's not free use, it depicts two fictional characters, no matter how distorted they've been made. The source url looks dodgy too. Let's hope this gets cleared up. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yup, and he just made a baseless accusation of people benefitting from the article's current wording, which was another thing Andiar kept doing. That puts it over the edge for me, he's definitely a sock and block evading. I've blocked him. Feel free to revert his garbage image out of the article, if you haven't already. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Axem Titanium beat me to it, with many thanks due. This kind of thing is why I didn't put up Lightning as a TFA myself. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
ProtoDrake - If you want, notify me every time one of your Final Fantasy related articles is going to be a FA. I'll help monitor it so that this troll doesn't keep bothering you or disrupting the article. He's obviously there to cause a stink when the spotlight is on him, not contribute constructively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 29 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.

19 April

20 April

22 April

23 April

24 April

25 April

26 April

27 April

28 April

29 April

Salavat (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Make Star Fox or Mario a good topic?

Hello. Considering that Star Fox Adventures and some Super Mario games have GAs or even FAs, I'm thinking about making the Star Fox series or even the Mario series good topics. Thoughts or ideas from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I brought Star Fox Adventures to GA last year. On that note, Star Fox Zero looks build-able but I've definitely got my hands full at the moment. It sounds good, but I could help out on a couple when I have the time... JAGUAR  22:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Depends on what you define as "Mario series". Category:Mario Universe games has 169 entries and getting all or even half of them up to scratch would be some major work. Star Fox is much more realistically doable imo. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I think he means the Super Mario series, basically the games in this template: Template:Super Mario. Not sure if making it a good topic would include just the main console games, or include the handheld games and remakes. The Mario Kart series would be a good once to work on, since there's only about a dozen games in that series. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Being the Featured Topics director, I personally think getting a Star Fox topic made would be easier due to the Super Mario franchise being enormous compared to Star Fox. GamerPro64 00:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Super Mario needs 12 of 24 articles to be GA'd (12 done already); Starfox needs 7 of 9 (2 done) for the games, or 11 of 13 if you throw in the characters. --PresN 01:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something does that fact that 12 are done mean that the Super Mario Series already meets the 12 of 24 threashold?--67.68.163.254 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@IP-user: 100% of the articles need to be GA to reach Good Topic. ~75% of the articles need to be featured to reach Featured Topic, but all others still need to be GA. With a few exceptions, you can't have a C- or B-class article in a Good or Featured Topic. ~Mable (chat) 09:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
50% have to be FA/FL to be a featured, rather than good, topic. You can have non-GA/FA/FL articles in a topic, but they have to be unreleased games (and therefore ineligible for GA), and the article needs to have had a peer review. --PresN 14:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I was working on these a while back. You can track the potential Nintendo GTs at WP:NIN—there's a whole breakdown czar 12:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested VG move

See here, falls under the scope of this WikiProject and input would be appreciated. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Another VG-related move

See here. Again, input welcome and would be appreciated. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

God of War series FAC

Could really use more comments on this. It's been up for a month now and I've only gotten onetwo reviews (who did support). --JDC808 01:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to take a comprehensive look at it this weekend. Ping me if I don't show up after a spell. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thumbs up --JDC808 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: --JDC808 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

JayIsGames shutting down

So another gaming website is shutting down, this time being JayIsGames. Now this one has been marked situational so there might not be that many articles used here. GamerPro64 03:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

To add that they will remain online - we should still archive what is used presently but we don't have a panic here. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Tales of Zestiria issue

Can someone please help me with this? Czar has taken it upon themselves to replace the gameplay image I uploaded with a video trailer for the game, along with adding two further videos into the Plot and Character sections. All this was done without discussion. Can this be sorted please? --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Did Bandai Namco make some of their marketing vids free? I see videos added to Witcher 3 and Dark Souls 3 articles as well. WP:NFCC does say to only use non-free content if their is no free equivalent available. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: Bandai Namco has released no free alternatives of their media. It's all still copyrighted to their game, which they are selling. Hence my non-free use rational for my original image. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The file description pages say the uploader marked them under Creative Commons license, which would make them free to use. I do wonder how Bandai Namco are able to mark Witcher 3 videos under Creative Commons license when they are not the copyright holders of it. YouTubes CC page says they have to have originally created the content [20], and they certainly didn't for Witcher 3. Maybe some marketing intern over there made a mistake and selected the incorrect license when they uploaded the videos to YouTube. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
In fact the same videos on the official Witcher YouTube channel are not available under CC license. So more reason to believe someone at Bandai Namco made a mistake when uploading them. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be incredible if some of this content is released through a CC license, though. These are some highly-valuable visuals. Surely, if the organization that uploaded the video owns the content of the video, then it's possible for them to upload it under a CC license. What happens if this was truly an accident (as the pattern suggests)? You can't "undo" a release in a free license, if I'm not mistaken. ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: The original video was copyrighted by Bandai Namco, but the CC license seems to have been added by Czar when he uploaded it to WikiCommons. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
That's not true, ProtoDrake. The description of this video (for example) clearly states that the license is "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". If this would stick, that would be amazing. ~Mable (chat) 10:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Was wondering about this as well. Even if the videos are free to use on the articles, are they really needed? Not just in-game examples, but commentary videos and cinematic trailers were also uploaded, which seem overboard in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
If they were CC, I'd take some screenshots from the footage to add. Of course, trailers are overboard, and kinda border on advertising rather than encyclopedic content. ~Mable (chat) 10:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Trailers, particularly gameplay trailers are some of the best free content you will get for any video game. - hahnchen 10:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
But commentary videos, as seen on Dark Souls III? I don't think this is a good standard to have, else every YouTuber will be rushing to add their own videos. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
If a video game itself is available under a open license, then we should be happy if someone uploaded footage of it on Commons. Whether the quality of said footage is appropriate can then be discussed, and if the file doesn't follow the Commons guidelines on acceptable content, it can be deleted. Regarding the trailers we got, it would be amazing if we could create images (both GIF and static) using them. I agree that I am not fond of using more video than really needed in an encyclopedia article. It's a hassle to play a one-minute video, and even more difficult to figure out what portion of the video is under discussion in the article. ~Mable (chat) 06:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Bandai Namco Entertainment America have licensed lots of their videos on their Youtube channel under a CC-BY license. The earliest I've come across is this 2013 trailer. It's probably a mistake, and as a publisher, they probably do not own all the rights that they have just released. However, until that is clarified, you're not doing anything wrong by uploading them to commons. - hahnchen 10:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If we have reason to believe they don't actually own all the rights, then surely our stance should be to not use the material until it's clarified?--IDVtalk 10:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
It's also probable that they do own the rights, and it'd be easier to get a response if you let it be known that Commons is already mirroring all their CC-BY material. - hahnchen 10:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Can Wikimedia be held responsible for making this content available to its project? If Bandai Namco made a mistake, surely that is their problem? ~Mable (chat) 10:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. It's their problem. CC releases are technically non-revocable, but if they made a mistake, it would probably be deleted as a copyright violation. - hahnchen 10:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
What would be stopping me from reuploading video game trailers incorrectly under the Creative Commons license to my YouTube channel, then uploading them to Wikimedia Commons? Doesn't the Commons had some sort of review process to check whether licenses are valid. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
License review would probably find that your Youtube channel has no credibility to claim ownership of those videos. Bandai Namco does have credibility. - hahnchen 10:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
You'd probably get Content-ID'd within a day. If you use copyrighted material in a video under fair use, the video wouldn't be allowed on Commons either way. If this sequence of events does happen, the Commons file would simply get deleted. This is why it is vital for Commons media to show where the file has come from. ~Mable (chat) 10:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of a video where I find it unlikely that Bandai Namco hold all the rights for - File:Dark Souls III - Launch Trailer.webm. I do not believe they hold the rights to the music by Hozier. When a company licenses music for their trailers/soundtracks, they merely have the license to use that music, they do not have a license to transfer rights onto third parties. I've been in contact with developers about releasing free-use video, and at times, we've had to stop because they didn't have the rights to the music. - hahnchen 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That sounds very likely, but can we really just assume that the company doesn't have the rights for something they released under a license? Should we really be second-guessing all of this? Though honestly, in this case, I suppose I would support removing the audio of the video. Even the Youtube video credits the composer. ~Mable (chat) 11:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine leaving it as is. If Bandai Namco need to fix it, they can. - hahnchen 11:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
For this one, I actually wrote "Removed copyrighted audio" in the description, but it looks like the audio was added anyway. I'll re-upload. I tried to remove the audio whenever it was obviously not covered under BN's license. (Usually BN separately attributed the audio in the video description in these cases.) czar 11:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you beat me to the announcement. This is a windfall of freely licensed content from Bandai Namco. As always, you're welcome to revert my edits to articles if you don't think a piece of media works. I think Hahnchen allays most of the concerns above, but I'll add that you can check the license by clicking "More" in the YouTube video description. The ones that are Commons-compatible are marked for Creative Commons reuse (you can see a copy of the license on the Commons page) and I'll note that BN did mark many videos with the standard YouTube license (meaning all rights reserved) during the same time period across both its American and European YouTube accounts, which would indicate it isn't just a flagrant "mistake". Yes, our intent is to pull screenshots, animations, and shorter clips from the longer videos for encyclopedic use, but I think that trailers are fine as a stopgap measure. As for the original concern of this thread, per WP:NFCC#1, when a free use alternative shot is available, we remove fair use screenshots. As always, I'm happy to clarify if you just ask me directly. czar 11:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As a comment/note: I know we had a previous issues where we had presumed Ubisoft content to be free because of the questionable word from one studio within it (this obviously has since been fixed), but I would have to agree with Czar that we should be considering what is posted to YT marked CC-BY as CC-BY; this wasn't a one-time accident or misunderstanding, or a situation like Flickrwashing (marking someone else's content free via reupload to a sharing site). I would agree with the music situation, too: if the audio seems like it should be copyrighted, strip it out before uploading, since we know that the visuals are all in B-N's house. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Esports/eSports/e-sports

The spelling of eSports is under discussion again, see talk:ESports -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Title of DLC for a game - Italics or quoted?

What is the best way to format the name of DLC for a game, italics or quoted? I thought we had general advice before to use quotes but I don't see this.

For best consistency with what's already there, I would argue that DLC should be italics, unless the DLC is episodic in nature (like Telltale Games or the current Hitman title), in which case the DLC episode name should go into quotes, as to mimic the television episode approach. This would keep consistency when the DLC itself may be notable (like the two GTA IV expansions, or BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea. There's also another issue in the difference between a content pack like Horse Armor for Oblivion, and a fleshed-out story expansion, and where one might draw the line here (and if that becomes OR in the case of some games and their DLC). For simplicity, I'd argue to keeping it to a simple case for all non-episodic DLC and use italics. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I would personally always go for quotation marks if discussing something that is "part of" a larger work, including basically all DLC packs and all singular levels. This seems the most obvious approach to me personally. Often, DLC takes form of a portion of extra content, like a bonus song on an album or an uncut chapter of a book. ~Mable (chat) 19:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've always went by if it's just content or an update adding things like skins, weapons, or just multiplayer maps, then quotes, but if it's an expansion that has that plus more story etc., then italics. --JDC808 19:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The last discussion of this was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 115#Formatting for DLC content titles; we didn't come to a firm conclusion, but I still support what I said there- a game is italic, DLC that has actual content/plot but can't stand alone from the game is in "quotes", and map packs/character skins are just Capitalized if they have an actual name, or better yet just described without a name. --PresN 20:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd say italics because DLC is simply the modern iteration of expansion packs, which used to be released as separate physical products. I view it in the same way that tabletop RPGs have core rulebooks, plus extended rules and content sold as separate books. Otherwise agree with Masem's ideas for exceptions. Trying to split hairs further could get into OR and lots of arguments. —Torchiest talkedits 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that you've got it right; in general, DLC is a supplement to the main work and thus should be treated like a television series or section/article in a book. Burial at Sea falls into a different category in that while it's DLC for the main game, its structured as its own thing (with Episode 1 and Episode 2), and thus merits the italics. And yeah, PresN's comment makes sense regarding map packs and the like. Halo 4's Crimson Map Pack doesn't need to be italicized. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
So to summarize:
  • DLC that are essential stand-alone stories, in which some additions may be included into the main game but are otherwise fully stand-alone elements, generally requiring the player to start from a fresh point, should be treated almost as stand-alone games and thus italicized (BioShock Infinite: Burial At Sea, Grand Theft Auto IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony)
  • DLC that adds new story elements but not as a separate experience (or better described, integrating with the player's experience without disrupting it) should be quoted ("Dead Money" for Fallout: New Vegas, "The Bank Job" for Payday 2). This should also be used for serialized/episodic games.
  • DLC that is primarily new non-story content (weapons, cars, new gameplay modes, etc.) should be simply capitalized (Stimulus Package for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Night Blade Pack for Saints Row III)
Does this seem sensible? --MASEM (t) 20:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. If we were writing this up for MOS:VG, I'd maybe add that it may not always be desirable to explicitly name non-story content packs, especially if there are several of them, but that's more of a judgement call anyway around not having listy prose. --PresN 21:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I would agree that a game with a large quantity of content-only DLC (such as Payday 2, Train Simulator, etc.) should avoid listing all these out, but this should be judged by how sources approach the DLC. For example the content only addons for most COD games get well-covered by sources, so should be named; same with Hearthstone expansions. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support addition of VGMOS wording to reflect Masem's summary. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem's summary points and would support an inclusion of it in the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Hasn't this been the way it's been handled in the past? Doesn't hurt to make it official though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added a section to the GL's, here. Please review and edit if needed. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should set this as a rule... Just as with everything left unspecified, we follow the practice of the sources. For instance, I don't know where this quoting practice is coming from. It would be much easier to say that independent, creative works are italicized and that episodic content is quoted. I'd be very surprised if the MoS doesn't already make that clear. czar 23:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 6 May

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

26 April

29 April

30 April

1 May

2 May

3 May

4 May

5 May

6 May

Salavat (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the current consensus on Jon Jafari given that JonTron was salted due to the numerous previous AfDs? Sam Walton (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Salvidrim! may know, I know some editor(s) discuss it on his talk page a lot, though I haven't really been paying attention... Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Look at the current article and the quality of its sourcing. Compare with articles on other less notable Youtubers. Jon Jafari's article is might fine as it is and clearly passes notability thresholds. We finally managed to create a decent article (as opposed to the fanboyish drivel that kept being recreated after Reddit circlejerks).  · Salvidrim! ·  15:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

First-person shooter engine

First-person shooter engine – Need some help cleaning this one up. Does anyone have sources about FPS engines as a group or should they just be summarized in the main article's section? This article is a Wikipedia:Coatrack for original research as it stands. czar 15:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Narrative game

Narrative game also needs help. It's an essay that appears to confuse a genre of "narrative game" with the idea that games have narratives. Not sure what to do with it, but I lean towards WP:TNT and/or redirecting to the glossary. czar 16:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive question

Since 1UP is partially on the blink (again), I've been looking for archived versions of a page I need. The only one I can find is Goocle Cache. Is this eligible as an archiving source? I do have the necessary reference to back up the review based on transcribed text from 1UP's translation, but I'd rather have the original link. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if Ziff Davis turned off the robots.txt on 1UP and not have it suffer link rot? Because I really don't like seeing one of my old favorite websites decay like this. We're slowly losing sources with stuff like this. GamerPro64 22:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Front covers of Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen

The front covers of this video game are under discussion. I invite you to WP:FFD to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 8

I invite you to discuss one deleted file. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

RM notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:1979 Revolution: Black Friday#Requested move 9 May 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Square Enix

Square Enix, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

VG-related CfD

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 11#Category:Media from The Legend of Zelda series, input appreciated (though mostly uncontroversial I daresay) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Tomb Raider characters

If someone has the time, this list has no reason for retaining the character lists of each individual game separately. I would recommend decomposing the lists into its constituent articles. czar 16:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Index of Windows games

Let's be real here, do we really need this list? It's barely updated and doing a quick CNTL+F on any of the pages for newly released games rarely shows any results. I want to check here before taking them all to AfD because I'd rather not waste everyone's time over there.

List of articles that would be nominated
Index of Windows games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (0-9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (J) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (M) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (N) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (P) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (Q) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (T) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (U) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (W) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (Y) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Windows games (Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've also noticed there are other lists that are also very outdated and haven't been updated in months. Is it really all that necessary to keep these around? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

1UP.com still alive?

I thought that site was dead and web.archive.org couldn't grab it due to "robots". However, I noticed it was alive today so I started using "www.webcitation.org" to archive the important pages. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah its still around. Ziff Davis is still keeping it, GameSpy, and whatever is left of UGO running. Though 1UP.com is slowly suffering from link rot that may be irreversible unless Ziff turns off the robots.txt. I mean, GameSpy can be accessed through archive.org but not 1UP. Why? GamerPro64 21:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread 24: Reveille edition

It's been over a month since this has happened, and the backlog will never diminish itself, unfortunately.

FAC
FTC
  • Guitar Hero - active since 19 February and has four supports.
GAN
PR

Begging thread

I need to start this off. I don't like begging but I desperately need a copyvio/plagiarism check of Nights into Dreams... for its FAC. It is currently the oldest nomination and the copyvio check would be the last thing it needs before it can be closed. In return, I'll do anything of your choice. JAGUAR  12:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: I'll do my best on a copyvio for Night into Dreams. In return, I'd seriously like a proper review of Devil Summoner. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope what I done constituted in a proper review! JAGUAR  20:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have any additional comments for my peer review for the R. Mika article before I nominate it for GA? Kokoro20 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave a comment there.Tintor2 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 13 May

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

24 April

3 May

6 May

7 May

8 May

9 May

10 May

11 May

12 May

13 May

Salavat (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Help

I am having problems entering Wikipedia with Mozilla Firefox which quite fast. It says "The OCSP response is not yet valid (contains a date in the future)." As a result, I had to use Google Chrome where it is quite slower. Does anybody know of a page where admins can help with it? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Hi, try adding "en.wikipedia.org" as an exemption to the rule. Go to your Firefox settings and go to Privacy. You may want to clear your cache and cookies as well. Read Online Certificate Status Protocol for an idea on what the OCSP is. I think a better place to ask about this would be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Anarchyte:. I'll see what I can do.Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Now I can use it again @Anarchyte:. Thanks gor the guide :D Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion for Ace Attorney titles

A discussion about whether to move two Ace Attorney articles is currently going on at Talk:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Justice for All#Requested move 11 May 2016. If you are interested, please come over and weigh in on it.--IDVtalk 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone (all four of us) who has weighed in is in favor of a move, but the question of whether to use hyphens (-) or en dashes (–) has come up. WP:TSC and MOS:DASH say to use en dash when it's the appropriate symbol to use (and to redirect from the hyphen variant), but I can't actually find anything about determining which one is appropriate for subtitles. Help would be appreciated.--IDVtalk 13:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

New icon but old Barnstar

The Barnstar logo (Video Game Barnstar Hires.png) hasn't been changed, even though WPVG got a new icon. Is someone going to make one? Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Same goes for these: Template:VG History, Template:VG Industry, Template:Video games, Template:VG Role-playing, Template:VG Strategy. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
There was a discussion about this just a little while ago that is archived. I was the one who instigated the change, and have also said that I will take it upon myself to update the other icons together with the community — but I am very busy right now, so it may take a while. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 14:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Revived from talk archive
I've uploaded a file named File:WPVG icon 2016 - No background.png if people wish to use that when editing other files, such as File:Vg history icon.svg. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to note to myself and you guys that I haven't forgotten about it, will run through them all soon. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 19:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Looking forward to it - I'm very curious to see what you'll come up with :) ~Mable (chat) 20:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for opinions on Discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:NHL 15#Should New Features be included on NHL articles about whether the new features should be in the Yearly sports video games. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on it. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Good news related to GameTrailers

IGN has acquired all of GT's archived content and will continue to host it. It will take about a month to complete this process. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Have to admit, I did not see that coming. Though, going on GameTrailers, I was redirected to their YouTube channel. Will be important to note in the future. GamerPro64 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Huzzah! Didn't see this coming at all. Good for IGN. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

eSports style guidelines

Our eSports coverage is currently a mess of endless jargon, numbers, acronyms, and is generally unhelpful to all but specialist readers (who are likely reading another wiki anyway). Could we set some ground rules for WP:VG/GL on how to write about eSports? Maybe (1) some example of good player/team/tournament articles, (2) examples of what tournaments to list in a player's history, what is the cut-off for mentioning participation in a tournament, (3) what sources we're using as reliable here, given the upstart and unchecked nature of many of the sources, (4) how to write prose about the details of a game, and how much detail to use, (5) style suggestions on capitalization when invoking both notable and non-notable players in a prose section, and so on. Anyone have suggestions to this effect? czar 15:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly a good idea, I just think the same issue occurs - most of the WP:VG regulars don't have much interest, and many who regularly work on them don't follow WP:VG very much. So you're either left with not getting much good input, and/or having no one to enforce it. I'll give my two cents in approving/rejecting proposals, if that helps, but have no actual interest in working on implementation or maintenance. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that many of this is important. I don't think we have any GA-or higher esports articles, making it difficult to tell what the "optimal" article for such things is. Listing the tournaments a player has competed in shouldn't be too difficult: I believe the optimal way to describe this aspect is through prose. You wouldn't expect a dry list of tournaments for a soccer player, would you? I don't want all these lists to get deleted en-masse, though: they may be useful to convert into prose. A list of esports-specific sources may be really useful.
As for in-game details, I think a lot of it is warranted. The Street Fighter character a player uses in competitions is important. If a League player is always a top-laner or a jungler, then that is important. Leaving out that kind of information is similar to leaving out the position of a player of American football. As for the details of the game... This is actually a bit more complex. Our guidelines on this WikiProject have always said to keep in-game info to a minimum, but this is just not the case for professional games and sports. See all the stuff we got on chess. I think this really does need some discussion. ~Mable (chat) 17:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
What if we treated eSports less as video games and more as sports? Our sports articles have plenty of minutiae and rule details in them.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I think they are, more or less, treated like sports articles, but even the chess articles are still written for a general audience, which ours should be too. I think it would be wise to point out a few player/team/tournament articles done well and so we can be on the same page about what these articles should be. For example, The International 2014 is decent on its prose before the brackets part, which I think is overkill. League of Legends World Championship has some good examples of tournament descriptions in the lead up to the event, but I think its event-specific tables would be better consolidated into one, like at World Team Chess Championship. I would think that for tournament articles, it's best to have a prose description of the events, the major wins and knock-outs in the tournament, and a table of the final winners at the end. czar 18:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Evolution Championship Series also has good prose and better sourcing than the others, but its tables are overkill: there are collapsed tables under each year's small paragraph section and each has the top seven finishers in each game. Is there any reason we use seven instead of three, two, or one? The point is to get an overview of the tournament that year, not to list major competitors (unless that is something covered by reliable sources). Same question goes for The Big House (tournament), and its sourcing is much worse. I can handle summaries like Super Bowl 50#Game summary as the "plot" of major game but notice that Denver Broncos (a team article) only discusses the season in abstraction, not to the detail of J Gaming Pre-season_3.
  • Here, how about this for starters: check out Gonzalo Barrios (esports player)#Tournament placings. Shouldn't we only be listing major tournaments? If we don't find the tournament notable enough for an article, why would we list their placement in it as notable? That would be an appropriate bar to set for what's out of scope, similar to how we handle other athletes. czar 18:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Just going to throw this out there, but we do have a GA level esports article with Counter Logic Gaming (though there is a notice about it being better formatted as a list, which personally I don't understand). I unfortunately don't have anything to add to the discussion other than that, just wanted to make sure that article wasn't overlooked. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I imagine the tag indicates that it'd be easier to see the team's record at major tournaments in some kind of table view underneath the prose. czar 19:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
eSports is a tough one because each game is different from one another. It's not like gridiron football or baseball which has unified rules and a major league for each that pretty much becomes the essence of the sport. A pitcher or quarterback is going to be the same role/position in other leagues/nations, while in eSports, each game/genre has different rules, mechanics, and positions (I.E., a midlaner in Dota is going be different from a midlaner in League, just because of how the game's mechanics and rules differ). I'm not sure how Wikipedia could unify this, without getting overlay technical and bloated. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Aren't the differences between Dota and League not about the same as the differences between rugby and American football? Or the differences between Counter Strike and Street Fighter as large as those between baseball and curling? It seems to me that every "game" is as unique as every "game" is unique in sports. If anything, this should make it easier for us. I'm sure there are positions and terms in sports that mean different things depending on what sport you play. If you talk about an athlete being a midlaner, I'm sure it is already established what game that person generally plays. ~Mable (chat) 07:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
You are right that they are comparable to American football and rugby, but where exactly would we define what a "midlaner", or any other eSport specific role is? In the MOBA article? In the Dota and League articles? An individual article? Would they still follow the standard "PERSON/PLAYERNAME is a professional GAME player who plays the POSITION/ROLE for TEAM NAME"? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Good question. I think that standard phrase should work pretty well for most esports atheletes, but where the actual term should be explained... Thing is, I have never come across a source that explains League of Legends terminology in a useful manner, but I'm sure such sources should exist. It would be great if there existed some books explaining the mechanics of League, like there are plenty for chess or football, but I think most people refer to wikis and forums instead...
Does anyone know any sources to built an article that could explain these things around? ~Mable (chat) 10:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Map of MOBA.svg
SummonersRift-norsk-forklaring.gif
@Maplestrip, this is the one I use. (See the gameplay section I wrote in Vainglory.) I don't think it requires a separate article, but it would help to have some boilerplate to use in an "Overview" section atop articles that will be using Dotalike jargon. czar 05:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have seen one of those maps before on Commons - it's pretty neat. I honestly don't know the gameplay of MOBAs too well, and though I had actually started a possible draft, I think your idea is much better. I'm currently imagining an kind of infobox that includes the basic MOBA map (the first of the two) and a quick dictionary of common terminology. I'm honestly not sure if that is what you are describing, but "boilerplate" makes me think "template". ~Mable (chat) 19:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip, and here are two maps. czar 15:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the Wikigames proposal could be used to solve this issue, so that an interwiki link could be placed to explain concepts related to a video game's gameplay. ~Mable (chat) 07:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If I have a comment, it's that in general, Wikipedia's sports bio/team/event articles mostly suck and we should avoid referencing them as a measure of quality unless we are specifically considering recent FAs in that realm. They are often filled with minutiae and statistics and timeline-writing that we've at least moved away from regarding prose and e.g. Template:System requirements, and very often contain little 3rd-party comment or criticism, instead relying on primary sources and databases of factoids. Lets make sure to avoid that with eSports articles. --Izno (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
If we are to treat esports articles like sports articles rather than video games articles, you need to recognise that sports articles are much more almanac-like than standard encyclopedia articles. Lots of sports biographies do not pass WP:GNG, and instead pass a looser sports specific definition at WP:NSPORTS. I think the reason for this is that the biographies themselves are treated more as a subarticle to the team/league/competition than as individual subjects.
I'd prefer adding any esports specific guidelines directly to WP:NSPORTS, but according to that page, "there is no consensus that Electronic sports participants are covered by the criteria of this guideline". NSPORTS seems to be limited to actual sports, and not broader competition such as chess or poker. - hahnchen 20:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no experience with sports-related articles, but all I know is that sources on esports players, teams, and tournaments are nothing alike any other video game-related article. Of course, the same goes for other game-related topics (after all, writing about game mechanics is nothing alike writing about specific video games), but it seems to me that sources on these topics are far more "sports-like", whatever that means. (I don't think I'm actually adding much to the conversation here at this point, though) ~Mable (chat) 21:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus can change. If there is a consensus now to apply NSPORTS to esports, then we can and should use it, and NSPORTS should be updated to reflect that, perhaps even with its own section for esport-specific guidelines. Pinguinn (🐧) 21:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Which I think needs to be the case. eSports are not normal sports, and are akin more to something like chess rather than soccer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm 100% opposed to secondary notability guidelines for eSports individuals. We really don't need to be even more lax about making individual bio pages (to be filled up with exactly the cruft this section bemoans) when we already acknowledge the low quality of current sports bio articles. It makes more sense, in my opinion, to ratchet down on bios unless they do meet the general notability guideline, having been specifically covered as notable apart from the team. If not, the players should be covered at the team article—no question. I think this is out-of-order, though. Our question is what level of standardization is useful for the bio articles and what sources are we recognizing as reliable, considering the number of upstart journalists in the field. I'll re-propose below. czar 05:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed: Only include notable tournaments in player bio articles

Add to video games WikiProject guidelines: In eSports player lists of tournament participation, only include tournaments that have their own articles.

  • Support. As mentioned above, see Gonzalo Barrios (esports player)#Tournament placings as an example. Other athletes set a similar bar for the contests worth noting. If the player's participation in the tournament is important, the event will be covered in reliable, secondary sources, and can be covered in prose. If that tournament itself is important as an institution, such that we want it mentioned in the tables of all high-place finishers, there will be many articles written about it. I'd be open to a friendly amendment about creating a cut-off for when participation is noteworthy. For instance, does it matter when Barrios places 17th in a Smash tournament? czar 05:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree, there are other dedicated wikis that handle this sort of thing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Kinda support? – I mean, I'm surprised we list tournament placings here in the first place. As I noted above, we don't usually do that for other sportspeople (or at least not as extensively). On the other hand, I'm also worried that a lot of tournaments that meet GNG may not have an article yet. But either way, cutting down on tournaments listed is a good idea. ~Mable (chat) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - this a pretty common approach in Wikipedia in general to try to cut down on list bloat/cruft. (I understand Maple's concern above too, and am not opposed to removing all lists and just mentioning notable ones in prose as well - another common approach to this sort of thing.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose? - any tournament-participation that can be sourced properly should also allow for creation of an article on the tournament as per WP:NOTE - should it not? Carl Fredik 💌 📧 13:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    If you are worried about this affecting notability: it shouldn't. As long as you got the sources to write an encyclopedic biography about the person, the subject meets GNG. The level of tournaments that person plays in isn't relevant, though it is no use to create a "list" of tournaments someone has played in if the tournaments themselves aren't even worth noting. ~Mable (chat) 13:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    You missed the point he's making--if you can find RSes to document the tournament, that should appear in the same RSs that appear in the player's article, and would thus indicate that the tournaments should be notable. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This would discount persons appearingappearances in an MLG National Championship (which do not have their own articles but do have a list), which is clearly bogus, so this !rule doesn't do what it needs to and appears to be rulemaking. Just back up to what RS have to say--e.g. [21] returns plenty of results for DRG in SC2, but I sincerely doubt all those tournaments presently have individual articles. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    1) It does not discount persons, it discounts tournaments for listcruft. It doesn't matter for the person at all. 2) This !rule could easily be extended for tournaments in such a list as well. ~Mable (chat) 13:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    This !rule discounts mention of a reliably-sourced tournament but which does not have an article being discussed in the context of the bio. Please review the proposal. --Izno (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Rather, I'd like to know what you mean with "discount persons". I assumed that you were under the impression that this could render a person non-notable, simply because tournaments they have competed in don't have an article, which is not the case. ~Mable (chat) 17:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Amended for clarity. --Izno (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, that makes more sense. I stand by my point, though: if a tournament appearance is notable, it should probably be described in prose either way. ~Mable (chat) 18:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, prose is preferable. --Izno (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Izno, are we in the business of listing appearances, or should a player's listing be notable positions, e.g., wins? czar 02:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    Is an appearance reliably sourced? --Izno (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    If they reach semi-finals or something and are in headlines, yes. But let's say they're just mentioned as participating in a tournament within one of the eSports-focused sites (15th place, etc.)—is that a reliably sourced appearance to you? That's the stuff that I think is overkill. czar 15:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    To which eSports-focused sites are you referring? Have we evaluated the reliability of the sites (or staff) in question? Seems you haven't really answered my question. Assigning a weight to such information is trivial, if even any "eSports-focused sites" actually exist in this "lower class of site" you seem to have assigned them. --Izno (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    I'd call a site like TheScore both unreliable and "e-sports focused". We've evaluated the reliability of some sites at WT:VG/RS but there wasn't much interest and many of the sites were brand new at that point too. If you look at the tables on the Barrios example above, you'll see what I mean about setting cut-offs. I'm fine with postponing this if we're in agreement that tables of tournament rankings need to be reliably sourced. I would need some help enforcing that, as most such tables have no reliable sourcing. czar 03:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikigames

Hello, I inform you that I've made a proposal of new sister project about Video games on Meta at this page.

Please, for any questions or comments ask on the proposal page ! Regards Archi38 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen many faces I recognize from our WikiProject in the discussion yet. I would like to see some more opinions, if anyone has the time. I primarily say this because few people seem to agree with me in the discussion thread over at Meta ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 07:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I've read over it but not put forth a for or against.... I'm not really sure that the goal doesn't essentially boil down to "Make a wikia that covers all the games" because "i don't like wikia" -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've looked it over too now, and I share the same concerns that Czar/Mable listed off there. But if you fix their concerns...you're pretty close to being redundant to Wikipedia, which wouldn't serve much of a purpose, and doesn't seem to be of interest to this group of people creating this anyways. I hate to "oppose" something I have no interest in participating in - if they want to try, go for it I guess - but I don't think its going to work out. My prediction is that it'll probably fizzle out like most WikiProjects that have a really specific scope. (Except WP:SE, that one always impresses me with its activity.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

KLOV on Wikidata

I started a proposal to have {{KLOV game}} in Wikidata. Would be helpful if the community showed support. — Dispenser 21:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Published vs User-taken Screenshots

Normally, I know that both personally and per NFC, I would prefer to use a published screenshot that comes from a press kit or similar material to use within an article as to avoid any claims of original research, etc. (In that, this is a shot the developers or publishers thought was good to use and presented it as a representation of the game). However, sometimes this doesn't work well. Case in point for me is on Californium (video game). One of the major gameplay aspects is triggering small "bubbles" of an alternate reality that appear as part of the level design. The effect is described in the reception as well as part of the influence, so there's no question that a screenshot of this is appropriate, but I can't find any official screenshots that show this; the static level design is interesting but this is more useful if we are including non-free. But I could easily run over to Steam, run the game, and grab a good representative shot. As the game is "published" to the public, this shouldn't be a problem.

So the first question is if this seems okay to use user-made screenshots if the official ones fail to capture what we really want to show per the content of the article.

If it is okay, one of the things I would encourage via the guidelines for this project is that the screenshot should be something that any player of the game would likely be able to see without having to engage a secret mode, find a specific easter egg, spend 6 gazillion hours camping on a spot before it happens, etc. (For example, there's the Minecraft area of Borderlands 2 that is a secret area, requiring exploring off the beaten path, so a screenshot from this area would not be appropriate if taken by a user). It should be obvious that the user-made screenshot is something that any user would reasonably seen in the game without having to excessively play it. This makes the use of the screenshot similar to a plot summary - recapping without interpolation or excessive research, keeping it to the highest level details. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User screenshots would seem to fit the criteria at WP:NFCC (taking into account minimal use of course). Is there some reason you suggest we prefer otherwise? WP:VG/GL appears silent on preference. --Izno (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It's more the issue of "published". The game is published, obviously, but any random screenshot from the game may or may not be considered like that. That's why I prefer to use press kits or images from RS reviews, since they will have clearly met the published criteria. That said, since video games are wholly interactive and each user's experience can be different, it could be argued that since the game is published, any screenshot taken is presumed published based on the game's existing published nature. At which point, I would want to make sure the image is one that obviously had to come from the game, so that we don't beg if what was shown is real or not. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Have you tried contacting the developer for free use images? czar 18:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I can try though I note the game was funded by a large French broadcaster to correspond with some of their programming, so I'm not expecting much. That said, lets assume they release free images but none of these images have the bubble effect that is discussed in the game, and it would be improper to make them pick such an image for free license release. It would seem that here, since we don't have a free replacement for the effect of interest, a non-free would still make sense, though the additional free images can augment the article/go to Commons. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I would assume that since sound clips are acceptable under non-free use, a user-taken screenshot would be as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I know that screenshots readily fall under NFCC, and can be used, that's not so much the issue. In this hypothetical example, if I had a stack of freely licensed images from the developers, but none of the images show a feature of the game that is the point of significant sourced commentary about the game itself that needs visual explanation, is 1) a non-free image reasonable since the free shots do not serve as a replacement since they don't illustrate this feature and 2) is a non-free screenshot that I personally take playing the game acceptable over a published screenshot (eg one found at IGN or Gamespot, etc.). --MASEM (t) 20:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
If you feel like using a non-free image would be considerably more effective for explaining a certain notable aspect than existing free content, then it may be appropriate to use a non-free image. I would be careful with this, though. Honestly, simply communicating the general aesthetic of a game is often fine for an article's gameplay or plot section. ~Mable (chat) 20:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There will be some edge cases where even the presence of multiple free screenshots, we may still find a non-free image necessary. For example, if Ubisoft released free screenshots of Assassin's Creed Unity, they would never release images that we may find important. - hahnchen 22:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I prefer user-taken screenshots rather than the UI-less moneyshot publicity from press packs. I try to take screenshots with as many gameplay elements on screen where it is still representative of the game as a whole, to reduce the need for multiple screenshots. The image description page should describe which version of the game it was taken in, the location in-game it was taken in, and whether an emulator was used. As the game itself is published, WP:OR should not have any bearing on the screenshots taken if the screenshot was taken to show standard design/gameplay. If it's a screenshot to show some edge case or non-standard hack, it could be an issue. - hahnchen 22:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Philosophically, I'm aligned with Hahnchen. I think press photos have the ability to mislead as often as not. I don't think OR is a factor in this case. On the other hand, I've heard of a few cases where the marketing teams release gameplay footage or screenshots under a CC-compatible license, in which case NFCC behooves us to use those exclusively in lieu of any personally taken screenshots (even if the latter may be subjectively superior). Axem Titanium (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reminder of the Requests backlog

Just a reminder that our requests page has a backlog all the way from 2012. Currently there are five remaining requests in 2012 while there are two for 2013. We are very close to finishing those two years and I think with more people creating these articles we can make progress in the backlog. GamerPro64 01:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding VG superlatives to List of fastest-selling products

Can video game superlatives be added to this fledgling article about fastest-selling things?--Coin945 (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 21 May

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

13 May

14 May

15 May

16 May

17 May

18 May

19 May

20 May

21 May

Salavat (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-free content talk at Talk:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

I invite you to recent discussion about adding more non-free content into Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. --George Ho (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Physical cover art for a game primarily distributed digitally

With a number of newer indie games that are 99% distributed via digital stores, but where there are limited runs of physical copies (eg Goat Simulator, Rocket League, No Man's Sky) which will have different cover art compared to the digital distribution logo. While our guidelines suggest using physical box art, I would actually argue away from that in these cases, since it gives the wrong impression that the game had a major retail release. (Note, to contrast, Overwatch (video game) while it has a digital release that is as important as the retail, there's a huge retail push on the title so using the box art cover art makes sense; similarly for many new 3DS games, while you can get the title off the Nintedo store the same day as release, it's still principally a physical release). I'd rather us stay to use the digital cover art put to storefronts- since this is normally free of all other markings while still getting the point across - that to use physical release cover art when the physical release is not the primary route. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I simply agree. The primary of the infobox image is recognizability, and a store-front logo of such games are seen by many more people than the physical release artwork that was created at some point. It simply better shows the subject as primarily a digital entity. ~Mable (chat) 09:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Eyes at Uncharted 4

Hi guys,

I haven't had access to a laptop or computer lately, so most of my edits are done on my mobile phone, which is really a lesson in patience. That's why I'm asking for some more eyes at Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, an IP editor thinks that "Uncharted series" "sounds tacky" and insists on adding that the game is the last Uncharted game. I've been trying to explain that is reverse WP:CRYSTAL, we can't see in the future, even if Naughty Dog says they're done with the series. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of longest-running video game franchises#To be added (please cross out or delete once added):

This list of video games needs to be added to the "List of longest-running video game franchises". It's easy but slightly tedious work. I've been focusing on sifting through the thousands of franchises to identify those that are 20 years or older, so I haven't actually put them into the article yet. A bit of help would be awesome. Also, if you happen to think of any that have been missed, please add them to the list. Thanks! :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the large amount of games listed in the "to be added" list, I wonder if this article is really a good idea. Video game franchises have a tendency to go on forever. Perhaps a smaller scope would be better (30 years instead of 20 years?), though even still, I don't think I've ever seen a reliable source talking about long-running video game franchises specifically. Sure, some people have probably mentioned that franchises like mario have been going on forever, but it's not really a thing people talk about, is it? ~Mable (chat) 06:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't create this article, but the topic appealed to me greatly because it said something important about the types of series that have continued through decades despite tastes and culture changing. So I decided to help out. I dunno... I suppose you're right in that it isn't really talked about. But then again the video game industry is relatively young --> the "winner" is only 40 years old! Maybe it needs an extra column that is like "number of entries / number of years" to give a ratio. Because being a 35 year long-running series is difference to having two games in the mid 80's then an iOS remake in the late 2010s. In any case, it goes without saying that the article needs to be reduced in scope. 30 sounds like a good cut-off point personally.--Coin945 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I do like the idea of having an extra column as a project in general, but it would probably be considered synthesis on Wikipedia. Having 30 as a cut-off point should probably work, anyway. ~Mable (chat) 08:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, maybe 30 is too restrictive. Perhaps 27?--Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The death of edutainment games

I am very interested in the death of edutainment games in the late 90's. Many of my favourite franchises seemed to drop off the face of the planet around the same time, 1997-1999, but I couldn't find any clear answer why.

Now, based on this testimony by former Broderbund founder Doug Carlston, I would like to posit that Softkey (renamed The Learning Company after acquiring them) was a company that ruthlessly gobbled up tens of edutainment companies, then fired all their staff and milked their properties. In doing so they may have single-handedly killed this genre, and may have put a dent into adventure games as well. Not only were those companies not producing great work, the dearth of product may have cast doubts in executives' minds across the world.

(Fun Fact: The founder of Softkey was Kevin O'Leary, who is "Mr. Wonderful" on Shark Tank.)

Obviously there were other factors at work, such as the move into faster-paced FPSes etc. But still, this leaves you to wonder...

Is there any other information out there that corroborates this testimony? Is this notable enough to go into the relevant articles? Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(Doug Carlston Broderbund, Founder & Author, Global English at the 27:53-29:49).

New gaming website coming from Rolling Stone

This site will not be online until October, but Rolling Stone's Wenner Media is launching a dedicated gaming website called Glixel. [22] Obviously, we'll need to see how they report before we consider it RS but I'd already give it some weight due to the intention and publisher behind it. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

They're already being treated as a reliable source by others. They broke the Uncharted 4 sexist tester story.[23] As there is no content on their website, I'm assuming this came from the Glixel newsletter. - hahnchen 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's the first newsletter, linked from their social media channels - http://links.eml.glixel.com/a/84/preview/1191726/684936646/3ab09e692ce68820d0312cc08a55e328bc8e2947. The Uncharted story was written by Chris Suellentrop, who mostly writes for the New York Times, it's good. - hahnchen 09:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The Doom segment is also an excerpt from David Kushner's latest book, and the other contributors—Chris Baker and Suriel Vazquez—seem fairly reliable based on their work history. The entire newsletter is certainly an interesting read; I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes. I think a lot of useful content could come out of it. – Rhain 10:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, nice to hear of a new reputable website being started and not taken down permanently like is the trend these days. Also nice that it comes from good stock, it seems like most new start-ups are just USERG blogs or Youtube channels. Obviously we have to wait and see as Masem says, but I can't imagine a scenario where a website of this caliber wouldn't meet the RS guidelines... Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Video game reviews, Wikidata edition

Comments requested at Template talk:Video game reviews#Pulling from Wikidata for a demonstration of Template:Video game reviews with integrated Wikidata score pulls, similar to the code used for Template:Video game series reviews and the standalone Template:Video game review score. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Blast Corps

Anyone have time for a prose/source/image review this weekend? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blast Corps/archive1 czar 17:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone have access to Edge magazine?

I could really use the cover story on the Last Guardian from the newest issue #294. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Masem, Twemoji 1f4e8.svg sent czar 02:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: mind shooting a copy my way? The Uncharted 4 review in particular would be great. Looks like issue #293 also had a piece on Uncharted 4, so that would be equally helpful, if anyone has a copy. – Rhain 02:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain, sent both czar 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Muchas gracias. – Rhain 02:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks muchly! --MASEM (t) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

En masse portal bar tagging

@Omni Flames: has taken it upon himself to tag hundreds of video game articles with the video game portal and the 2010s portal, example here. I believe this to be a stretch if not useless and unnecessary as their scope is far too broad to be useful to readers. The video games portal should only be included on pages that have video gaming concepts as its central focus, not every single video game article in existence. Similarly, the 2010s portal should only be included in articles explicitly to do with the 2010s, like 2010s in fashion or something.

I say we limit portals on articles to only those explicitly about or to do with the topic at hand. Thoughts? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I'm adding links to all the portals is because I feel as if they help readers who may be interested in further related topics. However, I'm happy to cease adding the templates if there is consensus that it shouldn't be done. Omni Flames let's talk about it 06:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it may be for the best not to add the portal-template on the page of any specific video game, mechanic, person, etc. Any more general topic (Roguelike, Video games as an artform), any grouping of video games (everything under Lists of video games), and anything that speaks generally of the history of gaming should probably have the template. This would probably still be over a hundred articles with the portal link. ~Mable (chat) 09:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Some articles, such as Mario, really "represents" video gaming, though. It may be useful to think about exceptions to this idea. It may also be that simply tagging all articles is a good idea - I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the topic ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 09:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
There has to be some sort of restrictions on portals though. Halo, for example, can be tagged with Portal:2010s, Portal:Video games, Portal:Games, Portal:Electronics, Portal:Xbox, Portal:Microsoft, Portal:Science fiction, Portal:War, etc, etc, etc. We must draw the line somewhere. I'm saying we draw it to including portals explicitly related with the subject matter only. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not the type of thing that one should add indiscriminately (it's never a good idea to add single templates to articles en masse without prior consensus or at least warning...), but there's nothing wrong with adding those portals to game articles when there to edit other parts of it czar 17:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So, in short, you're okay with the video game and 2010s portals appearing on every single video game article made in the 2010s? There needs to be some restrictions on portals otherwise those that are even remotely associated with the subject matter would get tagged. For example, it only takes some guy with AWB to tag video game articles with Portal:Games and Portal:Electronics as well. See where this is going? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, the argument against using the "games" and "electronics" portals for video games are easy, but I see your problem. In the Halo example, using the science fiction portal, XBox portal, year portals, and video game portal would be overbearing. I don't feel for adding portals too easily, and would like to see some scrutiny, but I believe it's fine to discuss on a case-by-case basis. In general, using the most specific portal possible (in Halo's case, that would be "Xbox" rather than "Video games") may be the best idea. ~Mable (chat) 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure the slope is that slippery. "Games" and "Electronics" on a single video game's article are prima facie inappropriate. But links to the Video games portal, Xbox or PlayStation, Sega, Sonic, Final Fantasy—that's why the template exists. If a company is related to electronics or tabletop games as well as video games, bring back the previous portals too. If a game is that connected to the decade, the year portal might work too. The only issue I see here is the indiscriminate processing of articles without prior consensus. So that should end, and let local consensus decide the portal presentation on each article individually. czar 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

May 6, 2001 is way too late for Blaster Master: Blasting Again

I'm getting so confused about the article for Blaster Master: Blasting Again. It is claimed that the U.S. version of Blaster Master: Blasting Again was released on May 6, 2001; yet the Reception section says otherwise, and one Game Informer Issue 92 claims that the U.S. version was released on November 7, 2000. All the reviews start off as early as September to November 2000. I'm getting confused here. I think "May 6, 2001" is way too late for a U.S. release date. I think it should be changed to "November 7, 2000". What do you think? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede says was supposed to be released in North America on November 7, 2000, but issues with the game caused it to be delayed until it got a release on May 6, 2001., but I don't see any source in the article for the May 6th, 2001 date.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I know. I wrote it, but I may have made a mistake for that matter. And I don't see any proof that the U.S. version was released on May 6, 2001; the only thing closer to the release date was IGN, who claimed that the release date was February 7, 2001, but that's about it. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Mobius Final Fantasy

Hi, looking for some help with the plot section, since there appears to be no online description. There are, however, some YouTube videos of the cutscenes in the game. If you or a wikipedian you know could at least let us know what the story is in chapters 3,4 and 5 that would help make a Good Article out of a Japan-only game release. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have to go through that kind of original research for a modern game, it may just be better to keep the plot description short and general. It takes interpretation to decide which plot elements are worth mentioning and which aren't if you're just using primary sources... ~Mable (chat) 06:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Dopefish"

I would love to get some more input over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dopefish - our WikiProject usually has so much to say about fictional character articles, yet the discussion has been pretty lackluster on both sides of the argument so far. Some more experienced input would be welcome. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat: Deception

After a member of the guild of the copy editors worked in the article Mortal Kombat: Deception, I wondered if this article could be changed to mid-importance since several sources said it was one of the first fighting games with online gameplay. What do you think?Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering that they're reliable sources, I would go for it. Any game that has a significant enough impact should be upped to mid-importance I think. JAGUAR  23:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I already left the note.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

When should edition names be italicized?

I’ve just opened an RFC at WT:MOS#Are editions of major works also major works? to ask how Wikipedia should present the names of special releases or re-releases, such as “Game of the Year editions” or collector’s editions. Please join in the discussion there. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Vaporware on list of in-development games

Please comment at Talk:List of video games in development#Half-life 2: Episode 3 and other vaporware games regarding vaporware and other similar sorts of games. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

TQ Headsup

Just so everyone knows, I'm going to be nominating Titan Quest and its expansion Immortal Throne for GA after the weekend. I'd rather bring these two to their ultimate conclusion myself. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup drive

Would anyone be interested in a cleanup drive from our maintenance backlog? We could pick a large category and try to kill it by the end of the month (e.g., our 1178 articles tagged for notability or our 408 articles tagged for original research or our 1898 articles tagged for dead links or our 353 under-referenced BLPs). czar 22:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Why can't the WMF fund this and pay us, say, $5 for each person who reaches a milestone? ;-D JAGUAR  22:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 3 June

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

29 May

30 May

31 May

1 June

2 June

3 June

Salavat (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 28 May

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

21 May

22 May

23 May

24 May

25 May

26 May

27 May

28 May

Salavat (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Also these:--Coin945 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 28 May 2016 discussion

  • @Coin945, would you please remove the unreliable sources from those articles? Blogs, personal websites and amateur histories—these are not reliable sources and should be removed. czar 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    FWIW, that third link you mentioned is "Reprinted from The Australian Apple Review Vol 3 No 4 April 1986". I managed to find a copy of the magazine online so we can just swap he source over.[24]--Coin945 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    I chose three links at random. The other issues remain. I thought you would know by now that MobyGames, SquakeNet, etc. are not reliable... czar 01:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    I know, I wasn't saying that to invalidate you entire argument, just to provide additional context for that particular example. I'll get on it.--Coin945 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    I see that 4 days have passed, and I'm having to do this for you now. Come on, we're not going to start playing these games again, where you make a lot short, sloppy stub articles, the community gets mad at you for, while you get offended we dont appreciate it. I'm glad they don't seem to be WP:COPYVIOs anymore, but you're starting to tread that "too many articles too quickly/sloppily" again... Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Apologies, I had a death in the family a few days ago and have been preoccupied with that at the moment. Thank you for doing some copyediting work on those articles. I appreciate it. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Flow free looks like it deserves a PROD/AFD, though I have personally hesitated due to this VG/S search. Anyone else think that needs a delete? --Izno (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The current article should be incubated in draftspace but there are more than enough reviews to keep it (CNET, Pocket Gamer, Slide to Play, and lots of shorter reviews and articles). czar 18:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done moved to draftspace, I agree with incubating so that makes three editors Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 15:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to create new Mobile games task force

I've started a discussion here on the subject of creating a new "mobile games task force" of this WikiProject. I'm posting about it here because I feel that it may interest those watching this page. Thanks! Omni Flames let's talk about it 06:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: E3 next week

E3 is next week, so will come (likely) lots of new games announcements. Hardware news is expected to be light (NX is likely not there, and MS may reveal a new Xbox One base design), so we're probably looking at a software-heavy conference.

As in the past, it is strongly advised to avoid creating new articles based solely on a title, a teaser video, and a release window, if possible. Salt the redirects, for certain, but for sequels and spin-offs, these should be included in series articles, unless there is more information that comes following the big press conferences that can give more than just a stubby new article. For new IP, if the developer is notable, it is better to start a section there rather than a new article. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to put my scratchpads together like I have done in years past for info that seems important, but I think I might do them on this page instead of the console pages. Little more exposure and use. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll keep my eye on my side of things. They'll probably be a lot of new stuff springing from the Japanese scene. Won't be able to look at the announcements in person, though. It'll be the middle of the night when most of it is going on for me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A strange request

Would anyone here happen to have access to the Virginia Tech campus networks? The article "5 A Day Adventures" uses a reference that can only be opened when connected to their networks. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not in ProQuest's theses & dissertations database, which typically holds these. I would contact the Virginia Tech webmaster or the author directly. czar 15:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors – June blitz

Hi all, the Guild of Copy Editors is taking on our backlog this month. Their June Blitz starts next week. If you are interested in participating, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June 2016 czar 02:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Game Company Pages

Hello fellow Wikipedians! Reviewing the page HandyGames I noticed that editors affiliated with the company have been trying to cite every single game they've released with a link to their website. I would just like to ask if anybody can tell me what Wikipedia's policy on lists of video games and whether every game needs a citation? BlitzGreg (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be best to either cite the existence of these games to reliable secondary sources, or if such is not possible in most cases, not create such a list at all. Linking to a primary source is not that far away from original research, IMO. If the editors are affiliated with the company, there definitely needs to be some oversight. The issue you're describing sounds like a strong conflict of interest. Linking to your own website is never a good sign. ~Mable (chat) 09:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Citing uncontroversial things to a primary source should be okay, but secondary, reliable sources would be better. If a games list only uses primary sources however, I'd question whether it's at all notable.--IDVtalk 09:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi! Would any members here be interested in interviewing about your work on this WikiProject for the SignPost? Ping me or let me know on my talk page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Salvidrim! I'd still be interested in hearing about your contributions. Is it OK if I shoot you an email? Thanks for recommending @GamerPro64, Czar, and Masem:. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure thing. · Salvidrim! ·  20:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm game. GamerPro64 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl, let me know what you need czar 02:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I've got some free time, I wouldn't either, although I don't do many technical aspects for the project as much as the three Salvidrim mentioned. JAGUAR  20:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar, Salvidrim, and GamerPro64:, I'll shoot emails your way. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I'm available for questions too. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Masem, I've shot you an email, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Megalibrarygirl:, I'm a bit late, but if you need another person, I'd be happy to help out. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost issue featuring interviews from WP:VG members was published yesterday, so I'm afraid you're too late. ~Mable (chat) 12:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

WebCite down?

I've been trying to get WebCite to archive a page for me, but I can't get any response from it, even after I cleared out my browser cache. Google Chrome says "www.webcitation.org’s server DNS address could not be found". It's been this way, it seems, since June 5. Can anyone find out what's happening? --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I see sites cover Google Cache, The Wayback Machine, and archive.is more than they do with Webcitation so there might not be any information on this. GamerPro64 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It periodically goes down (and was under construction earlier this week)—give it 24/72 hours before getting too worried czar 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Those are good news to me since some years ago I used the site a lot.Tintor2 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Before it went down, I was getting "disk full" errors when trying to archive a reference, so they may be moving everything to a larger disk, or rebuilding the server to include more space, or any number of things related to that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Jaguar II - Does it Exist?

An article in the April 1995 issue of Next Generation says that the Atari Jaguar II is actually just the in-house codename for the Jaguar CD, and was misinterpreted by some members of the press as being a separate console. An article in the May 1995 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly still refers to the Jaguar II and Jaguar CD as separate products, but all it says about the Jaguar II is "The Jaguar 2 is being readied by Atari and will boast a double-speed CD-ROM drive"; the exact same thing could be said about the Jaguar CD. The Jaguar II actually being the Jaguar CD also fits well with the fact that the Jaguar III was the codename for the Atari Jaguar Duo, a combined Jaguar/Jaguar CD. Taking a look at the WP article for the Jaguar II, I see we thus far have no sources which verify the console's existence. Even the dates essentially match up with the Jaguar CD. The article says the Jaguar II was cancelled in summer 1995; since the Jaguar CD launched in September 1995, it makes sense that the Jaguar II rumors would have dropped off in the summer of that year.

So, does anyone have good reason to believe that there really was a successor console to the Atari Jaguar in the works? Or should we convert Atari Jaguar II into a redirect to Atari Jaguar CD?--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd just redirect it, as the article is all based on speculation and is unsourced. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd redirect it too unless/until some sources can verify it. Sometimes misinformation like this would spread like this in the old days, and without the internet being very prevalent, its hard to find the clarifications. For example, rumors of Sonic 2 being for Sega CD or having time travel elements, when the reality is just that someone was getting their rumors mixed up with Sonic CD. It could be something like this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, done. Thanks for the feedback.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

IGDB notability?

The Internet Game Database article was created recently along with efforts to paste it into multiple articles as External links. Could someone review this for notability? Based on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_11#Internet_Game_Database_.28IGDB.com.29, it is being treated like IMDb as not currently a reliable source as it is user-submitted. Also, what about its use for External links? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Someone has to say it, the notability of a subject with regards to its inclusion as an article is a separate topic entirely from its reliability and usability as a reference for content in other articles.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Right. I'm asking for those two things. 1) IGDB as an article 2) Propagating it as an external link on game pages and voice actor pages. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't it follow the standard of WP:VG/EL, specifically the "if the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature" guideline? For older games without any sort of official page for it, it could be added, but for something modern, no. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
That being said, if IGDB is really at IMDB levels (which I haven't fully assessed yet), then it is already standard to add IMDB as an EL in film & actor articles, so I could easily see a case being made for IGDB in VG articles.  · Salvidrim! ·  00:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I AfD'ed it. A video game IMDb sounds like a good thing, but I can't find any reliable sources mentioning the database. I don't think we need to link to IGDB right now either, I looked up Fallout 3 (picked that one because it's a huge multiplatform award-winning game of the previous generation), and what I see doesn't seem necessary or informational to me. Platforms, release dates, publishers, developers. Extended information includes series, game modes, player perspective, genre, engine and theme. A price checker, DLC and credits. Nothing that isn't covered already by Wikipedia or by good ol' MobyGames. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't mind revisiting if it ever caught on like IMDB did, but there's really no shortage of (better) video game databases out there, so I see no particular reason to start adding this one as an EL either... Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there is really no reason to use IGDB instead of Mobygames, which should only be used as a last resort anyway. At least IMDB links can be accepted for games with notable cast lists (Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted, etc) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Will see how the AFD plays out. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about "cancelled" in title

Hi everyone,

We've got Insane (2001 video game) and there's Insane (cancelled video game). WP:NCVGDAB doesn't say anything about a similarly titled cancelled video game. We've got Doom (1993 video game) and Doom (2016 video game), but they are both released, with the year of release in the title. Since the cancelled one was never released, shouldn't the 2001 Insane be called Insane (video game), with a hatnote to the cancelled one? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"cancelled" is roughly equivalent to a year disambiguation; it's just that we have no year (and for cancelled games, do not expect ever to have a year), so from that perspective I don't think I would necessarily agree with changing the name of the released game. WP:TWODABS/WP:PTOPIC/WP:INCOMPLETEDAB may be interesting reading. --Izno (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how I was reading it too. Since there's no appropriate year, they subbed in "cancelled" instead. That's probably what I would have done, had I made the article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's examine precendent for cancelled games requiring disambiguation:
    Dirty Harry (2007 video game) was cancelled but still dab'ed by year due to a planned release (unsourced though); we could disambiguate the later game as Insane (2011 video game if we go by announcement date?
    A few games were cancelled for a platform but released on others so they are disambiguated by year normally if necessary
    Fortress (Grin) disambiguates by developper name, which could be an option (Insane (Volition)/Insane (Volition video game) or with THQ's name)
    Interestingly (and surprisingly, at least to me), not other article about a cancelled video game uses the "cancelled video game" disambiguator. (Then there is also the debate as to whether we should use canceled or cancelled).  · Salvidrim! ·  15:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    Another example is Titan_(Blizzard_Entertainment_project) (where there are several other Titan-named games and related video game concepts).
    One thing to consider is that a cancelled video game is one that likely has gained a reputation before it was cancelled as to have sufficient notability for an article. That reputation is often titled with the developer (even if its not the developer's fault), so I would agree if disambiguation is needed, something like "(developer project)" or "(developer video game)" (depending at what state it was cancelled) might be a good way to go. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    In this case, the notability is proabably most tied to Del Toro's involvement. Insane (Guillermo Del Toro) by itself sounds like a BLPvio waiting to happen, and Insane (Guillermo Del Toro project) seems long for a six-letter-title. Insane (Del Toro project) or Insane (Del Toro video game) maybe?  · Salvidrim! ·  19:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    We're still going to need to disambiguate the game regardless (Insane being a very common word/title across the board). While Del Toro's involvement was really its claim to fame, I would probably still stick with Volition as the dev name here, but I don't see an issue using Del Toro's full name along with "video game" or "project". --MASEM (t) 19:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I like "GameTitle (Developer)" for this kind of disambiguation—it's the two elements most likely needed to find the disambiguated game. I don't think that "project" adds value to the title. czar 19:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the current usage here is fine. Changing the title of the 2001 game to Insane (video game) would suggest that the cancelled title is not actually video game, which is silly. Using alternative disambiguators doesn't seem necessary here unless another game titled Insane gets cancelled, right? The "cancelled/canceled" issue seems to be th largest problem. ~Mable (chat) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that just another US/UK English thing? So, if the developer is from the US, use canceled, and if it's from the UK/NZ/Australia/etc, use cancelled. Otherwise, use whichever you prefer. Create a redirect for the other variant, and there shouldn't be any problems.--IDVtalk 21:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Not really a problem, I guess; more like an inconsistency. Then again, I'm pretty sure we're also using "colour" and "color" randomly, so I suppose it doesn't matter at all ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 21:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Added Japanese front covers of Japan-only original releases

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 17#‎Front covers of Star Ocean (video game) says retain Japanese front cover, though the discussion is not yet closed. Therefore, I added Japanese front covers of Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Revelation and Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride into infoboxes and then pushed the DS covers into their own sections. Is this acceptable? --George Ho (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll elaborate: Star Ocean (video game) still has the Super Famicom front cover, and the PSP one is used in a section. Therefore, I used the discussion as precedent to add the covers of the original releases because of lengthy time distances between original releases and re-releases in newer platform. --George Ho (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 10 June

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

30 May

31 May

1 June

3 June

4 June

5 June

6 June

7 June

8 June

9 June

10 June

Salavat (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread 25

No Subtitle Edition. It's been a while since the last one, and there's a whole bunch of articles waiting to be reviewed.

FAC
  • Blast Corps (nom) - active since April 22, has three supports and one set of comments
FLC
GAN
PR

Begging Thread

I'll review any one GAN except Resonance of Fate, From Dust and Fire Emblem Fates, or do a review of any PR/FAC/FLC, in exchange for a review of one of my GANs: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations, Ace Attorney Investigations 2 and Ace Attorney.--IDVtalk 12:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"Single player" at Redirects for Discussion

FYI Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 11#Single-player czar 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

E3 2016 - EA Presser

Good afternoon everyone. I am here to note take anything that might be interesting or relavant to the project from this event. Let's have a good show. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The event is running late. Please standby.
  • EA claims some 2.6 billion game players. Thought that was interesting.
  • Titanfall 2 is up first. Grappling hooks for pilots, new pilot abilities like a hologram, a slide dash, six new titans, multiplayer technical test, titanfall.com has the info. Offline playable campaign is what is single player. October 28th 216.
  • New Madden game. Nothing paticularly interesting there.
  • New eSports sort of league, including some player hosted events, some sponsored events and EA sponsored ones. I think that covers it. Next tournament will hold a $1,000,000 prize pool over four events.
  • Mass Effect: Andromeda is next. Leaving the Milky Way to Andromeda. Entirely new cast it seems...but an Asari shows up. The Mako returns. And a Krogan. How new is this going to be?
  • EA Access is free this week.
  • A chairty event. If you perform special challenges...actually they aren't related. $1,000,000 to chairty will actually happen regardless of challenges done.
  • FIFA 17 is a thing. This trailer feels really dramatic, like you're following a real person. I think this leads up to some sort of story mode called "The Journey". Has premiere league managers.
  • EA Originals program. I think this is an indie publishing arm. Lots of fluffy language.
  • Fe, a new game. The first Originals title. Musical motife. I'm finding it hard to describe. For some reason I'm reminded of Journey, but that's probably not accurate.
  • Star Wars is up. New Star Wars Battlefront in 2017. Viseral is going to make an action-adventure title in 2018. Respawn is making a game as a 3rd person AA title (but we already knew that).
  • Oh hell. It looks like we're getting a VR enabled title. I saw head motions related to flying an X-Wing.
  • Time for Battlefield 1 to conclude this presentation. Included are enviroment destruction, weather effects with gameplay changes and large vehicles. Open beta later this summer.

And we're done here. Have at it folks. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've seeded EA Originals and Fe (video game) to EA's article. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This was useful, thank you! --PresN 00:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

E3 2016 - Bethesda Softworks Presser

Ugh. Totally missed this conference. Anyway, here's some of what I picked up:

  • Fallout Shelter is getting an update with quests and is coming to PC next month.
  • Fallout 4 is getting three new DLC kits, one of which is to make your own vault. Also HTC Vive support.
  • Prey 2 will still be a thing, renamed "Prey" (so should we call it Prey 2016 or Upcomming like Unreal Tournament)?
  • Skyrim's getting an eighth gen remaster.
  • ESO had...something. (Don't ask, I don't play it)
  • Wolfenstein's new game has been given a title (I think) called The New Colossus. It's a blink and you'll miss it moment, but please salt the article.
  • Dishonored 2 is still a thing.
  • New Quake on the way (Quake Champions, salt this too)

That's all I see from my news hunting. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 04:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Prey will be out in 2017. The original Prey has been moved to (2006 video game), and the new Prey (2017 video game) redirected to Arkane Studios, for the moment. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The ESO thing was the Dark Brotherhood expansion - it had already been announced though. --SubSeven (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
ESO also is getting an update called One Tamriel, which allows players to explore the entire world as soon as they've completed the tutorial by removing alliance/quest/level restrictions and introducing worldwide level-scaling. It's also getting a Japanese release within weeks. http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/12/the-elder-scrolls-online-has-7-million-players-and-is-removing-level-restrictions  · Salvidrim! ·  04:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Time to phase in the new Pokémon list style?

Long time no speak everyone! Dropping in once again about the Pokémon lists. As we now have more information regarding Sun and Moon, the sandbox I've set up for Generation VII (located here: User:Cyclonebiskit/Gen7) appears to be long enough to support being published. This is the first of the seven lists I've been slowly working that is mainspace ready and wanted to get feedback on whether or not we should gradually phase in this format (i.e. start with Gen VII and publish the rest as they're ready). The next-closest list is Generation VI (located here User:Cyclonebiskit/Kalos), but several Pokémon are missing basic summaries and I've yet to search for any critical reception for many of them (there's a lot of freaking information floating around on this franchise, who would've thunk it? Face-wink.svg). Anyways, thanks in advance for your thoughts/comments! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

These look good! I think both of them are mainspace-ready, as they are vastly better than our current system. Honestly, it may be in our best interest to move them to the mainspace all-at-once, to keep the style consistent. Any improvements can always be made on the lists afterwards. ~Mable (chat) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

E3 2016 - Microsoft Xbox Presser

Good morning everyone, time for the next presser. Unfortunately I will be missing the PC and Ubisoft shows today so if somebody else wants a crack, be my guest. I'll be back with Sony this evening. Some expectations, rumors and leaks include the new Slim Xbox One, a more powerful Xbox One and PC Compatibility for Xbox 360 Games. We'll see how those rumors pan out soon enough. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Opens up with Phil Spencer giving condolences to Orlando and he's wearing a Rainbow pin...so seems to be everyone. Nice gesture.
  • The Xbox One S. Comes in white, Smaller, internal PSU and IR blaster (eliminates Kinect for use there). New controller with better range and Bluetooth capability. Native 4k support. $299, releases in August.
  • Xbox Play Anywhere, buy a digital copy and you can play it on Xbox One and Windows 10. First game is Gears 4, comes with Cross Play as well. October 11th. Comes with Marcus Phenix and a custom elite controller.
  • Killer Instinct next. 7 Million Players. General RAAM from Gears has been announced as guest number 3. Seems to have super armor. Play it for free this week.
  • Next is Forza Horizon 3. Takes place in Australia. I also think this will be cross play everything and it is a Play Anywhere game. 4 player campaign co-op.
  • Recore gets another trailer. Its stylish but I can't tell you if anything is different about it. September 13th.
  • SquareEnix? This is a surprise. A demo of XV is shown, E3 exclusive mission apparently. Has quicktime events. September 30th, 2016.
  • Ubisoft gives a trailer for the next Division expansion. June 28th, Xbox first.
  • DICE gives some goodies on Battlefield 1. October 21st release, EA Access gets it October 13th.
  • Live Engineering is getting a slot. Interesting. Background music is finally coming. Language region independence. Cortana. This fall comes: Clubs on Xbox Live for communities. Next is looking for group, a sort of want ad for whatever you want. Arena on Xbox Live will be a tournament application.
  • Minecraft is up again. Cross Play update called The Friendly Update. Also dedicated servers to set up called Realms. Texture packs for Mobile and Windows 10. Add-ons are coming in the fall, they're mods basically. Minecon in September.
  • Custom colors for Xbox One controllers. I think you can mix and match everything, includes naming and stuff. Xbox Design Lab its called.
  • Trailer for something from Playdead Studios called Inside. Nothing else interesting. Speaking of Playdead, Limbo is available for free right now.
  • ID@Xbox Showcase. No way I can keep up with these titles going by. Though a few of these are labeled as Play Anywhere, so that's cool. ARK is going to get Play Anywhere attached to it.
  • We Happy Few gets a demo and is coming to preview. Console timed to Xbox.
  • CD Projekt Red is bringing the Gwent Card game to Xbox One. "Gwent: The Witcher Card Game" comes with cross play and a single player campaign. Exclusive beta soon, coming in September.
  • Tekken X Street Fighter is still going to be a thing apparently. Actually, totally wrong. Tekken 7 will just include Akuma from Street Fighter. Available early 2017. Free copy of Tekken Tag Tournament 2 for all Xbox Live Gold owners this week.
  • WHY IS IT SNOWING?! Oh my. Dead Rising 4 in development. I think it will be a timed title. Christmas themed, had some sort of Power Armor. Holiday 2016.
  • Scalebound gets a demo featuring Hideki Kamiya. Xbox One and Windows 10 Exclusive, will be a Play Anywhere title, cooperative gameplay. DMC with Dragons anyone?
  • Sea of Thieves. Rare title. Play anywhere. Clips from the game featuring players not taught how to play.
  • State of Decay 2. Xbox One and Windows 10 Exclusive. Feels like a generic Zombie Apocalypse game.
  • This presser feels way over time by the way.
  • Trailer for Halo Wars 2. All cinematic, nothing new. Oh. They're working with The Creative Assembly and is a Play Anywhere title. Weeklong Beta starts Today.
  • Phil's back. Got something new? NEW XBOX. Codenamed Scorpio. Holiday 2017 arrival. 6 TFLOPs. All kits (accessories, controllers, games, soforth) will be compatible with each other, so no loss.

And I think we're finally done. The Xbox 360 on PC leak from before turned out to be nothing it seems. Maybe we'll get more info on that with somebody's presentation? Kinda doubt it. Sofar there's plenty of "yikes" I'm having. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Larry likes to do my job. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Personally I watch ProJared's recaps ;)  · Salvidrim! ·  23:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting recognition of Windows 10 as a distinct platform from "Microsoft Windows"

Those who watched Microsoft's E3 conference just now noticed that they were really pushing digital cross-buys between Xbox One and Windows 10 ("Xbox Play Anywhere" games). However, these cross-buys explicitly require Windows 10. Additionally, Windows 10 UWP games are structurally different than non-UWP PC games, meaning that this is a specific ecosystem from other PC games, which do not necessarily have such an extensive level of dependency on the underlying OS. Thus, it is very misleading to state that these games will generally run on "Microsoft Windows", because this is an entire family of multi-platform operating systems, and not just a specific version. This also contradicts Wikipedia policy on verfiability, as it cannot be verified that affected games can run on any version of Windows, it is only verfiable that they run on Windows 10.

Thus, I think that any article referring to games exclusive to Windows 10 must outright state this in infoboxes. i.e. Quantum Break and such. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, as in essence, this is similar to games that only can be run via Steam, which as noted we don't consider a separate platform. And I'm sure there's also games that work fine on Win7 and up but can't be run at all on Win95, for example, but of course we don't say that. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We already discussed this, and majority said that we shouldn't do this. Like Masem said, games that work and were intended for older versions of Windows are broken or don't work at all on newer ones, despite them still being officially a Windows game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Steam is a distribution platform. Not an OS (Steam OS is not an OS, but a distribution of GNU/Linux). A game may be distributed through Steam, but that doesn't influence the OS it is compatible with. If a Steam game only supports DirectX 12, it will surely only run on Windows 10, UWP or not. These games must be obtained through Windows Store, and are only supported on Windows 10. It is entrenched even moreso than Steam games. This is a distinct situation. Thus "Microsoft Windows" is not specific enough. Do we say Xbox One games are for "Xbox"? Do we say PlayStation 4 games are for "PlayStation"? With no disambiguation in either case?
These games run in a specific operating system environment with certain APIs and mandatory sandboxing; past Windows games were merely Win32 software that can theoretically run on any version of Windows that supports its relevant APIs. Universal Windows Platform is a specific environment that is explicitly exclusive to Windows 10. "Microsoft Windows" can be used in general for games that are not packaged in this manner. But these games are not Win32 software, they are Universal Windows Apps.ViperSnake151  Talk  03:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This goes back to understanding why we removed system requirements for games. For the general, non-game player reader, they will have no idea of the difference between a game running on Windows not-10 and Windows 10, so it's not really useful information. Also, I would fear that some less experienced editors would start treating games that run on Windows 10 without any special Windows 10 features (eg your average Steam game) will start making these as being available for "Microsoft Windows" and "Microsoft Windows 10" because we'd treat the latter as a separate platform. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we treat VR units as new platforms with respect to infobox

Should we treat the VR platforms like Oculus Rift, HTC Vibe, and PlayStation VR as new hardware platforms in considering games that have both non-VR and VR versions (like Superhot)? I'm assuming "yes" presently, but would like to get more opinions. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes - Regardless of what developer creates games for the system, VR is a distinct gaming platform, like Virtual Boy was back in the day, and just as different mobile devices have become. We need to treat it as its own platform. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I have a couple of questions about this regarding infobox inclusions. For PlayStation VR games should we list both PlayStation VR and PlayStation 4 in the infobox? For PC VR games should we list both the operating system and VR device? Also, what if several years down the line there are dozens of VR devices from different manufacturers, would we have to list every single one that a game was compatible with? --The1337gamer (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Starting with the last, right now there's only three viable players in the market, and they purposely use different pr