Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 125

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 120 Archive 123 Archive 124 Archive 125 Archive 126 Archive 127 Archive 130


Worms Armageddon

I am currently working on the article Worms Armageddon. I have managed to promote the article from a Stub-class to as high as a B-class. I have also asked that the article be peer-reviewed, and it did become peer-reviewed, but what I have trouble with doing is rewriting the "Reception" section. Other than that, the article is nearly complete, and I am looking to get help so that the article might someday become a good article. Thank you. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Are adaptations of games within this wikiproject's scope?

I was sure that they were, but an editor removed the VG project banner from the Chaos;Head anime article. Since this is relevant for more than just the C;H article, I figured I'd start a discussion here.--IDVtalk 12:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why the anime would be in-scope. It's not a video game. The video game itself is correctly in scope. -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Note that I don't personally feel that it necessarily should be part of the scope - I just thought that it was, due to seeing articles like Halo: The Fall of Reach (book) and Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (film) having the banner on their talk pages.--IDVtalk 17:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I always feel as though works based on video games tend to be culturally and socially linked to video games strongly, and by that logic would include them as part of our scope. That being said, this would be a perfect example of visual novels just being such a weird medium >.> Getting good inclusion criteria of when to include non-video game articles in our scope is probably impossible, so I guess they all have to be removed. Be it the Tomb Raider film, the Ace Attorney film, the Mortal Kombat film, or the Final Fantasy anime... Maybe we should just get a "video game adaptations" Task Force. ~Mable (chat) 17:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
In this case, the majority of the reasoning was that we already have the VN, which is an adaptation, inscope, whereas those other articles are simply based on the primary work (which is the video game). *shrug* I won't die on a sword over this. :^) --Izno (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Chaos;Head the VN is not an adaptation of anything, unsure what you mean--IDVtalk 19:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
A mis-speak, but the rest of it makes sense without those words. (Aside: If we wanted to talk modelling of entity relationship concepts, suggesting that the VN and the anime have an adaptation relationship is decent.) --Izno (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm rather confused now... what exactly is the situation with all the examples I've given? Should all video game adaptations stay in the Project's scope? ~Mable (chat) 19:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really get it either.--IDVtalk 15:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking even at only GA+, the VG project clearly covers a lot of "based on a game" articles; even a Simpsons episode with a large plot about a (fictional) video game is included. If we're going to reverse that, it should be project wide based on a larger discussion, not piecemeal. --PresN 17:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Parody central: Pyst and Star Warped

I've spent the last day and a half heavily expanding the spoof titles Pyst (Myst) and Star Warped (Star Wars). They're both up for DYK (P / SW) and the Guild of Copyeditors, but it would be awesome if you would check them out and offer your copyediting skills (particularly in the references) or advice to take them to the next level. I've also heavily improved the Disney's Animated Storybook article.--Coin945 (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Compilation game qualifies and counts as own game in the list?

I think it should be listed along with the games that's part of it. Another editor been thinking otherwise and actually removed multiple games that's part of it after I've undone him removing the compilation game: Edit summary.

Which is more correct? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 22:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oftentimes, these sort of articles have separate sub-sections for things like "spinoffs" or "compilations". Perhaps that could be a compromise solution? Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Meaning that it's okay to have compilation games in the game list? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 10:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's how its handled in lists like List of Sonic the Hedgehog games and List of Tales games, for example. I'm not sure there's a standardized way, so it would really boil down to consensus, which I was I was trying to provide a compromise that everyone could agree with. I imagine the other editor's objection was probably bloating the main game list, making it look like there's more entries than their really is. Creating a separate subsection would alleviate that issue, while still achieving your goal of listing it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright. It's been undone since and there's discussion brought up from the same opposer here: Talk:List of video game exclusives (eighth generation)#Listing the same title(s) multiple times. On the related note there's three games listed by another user here: [1] I tried to undo but was reverted with GameFAQs as source. Maybe we need to establish rule set for the compilation games then? My logic is that compilation games with new boot menu (or composed onto the disc with different boot ID) should be listed, but individual game disc/apps that's bundled together at a discount shouldn't be list. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Accessing PC Data of Reston data

PC Data is vital in the educational video game space for getting informaion on commercial performance of old 90's games. See here for an example. Is there a way for us to gain access to PC Data data directly? At the moment I only have access to secondary news sources which are often too vague (e.g. "Disney Interactive had 6 of the best selling children's video games"). Any thoughts? --Coin945 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In 2000, comScore bought certain assets and the customer agreements of PC Data of Reston, Virginia, which was founded by Ann Stephens in 1991. PC Data was among the earliest Web measurement firms, but increasing competitive challenges (including a threat of a patent infringement lawsuit by industry pioneer Media Metrix) put PC Data's future in doubt. The acquisition of PC Data's large customer base helped accelerate the growth of comScore's syndicated measurement service..  · Salvidrim! ·  12:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

👍 Like, however that doesn't answer the question of how to get access to comScore's bank of data. @Samwalton9 (WMF):, any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not much (only spans 1999-2001), but here's an archival link to the PC Data website. They used to publish some of their data there. There's also a trickle of info here (their home after early 2001), and I don't see anything useable here (their next home), but there it is if it helps. Not sure about modern sources for this info... -Thibbs (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
THANK YOU SO MUCH!! <3 It's not perfect, but it's something. --Coin945 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent discussion at SG-1000

Can anyone look at Bololabich's edits (particularly the Master System and the SG-1000) and his response to Talk:SG-1000#Name of the SG-1000's successor? Thanks. – // Hounder4 // 13:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

(Boy, am I glad that they keep console's names consistent between regions nowadays...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The only first time. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 10 September

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

3 September

4 September

5 September

6 September

7 September

8 September

9 September

10 September

Salavat (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Project milestones

On WP:VG it says the project has four major milestones. Anyone else think they are kind of pointless goals? They are based on getting a % of the total number of video game articles to a certain quality. However, the number of new stubs and low quality articles being created counteracts the number of articles promoted to GA/B/C. We haven't hit any of these major milestones since they were last updated nearly two years ago. Currently the best way to increase our milestone progress would probably be to AfD/merge unnecessary articles (to reduce total article count) rather than write better content (to increase number of good articles) because the former process has quicker results. I reckon we should change them from %-based to a fixed numbers that we can realistically aim for. Then it gives editors an incentive to write better content and hit achievable milestones. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • We did hit the last milestones we set ourselves, so that's not a problem. And using a %-based goal ensures that new articles of quality, existing article improvement, AND removal (deletion, merging, redirecting) of low-quality content all contribute toward the goal.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As someone who creates lots of video game stubs, I wholeheartedly agree with The1337gamer's assertion that fixed numbers are a better incentive than %. Taking it to extremes, being percentage-driven leads to a culture where the perfect world is that all WP:VG articles are deleted/merged except the GAs and FAs, resulting in a 100% GA/FA rate. On the other hand, being fixed number driven leads to a culture where the perfect world is an encyclopedia with articles on every (notable) video game ever, in various stages of progress, with editors collaborating with a shared goal of working these articles toward GA/FA (because there is no deadline). My vote is on the second culture, because that's the Wikipedia I signed up for.--Coin945 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Lowering the percentages we're going for may also be an option. "8% of all articles B-class or better" sounds like the kind of thing we could actually work towards and try to maintain. The current numbers are just too far away due to the insane number of video game articles in existence. That being said, I do agree with Coin: using fixed numbers (let's reach 1500 GAs!) would probably create much more drive. ~Mable (chat) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Current and prior goals:
  • 5% GA+ (started 2014-07-30 at 65.85%, now 82.9% (25 months, 25 more projected))
  • 10% B+ (started 2014-09-29 at 51.62%, now 61.9% (23 months, 85 more projected))
  • 20% C+ (started 2014-01-29 at 51.72%, now 68.1% (32 months, 62 more projected))
  • 75% Start+ (started 2014-01-29 at 66.76%, now 74.4% (32 months, 107 more projected))
  • 250 FA/FLs (started 2011-02-08, ended 2014-09-29 (43 months))
  • 750 GAs (started 2011-02-08, ended 2014-07-30 (41 months))
  • 50% Start+ (started 2013-05-30, ended 2014-01-29 (8 months))
  • 10% C+ (started 2011-07-06, ended 2013-05-30 (23 months))
So, while it's true that we've had goals longer than our current longest (32 months) that we've reached, we're not going to reach another goal for at least 2 years, and some of them for 5-9 years. --PresN 18:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? We went from 66.76% Start+ to 74.4% in 32 months, how can you project we'll need 107 more to get from 74.4% to 75%!?!?!  · Salvidrim! ·  18:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You're confusing the milestone with our progress on the milestone. The milestone is get at least 75% articles to Start or better. Our progress to achieving that milestone has gone from 66.76% to 74.4% in 32 months. We need to get to 100% to achieve the Start milestone so his predictions are correct.--The1337gamer (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Two years is too long-term. Six months could work. I mean, that's how I feel about it. That being said, I imagine that once we do get close to a milestone, everything gets really hype. Maybe we could combine the current percentage system with Coin's suggested system? Use both? ~Mable (chat) 20:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • For those who are interested, this has been discussed on these boards in the past. See this discussion for context. I also lean in favor of fixed numbers instead of percentages for milestone goals, but only because I feel that meeting these goals acts as encouragement to the community and that either having unattainable goals or reducing/compromising on these goals for practical reasons when faced with reality can kind of have the opposite effect on morale. And then there's the argument that a percentage-based goal can have the perverse effect (to those of an inclusionist perspective) of encouraging AfDs on WP:VG's less developed articles (sometimes viewed as dead wood by deletionists) rather than encouraging their development. As always I'm happy to abide by the consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • While I don't think that percentage goals are that bad- the perverse incentives (to delete or merge) are minor, and the shifting targets not extreme, I think that they do encourage unrelaistic goals in the pursuit of round numbers. We picked "10% B+" because it was a nice round number and we were already above 5%, but getting to 10% from where we were will take another 7 years. 7% would be more reasonable, but wouldn't sound as good.
  • Frankly, I think we'd be better served with more realistic but complicated goals- "X good or featured topics", "0 Stubs above low-class", "all Top-class articles B or better", "50 Featured pictures", etc. Harder to agree on those, though. --PresN 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Why not both having a fixed target and a moving target? For example, let's say right now we define a fixed target based on VG-tagged articles all created before Jan 1 2015. (read: 2014 and earlier), and we set percentages of FA/GA/etc. for these, alongside percentages for all VG-tagged articles. The percentages for the fixed set should be higher than the moving target (since no new articles can enter that fixed set, and because we've set the creation date of at least a year, there should be reasonable material to improve or otherwise decide the fate of these articles). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Virtual Console releases

For WP:VG editors' attention: Talk:Metroid: Other M#Virtual Console releases. New consensus on the matter. – // Hounder4 // 18:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied. This discussion should happen here. Finding an article that isn't following template documentation doesn't mean other articles should start doing it too. -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Might and Magic IX

User:Eik Corell removed the TELP content off the page, although I understand the idea of no community content I feel it's important to the article as it provides the reader with information on how to patch the game. He mentions it needs coverage from outside sources, publications, it actually was covered by a few of the now defunct magazines on how to fix the game but I threw away my mag's years ago. My web searches don't help but I really feel this content should be restored. Govvy (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Community/fan patches are rarely significant or noteworthy enough to be included in articles. I think he was right to remove it, especially considering no reliable secondary sources have been provided. The information removed seems pretty trivial and community bug fixes are a common thing for pc games. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Collectible card game needs a VG update

I recently participated to the AFD discussion of Magic: The Gathering deck types. A point made by Masem and myself was that these deck archetypes can be found in many of the Magic-inspired games such as Hearthstone and that the article could/should reflect that.

But collectible card game itself, being the main article, is probably more in need of a VG update. I think the article is within the scope of this project, and I think the lead, overview and history sections should give more coverage to CCG video games. - hahnchen 08:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Virtual Console releases in infobox. New consensus on the matter.

Hello. I would like to have a new consensus on adding the Virtual Console games release dates in the infobox as seen here, and here. Like such, there are many releases from the Virtual Console that are not on the infoboxes in the game's pages. And therefore I would like to change that and put such releases in there. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I personally support putting all releases in the inbox, as leaving out various releases for various reasons isn't very intuitive for newbies, who edit this sort of thing all the time. I don't think it's worth the time and effort to maintain information like this that isn't incorrect or detrimental. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally would adjust the infobox as well, to put the other releases in there. That way you wouldn't have to do some hunting to find what releases on what. If one game has another remake release on that particular game, then it would be logical to put other versions release on that particular article without having to do a search over and over, for newbie Wikipedians. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence. It's easy to overload the infobox with dozens of release dates. But I also find the current template doc for the released and platform fields to be a mess of rules. However until they change I'll keep tweaking to match them. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this only for VC releases, or anytime it's emulated on another platform? If it's only for VC releases, then how do they different from other sorts of emulated re-releases? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would oppose this. I think we really need to take steps to reduce release dates in the infobox, keeping only the primarily first release date, while any other release details can be documented in the article proper, which would include VC release, or, say, Xbox One backwards compat titles, etc. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed at length on the infobox's talk page. I'm with Masem in that the infobox is already an inconsistent and mostly unsourced mess. I don't think it needs more than the date of original release (like every other media template on WP). Release timelines and tables in the Release section are the right way to handle other visualizations of release data. But if it doesn't fit well in prose and only serves as a magnet for pedantic edit warring over specific dates (rather than timeframes), well, we should really be asking whether the information is encyclopedic enough for inclusion at all. czar 05:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I also oppose. If we list virtual console release dates in the infobox, then we have to do the same for other platforms, like backward compatible 360 games available too buy on Xbox One. The infobox becomes a giant mess. It also just encourages people to add unsourced dates to the infobox without adding the information in the article body. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would recommend an exception though for games such as the original Mother since that game had its official Western release on the Vietual Consile.-- (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, this would be a point I'd agree with is that for games developed in Japan or other Asian countries and nearly always released some time (months to years) before the Western release, that this second date makes sense, and if that happens to be the VC release, then so be it. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Since it's not a direct ROM port, it would be excused anyway. We already do this for the GameCube versions of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask (they have GameCube specific button icons in the HUD, meaning it's been changed from the N64 ROM), so I don't see why we wouldn't here too. If the game was just released on the VC as the unaltered Japanese ROM, it wouldn't belong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Computer and Video Game Studies Journals access

This University of Michigan Library site lists a series of video game-related journals that might prove interesting for this project. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I was wondering about your thoughts regarding getting access to them through Wikipedia, ala Wikipedia:HighBeam?--Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • ACM Computers in Entertainment: Computers in Entertainment covers a wide range of theoretical and practical computer applications...
  • Elsevier Entertainment Computing: Entertainment Computing publishes original, peer-reviewed research articles on topics including computer...
  • Eludamos: Eludamos is an international, multi-disciplined, biannual e-journal that publishes peer-reviewed...
  • Games and Culture: Games and Culture: A Journal of Interactive Media is a quarterly international journal that publishes...
  • Game Studies: Game Studies is a crossdisciplinary journal dedicated to games research, web-published several times a year...
  • Loading... Loading... attempts to provide a mixed-methods approach to the study of digital games. It covers both...
  • Simulation and Gaming: Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research appraises academic...
Academic papers are generally unhelpful for our articles, mainly for their low quality than anything else—they sometimes require original research just to interpret what they're saying... (Many even cite Wikipedia, which brings its own host of problems.)
Per Ulrich's, the following products offer full-text:
  1. Computers in Entertainment (ISSN 1544-3981) in ACM Digital Library (2003–2014), EBSCOhost Applied Science & Technology, Computers & Applied Sciences, or EBSCO Engineering Collection: India (since 2007), NexisDirect; indexing in EBSCOhost
  2. Elsevier Entertainment Computing (ISSN 1875-9521) is in Elsevier... good luck
  3. Eludamos (ISSN 1866-6124) is open access:
  4. Games and Culture (ISSN 1555-4120) in Sage (TWL currently only providing stats coverage from Sage), supposedly also in IngentaConnect
  5. Game Studies (ISSN 1604-7982) is open access:
  6. Loading... (ISSN 1923-2691) is open access:
  7. Simulation and Gaming (ISSN 1046-8781) also in Sage and Ingenta
A number of these were also indexed (no full text) in the main EBSCOhost and ProQuest products, meaning a firehose search at your local university will show you what papers might be relevant, and you can always request those at resource exchange for help from those with access. Ping @Samwalton9 (WMF), who handles new partnerships for TWL czar 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for finding all this out Czar! In regards to the Sage journals, keep an eye out for our announcements next month ;) @Coin945: If you have any more requests like this feel free to stick them on WP:TWL/Databases/Requests and I'll look into them for you :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
👍 Like.--Coin945 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I visit from time to time, but in my opinion, the quality of the papers aren't always as good. As a former student of pastoral care, I am very interested in the use of religious and philosophical elements in games (BioShock, Fallout 3, Brothers); I frequent Online, from Heidelberg University for that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Two GANs awaiting reviews

Over two months ago, I have nominated Doom (2016 video game) for the GA-status, and, recently, I have nominated the Worms Armageddon article for the status. I just thought that I could highlight those articles awaiting reviews. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There are fifteen other articles waiting for reviews too. The process is stalled right now. GamerPro64 15:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gamingforfun365: Worms only just got nominated, but what has been keeping the Doom article from being reviewed is likely its length - it simply takes more time and effort to review it than shorter articles. If you don't want to wait, my suggestion is that you offer to review another editor's medium-sized/long GAN in exchange for a review of yours.--IDVtalk 09:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Video game lists by country of developer

Thoughts on this category and its lists? Looks like a mess to me czar 04:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This is better suited for categories, which already exists. These list articles should be deleted, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games developed in Belgium. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Wacht 's even @Maplestrip, ik dacht dat ik de enige Nederlander hier was! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Lol, no, you aren't ^_^; I'm sure there are plenty of people from the Netherlands that are active on Wikipedia. We gotta meet up sometime ;p But yeah, not really relevant to the discussion, of course. ~Mable (chat) 18:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How to handle a released game that purposely removes high-level features in later updates?

Orcs Must Die! Unchained was released with both PvP and PvE elements, but they had just announced that they plan to drop the PvP elements to focus on PvE. [2]. Obviously at some point in that article we can describe that the game as originally released had these features, and describe their decision to remove it. However, I would like input how to do this:

  1. Should the original gameplay mode that was removed be kept in the "Gameplay" section or should be relocated to "Development"? If kept in "Gameplay" how best to describe it?
  2. If moved, should this move be done before the update that will remove the feature goes live or afterwards?

--MASEM (t) 15:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: I think the Gameplay section should describe how the game plays at the time of writing. If a game was updated to include multiplayer features we would write about them in Gameplay, so it seems sensible to me that descriptions of how the game previously played should move to Development, and I'd think that this should be done after the feature is live. Sam Walton (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
In general, we are bad at post-release development and reception for (usually) MMOGs. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As a counter-point to Sam, we also describe the gameplay of games that are not playable at all in present tense (MMOs like Final Fantasy XIV, old games like Space Travel (video game), so I could also see the idea of a paragraph at the end of gameplay "Prior to an update on Date X, OMD!U contained a PvP mode. In it..." and describe the now-defunct mode in past-tense. I'm just not sure that putting a bunch of gameplay information into the development section, even if it's no longer playable, is a good idea from a readability perspective. --PresN 17:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I was actually going to mention something about that in my reply, but forgot before I hit save. My suggestion would be 'as current playable, or as last playable'. That said, I'm not against the idea of having "[Game] previously included [feature]" if that feature is significant. Sam Walton (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
For the record, we only use past tense if a game is actually considered lost. Many MMOs and old games can still be played in some state. The line of when a game is actually considered lost can be vague, though. Darkspore seems to be lost now that the servers are down and the game can no longer be played at all. Should Space Travel also be considered lost? It seems like the game might not even exist anymore, though such a status is left vague in the article... ~Mable (chat) 20:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the actual physical program punchcards are probably still in existence in a box somewhere, and there's still a handful of PDP-7s in existence, but practically the game is gone and will never be played again. I just went with the default present-tense to avoid the argument altogether. --PresN 20:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It might be an argument worth having again, but not here. We're off-topic. ~Mable (chat) 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Edutainment drive

The edutainment (educational video game) genre has been unrepresented on Wikipedia for a while. I propose that we conduct a drive to work on some of the more popular series within this genre. Yes, they may be "for kids", but that doesn't make them any less worthwhile than other genres. There is a lot of nostalgia to these series which has drawn me towards them. Considering they are highly successful (Reader Rabbit sold over 6 million copies, and won over 175 awards), and given the recent expansion of Madeline video games, I believe there is a great opportunity for some collaborative editing in this space. Some examples are listed below.

Thoughts? :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I do have fond memories of playing JumpStart Math for Second Graders in Swedish, but I can barely find any coverage in online sources. Seems to be difficult to write an article on it, unless there's a lot of coverage in magazines from when the game came out. If someone finds sources that can be used, I'm up for writing that article, but I'm not very interested in writing about edutainment games in general.--IDVtalk 09:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd say we should do some work on the List of American Girl video games as well. Thought we'd turn it into a series overview similar to Madeline with separate entries for each of the games, but notability for them is a bit of a stretch unless we get reliable sources (offline and online) alike. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
That, my friend, would be golden if we expand upon some if not all of the games from the series. I am yet to find any worthwhile references to back up the others though, like with American Girls Dress Designer and various other titles in the series. On a related note I did manage to hack the latter game to make it work on Windows NT-based OSes along with a friend of mine, as it's hard for me to just start a new VM for the sole purpose of running the game and taking screenshots from it. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There, just started a preliminary draft for you to play around with. ;) Blake Gripling (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice preliminary draft! I don't have a large amount of free time at the moment due to real life events getting in the way, so I'm not sure how much help I could be with writing that article. I've also never played games in the series before so I have no personal context with which to understand the sources. But with the sources I listed above, and with your brains, I know that article can become amazing. I would recommend starting with an article on The American Girls Premiere first, and making that as good as it can be, and then afterwards doing research on the other titles.--Coin945 (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do for now. ;) Blake Gripling (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Source I just found for y'all - Computer Gaming World December 1991 had a survey of educational software (page 38) and a review of Where in America's Past is Carmen Sandiego (page 106). --PresN 16:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I had been offering minor assistance to Deltasim last year in expanding the Freddi Fish articles (background: 1, 2). Deltasim has made some substantial efforts in the area of children's (often educational) video games so he might be a good person to contact for assistance/advice. -Thibbs (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I also did created the article Magic Tales, which has shares some characteristics to Living Books as well as Draft:Edmark House Series. I made a number of improvements to Fun School and many of the Humongous Entertainment adventure games. An article that would be good to add is "Europress Living Classics", yet another click-and-point storybook series. I'm happy to help in the edutainment area. Deltasim (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Talks from this last weekend's Roguelike Celebration

The official channel from this last weekend's Roguelike Celebration are available at [YouTube]. Keep in mind this was mostly for the classic roguelikes (not roguelike-likes etc.). Also trying to see if we can get photos but would appreciate any help or leads towards this if possible. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 16 September

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

10 September

11 September

12 September

13 September

14 September

15 September

16 September

Salavat (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:LEGO Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Video Game is a hoax and should be deleted. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirected Watch Dogs (series) because of our consensus that there should be at least 3 titles in a series to warrant a series article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Furry games?

Hi everyone,

Is List of furry role-playing games an actual thing? Or is this WP:OR that looks at supposed furry elements within RPGs? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, with the list being unsourced, and a majority of the articles on it I spot checked being very poorly sourced. It's not my specialty area, so I don't know how viable such a list may or may not be, but if it were to be kept, I would think it would have to be completely reworked with some sort of inclusion criteria. (RS's verifying entries, defining if it takes any more than just anthropomorphic animals being present in a RPG to be included, etc.) I'm also curious as to why more seemingly obvious, mainstream animal-based titles aren't included. (Sonic Chronicles, Tail Concerto, Solatorobo, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Furry works as a genre(?) are rarely discussed by mainstream media, and the term may be considered somewhat diminutive when applied to a work (because "furry" gets a bad rep). I think it would be important to source a list of furry games well, and if we can't, I don't think we should have such a list. That being said, I don't know any of the listed games either, and some of the descriptions sound convincing: "... allows players to create their own customized mutant animals ..." ; "... a genetically engineered race of anthropomorphic animals ..."; etc. Still, though, it's WP:OR. I'd rather keep it with a category instead. ~Mable (chat) 19:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Arguably these should be classified as "anthropomorphic creatures" rather than "furry", the latter being more a culture rather than something concrete that is readily obvious to the situation. There's a lot of subtly into the "furry" term that doesn't readily match with the intent of these games (like TMNT), but they all clearly feature humanized creatures. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
As soon as you title it "List of role-playing games featuring anthropomorphic creatures"/"animals", the list starts too look very crufty. ~Mable (chat) 05:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
This was a thought of mine as well, though I wasn't knowledgeable enough about the culture to say for sure. The "Furry" is more about people dressing up like anthropomorphic animals, right? To call these animal-based games "furry games", isn't that comparable to calling Final Fantasy 7 a "cosplay" game or something? As in, they're both erroneous in the same way, with the term referring more to what fans do rather than what the game itself is actually doing? Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Furry culture is complicated, but yeah, I imagine that very few of these games were created with intend of serving as a "furry game". They may be very notable among the furry community, but without any reliable sources, that's all conjecture or original research anyway. ~Mable (chat) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment and would probably chop a bunch of the entries from the list in question. The mere presence of anthropomorphized animals does not make it a "furry" thing. It requires input, acceptance, and propagation through the furry community to acquire that distinction. Alternatively, if the creator is a member of the community and created the thing with the intention of it being for the community, that would also count. Sources sources sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And part of the problem is that there are likely going to be some of these that may look "furry" but the author won't necessary say that "furry" was an influence, given that at times, that is also a negative label. The developer absolutely has to self-identify the game coming from that culture. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, you can have a list of games that are highly notable among the furry community even if the games were not designed as such, if you have sources. But we don't have sources. ~Mable (chat) 00:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with sources it is possible, but in the confines of "RPG", it's going to be a very short list. A sourced list of games developed in the vein of the furry culture would be better (if not a large media article). --MASEM (t) 01:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

3DO and Gex sales

A while ago, I found articles in GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly cover-dated October-November 1995 which state that sales for Gex had just exceeded one million units. (You can see the citations for both articles in 3DO Interactive Multiplayer.) I was immediately skeptical; Gex had at this point only been released for the 3DO, and going by every sales figure I've seen for the console, that would mean the 3DO version of Gex had an attach rate of over 1:2. Bear in mind that this was before Gex became a pack-in game. However, I couldn't claim to have found solidly reliable sales figures for the 3DO, a 1:2 attach rate isn't actually impossible, and it's hard to swallow that both GamePro and EGM would be duped by the same grossly inflated sales figure, so I went ahead and added the info to the relevant articles.

Present day: I found an article in Next Generation, coincidentally also cover-dated November 1995, which says "Global sales [for the 3DO] stand at around 750,000, with 300,000 sold in the U.S." That would make 1 million sales of Gex essentially impossible. Generally speaking I wouldn't say GamePro or EGM are more likely to embarrassingly goof up than Next Generation, but my gut is telling me that "3DO sales were 750,000 units as of ~September 1995" is a lot closer to reality than "Gex sold over a million copies even before it became a pack-in." So I'm not sure who to believe. Can anyone offer their thoughts or reliable sourced info on 3DO/Gex sales?--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Could the figure for Gex be "retailed purchased" and not "consumer purchased"? I'm thinking how sales of games were considered back then, which generally seemed to be based on what retailers grabbed, rather than the shelf sales, but I'm not 100% sure on that. That said, if you can't get any other clarification, you could always say something like "Gex's sales figures are unclear: While GamePro and EGM stated Gex sold more one million copies, Next Generation reported that global sales for the 3DO were at 750,000." This isn't SYNTH nor POV-ish, and giving proper attribution to a disputed fact. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd be really interested to find out about this; the sales numbers for the series as a whole are really odd. I ran into it at List of Square Enix franchises, where (through their purchase of Eidos) it's the 5th-best selling series Square Enix has. As in, Kingdom Hearts with 11 games has 22 million, Gex with 3 has 15 million, and Hitman with 9 has 15 million (all numbers are minimums; the true sales are likely higher). That's... bizarre. Both for selling so many copies with only 3 games, and for the absurd fact that, what, it was Eidos's 2nd-best selling series after Tomb Raider and they just abruptly dropped the whole franchise in 1999? Those kind of sales numbers would mean that a crappy tie-in game would sell half a million, and they just never bothered? --PresN 01:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Masem. For some reason I keep forgetting that sales figures often refer to units shipped to retailers rather than units passed on to consumers. Reviewing the two articles, neither is explicit as to which of those two it refers to ("with sales figures that passed the one million mark in July"). Still, I find it hard to believe Crystal Dynamics would have manufactured 250,000 more copies of Gex than there were 3DO owners; my understanding was that that sort of speculative manufacturing was only done with cartridges, since with CDs it's easier to do smaller batches and second runs. Am I mistaken on that count? I'll take your suggestion about directly stating that the sales figures are unclear. Hopefully we'll eventually find something that clears this up, but honestly, I'm surprised that I was able to find this much information on Gex sales!
PresN - That is kind of baffling about Gex sales, especially as I had thought that aside from the first game, reviews for the series weren't that great. I'll keep an eye out for more info.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"Mixed to positive"

Hi all, does the WikiProject have a position on "mixed to positive", "mixed to negative" phrasing in video game articles? I know that WikiProject Film shuns it pretty universally as poor writing and WP:SYNTH. For context, I opened a discussion at Talk:Batman: The Telltale Series, because this phrasing keeps showing up, largely because Metacritic has three different ratings for three different platforms, and editors are mushing together the one "mixed" summary with the two "positive" summaries to arrive at "mixed to positive". Thanks. (Also, comments appreciated in the discussion at Batman...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen several VG articles where this has been frowned on, as "mixed to positive" has a meaning akin to "negative to positive to positive", which of course makes no sense. I do not believe there's any sort of guideline that explicitly calls it out though. The appropriate way to state it in my view, with one system lagging behind others, would be along the lines of "General positive reviews for the X and Y systems, but mixed reviews for the Z system." Which of course can be directly sourced, while "mixed to positive" is bit SYNTHy, as you noted. -- ferret (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm personally against it because it's an awkward statement. People use it to express the idea of "medium", but mixed means "across the board negative to positive". When people say "mixed to positive", they're trying to say "medium to positive", but in actuality, they're saying something to the capacity of "negative to positive to positive". Between that, and the fact that it's almost always used to POV push a more favorable view onto a subject, leads me to usually remove it. I see others do the same sometimes, though I don't think we have an official stance on it as a WikiProject. I'd be in favor of putting it in the guidelines if we could get a consensus for it though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I've always eschewed it for pretty much the same reasons as what the both of you have outlined. I'm just repeating what you both said, but in my head, yes, "mixed" means positive and negative. In my interpretation, "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" is an attempt to say "skews from 'meh' to slightly positive" or "skews from 'meh' to slightly negative", but once we start getting into nuanced gradations, we're analyzing the analysis and (as argued at the talk page above) aggregating the aggregators (Metacritic, in this case.) Though I'm not a regular at this WikiProject, I'd be happy to participate in any more formalized discussion on the matter, and would still welcome opinions con and pro about this. If consensus were against this phrasing, having something codified one way or another would certainly help other gnomes such as myself in managing the virus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You could just not include the statement at all. I know alot reception sections open with a "Game received positive/negative/mixed reviews from critics." but it's not like a mandatory requirement that we must specify how the game was received according to an aggregator. If it's not clear, then I think it's best not to make poorly phrased and possibly confusing statements. Instead open the section with "The game was praised for A, B, C and criticised for X, Y, Z" or something before going into detail. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This "Mixed to Positive" discussion received CRITICAL ACCLAIM from critics, and a score of 63 on Metacritic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
What? No universal critical acclaim from critics? Face-wink.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it could be eliminated, and I said as much at the Batman article. I don't really see the point of summarizing what is already a summary--I've gone on record with this in the world of film articles, but it seems an uphill battle, and every time a summary gets removed, someone puts it back. Seems like something that should be addressed in some meaningful way that results in a wiki shortcut. Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think removing the opening sentence entirely is too much of an uphill battle, but I'm still all for trimming out all the "mixed to positive" crap. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Any opposition?

Any opposition to putting this in the guidelines? Are any regulars in favor of the phrase and have some sort of defense for it? Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd been keeping quiet since I can't think of a polite way of expressing my thoughts on the subject, and from the sounds of the posts above people are already very sensitive about this. But since you asked... Frankly, it seems that the sentiment to eliminate this phrase is pedantic in a rather bizarre way. The thrust of the argument seems to be that reviews can only be either positive or negative, despite the general public's impression that there is something in between: a mixed review, meaning that it contains a mix of praises and criticisms with no overarching recommendation that "Everyone should buy this" or "Nobody should buy this." This terminology is in very common usage and very intuitive, and it seems rather silly that everyone here is pretending to not understand what it means. The claim that "received mixed to positive reviews" violates WP:SYNTH but "received positive reviews" does not is especially baffling.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not my take at all. No one is asking to eliminate "mixed", but the silly nonsensical "mixed to positive". As for suggesting "received positive reviews" might also be SYNTH, it's not, if sourced correctly to an aggregator (Metacritic). Metacritic never says "mixed to positive". -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never seen an article which says "According to Metacritic, the game received positive reviews." Only "The game received positive reviews.", with no immediate reference.
I fully understand that no one is asking to eliminate "mixed". You've misinterpreted my post somehow.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure how to read your post then, as it seems to pretty clearly suggest there was an argument that "reviews can only be either positive or negative". As for referencing "According to Metacritic", I see that in dozens of articles and often add it myself. Sometimes the direct citation may be missing from the sentence (I.e. Metacritic is referenced in the review template), but the statement needs a source, and Metacritic is typically the best we have. -- ferret (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Martin IIIa, I too am having difficulty understanding what you're objecting to. The discussion is about "mixed to ____" phrasing, which is already generally shunned by WikiProject Film, and seems to have little, if any support at this Wikiproject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties understanding as well. Perhaps you're not following our discussion as well? I went ahead and wrote an entry on it on the guidelines a few days back since there was consensus to do so. Read it over at WP:VG/POV. Do you still have the same concerns? If so, perhaps you can reword your concern then? The issue isn't so much WP:SYNTH, its more that the phrase is awkward and doesn't make sense. The fact that fans often use it to POV push a more positive spin on their game is more of a negative by-product that comes from its use commonly. The core issue is that its an awkward phrase not used any besides poorly written Wikipedia articles (or maybe other Wikias or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
"I'm unsure how to read your post then", "I too am having difficulty understanding", "I'm having difficulties understanding as well" - See, this is precisely what I'm talking about. The meaning of "mixed to positive reviews"/"mixed to negative reviews" is intuitive and obvious, and I don't for one second believe that anyone here could be genuinely confused as to what it means. So the fact that the entire argument for its removal is based around claiming that it "makes no sense", and then responding to any counter-arguments with "I don't understand", raises serious doubts in my mind as to whether there is any objection to the phrasing itself, rather than to a blatantly contrived misunderstanding of that phrasing.
As to the side note about POV, having done quite a bit of editing in the Reception sections, I have yet to see any evidence, even circumstantial, of the phrasing being used to push POV. If a fan wants to push POV, they don't write "mixed to positive reviews"; they write "positive reviews" or "great critical acclaim" and either delete or just ignore any sourced criticism.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not...entirely sure what sort of thing you're accusing everyone else of here when you don't believe we're honestly confused with you, (or what motivations anyone could possibly have for that), but I assure you, it's a combination of a confusing opening statement by you, coupled with a distaste for awkward wording in prose by everyone else. It's not a matter of "Well we know what it means, so just go with it." We know what the word "aint" means, but that doesn't mean its acceptable encyclopedic writing. Beyond the awkwardness, don't you find it concerning that "Mixed to positive" isn't something any aggregators or individual websites use to describe the reception of the game? Wikipedia "documents" information, it doesn't "create" it - so if no one else uses it, how can we justify using it ourselves? There's just no need for it. Either use "mixed" or "generally positive". In any disputes arise, defer to the descriptor used by the aggregator. There's really nothing that falls between the cracks with that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is any question that, as an encyclopedia, we prefer clear language over ambiguity any day. When someone challenges the meaning of a sentence at FAC, no one even questions their misinterpretation—they rewrite the sentence so that misinterpretation is impossible. When writing about something as broad and important as a game's reputation we should be as clear as the sources will allow. "Mixed to positive" is sloppy—the phrase should be recast to explain what about it was mixed and what about it was positive and who said so. I don't think it would hurt to make such a statement in the guidelines. We are much better off using no broad characterization at all when nary a source gives one. Citing the exact phrase Metacritic uses to summarize reception is the way to go, as it's unambiguous and verifiable. czar 02:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Atari Lynx games

I have asked in the past ages ago, but I might bring back the question of notability of the games in this list, specifically under the heading of Cancelled titles, pre-license and Unlicensed titles with a cartridge release I tried to work out what was home-brew and questioned why some of these are included. Specifically as Songbird Productions has come up for AfD and there are a fair few of their games on the list. Govvy (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We should probably discuss this in a more general sense, since List of Game Boy games, List of Nintendo 3DS games, and List of PlayStation Vita games (A–L) (to name just a few) also have sections for cancelled games and unlicensed games. I don't like the idea of listing off cancelled games, since every system has a whole bunch of these and cataloging them all, especially with good sourcing, is a near impossible task. Having categories for cancelled games is one thing, but inclusion in a "List" article implies that the list is comprehensive or near-comprehensive. Unlicensed games I'm unsure about, though certainly as a rule unlicensed games are very low-run, tiny niche releases.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
A while back I removed a big chunk of the article, notably what I thought all the home-brew games were, I haven't had any argument. Hope it's okay, Govvy (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Time Top 50 for 2016

I didn't see this when it came out last month, but here's Time's Top 50 Video Games of All Time. It's unlikely any of these games need a sourcing boost, but this is something that should be included in all these listed. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Rise of the Tomb Raider is number 18? Their explanation for it being on there could describe any of the other games in the series. GamerPro64 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I know right? And it's way ahead of Bioshock! Whatever, at least I got a good laugh out of it. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Silly list indeed. Doesn't really matter. I wonder if this list gets covered by any third-parties. If not, I wouldn't say that it is "something that should be included in all these listed." ~Mable (chat) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Destructoid covered it by making fun of the list. Time's '50 best video games of all time' list has broken me. GamerPro64 19:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

But Time gives each game a paragraph of flavor text, treading much closer to the diminutive "listicle" that serves nothing, aside from "content."

czar 00:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we can mostly ignore it. ~Mable (chat) 09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
While I am not questioning that there's some odd choices on this list and the approach it takes, keep in mind that Time generally is still considered one of the better reliable sources at large and that we have included Time's lists before; purposeful omission because we (presumably all video game players and know there are some questions) think it is wrong does beg some questions. What if, say, WSJ, came out tomorrow with a top ten video game list (made under editorial oversight) with Daikatana at #1? Do we ignore that? --MASEM (t) 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm mostly saying that I think we can ignore this listicle because it adds little to nothing to the article it lists. I mean, this is hardly the most prestigious title Tetris and Super Mario 64 have claimed. It may be due to be used in DotA 2, but with such a low placing, I still don't think it's particularly interesting. It's just one reliable source of of many that praises the games highly. Add it to the list of video games considered the best, I guess. ~Mable (chat) 15:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
In general, Wikipedia is infested with far too many listicle references. "In 2006, listed FooBarBaz as having one of the 30 greatest villains," etc. This applies to movies & songs even worse than video games, actually. The only valid time this works is truly epochal lists that are by definition rare, or a claim that *many* sources reference an element as being awesome, not just one.
The TIME list *might* be valid for List of video games considered the best, but it seems slapdash enough to not even be worth much effort there. Time is out of its domain so any prestige it has from news reporting elsewhere doesn't really carry over. SnowFire (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This. I agree with that Destructoid quote—the Time article is an indicator of how far our mighty publications have fallen. In theory, yes, this Time article should have been a big deal if it added cite-worthy substance (there is a whole lot to be said on legacy of these games that a reputable publication has yet to say) but the way that it's written, I wouldn't even include it unless I were listing from a bunch of "top"-lists. The fact that the article reads like a listicle makes me—and I think many others—question the esteem in which we hold Time. czar 02:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible need for a mass revert

KATMAKROFAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has undone many of PresN and other user's changes to the WPVG templates, as seen in their contributions, here (scroll down a bit). As far as I know, consensus in this wikiproject is to use the {{WPVG icon direct}} for all the stub templates (that don't have a custom icon) and many other wikiproject related templates. Is a revert of their changes necessary? It seems like the user does not like the template, as shown by their userpage. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I blocked his edit request at Template talk:Non-free video game screenshot based on the fact he does not have obvious consensus for his requested change there. His apparent rationales are (separately): "WikiProject advertisement", "ILIKEIT", and "BOLD". I believe this is a new user who does not know how Wikipedia works very well. --Izno (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, since he claims he was just "being BOLD", he should know that the next step of BRD is the revert, so... reverting him. He has been informed of this discussion; if he doesn't like the new logo, then he/we should discuss it here rather than changing the logo in only some of the templates that use it (seriously, that's the entire point of the VG icon direct template, that you only have to change one place.) --PresN 12:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Top-importance" marking

What types of article do you specifically mark as "top-importance". From what I am seeing, I don't seem to find many articles relating to WikiProject Video Games with priority of "Top" within its project. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Importance scale details the kinds of articles rated top by this project and Category:Top-importance video game articles or this shows the 50 top importance articles. Sam Walton (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
We don't have many, deliberately. --Izno (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
And why deliberately? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft appears twice in Top

We have separately Microsoft and Microsoft Studios appearing in this list, whereas e.g. Valve (company) does not. I think some re-assessment might be necessary; and especially, we might consider the real-world impact of esports a bit more than our current assessment guidelines do. --Izno (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I reclassed Microsoft to 'high', reclassed esports to top. I think reclassing Valve to top is also a good idea, but it seems less straightforward, so I'll let the discussion continue first. I think it's a good idea to announce any changes to the ranking of top-importance articles here while the discussion is going on, so that no confusion exists. ~Mable (chat) 11:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think both Ubisoft and Take-Two Interactive deserve their Top ranking, but then they do not seem to be as influential as the other companies ranked as "Top". AdrianGamer (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think top importance companies are primarily those that deliver major gaming platforms. In this manner, Valve would be relevant, due to Steam being a major platform, as well as the fact that Valve has released various influential games over the years. I'm fine either way. With Ubisoft and Take-Two, I don't know. I don't think too much focus should be laid on companies in general, as the company itself is primarily consequential because of their managing and producing roles, not because of their creative roles. ~Mable (chat) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always wondered... in the 10 years I've been an editor here... what actually is the purpose of "importance" ratings? In my mind, it only helps editors and readers indirectly by highlighting the articles that need the most immediate and desperate attention, due to being the most vital to the topic and relevant to the readership. I've seen resources being wasted in reclassification discussions various times in the past, and I just wanted to say my two cents that it's probably not worth going down this rabbit hole. Article quality, I can understand. It is important to an editor, and even a reader as it gives them a guideline of how comprehensive and vetted the content is. But importance... I just don't see the appeal.--Coin945 (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Primarily it is to help projects like WP:1.0 (that is, what slice of WP:VG's articles would be most essential to have in an offline version). Additionally, for editors looking just to help and without any specific interest, we'd like them to focus on improving articles higher up the scale. Stronger core (top importance) articles make our project look better. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I feel like "top", for WPVG at least, is a (purposely) small enough set that it can be useful to keep track of what's in it. Anything beyond that and I personally don't like to spend time on it; I agree that spending time arguing about if a given article is "mid" or "high" isn't really a good use of energy. That said, I haven't actually seen a lot of discussions about the importance ratings in this project, besides this one. --PresN 14:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. There are merits in having a small subset of "Top-importance" articles. I also agree that it seems utterly irrelevant whether an article is High or Mid-importance. Low could potentially provide a hint of an article's non-notability? I don't know. Nevertheless WP:VG is lucky, only having had one Importance-related discussion. With Importance, and the similar Vital and Core article lists, it can be easy to get carried away. (Yay, "Video game" is included in both the Vital and Core lists!)--Coin945 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I've seen a few discussions on this page related to assessment, usually to tune the guidance or to double-check the assessments toward the top of the assessment tree. Not one in the past year though, I'd say. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If you dig too much, you'll see much of the WP:1.0 stuff is relatively inconsequential and subjective. It doesn't really matter if an article is tagged as a "Start" or "C class". Some GA's are painstakingly done with great detail, while others are rushed through with minor efforts and lenient reviewers. If it helps people with motivation and organization, it's not a bad thing, but it ultimately doesn't really matter much beyond that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Importance doesn't matter much. Discussing it every once in a while isn't too bad (especially when it's about top-class). I think the discussion of whether to discuss importance is a waste of time. I should note that importance ratings were actually one of the things that got me interested in Wikipedia, so the existence of the tags surely aren't all bad ^_^; Luckily, these discussions aren't that common anymore. ~Mable (chat) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Right, exactly. They don't hurt anything. That's why I'm not rallying to abolish them or something. (Honestly, based off my conversations with non-Wikipedia editors in person, I doubt most readers and casual editors even know the WP:1.0 stuff exists.) But if a more serious editor finding a mid-level article in terrible shape motivates them to improve it, then its a net positive at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Proteus to FA

I know that last time I nominated Proteus I said it would be the last time, but the little clock in the FA column on my userpage has been irking me. At the last FAC the primary concern was copyediting - it seems like the consensus is that the content and sourcing is all good. I've run through it a number of times trying to improve the prose but there's only so much I can do. Could I get some opinions on the article and help copyediting it ready for a fourth (and hopefully final) FAC? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you thought about contacting JimmyBlackwing? I think he's retired now but his copyediting has helped bring a lot of articles to either GA or FA status. GamerPro64 23:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey all. Yeah, I don't edit here much, but I still check Wikipedia every day. Ironically, it looks like my comment is the one that torpedoed the FAC in question! Work keeps me really busy, but glancing at the article, I see that it's on the short side. I have to say, it's tempting. I'll see if I can commit any time to copyediting it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I applied some general VG guideline edits to the article, so that should help some. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 23 September

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

16 September

17 September

18 September

19 September

20 September

21 September

22 September

23 September

Salavat (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open world is not a genre - Part 2

Ok do we have an official guideline on the usage of "Open World" in the opening sentence yet? And if not? Why not?

Discussion, after discussion, after discussion, after discussion, after discussion. It's stupid and I'm fed up of having to deal with people about it the same way I'm fed up of dealing with "Mixed to positive" and "universal acclaim" people about it. We need to enshrine it, now, that it is not a genre, it is not a defining trait (since every game and its mother can be classed as open world almost now), and it doesn't belong in the opening sentence, it is to be discussed IF NECESSARY alongside discussion of gameplay or design. It needs to be nipped now, or it will just continue on forever. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We call the Mass Effect series "science fiction" in the lead, despite that not being a genre. I don't have a problem with including it in legitimate open world games, such as Skyrim and Witcher 3. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I do think in the case of Mass Effect series where there have been multiple games of varying type that it is better to classify it by theme than gameplay, but an individual ME game should be called by gameplay. On the other hand, a series that has had the same gameplay for all games within it (including any spin-offs) should be named by its gameplay genre. (Thing is, off the top of my head, I can't think of any long-enough series to have 100% consistent gameplay, even things like Sly Cooper or Jak & Daxter has weird varients.)
As to the first question, open world is a gameplay mechanic but I do agree that its not a genre. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
How off topic is that? What does people misapplying thematic genres have to do with using a gameplay jargon design term in the lead? As for the use of "science fiction", then we shouldn't call it science fiction in the lead? It's an action RPG. This is exactly why this discussion is needed because you start drawing in whatever terms you feel like then suddenly every article is opening with "Call of Duty is an action-drama-sometimes-science-fiction first-person shooter game."Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
At least science fiction is a literary genre. It makes sense for the lead of a strongly narrative-based franchise. video game genres aren't exactly perfect either, so keeping stuff like this open can be useful and meaningful. Open world would often be less useful, in the same way that "has RPG-mechanics" wouldn't be useful. I mean, it's more descriptive than "sandbox", but it's not great. However, I do think we should describe our games as reliable sources describe them. ~Mable (chat) 10:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. It's a good descriptor for prose, but it shouldn't be in the genre field... Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Dissident93. I don't see the issue with saying that the game is open world in the opening sentence if it is considered as an open world game. It shouldn't be listed as a genre in the infobox, but I think it is important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think it is important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence? Refer to the discussion linked above, do we put "Linear shooter"? "hub-based action adventure"? Non-narrative survival horror? 80's themed dance game? No. Why would there be special treatment for open world? Especially when Open World can apply to almost anything? Is Deus Ex an open world game? If not, why not? Because it loads hubs? GTA: Vice City or GTA: III, one or both includes loading between some areas, so it can be considered hub based as well, why one and not the other? The first sentence should refer to the primary genre, not a broadly applied level design term. There are no major awards for best Open World game, there are best action adventure, and best first person shooter however. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If sources commonly call a game an open world game, then it is one. Level design could be a defining characteristic for games like GTA, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed, and it is definitely important to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. If you are worrying about WP:JARGON, then genre is no better. (4X, Stealth game, roguelike, dungeon crawl, tower defense, Hack and slash, god game, interactive movie and Toys-to-life are all jargon.) AdrianGamer (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
These things are mutually exclusive. If sources call it open world you're still not presenting a reason that it should be mentioned in the opening sentence while blatantly ignoring the alternatives ( "Linear shooter"? "hub-based action adventure"? Non-narrative survival horror? 80's themed dance game?) I just mentioned that demonstrate how inconsequential it is to the opening sentence and why it should not be mentioned alongside genre. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If you got rid of the overly detailed descriptions ("Linear shooter" would just become "shooter"; "hub-based action adventure" becomes "action adventure"; etc), then they would be allowed in the lead, just like open world, which can't really be simplified any further. I think you are using over-exaggerated examples, of which I've never seen in articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm using the explicit opposites of Open World Action Adventure. Corridor based Action Adventure. You've never seen them because it would be stupid to say such a thing and so we don't do it, same way its stupid to say Open World Action Adventure in the lead sentence rather than mention it as part of gameplay. It isn't 2001 and GTA3 isn't something new, being open world isn't special, it's practically the default. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well if the majority of reliable sources call it open world, who are we to argue? I get what you mean, but we shouldn't be avoiding the term simply because it's overused currently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'd like to note that Grand Theft Auto-clone already implies an open world, so that's neat. Should solve at least some of these issues. ~Mable (chat) 10:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lists of video game release articles.

Is this the wrong talk page for adding a section of Australian (or Australasia, however you count that being a term for Australia) release dates on video game release articles? If not, please direct me to the right page, thank you. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking. They are an English speaking market, so they aren't any real restrictions against their inclusion in articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm asking if we could add Australian dates to the PlayStation Vita game lists, List of PlayStation 2 games, List of PlayStation 3 games, List of PlayStation 4 games, List of PlayStation Portable games, List of Xbox 360 games, and the List of Xbox One games, just like the List of Nintendo 3DS games and List of Wii U software. If this is too much of a task for you, you can ignore this message. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Usually yes, if it has a different release date from Europe. If it has the same release date as European releases then use the 'PAL' parameter. A lot of people don't bother with Australian release dates though. JAGUAR  14:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
List of PlayStation 2 games exceeded the template size limit when adding another column there. We'd need to get rid of something from there and in several game lists before adding a new column for Australia (or "Australasia"). FYI, cells with fancy green check and red cross will hog up the template size way more than the cells with black check ("✔") or left blank. This goes the same for "Unreleased" cells, and the useless "No" cells in Exclusive column. I haven't tried add another column in another game list though, but having the feeling that they will experience the same as list of PlayStation 2 games. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 15:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The same guideline should still apply. People just don't include it due to them combing European dates into general PAL dates, to avoid bloat. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of this proposal for the reasons outlined above (template size and bloat). As some of you may know, I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to simplify things and improve the readability on List of PlayStation 4 games. An extra column will undo a lot of that work. — TPX 21:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot request

Hi. I'm doing (and I never thought I'd be saying this in a million years) edits in my sandbox for Dragon Quest X. I've just been looking round for a screenshot to use, and I'm utterly stumped. All the ones officially released prior to or after the game's release have "Square Enix" stamped on them. And since Wikipedia has a very clear no-watermark policy for images, I need someone to help me with this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi everyone,

For a while now I've been discussing the use of a pronunciation guide on L.A. Noire with @Obsuser. Is there a reason to have or not to have one in articles? I don't think we need to dictate what the "correct" way of saying a game's name. I say Super Mario "vierenzestig", not "sixty-four", even if that isn't the game's actual name. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we did use it in cases of uncommon English pronunciation or spelling. So, since many may interpret it to be pronounced "no ire", it might make sense in this case. While I can't find anything to the capacity of a peer reviewed, GA example, you can see it done similarly at pages like Benoit or La Croix Sparkling Water. Just my observation in reading pages though, I don't know any WP:PRONOUNCIATIONGUIDE to cite or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I was unaware that "no ire" was a pronunciation of "noire" in some dialects and it sounds ridiculous to me, but that's no matter, I suppose. I think the commonly used pronunciation by English-language sources is probably "noire", but if "no ire" is a common pronunciation of the word in Australian, then it's only fair to list it as well. ~Mable (chat) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I actually meant it the other way around. From what I understand, the word is pronounced more like "no-wah", but some may mistakenly think its pronounced "no ire" because of the letters used to spell the word. I don't belive "no ire" is acceptable, but I think it happens mistakenly due to the spelling. Kinda like Lacroix - you don't pronounce the "x", but some mistakenly do, because "not pronouncing the x" isn't a common thing in English usually. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's actually more like "nwar". 13:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Final Fantasy XIII#Setting (FA) does it for fal'Cie, l'Cie, and Cie'th, all terms the game invented. --PresN 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, it is, I just didn't know quite how to portray it most easily. This really isn't my area. Thanks for a peer reviewed example, glad to see an example that rises above my OSE ones... Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There's probably a MOS page covering the topic, but IMO any case where there is potential ambiguity can only benefit from a pronunciation guide, especially for interlanguage loanwords like Noire and Lacroix, and for made-up names with constructions that aren't standard English like l'Cie et Cie'th.  · Salvidrim! ·  13:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, fictional locations with a fixed in-game pronunciation is different than a "how-to" guide on a pronunciation of a word that's said differently in other forms of English. L.A. Noire is a stylistic choice, as the word is not said in the game, and is inspired by the film genre of film noir. So if a French-Canadian (looking at you, @Salvidrim!) sees the word, they might read it differently than from someone not familiar with the word "noir" or the film genre. Or what about a name like Kirby? Phonetically, I'm thinking it would sound something like /kur-bee/, but it is a Japanese developed game, who's to say what's the correct pronunciation? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC - Genre use in opening sentence of lead

Hello. I'm looking for more input on an RFC here]. While it's centered more around music, the same concept would be applied to video game articles. Please note that it's not about genre warring, but more of a MOS thing. Any input appreciated. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

List of video games (eighth generation)

Can someone kindly review List of video games (eighth generation). It was created today by user User:Rukario-sama.

The problem is, we already have List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) but the aforementioned user insists on creating a new article without arriving at consensus. He has also altered the table design of List of PlayStation 2 games and List of Xbox 360 games in recent months without first outlining his proposal.

I suggested to him that we should broaden the discussion regarding a universal color scheme for video game lists (diff) earlier this year because his preferred color set is somewhat convoluted. I still believe that would be a worthy discussion to hold. The one we have used for years is much clearer and less complicated in my opinion, but he is slowly forcing his own preference on every list article without consensus. — TPX 21:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion. Editors can contribute to the discussion here. — TPX 13:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Review Thead No. 28

Been needing another Review Thread here so let's get started.

Peer Reviews

And, as per usual, if you're interested in making more articles but need ideas, you can always go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests, where we slowly finishing up 2012-2013 requests. Come help out if you can. GamerPro64 17:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add WikiProject article recently changes to bulletin?

Hello, everyone! I found this WikiProject RC tool works, is it worth to be added to Template:WPVG announcements/shell? --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 03:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks similar to Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games, which is at the bottom of the sidebar czar 06:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Nah, that one is the recent changes for GAs, FAs, things linked in the box up at the top here, and user pages that have commented here recently. The one Sword in the Wind found looks like a true "recent changes" for all articles with a VG banner. There's so much activity in it that I'm not sure how useful it is, though. --PresN 11:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

System Requirements

I've noticed new releases no longer put the system requirements in the article, for older releases they were ubiquitous and very helpful, is there a reason why system requirements are no longer needed to be added into an article? YZJay talktome 05:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:VGSCOPE#13 explains why, succinctly (also see the links atop the template's deletion discussion) czar 05:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The older releases should also have this information removed. Which articles still have it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
By the looks of it, it seems like most video game article no longer use it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

GameRankings and Metacritic

Hi all. I'm seeking some clarity regarding the use of GameRankings and Metacritic scores on VG articles. As per this discussion between myself and Gamingforfun365, could someone clarify what exactly is meant in WP:VGAGG when it says we should use GameRankings as well as Meatcritic scores when GameRankings "adds value atop". That's very vague. Under what circumstances would GameRankings add value? Gamingforfun365 has removed Metacritic scores and left GameRankings scores on a couple of articles (here and here), based on the fact that GameRankings uses more reviews, but this doesn't seem correct to me. Any thoughts? Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think by "adds value atop" it means that it provides a different perspective than Metacritic, i.e. GameRanking provides a noticeably different score than Metacritic. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is the correct interpretation. If MC =76 and GR = 75.5, it's not considered worth mentioning. If MC = 76 and GR = 64, then it's more worth mentioning. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, will you please paraphrase the words? It was (and has been) very confusing. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
And Dark Forces II is a game that predates Metacritic. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Dark Forces II predates GameRankings as well. But that's not relevant anyway. Metacritic is prefered because it the industry standard. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
They're also owned by the same company, CBS Interactive. I can't help but think that since them becoming sister websites there was overlap made with the two companies in terms of websites they use for their aggregates. GamerPro64 16:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the reading of "adds value atop", WP:VGAGG doesn't say anything about removing Metacritic. The language is about when not to include GameRankings. -- ferret (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Honestly we should just make it so that we only include GameRankings if a Metacritic score is absent. I can't even think of a case where the two scores differ by more than 2 points at most, as they mostly use the same sources. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I have seen cases where a game is available in multiple editions (say, the original release from the 90s and a remake/remaster from the 2010s), where the older release only has a GR score, but the newer one has a MC score as well. In cases like that, it makes sense to me to include GR for the original release and MC for the newer.--IDVtalk 19:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue that that is a unique example of a GameRankings score that "adds value". ~Mable (chat) 19:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It isn't just that GR carries a score for a platform when MC does not—look at the sources that GR aggregates. If they are aggregating veritable sources and there's no Metacritic equivalent, go for it, but if it's all no-name websites... not worth adding. czar 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
But what's considered no-name websites? We all know about IGN, GameSpot, Kotaku, Polygon, Eurogamer and all that. But would no-name be websites we don't consider to be reliable? I mean this is all centered on what to do with GameRankings as a whole while there's a clear Metacritic monopoly on our pages. Coupled with no real consensus on whether to use OpenCritic a year after its created. But I guess that angle should be discussed another time. GamerPro64 20:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
All three (MC, GR, and OC) have a documented method of how sites are selected for inclusion in their ranking list. OC allows any site that meets certain marks to be included; GR reviews any site that meets specific requirements to be included, but only MC has a more curated list they use (they do not have any way for a site to self-submit as a review source that I can see). MC's site list for video games aligns very closely with our RS list (I'd say about 80% of their sites are on our RS or situational lists), while both GR and OC have lists where between 25-50% of the sites are on our RS lists (but they also have many many more sites too). MC's curated approach is about as close as we'll get to a secondary source that considers the more authoritative sources for scores, though obviously their exact scoring policy has its own oddities that come into play when they actually automated calculated scores. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Metacritic also exerts an editorial voice because it has hidden "weights" given to each publication, so their score isn't actually a simple average of all aggregated scores. Instead, certain scores have much higher impact on their metascore in a completely non-transparent way. Some might argue that this completely destroys the meaning of an aggregate score. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever the case, "adds value atop" needs to be rephrased, as it's so vague as to be virtually meaningless. This thread alone has produced three or four different readings (GR has a noticeably different score to MC; GR has some platforms which MC doesn't; GR has better sources; MC only has one or two sources, but GR has considerably more etc). Bertaut (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Right—it means all of those things and the specifics don't need to be legislated. Feel free to suggest a better phrase, if you have one. czar 01:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 30 September

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

12 September

23 September

24 September

25 September

26 September

27 September

28 September

29 September

30 September

Salavat (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Bragging thread

Every so often, I'll see someone nominate a GA on something interesting, or see a string of names on the weekly "new articles" post, and think, "good job, you, that's super cool". But, unlike individual diffs, there's no easy way to tell the editor that. And, while we don't really do this hobby for recognition (though my professor wife occasionally notes that my articles get several orders of magnitude more views in a year than anything she writes ever), I think everyone likes to know that other people are appreciative of or impressed by what they've done. So it occurred to me tonight that it'd be easier to do it the other way around: what have you all done in September/October that you're proud of? Or the whole summer, if it took you a bit longer. Doesn't matter the scale—a GAN you just posted? You got an article to Start-class that you've always been meaning to get around to? Wrote 5 stub articles in a weekend that have been missing for a decade? Post it here, and the rest of us can agree: yeah, that is pretty cool, good job!

  • I'll start it off, because otherwise it'd be awkward: I spent almost exactly a month rewriting Homeworld to get it to GAN-quality, which was surprisingly more difficult than I thought it would be. And I know that, for all that its a "classic", most people don't care that much about a 17-year-old RTS, but it makes me happy to know I got it sorted out.
  • And to go the opposite direction: yes, IDV, I've noticed that you're creating almost from scratch the entire Science Adventure game/anime article series at a pretty rapid clip, and even though I've never played/seen any of it I think it's pretty cool what you're doing. --PresN 03:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    I second that about IDV and Science Adventure. I too stumbled upon his work (loved playing Steins;Gate a few months back) and was very impressed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thirded. It reminds me of my work on the Drakengard series, and should be fully commended. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks! While it's not my primary motivation for writing on WP, it does feel good when people take notice of my work, especially with articles like the Science Adventure games - it's difficult to write about Japanese-only games, where there is only little reception material in English. This is also the main thing standing in the way of bringing the series article to GA - probably going to have to wait at least until Steins;Gate 0 comes out in English this year.--IDVtalk 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I attempted to bring Dota 2 to featured article status over the summer, but it didn't pass due to lack of support in time. Despite that, the article is now way better than it was before nomination, so it's not all that bad. I still want it get it to FA eventually, but it might be best to just get support prior to its next nomination. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    Definitely worth being proud about- a failed FAC is still in the top 0.1% of articles! --PresN 13:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Within the space of a year, I somehow created the first two subseries-based Featured Articles on Wikipedia - Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy and Persona. I've also never had a failed GA or FA to date, which I take as a point of pride. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    That's indeed very impressive. It's hard to write articles about game series, so seeing these two and IDV's Science Adventure get this far is really cool ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 07:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Something I'm proud of and don't get much time to talk about is my work on the second half of list of video games notable for speedrunning. It's not my best or most important work, but I just think it's really elegant. Too bad I have no idea how to deal with Doom and Quake. ~Mable (chat) 07:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I started rewriting the absolute mess that was Red Ace Squadron and expanded material on Stranded 2 to the point of splitting it from the series page and creating an unique one just for that game. It saddened me to see how these games are being forgotten, and i feel like the work i put into those articles are an important part of my effort in bringing back more attention to them. Specially on Red Ace Squadron, where most of my research still can't be added and referenced because there is no surviving information online (not even on the Wayback Machine), and i'm still working on interviewing members of the original development team and all. YuriNikolai (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've started "saving" drafts and stubs (most using the handy-dandy "New articles" topics that come out about once a week here), and out of that effort are small improvements to Project Highrise, High School Story, Curses 'N Chaos, Escape Velocity, Pong: The Next Level, PANIC at Multiverse High!, Men of War: Condemned Heroes, and Army Men: World War - Land, Sea, Air, big improvements to Master X Master, a DYKN for Breakaway (can someone review? D: eez 2nd DYKN), and babby's first DYK for Call to Arms. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine is broken forever!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Sometimes, websites go down, and then come back up a day later. This has happened to 6 times this year alone, in addition to specific servers not being able to return data for a few hours. WPVG has nothing to do with it, can't fix it, and is not the place to discuss it unless it's a long-term outage. You know all of this; please stop creating these threads. --PresN 16:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Something's terribly wrong with the Wayback Machine! I keep trying to archive a dead link like this one, but I keep getting this message: "The page isn’t working didn’t send any data." It keeps getting the same message, no matter how many times I hit "Refresh"! I think the Wayback Machine may be broken forever! When will the issues be fixed?! Here's a link to the broken page:*/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldeb82 (talkcontribs) 15:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh my God why do you keep making these posts? Why do you always go to the Video Game project and cry about non-issues with the Wayback Machine? You did it with G4, you did it with Allgame, PALGN and CVG (which was eventually resolved), Destructoid, and many more. You've even complained about Wayback over a year ago! Stop making these sensationalist threads here all the time! You always do this and you don't know how to stop. GamerPro64 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously, haven't you learned how this all plays out by now? Why do you still freak out over this stuff? Give it some time. Yeesh. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia:Peer review/ReCore/archive1

Hey, I requested a peer review for ReCore so that it'd be ready for when I nominate it for GA status. Any takers? Cognissonance (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

About some article reviews

I've been involved at some article reviews lately, and figured I'd make a post about them here:

  • I've technically reviewed The International 2016, but I need someone to decide whether the brackets and tables are accurate/properly sourced and given due weight. It shouldn't be much more work to make it pass, now that I gave the prose itself a go on the article's talk page. I was hoping someone could take a look at it.
  • @Famous Hobo: I was wondering whether the No Russian peer review should be closed now that you have gotten comments from four people. There hasn't been any activity there in a while. If you still have some questions or concerns, I'd be glad to hear them.
  • I nominated Overwatch and pornography for GA. I was hoping to wait until the merge discussion got closed, but there hasn't been anyone commenting on a proposal I gave over a month ago and, frankly, I got impatient. Merge discussions are not considered an instability issue per WP:GA?, so that shouldn't be an issue.
  • Is the gif really necessary? I don't know why I was surprised to see it in the article, but it does seem a bit gratuitous. --PresN 13:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • To copy what I wrote in the file's description, "the short animation gives a 'typical' example of the topic of the article. The image shows in what manner the character models are edited and animated, how the short videos are typically looped, and the quality of the Source Filmmaker animations." I agree that now it's in the article, it's rather distracting. Part of the issue is that in cutting it down, I accidentally sped the animation up. I do think it's useful content, though. ~Mable (chat) 13:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, gratuitous in more ways than one... A single screenshot would be reasonable here if it serves to illustrate what cannot be explained through text alone, but the animation adds nothing that a single screenshot wouldn't adequately illustrate on its own. (Note that we do the same even for animated films—the visualization is more for the style unless the actual animation technique needs to be explicated.) czar 17:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is probably better had on the article's talk page, but the idea was to show the core loop idea first and foremost. I agree that it didn't turn out very well. Not sure whether a single shot would communicate the same information... but this discussion should probably be brought to the article's talk page ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Overwatch and pornography#Animated image czar 04:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

DDR navbox

Comment would be appreciated at Template talk:Dance Dance Revolution#Need of a reformat. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The birth of video games: A wiki-history of the first years of the commercial video game era

About a year ago, I proposed a small cleanup effort here to knock out the few "High"-class stubs in this project, which ended up morphing into a project to write articles on the whole of the early history of video games. It turned out well! Recently, though, I've been thinking about expanding that project forward in time a bit to improve the articles about games around the time of the first generation of video game consoles. In the interest of collaboration, I present to you all a big, rated table of all of our articles on video games 1976 and earlier (cutting off there for my sanity and because the overlapping second generation started then). If any of the titles catch your eye, or you're just interested in poking about in articles about the games that launched entire genres and companies, feel free to join me! --PresN 03:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

big 'ol table
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
General VG History
Early history of video games
Early mainframe games First generation of video game consoles
2nd gen consoles
Magnavox Odyssey Magnavox Odyssey series
(Pong) 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System
TV Tennis Electrotennis APF TV Fun
Fairchild Channel F
Gameroom Tele-Pong
CRTAD Bertie the Brain Nimrod OXO Tennis for Two Spacewar! Hamurabi Space Travel Galaxy Game Pong Empire Elimination Anti-Aircraft The Amazing Maze Game
Lunar Lander Computer Space Empire Classic Gotcha Gran Trak 10 Crash 'N Score Barricade
Star Trek Hunt the Wumpus Laser Clay Shooting System Maze War Destruction Derby Bigfoot Bonkers
The Oregon Trail Lemonade Stand Qwak! dnd Blockade
(Lunar Lander) Rebound Doctor Pong Breakout
Mugwump Spasim Dungeon Colossal Cave Adventure
Space Race Star Trader Gun Fight Datsun 280 ZZZAP
Trek73 (Super Star Trek) Hi-way Death Race
Tank Indy 800 Dukedom
Jet Fighter F-1
Moria Fonz
Panther Heavyweight Champ
pedit5 Indy 4
Pursuit Night Driver
Shark Jaws Outlaw
Steeplechase Quiz Show
Sea Wolf
Sprint 2
Starship 1
Stunt Cycle
Ooh, I like this project. I'm looking forward to looking through some of these when I have the time, though I doubt I will be able to contribute anything as far as sources are concerned. Right now, it seems the Lunar Lander series in particular needs a boost, mostly because of its impact on the early history of video games (shouldn't it even be a part of that topic?) ~Mable (chat) 09:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The 1969 Lunar Lander and the 1971 Star Trek are both included in early mainframe games; their series articles are not directly included in the topic because both are more notable for later versions (1973 Lunar Lander and 1974 Super Star Trek). I do agree that Lunar Lander is a good starting point. --PresN 12:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I searched for and added Maze War sources a while back but didn't get too far. Have anything good for that? czar 03:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Not at the moment, but I do feel really great and justified for explicitly avoiding calling Wolfenstein 3D the "first FPS" when I wrote the article, though I didn't imagine that the first one was at latest 1974. --PresN 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have actually started on this, if anyone wanted to join in but thought it might be another "please do all the work for me" project that pops up here every so often (though those don't usually have such a cool table); first up was, surprisingly, Space Race, the 2nd-ever Atari game (and ~14th-ever arcade video game (5-13 and 15-20 are Pong clones)), aka "space hipster Frogger". Stub -> C, using only sources that are findable online ('cause Atari, Inc. is on google books.) Come and learn some history, children! (note: I was not yet born for another 14 years when this came out) --PresN 02:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Space Race and Gotcha, Atari's first 2 "not Pong" games, are now at GAN; I'll stop updating this now unless anyone else joins in, I just wanted to let anyone interested know that this is a live project. --PresN 02:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates

I have nominated List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 08:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Article doesn't seem to exist? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It got merged a couple months back, Tbhotch wanted to have a formal delist process just to keep things above board. --PresN 00:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Firewatch/archive1

I closed the peer review for ReCore and have now opened one for Firewatch. Any comments, including passing suggestions, will be appreciated. Cognissonance (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


Just making sure the project is aware of this effort here: Wikipedia:Meetup/RaceAndGaming2016. I've seen several edits related to it but so far have no real concerns. Just seems like a broad effort, felt project should be notified. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Monopoly Conundrum

Yesterday I was Wiki-hopping, as one does, and stumbled upon the Monopoly video games article, and decided to start making articles on some of these Monopoly games. Thank goodness for Mobygames' collections of reviews, because other than that site I'm finding it especially difficult to find information on the individual games due to their shared titles (which is also the same as an everyday English and business-related word). E.g. there's a bunch of sources thorugh Amiga Magazine Rack but I'm not 100% sure which review is for which version. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Note that not all the games below are notable; I'm just aiming to create a comprehensive list of all the versions for the Monopoly video games article, and then writing articles on the notable ones. (Also, what solution should we come up with for the naming scheme?).--Coin945 (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


  • I was going to suggest the same. Are these all pretty much the same basic games, with minor variations to themes or rules? Seems like a "list of Monopoly video games" article would be sufficient for all entries, with a sentence or two about outstanding variant traits or notable reception details when they can be mustered up. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe in the style of List of Looking Glass Studios video games, not a regular table, so you have plenty of space to discuss relevant information without having to repeat the... nearly identical gameplay. --PresN 19:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that these games can be reduced into a list, as they each have different designs, technological restraints, gameplay, and critical reception. Think of it like games within the Super Mario series; they are all part of a franchise and follow a basic template but are unique in their own way and independently notable.--Coin945 (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
If all of the articles/entries are going to look like Monopoly (1985 video game), I strongly disagree. There's nothing of substance there. You could easily convert that info into an entry like what PresN suggested above. There's nothing of value lost when that's all you can muster up for a reception section... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. There are a few games on this list that are well beyond re-implementing the board game as a video game and those may be independently notable, but most of these are different applications of the board game as a video game. You're very much unlikely going to find any technical development info for these and relatively little reception. A list/summary style article with blue-links to those where there is reasonable development and reception is the proper solution. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree with the lack of sources. The current state of the articles is simply because they are stubs. The sources are out there; take Monopoly Streets as an example. The 3 versions have 11, 18, and 9 Metacritic reviews respectively - that's certainly not "relatively little reception".--Coin945 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, but the content isn't there. A number of these articles I've spot checked give MC score and nothing else. Or consist of nothing other than sentences that read literally as nothing more than "Magazine X said it was "very good". You seem to be falling back into your old bad habits where you start up far too many short articles at a time with little to no substance. You've got to rethink your approach, or I think you're going to find your work being redirected/merged/deleted again. There's already a consensus forming that these individual articles aren't warranted. I can't imagine these articles would do well at AFD when there's such a plausible redirect/merge target present... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Think of it more as summary style. The vast majority of those redlinks are, at best, destined as repositories for regurgitated press releases. Instead, Wikipedia has the tradition of using summary-type articles where we can explain documented variations on a type (Monopoly video games is a better title, in my opinion) where we can dedicate a section to each game. And if there winds up being enough info to make one section outweigh the others, we can reduce its content on the summary page and spin-out the full details to its own article. And with a summary-type article, you are free to talk about how one source characterized a 199X Amiga release without needing to drop it in a specific section (sections could be by era instead of by game, etc.) czar 06:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with this approach as well. I'm probably going to start redirecting some of the individual articles to this page if they don't get expanded substantially. Unless Coin intends to make the list article, then they could be redirected to either target really. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remember that the above is meant to be a comprehensive list of all Monopoly games for a list. Some of the above are non-notable. Others are very notable indeed. like the 2008 EA version whose 4 versions have 9, 4, 11, and 3 reviews on Metacritic (as well as 8, 6, 5, and 10 on GameRankings). I'm not sure why it is necessary to redirect articles on notable games. But I trust your judgement. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Coin945, I see that you created a few of these (check out the weekly new article digest on this page) but can you please merge those for which you have no reliable sources? If we don't have at least several reviews from vetted vg sources, we shouldn't be creating articles on the subject. That's the main reason for the communal Monopoly video games page. czar 00:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Czar, good to hear from you. There are many non-notable Monopoly games - probably around half of the ones listed above. But I made sure to only create articles on ones that had a myriad of reliable third party sources. If you head to the Mobygames, Metacritic, and GameRankings entries for those games, (as well as this Amiga Magazine Rack) you'll find a host of reliable reviews. I've also found interview content for the development side of at least two of the games. A merger is not needed for the games I created.--Coin945 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting to redirect some of the short ones with no real content present, as there seems to be a consensus to do so right here, and its been 10 days and no real improvement is happening. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Good morning @Sergecross73:, it's great to hear from you! As I've stated in previous discussions, I think it is counter-intuitive to redirect/delete stubs that have either proven notability (3 reliable sources in the article), or whose notability can be proven through the sounces listed through the Mobygames/Metacritic/Game Rankings links at the bottom. Just because they are short and aren't GA isn't really a reason for redirection. After all, WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Perhaps it is better for Wikipedia for WP:VG to add information to the articles rather than reversing all the work that has gone into them. Just a thought? :)--Coin945 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
As long as there is no proper list for monopoly video games, I don't believe there is anywhere to merge the less notable ones. However, if you only have three or four sources to work from, merging into such a list sounds like a good idea. There's no hurry, though: we have worse articles than these :p ~Mable (chat) 14:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no harm in merging even "notable by 3 sources" but short articles into a list that has the format that gives space to give a paragraph or two about each individual game such as the one in Monster Hunter. You gain a much more comprehensive list article that will likely never be challenged for notability, than having a dozen short stubby ones with little chance to grow. It helps that the rules of Monopoly hardly change between the versions, and you can provide a reasonable chronology for the series. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I know there's "no deadline", but the problem is that there's also no realistic reason to believe improvement will ever occur either. How much interest do you really think "Monopoly game from the 80s" is realistically going to garner. The articles you work on are commonly rather obscure - and that's fine, same goes for many that I write - but the issue is that you or anyone else rarely go back to ever improve them. I remember from when we were investigating your articles for COPYVIO issues - many of the articles had been created months and years prior with no one making any significant improvements. I'd look some up for proof, but I'm not sure how many I'd find because so many were deleted in the end... Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to redirect articles to Monopoly video games, the onus is on the redirecter to make sure that the sourced content is reflected in the target article. I reverted the Monopoly (1985 video game) redirect. If you want to turn Monopoly video games into good article, do that. The redirect did not do that. - hahnchen 15:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A List of Monopoly video games should give due weight to the more notable games. Creating such a list would take work. Feel free to put that work in, but until then, there's no place to properly merge this content to. ~Mable (chat) 19:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the articles I have created do not have a mere "three or four sources to work from". Each of the articles I created have a myriad of sources. For instance, the 1985 version that was redirected had about 25 reviews, just through a cursory google search (haven't even checked Highbeam, The Free Library, GoogleBooks, and GoogleNews yet).--Coin945 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Why are there only 5 in the article currently then? Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor keeps re-adding wrong info, don't know what to do

In the List of World War I video games article, this editor [[42]] keeps re-adding the game The Snowfield (article currently in Draft stage) to the list, even though nothing in the game points it towards being a WW1 game (and some things suggest WW2). I posted in his talk page asking him to stop, but he keeps re-adding that game to the list.

I don't think this is the right place to post this, but i don't know where else to go. Could he receive an official warning or something? YuriNikolai (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't worry so much about something like this. You can always revert his edits, no one can say you didn't already try reasoning with him, and it's no big deal if his addition remains in place for a day or two (or even a month or two); it's not like it's a WP: BLP article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't even have a single source, so is there really a need to fight a user over it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


Need a fourth opinion on Talk:Deathmatch_Classic#Redirect. I'd prefer to not take it to AfD but we don't have anything near significant coverage and yet an editor insists on not redirecting/merging its contents. czar 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Can we get an admin in here? We have three users for merge/redirect and one editor that insists that unreliable sources are enough ("I would recommend you drop this, because I am never going to"). It'd be a waste of time to bring this to AfD for a single user so would prefer to handle this the normal way czar 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible genre warring

Just wanted to notify the project that an IP editor disagrees with and repeatedly (well, twice so far) removes a reliably sourced genre for the games Persona 4 Arena and Persona 4 Arena Ultimax. Based on their edit comments ("NO" and "STOP") when re-removing it after I reverted their original edit, I would not be surprised if they remove it again. Would be great if there were some more eyes on these articles for a little while, and if some of you would like to write your thoughts on Talk:Persona 4 Arena. Thanks--IDVtalk 06:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I've protected the pages to force discussion, though as long as his argument is based entirely around WP:GENREWARRIOR and WP:OSE, while the other side is based on WP:V and WP:RS, I see no issue with restoring the sourced version in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • All right, thank you. I will restore the sourced genres then, and make another comment on the talk page.--IDVtalk 18:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thread: next Nintendo console

The Trailer for the new home console from Nintendo has just gone live. It's called "Nintendo Switch", due in March 2017. No further details are available, but everyone should keep their weather eyes open. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to information from Nintendo via Kotaku, it's a home-portable hybrid console of some sort with detachable controllers. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Update #2: A detailed press release detailing the console and controls, in addition to current gaming companies supporting the console. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone move Draft talk:Nintendo NX to Talk:Nintendo Switch? The latter redirects to the draft. GamerPro64 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
FWIW , the logo for the console is definitely PD-USonly, but haven't found a clear source to grab it from. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

PSA: Nintendo NX announcement trailer coming tomorrow morning

See here. —zziccardi (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling this will mean we will finally have an article on the upcoming device. Well, we'll see what they'll reveal. I'm hype, anyway :) ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the trailer, I have the feeling an article is in order. I'm sure the sources are flowing in now. ~Mable (chat) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks neat! Did we have a discussion on whether we still class this as an eighth generation console? JAGUAR  14:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've already removed an edit calling this the start of the 9th generation. We need reliable sources to make a claim one way or another. The new Xbox and PS4 models did not start a new generation, despite hefty hardware improvements. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh God no.... Let's just see what sources call it. I'm sure one or two will mention the generation. Urgh ~Mable (chat) 14:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this will surely lead to endless arguing, but right now, sources aren't calling it anything, so neither are we. I've already admin level protected a number of "9th gen" article startups, but let me know if you come across any. Its way too soon to have a 9th gen article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling that we're going to have one normally RS site call it a "next gen console", probably meaning next gen for Nintendo, but that's going to lead to editors jumping on calling it 9th gen. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Did Rockstar Japan actually exist?

The Rockstar Japan article was created by .:Alex:. in May 2007, loosely based off the contents of the Japanese Rockstar Games website (, where the most aspects featured already in the first revision remained unsourced: the Tokyo location, the studio's task, the studio's future, the year of inception, and the partnership with Capcom through this subsidiary (though Capcom was the JP publisher at the time, CyberFront Corporation continued it after Capcom, not directly Rockstar, wherefore the claim on the current page is false.)

The only sources that were ever there are the Japanese website (as correctly pointed out by Dmartin969, the website is not about the studio, but the Japanese-localized homepage of Rockstar itself. The next reference claims the Lincoln studio being responsible for Japanese localization today, with simply the job offerings page being cited, however, this was always the case, just is there no saved version on neither the Web Archive nor WebCite. The logo currently found on Rockstar Japan is visibly based off the image visible in the background on the original page layout's background, but look again: By that logic, there would also be "Rockstar USA" and "Rockstar Brazil", no?

Then there is the reasoning of Rockstar Japan just being a label, however, easily disproven, Rockstar International Ltd. (based in London) has responsible for all marketing around the world since 2005, including Asian (+ Japanese) markets, which formerly was done through Take-Two itself. Furthermore, no annual report ever listed a subsidiary titled Rockstar Japan, or any other titled company based in Japan. The only actually reliable source that could be used was at IGN, a short sentence saying "Rockstar Japan localized games for Asian markets." is the only thing that actually hints at such a company having existed. That article was written in 2013, six whole years after the initial Wikipedia article, which the claim is most likely based on. The credits, even in Japanese versions, do not state anything about Rockstar Japan, but do list Rockstar Lincoln for QA and Localization.

Finally, the third source available is simply the Japanese page for Grand Theft Auto V as citation for the claim saying that Take-Two Interactive (the parent-parent company) now does Japanese distribution. Falsely cited: The source does claim the publisher to be Rockstar Games (ロックスター・ゲームス, Rokkusutā gēmusu), but nothing about Take-Two (although the claim is true regardless, as that is with all Rockstar-published games, also in Japan nowadays).

I have cut down the article so far as the sources go, although the location in Japan is still not verfied, even if likely. The question is: Did Rockstar Japan actually exist? Can we go off wrong thoughts by an author, which are today accepted as fact? Can we use a single sentence first noted eight years after the studio's supposed closure as verification for its existence? I don't think so. And therefore I would like start a 'movement' to delete all Rockstar Japan-related content off all Wikipedias, as 16 other-language articles on the company adopted the information from the original English artcle (interestingly, there also is no Japanese Wikipedia article). But what do you think? Does anyone have additional verification? Any input would be lovely. Lordtobi () 09:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I have found two further articles that detail an alledged "Rockstar Japan" to be present at the 2013 Tokyo Game Show (the same year the other IGN article above was published in), at IGN (yes, IGN again) and Siliconera. Quick disproval: Exhibitions as such have been presented by other companies, such was Capcom in 2013 and also (as example cases, what I found the earliest) Capcom in 2012, and Microsft in 2006. Therefore, the presence of Rockstar in Japan is misinterpreted as being "Rockstar Japan", where it is just Rockstar International-organized partnerships with external companies. With those out, nothing at our custom search engine has valuable information (other items listed there include "Rockstar , Japan" as tags, or comments including the queried string; also note that the German GamePro article only reflects exactly what the Wikipedia article said back then—a carbon copy which cannot be counted). I don't believe we will find any more than what we have in one sentence. I will see if I get the original authors to respond and report here. Lordtobi () 15:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If Rockstar Japan does exist, I would still like to see this stub to be merged with the parent article, as there clearly aren't enough people talking about the company for there to be a separate article for it. Whether or not it exists or not, I don't know any more than you all. ~Mable (chat) 12:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree with a redirect/merge regardless too. I doubt such a move would be controversial - outside of LordTobi's edits in the last 24 hours, the article's only had about 10 edits over the course of 2 years - its not exactly a high traffic/importance article. It should just be a small part of the main parent article, containing whatever info can be verified by sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If it exists/ed, we would have no further information than the one sentence by IGN, "Rockstar Japan localized games for Asian markets.", and we don't even know if that might simply be based on the article in the first place. Nothing else verifyable exists thus far. Lordtobi () 12:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If that's all the sourcing we have, then I guess one sentence would be appropriate weight in the main article. But lets see if anyone else has any input. I'm only casually familiar with Rockstar. Perhaps someone more into their stuff knows more? Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OTOH, if it is fictitious, it should not be merged/redirected because that'd mislead/misinform readers.  · Salvidrim! ·  13:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    This basically is the problem, and why I am turning towards this page. This "fact" has spread too far without any proper verification; across 17 Wikipedias. I am currently trying to reach out to the authors of the article and hope to find out more. Lordtobi () 14:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Have anyone here thought about contacting Rockstar to see if they have/had a Japanese division? GamerPro64 16:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@GamerPro64, good point. I will get onto that. Lordtobi () 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lordtobi: I see that you were able to a query string to the site. Was there a "link generator" somewhere on the search engine or did you add that manually to the link? It would be immensely useful to know! --Izno (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    I added it myself for the people reading finding my references more easily. Essentially, you append &q=[string] (or, in the rare case that no "?" is present, ?q=[string]). The quotation marks also serve as "search exactly this string". Lordtobi () 17:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, I'm aware of what the quotation marks do--I just didn't know there was a specific way to link to a specific result set. Much help, indeed. --Izno (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This is an open and shut redirect to the main article. We don't need to adjudicate whether it exists. It was used in an IGN article and might be a potential search term. If a user comes to the Rockstar Games page and doesn't find anything about a Japanese branch of Rockstar, they get their answer. czar 01:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Cluebot archiving

I removed the secondary Cluebot config that was meant to archive closed threads sooner. I don't think it's really done that since being added, but it immediately archived the Nintendo console thread because Serge posted {{done}}. Additionally, the config caused Cluebot to take over all archiving duties (Lowercase Sigma went silent), and a review of the last two archives show some other weirdness, such as some threads being archived double. -- ferret (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the second bot is useful for closing threads that don't need to linger around for a week once resolved. We can also set it to trigger on a smaller set of templates. czar 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
At this point, I'm more concerned about how it was doubling up archives for some reason. I didn't find any in archive #124, but #125 had at least 10 duplicate sections. Is there a way to have cluebot only do the closed threads? Let lowercase sigma handle the rest? -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Strange how that's only happening in Archive 125... I imagine it's a bug. Let's continue at this thread: User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2016/November#Duplicates in WTVG archives. czar 03:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 7 October

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

30 September

1 October

2 October

3 October

4 October

5 October

6 October

7 October

Salavat (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

QPQ for Dark Angel (video game) at GAN?

Normally I don't advertise my nominations, but i've currently got Dark Angel (video game) awaiting a review at GAN, and my seperate nomination for Max Guevara, the protagonist from said video game, looks like it is about to pass its own nomination there. If I could get both the articles passed within a week of each other I could nominate them together for a multiple DYK, something i've never done before, which would be oh so very exciting. I'd be happy to review anything of yours in return, be it PR, GAN or FAC. Let me know if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There are many articles at the top of this page requiring GA review. I'd suggest you to contact a nominator from one of those articles and agree to exchange reviews. Also, as far as I know, you can directly nominate an article for DYK after making it GA/FA or just a big expansion. I also heard there is a limit about how many DYK you can make at the same time (I think it's 5). Good luck with the reviews.Tintor2 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; I'll just contacted another nominated myself directly next time. Someone has already agreed to review my nomination. Freikorp (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Featured list for removal

I have nominated List of One Piece video games for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

VG/eSports requested move

See here, input appreciated. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The 1000 Challenge

You may or may not of heard the recent "10,000 Challenge" contests – a series of programmes led by Dr. Blofeld to encourage expansion in certain areas. The first one has been quite successful and was diverged from WMF-funded contests like Awaken the Dragon and The West Country Challenge. There are now three other 10,000 Challenge projects, one for Asia, Africa, and Latin America (as well as smaller 1000 challenges for Turkey and Nordic countries). I spoke about this and thought it would be a good idea to create one for the video game project too, which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games/The 1000 Challenge.

I think it would really be something if people contributed to it everyday by just adding the articles they recently expanded, created, destubbed, DYK'd, or promoted to GA/FA etc. You can see that I added the recent articles that have been created or promoted to GA in the past few days just to help start it off. The basic principle of this is to add articles to the list whenever you feel like it, so everything will eventually build up to the ultimate goal of 1000 articles. The 1000 Challenge is not a contest in any shape or form but rather just a list of 1000 improvements which could help improve this project in the long term. It's too early to talk about contests, but if this is successful then there's always the possibility of staging some potential funded contests like a core contest or a de-stubathon. Bearing in mind that the WMF will not likely put a large prize fund into a video game-related contest anyway, unlike the The Africa Destubathon which has a fund of $2380! To summarise, if this 1000 Challenge is a success then we could make a proposal for funded contest in the future.

Also, I noticed that this project doesn't have a list of core articles so I didn't add it to the page. I should imagine that core articles would be top-importance ones like Nintendo, History of video games and Seventh generation of video game consoles etc. That could be something to save for later. I know that the current 1000 Challenge is looking a bit short but I noticed that the VG project isn't as diverse as geographical ones, so I think the scope will be limited to what we have; video games themselves, biographies and development articles etc. JAGUAR  13:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, but that page isn't really maintained or kept updated. --PresN 14:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What would work is if you staged the 1000 Challenge itself as a contest, perhaps for destubbing/cleaning up crappy articles. If anybody here would want to win $500-1000 in Amazon vouchers for destubbing the most articles and see articles coming in for the video games project like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon then sign up for it and show support. It's achievable, though I'm busy with other things. But you could use it as a power tool to get the project the quality articles it needs. If anybody would be interested in that I could set up a contest for you as part of the Challenge, but you'd have to apply to Wikimedia for something to fund it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it's really valuable to start this for video games, seeing as it is already one of English Wikipedia's most active projects. It might go against the idea of the other 10,000 projects. Not that I don't enjoy this as something to build towards together :) ~Mable (chat) 20:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's designed more as a tool to target weaker areas, but in general it is designed to motivate people on any subject. There are still a lot of video game stubs, many unedited in years. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Maple that this project is probably one of the best (I'd even say in the top three) for terms of quality ratio. But I think something like this challenge or a future destubbathon one could help accomplish our goal of "75% of articles Start-Class or better" much quicker. I should imagine that the WMF would only fund a couple of hundred dollars for our situation, though. JAGUAR  18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I did look up some data last year, and the top three most active are WP:MED, WP:MILHIST, and WP:VG (with WP:FOOTY sometimes rising to third while FIFA championships are high).  · Salvidrim! ·  19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh, wouldn't have guessed medical... But yeah, of course, the project is a great idea just to increase our quality of content even more! I would just think that there are better fields to invest money in. ~Mable (chat) 20:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There are three game articles I think could become GA but the grammar might need clean up and I'm busy with another GAN: Zone of the Enders (video game), Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner and Yakuza (video game). Feel free to nominate them if you want. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Do projects you've been working on for several days prior to the project count? I've just done extensive and tiring work on Odin Sphere, but I can't nominate it for anything as I've got an event in a few days time that will keep me away from here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I've added a couple myself that were from several days ago. It's OK to list articles that haven't been worked on recently now as it will help the challenge lift off the ground. JAGUAR  18:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't usually participate in these things, because as soon as I try to narrow my focus what I'm up to, it starts to feel like work, and I don't really like to do much with the GA/FA process. But, if this is just documenting significant article creations or rewrites, well, I usually track that anyways, so I may as well take part. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Supporting the 1000 Challenge with the welcome template

I would like to gather consensus for a temporary change to the welcome template we use here, Template:Vg welcome. This change would further promote the 1000 Challenge which is currently going on. I've created a template sandbox page with my proposed change, and it's viewable at Template:Vg welcome/sandbox. I realize this would make the template somewhat bulky as welcome messages go, but I feel we must advertise the challenge somehow within the welcome message. Please keep the discussion here to keep the discussion centralized. Gestrid (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gestrid! That's really thoughtful. I was originally going to make a separate template for new users but didn't do it as I thought this 1000 Challenge is smaller compared to the others. I don't know how to make it more aesthetically pleasing. It's making decent progress so far and I hope this will be the first challenge to reach its goal. Inviting more users will certainly help. JAGUAR  11:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Eurogamer in Review scores template

Since Eurogamer dropped review scores back in 2015, they still end up in the review section for Template: Video game reviews. Seen this at BoxBoy!, Fire Emblem Fates and other articles. Personally I don't think they should be there since "Recommended" or "Essential" isn't a score. Anyone else has thoughts on this? GamerPro64 01:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • WP:VGAGG allows it, and I don't really see an issue with it. That being said, it's always better to put in prose if possible. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Score-less reviews like EG's or Kotaku's should not be in the infobox, as while a brief word, there's no quick sense of their scale without a priori knowledge (eg A "Recommended" from Eurogamer may seem grant until one recognizes that "Essential" is a better measure there). --MASEM (t) 04:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is recommended to add "recommended" or other such words to the review box (pun intended), but of course, Eurogamer is still useful for older video games. (-cough- prose is always more importantanyway -cough-) ~Mable (chat) 12:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going by where it says "Some publications, such as Eurogamer, Kotaku, and Joystiq, may not score their reviews. If, instead of a score, the publication presents the game with a badge or award in its review, this can be included in the table. This is not necessary." Of course, I'd personally not do this and place it in prose, but it IS currently allowed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It's OK to use words in the review table. For early 1980s video games most magazines at the time gave verdicts consisting of "highly recommended" etc. You can see it in a lot of the ZX Spectrum GAs. JAGUAR  16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
If that's the case then we might as well change the the box from "Review scores" to "Ratings". GamerPro64 16:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that using words like this is fine, though I think it's best to avoid it if possible. For 80s video games, this will be difficult, so they get a pass. For 2010s video games, this is less useful, though it's not actually any different. Just make sure it isn't used to keep out any controversial reviews. ~Mable (chat) 22:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Crash Bandicoot video games

Hello :) I'm a new one there, so I decided to ask you for help with improving one of the section in List of Crash Bandicoot video games article. I mean Cancelled games section, because it has had many problems for a very long time. There are no clear rules that say which project should be and which shouldn't be considered the 'cancelled game'. Some of previously added content was just... not really reliable. 3 games which still are in the section are more or less well-known for Crash fans; I mean "Cortex Chaos" (we know the concept arts, something about the planned storyline, the cancellation date and there is an interview with one of possible makers), "Crash Landed" (videos on YouTube, many concept arts, something about storyline...) and "Crash Team Racing" (2010; also vidoes, concept arts, the cancellation date etc.). But another projects could be: Mark Cerny's PS2 game (which in fact later was reworked into "Wrath of Cortex"), Crash Bandicoot Evolution (which in fact was later reworked into "Twinsanity"; we have some concept arts and information about it, e.g. Foofie), Crash Clash Racing (which later was reworked into "Crash Tag Team Racing"), "Crash Twinsanity 2" (a very strange topic), Bandicoot Brats (no concept arts known due to the legal situation), Crush Bandicoot (few concept arts are known, but e.g. nothing about the storyline). We have also more projects which are not typical like Crash Nitro Kart (firstly Travellers Tale's project), "Tag Team Racing" NDS's version, a very mysterious project "Crash Online" (probably reworked into "Crash Village" - the official Crash site) and the unclear topics - "untitled Crash game" by Vicarious Visions from 2012 and "untitled Crash game for PS4" from 2013. I know the details about each one project which I wrote about, but I need someone who could help me improve this section due to the Wikipedia standards. Many users just are still inserting and deleting content in this section, so I think we should find the good way to solve this problem "once and for all". Could anyone from your WikiProject improve it or just help me with that? I can share many, many details and informations about all that questions with you, so if someone want to join it, I'll be really grateful :) Thank you in advance. Pinstripelli (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pinstripelli: I'm not entirely sure what you think the problem is with the article. Could you state outright what you think the problem with the article is? If you're asking how to edit the article or something like that, may I suggest the Teahouse? It's a place designed for new users to ask as many questions as they need to. Gestrid (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gestrid: Thanks for your answer :) Yes, maybe I didn't explain as outright as I should have what I'm talking about. I mean a fact that many users for very long time have been adding and removing content in the "Cancelled games" section. It is probably because it is not clear what we should or not consider as 'cancelled game'. There are many projects in the series that was cancelled/deleted/just not far in production process etc. I'd like to try find some straight rules which will be able to tell (also in the future) how we should edit this section (e.g. we should add only 'independent games' that were cancelled by their producers and were never released or maybe we can add also "prototype" versions of finally published games, but which were much different from final versions; we should add only projects that had 'working title' or we can also add those which didn't have it; we should add only projects when we know any concept arts, videos, planned storyline etc. or projects which was only mentioned by would-be producers or other makers; so generally speaking, I'm trying to find the good way to make this section more "orderly"). Some users had added few projects, then another users deleted some of it and there were no clear criteria why some of it was and another part of it was not removed. Consequently, we had there a very big chaos. I can't find any users who would like to elaborate this matter and find any "consensus", so I tried to find the solution (and interested in it users) here :) Pinstripelli (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Personally, when I look at this section, all I'm thinking is that it should probably be converted into prose. That way, you could describe the development and eventual cancellation of any Crash Bandicoot project and bring it nicely in context... ~Mable (chat) 13:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: Thanks for your comment. Yeah, maybe you're right. There is at all one problem with this article. In fact it had been for so many years just one of the sections in the Crash Bandicoot article but was later converted into the independent page. Because of that it doesn't have sources for included informations (that was sourced in another sections of the original article and the list was just something like a 'summary'). I saw that someone had added a refimprove tag to the article. After all, the current version of article (due to this situation which I described) is just a tabulated summary. Pinstripelli (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure either what the list needs to improve - though surely adding sources would be a good start - and it's not the kind of article I enjoy working on anyway, but I'd be happy to have a look at it if you make some major changes to the style. I don't think anyone else here is going to make any major changes to it ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 22:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

On Wikibreak

Hi, everyone. Just letting you know that, until late on October 30 GMT, I will be on Wikibreak, meaning that I cannot attend to any in-progress GAs of mine or anyone elses, and will not be able to respond to messages. Miss you all. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm back! --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I hope you had a good wikibreak ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 20:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Halloween on the main page

Happy Halloween everyone. We have a Featured Article on the main page today. Drowned God from Torchiest. Not really a horror game to fit with the theme of the season but I believe this is the first video game-related article that was on Today's Featured Article for Halloween. GamerPro64 01:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 15 October

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

2 October

8 October

10 October

11 October

12 October

13 October

14 October

15 October

Salavat (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 29

The backlog has been reduced greatly this week but a dozen or so nominations still remain:


Begging thread

Super Mario Galaxy's FAC is on the verge of being closed but needs one final set of comments/confirmation to see it promoted. I'll do any GA, FA or peer review in return. JAGUAR  10:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to take Razer Naga to GA soon and free up the PR spot for another article I've been working on. I'll take a look at other people's PRs in return for a review on mine. Face-smile.svg. @Jaguar: I'll take a look at yours in a few. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look at it now. JAGUAR  10:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There's a deletion discussion relevant for this project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT characters in video games. Your comments are appreciated. Diego (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Discord server

If people here wish to join an (unofficial) Discord server where you can talk about stuff related or unrelated to Wikipedia, check this out:
There's even a specific channel for WPVG Face-smile.svg. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thumbs up. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeeeea, come join us :D  · Salvidrim! ·  14:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there some reason I should want to use this over the official WP:IRC? If no-one speaks using voice chat, what's the point? --Izno (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It's up to preference. IRC is ancient and clunky IMO.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Like any chat or VOIP, yeah, personal preference to a degree. I stopped using IRC a long time ago, and started using Discord in the last year+ for different communities. The client is sleak, I like the features for both text and voice, and I enjoy the cross-platform clients so i can continue chatting at PC or on phone with no loss of context/history. Additional features like friend lists and direct messaging are also a plus. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

MacOS games or Mac OS games?

Are these categories redundant to each other? Category:MacOS games and Category:Mac OS games (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a problem. MacOS = OS X, Mac OS was what preceded OS X. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
One of those categories was recently renamed... some articles have both of these categories now. I don't know video games, so I figured I would bring this here in case it does need fixing. (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The names are too alike. Category:Mac OS games should probably be renamed to Category:Classic Mac OS games to avoid confusion and match the corresponding article Classic Mac OS. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that'll be a great idea. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 17:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 28 October

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

21 October

22 October

23 October

24 October

25 October

26 October

27 October

28 October

Salavat (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 21 October

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

15 October

16 October

17 October

18 October

19 October

20 October

21 October

Salavat (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


I took a look at Boshy above and it appears to be a case of WP:EXISTence, with most WP:VGRS commenting only on comparison to I Wanna Be the Guy as well as its speedrun-ability. My inclination is to start a section at IWBTG dedicated to something (impact?) and include any reliably sourced info there. Does anyone disagree with that course? --Izno (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the stub of an article, that seems like the right way to go. I would suggest being bold and redirecting it and see if anyone has an issue with it, or put a message on its talk page with this suggestion. You'd find out if the article's creator is against it soon enough. ~Mable (chat) 22:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment requested

Please provide comment at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Shopping site "sources". --Izno (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I use this as a source

As many of you know, is basically dead with archives not working due to robots. However, I managed to find a website that transcripted this interview with 1UP that could be useful for some articles. Can it be used? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You can use it but don't actually link the wordpress blog in the article itself – just fill out the 1UP reference with no link. It's fine that way. JAGUAR  23:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost here. Wouldn't reviewers stand against not using the link? I'm using it in Tidus#Reception's end of the first paragraph in it would be good for the Devil Summoner articles.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
It's OK to not have a link but you can provide the reviewers with the WordPress link so they can access it that way. It's like on Nights into Dreams... I used a couple of Spanish magazines as sources but could only find translations on a fan site, so I gave the fan site link to whoever wanted to check the source. If that makes sense? JAGUAR  23:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's archived on Webcite: --IDVtalk 23:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Also found it through, which we can use now on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 01:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
      • "Linked from... » Användare:IDV/källor"... man, I forgot entirely both about having ever seen that article and having a list of sources I was meaning to use back on the Swedish Wikipedia. But yeah, that's cool, I didn't know we could use that.--IDVtalk 01:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Since WebCite links can be taken down with DMCAs, I think is a pretty well second alternative to Wayback Machine. And got unblacklisted a few months ago. Wasn't much fanfare about it. GamerPro64 02:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Also, I listed the article for peer review here and I might appreciate more feedback (although a fellow user already did that in my talk page).Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering again but I don't know if this source is okay to use. I searched through the archives of FFONline but I couldn't find Nomura's article. On the other hand, I found Yoshitaka Amano's article which might help a lot to the articles. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Gamecruft and gameguide garbage on Angry Birds POP!

Previous revision with unsourced junk: [43]. Current revision without it: [44]. See discussion and give input on which is better: Talk:Angry Birds POP!#Level tables. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

GA/FA discussion regarding Final Fantasy XV

There is an important discussion regarding the possibility of making Final Fantasy XV a GA or an FA in the future. The discussion can be found at Talk:Final Fantasy XV#Possible GA/FA?. Input or suggestions from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

NES Classic games official online instruction manuals

For those games included on the upcoming NES Classic mini unit, Nintendo has provided all their manuals online. Note these are still copyrighted, but they would make valid sources and/or external links to include on those games. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Box art needs proper cropping

Can someone get File:Metal Gear Solid cover art.png cropped properly? Its kind of ridiculous even the plastic spine is there. Thanks, « Ryūkotsusei » 22:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Easier option - / Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
And shrank down Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am against scrapping out a console brand name just to please the neutrality principle. Also, the PC CD-ROM had a cover different from the PlayStation release. --George Ho (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for this case, where the game was only released first on the PS, stripping out the console branding is not appropriate. We only ask that when the game is released cross-platform (or was launched with intended cross-platform release but delays or time-exclusivity deals got in the way). As MGS was a PS game only at the start, the PS cover should keep the branding. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
? The infobox art is meant to display something recognisable, format primacy is not a concern, so if a clean art option exists, why avoid it? That said, I remember the MGS art being better, had a sketch of Snake behind it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Found a line from MOS:IMAGE#Editing images: "Images should not be changed in ways that materially mislead the viewer." In other words, images would mislead readers whenever changes occur, like scrapping out console banners when an official banner-less artwork does not exist. Of course, the rule may have exceptions or be treated with common sense, but the rule already makes sense generally. George Ho (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Cropping a platform banner is not materially misleading. Removing platform information doesn't imply something else to the reader. Materially misleading would be something like changing a PlayStation banner to an Xbox banner on a game that wasn't released for Xbox. That would be materially misleading because it implies the game released on a platform it didn't.--The1337gamer (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way, regarding the sketch of Snake, do you mean the PAL release? George Ho (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)