Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 128

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 125 Archive 126 Archive 127 Archive 128 Archive 129 Archive 130 Archive 135


Forbidden Siren (film)

This article was unmerged from Siren (video game series) article because it "caused a constraint violation in Wikidata" (see talk page). Is that really a valid reason for unmerging something? --Mika1h (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. As pro-Wikidata and metadata as I am, even I know Wikidata cannot dictate enwiki content policy.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
To add to Salv's comments, nothing requires that Wikidata match Enwiki. Even if Enwiki has one article for both topics, Wikidata can still have two separate entities. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thirded, absolutely not. Wikidata's internal item structure has no bearing on's article structure. --PresN 14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a pitty. In every other wiki this article is for it's own and had a chance to develop see e.g. pt:Forbidden Siren (filme). A Video game is not film. And with merging you lost information, too. MovieFex (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@MovieFex: ignoring that your example of a developed article is a 4-paragraph plot summary + trivia section, the discussion is not whether or not the film article should be merged to the video game series/franchise article because of the merits of the articles in question, but your opposition based on the effect it would have at wikidata. One is an acceptable thing to debate, right or wrong, the other is absolutely unsupported and raises alarming red flags about future trends. --PresN 16:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, its not a valid reason for making decisions on en-wiki. Consider myself a fourth (of probably endless) people who oppose this as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: I was aware of the article because of wikidata, there at a maintenance page. So I checked the article here and saw, there is enough potential to develop (how was shown in other wikis e.g. frwiki/ruwiki/ptwiki) and enough for a stub. Beg me pardon that I hadn't the right words to explain all reasons for a seperate article. So I thought a hint to wikidata would be helpful enough and in interest of enwiki to get an item for it's own. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that there is an expectation that an editor will not create unreferenced stubs with unproven notability on English Wikipedia, regardless of the fact the same topic may have equally unreferenced articles on other languages of Wikipedia.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I see, references were missing. May be next time someone creates an article which is enough referenced for your strict eyes. Here are some for the one who tries again:
@Salvidrim!: May be you're pro-Wikidata, but I doubt you understand. -- MovieFex (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Enwiki policy trumps anything Wikidata or Ptwiki related. Of the sources above, at least 3 are immediately unreliable because they are user generated Wikis. I'm also pro-Wikidata, I've written much of our integration for it. We don't create articles on enwiki just because they have a Wikidata item. There is a known problem with Wikidata in that it cannot link items to redirects, but that's not a reason to create an article that lacks notability. Nothing that Enwiki does will cause data constraint issues on Wikidata. That's an issue with someone using the wrong items in the properties. For example, Q4038879 is the item for the media series as a whole. Q660294 is the item for the film, and this is where the IMDB property belongs. -- ferret (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: You're right, IMDb belongs to the film. You're wrong if you say ENwiki does not cause data constraint issues on Wikidata e.g. Beverly Hills Cop (Q3222883) -> Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P345#.22Unique_value.22_violations (one of many maintenance pages where ENwiki causes constraint violations). For this problem there are two solutions: in this special mentioned case, the IMDb's have to be deleted in the article Beverly Hills Cop (franchise) because there is no item about it in IMDb, only single entry's to the films (which are linked already). The other possibility we are talking about here is what I did: trying to make a difference between a video game and a film. Wikidata is an young project and it will need some time, until Wikipedia and Wikidata are passably synchron. But may be there is another reason that my contribution was not welcome ... -- MovieFex (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Lemme make something clear here MovieFex, it's not about "my strict eyes", it's about English Wikipedia's content policies. I'm very much in favour of metadata in general and Wikidata in particular and hope one day most categories and infoboxes will be populated from Wikidata. That being said, global Wikimedia projects (Wikidata, Commons, Meta) cannot trump the content policies of individual-language Wikipedias. The fact that creating an unreferenced English stub makes Wikidata "cleaner" or removes a conflict doesn't mean that, on English Wikipedia, such an article's existence is allowed or justified.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Siren is not a video game. It is a video game franchise. It can also be seen as a multimedia franchise. Any piece of media that does not have an article on its own, such as a film or a manga, can be listed there until the section on it gets too big. If Wikidata cannot handle franchise articles, then may I suggest that there is a significant problem with the project? How does Wikidata currently handle the Siren manga? ~Mable (chat) 21:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, this is good argument, thanks. Siren -> main article Siren (video game) / Forbidden Siren 2 -> main article: Forbidden Siren 2 / Siren: Blood Curse -> main article Siren: Blood Curse / Forbidden Siren (film) -> main article Nope MovieFex (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you telling us Wikidata is unable to handle topics that are redirected to a broader concept (such as sequels being redirected to the first entry, or franchise articles covering multiple items), or topics for which an article does not exist? Seriously? But there are thousands of the former and millions of the latter.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── In regards to "You're wrong if you say ENwiki does not cause data constraint issues on Wikidata e.g. Beverly Hills Cop (Q3222883) -> Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P345#.22Unique_value.22_violations (one of many maintenance pages where ENwiki causes constraint violations).". Enwiki doesn't cause this. Users who aren't reviewing their data in Quickstatements cause this. For example, you removed the IMDB link from Q4038879. It was added by another editor using QuickStatements back in December. It was not automatically imported from Enwiki or anything like that.

In regards to Salvidrim's question about redirects: Yes, Wikidata has an issue here. Wikidata items cannot be linked to redirects. It's an issue recognized and discussed at d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects (Which seems to be most recent RFC on the issue) among other pages. @Izno: You can probably better state this issue, I can't recall the page you once linked me on the subject. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I'm functionally AFK atm (vacation) so I can't really hash on the entirety of what's going on in this section, but the page you're asking about is probably d:Help:Bonnie and Clyde problem. --Izno (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"Enwiki doesn't cause this. Users who aren't reviewing their data in Quickstatements cause this." No, that's wrong. First users in ENwiki are adding these links here which are integrated to Wikidata - not otherwise. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Enwiki doesn't have a policy against it. It's perfectly allowed, unless it goes against WP:EL or similar. Again, nothing in Enwiki is automatically added to Wikidata like that. A editor of Wikidata used Quickstatements and imported the data without reviewing if it violated constraints or was appropriate. To add to this, you've already repaired the constraint violation as a Wikidata editor, by removing the property. -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to give an explanation. First step is a wrong entry here. About the millions of different datas some (may be more) users work with Bots from maintanace pages, which read out the Wikis. If there is any (and even wrong) link they will add it. You see, Wikidata is second. But this also is a great advantage, as you can see in my latest edits - so errors are detected and can be fixed. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware that Wikidata was inherently linked to the notability guidelines of English Wikipedia, in that you can't have entries on Wikidata without an article existing on the topic on Wikipedia. I'd imagine that this would be a severe limitation on more abstract topics, but when it comes to a film... Well, feel free to argue about the viability of the article, but don't get upset when it doesn't meet notability guidelines. ~Mable (chat) 22:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't. Wikidata has its own notability policy separate from enwiki or any other language wiki. It's a very weak notability policy compared to enwiki, you can read it at d:Wikidata:Notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It was not my intension to be a laywer for Wikidata here. I only have some skills to use it and try to fix errors, which were detected. Perhaps my explanations weren't as good to understand, so I've to apologise that I'm no English native. My aim was to improve, no matter which wiki-language it is. This should be the major target of every Wikipedian. -- MovieFex (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

N00b here, what is Wikidata? Amwisdx (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

At a very high level, Wikidata is a separate Wikimedia project that deals with structured data. For example, you have an item for "Super Mario World". This item is defined through a set of properties, such as "Instance of: Video game", "Release date: January 1982", "Platform: Nintendo", "Developer: Nintendo". In many ways, the data is akin to what you might find in an infobox. This is a very simple view of it. If you interested in how to work with it, there is a guide I wrote with VG templates in mind at WP:VG/WD. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot like removal of categories

A now blocked user (Special:Contributions/Chocolatejr9) has been removing categories and other info from VG articles. There are about 100 that need repairing. - X201 (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the bulk of his category removals. Not so sure about the other edits which added text upon existing categories. Just realised that he's done something like this before. JAGUAR  10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The basketball example seems OK given that the parent cat is Video game franchises by year. It's puzzling why they'd make a useful edit like that along with the mass removal edits - X201 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Maze video games

I've found discovered that we have an article List of maze video games but no parent article Maze video game. Not sure what the best fix would be here. Move the existing article to Maze video game? Leave it as and create a stub parent article? Some other option I haven't thought of?--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is much you can talk about maze games beyond "here there are", I'm not coming up with a great deal of sources that get in depth of origins/etc; in other words you can't get more detail beyond just a list, so that's reasonable. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that this list could be converted into a couple of categories; Category:Top-down maze video games, Category:First-person maze games, Category:Maze chase games, and Category:Grid capture video games (of course all categorized under Category:Maze games). That being said, the current situation is fine if we conclude that there is value in listing the non-notable games. ~Mable (chat) 11:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 10 February

2 February

3 February

4 February

5 February

6 February

7 February

8 February

9 February

10 February

Salavat (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Artists, Writers, Composers in Infobox video game series

See Template talk:Infobox video game series#Artists, Writers, Composers. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Attendance at TooManyGames 13 (2016)

Does anyone know the attendance number for that edition? If so, please edit it in, since I couldn't find it (which is why a left a question mark in that cell of the table). I already wrote a copy of this post at Talk:TooManyGames, but I then Copied and Pasted here just to cover my bases. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nathan Drake and Drake the rapper

Please feel free to contribute to this discussion regarding a comparison between the fictional treasure hunter and the highly-awarded rapper/musician. – Rhain 06:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing hybrid video games

I was thinking if there is any logic to trying to categorize video games that are firmly established to be a hybrid of two or more genres by design, or if this starts getting too far into where original research can take over how things are included into the category.

I do note that for thematic genres, there exists such categories for films (eg Category:Science fiction films by genre). My only consider is given how people fight hard to include certain genres (like the fight to include "survivor horror" for BioShock from some years back), this is an area that could be gamed easily. I would make it clear that any categorization for these hybrids has to start with developers stating their intention to make a hybrid game, or similar language to that effect ("We wanted to make an FPS with elements of DOTA..." would work if quoted from a developer). I would definitely avoid third-party assessment even if from RSes, as here we are strictly talking about design choices and not how others saw it.

There's a bunch of bookkeeping details we'd have to discuss if we agree this is a direction to go, so I'd like to see if this is a potentially bad idea or not first. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

World of Guns: Gun Disassembly recreation and reworking proposal

I am not positive that this is the right procedure to bring it to your attention. User UY Scuti, in a discussion here, suggested I discuss the reworking of deleted article for World of Guns: Gun Disassembly with the Video games project members. The previous version of the article was deleted on dubious significance / scant sources. Here is my case for its recreation as a small article or stub.

Besides a few reviews of the initial version of the simulator (1, 2, 3), the game was briefly featured twice on Rock Paper Shotgun (here and here). Notably, World of Guns was also covered very positively in one of the more popular (and, uniquely, politics-free) US firearm culture blogs, The Firearm Blog.

This, I think, reflects its unique position: it lies somewhere between being a hardcore simulator, a casual game for proverbial CSGO fans, and a real, viable engineering reference and teaching aid (The Firearm Blog editor notes that he actually used the game as a reference for repairing old firearms). The effort put into the simulation library over the years seems sizeable to say the least - developers list "150+ models with 19 000 individual parts".

Here is its Russian-language article - according to ref section, it got more coverage in the Russian-language gaming press, including a segment on a TV show about videogames. Also, the game seems to be reasonably popular in terms of user base (Steam Spy lists around 2.2 million installs, and Google Store lists "1 to 5 million" installs for the earlier version of the app; plus about a million users total on and Facebook).

Being an avid firearm enthusiast, I've personally used the app a lot over the years. I think it's extremely unique, sort of like Microsoft Flight Simulator of firearms. Pity it doesn't have more coverage, again probably because of its awkward position between casual and niche markets. So, these are my points for creating a stub / small article with a video game template. AyeBraine (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I do think it is likely that an article could be made out of this. Please start Draft:World of Guns: Gun Disassembly and make it a reality, then let us know so we (or at least I!) can look it over before moving it to mainspace to ensure it won't get re-deleted.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, you can use WP:VG/S to see a list of video game related sources that are considered acceptable/not acceptable on Wikipedia too. Touch Arcade and Rock Paper Shotgun are currently classified as reliable sources, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim: @Sergecross73: I've laid out a draft of the new article here. (BTW it turned out Rock, Paper, Shotgun featured the game - or rather its previous version, but these are like the versions of software, expanding on each other - in quite in-depth articles, in their simulation/wargame section.) Would be great to hear your input on what I should do next! AyeBraine (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You're not supposed to have categories and fair-use images in Draftspace, but instead of getting you to remove them, I've moved the article to mainspace -- looks mighty fine to me, and is so far superior to the previously deleted version that it won't possibly be deleted again (at worst, re-nominated for discussion). Good job!  · Salvidrim! ·  20:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch! I didn't think to read rules about drafts for some reason. AyeBraine (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 17 February

7 February

11 February

12 February

13 February

14 February

15 February

16 February

17 February

Salavat (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

List of most expensive video games to develop

Article is a bit of a mess. Some recent back and forth over Star Citizen (Essentially claims the total crowdfunding = development cost) has me trying to clean it up some. I've tagged all the sources that appear unreliable, and started removing the unsourced entries that I can't find anything for... In particular, none of them seem to mention a budget at their main articles either. Looking for some assistance in reviewing the unreliable sourced entries, or adding entries that are missing you may know about. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Good Game reviews

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Good Game reviews.

We are thinking of moving this unsuitable article draft into your reference library, because it looks useful to work from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Irrational Games is now Ghost Story - few bookkeeping issues

Today, Irrational Games announced it is now Ghost Story. I've already done updates at the article, but there's a couple of bookkeeping things to be aware of:

  • will likely disappear or redirect soon, and I know there are a few cases of links using content from here. We need to get these archived
  • We have the navbox {{Irrational Games}}. I'm tempted for now to leave that as is, keeping the Irrational Games name but adding Ghost Story to it, as that name is very much recognized and associated with BioShock, SS2, and others, and it may be confusing to eliminate it entirely in favor of this yet well-known name. In time, we can movie it but not presently. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Something else to consider, because it's not perfectly clear: it does sound like this is a rebranding, but I can read the sources to say that Irrational Games was put to bed and a brand new studio Ghost Story (under Take Two) created, which means then I would revert the changes to make separate Irrational Games (as a history company) and Ghost Story (as a new firm), which then simplified the template matters. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Some input would be helpful here too. Talk:Ghost Story Games. Gamasutra has confirmed that the studio is the same business entity as IG and this was just rebranding, but from a more philosophical side, they are treating this as a new studio with no history and IG being a separate thing. To that end, the question is if we should still split off IG and Ghost Story as to respect that, or if we are "bound" by the fact that it is the same business division to keep in one article. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeking opinions/consensus on a two-step merge/split

Please see Talk:Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences#Proposing a complicated Merge/Split , specifically I am suggesting we split off the DICE Awards to its own article, and merge the contents of the DICE summit article to the otherwise short AIAS article to avoid notability issues. Both articles appear low traffic from editors so just getting a few eyes. (I have a feeling I could be bold and no one would care, but juuust in case...) --MASEM (t) 01:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 24 February

31 January

18 February

19 February

20 February

21 February

22 February

23 February

24 February

Salavat (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

GDC and free images

As your yearly reminder, with GDC next week, the official GDC account at Flickr [1] nearly always publishes photos of the event (speakers, awards ceremony, etc.) with Commons-acceptable license terms. Thus, please upload anything useful to Commons (categorize it under the "Game Developers Conference 2017" category). --MASEM (t) 02:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Slight name dispute

@GamerPro64, Jaguar, Masem, Tintor2, and PresN: I need input on this.

There is a slight dispute rising about the naming of Nier: Automata. The article was original titled without its stylization in the main title (Nier: Automata) as with the article for its predecessor Nier (which is technically stylised as NieR). But NightShadow23 insists on having it written as NieR:Automata in the article title and all. I disagree with this, but I wish for a general consensus, and perhaps by extension show if there's any kind of consensus on game titles that use odd stylization or symbols in their titles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

See official website (screenshot). Also see Faceboock (screenshot) and Twitter (screenshot). This is the official name. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The official name for Nier is NieR, but I don't think it was agreed to alter it. Also, the official title for Kingdom Hearts χ is Kingdom Hearts χ[chi], but there are technical reasons for the alteration. I've also seen plenty of film titles that don't use the "official" stylization, like Seven. Is there anything in Wikipedia policy about titles? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Kind of reminds me to s-CRY-ed. If you want NieR but wikipedia can't move it, maybe we could use !display title".Tintor2 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The stylisation of names should be formatted by how prominently it is styled in sources. For example, every Wipeout title uses an exotic stylisation, so I didn't rename Wipeout 2097 to wipE'out"2097 for obvious reasons. Definitely keep Nier how it was, as long as the capital 'R' isn't used in the sources, otherwise it's not important and can just be hatted in a note. JAGUAR  15:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • MOS:TM has always been fairly clear we use "Nier" regardless if it's "NieR", "NIER" or whatever. WP:COMMONNAME decides if we use "Nier: Automata" or "Nier" or some such. The only exception is the first letter. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with all said above. Unless the "R" in "NeiR" is some initialism, then we stick with "Neir". --MASEM (t) 18:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It's Nier, not NieR, Don't Take It Personally, Babe, It Just Ain't Your Story, not don't take it personally, babe, it just ain't your story, Thatgamecompany, not thatgamecompany, etc., at least when it comes to article titles. We use standard title case for article titles, even if the developer/publisher use a strange capitalization/diacritic scheme. It should remain at Nier: Automata, even if the first sentence mentions that it's officially NieR:Automata. --PresN 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia's ways, it needs to be at Nier. Anything else is just a stylization. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Quickly checking Edge Magazine #301, which had an in-depth piece on the game, the article consistently refers to the game without quirky capitalization. ~Mable (chat) 08:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Vgrelease template, named parameters to be removed

The maintenance category for named parameters on {{Video game release}} has been empty for sometime now, except for occasional reverts of old diffs/redirects. I am confident that all existing usage has been converted. I plan to remove the named parameters next week, at which time, the unnamed parameter syntax of Vgrelease new will be required. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This has been completed. The template will require the newer unnamed syntax going forward. Incorrect use will still populate the hidden tracking category to help find issues. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Name that source code

Hi guys. Last year someone requested clarification on one of the sources used at Lemmings (video game). 'Sequels' section, ref No. 63. They want to know what source code the game (or at least the released code at this particular website) is written in. I know almost nothing about code, so can someone else take a look and tell me what it is? Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This statement is linked to the download file for the source code, which is contained in a 2MG file. This is an Apple IIGS format that you need special emulators to even look at. At this point I decided it wasn't worth the effort to dig further. I think the clarify is unnecessary. It's in a language suitable for an Apple IIGS, and my best guess would be either assembler or Applesoft Basic. The Apple IIGS article itself doesn't discuss supported languages. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 31: It's 2017 and a Month Edition

We have a lot of GANs. Let's get started.

Peer Reviews

Also we still have requests from 2012 in the Request board if anyone is interested in making new articles. GamerPro64 17:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Someone uninvolved should just close and demote the Space Marshals GAR. It's been open since August and issues still have not been addressed. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'll go ahead and do that. GamerPro64 18:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Begging Thread

  • Well, I have been focused largely or entirely on the two articles, Xbox One and Kinect Star Wars, that I wish to greatly improve, of which I had wanted one to reach a GA status, but I did not receive suggestions for improvement so far this year. Perhaps, it is because of my recent attitude for how I would deal with conflict? (P.S. Is this what the begging thread is used for: advertising one's GANs, FACs, etc.?) Gamingforfun365 01:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I currently have Steins;Gate Drama CD Alpha, Beta, and Gamma up at GAN and am interested in trading reviews. Jaguar, would you be interested in reviewing it in exchange for a Wipeout review?--IDVtalk 15:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good! I've taken your GAN. JAGUAR  19:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I'll do Wipeout Fusion then.--IDVtalk 19:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability Review of HandyGames

Hello, I was wondering if someone could take a look at the HandyGames article and review its notability. I am having a hard time gauging the notability of the article myself and would like others opinions. I've attempted to remove cruft from the article before but I am still not sure if everything discussed belongs there. Such as when the company decided to expand to Smart TVs. I do not see how that is notable or really relevant. I am also unsure of the reliability of some of the article's citation sources. Would appreciate independent feedback, thanks! BlitzGreg (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it fails outright, but its a weird sitatuion. Handygames comes in Google News searches, though a lot are in Germany (for good reason), but even still I see enough to justify the company article; more importantly, while few of their games are notable, they are notable for released numbers of games and having a strategy so I think that's fair too. the article seems to rely too much on primary sources though most seem to be for the game releases. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017's TFA

Hey guys. Letting you all know that tomorrow Burning Rangers will be that days Today's Featured Article. Has there been a time when a Sega Saturn exclusive title was on the main page? GamerPro64 17:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Followed on March 13 by God of War II. --PresN 17:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I completely forgot about this. There was Nights into Dreams last year, but that has been re-released in recent years so I'm not sure if that counts. JAGUAR  17:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I would count it since it didn't come to another system for over a decade.-- (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Breath of the Wild

I'm sure most of you know but the new Zelda, Breath of the Wild comes out tomorrow March 3. The review embargo was lifted today and MetaCritic already has it at 98/100 with 52 reviews [2]. Many are calling it the best Zelda ever, and possibly best game ever made. Expect some traffic on its page and other Zelda pages in the coming days. TarkusAB 12:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Should probably think about protecting it soon. I've had the thought of bringing it to a GA standard for months, but I'll hold that off until things have died down. JAGUAR  12:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't generally protect pages preemptively. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, somewhere in the protection policy, it prohibits doing it preemptively. But it's fine. Breath of the Wild is pretty heavily monitored/maintained by a number of admin and experienced editors. It'll be watched, and likely quickly protected should the need arise. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
As to any future GA work, I've left multiple development-related references on the article's talk page, which will be of great use to anyone thinking of taking it down that route. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Personnel and development studios in navboxes

Please consider commenting at WT:CLN#Video game series navboxes, where a user asks whether WP:PERFNAV should apply to video game series navigational boxes. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Brief aside: Same user did a big rush of this about a year ago. -- ferret (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Nintendo 64 games by genre has been nominated for discussion

As a follow-up from the previous discussion, Category:Nintendo 64 games by genre and its related categories have been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. czar 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about article title

While I believe it's likely that the NES game is better known the fact that we have an article tiled WWF WrestleMania (1991 video game) leads me to believe that WWF WrestleMania (video game) should be retitled WWF WrestleMania (1989 video game). If someone agrees with this proposal can they please move the article since I am unable to do so myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to move, the titles are correct. In short, only disambiguate a title when you need to. We have three articles that are all titled WrestleMania, so - WWF WrestleMania (video game) is disambiguated to distinguish it from the WrestleMania event, WWF WrestleMania (1991 video game) has the year to distinguish it from WWF WrestleMania (video game) - X201 (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
If the NES game is indeed better known than the PC game, then I agree with X201 in that no further disambiguation would be needed. If the two games are of similar notability, then I agree that turning WWF WrestleMania (video game) into a disambiguation page (or a redirect to a section of a disambig page) would be a better idea. ~Mable (chat) 10:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:INCDAB is just as relevant as WP:PTOPIC. --Izno (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that either of the two is more relevant than the respectively other, so I agree with, and that the latter should be fully disambiguated, while we turn the semi-disambiguated page either into its own dab page for those two titles, or make it a redirect to the WWF WrestleMania dab page's video games section (or create it if there is none). Lordtobi () 13:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Resolved: czar 19:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with Pokemon Go

I'm trying to bring some Pokemon-related articles up to higher quality and need help with what to work on. If somebody could help me and give some pointers as to where I should start on Pokemon Go in order to bring it up to A/GA/FA status that would be great. Just a few pointers or bullet points would help a lot. Thank you! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Ferret: - Can you help me out here? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
A scan of the article (noting the game's treatment will be non-standard for most other video games due to the cultural phenomena) shows no major absences or sourcing problems. The gameplay section is a bit vague (it doesn't establish what the game's goal or genre is which should be the first part of that). Usually, for GA, you can just nominate it, no problems. To get to FA, you'd likely want to get a copyedit (and you can check at the WP:LOCE for some help. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll get on it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: - The GA Nomination is live if you wanted to look at it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Read the guideline at WP:VG/GL as a start, and then then assessment information at WP:VG/A. -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help on changing links

Recently, some pages were moved from (series) to (video game series), like Battlefield (series) to Battlefield (video game series) and Deception (series) to Deception (video game series). There could be others shown at Special:Search/intitle:"(game series)". Shall the links be changed, or shall the titles be reverted back? --George Ho (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • A bot will fix double directs. Although I don't really understand the point of moving Title (series) to Title (video game series) if Title (series) is still going to redirect to the video game series.--The1337gamer (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you contact the person who did the move? He was already mentioned and subject to another discussion at WT:Notability#Notabilities of distinctive topics using similar names. I don't want to get too involved with that user who performed the move. --George Ho (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, if that person comes here, the person shall should read this: Wikipedia:Double redirects. --George Ho (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC); amended per request. 13:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: FYI, this is a mistake I see non-native speakers make a lot- "shall" is an authoritative, rather archaic command. "Should" is what you should use, instead. --PresN 13:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I realize that the page might not be it. I think I should have meant Wikipedia:Moving a page#Post-move cleanup, which is an editor's responsibility. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking, the move is not improper, but its pointless if the original target is left as a redirect. IIRC, generally the person performing moves is responsible for cleaning up incoming links, and creating a new disamb page. That said, WP:BRD applies to moves as well. If you think an undiscussed move was inappropriate, just move it back. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to, but that would create further conflict between editors. If the move is improper, I think contacting that editor and asking that editor to self-revert the move would be best. However, in this case, I see the point of clearing up the article title; there is Battlefield (TV series), an unrelated doc series whose article needs cleanup. Nonetheless, I'll add the hatnote saying that "A" redirects to B. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help on the Playerunknown's Battlegrounds article

I originally nominated Playerunknown's Battlegrounds for AfD a few days, but notability at this point has been established. Despite that, the article is still a terrible mess that doesn't follow general WP:MOS and WP:VG guidelines, and any attempt I make to fix that gets reverted for "trolling" by two users who get upset and threaten to "report" me for doing so. I don't have the patience to constantly try to explain to them why, so any help from further editors would be appreciated. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Suda expansion

Hey, just to drop a line. I've done some expansion work on the article for Goichi Suda. If anyone wants to run through it and tidy it up, feel free. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Grandia move help

Can an admin assist with moving Grandia (series) to Grandia? I think it's pretty clear there is no need for a disambig page because all the games are linked on the series page. Thanks. TarkusAB 22:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done czar 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Need another volunteer for GA reassessment on Super Mario World

Seems that the person who started the reassessment, Talk:Super Mario World/GA2, has not been active for one month. How can the subpage be converted to a community reassessment? --George Ho (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire reception

So over the past 15 or so hours I've put a lot of work into Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire. A lot of cleanup has occurred, a gameplay image has been added, several sections expanded and copy edited, DAB links checked, alt text added, etc (see before). But as with all pre-2000 games getting a good number of quality reviews to farm information from is tough. If any of you have access to any magazines that reviewed the game, particularly if it was on Windows (as I'm lacking there), please post that info on the article's talk page. Oh, and feel free to improve the article if you'd like. Also, if anyone can provide the same favor on Talk:Star Wars Episode I: Racer, that's much appreciated. Episode I Racer could use information on the its development as well. I have the Rogue Leaders: The Story of LucasArts book, so I'll dig in there on both games. If you want any info for a given LucasArts game from there, just let me know. Thanks much! --Teancum (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the question right above yours. There is a database of sources you can search through to find editors with the sources you need. TarkusAB 11:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
GameRankings lists a few magazines you could look for, for the N64 version. --PresN 14:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources sought for The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

I'm trying to get The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker back up to GA/FA standards and have submitted a Resource Request for some contemporary sources for the reception section. One of the requested sources has been found already; the others are:

  • Review from Nintendo Power, April 2003, issue 167, p. 132
  • Review from Computer and Video Games, May 15, 2003
  • Article on the "Nintendo Power Awards" from Nintendo Power, June 2004, issue 180 (page numbers unknown)

If anyone has access to them, please let me know.--Cúchullain t/c 14:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cuchullain, check out WP:VG/RL for a list of editors who hold old mags and take scan requests czar 18:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Excellent idea, thanks so much Czar.--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: Computer and Video Games review is archived here. – Rhain 05:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you Rhain.--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at GA nominations for Video Games

Hi. I was nominating an article for GA when I noticed there was a small backlog of GA nominations at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Video games. Anybody who is available or interested should take a look into reviewing to prevent this pile from growing. Thanks. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

See #Review Thread No. 31: It's 2017 and a Month Edition above. -- ferret (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks...though yeah, we know. There's usually someone making a new topic about it every couple of weeks. There seems to be a perpetual imbalance in our subject area, there's always someone obsessed about getting their article up to GA, and complaining that no one's reviewing their work. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not really the article I nominated, which was only 2 days ago. I was more referring to the older noms from December that could use looking at. I'm trying to keep people informed. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Take one for a spin then. :) -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ironically, I can't right now. I'm currently at school and don't have much time but I am available to on the weekend. I will surely get at least one done on Sat-Sun. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


Try to avoid this term. It's used in the gaming media all the the time, but it's a fuzzy term at best and only leads to confusion. Stick to what they were actually credited as in the game. Call them the producer, director, writer, etc. Also it's well known that many people called "creator" don't actually like the term and feel it simplifies things down too much and makes it sound like one person did everything.

"There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person," says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex. Source

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Is this a problem on WP? I don't believe I've seen it in any articles.--IDVtalk 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made a few edits in the last few days doing this very change. For example here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a good catch, and something for everyone to keep in mind. I didn't even see the link yet and was already thinking about Shinji Mikami specifically. He is often credited as the "creator" of Resident Evil, however, Tokuro Fujiwara is credited as the same on the Sweet Home page. Another good example would be Yuji Naka always being credited as the creator of Sonic when others like Hirokazu Yasuhara and Naoto Ohshima were deeply involved. - TarkusAB 23:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil is a nice example. Who could you say is the singular "creator"? The initial idea and general conception came from Fujiwara, who wanted a 3D update to his game Sweet Home. And the conception took a lot of changes from initial conception to the final product. Also what role, if any did the two people credited as writers have on the product? Did they just fill in dialogue, or did they have any impact on the story at all? That's why it's best to avoid the singlar "creator". These are always group projects with lots of input from tons of people. Here's how Akira Kitamura described the process of making games:

Ariga: I can see that Mega Man really was a team endeavor, like you were saying.

Kitamura: Yeah. I used to say to the staff that creating this game solely according to the image in my mind would be a mistake. If we didn’t make Mega Man from the sum of everyone’s contributions—music, graphics, and the rest—it would be meaningless. That irresponsible notion, that “if only everyone thought just like me, I could make the perfect Mega Man!” … I think that’s the most damaging thought for a creative endeavor. I spent a lot of time trying to get everyone to understand that. Source

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, the only time I could see "creator" being valid is for a true single-person development, like for a small indie game. It's much easier to call Christine Love the "creator" of Digital: A Love Story than to call her the "writer and developer and designer". --PresN 00:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Some additional potential edge cases: Undertale where Toby Fox did nearly everything but some art assets, and Stardew Valley where, up until porting, was all one person's work. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Even for edge cases or single preson games, I'd avoid doing it. I'd just list everything that they did alone. ie "John x worked on the game, doing the music, graphics, programming and art alone".

Also another problem is Keiji Inafune. He and others introduce him as a "game creator", then list all the games he's worked on. Even if his contributions to those series are really tangential. Example. This just adds confusion. Adding to it, his official title for many of his games at Comcept is "Comceptor", which doesn't translate very well into a normal role. Also there is the persistent myth that Inafune is the "series creator" of Mega Man or that he designed the character. Inafune himself denies that. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You can put phrases into google to find pages like this. It seems to show a lot of pages:

Example --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • For posterity, I don't think this is an issue. "Creator" usually connotes having conceived the character and/or its core gameplay. It's not usually written with the implication that a single person single-handedly designed & programmed the series. If it did, that's more of an imprecision (writing quality issue) than an issue with the word "creator". czar 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I mean, if someone wants to be more articulate and reword things a bit to avoid misconceptions, that's fine, but I don't think its something that needs to be erased from the face of WP:VG articles or added to the guidelines or something. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasteland peer review

In case anyone is interested, I requested a Peer review of Wasteland. I would like to see this as a Good article some day, so any ideas are welcome. Vivatheviva (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator

Please discuss! Axem Titanium (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

National Mario Day

Apparently, March 10th is National Mario Day (Because MAR-10, get it?). And so I've tried to rescue this newly created article. Does anyone else think it's notable enough? There's quite a lot of mentions, it seems like something that could catch on (like Star Wars Day). (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem worth having a dedicated article for. It's only like 5 sentences long and I still feel like it's full of filler.... Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Coverage is weak but I did find at least 5-6 hits in WP:VG/RS searches. It may just barely suffice. Note that "National Mario Day" won't find any results, as VG coverage calls it simply "Mario Day." -- ferret (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I take your point, but I'm doing my best to improve it. (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's fine. I just don't know how its possible to expand it beyond "March 10th is Mario Day because Mario looks like Mar10. Celebrate by doing Mario related stuff". Sources don't seem to say much else because there's not really much else to say. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI, someone from outside of the WikiProject has nominated it for deletion, so people can now weigh in there instead. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Tomb Raider characters

I would like to have some feedback before nominating List of Tomb Raider characters for deletion. In my opinion, the article is simply a list of fancruft trivia with no encyclopedic value at all. Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you checked the Featured Lists for characters (God of War series, The Last of Us, Uncharted series)? Seems like a good start. I agree for now its all fancrut-y but it can be salvaged. GamerPro64 22:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that, with the exception of Lara Croft, Tomb Raider characters have not been a subject of discussion by reliable sources. Unlike other franchises like Overwatch or Final Fantasy, the Tomb Raider series is not notable for its characters or fictional universe. The current article essentially acts as a long plot section and does not add anything relevant to understand the storyline of the individual game articles. In my opinion, having a list of Tomb Raider characters is analogous to having a list of Call of Duty weapons, for example. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Usually it's best to merge character lists from individual games to their individual articles, and then to redirect to the series. (There is no case for deleting the content outright when it can be used elsewhere.) This said, if there is no need for character sections at the individual articles (there usually isn't) and their plot sections are sufficient, then the big list is still best merged to the series lest it be recreated. Though these sections could possibly pass as plot summary, I'd argue that character sections should be sourced—that's our metric for determining what character features are important enough for us to mention. czar 00:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't find anything worth merging. A redirect seems reasonable, though. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If a list of characters has practically zero sources, then I don't see the point of it existing ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 10:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, up until a few months ago there were actually two Tomb Raider list articles. The other one, List of recurring Tomb Raider characters, was redirected to Tomb Raider, and I think we should do the same with this one. Like Niwi3 said, apart from Lara Croft, the Tomb Raider cast hasn't been the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, considering its virtually unsourced and virtually all WP:INU content, you may as well just redirect it for now. With such a long-running series, it seems plausible to have such a list exist, but with it being so far on to the wrong track currently, it'd probably be better for someone to do a WP:TNT and start over from scratch. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Timelines of video games

I just noticed that though most of the "Chronology of [genre] games" articles were moved to "List of [genre] games" a while back, those articles are still included in Category:Timelines of video games. Should we remove them from it? I'm not totally clear what the qualifying characteristics of the category are.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We probably don't need a category like that, TBH. The generic title works, and almost every solitary list is going to have some dating available. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick opinion needed for Accolade tables

Using the one in Firewatch as the example, I find it odd that the Year column is based on when the award was given rather than the period that the game was considered nominated for; eg for Firewatch, these are all technically awards for 2016 games. There are a few cases where a game can get awards in multiple years under this approach: many IGF games can get renom'd in future years, and more specifically, BAFTA has a category for Evolving Game, which games like Rocket League (which won BAFTAs the year prior) are nominated again.

Should that Year column be by the calendar year the award is given, or the calendar year the award is considering? --MASEM (t) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

For non-serial games, wouldn't the calendar year the award is considered for always be the same? A game from 2014 will only get game-of-the-year awards for 2014-games, after all. The year in which the award is given out would be more interesting, but in the example you gave, it is generally pretty weird. If I were to make that table from scratch, I would just list the full date for every award. I don't know if this has been discussed in the past. ~Mable (chat) 19:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This is how I would prefer it done: that in the accolades table, the year column is wholly unnecessary save for the situation of a game like Rocket League where it gains awards for its reception in different periods of consideration (which is generally the calendar year). Most awards will have a year or annual occurrence number with them if the dating aspect is not clear. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 3 March

19 February

24 February

25 February

26 February

27 February

28 February

1 March

2 March

3 March

  • (Resolved. Accidentally deleted page history in the move. Not a new article, just a new article title. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC))

Salavat (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Need a culling

Getting this one on others' radar: List of PlayStation Mobile games needs a culling. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've come across that one before, but once they shut it down completely, I lost any motivation to work on it. (It also doesn't help that it's 99% junk.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Discord chat

Just dropping by with an update on the Discord server some of us use. It is now moderated by several enwiki administrators such as myself, Sergecross73, Salvidrim, czar (Though we haven't really had to moderate anything). There is also a channel setup specifically for WP:VG with several regular project members chatting pretty frequently. Here is the invite link. Everyone welcome, and we've set a general expectation that the IRC conduct guidelines be followed.

Separately, would anyone be opposed to putting an invite link to the WP:VG text channel on the project page? -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do feel like the quality of the discussion has increased now that discussion is more focused around a number of core WP:VG members now. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki data to create list articles

Are there instructions or a tutorial maybe that explain how one might create list articles using Wiki data? There are complaints about adding or removing games that are unnotable, and this would solve that. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  06:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that- there are a few ways to interpret that. In any case, there was a big discussion a couple months ago at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs about the use of wikidata on wikipedia, and concerns raised about using wikidata-backed lists included the different (lack of) notability requirements on wikidata, the different sourcing requirements on wikidata in practice, sourcing data from wikidata that was itself sourced from wikipedia, and "hiding" data on wikidata in practice keeping editors on wikipedia from being able to edit it. To answer the question more directly, though, it appears the only way to do it is with a bot like ListeriaBot, and then the bot is the only editor able to affect the list (as it overwrites manual changes every time it runs). You put the {{Wikidata list}} template (currently banned from mainspace) and the bot builds the list for you. --PresN 12:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Do I have to contact the ListeriaBot maintainer, or will it automatically find my page when I add the template? Also, it's too bad it can't be used in Mainspace. I was looking forward to using it. But there are good arguments as to why. SharkD  Talk  21:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I think automatically? But I have no idea. --PresN 00:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If a list of this type can't be used in Mainspace, where can it be used? Is it just for editors to share with each other? I guess category intersections are still better (or would be, if they existed) since they guarantee that an article with that name/topic actually exists and meets notability requirements. SharkD  Talk  13:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, as per the archived talk page of the page I linked, up till a couple months ago you could put it in mainspace, but people were kicking up a fuss over wikidata information superceding wikipedia edits- they had a List of female Egyptologists being automatically created, but the bot was (of course) overwriting people's corrective edits and there isn't consensus to have lists on Wikipedia that can't be edited on Wikipedia- or rather, can, but the edits won't stick. I don't think that a wikidata list was really going to solve your problem, though- it sounds like you want a list that only has notable games which have articles? That's not what you'd get, though, since the inclusion criteria on wikidata would be "is real". --PresN 13:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was basically my goal. Category intersections on the other hand would filter out games with no articles. I asked on another Talk page whether I could use category intersections in combination with wikidata to generate pages I could host offsite. I am waiting for a response. I have noticed a lot of changes to list articles lately, and I fear that in a year or two they will be culled completely and removed from Wikipedia. SharkD  Talk  13:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
SharkD, you should try asking for what you want at d:WD:RAQ. They shold be abLe to help you. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! SharkD  Talk  17:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

List of video game companies inclusion criteria

I'd like to revisit the inclusion criteria for the following lists:

The above inclusion criteria have been in place for many years and many editors, myself included, have maintained them as such. Should we change anything about this or keep it as is? I would like to form some formal consensus that we can refer to in the future for the purposes of reverting additions that do not meet the criteria.

(I'm bringing this up, because, currently, a user insists on adding 2 companies without articles to the page. This is getting edit war-y over a few months and I'd like to have some outside input on the subject as a whole. The pages aren't greatly watched, so I'm the one who happens to undo most of the additions and I'd like to make sure I'm not being out of line.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • 'I generally support inclusion criteria like this, and I would now more than ever in these cases, in this age where there's thousands of non-notable tiny development teams releasing junk on Steam and mobile phone app stores. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd tighten the third to only devs with dedicated articles. It's a list of independently notable indie devs, not all entities that have ever released an indie game. Lists like these are monsters to maintain but (usually) frequently read, so I think it's smarter to err on the conservative side of inclusion. Yes, at the expense of exhaustiveness, but better for the reader's sake, and they can always browse the indie games category if they so choose. Also, thanks for maintaining these. I'd go nuts if they were on my watchlist. (The lists' watchers should be notified on the talk pages, though.) czar 18:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree about limiting the third list to developers with articles. The limitation makes sense for the other two lists, if only for practicality's sake, and there's no reason why an exception should be made for indie devs. Indeed, given the recent indie explosion, I think that would be the list which would get the most out of control if it were to be comprehensive.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed that they should all be limited to developers/publishers with articles. No prejudice against the creation of a separate list of notable independent games corresponding to Category:Indie video games (though, obviously it would need to be thoughtfully organized with a clear inclusion criteria). As others mentioned, it is a list of indie game developers, not a list of indie games and their developers. I'd furthermore add that the existence of a notable developer doesn't mean we should list their entire catalog, limiting examples of their games to those with articles (if any). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Any more comments? It seems the consensus would likely be to keep the inclusion criteria for the main developer and publisher lists and trim the indie developer list to notable entries only. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ye, what everyone else said. Restrict to notable entries with articles. I already did the same to List of video game designers a while back. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

New table at ESRB

I just created this table in the Wikipedia article on the ESRB: If anyone has sources on the rating system's legal status in Canadian Provinces other than Manitoba and Ontario (and Quebec, which uses PEGI rather than ESRB) or in Mexico, feel free to edit corrections into this. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop smoking crack and come back to reality, Quebec doesn't use PEGI. Game published in North America use ESRB. The only difference is that games sold in Canada use bilingual packaging.  · Salvidrim! ·  00:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have never smoked crack. More importantly, the Article on PEGI says that Quebec uses it. I didn't make that up. Read through that Article and its sources. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
... The PEGI article says that Quebec uses it in 3 places: in the infobox, in a table at the bottom, and in a single sentence: "PEGI labels can be found across the globe alongside other rating systems as a result of import for linguistic reasons (e.g.: English versions in South Africa, Spanish or Portuguese versions in Latin America, French versions in Quebec)". Not only are all of these unsourced (and no, to correct your apparent misconception, "the article's sources" in general don't count as a source, it needs a cite specific to the claim), but the table mention was added by you. Even if we take that one sentence at face value, it doesn't say that Quebec uses PEGI- it says that people in French-speaking Quebec sometimes import games from France, which uses PEGI. If that counts as "uses PEGI", you might as well delete the table and say "worldwide", because anyone anywhere in the world can import a game from France, which by that logic means that whatever country they were in "uses PEGI". --PresN 11:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • One other difference that several games released in Quebec in several cases have French tranlations in the game, No idea where the PEGI claim came from.-- (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
      • As a Quebec gamer, I don't even think games have "French versions" anymore -- most games have built-in multilingual support across the entire North American version. Perhaps the confusion stems from games imported from France being rated by PEGI.  · Salvidrim! ·  04:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Updated Find video game sources search template

I've updated {{Find video game sources}} to use the centralized syntax from {{Find sources}}, which used Module:Find sources, which now has the Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources video games version and utilizes both Module:Find sources/links/vgrs (for WP:VG/RS) and the new Module:Find sources/links/vgrl (for WP:VG/RL):

Find video game sources: "Sonic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "Sonic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This template should be useful in AfD discussion and similar, such as [3]. I don't think there are any tools that replace the default one automatically, so currently it's a manual change. This should lead to easier search access.

Are there any other search location we should consider? Should the display details be adjusted? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The new template is missing the search in WPVG Talk. This is one reason why the old template was added to our 'Sources' project page. SharkD  Talk  13:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the elaboration, I've never used this one outside AfD and the talk page search wasn't all that useful. I added the WP:VG/T prefix search to the template via the module's syntax. We might consider two separate templates for AfD and project use, though personally I think one is fine. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It's missing the LinkSearch and LinkTo links as well. You might want to check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to see how the template is being used. Creating two separate templates might be a good idea. SharkD  Talk  14:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Re-added the |linksearch= from the old template syntax. I don't think {{Find sources}} supports this kind of extra parameter stuff, but we can just append the code to the template directly (for now anyway, unless we go with two versions). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI, there is also a mini-fied version of the template used in the colored tables, here. Just so you know. SharkD  Talk  16:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... I probably won't touch that. I don't think there is any code logic in the module for alternative layouts or labels. I still haven't figured if I can even add any custom documentation to the template. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've messaged Enterprisey about automating the addition of the sources template within the Delsort script (when someone adds the AfD to the video game delsort). That should be the easiest way to do it. czar 17:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thinking about it, it would be a sensible addition to User:AAlertBot, since it has to visit all the AfD pages anyway and it knows which ones are part of the video games project. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Comedy video games

What is the inclusion criteria for this category? Games that have at least one joke? I've never seen this used as an actual defining trait of a game, and even if a reviewer called a game "comedic", the distinction isn't a thematic genre of games as it is for film, television, etc. Thoughts? czar 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems like the pages in it are included if they have any humor, and not necessarily as a defining characteristic. This sounds like very vague criteria that would include many games that are not centrally funny. Pretty much every adventure game with some quirky lines that a reviewer remarks as "funny" would then be included. As to tightening the criteria, "comedy" is not a widely used genre or theme as applied to video games or we would have comedy game. Without the main topic, a category is almost always going to be WP:OVERCAT WP:OR. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Though I think "comedy video game" could definitely be an academic thing and video games like Goat Simulator could easily fit a kind of video game-unique literary genre. But there is very little discussion on this topic, and everything mentioned above is entirely correct. I'm fine with the category being deleted per a lack of clear inclusion criteria. I think the average 1990s LucasArts game is definitely a comedy in the literary sense, but literary genres aren't consistently applied to video games because these are rarely the focus of the experience. Over- or undercategorization is a major problem. ~Mable (chat) 20:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

New page Rifleman (arcade game) (1967 electro-mechanical shooter)

In case there's anyone else interested in the old electro-mechanical Sega games, I started a stub for Rifleman (arcade game) but it could use expansion, particularly in including the Japanese title, and any Japanese-language sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh. First off, cool! Second off, I'm not entirely convinced the VG project should be covering electro-mechanical games. We cover early computer-based games (see early history of video games), but this involves neither a computing device nor a video screen, so it's not really a "video game" in any sense except that it superficially resembles the more modern arcade video games that started in 1971 and a few years after began to completely dominate the industry. We do appear to have tagged early non-video game pinball games (Baffle Ball, Humpty Dumpty (pinball)), but again I think this is both in error and an artifact of how these games were precursors to actual pinball video games. If we cover 1960s/earlier electro-mechanical arcade/pinball games, then what's the line between that and any electronic game? --PresN 17:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really know how this arcade game functions, but I agree with PresN that we should be careful in what we "allow" when it comes to things like this. If Rifleman is considered part of our WikiProject, does that mean a large number of other arcade games that are currently not tagged as such should be tagged for our WikiProject as well? Rifleman is produced by Sega, but does it have other relations to video games? I did notice that there doesn't seem to be a WikiProject for arcade machines like these. Maybe all such arcade machines (that aren't WP:WikiProject Pinball machines) should be added to our scope? ~Mable (chat) 20:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Early non-video games are fully this project's responsibility. They laid the ground work for the video arcade to evolve into. WikiProject computing have fully embraced the fact that things like the Analytical Engine, Colossus and UNIVAC I are within their scope. They've even got an "Early Computing" task force, which is something we should have. These arcade machines are our responsibility, we should adopt them. - X201 (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that's fair, but I'd like to know what other arcade games would fall in the same category as Rifleman. The age of it is fairly irrelevant to me (though its relation to Sega definitely makes it relevant to our project) ~Mable (chat) 13:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong feeling on this issue either way, but I feel I should point out that the Analytical Engine, Colossus, and UNIVAC I are actually computers, so of course they fall under the computing wikiproject. Mechanical and Electro-mechanical coin-operated amusements are not video games, and the history of that industry predates the advent of commercial video games by roughly one hundred years. There are some connections one can make between the two industries, but its not so easy as saying Sega made video games so we should maintain all Sega game articles. What about Caille Brothers, Mills Novelty Company, Exhibit Supply, J.H. Keeney Company, or International Mutoscope? These are companies that released dozens of important and popular arcade games, but none of them were still manufacturing product in the video era. Where do you draw the line while still ostensibly serving as a video game project? Indrian (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Are any of these electric arcade games notable? I still haven't seen any articles on arcade games that may fall under the same scope, and I have a hard time judging whether something should fall under our WikiProject if we only have one example. I'd also like to know if this is a field that is underdeveloped. ~Mable (chat) 18:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Many of them are in the context of arcade history. Are many of them notable in video game history? Probably not other than that the early arcade video games adopted many of the genres and conventions of the EM games in the 1970s. The video game industry and the coin-operated amusement industry are really two different entities that happen to intersect for a time. The earliest coin-operated amusements date to the early 1870s, while the earliest arcades appeared in the 1890s. To declare the first 100 years of arcade history a mere prologue to video games does a disservice to an industry that still today relies on far more than just video to make ends meet. Again, I have no strong preference on whether or not this project takes all that on, but I do want to raise awareness of what a large body of non-video-game work that would represent. Indrian (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
"I'd also like to know if this is a field that is underdeveloped" - regardless of their relation to this wikiproject, the answer to this question is yes- Arcade game focuses almost exclusively on arcade video games, and the "history" section gives a short paragraph about games of a few types existing, then has a few paragraphs about "Electro-mechanical games" that starts with the 1966 Periscope (arcade game) and ignores anything before it. As Indrian says above, at that point arcade games had been around for over 70 years, and electro-mechanical ones since at least the 30s- you wouldn't know it from that article, but the Pinball article is a bit better and talks about pinball games moving from purely mechanical to electro-mechanical with the 1933 Contact. There's a lot of non-video arcade game history not being covered. --PresN 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd like to extend what Indrian is saying about the scope of the issue- due to it being underdeveloped, there's not a lot of articles on pre-video game electro-mechanical games. Maybe a dozen articles on electro-mechancial pinball games, and probably around that for electro-mechanical arcade games. And, as Indrian says, what about regular-mechanical arcade games? Clearly precursors to video games in the same way as their electric brethren (terminology and game concepts being borrowed), though I have no idea how many articles we actually have on those. But, at what point do we cut it off? Depending on how you're willing to stretch the definition, the first "video game" was in 1950, or 1958, or 1962. Regardless, the first commercial arcade video game was in 1971. Do we cut off electro-mechanical games there? What about ones released during the 70s? What about ones released in the 90s, arcade or handlheld, with no video screen but with electronic circuits? What about Redemption games, that have far more electronics than a 1960s arcade game but no video screen? I'm not taking a hard stance on this either, and I don't know how many articles today this would actually cover, but I think trying to absorb pre-video game arcade games means that we need to take in pretty much any article on a game that involves electronics, and that seems a bit off for a "video game" project. (Also, to X201: I'd be down for an "early video games" project, though you'd have to define the scope pretty wide to get more than me and maybe Indrian involved- I did the 1971 and earlier games, and Indrian knows a ton, but there's not a lot of people working in that space right now). --PresN 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in seeing these kinds of articles improved upon than discussion regarding whether they do or do not belong within our scope. That being said, if there are only a dozen articles under discussion here, I would see absolutely no issue with adding them all to our scope. To what point we want to stretch these definitions is tough indeed. Redemption game is already covered by our WikiProject, as is Periscope. They also have nowhere else to go. I would err on the inclusionistic side here, while leaving electronic pinball and non-electronic games out of our scope entirely. Would that be fair? ~Mable (chat) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Characters of the Yakuza series

I just have a question of why this page had to be deleted. I don't want a detailed and complicated explanation of how wikipedia runs things because honestly it is quite convoluted and nonsensical. I previously provided examples of other video game characters doing the exact same thing and got hit with an "other stuff exists" argument, but I don't find this argument convincing or compelling argument because the fact of the matter is it shows bias on wikipedia's part of it favors giving more information out on certain video game franchises rather than others. There is very little information about the vast amount of characters of the Yakuza franchise on the internet, and I myself as a reader of wikipedia wanted to look for more info about the characters on wikipedia only to find nothing, why? If the page was too informative why not trim it down instead of axing it? Osh33m (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The article was redirected, not deleted.
  • Checking the talk page for the article, your question was already answered by Czar's last two posts there.
  • Information being deleted from the Wikipedia mainspace is not the same as it being eradicated from the entire internet. The Yakuza Wiki is just one good place for information on the characters of the Yakuza franchise. If you find The Yakuza Wiki lacks some information that the Wikipedia article had, you can just copy-and-paste that information into The Yakuza Wiki yourself.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    Dedicated wikis are great places for this kind of in-depth, in-universe information. The smallest details that would be completely arbitrary and useless for general purpose readers, can all be put there. ~Mable (chat) 17:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how to help you if you reject both a "complicated" explanation of how Wikipedia works and reject WP:OSE. Seriously, what sort of input do you expect with limitations like that? "The article was bad." "It was not encyclopedic." I don't know. The best I can do is point you towards WP:ITSUSEFUL maybe? Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
First of all, what difference does it make if the article was redirected or deleted? The point is all the information is absent from the page. And second of all, even if the Yakuza wiki is an option, there exists wikis for plenty of video games yet the wikipedia articles also have dedicated pages for video game characters, why is Yakuza being rejected of this? If it was not encyclopedic, then convert to being encyclopedic - as I said in that previous discussion, I don't see any other video game pages getting erased/redirected. What's the logic there? Osh33m (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but you're saying: "Other character articles exist, therefore this one must be fine"; "Wikipedia is the biggest encyclopedia therefore it should not have inclusion criteria"; and "Nothing else is ever removed". To answer: The quality/notability of other character articles has nothing to do with the quality/notability of this one; Wikipedia does, in fact have inclusion criteria whether or not you approve so that we don't have 100 million pages of nonsense that drown out the rest; and actually quite a few articles a day are redirected/deleted in just the video game space alone. Other people have pointed you towards the inclusion guidelines that have been hashed out over the years; saying "nuh uh, they're all wrong" isn't going to win your arguement any supporters. Show why Yakuza characters, as a group, are notable in and of themselves by providing sources, or take the article to a wiki that doesn't require that. --PresN 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Since you don't want to discuss policy, perhaps this analogy will help you understand the flaws of your complaints: This whole situation is much like going over the speed limit on the highway. Do people do it all the time? Yes. Is it legal? No. Lets say a police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket. Can you get out of a ticket by arguing:
  • "But I've seen lots of people speed on this highway, and you didn't give them tickets!".
  • "What so wrong with speeding? Nothing bad happened!"
  • "I speed to work every day and I didn't get a ticket then!"
No, of course not. A police officer would say your excuses were irrelevant, and give you a ticket anyways. Same thing in your situation. The existence of other crappy, policy-breaking articles doesn't provide any defense of your crappy, policy breaking article. Once your article has been singled out, whatever the reason, you need to defend it, not allude to all the other injustices.
Also, if you "don't see other characters lists being merged", then you're not paying attention or not looking very hard, because they're constantly a point of discussion around here. Some get deleted/redirected, some are improved and kept. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want to keep this list intact, you can try to find reliable secondary sources like magazine article, trusted websites, and other such sources about the cast of Yakuza. Maybe you'd be more lucky when looking through Japanese-language sources in this case. I don't know if enough sources exist for a separate list to exist for this topic. It really depends on the kind of coverage these characters get. If we know how all the main characters were designed, how their voice actors felt while portraying them, and how their personalities were crafted by the writers, then there's plenty of reason to have this list. However, as long as we don't have those kinds of sources, there's just no reason for this list to exist. Because we have so many completely unsourced character lists, we just started redirecting them all without too much research in the topic. Maybe we made a mistake in this case, but we need sources to know that! ~Mable (chat) 19:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright so with your cop analogy, you describe one person getting caught and complaining, fine. The difference here on wikipedia is, it's not hard to catch more than one lis of video game character pages, tons of them exist. As for the source you state you are looking for, the information on the page are found just from playing the game, shouldn't that all be evidence enough? Osh33m (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That's essentially the definition of a primary source. – Rhain 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
A fictional subject is considered "notable" when people discuss it outside of its original context. If the purpose of this list is to document the fiction itself, then, again, a fanwiki would be the appropriate place for it. Not an encyclopedia. ~Mable (chat) 15:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow how what you're saying breaks my analogy. As for the rest of what you say, I recommend reading up on the WP:GNG. The questions you're asking would suggest you don't have a good grasp on Wikipedia's concept of notability at all... It's going to be difficult to help you if you don't even know the basics... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Need opinion on a topic name

An idea I recently came to for a good encyclopedic topic is on the subject of archiving video games, which can include the various video game museum efforts, ROM/equivalent capturing that's used by the Library of Congress and at, other efforts of similar merit, and some of the technical and legal issues of preserving digital video games (such as hardware obsolescence and the DMCA).

There's plenty of RSes here, that's not the question, its mostly a matter of a proper title, whether it is "video game archiving" or "video game archeology" or something equivalent for that. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Video game preservation. See also Film preservation. --PresN 20:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, that also follows from Digital preservation. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Great idea for a topic. If you're looking for sources, Frank Cifaldi is really into this and has written for RSs. He runs and gave a great speech on the topic at GDC 2016. There is also lots of news these days about byuu running the SNES preservation project. TarkusAB 22:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, part of this idea was the recent story of that lost package (eventually found) of 100s of carts that were shipped from EU to US for digital preservations, as well as seeing a recent article from Tim Schafer about it. And just a spot check shows plenty of sources for this. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Should definitely be able to support its own article, since game preservation has unique requirements above and beyond digital or film preservation (code designed to run on specific hardware, where neither the original hardware designs nor raw code is available as a rule, and where no one involved had any thought for long-term or even medium-term preservation). --PresN 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I've started a draft over here User:Masem/Video game preservation for this, if anyone wants to contribute. There is definitely enough just from the LOC side alone that I'm still trying to unravel the details and timeline there. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Vgrelease Lua Module conversion

I have started on a long planned effort to convert Vgrelease new (Which is now simply Vgrelease, post merger) to a lua module. This will remove any limitation on the number of region/date pairs. The sandbox module has been completed and the template sandbox updated to use it. If you have any thoughts or comments please swing by Template talk:Video game release. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Will be doing this today. If issues pop up, feel free to revert to the last version. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick set of eyes on Star Wars: Masters of Teräs Käsi

I recently put quite a bit of work into Star Wars: Masters of Teräs Käsi. I'm proud to say that I think it now meets B class criteria, it previously being just a Stub. I was wondering if someone could give it a quick, unofficial once over copy edit. I'm not looking to take the article any further unless others feel that it can meet GA class criteria, but at the same time I'm sure I missed a few little things. Someone else reading it over and making those little changes would help. I'm leaving this out of formal requests as I'm not looking for major updates at this point -- that is unless people feel it's worth a formal peer review. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Did a quick read through and minor gnoming/tweaking. The one thing I planned to ask was "Where is Teräs Käsi defined?" and finally found it at the end of the development section. I think it might deserve to be mentioned sooner since the phrase appears so frequently. -- ferret (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I made some copy edits, feel free to roll them back. Ferret makes a good point, Teräs Käsi should definitely be mentioned further up. Scribolt (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Originally the article had the Teras Kasi definition in the lead (that's all there was). I added it to the plot, but maybe I should add it to the lead as it's not a very common Star Wars term. Thoughts? --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd add it to the lead, with the short form of: "Teräs Käsi" refers to a fictional martial arts. (Edit: Though your plot edit would be fine too. I had read all the way to development when I first thought "so what does that mean") -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

ToonTown Online and Independent vs. Primary Sources

Over on Toontown Online, there's a user that's been radically deleted unsourced content. After sources to the gameplay section were added, the user deleted the section again because the source was Primary, not independent. First, is this kind of radical editing welcome? And second, should primary game guide sources be used for Gameplay sections? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Sources independent of the article subject are preferred, but it's fine to use primary sources to fill in the gaps between secondary sources' coverage, as long as it's factual, non-controversial information that doesn't promote the article subject too much (ie you wouldn't cite a primary source to say that the game was well received). It's quite common to see manuals and similar types of sources used for gameplay sections, and I see nothing wrong with using that here either.--IDVtalk 08:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Giving the gameplay due weight is really the crux of such issues. Looking at the article now (in its longer state), I think the amount of detail in the gameplay section is about right. The structure is a bit odd (I've never seen an article split combat and non-combat activities), but the number of paragraphs is quite alright for a video game. It may use some trimming, but I agree that outright deletion of the entire section is unnecessary. ~Mable (chat) 10:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

New reference source for arcade games has just added scans from Atari's Coin Connection newsletter it sent to arcade owners and other similar customers, which can be of help to date releases of arcade games and some of the marketing language used to sell these games. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh sweet, I've been poking at the 1974 Atari arcade games recently, and it looks like these start at 1977 so I'll catch up to them sometime soon. --PresN 21:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

CD Projekt and CD Projekt RED

This concerns the CD Projekt article. I've seen it multiple times on the web and this confusion keeps coming back, not sure why.

"CD Projekt S.A. is a Polish video game developer, publisher and distributor based in Warsaw"

CD Projekt S.A. is a capital group. Sure, it's involved in video game development and distribution but it's made through its subsidiaries - not directly as suggested. The article states as if CD Projekt S.A. is a video game developer when in reality CD Projekt RED does just that. Same for video game distribution -[4] Having this in mind I feel this article should be rewritten and split into two - CD Projekt and CD Projekt RED.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debeet (talkcontribs)

The article is a good article - meaning a lot of time and review went into it, so I find it hard to believe the foundation of the entire article is wrong. Is this something that just be solved with better wording or something? Just talking in a general sense, I'm not terribly familiar with the company, I just read about them and The Witcher here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think what you mean is CD Projekt S.A. is a holding company, not CD Projekt S.A. is a capital group. The opening sentence could be rephrased to reflect this. If you read the entire article though, it is made clear that RED is their game development studio. I don't think splitting the article is really necessary or beneficial here. Their subsidiaries fall within the scope of their core business and are integral to the history of the company. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I meant holding company. Still, in the summary it is stated (or rather suggested) that CD Projekt itself is directly a video game developer, publisher and distrubutor which is not true. These functions are split between its subsidiaries or divisions (CD Projekt RED,, [formerly]). Looks like about 50-60% of the article talks about its video game development side since my suggestion for splitting to CD Projekt (holding company) and CD Projekt RED (video game developer). --Debeet (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
CD Projekt is in a similar situation to Square Enix - the actual head company is a holding company (Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd.), which has under it a Square Enix Co., Ltd. which is the actual corporate entity that publishes/develops video games. That said, "Square Enix" refers to the collective entity, generally thought of as a single company... which publishes and develops video games. So, in this instance, "CD Projekt" is a collective entity that develops, publishes, and distributes video games. The head company is CD Projekt S.A., a holding company, and its main subsidiary is CD Projekt RED, which does the actual video game work. The article text should reflect this (right now the lead doesn't say such, and the infobox claims RED is a division, not a subsidiary), but the article title and whether or not to split does not need to be determined by the corporate structure but by how it is thought of by the general press. --PresN 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
RED being a division is wrong? I've always thought that subsidiaries are more like how Monolith Soft is to Nintendo, with their 1st-party development teams (Nintendo EPD; Nintendo Software Technology) being divisions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's... wonky. A "division" is a segment of the overall business- which can either be a subset of a single company, or a subset of the overall meta-company, comprising 1+ subsidiaries. a "subsidiary" is a company that is owned >50% and usually 100% by the parent company. So, you could make the case that "CD Projekt" has two divisions: RED and BLUE, each of which is composed of a single subsidiary company: CD Projekt RED and (we know they're subsidiary companies because CD Projekt S.A. is a holding company: a company that only exists to serve as the parent company to its subsidiaries). So the infobox needs to refer to both of them as subsidiaries (ideally), or both as divisions, but one and one implies that is a subsidiary company but RED is just an internal division of CD Projekt S.A. --PresN 21:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Under Polish law, CDP RED is registered as CD Projekt RED Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (Sp. z o.o.) in Poland's court register (img) (I can't use a direct link here because sessions expire in a matter of seconds), so technically and legally, it is a subsidiary. GOG Limited under Cypriot law is also a subsidiary (can hardly be a division overseas), wherefore I'd suggest both being listed as subsidiaries. Also, per the source linked by Debeet above, CD Projekt Inc. is registered under Californian law, in case that is relevant to this discussion. These three make up the subsidiaries of CD Projekt S.A. (the publisher/distributor, of which the subsidiaries are the developer, the digital distributor, and the North American publisher/disitributor). Lordtobi () 22:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hm. I normally stay away from documenting corporate info on Wikipedia for this very reason, as most of this means nothing for the casual reader. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiplayer, single-player infobox order

I've always wondered, is the order we list "multiplayer" and "single-player" in the infobox based on the game's main mode, i.e. if the game is primarily multiplayer we enter "multiplayer" first, if the game is primarily single-player we enter "single-player" first? If so then there is a problem because I've seen many infoboxes of primarily multiplayer games list "single-player" first. Of course one could argue that deciding what the game's main mode is is subjective and that a more objective way should be used i.e. we arrange them alphabetically (Category:Multiplayer and single-player video games is even arranged alphabetically). I need some clarification. The way I see it is there are two methods to choose from: main mode or alphabetical. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a decent argument to be made for the "Single-player, multiplayer" order as well, though I'm personally not sure how to vocalize it. It seems much more natural than arranging the two alphabetically. ~Mable (chat) 13:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it feels more natural because it's numerical. Single-player = 1. Multiplayer = 2+. – Rhain 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's just long-standing tradition in the industry that "single player" comes before "multiplayer" when discussing the two modes (even at the Atari 2600 days), even if the multiplayer is the defining element. It's the same type of order we do with "Windows, Mac OS, and Linux" or PC systems before consoles before mobiles in available hardware lists. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I've never thought about this, but–by anecdotal evidence–I have always seen it as SP before MP. That's just how industry evolved. Nowadays, there are games that are primarily MP, but I don't think the listing logic has followed. I guess we could find sources that say about certain games that they are primarily focused on multiplayer. But it would be a very small portion of the games. I tend to follow consistency over something that can rarely be checked. Then again, we already group genres and such pretty much arbitrarily or what we feel is the right order. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and there are far too many games (e.g.Ghost Squad, Grid Runner, Toy Commander, Virtua Cop) where I daresay it's impossible to even form an argument for their being either primarily single-player or primarily multiplayer. All else being equal, game publishers want their games to be enjoyable as both single-player or multiplayer, so it doesn't always work out that one or the other is put in as an afterthought.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe off-topic, but is there anyone else who wouldn't care to see this removed from the infobox? If the mode for the game is actually important/notable (look at the No Man's Sky fiasco), then it would be mentioned and sourced in prose. Otherwise, it just seems like something we do just because we've always done it, and it almost never helps (or hurts, to be fair) the article, outside of the exceptions. As for the category, I say we list it with the "Single-player, multiplayer" order. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't be against that idea. Or at least its applicability may be more limited to, say, arcade games, rather than computer or console games. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against that either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind it being removed either. -- Wrath X (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Should probably do a separate, formal RFC for removal though. I think there'd be some push-back on its removal. I'd want to make sure we've got a clear consensus on this before doing it, because I see it being another "GameRankings in the review table" type on-going battle. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, for sure. I only brought it up to even see if people would be ok with the idea in the first place. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I would probably argue against. It's still a defining characteristic more often than not, and it's something that almost every game has. Plus, there are things like hotseat or co-op. This is also a great WikiData field. One thing though is that I'd want it see it limited to specific items and not others. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Note this discussion has partially spilled to Template Talk:Infobox video game. If there is interest, I can write up a small support module that will output the wikidata property with a filter of QIDs to allow. This would allow us to filter out "game modes" that Wikidata supports but Enwiki excludes through consensus. -- ferret (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The fact is that this should have started on the infobox talk page. Zzzz. --Izno (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

UK release date in infobox

Should the United Kingdom release date be in the infobox if it's different from the European release date? One one hand, it's an English-speaking country; on the other hand, it's not a region. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The template is not restricted to "regions", and if there's a significant deviation in release date, or if the developer is based in UK specifically, there's no issue including it in my opinion. -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
If the UK release is the initial release, it should probably always be included. Otherwise, what Ferret said above is entirely correct. ~Mable (chat) 14:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
What if the deviation is only one or two days from the European release? -- Wrath X (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Then you have entered fairly controversial territory on English Wikipedia, haha. I think opinions differ on how best to handle it. In my opinion, only list the first of the two. Listing both seems like overdoing it. ~Mable (chat) 14:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The documentation actually used to state this too, but it seems somebody removed it recently. In my opinion, we shouldn't list UK dates in addition to European unless they differ by more than a couple of days, just for infobox simplicity. Of course, if the developer was British, it should always be included. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── But the United Kingdom is an English-speaking country so shouldn't it always be included if its release date is different from Europe's? In fact, Europe without the UK is non-English-speaking so when you think about it there is more reason to include the UK release date than Europe without the UK release date. -- Wrath X (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would only include UK under one scenario, normally: The developer is UK based, and the release date is different from the rest of EU. If the release date is the same as EU, there's not much point, even if the developer is UK based. -- ferret (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
What if the developer's not UK based but the UK release date is different from the rest of EU? I explicitly stated "shouldn't it always be included if its release date is different from Europe's?" -- Wrath X (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't take this as a shining endorsement but: If you feel the date is different enough to warrant listing UK, go for it. Personal discretion in these things is fine, follow WP:BOLD. But if another editor later reverts saying its "close enough to EU", I wouldn't argue the point personally. Whatever you do, don't get into edit wars over it. -- ferret (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The UK is an English-speaking country (it's probably the second most prominent English-speaking country, behind the US) so shouldn't it, provided it's different from the EU, be treated in the infobox similar to North America and Australia/New Zealand? It's not like Japan which is a non-English-speaking country. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is Wikipedia's ever-present "example bloat" problem. We try to keep the infobox release dates to a minimum because otherwise, people keep on adding more and more until you've got a massive list going. Add UK, and people will say "What about Australia? What about New Zeeland? What about China?" Before you know it, you've got an overwhelming list, usually unsourced, all listing minor deviations in release days (commonly different only due to timezones.) Which is why you'll see people usually recommend keeping it to the major 3 - NA, EU, and JP. That's my stance as well. I only support the main three unless the UK release date is substantially different or especially noteworthy. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Video game release explicitly states to "Add release dates for English-language regions and the developer's region." Therefore NA, AU and EU (also UK if different from EU) should be in the infobox since they are English-language regions, while China should only be in the infobox if the developer's based in China. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I can promise you that it's very very unlikely anyone is going to agree with "Always include UK". If deviation is significant from EU, go for it. If reverted, don't sweat it and move on unless you have a strong argument in support. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I never said always include UK; I meant include UK if different from EU. Template:Video game release/abbr states that "Release dates should be provided from primarily English-speaking regions, including North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand." My argument is that the UK is primarily English-speaking therefore it should also be included (if different from EU). Why Australia but not the UK? -- Wrath X (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The keyword there is "regions". EU is viewed as inclusive of the UK as an English region. AU/NZL (Typically linked to Australasia or Oceania) is a completely different region from Europe. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) UK is not mentioned specifically because it's already encompassed as part of EUR. Australia is not. But you're illustrating the exact problem here. There's always someone else who has a "Well why not "X"? Why not "Y"?" Is this even a commonly occurring situation? Does the UK commonly have vastly different release date? Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Nevertheless, there is one thing that bothers me: If Europe and the UK have different release dates, then wouldn't that make Europe a non-English speaking region since it doesn't encompass the UK in this case? Therefore, from a certain point of view, we shouldn't include Europe in the infobox anymore since it's non-English speaking. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
We want to capture Europe for the very reason we're talking about here - its a major region in the video game industry that encapsulates many countries so we don't need to list all the countries out individually. Again, the main purpose here is to eliminate long, redundant lists. We're not meant to be a release date data base - there's other websites for that. But it is important to get a brief "snapshot" of the time of release too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You're forgetting Ireland. --Mika1h (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
How does release dates for video games in Ireland tend to relate to those of the UK and the rest of Europe? ~Mable (chat) 21:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wrath X said Europe is a non-English speaking region without UK. --Mika1h (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I still think that the best option is to list the first of the two. For example, if a game was released in the US on March 10, UK on March 15, and the EU on March 16, I would only list the US and UK. If it was released in the US on March 10, EU on March 15, and UK on March 16, I would only list US and EU. I don't think the country in which a game is developed is relevant at all. I don't think listing them both is reasonable either. ~Mable (chat) 14:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note that my understanding is that due to the better schooling systems in EU in general, most gamers there are generally fluent in English as well as their home country's language, and while EU titles generally include the major localizations (French, German, and Spanish), they use this English to play games that lack that localization until its available. So EU is a major English speaking area and certainly should not be displaced by the UK. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been AWOL from Wikipedia for a few years. So I was about to say, "Add the date to Wikidata, and let a script decide whether to include it in the article or not." But there seems to be a ban on Wikidata in Mainspace at the moment. SharkD  Talk  03:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


After looking through the article, I've taken the step. Final Fantasy VII has been nominated as an FAC, potentially culminating a colossal collaborative effort to bring the article back from the brink. Anyone who wants to leave comments and either support or oppose this nomination, please do so. To have this article FA before the end of the year would be the ideal ending to this project. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 10 March

2 March

3 March

4 March

5 March

6 March

7 March

8 March

9 March

10 March

Salavat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's about time someone finally created that Minecraft draft! (???) Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 16 March

2 March

10 March

11 March

12 March

13 March

14 March

15 March

16 March

Salavat (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing magazine article names

Every now and again I go through the video game featured articles, and do a bit of maintenance, especially on articles that haven't been featured on the front page yet, or were promoted several years ago and were forgotten about. I recently came across the featured article Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, and although the prose still meets the FA standards, the references are in severe disrepair. In addition to the absurd amount of dead or redirected links (seriously) one of the biggest problems is that magazine sources do not include the article titles, which causes an obvious reference error. There are missing titles from three Nintendo Power articles, one Official Xbox Magazine article, one Electronic Gaming Monthly article, and three Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine articles. If anyone has access to these magazines and would like to help out, that would be much appreciated. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried to get a few but these aren't really out there. A note is that most of these except the Nintendo Power ones look like reviews, and their standard practice is to title the review with the title of the game, so that could be a hodge-podge solution. Nintento Power, however, I can't even find TOCs online for those. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 24 March

12 March

15 March

17 March

18 March

19 March

20 March

21 March

22 March

23 March

24 March

Salavat (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata newb

How do I add a new genre to here? I want to add "space combat sim", but can't figure it out. SharkD  Talk  10:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The item you linked is that of "genre" itself. You will need to head to the Wikidata item of the game you would like to edit, and add a "genre" statement (using "+ add" at the bottom), and enter "Space flight simulator game" (the Space combat sim head genre, because I don't know if, but also don't think that there is a Wikidata item for Space combat simulator game [or similar], but you can try) as its attribute. If you however want to create a new Wikidata item for another genre, such as "Space combat simulator game", you simply have to create it, using "Create new item" on the left (fourth from top), and append an en-wiki link on the new page's right side, then a description etc. Lordtobi () 10:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks. "Space flight simulator game" does not exist, but "Space Combat" does, so I will stick with that. Next problem: I am trying to add "Space Combat" genre to a game. I am able to do this, but can't figure out how to add a source to it. I.e I want to add a reference to an article as a source, but Wikidata is asking me for "Developer", "Distribution", "Official Website", etc. of the game, when what I want to add is "URL" and "Access Date" of the article. What am I doing wrong? SharkD  Talk  10:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. "Space Combat" is the title of a game. I had to go ahead and add a new "space combat game" genre. SharkD  Talk  10:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I was going to say that "Space Combat" refers to the game Space Combat, but I see that's cleared up already. Regarding the existence of "Space flight simulator game", it is right ici. I found your new item and made a few edits to it. If you wish to add a reference to a statement, click "+ add reference", where the reference is "imported from" and its attribute "English Wikipedia" (make sure you click on the item for en wikipedia, and not its disambiguation page, both of which have items on Wikidata IIRC). Cheers! Note though that because Space combat is just a sub-section, its article link inclusion conflicts with that of Space flight simulation game, same with redirects. Lordtobi () 11:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
There are different genres of Space flight simulator games. If you look at the talk page for that article, you can see that some people get really upset if you don't pick the right one. Hence why I chose "Space combat game" instead. SharkD  Talk  13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:VG/WD may be helpful, though I think you've figured it out now. Wikidata has an issue that items can't be linked to redirect pages, so you won't be able to do a sitelink for Space combat sim unless you split it out. See d:Wikidata:WikiProject Cross Items Interwikis for more information on that issue. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't linking back to Wikipedia a bad idea since we're not a reliable source? I linked to a game review instead. SharkD  Talk  13:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
When I say sitelink, I mean like the old inter-language sitelinks. Wikidata links items to their articles on each Wiki. But it can't do it for redirects. As for referencing, "imported from xx wikipedia" is unfortunately pretty common. However, if you do have a solid reference for something, follow the direction at WP:VG/WD for adding a reference. The only part you MUST do is the reference-url property. The rest is nice but window dressing, just like bare urls versus CS1 templates. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Glanced at your edits, they're just fine. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Last of Us

Could someone please add this game as an exclusive for PS3. There is a PS4 release but it has different name with better graphics. K3kale (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The correct place to make this request is Talk:The Last of Us. I don't think it is correct to list it as a PS3 exclusive. The PS4 version has a different title, better graphics and a separate Wikipedia article, but it is still the same game. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is about adding PlayStation 3-only category to the article. Actually I think it should be added since the PS4 version has its own article. Same thing was done with Final Fantasy X. --Mika1h (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Complex question. I think the argument holds that The Last of Us is a PS3 exclusive, in the same way that The Wind Waker is a GameCube exclusive despite the HD remake for the Wii U. You just kinda have to consider it as a separate game. An argument against listing it as such can also be made, though, and it may depend on the practical purpose of a category. ~Mable (chat) 12:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The intent of the original release was to be a PS3-exclusive, which is what we're trying to capture; the remasters are not just ports (as would be the case for Limbo, which was originally meant as a X360 exclusive but was ported to other platforms a year later, so that "exclusiveness" disappears. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The Times Search Mode has now got a revamp!

So I was trying to find an article on one video game on The Times' website by trying to go to Search Mode on the link shown here, but now the website did away with the searching, which means that I can't get a Search Mode in any article unless I login or register. Thank goodness the website didn't cost me any money to register or subscribe, so I had to register using my e-mail address and password. Once I registered, I now have access to full article pages and use a revamped Search Mode while logged in. I guess the revamped website and its Search Mode are now easier to access only via login, don't you think? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for the update. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mario Universe games

Category:Mario Universe games should be moved to Category:Mario universe games games due to WP:MOSCAPS, shouldn't it? I would have just moved this myself, but tons of games are included in this, and I wasn't sure if things would break and massive manual editing would be required post-move, so I'm requesting it here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a bot that can handle this, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. –xenotalk 15:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your assertion, but also share your same concerns about "breaking things", as I've never been one to have to move many/any categories in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I see the request was handled by The1337gamer (talk · contribs), thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be "Mario games" or "Mario (franchise) games"? What is a "Mario universe game" and what is the precedent for this phrasing? czar 06:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe it's meant to be a wider term, like "all games set in the Marioverse", including stuff like Yoshi's Island and Wario Land, as opposed to just the Super Mario titles. But yes, I agree that "franchise" is a better term, and it still encompasses the spin-off games.--IDVtalk 07:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

video games page!

i think another divided page should be there to show all the information about video games and other world information. Although some video games have got through (crash royale,clash of clans)some of the games face speedy deletion by other uses. we must improve wikipedia with new information, true that we cant make copies of other articles. but we must put all the NEW information we can! so we can just start this wikiproject to make wikipedia more improved and more visited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arepticous (talkcontribs) 14:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

category: block city wars. this following game is the minecraft edition for games such as san andreas, gangstar vegas and other gangstar games. It is not as much as famous as the other games but it must get a chance to go through wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arepticous (talkcontribs) 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • "New information" only matters if its notable and have sources discussing it. Also, Wikipedia has been one of the most visited websites worldwide for years, if you didn't know. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I follow what's being suggested here. Your first paragraph sounds like you've come to WikiProject Video Games to advocate the creation of....WikiProject Video Games? Which has been actively and successfully fuctionioning for over a decade. I think you need to be more specific with what you're suggesting... Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Besides trying to recreate the project you're currently on, I don't think any of these 'Minecraft GTA games' are notable enough for their own articles. We don't just have an article for every app on the App Store or on Steam. I don't think it gets a chance to go through Wikipedia because it isn't notable. I don't think this is an existing policy, but Wikipedia isn't a game catalog. We don't have articles for every Minecraft mod and block shooter game on the internet simply because a few people play it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Kill Screen and its possible closure

So this month there have been talks about the issues of Kill Screen and it possibly being shut down. Nothings official yet but the website isn't online at all. So just a heads up that if anyone is needing to use the website or its sources you should check for some archives. GamerPro64 16:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This is everyone's semiannual reminder: archive your sources. All of them. Even if the website seems fine, even if it's a large one, even if you don't think that it's going to go away, even if you're pretty sure that you can find archives later. Kotaku is perfectly healthy and could have been shut down any moment if it hadn't found a buyer when Gawker got sued into oblivion. GameSpy lived for a decade+ until its owner got tired of having two competing video game websites. Every so often a website will drop an entire console generation's worth of reviews to save on space. Kill Screen's (possible) demise could be predicted from its falling output, but most can't. Archive your sources. --PresN 17:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a bot that can go through and archive all Kill Screen links? I think I've seen a bot archiving 1UP sources before. TarkusAB 21:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Walking Dead plot summary

Please feel free to comment here in regards to the plot section on The Walking Dead. Thank you. – Rhain 23:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

One more review needed at Resident Evil 5 FAC

I nominated Resident Evil 5 for FAC just over two months ago. See here. It has 3 supports on content, a support on sources, and a support on prose. The coordinator says that in order for it to be promoted it still requires an additional review on content, paying particular attention to FAC criteria 1b and 1c. I'd really appreciate it if someone was able to do that. I have contacted several editors already proposing a review trade but have not found one in a position to do so. I would happily review anybody else's nomination in return for a review at this FAC. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I got the review I needed, so this is taken care of now. Freikorp (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing (s) from the infobox video game

There's an ongoing discussion here: Template talk:Infobox video game#Remove (s) from the infobox. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ryu "Hoshi"?

This is currently the first sentence of Ryu (Street Fighter):

}}Ryu Hoshi (born on 20th of September, 1964), also known as Ryu (リュウ), also written as Ryū in the original Street Fighter, known simply as Fighting Street, is a Japanese karate-like fictional character and the protagonist in the Capcom's Street Fighter franchise.[1]

  1. ^ "Street Fighter IV: Return of the World Warriors", Game Informer 178 (February 2008): 90.

Should we start the sentence with Ryu Hoshi, Ryu's whole name per the live-action movie and USA Cartoon and only those sources? This doesn't make it COMMONNAME material last time I checked. Yet, the IP-hopping user who keeps adding that at the start cites this as the exact reason for adding it there. To quote them, ""Hoshi" is canon only to the movie. Not to the franchise as a whole." What's the right approach? Crboyer (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd personally rework it according to the things you just described above, if what you're saying is true. (I don't doubt you, I just don't know the detailed history of him.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Just my opinion but how about

"Ryu (リュウ|Ryū), fully named "Ryu Hoshi" in the live action film, is a character from the Street Fighter, known simply as Fighting Street"Tintor2 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two options that I see:
  • If "Hoshi" canonicity is in question (that is, if the film is the only place that's acknowledged at all), then I would not even mention it in the lead, and delegate it to part of the fiction biography, eg "In the SF film, Ryu is given the last name of Hoshi.".
  • If "Hoshi" is considered canon but just not well known (eg to avoid having to move the article due to not being a common name) then I would start without the last, and mention it in the summary of the character in the lede, but otherwise stay with only "Ryu" itself as the name. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Something similar happened to Charlie (Street Fighter) whose article could be retitled Charlie Nash but as much as I know Ryu never got a last name since his only father figure, Gouken, didn't have a last name.Tintor2 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I triple-checked just now, and yeah, Ryu doesn't have a surname in the videogames. Or the comic books. Or the anime versions... Street Fighter Legacy made him "Ryu Takahashi", but that seems to be it. "Charlie Nash" was inscribed on his dog tags in Street Fighter IV, but nothing there's nothing like that for Ryu.

This is the version of the first sentence before the revisions: Ryu (リュウ, Ryū, written as in the original Street Fighter) is a fictional character, the protagonist of Capcom's Street Fighter series.

The surname "Hoshi" is mentioned in the bit about the Movie in the In Other Media section.

In addition, the "Fighting Street" mentioned in the revised sentence is the name of SF1's PCEngine/TurboGrafx CD Port and doesn't pertain to any other incarnation. Crboyer (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It probably should not be up and forefront at the beginning then. Another option would be footnote it, like this: Ryu[a] is a character... TarkusAB 02:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I prefer this approach as well. I believe all the naming variants aren't exactly in the forefront of the reader's mind when they're first looking up a topic - usually they are looking for more of a basic understanding of the concept first. The footnote allows the info to still be there, but allows people to forgo that a little easier, especially considering it's not exactly a widely debated/discussed point of discussion or anything. (Contrasting to the whole Dr. Robotnik/Dr. Eggman situation, which is a little bit more of a prominent case of naming confusion for casual readers. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Known in the Street Fighter film as Ryu Hoshi and Street Fighter Legacy as Ryu Takahashi

I have revised the sentence as such: Ryu (リュウ, Ryū, written as ) [a] is a fictional character, the protagonist of Capcom's Street Fighter series.[1]. I have also prompted the user to come here and discuss the issue, especially linking this page. Still, the user has been very adamant about these changes [as seen here]. [[Crboyer (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • "Ryu Hoshi" is mentioned in only 7 results from a reliable video game source web search. 1 of them is a user comment. That's incredibly low for such a well known character. It should not be used in the lead/opening sentence.--The1337gamer (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Street Fighter IV: Return of the World Warriors", Game Informer 178 (February 2008): 90.


The same user who I described in Ryu "Hoshi"? (see above) has also been editing, among other articles, Sub-Zero (Mortal Kombat). Their revisions are as follows: Kuai Liang (Chinese: 奎良, 快涼, formerly codenamed Tundra), also known as Sub-Zero (絶対零度, lit. "Absolute Zero") and turned into cyborg as Cyber Sub-Zero in the 2011 reboot, is a video game character from the Mortal Kombat series and one of the original characters in the first Mortal Kombat game in 1992. A mainstay of the series, Sub-Zero is the only character who has appeared in every main Mortal Kombat fighting game. The character also appears in many other Mortal Kombat media works such as the Mortal Kombat live action film series and animated series, which was turns into cyborg as Cyber Sub-Zero in the 2011 Mortal Kombat reboot.

Issue? Sub-Zero (Mortal Kombat) covers both characters who used that name, the brothers Bi-Han and Kuai Liang. So using one name in the lead won't be accurate since this character is actually two. My attempts to point this out have been ignored. [They're now telling me I can't edit the article], which doesn't sound real proper. How do I resolve the issue?

Usually, whenever you have a dispute, you'd bring it to the article's talk page, and discuss it with the other person (this IP in your case). If you still can't come to an agreement, and the article doesn't get much traffic so you don't have anyone else to weigh in, then you'd usually leave a brief, neutral note here at the WikiProject talk page, asking others to weigh in. So, not "Hey guys, come help me out", but more like "Hey guys, any input over the naming/intro of this article would be appreciated."
I've left a talk page message with the IP, encouraging him to also discuss on the talk page (and telling him to stop telling people not to edit.) If he still refuses to discuss, let me know, and I can lock the page from anonymous editors, hopefully encouraging him to discuss with you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: I've blocked the IP, as he's only gotten more disruptive since my (and multiple others) warnings. Please let me know if you catch him switching to another IP addresses to evade his block. From the looks of things, he's been using some other similar but different IPs to make similar bad edits earlier in the week too, so it's possible. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Something similar appears to be happening in the articles Noob Saibot and Ermac but I don't if it is good or bad.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The opening sentence and lead should be concise. We don't need to mention half a dozen alternate/former names. That's ridiculous... --The1337gamer (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Good or bad, it's now a block evading IP who refused to participate in any discussions. That one is already blocked from someone else, but please notify me of any other that are obviously the the person IP hopping. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 31 March

25 March

26 March

27 March

28 March

29 March

30 March

31 March

Salavat (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Retromags acquires GameFan

Retromags, which scans/archives old game mags, has purchased the rights to the GameFan brand. We'll know more soon enough but ostensibly this means that we'll be able to link to old GameFan issues on the site once they're scanned. czar 05:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Very nice, thanks for the heads up.--IDVtalk 06:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not 100% sure if we should necessarily link to them, but this will at least definitely help in research and sourcing of that era. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why should we not? If they host GameFan legitimately, linking makes it easier for readers to verify information sourced from these magazines.--IDVtalk 14:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. If they have the legal rights, and the content is given appropriate context, I don't see the issue with linking to it... Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Warship Girls R

This draft at AFC needs a specialist review. There is however a complication; all the cited sources are in Chinese. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I've made two quick removals based on VG guidelines and an unsourced section, but trying to read through this, the article is in really bad condition. It's very difficult to deal with the non-English sourcing, but the reception section in particular seems to be mostly about fan reactions and forum/blog responses. I suspect very little of it is rooted in what we'd consider a reliable source, or a critic view of the game. The article in general reads like a fan commentary focused on the community and legal/corporate fight between the original game and this remake/spinoff. Very little focus on the game itself. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Much of the article is all this "fan reaction" and low level "controversy" stuff that I'd usually strip out of articles for being non-notable, crufty, navel-gazing from the fanbase, rather than what reliable sources are actually covering. I also can't tell if the sources are reliable, but I know from experience that reliable sources rarely cover fan reaction at this level. It doesn't help that the comparatively short game play section is unsourced either. I wouldn't pass this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I've confirmed that the content is essentially copied straight from zhwiki. It does not appear to be a Google translation though, so I'm guessing the user translated it. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
To round this out, I'm unable to find any coverage in typical English reliable sources for video games. Depending on the search terms, most hits are for Kantai Collection, and have no mention of this chinese clone. A very small handful of results show for "Warship Girls", but it's in comments from users and forums. -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, so I'll decline as "Not notable", is there a Video games SNG I can point the submitter towards, or is GNG applicable? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe there's an SNG for VGs, but WP:VG/RS covers our reliable sourcing expectations. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we tried writing up a NVIDEOGAMES or something years back, but the only thing we could all agree upon was that it should basically meet the GNG, so I think we pitched it as redundant. I usually just tell people that a game should have 4-5 sources marked as reliable from WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the game is exactly famous for its fan reaction and legal controversy... P.S. This draft seems like a translation of zh:战舰少女. Some famous Chinese portal websites discussed about the legal problem ([5] NetEase, [6] Sina, [7] Tencent), but the problem is we can't sure these articles were written by whom... --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 17:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

About Koei, Koei Tecmo and the revolving pages

Good day lovely people,

I need some help/advice about the Koei/Koei Tecmo pages on Wikipedia.

I was recently editing Koei's page, adding the date I thought it disbanded and turned into Koei Tecmo (Or Tecmo Koei at the time.) A IP user reverted my edit and pointed out that Koei, the developer, simply renamed itself Koei Tecmo Games Co. Ltd., when absorbing Tecmo, rather than becoming a newly established company called Koei Tecmo. I provided a source mentioning the merger, but the user pointed out that the document says they've only renamed themselves after absorbing Tecmo, rather than becoming a new entity.

After closer inspection of the document - and checking Koei Tecmo Holding's business site, it seems that, yes, Koei turned into Koei Tecmo Games Co., Ltd. (or the legal document - It's using the Emperor Date System, so, 昭和53年)

Not only does this mean that some of the information on the current Tecmo Koei page technically belongs to Koei's page, not to mention that the Koei page would need to receive a major overhaul, since it was never properly updated to accommodate this.

But... technically, this would also mean that:

Koei Tecmo should be renamed/moved to Koei Tecmo Holdings Co., Ltd., and Koei should be renamed/moved to Koei Tecmo Games Co., Ltd., to my understanding, right? As a normal user, I can't do either, as people have already created redirect pages a long time ago. Not only that, but this would also mean that most of the pages linking to Koei Tecmo right now, should actually direct to Koei Tecmo Games - which, as I said, is Koei right now - and that is, well, a lot of pages. Every KT game page since either 2009 or 11?

T'is a bit confusing for me, so I might be missing something. I'm still kind of a noob in terms of Wikipedia knowledge. Does anyone have any advice or solutions on what to do here?

Much love,  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the article titles- I'd argue against moving them. Wikipedia articles do not need to completely reflect the exact corporate structure of the businesses they are about; instead, they reflect how those companies represent themselves and are viewed in sources. To give an example- in 2003 Square and Enix merged to create Square Enix, right? That's how everyone thinks about it? It's not true at all- technically Enix bought Square, renamed itself to Square Enix, and then changed its board to be made up of mostly former Square board members. And to be completely accurate, in 2008 Square Enix renamed itself to Square Enix Holdings, and formed a new wholly-owned subsidiary company named Square Enix that took over all of the actual game development/publishing work that the old Square Enix was doing. So, if we went by the actual corporate technical structures, Enix should be renamed to Square Enix Holdings, covering Enix/SE/SEH from 1975 though to today; Square would cover only the Square entity, and a new Square Enix article would cover only the time period from 2008-today when the modern Square Enix came into existence.
If you thought the above sounded complicated and confusing to readers, you're right. The common perception is that the two entities of Square and Enix merged together into Square Enix in 2003, and that new merged entity has persisted since. So that's what the articles are- S, E, and SE.
So, there's really two options for the Koei and Tecmo articles: Option 1, have Koei (ends at 2009), Tecmo (ends at 2009), and Koei Tecmo (starts at 2009). Or Option 2: have Koei Tecmo (includes Koei and Koei Tecmo from founding to today) and Tecmo (ends at 2009). I'd vote option 1. Note that even with these options, you'd still mention that the actual structure is a holding company that owns a subsidiary named Koei Tecmo, and that the holding company is the successor to the original Koei, just like the SE article does. As an aside, to extend this beyond video game companies- we have, which lists its subsidiary companies... but what it doesn't reflect is that "" is actually like 6 companies (only one named that all work together on the main website, as well as numerous other subsidiaries for different countries that it operates in- they present themselves and are thought of as a single company, so it gets a single article. --PresN 17:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The [User] that made me think about this, actually made a similar edit on the Enix page, removing that it is defunct and akin information, I'm seeing.
This is all a bit confusing, though. So, just to clarify, we list the Koei and Tecmo pages as defunct in 2009, (2011? Technically, both Koei and Tecmo still existed as development subsidiaries under KT Holding until 2011 before Koei absorbed Tecmo and renamed itself KT Games, but as you said...) with the successor being Koei Tecmo (Holding), right? Despite the official documents still listing "Koei Tecmo Games Co., Ltd." as being founded in 1973, and simply mention in the article that Koei Tecmo Games is a successor to Koei, right? And then updating the template to reflect Tecmo and Koei's creation date, like on Square Enix's? Possibly simply creating a new section on the KT Page for KT Games, as the currently listed "Studios" section are all part of KT Games, not KT Holding?  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  19:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I was invited to comment on this discussion. In terms of article names, I don't have a problem with either of the options proposed by User talk:PresN. I could also add a third option, which is to have four different articles: Koei, Tecmo, Koei Tecmo Games and Koei Tecmo Holdings. Again, I don't have a preference with either options in term of article breakdown and I'll let you guys decide the one you prefer.
Where I do have some concerns though is about the actual content that is being proposed in the articles.
1) I would definitely be opposed to label the 1978 Koei as a defunct company. We can certainly stop the history of Koei in 2010 (not 2009). But just because we stop the history of Koei in 2010, that does not mean that we have to automatically consider Koei as a defunct company either. We can just say that Koei got renamed to Tecmo Koei Games by absorbing Tecmo and bring everything after to Koei Tecmo Games or Koei Tecmo without considering Koei itself a "defunct" company. It's like the Enix article. The article pretty much ends in 2003 but we don't label Enix as a defunct company either. We just brought the aftermath content to Square Enix.
2) There really isn't much to change about the Tecmo article. The original Tecmo was dissolved in April 2010. I guess you could also say that Tecmo was dissolved in 2011 if you want to take into consideration the new game developer that was spun off in March 2010. But one thing is for sure, Tecmo did not get defunct in 2009. Tecmo and Koei intially stayed intact when Koei Tecmo Holdings was created. I know there was some shake-up in 2009 with the European operations. But for the Japanese parent companies, it was "business as usual" for Tecmo and Koei until April 2010.
3) The successor of Temco is Koei Temco Games, not Koei Temco Holdings. Koei Temco Holdings is an holding company and does not produce video games. Not to mention that Temco and Koei initially remained intact even within the new holding company.
4) Koei was renamed Temco Koei Games in 2010 (at the same time Temco time got dissolved), not in 2011. 2011 is simply the year when the new video game developers Koei and Temco (both created in 2010) were folded into Koei Temco Games.
5) Koei was founded in 1978, not 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2017

If you don't mind my contributions, why don't you add a successor section to the Infobox linking to Koei Tecmo from the Koei page? That's what I did with the Enix article to identify that it renamed itself to Square Enix. Sometimes providing a brief context with a citation that identifies that Koei renamed to Koei Tecmo, after the absorption of the latter company helps give context to readers. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made things a little easier by providing the successor sections myself for both Koei and Tecmo. It's an easy indicator to identify that a former company was only dissolved to be succeeded by a new corporate brand. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It still seems a little bit strange to not display them (Enix and Koei) as defunct though. I think it's an unnecessary technicality; Having two pages for Koei Tecmo Games (forming from Koei) and Koei Tecmo Holdings seems redundant as well.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  14:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It would probably be an unnecessary technicality if Wikipedia was a video game website. But it isn't. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that must present facts, not video gaming fancruft. Wikipedia's video game articles may be read by anyone (videogamers and non-videogamers alike). Enix and Koei aren't defunct; they have simply renamed themselves after swallowing their former rivals. There's no reason why they should be displayed as defunct companies just because some people from the video game community personally feel they are defunct. I have never understood that fixation on Wikipedia of labeling everything as defunct anyway. Is an article that much better or has more merits just because the word "defunct" appears somewhere on its infobox and/or categories?????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2017
In your defense, Koei Tecmo Games and Koei Tecmo Holdings don't need to have separate articles. The Japanese Wikipedia has separate pages for them. But just because the Japanese Wikipedia does, that does not mean the English Wikipedia has to follow their example. Each language Wikipedia does what it's best for it. As I said before, I'm only concerned about the content of the articles, not how they are divided. The status quo is not a bad idea either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2017
It has nothing to do with "fancruft"; This is just corporate mergers work. While, yes, in theory, the company stems from Koei, it isn't Koei. They just used that corporate entity for the merger.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  14:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
And why it isn't Koei? Because it has decided to change its name to "Tecmo Koei Games"? You do realize that the company could have just kept its name to "Koei" after absorbing Temco and we wouldn't been having this whole discussion today. And not all mergers mean the survival of one of two companies. Some mergers mean the dissolution of both companies (eg:consolidation), but this isn't what has happened with Tecmo and Koei .
Thus far, you haven't make a case for the inclusion of a defunct category in the Koei article other than you personally want it to be there. Is the Koei article suffering, missing out on something or is in bad shape because it has no defunct category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No, you're just missing the point - But all of this is beside the original question anyhow; About whether we should keep Koei Tecmo Holdings / Koei Tecmo Games / Koei one or not. But I think we should just leave it as is, add more info to KT Holdings page about KT Games.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  20:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Naruto-related pages

I did apply for a temporary semi-protection of the Storm 4 page before, but it's getting kind of tiresome. A IP starting with 2804:431:b724 and b725 has been consistently making disruptive edits on various Naruto-related pages. Maybe more, it's hard to tell, since the IP keeps changing after the beginning. And this has been going on for a year now, if not longer.

- Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 4 - List of PlayStation Vita games (M–Z) - List of Naruto video games

Any suggestions, aside from just constantly reverting edits? A ban doesn't seem possible, since the IP is always different, and permanent semi-protecting seems extreme. (And unlikely to be accepted.) But if more were to add these pages to their Watchlist, it'd be great. Essentially, the person just keeps adding these references to a (canceled) Vita release to all these games, despite there not being one. I contacted the IP once, and it just replied that if it's put on the page, the company will put it on Vita (?).  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  21:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Storm 4 for a longer duration, as the disruption is fairly regular and repeated. The other two, while I do see the edits over a long period of time, are much less frequent, so I've left them unprotected for now. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Delsort + {{find video game sources}}

Follow-up from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 128#Updated Find video game sources search template @Hellknowz re: automatically changing {{find sources}} to {{find video game sources}} when sorting video game-related AfDs. The main delsort script's author wrote an extra hook that does this, but wants us to run it separate from the script. So if you're interested, add the following to your Special:MyPage/common.js, which will run the delsort gadget and add the function:

importScript( ' User:Czar/delsort+findvgsources.js ' ); // Backlink: User:Czar/delsort+findvgsources.js

czar 16:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Untold History of Japanese Game Dev v. 2

A PSA that John Szczepaniak's The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers Volume 2 is free on Kindle for I think today only, if you want to snatch it. Has a bunch of interesting interviews. czar 07:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Meteos Peer Review

Hey guys. While I'm waiting for Phantasmagoria's FAC to close, I started up a Peer Review for Meteos. Can I get some eyes on the article to see what needs improving? GamerPro64 15:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"7th Saga series" navbox

I've opened up a TfD for this navbox at WP: Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 11. Participation from anyone here would be welcome.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

Please can you use the correct logo for Supermassive Games as the one currently showing is an old version. You can see the correct logo on the website here: I can send it separately if required. Thanks RetroRebel81 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP (talkcontribs) 16:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder of The Requests Board

Hey everyone. Reminding anyone that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests is still a thing and we're still in a massive backlog for 2012. If anyone wants to help reduce the backlog, by either making the articles or removing requests that don't meet notability, it would be much appreciated. GamerPro64 19:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yooka-Laylee/Jontron controversial comments

Need more input regarding a discussion about Jontron's controversial comments which lead to his voice acting role in Yooka-Laylee being removed from the game, which can be found here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you delete the redirect of WP:SONIC WP:WikiProject Sonic?

I am the original creator of it, but i've renamed myself a bunch. Look in the contribs.

I don't really want to have remnants of the past when I was an inexperienced user that kept making unnotable pages. I have edited since, I have ~520 edits now (~650 when you do deletes). It might be good keeping it, but I would rather it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skynorth (talkcontribs) 10:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The redirect was created by Red Phoenix, is that you? I can only follow your name back to Typo385.5/UltraMario64/Kernosky, which was created in 2013, while Red Phoenix was last active 2015. The only other account marked as related to you seems to be Bug8. If it really is you, y[Y]our best bet would probably be {{Db-u1}} to ask for speedy deletion; or I can do that for you if you wish. Lordtobi () 10:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: I think the user means Wikipedia:WikiProject Sonic - X201 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems fair. @Skynorth: Do you wish for me to tag the redirect? Lordtobi () 11:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I mean, I could delete it, but I'm not sure I see the point? It's not like the page history to a "never-prominent WikiProject turned redirect" is the type of thing hardly anyone is going to ever come across... Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Nor is it an implausible redirect. -- ferret (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Case in point, in 2017, the redirect itself has only been viewed an abysmally low 3 times. So that means, at the very highest, it may have been viewed 3 times in the last 3.5 months. And that's assuming every person who checked the redirect, also checked the page history, which is unlikely. There very well may have been zero views of your past editors there, prior to you bringing attention to it today. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@@Lordtobi:, yes.

Heads up on new genre article

Normally, it wouldn't matter too much and it would pop up in the list of new articles for the project, but I do want to highlight that I just created the Immersive sim genre article (eg games that follow the mold of Deus Ex, SS2, BioShock, etc.). There's probably a lot that could be written on this topic going to developer quotes from ex-Looking Glass/Ion Storm fellows, and given that many of these games are FAs or the like, probably could be easily expanded on. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I have access to a fairly in-depth interview with Doug Church about his history of games in Game Design: Theory and Practice. I don't think the term "immersive sim" was ever used in it (in fact, I don't believe I've ever heard the term used before, especially in relation to the Ultima Underworld/System Shock family of games), but who knows: maybe I can find some claims about the genre in general in there. I would have to reread it. ~Mable (chat) 09:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, Church does refer to System Shock as an "immersive simulation game" in that book. Check out page 506 of the second edition. Indrian (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • There's a series of interviews at RPS on Immersive Sims.[8] Immersive sim is a fairly niche classification, and not widely used, so I wouldn't use it in infoboxes. Where did the term come from? Is it from Warren Spector's Deus Ex post-mortem?[9] - hahnchen 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox video game and video game series

Template:Infobox video game and Template:Infobox video game series are related and both deal with the same subject, and yet both are very different. They both have different infobox width, font size, and one uses "(s)" while the other doesn't. Should these two infoboxes be made more similar? -- Wrath X (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I've boldly matched Template:Infobox video game series style parameters to that of Template:Infobox video game. -- ferret (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Then there's the whole question of the "(s)". One uses it, the other simply uses "s". -- Wrath X (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Based on the discussion at Template:Infobox video game I think you might as well give up on that. No clear consensus is developing. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
If we're going to keep the (s) in video game then shouldn't video game series also have the (s) for consistency? Though the way it is now video game series doesn't have that much space I think. Maybe add the (s) but increase width a little bit? -- Wrath X (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the templates being visually different like this is really an issue. I think the "(s)" vs "s" thing in particular is actually pretty nice as it is now, as it shows how a singular video game may have one or more of any role, while a series is likely to have multiple of most roles. ~Mable (chat) 17:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I've noticed you've edited Infobox Video game character in addition to Video game series to match Video game. This has the resulted in the infoboxes being cramped and lacking space. The labels in the infoboxes have more space than the data. Take a look at, for example, the infobox for character Yu Narukami. It seems I forgot to consider the label length when requesting. How to fix this? Smaller font? Widen infobox? Maybe the infoboxes should have matched Video game series not Video game since the former had more space? Or is this just a problem for me only? -- Wrath X (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I really think this problem is only you. No one else is bringing these questions up or asking about the formatting of any of our infoboxes. Despite numerous attempts by different editors to explain to you that the widths of labels, line wrapping, etc, varies drastically across different resolutions, zoom levels and browsers, you keep making the same requests to change font size, labels or default widths. The behavior of our infoboxes, as far as I can tell, is within norms. There are MOS guidelines that prevent making text in infoboxes smaller. I recommend if you're having trouble viewing infoboxes you look into adjusting your zoom level or font sizes locally.
All that said, I think Template:Infobox video game character should abandon having a dedicated field for "Japanese voice actor", and instead use just the single voiceactor field to list them. Template:Vgrelease can then be used to list out multiple actors by language/country. Example -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about Infobox video game like I normally do, I was talking about Infobox video game series and character. What I meant was that Infoboxes Video game series and character have longer labels than Infobox Video game, something I forgot to consider. So your edit to match the infoboxes has resulted in significantly less space for datas in these two infoboxes. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, the issue seems to be when using both voice actor fields. This adds (English) and (Japanese) to the labels, which make them excessively long. Really not a font size issue in the end. I offered an example edit on Yu Narukami on how to work around this. I would propose we update all articles using the japanese actor field in a similar fashion and remove it. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

Cannabis leaf 2.svg

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Video games participants may be particularly interested in the following category: Category:Video games about cannabis.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a defining category for any significant number of games? (If not for these, which? 420BLAZEIT?) Should this category be deleted? czar 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
So far there is only one entry so I see a case for deletion especially since the catagory is video games about cannabis not ones that it simply appears in.-- (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Discuss at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 12#Category:Video games about cannabis czar 07:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A task force for edutainment?

In the recent interview Deltasim and I did for the newsletter, one of the points we brought up was the possibility of creating an edutainment task force as a focal point for improvement in this genre. I'm not very familiar with the success of task forces as I have only ever participated in one, which by the time I joined had become a complete ghost town. What are your thoughts on how other WP:VG task forces have turned out? Is this a good idea or a bad idea?--Coin945 (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I mean, you gotta ask yourself, what benefit would it have? We used to have a ton more taskforces and all but a few of them fell into a state of complete silence so we redirected them to the main WP:VG areas.  · Salvidrim! ·  03:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Salvidrim!: We have at least 2 people working actively on edutainment, which is more than most of those other TFs could say. Not going to comment on the viability otherwise. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I mean, you're free to try, but it might end up being a lot of set up work to essentially create another place for you and Deltasim to come discuss your plans. Or end up like the WP:VG/REQ board - just because people list a ton of edutainment entries there, doesn't mean anything comes from it. Nothing against you or edutainment games, it just seems like most task forces, and even a lot of WikiProjects, aren't terribly active. WP:VG is by far and away the most active one I've come across. There have been 50 edits to the talk page in just the last 48 hours. WP:ALBUMS - covering all the music albums on Wikipedia, is probably the second most active one I've encountered. 50 edits took almost 3 months to accrue there. But many are pretty dead. One's I've run across for various reasons recently - WP:DARTS or WP:LIGHTHOUSES, if you go through their talk page history, you see that, if you track back the last 50 edits, it takes you all the way back to August 2014. If you estimate that this goes back approximately 1,000 days from today, that equates to about 1 edit every 20 days - once about every three weeks. They're just not that active. And that's not even getting to task forces. I mean, look at esports, basically one of the hottest, trendiest things to talk about in the video game world. About 25 talk page comments since its creation 8 months ago. Again, nothing personal - its the same reason I've never bothered to create or join a "WikiProject JRPG or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The iron law of task forces (hell, even WikiProjects) is that they invariably create more work in administration than productivity. The time that goes into making templates, tagging articles, and detagging the clutter when the project doesn't take off almost always eclipses the good that comes from templating in the first place. Instead, make an open call once in a while for collaborators, create a separate page for coordination if a personal talk page is insufficient, and write articles. The main WT:VG talk page is always open if some particular problem needs an audience. czar 07:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Good on the two of you for caring enough to try to reach out. I love to see enthusiasm in under-developed corners of the project! A taskforce is certainly one way to go about generating expansion and development of edutainment titles, but as some of the others have pointed out it may be a bit ambitious given the nature of the topic and the historical trends away from taskforces. I remember that last year you had launched an editing drive here. How did that go? If you saw encouraging results then I see no reason why you couldn't make it into an annual happening. The key to editing drives is publicity. If you were to start another drive you might want to contact related WikiProjects (e.g. WP:SOFTWARE, WP:EDUCATION, and WP:CHL), contact some of the regular newsletters to place a news item to promote the idea, and maybe contact individuals who seem to have similar interests. If there is enough interest here and WP:VG members were interested in producing a more regular schedule of WP:VG-wide editing drives then we could discuss reviving the old Improvement drive. Another idea to explore for some of the core articles (i.e. articles that would have been of "Top importance" in the proposed Taskforce) is to promote a collaborative effort through a group like WP:TAFI (e.g. here is one I participated in a few years ago), or independently (e.g. as seen in the "420 collaboration" above). Sometimes these collaborations have spectacular results. -Thibbs (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite peer review

Hello everyone! I've recently opened up a peer review for Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite, and I'd greatly appreciate any feedback about improvements that can be made to the article (though, keep in mind that details about the game are still light). Thanks! Wani (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Character tables

Started a discussion at Talk:List of Mortal Kombat characters#Suggestion. Would like to hear more responses. The same could be applied in other characters' list. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on a draft

Is Draft:List of Released Nintendo 3DS games with Multiplayer Capabilities a reasonable article to have? It seems like an arbitrary cross-categorization to me, but that's why I'm requesting your input. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, this article doesn't need to exist. I'd redirect it to List of Nintendo 3DS games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    Declined. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So I guess this issue is resolved, but I wanted to point out that in my view there is a better way to analyze draft list articles than by using categorization considerations like intersection or arbitrariness even though they do indeed show up in WP:SALAT as well. Generally I think the best way is to approach notability of list articles by focusing on the non-list portion (often just the lede). Notability for list articles is the same as for non-list articles so for a list like "List of X games with Y attributes", the primary question is whether the topic "X games with Y attributes" is itself notable enough to pass the GNG. This is essentially the same as determining whether the list is arbitrary anyway, but it's more focused on notability and sources than on the narrowness and size of the resulting category (as the over-categorization guidelines are). In many (most?) cases I think it's OK for SALs to meet the bare minimum instead of passing GNG with flying colors (i.e. the topic "X games with Y attributes" doesn't have to be expandable beyond permanent stub status), but using the existence of RSes as a proxy for notability which is equally required for list articles makes the analysis seem less subjective than using categorization analyses. Incidentally, many of our lists (including most of our "high importance" lists) don't currently demonstrate any notability at all because they don't even have a sourced lede - just a bare list. The argument that the notability of the list is demonstrated by the existence of sources for the list members strikes me as a slippery slope to OR. -Thibbs (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Making a list when there are only sources for individual items is indeed pretty much SYNTH. LISTN is all about having sources that describe the group, i.e., the subject of the list as a whole rather than just individual entries. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Related, but is there any way to "combine" categories and include both that way via a search? For example, this list would be fully covered by searching in the Category:Multiplayer and single-player video games and Category:Nintendo 3DS games categories. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Type incategory:"Multiplayer and single-player video games" incategory:"Nintendo 3DS games" in the search bar and it should return all pages in both categories. Don't think it will search through subcategories though. You're better off using PetScan, CatScan or AutoWikiBrowser for category intersections. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
There's also WP:CI if anyone is interested in pushing for a deeper systemic change. Considering that CI has been in the works for longer than I've been a Wikipedian, though... I wouldn't hold my breath for that. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew there had to be some sort of tool for that. That being said, this would be a lot more helpful if it were more accessible somehow (but that's out of our scope). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Can an admin please block the following IP address: User talk:

The IP has constantly been adding a distributor field to the infobox of Turok video games without references. Also, only physical distributos that are different from the publisher are allowed, according to Template:Infobox video game. I've been reverting the IP's edits over the past month already (you can check the Turok 2 history page for more details: [10]). Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: it seems that the IP stopped touching the article, though I wouldn't be suprised if the editor did it again in the near future. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Killscreen is back

Killscreen, which seemed to be dead the first half of this month, is back, with changes and no explanation. The site... now seems to be hiding most of its articles off the main page? And has two subsites, The Meta (eSports) and Versions (VR), which seem to have been existing sites now merged into KS proper? Except The Meta hasn't posted anything since February (and only has bylines from one guy) and Versions also has bylines only from one woman (and no dates at all). So... maybe not the most coherent relaunch, but the links should be live again (or at least findable- looks like the link structure changed slightly without redirects.) --PresN 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would consider it to still be defunct in terms of publication. This just seems to be an archive of old articles. GamerPro64 21:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Having an official archive of its old articles is very nice :3 ~Mable (chat) 09:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm just confused how they seem to have stopped posting articles (so, defunct) but at the same time are apparently partners in putting on a games section of the Tribeca Film Festival in a couple weeks, and had a website design refresh (though not a great one). It's an awful amount of work for a defunct publication, but if they're not posting new articles what else are they? --PresN 11:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that the company is becoming a games-events company, and limiting its editorial work. - hahnchen 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).