Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 127

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 120 Archive 125 Archive 126 Archive 127 Archive 128 Archive 129 Archive 130

Contents

Game Boy creator

Due to an Interview by Satoru Okada [[1]] several Wikipedia articles are now solely crediting him as the systems' creator with multiple mentions of Gunpei Yokoi being removed entirely, one example [[2]]. My question is is this the properly way to handle this situation.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty extreme. Yokoi has always been known as the man who created the Gameboy, so the idea that it didn't follow his vision at all is pretty... impactful. How much weight should we put on this as a primary source? I'm worried that Okada may be exaggerating. I'm currently not aware what sources we have that say that the Gameboy is primarily Yokoi's idea, but I'd love to know if Okada's interview contradicts them directly. (oh, and of course, someone should check the relevant issue of Retro Gamer to see if this interview is real and not a hoax). ~Mable (chat) 21:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Checked it. Interview is real. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that thr interviee had been verified to be true thr real question is this the proper way to handle the issue on the GameBoy article [[3]].--64.229.167.158 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We trust what a reliable, secondary source has written (and ostensibly fact-checked) over what an individual says about himself in an interview (no editorial mechanism) czar 00:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Steam's top sellers for 2016

[4]

Note that these are not in any specific order within the groups, only that the groups are sorted from highest selling downward. It may not be appropriate for all games on this but I can see the cases for including it for games like NMS, Rocket League, Stardew Valley, and so on. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind that this is just for revenue made, not copies sold, which matters for free-to-play games like Dota 2 and TF2. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mario Segale

So I added a link to his article on the Mario franchise template, and then some other editor reverted it stating he had nothing to do with the series apart from being the basis for the character's name. And now I was wondering if a person who had a minor yet key role in the creation of a well-known, influential character should be included in the said navbox. Any thoughts? Blake Gripling (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • That was me, as I don't think he really needs to go there. Should we add Zelda Fitzgerald to the Legend of Zelda's navbox too? What about King Kong for Donkey Kong's? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And I would have removed it if you hadn't. If it's true, that's fine for a sourced sentence somewhere in an article body, but it's really not good as a template item, considering context is required for the reader to understand what the connection is, and templates leave no room for context. Sergecross73 msg me 05:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Games/series with major anniversaries this year - potential targets for improvement

Saw this over at Dtoid: [5]. I haven't crosschecked what has been at FA, but anything that hasn't been features and is having its 20th or 30th anniversary would make for a good FAC/Front Page featured. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The 30th anniversary of the section is a bit light and devoid of stuff from home computers. I'll chuck Head over Heels (video game) and Dizzy (series) into the pot. - X201 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds a reasonable idea. Of course, we'd need to check which had been featured on the front page on that front. As to FAC, a concerted effort to bring FFVII back to FA status wouldn't go amiss I suppose. Also, let's not forget Atlus' Megami Tensei franchise: first release in 1987, thirty years ago. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Kirby's Dream Land is going to be 25 in April. Anyone want to work on that to make it a Featured Article? GamerPro64 19:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Genre by year categories

Is there support for the use of Category:Visual novels by year? ‎White Demon introduced it today, and I'm frankly not sure what the point is - we already have Category:Visual novels and Category:Video games by year. Additionally, the way WD adds it to articles - using it to replace Category:Visual novels and Category:(Year) video games - doesn't really work in my opinion, since there are multi-genre hybrids, like the VN-adventure game Ace Attorney Investigations 2, which now cannot be found in Category:2011 video games.--IDVtalk 11:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with your logic, and @White Demon should discuss it here before continuing czar 18:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought we already agreed to get rid of RPGs by year category, which had the same basic problem? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Opinions sought at merge discussion for Half-Life goldsrc mods.

Please see Talk:List of GoldSrc engine mods#Proposed merge with Deathmatch Classic. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Research on the effects of violence in mass media

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media#Latest edits. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Video game release template merger/update

A few weeks back, a TfD closed with the consensus of merging "Vgrelease" and "Vgrelease new", with an eye towards migrating to the syntax format of "Vgrelease new". Those updates are now done in the sandbox, with assistance from @Lordtobi and @Primefac. Tests cases are available here. Please take a moment to see if we missed anything. I plan to put the sandbox live by Monday. -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret: Is there a reason that this process might be causing a bunch of video game pages to appear in CAT:CSD? I can't figure out why it would. Sam Walton (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
No, that's unrelated. Someone decided to CSD a bunch of Sega and Bandai Namco templates that were still transcluded on video game articles without adding <noinclude> tags. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Today's the day. Please ping me if there's an issue or mention me on discord. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

PrimeBOT is in the midst of converting the old "Vgrelease" syntax to "Vgrelease new" syntax. Please be aware we will remove support of the old named parameters from the template once the bot has finished. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Can "vgr" be an acceptable abbreviation to use? Not that it matters much, but it's an accepted practice that other templates use. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Seems valid to me. -- ferret (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Nice. It shouldn't be hard to implement, I'd assume. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
     Done {{Vgr}} is now active. Lordtobi () 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to ask for some input on the deletion discussions for the old, should-now-be-no-longer-used "new" redirects. At the main discussion on the template's talk page, we have decided that they should go. They are listed from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 3#Template:Video game release new: "Video game release new", "Vgreleasenew", "Vgrelease new" and long-time unused "Vg release" (note, this is not "Vgrelease", which is widely used). I would appreciate if you could aid me in the deletion of those [and if you have some extra time to spare, also for "Vgrelease tbl" and "Vgrtbl-nolink" listed above them]. Thanks! Lordtobi () 10:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017's TFA

Happy 2017, everyone. Letting you all know that the first video game article up on Today's Featured Article is Defense of the Ancients. Let's hope to see more like it in the months to follow. GamerPro64 03:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's cool. I'll try and get back around to promoting Dota 2 to FA status soon, as the last nomination failed due to lack of full support in time. Maybe this could have been Dota 2 instead, if passed earlier. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Heads up for those working on new console articles/generation articles.

Since I know newer-ish editors tend to focus a lot on trying to classify a new console generation, editors should be aware of this published opinion that came out today. [6]. It does not say that Switch or Scorpio are new generations, but I can see editors grabbing that title to assert that we are now 9th gen. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Slight devil's advocate question, and I'm not sure if it has been brought up before, but would it be worthwhile to mention a "half" generation (for lack of a better term)? Because I think you could definitely argue (and find sources) to claim the PS4 Pro, Scorpio and Slim are a solid reference point for them being a new era of the generation. My point being, it may be better to list these three consoles together in the comparison table at the 8th gen article, opposed to along with the Wii U, PS4/Slim, and the Xbox One/S. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If no one else is saying that, I don't know how we could rationalize saying that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Ugh. Thanks for the heads up. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
How about "mid-generation upgrade" as I believe that's essentially what the Pro was described as. --JDC808 15:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I would rather not make any steps forward until Scorpio is out and the media have a chance to digest it, but even with a "mid-generation upgrade" that all would be within the 8th generation and not a new generation page. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Basically what Favre1fan93 said, but call it mid-generation upgrade. I just looked over the 8th gen page and didn't see anything in regards to mid-gen consoles (the Switch is a bit of an oddball though). --JDC808 15:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we've held off on any changes to the 8th gen article, as there's a lack of sourcing or consensus on what to do with Switch or Scorpio yet. A vague comment here or there, but nothing to define an entire industry by yet. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Just clarifying, I did not mean creating a 9th gen article in case anyone read that in my initial comment. I definitely understand waiting to see what sources are saying, but as JDC808 also seemed to agree with, indicating some sort of "mid-generation upgrade" might not be a bad way to format the 8th gen article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I was afraid you meant something along the lines of making a "8.5 gen" article or something, which was why I had OR concerns. I have a hard time labeling it anything, and no ones given any label to it quite yet. One week from now, the big Switch reveal is happening, and will certainly spur all sorts of new coverage. You could be on to something, but I really think itd be better to wait and see what all the incoming new coverage will say. It'll likely change what we think of it at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
No. I know all too well from peering in mainly on VG project discussion about the idea surrounding the 9th gen (which I agree with too). But, yes, the Switch presentation may provide some more info on the matter, but still something to keep in the back of the mind, as a potential section adjustment on the 8th gen article as necessary when the time comes, if it does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticisms of Gamingforfun365

We don't need to announce whether or not we we are doing GA/FA reviews or not, and we shouldn't start up discussions about ourselves if we're not open to listening to constructive criticism. Please, don't dwell over Wikipedia's GA/FA navel gazing. Concentrate on making contributions that make you happy. Sergecross73 msg me 07:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In response to criticism that I have received concerning all the GANs that I have reviewed, I hereby quit as a reviewer and thus refuse to fact-check any of the promoted articles (the only exception being Crispy Gamer because it is short enough for an editor with hyperactivity). Meanwhile, I shall stick to what I always have been doing: directly improving articles, and the FAC archive for Crispy Gamer should be removed, as I could have been told to withdraw the FAC so that the archive would never have existed. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Shall all the articles (except for Crispy Gamer) that I have reviewed be delisted, as I have barely fact-checked? I am happy (not really, but you know what I mean.) to face the consequences of being an awful reviewer, especially one with inattentiveness and a lack of patience. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
My recommendation is to just walk away from it and stop worrying or posting about it. At some point it begins to become disruptive. Just focus on improving articles and leaving reviewing to others for now. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They do not need delisted, but rather reassessed to determine if they should be delisted. I do not know what articles you reviewed for GAN, but although you did not fact-check them, that does not mean they are not GA standard (they actually could be, but again, I do not know what articles they were). --JDC808 01:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The articles that I have reviewed for GAN but not fact-checked are Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem, Deus Ex Go, and ReCore. At least not only have I learned that it takes so much patience to review a GAN, but I have also learned quite a lot about the subjects of the articles that I have reviewed. I shall just stick to reviewing FACs. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Please do not do any FACs. FACs are a level above GAN, and if you're uncomfortable with GAN you shouldn't be near FAC. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
So I should not have reviewed Burning Rangers? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I agree and I disagree with ferret. Ferret is right in that FAC is above GAN and there is more to it, but unlike GAN, FAC requires multiple reviewers, not a single reviewer, and the reviewers can either try to review all criteria for FAC, or they can single out a particular point and just review that (basically, what you don't review, others will or FAC coordinators will hold off until it's addressed). Your comments at Burning Rangers are okay; the FAC coordinators will determine if your review and support has enough weight to either pass/fail that nomination, or require more input from other reviewers. --JDC808 01:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Gamingforfun, I'm a bit confused. I asked you specifically a couple of weeks ago if you would be willing to do a fact-checking review: I said The last thing it needs is a fact checking checking review (going through all of the article's sources and making sure it accurately backs up what's mentioned in the article). And then now you say at the Burning Rangers FAC "I had extremely hardly done any fact-checking"? Don't worry, I'm not angry at all, really, I'm just confused on what you did instead. JAGUAR  11:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I must have forgotten that I have also read that part. Apologies. Anyway, now that I have made 12 (about 9% of all the edits made to the article) edits to Crispy Gamer, am I considered to be a "major editor" so that I could renominate the article for the FAC? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
12 edits is rather low to be considered a major editor to that particular article, unless those edits were major edits, then it would really depend on the percentage of contributed content to the article, rather than the percentage of edits made (12 still a low a number though even with that). To further that, how familiar are you to the topic? Can you answer questions related to the prose and sources of that topic? I just looked at the article and it is rather short. I have no problem with short articles becoming FA as long as they fully cover the topic. Do you feel that it fully covers the topic? Compare it with other articles about gaming websites and see what more can be done to expand Crispy Gamer. --JDC808 00:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It being so short was the exact reason why I didn't want it to be taken at FAC to begin with. I really don't believe it'll pass in any state. GamerPro64 01:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know if it could never pass, but I don't know much about the topic to begin with. Further note though, since Gamingforfun365 was the GA reviewer, it seems a bit odd that they were the one to originally nominate it for FAC and wants to again be the one to renominate it. I don't recall if there are any rules about that, but still seems odd. --JDC808 01:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I know. I still don't approve of it being nominated for FAC. But nothing can be done of course. Probably would be closed again for the same reasoning, though. GamerPro64 02:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you not think that it is a little sizeist to single out rather short articles for "never being able to become featured articles", regardless of how complete they are? Besides that, make that 13 edits; I have just edited again. Also, it seems that because of me, the article grew by almost 1,700 bytes. Gamingforfun365 02:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Your last comment alone was 600 bytes. 1700 is a few sentences. Stop getting caught up in edit count or byte count- the fact that you would even reference that is a little ridiculous. The criteria for nominating an article for FAC (explicitly) or GAN (as a matter of social convention) is that you have written a significant amount of the article- i.e. most of it. I can almost physically feel the eye-rolling of other editors when you try to justify the exact edit/byte count on that article because most people when they go to GAN/FAC take an article that they've written/rewritten almost from scratch, and even then they get hammered on the exact wording/style/references used. Making a few edits is nothing.
Additionally, "sizeist"? That's not how words work, and it comes across like a middle-school debate tactic. It's a really short article. That's fine, but if you want to hold it up as one of the top 0.1% of articles you're going to have to justify how there's nothing at all else to say beyond two paragraphs (plus a short lead summary) about the website. I'm not saying that it's not justifiable (it is, after all, a website that existed for just over 1 year, limped along for another 2, then closed, there's not that much to talk about), but it's going to take some persuasive talking in the face of stern opposition, and, just saying, I'm not sure that someone who publicly and drammatically "resigns" from GAN reviews in a huff in the face of criticism on their reviewing skill is going to be able to do it.
I really think you're focusing your time and energy in the wrong places here. The vast majority of editors never take an article the FAC. Heck, most don't even take one to GAN. This does not make them bad editors. There is a ton of work out there to do that does not involve any sort of formal review process. For instance, this project alone has over 13,000 Stub articles- as in, not just "not high enough quality", but literally not enough content in the article to clear the (low) bar to make Start-class, and never mind all the games and websites without an article at all. You could write hundreds of articles on whatever subjects you'd like and never once have to deal with anyone else every complaining about your writing decisions. There's really more to editing on wikipedia than getting a little badge on an article you made some edits to. --PresN 02:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Sizeist is a word (look it up on Oxford or some other dictionary), and that my usage of the word makes me a middle schooler and this huge argument make me seem like a huge, stupid, irredeemable, and evil-spirited editor, which offends me. I am sorry.
And I shall keep trying to improve the article. Gamingforfun365 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
And I would criticize the stubs for even existing. Gamingforfun365 03:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sizeist is a word, but it refers to a person being discriminated against for their size, not an encyclopedia article not meeting the length requirements to be considered for featured status. The discussion doesn't make you "seem" like those things you listed; frankly, only your own comments can make you "seem" like something, and that's mainly inexperienced in my opinion. I'm sorry if you feel offended, but frankly if you were "stupid, irredeemable, and evil-spirited" no one would even be bothering to try to spend this much effort educating and assisting you. --PresN 03:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It was a joke when I used the word sizeist, and I admit that there was no need for me to have high blood pressure as a result of this discussion. Gamingforfun365 03:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
And I often criticize something for making me "stupid" or "the bad guy" (because that is how it really feels) so that I could calm down and let my explosive emotions out (but in a somewhat restricted way). Gamingforfun365 03:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If you're getting high blood pressure on Wikipedia, you might want to take a step back or take a wikibreak. This is completely embarrassing and nonproductive. GamerPro64 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I admit that I could have acted much worse than I currently am, and I admit that I did consciously become disruptive one time because I could not handle a conflict (at Talk:Walt Disney). To be honest, I find it extremely difficult to resist the temptaion to become disruptive as a result of not successfully handling a conflict, but I still am able to prevent my disruption from happening. Gamingforfun365 03:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am fairly awed by how this civil and calm discussion turned into a ridiculous section that seems to devote criticism towards me. In fact, I have just changed the discussion title from "Gamingforfun365 quits as a GAN reviewer" to "Criticisms of Gamingforfun365". Gamingforfun365 04:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And I still consider myself to be a major editor because I have tried my very hardest to do everything that I could to improve the article. It is not fair to only be considered a minor because I think that I have significantly improved the article. Stubs should not even exist. Gamingforfun365 05:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Firstly, don't expect immediate replies from other editors. There was a 37 minute period between your last two comments; it can often take several hours or days to receive a response. Secondly, I'm not sure what you're expecting other users to say—by "resigning" as a GAN reviewer, and doing so in such a public forum, you're essentially asking for criticism and judgement on your performance. Expect civility, not sympathy. Just my 2¢. – Rhain 05:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Gamingforfun365, I have looked into the situation a bit and I will be blunt in this comment. You brought this "criticism" upon yourself for not learning procedures. You reviewed a few GA's without properly fact checking. You prematurely nominated an article for FAC (for which you practically had no involvement with at the time), and you are now trying to claim yourself to be a major editor of that article so you can renominate it. You may feel you are a major editor, but here's the reality of it, you are not. Since you began editing the article on January 1, 2017, you've added alt text to the logo, you've added some commas and semicolons, roughly three sentences and two sources, added a screenshot to the infobox, and added the old logo to the body of the article. No offense, but that's not very much. You need to have spent more than 15 days with an article and contributed a bit more content to be considered a major editor. Instead of feeling like you're getting ganged up on, take this criticism, learn from it, and become a more productive editor. --JDC808 07:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Should Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem, Deus Ex Go, ReCore, and Crispy Gamer be delisted?

If one were to take a look at my recent edits, one would know that I was having trouble with the FA candidacy of Crispy Gamer. First, I was accused of rudeness, then, I was shouting at the accuser because I had clearly no intentions of being rude (when I knew that I should not WP:SHOUT, then, I said that I was having fun with the fact that the discussion would not end when I wanted it to end, and last, my reputation is going down as I am receiving criticism. When it comes to FAC, what shall I do, and how can I boost my reputation? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I think a heartfelt apology does wonders. I've messed up with "shouting" in the past as well, it happens to the best of us. I recommend not worrying too much about your reputation specifically; rather, I'm just happy when people recognize their own mistakes and learn from them, and of course creating good content always helps ^_^ When it comes to FAC, it seems like the lesson to learn from this incident is not to nominate an article for Featured status without consulting other editors unless you contact them in advance. Nobody owns the articles, but regular editors of articles often have a much better grasp of what still needs to be improved. Lastly, turning things into Featured Articles isn't our primary goal - our goal is to make high-quality content. I wouldn't put too much weight in turning Good Articles in Featured Articles myself, but that's just me. ~Mable (chat) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Id second that notion. I mean, I'm in favor of GA/FA stuff because anything that motivates people to improve articles is a good thing, but I think many lose perspective too. We as editors may value such statuses, but the truth of the matter is, a majority of general readers probably don't even know what they are outside of an FA showing up on a main page. To much of the world, it's meaningless. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it too much, if you forget about it, I imagine anyone else will too. My personal recommendation is to have a secondary area of interest when editing on Wikipedia. Personally, I work a lot on band/album articles outside of video games, and often switch to the other when one subject matter is leading to stressful situations for whatever reasons. It can cut down on stress and burnout. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Good advice. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I strongly recommend you familiarise yourself with the FA criteria and look at other VG FAs for general guidance. FAs are meant to showcase Wikipedia's best work and is essentially supposed to be a "perfect article". JAGUAR  19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And now, I would really like that FAC page to be deleted as it is an embarrassment just I had with the Xbox One FAC page. is that all right? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Its already been archived. You can't delete it now. GamerPro64 02:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

New problem: I admit that, while reviewing Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem, Deus Ex Go, ReCore, and Crispy Gamer, I mostly did not fact-check the information to see whether it was correct. I mostly only pointed out the obvious issues (e.g. missing citation) and trusted the sources. @The1337gamer: told me that I should have fact-checked in the process, so I believe that these articles may have to be delisted. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll fact-check Crispy Gamer and solve any issues if they exist. It's a short article anyway. ~Mable (chat) 11:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

On those Zelda CD-I games...

GI just published this nice article focusing on Stephen Radosh, the producer of the four CD-i games that used Nintendo's characters that resulted from the same deal between Phillips and Nintendo [7].

Reading that and seeing what else we have, it makes me think that we should be covering Hotel Mario and the 3 Zelda games in the same place holistically to explain the detail, Radosh's involvement (per this article). I do not think we should dissolve the individual game pages (one for Hotel Mario, one for the Wand/Faces duo since they are extremely tied together, and one for Zelda's Adventure) but I do think that CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series is unnecessary given that we can write the unifying themes of the story into the main Phillips CD-i page (and it also seems odd to omit Hotel Mario from that group, since outside the common characters of Zelda, Link, and Ganon there's little specifity to Zelda in the trio) Mind you, that page is a good article but listed in 2008 and just considering where to add things, I do not think it qualifies any more, but before I go rushing off to prep such a stage, I'd like to get input to see if this makes sense (specifically to redirect this page to the CD-i page and merge content to that). --MASEM (t) 23:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
How would a "List of Nintendo-approved Phillips CD-i games" work? Such an article could cover the entirety of the Phillips-Nintendo situation without going into intricate details about the specific games that came out of it. This way, you can also cover all of the projects that were never released. ~Mable (chat) 14:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't even have a list, though reasonable redirects to the Phillips CD-i article in a section about its games would be appropriate. I'm thinking that there's a good 2-3 paragraphs that could be written to describe how Phillips got the licenses, how the games came about (Phillips needed non-edutainment titles, and why Radosh's involvement) and the general reception that these 4 titles have gotten since. The individual games, as noted below, have more details specific to them that doesn't need more discussion in the CD-i article, and too little to tack onto a list article. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the "CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series" article should not exist because it basically duplicates content from its child articles. In fact, the first paragraph of the Development section of Zelda's Adventure is exactly the same as the History section of the parent article. Currently, there should only be three independent and notable articles:
If you have enough third-party sources that discuss Nintendo's involvement with the CD-i console directly and in detail, a parent article that covers the above games from a general point of view might be appropriate, as long as you use summary style, similar to the Capcom Five. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It would also cover Super Mario's Wacky Worlds and Mario Takes America, which were never released. This grouping of six Nintendo games would work better as an article than the current grouping of three Zelda games, but I don't know if such an article is needed and am not too familiar with the sources. ~Mable (chat) 16:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
From my perspective (and again, this is just based on my own person best efforts at tracking down the available online sources several years ago), there is simply too little independent coverage of the individual games to warrant the split. I think a split could be possible but I think the best way to get from here to there is by searching through older paper-based 1990s sources like gaming magazines. -Thibbs (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • How about Nintendo CD-i games? Per the naming criteria (article titles policy), it's recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify). Anything that needs to be cleared up about Nintendo's involvement can easily be done in the lede. It could cover the terms of the partnership, the development of the games, and so on, and if a game has significant coverage such that we can write a full treatment of the topic, we split each out summary style and take it from there? (Also see my previous comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 126#CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series—the sourcing in the currently split games is atrocious, particularly in Zelda's Adventure. Hence, merge them together, do the single article right, and split out if the sourcing warrants it.) czar 04:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • My point is that everything that is about the Nintendo/Phillips licensing deal and nothing specific to any of the games can be summarized in 2-3 sentences, which doesn't need the separate article but could be part of the Philips CD-i article about its software. Yes, this section will likely note the games generally got very poor reception. I just don't think we need a separate article on these. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, but the separate article, I thought, was to house info on the Nintendo CD-i games that lack the sources for independent notability czar 05:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

GAR for Codename: Gordon

Codename: Gordon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 23 December

8 December

16 December

17 December

18 December

19 December

20 December

21 December

22 December

23 December

Salavat (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

Ayu_Tsukimiya, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

God of War: Ascension FAC

Could use more comments. Only have one set of comments (who ended up supporting). Much appreciated for those that do. I'll even do a trade review per se for anyone's GAN or FAC. --JDC808 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@JDC808: I'll leave what comments I can, and I'll take you up on that offer for a GA review in return. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Which GA? --JDC808 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I've got Soma Bringer (been there since November), FE Binding Blade (again since November), Pandora's Tower, and Flower Sun and Rain. You can take your pick. :) --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I will take a look at them tomorrow afternoon and see which one I'd be more interested in reviewing and begin shortly thereafter. --JDC808 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Any other takers? --JDC808 19:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll look at it. GamerPro64 21:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Generational reassessment: Neo Geo CD and Phillips CD-i

Currently, the Neo Geo CD and Philips CD-i are both categorized as fourth generation consoles in all relevant articles and templates. I'm not sure if there's a strong basis for this, or if it's original research that simply hasn't been challenged, and my increasing suspicion is that these consoles are actually fifth generation. My initial impetus for this is that the Neo Geo CD and CD-i are both reviewed in the 1995 Next Generation article "Which Game System is the Best!?", which pretty explicitly covers fifth generation consoles only (the magazine cover says the article "details the pros and cons of each next generation system", and the absence of the Super NES and Genesis from the article is pretty telling). But gaming mags in general from the era tend to refer to the Neo Geo CD and CD-i as part of the new generation rather than the old. For the record, my own gut analysis is that the Neo Geo CD is fifth gen (doesn't make sense to me for a console which was announced at the same show as the Sega Saturn to be lumped into the same generation as the Genesis, and lack of polygons notwithstanding the NGCD's specs and features seem fifth generation) and the CD-i is fourth gen (an effective lifespan of 1991-96 seems too far back for a fifth generation console), but naturally I'd like to categorize the consoles based on what notable/reliable sources say. Thoughts?--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The IEEE has them both as 4th generation, and that's the most authorative source we should be using. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You should keep in mind that generations weren't numbered yet in the 90s. Every new console was quite likely considered "next generation". I agree with Masem that using the IEEE source is probably the best thing to do right now. ~Mable (chat) 10:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
'Every new console was quite likely considered "next generation".' - That hypothesis doesn't hold up, though, since the Next Generation article doesn't cover the Sega CD, which was just as "new" as the CD-i. "New" is in quotation marks because the CD-i had been around for over four years at this point. I have two concerns with the IEEE: One, the Neo Geo CD is actually sorted as fifth generation in the timeline. You have to click on its specific entry to see it listed as fourth generation, and even there it provides more justification for categorizing it as fifth generation. Two, I don't see why we should look to it alone as the definitive source on console generations.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course, if there are modern sources referring to it as a fifth-generation console, then the situation is different. I just advice against using contemporary sources to define what "generation" a console belongs in. But looking at Neo Geo CD's listing in this thing, it is indeed a curiosity, and it may be a mistake on IEEE's part. ~Mable (chat) 13:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, what do you propose we use as a more authoritative source? Because last time I checked, virtually no others exist. The "generations" as they exist now did not exist back then, so its not like you're going to dig up a source from the 90s or something, and the reason we have so many arguments about the generation articles is that very few sources actually outline them overall. Usually you're just stuck with vague "X console is last generation, Y console is next generation" type comments on individual consoles. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sidenote, but I personally find all of this debate over what system belongs in what generation to be silly and a waste of time, as it's all just a marketing term that has nothing to do with the systems themselves. Just look at the Nintendo Switch talk page, with the majority of it being back and forth discussion that hasn't helped the article one bit. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel the same way. It's an awkward situation that we wrote ourselves into. It would be nice if this were the "last" console generation, and if the situation remains confusing, then it might as well be the case. When it comes to older devices, though, like the Neo Geo and the CD-i, the least we can do is to try to categorize them per reliable sources. ~Mable (chat) 09:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it either, but it tends these discussions reoccur every 4-8 years when new platforms are announced/released, and if experienced editors from the WikiProject don't step in, then it's going to become unstable and be changed on people's whim over and over again, and create far more problems. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it always floors me how all these people pop up out of nowhere with these random, crazy theories about the VG generations when new platforms arise. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

[Wikipedians] pop up out of nowhere with these random, crazy theories about the VG generations when new platforms arise

Isn't that how we got this "X generation" scheme to begin with? czar 14:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm just saying I'm always surprised how much different viewpoints vary between editors. Left un-maintained and un-discussed, definitions and platform inclusion would vary on a weekly basis. I've maintained the 8th gen article since its inception, and seen it all. Is it time period that defines generations? Or system horsepower? Or Cost? "Is Switch part of the 8th gen or 9th gen?" "Is Scorpio actually 9th gen?" "Is my iphone 5 part of the 8th gen?" "What about the apple watch?" What about my graphing calculator? What about the 20th anniversary Digimon toy re-release?" It's insane. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Scratch that - they're not usually asking, they're usually stating it as fact. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly the problem with it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The TI-73 is an excellent 6th generation handheld console and you can't tell me otherwise ;p This is a field that attracts a lot of original research because, though it doesn't make for great news stories, "gamer" communities really care about this kind of thing. Always awkward. I think we've strayed far from the original topic, though: what should we do with the Neo Geo CD? Keep it at 4 or consider it a gen 5? The IEEE source could go either way, so getting some insight from different sources may be useful. ~Mable (chat) 17:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Absent a source-by-source analysis, I'd recommend resisting the urge to lump consoles by generation. If reliable sources do it, we can cite them, and if they put the console in different generations, we should cite which sources put the console in which generation and why. (And if enough say that a console is "fifth generation" then we can condense those sentences into a single sentence with multiple refs.) Unless a console is central to the "generation" discussion, there is little use in shoehorning it into the "generation" terminology. A smarter way to go about these divisions of video game history, I believe, is to think of them as summary style expansions from the main video game (console) history article, whether those articles are organized by date ranges, "eras", or "generations". So when a section about 2010s gaming (whatever it is titled) gets too big, it splits out into its own article. If sources refer to our current age as "eighth gen" and include Ouya along PS4/XB1 then so be it, but more realistically, there are not neat eras (an American console war may be important, but not defining of all video game history in a time period) and we do history a disservice by shoehorning consoles into "definitive" generations. czar 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that the articles on the individual console generations tend to be framed in a "console wars" kinda way; primarily comparing the different consoles and their hardware. In that sense, it seems quite different from a "2010s in console gaming" or something along those lines... or maybe not. I think this will always be a difficult balance. ~Mable (chat) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I honestly didn't expect this level of response to this topic. For the record, I agree that the "console generations" system is fundamentally flawed and misleading to people who are not familiar with gaming history (for instance, I often find editors doing things like adding the 3DO to the list of the N64's competitors, which I can only imagine stems from the assumption that every console in a given generation was on store shelves for the same period). But WP already has quite a bit of framework built around the generational divisions, not just the history articles. We've got navboxes for each of the generations, categories for each of the generations, the List of home video game consoles is sorted by generation, the console infobox includes a field for designating generation, etc. My assumption was that I should be trying to do my edits within that framework rather than working to eliminate that framework. I am up for eliminating generation as WP's classification system for consoles, but doing that would mean a lot of editing and consensus building.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am up for eliminating generation as WP's classification system for consoles, but doing that would mean a lot of editing and consensus building

I would be too, but it's not like this is some Wikipedia specific classification system. Most gaming sources do mention a system's generation in one way or another, and if we were to remove that entirely form this site, it would just bring unnecessary edit warring, as stated above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that, regardless of whether it's now an accepted system, the generations concept has a ton of problems, both for today and anything below 6th generation. I'll reiterate what I said in the 2015 discussion, though: "Other organization schemes, such as "85-90", "91-95", etc., where consoles get slotted in based on when they were first released could make sense, but... Revamping the 8 massive articles on the history of video game consoles into any other schema is a massive undertaking, to say nothing of all the side mentions of generations on any article that mentions consoles. Nobody even seems to have the energy to fix up the generation articles as they are, much less write the equivalent of a short history book to restructure the articles into a new schema, even if you can get everyone to agree on what that schema should be, which no one's been able to yet." --PresN 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you and Dissident cover it pretty well here. There's 2 major hurdles here. One being actually creating a consensus to make a change - every conversation I've been involved in with it in these last years has resulted in a no consensus/no change made result. Secondly, even if we did have consensus - it would be a massive undertaking to rework into anything else, and there's barely people actively maintaining them, let alone reworking them. If you look at the 8th gen article, the only active editors who maintain it still would probably be myself and Ferret - I don't mean to assume, but I doubt this a massive undertaking either one of us is interested in. None of the top contributors in the 7th gen article have edited in years either. Unless you've got some new person/crew who lacked interest in these articles before, but now is open to it, you probably don't have the manpower/interest to rework it either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Virtual Boy article's lead needs expansion

We have a problem with the Virtual Boy article, and the problem is that the article's lead section needs expansion. I have already notified the Nintendo Task Force of this, but it seems that we have not many editors watching the page or even bothering reading it, so I thought that maybe it would be best to forward this thread to this talk page. In the meantime, I am going to be editing other video game articles, specifically those which I am interested in editing. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Done TarkusAB 13:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Nice job.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Input on Triforce

This isn't meant to necessarily be a deletion/merger/redirect discussion, I just wanted to get some thoughts on the article before I take any action on it. See Triforce.

Its a lengthy article that's existed since 2004. However, its pretty weakly sourced considering its size, and overly focused on in-universe story content. But at the same, it is a symbolic part of the series. But then again, there is a Universe of Legend of Zelda article. But then again, that article's pretty awful shape too. Who knows if that's even warranted.

So what say you? Worth cleaning up? Or worth persuing a merger somewhere? I'm completely neutral at the moment, and haven't done much source hunting yet, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Haven't looked into it too in-depth, but two quick thoughts: 1) surely the Triforce has enough sigcov to justify a standalone article, and 2) Universe of Legend of Zelda is crufty as fuck.  · Salvidrim! ·  15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I've always been surprised that despite the franchises immense popularity in general, and relatively well-maintained game entries on Wikipedia, the "universe" and "characters" have consistenly been pretty awful. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I honestly had no idea that the Universe article existed, and I watch and maintain most of the big name Zelda articles... ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Same. Its not very well wiki-linked to any of the major Zelda articles, nor have I felt any need to add links to it myself, considering how awful it is. Same with the Tri-force article - was shocked to see it's existed since like 2004 when I've been active in the series and don't recall ever seeing it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Cut and merge. It may meet the bar for WP:N but only in the presumed sense and not in the displayed sense. We can WP:SPLIT it later. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge sourced info to Universe of The Legend of Zelda#Triforce, whence it could split, per Izno. As for why the article's in disrepair, I think it's common for articles to attract edits that match its current state (broken footnotes theory): unsourced plot-driven articles tend to collect more unsourced, unencyclopedic information... And I've noticed that editors are overly hesitant to remove unsourced content from vg articles in general. czar 18:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Effects on WP:VGBOX by Tales of Eternia decision

Just for the heads up for those interested in the results of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1#Tales of Eternia, the Japanese cover art for Tales of Eternia is retained, while the European PSP and North Am. (Tales of Destiny II) PS box arts were deleted. How would this affect WP:VGBOX? --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't as far as I'm concerned. VG BOX says "English-language covers are preferred for identification". Although that was a Japanese cover, it is in the English language. - X201 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. I wouldn't draw any precedent regardless, as that title is a very bizarre case when it comes to naming and boxart. Sergecross73 msg me 11:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This reminds me of Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy IV, and Final Fantasy VI. However, the ordering of FF series is different. Meanwhile, Eternia is... Eternia. I guess VGBOX is not affected at all by Eternia case, though... bizarre as you said. There must be other examples. --George Ho (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In any case, a rule stating a "preference" as WP:VGBOX specifically allows the possibility of exceptions such as Eternia. Preference is implicitly not an obligation.  · Salvidrim! ·  15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, what about cover arts at Soul Hackers, Dragon Quest V, Innocent Sin, Star Ocean (video game), etc? --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

My reading of VGBOX (prefer English when it exists, and logoless), then for Soul Hackers we should use the 3DS NA clean art, right Sergecross73?  · Salvidrim! ·  03:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Correct, in my opinion/interpretation. Some people dispute this though due to the scenarios that exist on many of these examples - namely that they went untranslated for around a decade and were only translated for a remake on a different platform with a different cover. Even I supported the use of the original JP region cover for Star Ocean, but that was because the original version received so much coverage for being one of the most advanced SNES games ever created, a "lost game" never released in English, and a prominent early example of fan translations, while the PSP version was more of a "just another PSP port" release, so the recognizability factors are different there. It's JP cover does have the name in English though, so again, not a crazy overturning of precedent or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
However, File:ToE Cover.jpg has a big English title and minuscule Japanese subtitle, making it "primarily in English", while http://www.giantbomb.com/images/1300-2530831 features more prominent Japanese text (including the series name).  · Salvidrim! ·  04:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that a link to the Nintendo DS localization cover? I think you meant the Sega Saturn cover, which has "Soul Hackers" in big text. George Ho (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, he probably did. But anyways, with Soul Hackers, the original JP release featured very little coverage in the English press - it was an obscure JP-only release for an low-selling system. English readers are far more likely to recognize the 3DS release, which also more prominently features English text. The 3DS cover seems like a far better choice. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
While I respect your opinions, I'm a little worried about involvement and inconsistency. Also, I did not originally upload both covers. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, per Soul Hackers#Release, the game was popular in Japan in Saturn (and probably PlayStation). George Ho (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your concerns of "involvement" - what is that supposed to mean? I also did not say or think you uploaded any images in particular. And yes, it may have done okay in Japan, but we're talking about the recognizability of images for general English readers, and this game siimply barely showed up as a blip on the mainstream's radar in English regions. We also do not need absolute standardization on this. Honestly, you seem to be the only one stirring up trouble with all of these nowadays - you seem to be making "a mountain out of a molehill" over this. That's probably why it takes an upwards of 6 months to scrounge up enough participants to draw up the weakest of consensus in your discussions you keep starting. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Then how do I undo and fix the trouble? George Ho (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
All right. If it pleases you all, I'll remove the Saturn cover and then put the 3DS cover back in. Fine? George Ho (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I would support this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Removed the Saturn cover of Soul Hackers. What about Innocent Sin covers? George Ho (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the extra covers of Tales of Eternia were deleted, shall I remove the European PSP of Star Ocean or leave it alone? I did upload it. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Star Ocean, my gut says the PSP cover, while probably not as good a choice for the infobox as the SNES cover, still does serve some identification purpose and should be kept. Both the cover art and the game itself are different enough from the SNES original, and if the SNES version did not exist First Departure would still merit an article on its own. Innocent Sin I am less familiar with, but I think we can safely eliminate the Japanese cover and put the PSP cover in the infobox. The PlayStation release was not well known outside Japan going by anything I've read.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
ProtoDrake, thoughts? George Ho (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: In the cases of both Star Ocean and P2 Innocent Sin, I'd use the cover for the available Western version, in this case the PSP version. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Re-removed the original PS cover from "Innocent Sin". What about Tales of Hearts and "Tales of Graces"? The Japanese DS version of Hearts ([8]) and the Japanese (Wii) cover of Graces, which have the very big English-language title (and some tiny Japanese text), were originally used until replaced by the English "R" re-release covers. Weird that Tales of Zestiria uses the Japanese version of the worldwide artwork, but changing the image is not necessary (unless someone else wants it changed). George Ho (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I still think it makes sense to generally use the boxart of the first English release on the ground of better recognizability for the general reader. They both passed GAs with those images, so I think we're fine with keeping them as is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Treating a release on Steam (and therefore Steam Machines) as a "console release"

See Talk:List of Xbox One games#Steam Machine as a reason for a game not being .22console exclusive.22. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

New VG-related admin request

Our own Ferret is currently up for being made an admin at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ferret, with the goal of joining the handful of editors in this project (including myself) who are admins. They're currently one of five editors up for adminship at the time of this writing. --PresN 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Seven, not five! So many RfAs! And they're all passing! Happy New Year!  · Salvidrim! ·  23:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Welcome to adminship, Ferret! I think there are quite a few WPVG regulars familiar enough with policy to involve themselves in admin work, if they're interested. I'd start with background research at the Optional RfA candidate poll and Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination. czar 01:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Czar: I know people have wanted me to take another swing at RfA again. If anyone is interested in nominating me I can attempt to go at it again. GamerPro64 02:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

LÖVE

LÖVE, currently a redirect to Mari0, has been nominated at RfD. Your comments are invited in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 12#LÖVE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Handling different platforms in different regions

When a game is released for platform A, B, and C in Japan, but only for B and C in the West, what is the best way to present this in the infobox? I did it like this, splitting it into A and B+C, because I thought it was the simplest way to do it. The user Neverrainy changed it to list ABC together, with an "(excl. A)" added after regions where A was not released. I disagree with this, and think "my" way is simpler and easier to read. What does the project think about this?--IDVtalk 19:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely your way, which is used very frequently on the project. I have not seen Neverrainy's approach used much previously, nor would I prefer it. It looks sloppy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
But mine is less duplicate. Neverrainy (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Your version is confusing and unintuitive. It also adds 2 more lines to the field in the infobox, so you're actually making the infobox longer. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, usual standard is platform(s) as the top-level, subdivided into regions- that's why the VG release template takes regions instead of anything else. "These platforms (except not this one in this case)" is... awkward. --PresN 21:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is currently a merge discussion at Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2#Separation from main game articles. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Word of caution regarding the Nintendo Switch

Tonight in about 13 hrs from my typing of this, Nintendo will be live-streaming its major Switch reveal (pricing, specs, etc.) followed by a Treehouse for games to be released. The usual cautions about rushing to create articles solely on a single announcement point should apply. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Need to keep an eye on List of Nintendo Switch games as well as the main article. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll be keeping an eye on both. The games list is protected through the 17th because people kept on re-adding hoaxes or the unconfirmed tech demos in, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Another set of articles to watch for is Eighth generation of video game consoles and potentially Ninth generation of video game consoles. Note that the media have yet to classify the Switch, but we have IPs and others trying to do so already. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Along with most of the video game console articles like home video game console and the (currently redirect) hybrid video game console. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI the ninth gen page page was admin-level salted due to it being repeatedly recreated there and at some other name variations throughout 2016. It's still good to be on the lookout though, as people always try to start up pages at different variations of wording to get around the protection. (Like History of video game consoles (ninth generation), Ninth generation of video gaming etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
To get a heads up on rumor control, we have a 4chan-claimed list of the EU titles confirmed for the Switch. There are some ones on there that look odd (Persona 5), so keep mind nothing has been officially stated yet. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, seems unlikely, considering the Atlus Community Manager said there was no Switch version last week. But I guess we'll see soon enough. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Masem - Did you mean Disgaea 5? (Which would be equally bizarre I suppose.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Er, yeah. Getting my "5" sequels confused. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Tron 2.0 and Alien Hominid keep getting vandalized!

I have a problem. It seems that the Tron 2.0 and Alien Hominid articles keep getting vandalized by IP editors! They keep removing almost all the reviewers and the "na = true" bit from Reception charts, and they keep creating the macOS redirects in the Tron 2.0 article! I keep trying to fix the articles by undoing their vandalisms, but these editors keep undoing my fixes and claiming I "butchered" the Reception charts! Here are the links for both articles. Can you please tell the IP editors to stop butchering both articles and protect them from vandalism by IP editors? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone listening to my plea? I truly hate IP editors like 213.233.149.22 and 178.167.254.101, who always undo my fixes and claim that I keep "butchering" the Reception charts when I do not! And they always recreate redirects to pages and sabatoge my good fixes! Can somebody do something? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried any talk page discussions with them? They've reverted you only twice on Alien Hominid, which isn't enough to warrant page protection yet. I'm not even entirely sure it's vandalism - they appear to have some issue with the formatting or size of the reception section or something? Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I tried blanking the Reception charts in hopes that the IP editors would see that the sizing issues with the Reception chart would disappear, but they STILL undid my hiding the Reception charts and sabatoging my good fixes, ALWAYS removing "na = true" from multi-platform Reception charts and recreating redirects to macOS in the Tron 2.0 article! What gives?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I stumbled across that. I found it very confusing. You both seem to be arguing over a variation of a review box, and then you put the "hidden comment" formatting around the whole thing? That doesn't really make any sense. If you're capable of starting a new discussion here, then you should have no problem talking it over with the actual IP. At least at Alien Hominid, their edits don't appear to be vandalism. Quite frankly,both versions of the review box look pretty ugly and flawed if you ask me. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
"Is anyone listening to my plea?" Why do you always do this? Being dramatic doesn't make things happen faster. GamerPro64 22:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • These revisions ([9] [10]) have like 40 scores in the review table. That's too many. We don't need to cite every review in existence to write a well rounded reception section. Start by a writing a reception section first, then put the scores of the reviews you use in the table. Also having a giant table with many empty cells looks messy and unprofessional. The multiplatform table should just be scrapped imo, it's never looked good. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 30 December

24 December

25 December

26 December

27 December

28 December

29 December

30 December

Salavat (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Old "Video game release new" redirects should be deleted, requesting aid

Hello, as seen in the merge effort discussion by Ferret above, we have deprecated the use of "Video game release new" and merged its syntax with that of the original "Video game release" template. The three redirects for the former are listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Template:Video game release new and #Template:Vgreleasenew. If you find the time, please leave a comment requesting their deletion in the respective sections. Thank you! P.S.: Unrelated to the above, but also to be deleted for the same reason, are Template:Vgrelease tbl and Template:Vgrtbl-nolink, if you feel like it, please also consider requesting their deletion. Thank you! Lordtobi () 10:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

TWINE disambiguation

Revisiting the decision to split The World is Not Enough (video game) into different Nintendo 64 and PlayStation articles, how should the remaining incoming links be disambiguated? There are several voice actors with credits for it, and IMDb only has one entry for all versions of the game. Is anyone familiar enough with both games to identify which actors worked on which version? What should be done in situations where links apply to both games? Add two credits? Nick Number (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think both games share the same actors and I wouldn't trust IMDb because it works like a Wiki and anyone can edit it. I'll try to disambiguate the above links by checking the end credits of both games when I have some time today or tomorrow. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, they share the same actors, as per these two videos: N64 @ 2:15 and PS1 @ 0:58. So I would add two credits in every voice actor article. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've disambiguated the remaining links. Nick Number (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, nice work. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking for more opinions at Talk:Nintendo#Logo. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wipeout covers

See: User talk:Mika1h#Wipeout covers. User:Jaguar wants to change the cover arts of Wipeout (video game) and Wipeout 2097 from PS1 ones to Saturn ones, because in his opinion they are "more presentable" and they "improve readability". First, "more presentable" is entirely subjective. Second, Saturn covers "improve readability" only because they are super high resolution which goes against the non-free use rationale. Third, there is guideline for not changing the cover art if a one already exists: WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. See images here: File:Wipeout cover.jpg & File:Wipeout 2097 cover.jpg. Original covers uploaded in 2008 were deleted for being orphaned. --Mika1h (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I requested File:Wipeout Coverart.png to be undeleted at WP:REFUND. I don't think this is a suitable venue. I thought whether FFD is needed probably due to edit warring. Meanwhile, I thought about pushing the Saturn image into the body for temporary use until the matter is settled. George Ho (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC); consensus speaks for itself. 20:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Same for File:WipEout2097Cover.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The covers should be reverted to the Playstation versions. Not only were those covers uploaded first, Wipeout is more closely tied to the playstation platform anyway. Jaguar's reasoning is entirely subjective, and the change in cover is a waste of time. - hahnchen 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with @Hahnchen, they should be changed back, since both Wipeout and Wipeout 2097 were originally released for PS1 before they were ported to the Saturn. – Hounder4 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Believe me, my reasons weren't subjective in any way. I just have trouble understanding why people think retaining inferior cover artwork are a prima facie reason to keep them. JAGUAR 
At the same time, it seems hard to believe that the average, everyday reader would recognize the Saturn version over the PlayStation version... Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The PlayStation versions were the initial release, were in English regions, and the pictures were there first. They should be kept unless there can be a valid objective argument that these Saturn covers are more significant and a better representation of these games. Also high resolution cover art is against policy. Since it's non-free, per WP:IMAGERES it should be under 100,000 px (that is, the width times the height must be less than 100,000). TarkusAB 20:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: I reinserted both covers per established consensus. Jaguar, can you relent to the establishment and allow me to add {{db-g7}} to both Saturn images please? --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As the original concern was image clarity, I have uploaded new versions of both files for the PlayStation platform, with enhanced visual clarity. Lordtobi () 21:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If another concern is excess, what shall the maximal size be if 325px is not suitable? George Ho (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's fine. I'm in the process of making the Wipeout series a featured topic, and the two Wipeout articles in question here are in pretty poor shape as it is due to them being among my first GAs. I'll get around to rewriting them in a couple of weeks or so. I could have had all of them submitted at GAN after Christmas had it not been for RL matters. The PlayStation covers do need enhancing somewhat, which was another reason why I initially picked the Saturn ones. JAGUAR  22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Current res is too large. If there is concern about image clarity, replace the images with PNG versions. Those tend to have less artifacts than JPGs, but game covers are non-free copyrighted images and therefore should be low resolution. <0.1 megapixel is normally suitable unless consensus suggests otherwise. For a CD size graphic, around 300x300 is pretty good. By default the image is only 220px wide on the page so it's not like you're losing clarity. See WP:IMAGERES for more info. TarkusAB 22:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I started the request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Wipeout video game covers. Go there if you may. --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles about generations of video game consoles and decades of video gaming

Aside from politics over images (which I have been [or had been before a short break] known for [quoting Serge] "making a mountain out of a molehill"), my bigger concern than images is the quality of general/broad pages about generations of consoles and separate decades of video gaming. I wanted to list a lot of links, but there are too many. "Template:History of video games" provides a lot of links, like First generation of video game consoles, Seventh generation of video game consoles (currently Good Article since 2008), 1970s in video gaming, etc. Some of the pages, like the 1st gen page and the 1970s page, may need substantial improvements. I don't know why the 1980s and 1990s pages are not considered GAs yet. I hope people here can put a lot of effort to make the pages GAs somehow, but I won't pressure you all to do it soon. Take time as you please and all that. To be honest, I did see discussions about NeoGeo and Philips CD-I, but I didn't care much for failed consoles. In fact, in terms of video gaming, I'm more interested in general topics, like the 1980s, 1990s, gens, and other general VG topics. George Ho (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion: Category:Visual novels by year and its subcategories

For those who wish to partake in the discussion, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Category:Visual novels by year.--IDVtalk 11:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

FFVII possible FA push

Hi there. I'm wondering as, given that a huge new article has appeared on Polygon and it's the titles twentieth anniversary, there might be a collaborative effort between editors to bring this title to to FA standard, then return it to its rightful place. I must say here and now that starting from around mid-January I'll have very pressing real-world concerns that will bar me from extensive work on any part of Wikipedia until the beginning of February at the latest (not wikibreak strictly, just not much time to do long bouts of editing). I would be more than happy to take on the Synopsis (which needs trimming I think), Development and Release sections, and others can take on elements such as Gameplay and Reception. It's not a project for the immediate future, but at some point in the next month or two. Opinions? --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the reasons it was delisted and other reviews since, I'm guessing the big things are the rather large Synopsis section, and the use of a number of unreliable/questionable sources for the rest of the article, which should be aided by the Polygon piece. Is there anything major that i'm missing? (Obviously anything new from the Polygon article should be added). --MASEM (t) 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: Yep, those appear to be the main reasons. I'll take great pleasure cutting the Synopsis down to size. As to dev sources, if there is anything missing that can be reliably sourced, I'll find it. Other VII-related articles (the whole project is at GA-status aside from Characters and Remake now) can also be mined for suitable references where applicable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd be interested in helping out as long as other editors are interested. Would be nice to see an article be worked on as a collective here in the project. Don't remember the last time that happened. GamerPro64 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@GamerPro64: That's the whole idea.
I'd be willing to rewrite the lead and cleanup the infobox and images. TarkusAB 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: That would be a great contribution. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, and Tintor2: Thank you all, a much better response than I was expecting. If you could all chip in when I'm properly free again (which as I said would be beginning of February at the latest), then this article would be FA-ready before the year is out. I think, when the time comes, the article's talk page will make a good base for which to discuss things like what citation format we're using and such, or to request help from each other for minor points within the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm in. I'll write the reception section as it looks like it needs expanding and paraphrasing, as long as others are dedicated in bringing this to FA too. It would be good to have a collaboration. Will we all be co-noms in the FAC? JAGUAR  11:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jaguar: That would be great. I'm not sure whether we'll be co-noms, but considering how this would turn out, I think it would be best. It would avoid the wrong people being called in as reviewers and show that it was a collaborative effort. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
That's good, I was just making sure as I already have another FAC running at the moment and will have another one soon. I'll re-write the reception section and will give it a lot more depth so that it meets the FA criteria, at least. I also wouldn't mind helping with anything else but I'm not a Final Fantasy expert! JAGUAR  12:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been maintaining it ever since around the Remake was announced, and will be around to continually do so. I don't get too into all the GA/FA stuff, but I'll be around to tweak parts and take part in discussions like usual. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've started with a minor re-write of the lead, and will later add a bit more to the music subsection (and the dedicated article for it). I'll also keep a lookout for any new images that would be relevant to the article, which the article could use a bit more of. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Added new content to the music article, and will make a new summary section for the main FF7 article soon. May also revamp the music article; it's definitely showcasing the change in my article writing ability since 2008. --PresN 15:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting creating the expanded/tidied development/release sections in my sandbox for later application to the main article. I'll incorporate the Music article's tidying into it. Am I still handling the story section tidying? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Rewrote the Music section. --PresN 21:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, and Sergecross73: I've generally expanded and sourced the development section. Copyedits welcome. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Nice work. The only thing that bothers me is that the setting section has comparisons between areas from the game and real life places which count as WP:OR.Tintor2 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: It's pretty much sorted now. I've rewritten the setting section, redone the characters section, and severely trimmed the plot section. It's now a concise four-paragraph read rather than an eye-crossing four-paragraph read. Makes you realize how radical the plot was for the 1990s. I mean, it dealt with trauma-induced psychotic amnesia. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake:, lol and Square still revisited a decade later with Crisis Core. Still, I don't have much to say. You really nailed it. Also, I'll be on a wikibreak starting tomorrow due to holidays and I won't use my tablet due to the reverts you know I accidentally made. I think I may be back on February. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to work on the lead this weekend. Given the variety of topics covered on the page, there is a lot to summarize but may need a good four paragraphs. I may also do some work on the gameplay section, seems no one has touched it yet.TarkusAB 04:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Jaguar, and Sergecross73: I've finished what I intended to do with the article when I first proposed this collaborative effort: I've expanded and rewritten the Development and Release sections, and rewritten and trimmed the Synopsis section. This only really leaves the gameplay, reception and legacy. If anyone needs help with things like sources, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page, and I'll do my best to help. When the time comes for the FA nomination, I'll do my best to be there to help address reviewer issues. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I will do gameplay either this weekend or next. TarkusAB 19:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Someone needs to describe the CAMERA. Nowhere can I find the specs or data concerning the MB etc pixels, I am not talking about the screenshots , the item I am speaking of is the IR Camera. 207.224.160.62 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not sure what article you're talking about, neither this page nor the announcement template have anything to do with cameras. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 6 January

27 December

28 December

31 December

1 January

2 January

3 January

4 January

5 January

6 January

Salavat (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Title of games addition.

Since some Video games such as DreamWorks Super Star Kartz have the company branding in it, could we retitle Kung Fu Panda, Kung Fu Panda 2, Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors, and Kung Fu Panda: Showdown of Legendary Legends to have DreamWorks in the title on its respective wikipage? Obviously video game news articles such as IGN, Metacritic, Nintendo.com, GameFAQs and others, they list them with the DreamWorks name on the box art. So what's everyone's thoughts on the matter? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. I see the use in Super Star Kartz as to clearly identify the title as Dreamworks characters, in the same manner as PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale to identify the brand. The individual games like Kung Fu Panda have the key branding element right there in the title, which is associated already with DW, so the leading "Dreamworks" doesn't seem to be part of the title. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that DreamWorks Super Star Karts is the exception and not the rule we should follow, so no. By the way, you removed this comment somehow, so be careful next time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, honestly, I'm surprised "Dreamworks" is even part of the "Super Star Karts" name, but as Masem says, it was probably to help with identification - Super Star Karts is an extremely generic name without it. Not the case with a name like Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The real issue here is whether or not reliable sources regularly consider DreamWorks to be part of the games' tile. If they do we should use that even if films such as Kung Fu Panda are not referred to as such.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A quick google search shows that if you search on "Super Star Kartz", it is universally preceded by the word "Dreamworks". While it's a bit more difficult to pull that for the other titles (Because of movie hits), that doesn't seem to be the case for the other titles, they are simply presented without the Dreamworks clarification. I'll also add that Amazon and other stores that come up during searching also follow this pattern. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Three listed GAs for reassessment

Here are three GAs that I have reviewed but which were not reviewed correctly:

Gamingforfun365 00:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

GA exchange

Hi, everyone here. If someone will please contribute to the reassessment of Mystery of the Emblem, then I'll take up any of their nominated GAs. I worked long and hard on that article, and while I can understand the nominee's reasons for nominating, I'd appreciate a swift response so I don't have to go through the whole process again. If anyone has any questions about the sources, I'll be happy to tell where I found them and why I used them. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Identifying Game of the Year nom/winners for the YYYY in video gaming pages

While adding the DICE award noms that came out today, and recalling what pages like 2016 in video gaming looked like, I would like to suggest that like the film page do (see 2016 in film for example) that we include a short table that lists the games that were nominated and won for Game of the Year from the major awards, specifically the GDC, the AIAS DICE, the BAFTA Game Awards, the Japan Game Awards(*) and the Spike Video Game Awards/The Game Awards. I would strictly limit it to the GotY winner and nominations as there is a far gap of categories otherwise, whereas something like the film awards have a number of common categories. This gives an at-a-glance the top games, which works in association with the metacritic table that I see the 2016 year page has.

(*) While most of these other awards work on the calendar year, the Japan Game Awards works from April to March. But as the bulk of that is in the prior year, I would assign those to the previous year - eg the upcoming 2017 ceremony would be have the games included in the 2016 year page. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: I threw something together for 2015 in video gaming (sans the Japan Game Awards), but I'm not sure if it's too convoluted or complicated. Game awards are definitely less straightforward than film awards. Perhaps, as you suggest, simply including Game of the Year winners and nominees is a better choice. I figured I'd share what I created though, just for discussion. Let me know. – Rhain 11:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I quite like this table, Rhain! I'd be somewhat worried about what award ceremonies are the "major" ceremonies, because listing four awards this prominently would strongly establish them as "the four biggest and most important awards in the industry." I don't know well enough what alternatives there are, though, and as far as I know, this looks good! ~Mable (chat) 13:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I do think this works, the categories actually do overlap better than I expected. And it does capture that year in gaming better than just the GotY ones. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
One thing on a second look: I would not definitely not colspan like you do for Ori; it should be listed separately even if all four awards named the game in that category. The rowspan only makes sense when you have a split row like for the Mobile/Handheld and one or more awards do not split that. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: 2016 in film also uses colspan for similar purposes, which is where I borrowed it from, but I understand your concern. – Rhain 22:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365 apologizes for not listening

This is looking like a duplicate discussion to the past "apology" thread by this editor, and while one was acceptable, multiple is pushing it. Please stop posting grandiose public apologies. --PresN 12:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I apologize for what was going on. I did not like learning that I was not a major editor and did not like it when I received comments containing agitation or extreme feelings, which is why I said that I felt "stupid" and "irredeemable", but that is a normal thing for me to do: to say that I feel stupid or irredeemable to counter-fight what I perceived to be arising agitation. Usually, when one person tells me otherwise, I require another person for a confirmation, and being told that I am no major editor of one article by multiple editors made me be convinced that I was not. I did not want to listen to an earlier comment because I felt that it contained the commenter's feeling of agitation. I admit that I cannot handle comments of agitation because they make me feel disruptive. What can I do about the situation? Gamingforfun365 04:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop making discussions about yourself. Notice how no one else does that. Stop talking about it and just go do it. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Salavat (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Apologize directly to the people you mistreated and make sure you don't make the same mistakes next time. The majority of the people that read this page only know you from these messages... ~Mable (chat) 10:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Maximum: The Video Game Magazine

This is, according to WP:JCW, one of the most cited sources on Wikipedia that doesn't have a corresponding article. I'd figure I'd mention it here in case someone wanted to fix that. It's used as a source at least 248 times in 178 articles. WP:MWG offers some advice on how to write articles for magazines, but you can look to other articles for guidance too (Category:Video_game_magazines_by_country). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, other articles have been created, and this one is now the top-cited missing publication according to the compilation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This is actually totally my fault. Whereas most WP editors do their research by starting from a subject and looking up the sources, I start with a source and look up the subjects it covers. Because of this, some time ago I systematically went through all seven issues of Maximum and added every piece of notable info I could scrape up to the relevant articles. At the time I had no idea this would put Maximum on a "top-cited" list, and I'm doubtful that we can put together a good WP article on the magazine given its very short run. That said, if you're resolved to do it, Thibbs mentioned during the discussion on using Maximum as a source that Retro Gamer #25 has an article on Maximum, so there's one source you can use.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd caution that just because a source was frequently used, does not construe that it was notable. A source can be reliable without being notable in and of itself. (The opposite being also true, a notable publication is not inherently reliable) -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a perfect example of a source that is reliable and commonly used, but not notable. I think what you did was really good, Martin! ~Mable (chat) 14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It could certainly be a case that it's not a notable source, but at lot of readers will be wanting to learn about it. A redirect to its publisher, or to its writers with some detail about Maximum would also work here. But the blog post / RetroGamer stuff does lead me to think an article can be written here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit this

I can't believe no one has edited this page yet (I would if I knew how to).

There is a page called VGChartz which provides information about sales figures for video games and consoles.

http://www.vgchartz.com/platform/69/playstation-4/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@XtremeNerdz12: VGChartz is considered an unreliable source, and their sales figures are estimates. We cannot use them to update official units shipped or sold counts. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we're very aware of it, we just don't use it, as we don't feel its a reliable source for sales figures. They do not reveal their methodology, and frequently change and revise figures without explanation. They essentially provide estimates, where as, we need official figures from the companies themselves (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, etc) or at least legit analytical companies, like NPD Group, EEDAR, or Media Create. Check out WP:VG/S or a list of commonly usable/unusable sources for video game articles on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 13 January

5 January

7 January

8 January

9 January

10 January

11 January

12 January

13 January

Salavat (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Last of Us (series)

Please feel free to contribute to this discussion regarding the creation of a series article for The Last of Us. – Rhain 07:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Telegames?

Another question, is Telegames a home-brew company? It looks out-dated from another dimension where MacBooks, smart phones and broadband don't exist. Govvy (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, looking through the article for context, it looks like prior to 2004 they were making games (both new and ports) for consoles that were no longer in production or supported. Yeah, the definition of "homebrew" doesn't mean that there's no backing company, nor that the games weren't sold for money, but that the releases were not "official" releases on that platform, a term that only makes sense in the context that the creator of the console is a gatekeeper. There's no way to make an "official" Atari 2600 or Colecovision game after the consoles stopped being supported, even if you sell it in stores on cartridges for unmodified consoles.
That said, "is Telegames a home-brew company?" - no. Telegames is a company. They sell, among other things, homebrew games. They also sell non-homebrew games (if nothing else, PCs don't have gatekeepers (no matter what Microsoft wants) so those were "official" games). --PresN 16:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on Golden Era of Spanish Software

Discovered this article today. This "era" seems a little dubious. What are your thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This should be brought up for deletion. None of the sources are in English, and the topic seems to have been made up as this is not a common term used by anyone in the game industry, outside of Spain at least. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Neither of those are valid rationales- sources don't need to be in English, and if it's a valid "era" used in Spain, then it's perfectly fine for an article, as long as it makes it clear that its a Spanish thing. This is the Wikipedia in English, not the Wikipedia of things from English-speaking countries. That said, by not using in-line citations, I can't tell if it's just someone's personal essay, but it seems to be largely based on the first source, "«Años 1984/1991. La época dorada del soft español», en Historia del software español de entretenimiento", and possibly a translation of the Spanish version of the article. Based on the about us page, it may be an RS. The Spanish article has several more sources, though they may be about individual facts rather than the concept. --PresN 13:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I know they don't have to be, but if you can't find a single English source about it, then why should it belong here instead of the Spanish Wiki? This isn't something objective like a president of El Salvador either, where tons of Spanish sources would be fine, this is an article whose basic existence and notability is in doubt. The entire article seems to just be based around one citation (the one you linked), with the rest just being a wordpress blog (unreliable) and bare URLs to other websites (not a valid citation). Even the Spanish version of the page has many of the same issues. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Because we have policy which allows us to use foreign sources. --15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Which I already said I know about, but since the entire article is based around one actual citation (which may just be unreliable), it should be deleted just from that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"None of the sources are in English"; "why should it belong here instead of the Spanish Wiki" I'm sorry, but that is a terrible argument for deletion. English Wikipedia is awfully (though not deliberately) biased in its global content because of predominantly English-language sources. Why aren't English readers allowed to learn of topics from non-English sources? Isn't the point of encyclopaedia to aggregate exactly this sort of material? The more non-English sources we can include for topics where English sources do not provide full coverage (to cite WP:NONENG: they are not "of equal quality and relevance"), the better. Video game related articles are especially bad, since most local game markets have little to no coverage in English sources. Just compare something like Video gaming in Russia, which is in reality a huge market with lots of game, console and home computer history stretching from Soviet era. And there are many contemporary sources (like this) that would provide extensive information. We should absolutely include these. I can agree that the article is badly written and badly cited, but this is cause for improvement, not deletion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
99% sure that our article is a translation from es.wiki; theirs was created in 2006 with major expansion in May 2010; ours starts in 2011. Unfortunately, without knowing Spanish, I've no idea if the es.wiki article has been evaluated there (keeping in mind each language wiki has its own set of notability requirements). --MASEM (t) 15:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I would absolutely love it if this was a real thing, but it seems like the article needs to be trimmed and moved to Video gaming in Spain, as well as expanded and generalized... But I'm going try to look for some sources later tonight. ~Mable (chat) 16:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
From what I can at least skim, there is justifyably a claim that Spain's software market was second only to the UK during the 80s-90s, but it's hard to find proof of that as a "golden age", but that's also a language barrier. I agree that merging into Video gaming in Spain makes logical sense at this point. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with repurposing into Video gaming in Spain. I don't doubt that the term has currency in Spain, but look to the sources to see how much currency. The sourcing is almost exclusively unreliable. Spanish/non-English sources are fine, as outlined above, but they still need to be from reliable publications. The Encyclopedia of Video Games covers the topic within its "Spain" article, not as independently notable. We can always split it out if warranted by the sourcing. But as of now, the sourcing for a separate "Edad de oro" from the history of Spanish games is weak. czar 19:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I added several sources to the talk page of the article here. ~Mable (chat) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on what people have said, I'd say the best soution for now is to fold the article into a more general Video gaming in Spain, with info on the Golden Age being a subsection. Like the Disney Renaissance in the Walt Disney Animation Studios#History article.-Coin945 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This really seems to be a misunderstanding of the references available, due to a lack of knowledge of the language by the above editors. It's really easy to find reliable sources in Spanish talking about the Golden age of Spanish video games. I'm adding the ones I've found with a quick search; the most important is a published book, subject of at least two reviews at mainstream media (IGN Spain and El Mundo), and quoted by this issue of the oldest computing magazine in Spain, which also lists several other sources in its references section. Diego (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Diego that there are plenty of reliable sources for this article to exist, but I am worried about what it means that there isn't also an article on video gaming in Spain in general. I mean, the "golden age" is the only notable part of Spain's video game industry, though they've been going through a second period of successful games more recently. I don't know what the best way to handle this situation is, but I don't oppose this being transformed into a more general article. The "golden age" will be in the forefront regardless. ~Mable (chat) 08:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It'll make sense to make a video gaming in Spain article and make the "golden age" the focal point. Amwisdx (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Defining "generations"

Most of you are probably aware of the issue we're facing with the Switch (and to a lesser extent, the PS4 Pro and "Scorpio"), which is that we can no longer reliably define console generations. In the past this wasn't a problem, because manufacturers released all their systems roughly within the same timeframe, kept that platform around for several years, then released successors all at the same time. This meant generations practically defined themselves, the entire media would unanimously say "this is the nth generation," and we'd report it here. With the Switch, though, there's no agreement as to whether or not it's 8th or 9th gen, and very likely never will be. This means that, unless we change something, we're never going to be able to assign it to a generation or even write a 9th gen article. We're also facing the very real possibility that the entire modern concept of video game "generations" was popularized by Wikipedia, if not outright invented by editors here, which is obviously...not great.

I think we need to start the discussion now regarding how we move forward. To me, it seems like we're forced into a situation where we're just going to have to drop generational articles. That's not ideal but I honestly don't know how we'd justify our definitions of generations going forward. My only other thought is that we could potentially agree on a single authoritative source to define generations for us. I'm not quite sure who we'd choose for this, or how we'd ever come to an agreement, but I would note that the NPD Group frequently refers to console generations in their reports, and they are a very well-respected group. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That is the problem though, no one can agree on the specifics. First off, you'd have the difficult task of getting a consensus to change it at all. Then you'd have the impossible task of getting a consensus on where the lines should be drawn on the years. Some are going to say 1995 is an endpoint. Others will say 96 or 97. Some will say every 5 years. Others 10 years. Others say every 5 years except for in the 2000s. It's much like WP:AFD reform - everyone's got their own idea for change, but no one can round up a consensus in their favor... Sergecross73 msg me 04:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
We can keep the past as it is – categorized as "console generations" – but move on with a more sensible article scheme. All we need to do is try not to define history as it is happening for a year or two... ~Mable (chat) 10:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I still don't see what the big rush is. People have been trying to do "solve" this since Switch was announced. I fail to understand what the issue is with at least waiting till Switch and Scorpio are actually released and reliable sources start reviewing and commenting on the actual products. And in the end, there's nothing that says the Switch MUST be assigned to a generation. -- ferret (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The one thing to keep in mind with generations, when it comes to the broad sourcing, is that ultimately it is about how the media compares consoles within a generation: eg the Wii was always compared alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360, the Wii U against the PS4 and XBox One. Very very preliminary analysis of the switch has them comparing it with the PS4 and Xbox One -- but in no way should be taken to mean the Switch is assuredly 8th gen. It is probably going not until E3 , if rumors are true that MS will showcase the Scorpio, that we might have a reasonable approch as to go forward. I will state that I have also seen people saying we might be in a "half-generation" here between the PS4 Pro, the Scorpio, and the Switch - not significant hardware advances over the previous systems to make for a new generation but it is a new set of consoles to compare against, but again, far too early to say this for sure. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: The problem here is that will never happen. There will never ever ever be anything close unanimous agreement as to what generation the Switch belongs to, and I doubt there will be with the Scorpio. We are not rushing. We are accepting that this question will never actually be answered. And ignoring the problem isn't a solution, come on man. You can't acknowledge the inherent flaws in this system and try to "fix" it by excluding consoles that aren't easy to categorize. That's the worst possible outcome of this, now we're deciding which systems do and don't belong in generations - and isn't that the EXACT problem we're facing?
@The1337gamer: I like this idea a lot. There is some overlap between timelines that would have to be dealt with but I don't think that's insurmountable. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just wait a couple of years. No hurry. Keep this information in the currently latest generation article until then. Keep the generation listing or categorization as "undefined". See where we're at in a year or two. If we're lucky, this was the "last" console generation and we can move on to discussing console gaming by five years or something like that. ~Mable (chat) 18:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • To repeat what was said in the last thread on this (see the talk page archives), (1) we only report the secondary sources, so if no one declares the Switch to be in a "generation", we need not as well. By this token, there's "no rush" to do that original research ourselves. (2) We have a rough consensus that we screwed up by creating neat, numbered, Americentric console generations, and that the task of reorganizing the content is monstrous. My personal recommendation to this end is to improve History of video games and spin out its sections summary style as needed. We don't cite sources that define "a generation" in most of our generation articles. At most, a source will say that certain consoles are in "a generation" together (dubious how much of this is citogenesis) or that a console belongs to a specific generation. (I don't see a sourcing-based reason for 19XX–19XX splits right now.) Without sources that define what the generation has in common, the generation articles will be retreads of the dedicated console articles, which is to say that anything about the "generation" can be handled in its parent article, either in the major history article or a specific "console war" article, etc. In any event, I don't think we need another thread on the Switch's generation status. czar 20:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What do you people think you will accomplish by waiting? How does that solve this problem? Wicka wicka (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If "this problem" is Switch not having a generation, we don't agree that it's a problem. (Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth.) If it's that generation articles shouldn't exist in the first place, I proposed a solution. P.S. You will win few sympathizers by referring to any group as "you people". czar 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not create the news, we document it. The industry has not classified Switch yet, so neither can we. So we wait. If you don't understand this, you still don't understand the premise of Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Like others have said, let's just wait until they are released. At best, the PS4 Pro has been described as a mid-generation upgrade as opposed to being described as a next-gen console. When the Switch and Scorpio release, we will see what they are described as, then we can figure out what to do from there. We do not have to figure this out right now, otherwise, we'd basically be getting into OR territory. --JDC808 11:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

None of you are listening. I'm saying that, clearly, the industry will not unanimously agree on how to classify the Switch - they've already failed to do so, and there's no indication whatsoever that this will magically change overnight. Thus, our current system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Waiting accomplishes literally nothing. If you don't want to take action, that's fine, just move along. I'm here to figure out how we can improve Wikipedia, not just sit on our hands. @Sergecross73: Watch your tone. I know exactly how this works. Please listen to the point I am making and understand that waiting is not a real solution. @Czar: Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm getting at, the suggestion that generation articles probably should exist - again, please listen to what I am actually saying instead of leaping to conclusions. It's not a good look. What is your proposed solution? Wicka wicka (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course no one's listening. You're restarting a recurring discussion (what generation is the Switch) last held a month ago, indicating that you're not familiar with what people have already said on the topic, and combining it with another recurring discussion (should we get rid of "generations" altogether) that you also seem to have not read the discussions about before. And while that's not such a terrible sin (new people bring new ideas, after all), when people tell you that previous discussions haven't reached a conclusion then your tone gets antagonistic and demand that we have to rewrite all of the "history of" articles to a lesser or greater extent right away to correct this "problem", not waiting to see what sources call the Switch, but not actually proposing a solution of your own.
So, and let me be clear that I'm speaking as the writer of early history of video games and therefore one of the few people to have actually done work of the type you're halfway proposing: you're stating a problem; refusing to listen to people questioning its validity; proposing no concrete change but implying that enough needs to get rewritten that it would be, I assure you, an incredibly massive amount of work; and demonstrating no plan, ability, experience, or likelihood that you will be doing a lot of the work you're proposing. It's not a surprise that dozens of editors aren't jumping over themselves to do tons of work just so that the Switch gets a consistent numbering/naming scheme. --PresN 12:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
First off - stop worrying about the Switch. It's true that the Switch may be the reason this problem came to light, but this isn't specific to that system. I don't care about giving the Switch a consistent numbering scheme, and suggesting that as my motivation is a blatant lie. I just care about making Wikipedia better. Doing nothing doesn't fit that category. So, let me be clear that I'm speaking as a person who is trying to start a conversation that actually gets somewhere and is willing to help do the work that makes it get there: doing nothing is not a solution. And don't accuse me of being the person who starts the antagonistic tone when my initial question was immediately brushed off by a bunch of folks who apparently think hiding your dirty clothes in the closet is the same thing as cleaning.
So I will ask this question again, and if you don't have an answer, just don't reply, don't inexplicably reply saying you think a lack of an answer is somehow a solution. It's clear that console generations are no longer being reliably defined. How do we move forward? Wicka wicka (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem is your incorrect assumption that "waiting equals doing nothing" and "we'll never have the sourcing to solve this". Neither are true. People had all the same complaints you did back when the Nintendo 3DS was first announced in 2010. Everyone was rushing to start up an 8th gen article and label various upcoming systems as such, people lamented that there weren't sources to declare new concepts as part of a generation, (like the Ouya) etc etc. Then we moved into 2011 and 2012, more systems were released, and all of a sudden, sources were consistently stating that consoles were and were not part of a certain generation. You're just in too much of a rush to define a future concept. Wait and see what happens. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe I've been fairly clear on what I think we should do as well: keep the eight generations we have intact and see if we can move on to describe the history of console gaming in a more logical way from now on. This is why I say we should wait. I can imagine ways to get rid of the whole console generation situation in general, but I don't believe that it is worth it. ~Mable (chat) 12:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. This is what I'm looking for. This is a genuinely helpful suggestion that describes a plan we could actively implement. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
What comes next made be a "post-generational" phrase. It's not up to Wikipedia to define this. We wait on the sources. If there's never a 9th generation, then that's that. There is no rush to categorize the Switch, and in fact, no requirement that we ever categorize it. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. It is very uncomfortable to be writing down history as it is happening, as we don't have a grasp on the full picture yet. I wouldn't mind at all if a 9th generation article would eventually form, but we can't write it before the generation has even started. Unlike the Switch or the Scorpio, there's no "official" "release" for the "9th generation". It's a cultural period that doesn't get "properly" defined until a while after it has started. ~Mable (chat) 13:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Going back to something said in the initial post: "In the past this wasn't a problem, because manufacturers released all their systems roughly within the same timeframe, kept that platform around for several years, then released successors all at the same time." This actually is wrong on all three points. It's a common misconception, the result of video game historians shoehorning every aspect of gaming history into neat generational categories, completely forgetting a number of key points, such as that the PlayStation came in a distant third in console sales behind the Sega Genesis and Super NES during the 1995 Christmas season, that by the time the N64 launched most 5th generation consoles had already bitten the dust, etc. If anything, past generations were harder to define, because of new console manufacturers constantly coming and going (whereas now we more-or-less have a stable lineup of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony), consoles other being released a year or more later in one country than they were in another (some say whether the TurboGrafx-16 is 3rd generation or 4th generation depends on where you live), the existence of add-on consoles, and many consoles lasting less than three years on the market (e.g. Vectrex, Jaguar, 3DO, 32X, Dreamcast). Look up the release and discontinuation dates from some older consoles and you'll quickly see that console manufacturers were anything but in sync.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wicka wicka, you said "the industry will not unanimously agree on how to classify the Switch". That's practically crystal balling. You have no idea what they will say in three months time, or a year from now, etc. No one does. That is why the majority agrees to wait. You claim that as "doing nothing". That is incorrect. We are still improving articles and updating them as more information becomes available. The thing is, we do not have the information yet to "define" what the Switch or the Scorpio are. We do not have the information to say whether or not we're at the end of console generations. We won't for awhile. It's all speculation until these consoles are released and some time has passed. You also said that the industry has already failed to define the Switch. Please tell me how are they going to define a console that they have known little to nothing about until recently? Not to mention the fact that it's not even released yet. Also, how can our current system be broken if we have no idea what the future holds? One further question, why are you so determined on finding a solution right now, when we don't have the information to say whether or not we need a solution? --JDC808 21:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New bit of heads-up: Ori dev calls Scorpio a "full-blown next gen" machine. Per status, this is in absolutely no way sufficient to start a 9th gen (it's one person), but we know people will use it to justify it. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks for the heads up. As I mentioned before, most naming conventions for a Ninth generation of video game consoles are locked and require an Admin to remove protection - something I highly doubt our WP:VG Admin crew would flippantly do - so I doubt someone's just going to be able to start one up - but it's still good to know there's going to be a new argument possibly starting up now... Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Just keep an eye on the articles like video game console and home video game console, as users like to add sections/tables for 9th generation. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, good call. I've added those to my watchlist now as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
And for redundancy, List of home video game consoles. ;) -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, what an ugly list article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A potential article ...

I just spend time expanding on SAG-AFTRA#Video Game Strike of 2016 (and created the redirect Video Game Strike of 2016), which is the current voice actors strike that is still going. While what I have in the SAG-AFTRA article is good there, there may be potential for more development and which that would probably require a separate article. I might do it myself but just noting that this is one of those topics we might want to be atop on (reflecting state of the industry, rather than knee-deep in actual games :) --MASEM (t) 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and created it Video Game Strike of 2016‎. Pretty good insight into that side of VGing after digging into more details. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion: Category:MMORPGs by year and subcategories

I just started a CfD for MMORPGs by year. If you want to weigh in on it, you can find it here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 26#Category:MMORPGs by year.--IDVtalk 15:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

VGA Planets

The notability of VGA Planets is currently being challenged. I'm reasonably confident that it is notable, but I have very little experience with the sourcing requirements of this project. Can someone please help out a bit? User:Hjaekel and User:Ylee have been editing it recently, but User:Czar is not happy with the quality and depth of coverage in the book sources on Google Books, and would prefer to redirect it to List of BBS door games. --Slashme (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I too am no expert on notability, but the fact that it has a print review in Computer Gaming World—the closest thing to a journal of record the videogame industry has had—is good enough for me. Ylee (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You have to show that the topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?). In this case, the question is whether there is more sourced commentary than could comfortably fit within the appropriate section of the list article. When articles lacks this reliable coverage, they end up collecting junk, as this article's unsourced sections demonstrate. czar 18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, a Computer Gaming World dedicated review is a good start and a step in the right direction, but the WP:GNG requires multiple sources like that (so at the very least two), and even then its better to have more like 4 or 5 sources like that to have enough sourcing and content to stave off your typical WP:REDIRECT/WP:MERGE advocates. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sim racing

Sim racing is in a sorry state: lots of unsourced tags, one-sentence paragraphs, piecemeal sourcing, general incompleteness, confusion with racing video game's scope... Any ideas? TNT? Anyone interested in rewriting? czar 09:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I say merge the reliable stuff. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Atari Lynx games

A while back I removed a whole list of home-brew games from the list, I think some have crept back in know. First being Bubble Trouble (1991 video game) which I think should be deleted from wiki, just wanted another set of eyes to have a quick look over it to tell me if I am wrong! Cheers. (List of Atari Lynx games) Govvy (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bubble Trouble is a homebrew game? Its not very often IGN gives full reviews on unofficial homebrew games (and leaves that factoid out of the review entirely.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Official Atari Lynx games had to be released in the box and format layout that Atari wanted from all the developers they worked with. 1, Being released in a CD case doesn't shout official game release to me. Govvy (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I see. I think part of my doubt was also that I was confusing this game with Bubble Bobble. Anyways, I'm unsure of what to do here personally. On one hand, we've already got one dedicated review from a reliable source - IGN. The WP:GNG really only requires multiple (2) reliable sources covering a subject in detail, though I usually prefer to have 4 or 5 sources to meet it and have enough content to ward off WP:MERGE/WP:REDIRECT proposals too. On one hand, if we could find just a few more, we'd be good. On the other hand, it's usually pretty tough to find sources for games like this - games that came out in the early 90s or earlier, and haven't been released on more modern consoles - because most previews and reviews are locked away in print magazines not present on the internet. We can wait and see if we or anyone else finds anything, no rush I suppose. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to look up other sources out there on the net, but I didn't much like what I found. At first I thought why didn't they get the right box, then I realised. I've had conversations with some of the old Atari Lynx developers and game designers in the past and recently one of the artists that worked on the box art for a few of the games for the Atari Lynx so I know the kind of processes that go into developing and getting the atari lynx games out on the market and Bubble Trouble raises some red flags in my book. Govvy (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

- On a sperate note, some IP keeps changing information around, developers, publishers, ect. (List of Atari Lynx games) I reverted it because he/she didn't provide a source the the data change, I asked for a source, but still didn't get one from him. So I reverted it back twice. He is continuing to make changes without sourcing his data. Other than raising the issue here, it feels stupid to do anything else at the moment. Govvy (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Using Steam Spy / Steam Charts to obtain data for player count

There are a few games where the player size/count is of discussion by third-parties (notably, No Man's Sky and Battleborn, but I'm sure there's others). Both Steam Spy and Steam Charts track these concurrent user (CCU) numbers - data that can be pulled from Steam's API - with regularity (typically daily), and often it is the observation of the numbers from these sources that third-parties discuss the player size situation. Clearly, it is no issue to use a reliable third-party source that uses either of these sites.

That said, now that I've discovered how to make on-the-fly graphs, I think in some of these cases having a graph of the CCU player count as a function of time would be helpful. For example, if you look to NMS as the example, you can see a huge bump in players and a higher baseline afterwards in the CCU following its late November patch. This bump is the subject of discussion, just that no third-party has actually plotted a graph of it in their articles.

Would it be reasonable, when we already have third-parties discussing the CCU player count, to include such graphs that are based on data pulled from Steam Spy or Steam Charts, understanding this is otherwise public data Steam provides, just conveniently tallied by these sites? Note that I would be against such graphs if the player count aspect is not discussed by third-parties, as it could be pushing a POV to highlight something no one else has highlighted. I would note that in any of these graphs, there should be an indication to the reader of the source of the data (Steam Spy or Steam Charts) so that they can judge how fallible/accurate the data is themselves. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd view this as basically using primary source information to present a graph. As long as we're just presenting the data (Time versus Count), I'd think it's a good idea. Any commentary needs to come from secondary sources, of course. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea overall, as long as its obviously clearly labeled what's being depicted, so readers know the context. I fear it'll lead to needless tweaking/updating (in the same way continually upgrade aggregate scores from 87.32 to 87.77 to 87.92 etc etc,) but that's not a reason to exclude of course. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Consider making use of the Graphs extension as well as the new tabular data on Commons. I.e., @Sergecross73: that's something of which we don't need to be worried. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what I figured out yesterday (see Overwatch, tracking the reported player size over time), it's not terribly hard given that there's interactive editors to help check before posting into WP. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone in the LA area? Photos requested of upcoming SAG-AFTRA event on Feb. 2

It would be nice to get some free imagery for the 2016 video game voice actor strike article and unfortunately haven't seen anything free off the previous pickets. The union is planning to demonstration on Feb 2 at its HQ, which would be a prime opportunity for some. Yes, it will likely just be ppl holding placards and wearing SAG-AFTRA or other identifying shirts, but still something is better than nothing. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Video game pictures

See here Maybe this could be useful for the project? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Are all of these images public domain? GamerPro64 02:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. The licenses are incorrect. The game developer holds the copyright to these screenshots, even if the uploader took them. (The same way that a film producer owns the rights to stills from a film.) If the game developer releases the game to the public domain, conditions are different. This Flickr collection can be used to find images for fair use, though. czar 02:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • commons:License laundering (aka Flickr washing) means uploading pictures under a licence (PD, CC, etc.) when you do not hold the original copyright. It's a problem. I'm sure Commons folk could tell you a lot more about it.  · Salvidrim! ·  15:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, "don't do it". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Pilgrim: Faith as a Weapon source

I'm currently working on an article but struggling in the source department. Not because the game is not notable; it is. But because most of the sources are offline, not in English, or on links that are hard or even impossible to find. According to MobyGames, one review the game was featured in (and the only not-yet-used review included in the "Reference library" tab) is the December 1997 edition of Power Play (Germany). I followed the prompts from that page, but none appear to be from 1997. Please help if you can. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's missing from kultpower's index—they don't appear to have the issue indexed. I'd try to contact the webmaster, and if that fails, contact those involved with scanning the mags to other sites czar 08:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice! However, if I did manage to access a scanned copy of the article, that wouldn't do me much good as I can't plop it through Google Translate... Or maybe there is an easy free way to turn a scanned page into searchable, highlightable text?--Coin945 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Coin945: If the scan is PDF, you can usually run OCR on it (though maybe you can do that with images too). But otherwise, you can also resort to typing it into Google Translate straight in the native German--you don't need a URL to translate it. --Izno (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I managed to find it, deep in the recesses of the internet! English German.--Coin945 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
(Speaking of, Adventure-Archiv actually seems like an amazing resource to find lost reviews).--Coin945 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Good Game has been cancelled

Just heard news just now that the Australian gaming show "Good Game" got cancelled. There's information about it here but knowing that this has been used as a source on Wikipedia, I thought it would be important to let people know that. Especially since I don't know any other TV show we use as a source here anymore. GamerPro64 02:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As an Australian and avid viewer (and editor of its Wikipedia article), this hurt when it popped up in my Facebook News feed. It did wonders for the industry and especially the Australian industry. I hope another video gaming TV show / web series comes along to fill that gaping hole.--Coin945 (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Help needed at Masaya Nakamura (Namco)

Masaya Nakamura (Namco) has passed away (he passed last week, but news is hitting today). He founded Namco as well as developed Pac-Man, so it would be helpful if someone could take the various obits coming out to try to expand on this (I've nominated him for ITN/C, but will be out of pocket for several hours to help expand). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The article should be moved to Masaya Nakamura (businessman) to start with. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help adding a German language link in Wikidata

Wikidata is confusing the heck out of me. I want to add the German article "Kreuzzug-Reihe" to the English "Pilgrim: Faith as a Weapon". Please help. :)--Coin945 (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Wow, the formatting and writing of that article is awful. Anyway, I fixed the issue you had. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the main issue I've had is in trying to decipher the French, German, Polish, Brazilian Portuguese, and Slovenian-language articles of this game made by a Franco-Slovenian games company. Once I'm done the article will need a copyedit or five.--Coin945 (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Updated Nintendo HW and SW sales #

I would assume those big on Nintendo games might follow this already, but updated hardware and (first-party) software sales data through Dec 31, 2016 is now available. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot template move discussion

Please take a moment to comment at Template talk:Plot#Requested move 22 January 2017. --Izno (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

An article for the intersection of video game and politics

In light of many VG companies stepping into to support actions against the immigration ban, I am wondering if we can have an article about the intersection of the video game industry and politics, outside of anything otherwise covered by the video game controversies article. Eg more about actions led by the VG industry to support politic actions, rather than the industry reacting to politic actions specifically targetting the VG industry. The current actions would be one subsection of this article, as that alone is not enough to sustain it, so I'm trying to see if there's more that could be added for this. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Until such an article gets started, Executive Order 13769#Business community might be a place to contribute ban-specific actions. --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
To avoid UNDUE coverage, I added a broad statement of what the VG industry has done there. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me know if you (or anyone else) make this article. I wouldn't be the one to start it up, but I'd help/maintain it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Would else would the section contain? If it's trying to be historical, then it needs stuff dating back to the 70s/80s too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm not sure about, I can't immediately think of anything from this earlier period that the industry spoke out politically, possibly because it was far too young and small. It's only now as the industry is approaching the other major entertainment industries as they realize they have a bit of political capital to throw around. If only this response to the immigration ban is the only thing, then it doesn't make sense to create an article yet. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible new category

Didn't see a past discussion on this (and if there was, I apologize), but what about a category for "PlayStation 4 Pro enhanced games"? This could be useful for those interested in which games are PS4 Pro enhanced. --JDC808 10:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems completely reasonable for a category (I know The Witness would qualify, for example). Go for it. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Definitely a defining feature of PS4 games, something that would be mentioned in articles and source-able, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Made. Add any games that fit this category. --JDC808 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there a list of this on the PlayStation blog or something, too? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably. I found this list from GameSpot, though interestingly, a majority of those articles here don't mention anything of the Pro. --JDC808 15:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Video games with 3D graphics

Thoughts on this category? Previously discussed here czar 20:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete it; should contain more like 10,000 video game articles, and so is pretty useless. --PresN 00:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, delete it. In addition to being too broad a category, it's not clearly defined. Yes, we have the parent article 3D computer graphics, but when you say "3D graphics" out of context, it raises questions: Do you mean actual 3D graphics (which don't yet exist since everything to date has been projected onto a 2D screen), graphics which are 3D in terms of the mathematical computations which determine the 2D display, or simply graphics which are designed to give the illusion of 3D (which includes sidescrolling games like Super Mario Bros., since the characters move over backgrounds)? Are scaled sprites 3D graphics? How about parallax scrolling? Or prerendered stills? What about polygonal characters moving on prerendered backgrounds (e.g. Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil)? Or scaling sprite characters moving on polygonal backgrounds (e.g. Titan Wars, Magic Carpet)? And so on.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Freikorp (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I would have said that it can serve as parent category for things like Category:Video games with stereoscopic 3D graphics. But we already have a broader Category:Video games by graphical style. So it's not very useful, because it's too large. Question is, where is the line? When does something like Category:Video games with 2.5D graphics or Category:Video games with isometric graphics become too large? Is there any inclusion criteria? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017's TFA

Happy February everyone. This month's Today's Featured Article will be coming on the 16th with Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward. Congrats to Famous Hobo, IDV, and ThomasO1989 on the good work. GamerPro64 20:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Slightly nervous about it to be honest. Expecting tons of vandalism and well-intentioned but misguided edits, both to VLR and related articles.--IDVtalk 22:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty awesome. I half-expect most vandalism to be blanking the Plot section because spoilers. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, don't worry too much. Most vandalism for main-page FAs is just the kind of junk that gets reverted in seconds, or else a minute, and the rest of the edits are pointless fiddling with syntax that can be ignored or washed away once the day has passed. Few people do any sort of real editing or clever vandalism of main page articles. 5 years ago there was a lot, but most people find better targets now. --PresN 02:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 20 January

11 January

13 January

14 January

15 January

16 January

17 January

18 January

19 January

20 January

Salavat (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Salavat: I don't agree that a non-video game actor who has 1 minor voice credit in a video game should fall under the project's scope. Thousands of non-video game actors have minor and cameo roles in video games, but we don't automatically include them within the project scope based on that. If video game acting/voice acting isn't a significant part of their profession then they should be excluded. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Salavat (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As a result, I have excluded my article from the scope until enough voice actors are available. *Xyaena~* (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you're talking about here. Your article is about a game and is clearly in scope for the project. -- ferret (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 27 January

12 January

21 January

22 January

23 January

24 January

25 January

26 January

27 January

Salavat (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Super Mario World for good article reassessment.

Super Mario World, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Gamingforfun365 16:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

South Park: The Fractured but Whole

People keep messing around with the release date on the page. I was wondering if the article should be semi-protected to stop ppl from messing with it. Govvy (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Game-related peripherals

What section would peripherals related to a video game go under? For example, CSGO related SteelSeries products. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: If I were to include it anywhere, where would it be included? Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Depends on how much content there is; Final Fantasy XIII did "Versions and merchandise"; you could also do "Marketing and release" if that works better for the article, or stuff it in "Legacy" if you have that. --PresN 12:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I usually put it in a "development and release" type section, but any sort of section like PresN mentions above would work. (Just don't put it anywhere weird, like in the reception section or something...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
For Dota 2, this type of stuff went under the "legacy" subsection. Of course, not every game can have such a large secton devoted to it, so "development and release" or "promotion" is fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

More on our YYYY in video gaming articles

Previously I asked about adding an awards section for these, and this still makes sense, there's something about these year articles that still bugs me, taking for example 2016 in video gaming as the case: (and compare to 2016 in film which I think served as templates for these articles)

  • The lede of just trying to list sequels and new IP screams a hot bed for favoritism. There are probably handfuls of keystone titles for a year (for example, very much likely Zelda Breath of the Wild for 2017), but this can be difficult to source to trim down. I'd rather focus on titles that are recognized for either critical success (which is easily sourced), financial success (again, easily sourced), or ones that we readily can source as "highly-anticipated titles" for that year.
  • The lede should focus more on the trends of the year, rather than just software. Major hardware releases, shifts in game demographics (eg indie or mobile gaming) etc. This seems a bit more difficult to source to pull out the key events, but anything would be better.
  • The 2016 article has what I feel is critical data, the financial state of the market. I'd also try to find data likely from ESA that estimates # of video game players, etc. in the world or US, as this is just useful general metrics. That said, I would also like to try to add a table of the best selling games. Also, as the film articles do, include any known records that may have been broken. (eg I think Pokemon Go broke several for its release).
  • The events table seems actually fine: this all focuses on major business changes or legal aspects. Same with the game release tables except to require only notable games or sequels to notable games to be included, eg no red-linked titles, and that each has to be referred to a third-party source.
  • I would add the awards table previously discussed after the financial aspects and before the events/release schedule, as well as bringing up the MetaCritic "best games" table, since that also reflects appropriate critical success.
  • I might consider having a table of deaths of notable people too, again mimicking the film article approach. It won't be as long and may include some non-notables that still can be sourced to third-parties.

It will take time to work through these, so I'd like to basically target one for broad improvements before touching the rest. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Random small idea: In the Metacritic list, set a threshold of "number of reviews" to be included (say, 15?). A sparse # of reviews is in itself a measure of insignificance - indie games that break out do attract notice and get lots of reviews, like Stardew Valley. If really needed, highly reviewed games with a small number of reviews can be mentioned in prose beneath (e.g. Out of the Park Baseball 17). Also, since this is a list that spans all platforms, I think going to a top 20/25 might be merited rather than a top 10. (It's very common to do "top 10 per platform" lists, so a top 10 across everything might be a bit over-terse.) SnowFire (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Took a stab at refining the lede with just moving it down to "Software releases" and focusing the headlines on actual hardware. Thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ultimately the rationale for this article is that sources discuss "2016 in video gaming": see the talk page for a list of year-in-review sources. That's the stuff I'd paraphrase in the article and that's the gist of what would then be summarized in the lede. There were plenty of trends, but we take those cues from the secondary sources. We certainly should not be mentioning more than a handful of games in the lede, and even then, that should be only because we have sources that discuss them as emblematic of 2016, etc. czar 05:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A reminder on a good site on title sequences

As it's not a site dedicated to video games, I was recently reminded that Art of the Title does have a fair number of interviews/analysis of title sequences/logo design for video games in addition to TV shows and films. Eg I see Doom, Uncharted 4, DX: Mankind Divided, Octodad, and several others just in a quick scan. Probably only a few dozen VG articles might benefit from it but most of those they cover are also the articles higher up on the importance scale for us. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Call of Duty 2017

Sources are starting up with the yearly Call of Duty speculation, with the basic headline I see being "Call of Duty 2017 will take the series 'back to its roots,' Activision says". Just an FYI to keep an eye out for crystal ball and hoax article creations. -- ferret (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail unreliable

Hey guys. Just a heads-up for the future that The Daily Mail is now considered unreliable and prohibited from use on Wikipedia. In case you see it on a Daily Mail article on a page, you should remove it from there. GamerPro64 01:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the VG project uses the DM much, but be aware it's not outright banned, just that you don't use it for factual information. It can be use for opinions or when the DM is part of the story, and other reasonable cases. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Already found a link to them on the Manhunt (video game) article. That article is a Good Article at that. GamerPro64 01:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Which looks like the one DM source can be replaced [11]. That's the thing with the Daily Mail, is that most of the factual stuff it reports can likely be found in other more reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
My first thought was that this was a source that people are always using for esports, but that's a different "Daily", isn't it? Daily Dot or something? Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a British Tabloid newspaper so I doubt they ever regularly covert eSports let alone be contanatly used by Wikipedia in that capicity.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Serge, The Daily Dot sold off their eSports section. I don't even think they cover that anymore. GamerPro64 01:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Huh, I did not know that. I mean, I guess it's been a bit since I've seen it be used, but I thought it was just that we stopped having all those esports guideline and AFD debates, which is the only times I really participate in the esports area. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's a list of project articles with links to Daily Mail. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
  1. 007 Legends
  2. 7554
  3. Angry Birds
  4. Atari 2600
  5. Book of Spells
  6. Buzz!: The Schools Quiz
  7. Byron Review
  8. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
  9. Candy Crush Saga
  10. CleverPet Inc
  11. Clive Sinclair
  12. Cosplay
  13. Counter-Strike: Malvinas
  14. Cybersex
  15. Dan Green (voice actor)
  16. Dan Houser
  17. Disney Infinity
  18. Disney Infinity (series)
  19. Easter egg (media)
  20. FIFA 14
  21. Gears of War: Judgment
  22. God of War II
  23. Gran Turismo 6
  24. Green brothers
  25. Grubby Hands Limited
  26. Hai (League of Legends player)
  27. Hatoful Boyfriend
  28. Hitman: Absolution
  29. Hugo Troll Race
  30. Inkie
  31. Jennifer Hale
  32. Kaboom: The Suicide Bombing Game
  33. Keeley Hawes
  34. King (company)
  35. List of Killer Instinct characters
  36. List of Pokémon video games
  37. List of banned video games
  38. List of controversial video games
  39. LittleBigPlanet (2008 video game)
  40. Lizard Squad
  41. MadWorld
  42. Manhunt (series)
  43. Manhunt (video game)
  44. Mario
  45. Medal of Honor: Warfighter
  46. Need for Speed Rivals
  47. Newgrounds
  48. Nintendo 3DS
  49. PewDiePie
  50. Pokémon
  51. Pokémon Go
  52. Quest for Glory: Shadows of Darkness
  53. RTX (event)
  54. Resident Evil: The Final Chapter
  55. Richie Branson
  56. Rugby Challenge 2
  57. Sam Houser
  58. Scrabble 2007 Edition
  59. Sexism in video gaming
  60. Six Days in Fallujah
  61. Solid light
  62. Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed
  63. Special Force 2: Tale of the Truthful Pledge
  64. Star Trek (2013 video game)
  65. Star Wars: The Old Republic
  66. THQ Nordic
  67. Television set
  68. The Beatles: Rock Band
  69. Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist
  70. Toru Iwatani
  71. Video game controversies
  72. Vision Gran Turismo
  73. Wonderbook
  • Just an FYI: Based on the closure discussion at AN there is a chance that this ruling might be challenged - either for a change of wording or to complete overturn it. While it probably wouldn't hurt to gradually start replacing the sources if comparable alternatives exist, we may want to keep an eye out for any future developments. ZettaComposer (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Essentially, just search "video game daily mail" or "video game dailymail.co.uk", and we can spot every article such as this to clean up. After having been in WP:RSN, I was going to start a section on this talk page called "Video game articles are doomed" about the incident, but I have just noticed that it already has been covered. Gamingforfun365 04:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
With a sensationalist thread title like that people would be calling you out for blowing things out of proportions. With The1337gamer already pointing out only 70 or so articles include The Daily Mail, this isn't that big of a deal for this project. Not like it was decided Kotaku was deemed unreliable all of a sudden. GamerPro64 04:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The blanket ban is ridiculous. It's not like the Daily Mail is any more unreliable than any other UK tabloid, and there's no ban on any of those. That said, there is very little reason why a video game article would choose to cite the DM over other more reliable sources. I'd treat the Daily Mail in the same way that we treat Forbes contributors, discourage their use and encourage better sources, but I wouldn't remove the DM sourced information from our articles. - hahnchen 21:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Arc System Works

The Arc System Works article is a complete mess. I've tried my best to clean it up but it's just so difficult to find information about the company. It's especially important to bulk up this particular article considering the acquisitions that they've made with Technos Japan and WorkJam intellectual properties. I need all the help I can get with this particular company article. Thanks Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out as I do my researches. I'm going through 1996 gaming magazines right now; with any luck the company is mentioned somewhere during that time.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lists of video games by system and genre

I've noticed articles on lists of video games by system and genre being proposed for deletion (e.g., List of Super Famicom and Super NES puzzle games or List of Super Famicom and Super NES role-playing games). Was there any discussion or consensus that these were inappropriate? Despite what is stated in the prod rationales, I don't see any reason these articles would fail the guidelines for lists. They seem to have well defined topics that are neither too broad nor too narrow, as called for by WP:SALAT, and they seem to be useful both for information and navigational tools as called for by WP:LISTPURP. I also don't think we have any other lists that fully cover the information in these lists. List of Super Famicom games and List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games exist, but they lack some information presented in these lists (the Super Famicom one doesn't have genre, for instance). Is there any reason why lists by system and genre are considered inappropriate and need to be deleted? Calathan (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't need. One list per platform is enough. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I do think one list is probably enough, but for Super Nintendo and Super Famicom games, we currently have three lists, one of which is divided into sub-lists. We have List of Super Famicom games, List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games, and List of Super Famicom and Super NES games by genre, with the longer sections of the list by genre split out into separate pages (presumably because having them on one page would be too long). I think having separate lists of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games is a poor way to organize the information, because games that were released both in Japan and outside of Japan are redundantly listed on both lists. I think the combined list by genre is actually the better list (though a combined alphabetical list might be even better than that). I also think that whatever list we keep should at least list genre as a column (if the whole list isn't organized by genre). The Super Famicom list currently doesn't have that. Even if we don't want to keep the list by genre, I think someone should at least add the genre information onto the Super Famicom list. So my preference for how to handle these articles would be to either (A) Keep the list by genre and redirect the separate Super Famicom and Super Nintendo lists to it or (B) merge the separate Super Nintendo and Super Famicom information into one alphabetical List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games, add the genre information for the Super Famicom games to that page, and redirect the genre list and sub-lists to that page, and then divide that page into sub-pages if it ends up too long. Calathan (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess I should have checked through the page archives, as that is exactly what I was trying to find. Calathan (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the prod tags from the lists with tags on them (someone else had already removed them from three of them), and also asked that a couple of the sub-lists of the genre list that were already deleted be restored. I think Martin IIIa just missed that there are separate Super Nintendo and Super Famicom lists, that genre information isn't included in the Super Famicom list, and that neither of those lists individually indicates which games were released in Japan versus in the US and Europe. I think being able to see something like what RPGs were released for the Super Famicom but not for the Super Nintendo is useful, so I'm in agreement with SnowFire from that previous discussion. While I think all of the lists could probably be worked into something better than any of them, I think the genre list (including its sub-lists) provides the most useful information right now, and is the one to keep if any one of them are going to be kept. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I realized all those things, but I prefer to deal with one problem at a time. We don't need to salvage all the "List of Super Famicom and Super NES ..." articles just for the genre and regional release information, as that information is poorly sourced in those articles, probably largely inaccurate in the case of the Japan-only games, and would need to be reformatted anyway. As The1337gamer pointed out, we only need one list for each platform, and that list doesn't need to include every name the platform was branded under. That's why we have List of Sega Genesis games, not List of Sega Mega Drive, Sega Genesis, CDX, Multi-Mega, Sega Nomad, Sega TeraDrive, Mega-LD Pack, JVC Wondermega, and JVC X'Eye games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel like you've missing my point, since I'm also asking for one list, and what that list is named is really besides the point. I just don't think it is a good idea to throw out a lot of potentially useful information instead of merging it. If you feel that all that other information is too poorly sourced to use, that would be a reasonable argument to make for getting rid of it (I don't think I agree, since I think those lists are a good starting point for seeing what information we should be trying to source, but it is still a reasonable argument). However, you didn't make that argument in the previous discussion or in your prod rationales, and instead made arguments for deletion that simply weren't correct. Regardless, I think having those articles redirect to any list we end up with is better than deleting them, since anyone looking for those lists will probably want the new list. Also, I want to point out that the genre list is one list, not several lists . . . it is merely divided into multiple pages for length. If we can fit all the games onto one page without it being unmanageable, that would be preferable, but if there are so many SNES/Super Famicom games that they can't reasonably be listed on one page, then we'll need to split them up somehow. That doesn't mean we'll be ending up with multiple lists though, just that we'll have one list divided into multiple pages. Calathan (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Calathan: You can usually request at WP:REFUND for a page deleted under notability reasoning to be moved to your sandbox. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Calathan - I don't follow why you would think I'm missing your point, since what you say is your point was directly addressed in my post. Your claim that I need to anticipate any possible counter-arguments in all of my discussion posts and even in prod rationales (which are supposed to be brief and to-the-point) is even more baffling. Most baffling of all, though, is your continued referring to the practice of listing all games for a platform in a single article as if this was some daring new format that we need to work out the details of, rather than a system that has been in place without problems almost since WP was founded. Take a look at a few of the articles in Category:Video game lists by platform.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been in favor the whole time of having one list, but I just felt that the content of those lists would be useful in making that list. If you can make one complete list without referencing that content, then I am fine with that, but I felt it would be easier to do so with that content viewable. I don't understand why you think I want something any different than what we have for other systems. It feels like you are just being combative for the sake of being combative, and I really don't appreciate it. Calathan (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, now that I take a look Category:Video game lists by platform, the articles we have for other systems are a total mess. I see more than 20 lists for the three Xbox systems and more than 10 lists for the two Wii systems, for example. I agree that ideally we would have only one list per system, but I think you need to actually take a look at what is in that category, since what we have right now isn't nearly as clean as what you seem to think. Calathan (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say the person who is "just being combative for the sake of being combative" is the one who keeps on bringing up irrelevant points for argument and insisting I've misunderstood after I've demonstrated clear understanding. I have no interest in arguing over nothing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated all the "List of Super Famicom and Super NES ..." articles for deletion. I invite everyone to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Super Famicom and Super NES games by genre.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that these would be better served as redirects to the current list, rather than as redlinks. There could be links to the deleted articles from both inside and outside Wikipedia, and it would be useful to get people clicking on those links to the actual list (especially for any external links). Would anyone object to me creating redirects from the deleted titles to List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games? Calathan (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I've already reviewed the links to the articles; I always do this for articles I find have been deleted. There were very few links, and the overwhelming majority were under "See also" for individual games. While I don't know of any consensus supporting this, I'm pretty sure including "List of _ games" links for every platform a game is on isn't something we want to do. For one thing, this would make the "See also" sections for games like Doom and Myst absurdly bloated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, what I was mainly concerned about was external links, since any links internal to Wikipedia can just be removed or changed to point to the other list. However, I admit they aren't really important to have. I definitely agree that we don't want to link to the lists from the articles for individual games. Calathan (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Twinfinite 'ight?

Detroit has ended motion capture footage, but Twinfinite is the only publication that picked it up. Is it reliable? I don't see it on the list. Cognissonance (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it around before, and I don't see anything that immediately jumps out as unreliable, but somebody else should be the judge on that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Could've sworn that Twinfinite was decided to be unreliable here. GamerPro64 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to whether Twinfinite is reliable or not, but Cognissonance, it is okay to cite primary sources for uncontroversial information, so the tweet Twinfinite cites should be fine.--IDVtalk 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Twinfinite's staff don't appear to have much credibility at a glance. Their 'about us' page also states that they're an enthusiast site, so I'd say they're not reliable. JAGUAR  19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In this case I agree with the suggestion to use the tweet as the source since unlsss there is something overlooked it's hardly controversial.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Colony Wars articles

Now that the RM discussion is closed, what to do about Colony Wars (series), Colony Wars (video game), Colony Wars: Vengeance, and Colony Wars: Red Sun? Is merger likely? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The games are independently notable based on their reviews, and there is no source coverage of the series. I boldly merged the sole series source to Colony Wars (video game)#Legacy, where it can be developed further. I think more sources/edits and less discussion is needed in this case. czar 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
In other words, ignore the results of RM per WP:IAR and be bold anyways? George Ho (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
What? The RM was "no consensus" and content was the reason. If you find my solution unsatisfactory, you can undo it, but I don't see what other conclusion you're banking on. czar 03:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh... sorry. I didn't mean to dismiss your efforts. The bold change was nice and efficient, and I like that. I just hope everyone else agrees with this. --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, you're right. More improvement, less discussion. Let's move on. George Ho (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 3 February

23 January

27 January

28 January

29 January

30 January

31 January

1 February

2 February

3 February

Salavat (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Heads up on console generation issues

Microsoft plans to talk more about Project Scorpio during E3 this year. It's supposed to be a HW refresh of the Xbox One rather than a new console, but we know the drill by now. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

How to handle NVidia Sheild exclusivity

The Witness has a version for Android that is (as best I can tell), forever going to be exclusive to the NVidia Shield console and not to any other Android device. Prose-wise, not an issue, but what about the Infobox? Is this an "Android" release or a "NVidia Shield" release? --MASEM (t) 23:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say nVidia Shield. We know it's only on that specific device, and it's sourcable. To say Android would be a bit misleading to readers. (I double checked this since I wanted to make sure it was actually a native port... I've seen people recently trying to add Android as a platform to games on nVidia's NOW streaming service. Akin to OnLive). -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Seconded, for the same reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)