Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 132

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 125 Archive 130 Archive 131 Archive 132 Archive 133 Archive 134 Archive 135


Video Games Released in Asian Countries Besides Japan

I would like to ask, why is it that some console software lists here in Wikipedia don't include Asian countries besides Japan when it comes to release dates? Why is it that it's usually just Japan and nothing else? For example, the list of PS4 games ans the list of Xbox One games only lists Japan, Europe, and North America.Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Its just because those are the major regions for where most video games are developed and released. Charts get really cluttered when others are included. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It stems from WP:VGDATE, which stipulates that release dates should only be listed for English speaking regions, or the region of the developer. With two of the three major consoles being based out of Japan, it is generally included in lists as a result. -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh ok. That makes sense to me now, thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I didn't notice this thread until now, but it reminded me of something I have thought about. When a Japanese game's (or theoretically any non-English game) first English release is in Asia, do we list that in the infobox? This doesn't happen super often, I think, but I remember that Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 was released in English, but only in Asia. I've also heard of some PS Vita dungeon crawlers getting English Asian releases and then either not getting released at all in the West or only way later.--IDVtalk 19:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruption at Sonic Mania

Hello, I've already sent this page to RfPP due to recent disruption caused by the release of the console version, and I was hoping if anyone would assist in regulating the article. I've already hit 3 reverts on the article today and I don't want to risk myself with another. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's really nothing out of the ordinary for a popular game on actual release day. I wouldn't worry about it. Myself and a number of others are monitoring the article too, and most of the IP edits, while not improvements, aren't any sort of major issue. (The fans aren't outraged by the game, there's no real controversy or anything, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Normal for a game that just released. After a few days/week it begins to go back to pre-release levels of traffic, as they all move on to the next big release. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sega Genesis - European launch again

I opened a thread last June concerning the Sega Genesis's European launch in the "Launch" section which isn't in accordance to the reference given, and the European release date is unreferenced throughout the article. However, the thread seems to have no response from any other editors. Any input from anyone is appreciated at Talk:Sega Genesis#European launch. Thanks. – Hounder4 23:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (26 July to 4 August)

26 July

28 July

29 July

30 July

31 July

1 August

2 August

3 August

4 August

Salavat (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @JimmyBlackwing: Do you think there are sources sufficient to cover all of the games in the Jane's series of games with one article per game, or would they be better covered in articles on the series? --Izno (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the Jane's series was probably the best-covered flight sim series of its time, barring possibly Microsoft Flight Simulator. Jane's games were common cover stories and frequent game of the year winners/contenders—plenty of development and reception material. It's sad to see their articles in such a state, really, because there's a lot that could be done with them if people were interested. All of our current flight sim FAs were made with much less. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (31 July to 11 August)

31 July

4 August

5 August

6 August

7 August

8 August

9 August

10 August

11 August

Salavat (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Just giving a public note of thanks to old hand @Zxcvbnm: who has been powering through WP:VG/R like a machine. - hahnchen 13:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you! We could always use more backup, the backlog is absolutely massive.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      • It is futile, there are more games being released now (and more notable ones at that) than ever before. I only hope the requests I add to the list are interesting ones to write about! #indiepocalypse - hahnchen 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I dare not say we start implementing this now, but I do wonder if we should apply more stricter notability guidelines for indie video games, moreso than just having a handful of scores at Metacritic. Eg having at minimum some type of development section that is more than just release details. This idea would need a lot more fleshing out, just throwing it out there. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
          • That proposal is strange to me. If something gets detailed coverage by several RSs, I really don't see how it could not be considered notable. You could hypothetically have a game that got reviewed by most major VG websites and won awards, but where the developer did not do any interviews, so we don't know anything about the development. Even if we were to implement something like this, "indie" isn't super well defined. Thekla, Inc. can probably safely be called an indie studio, but how about something like Double Fine? As an aside, having a Metacritic score is kind of irrelevant, other than as a tool to find reviews. You can have a game getting covered by a dozen non-reliable sources that get listed on MC, which clearly don't contribute to notability, but you can also have a game getting plenty of RS coverage but only few reviews that are listed on MC.--IDVtalk 19:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
            • I know, it's not a fully complete idea. However, recognizing that Hahnchen's comment above was accompanied by the "indiepocylpse" in the edit summary, and that we had recent reports that showed that with Steam Direct drawing in huge number of titles since its launch, there is something to be said that we need to be more aware of the larger number of games out there. Coverage by RSes still works, just that it will be interesting to see if this does change and if we have to change with that. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
              • "Indiepocalypse" implies that the games are NOT getting coverage by reliable sources - otherwise it wouldn't be very much of an "indiepocalypse". The "pocalypse" part comes from the fact that there are GOOD indie games that are getting NO coverage from anyone and therefore failing when they should logically succeed. So I don't think any "onslaught" of games will change the amount of video game articles that would merit creation because the same amount of good games are being created, while more shovelware is being allowed through. There will always be a backlog of undone video game articles but I think that when people are adding them to requests in the future they should consider adding ones with enough content to fill a development section rather than ones that barely squeak over the threshold and have no info about development.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
                • Indiepocalypse was used semi-jokingly. It refers to how there are so many indie titles now, achieving any amount of sales is a crapshoot. I think indie games are getting covered by reliable sources, that coverage may be spread out more thinly, but still enough to satisfy our RS requirements. So the pace of notable games being released has increased, whereas the number of new articles hasn't (and probably won't), I don't think there's anything we can really do about it, it's very difficult to get new blood. Changing the notability requirements is counterproductive, just accept that can't do it all. - hahnchen 20:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── For some perspective, many of our video game sources, especially the short articles that quite clearly regurgitate press releases, would be interpreted by editors at other ends of our encyclopedia as overly promotional/affiliated (i.e., not sufficiently independent). By this interpretation, sources should provide original analysis, source-mixing, fact-checking in individual articles, as opposed to promotional tone, quoted from press copy at length (same practice that we deride in our own articles). It isn't always clear-cut, but paring down our source material from the copious amounts of junk journalism would clearly be the place to start. I don't think there is any urgent issue with WP "notability" but I do recommend viewing it as "whether enough reliable, secondary sources exist to do justice to the topic" rather than "whether we have enough sources to write a single paragraph on the game". czar 07:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Tokyo Dark

Isn't it about time that we give Tokyo Dark its own article now that a release date has been announced for it? Neverrainy (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick google search, and there's enough reliable sources covering it to warrant an article, so it could be done if someone wanted to do it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Just DO IT! :D Ben · Salvidrim!  02:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The proper place for a request such as this would be WP:VG/R (or much preferably, creating it yourself, as there is a big backlog).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, probably the latter option. WP:VG/R is a great idea in theory, but the fact of the matter is, most of us WP:VG mainstays are already busy writing our own articles, so it seems like few of the requests ever get done. Not that I'm blaming anyone - I'm the same way, and it's to be expected since we're all just volunteers here. This does look like the type of game I'd have some interest in...but it appears to be PC/Mac only, right? Unless its a cancelled video game, I usually only write game articles that I hope to play some day. And I don't do PC gaming, so I'm unlikely to do this one... Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

OpenRCT2 issue again

So at the RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 page, the same user who argued that OpenRCT2 should have its own page is now arguing that we should include its former infobox in the lead here, disregarding the entire reason why the article got merged back in the first place (lack of independent notability, as shown by its lack of third-party sources). Could more opinions be brought over to the discussion here? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a long discussion spawning from the infobox debate at Talk:RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 regarding making wikilinks that suggest RCT2 has reached end-of-life (product) or is orphaned work. Asking for uninvolved editors to evaluate the discussion and comment. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Moving the rest of this discussion per WP:MULTI to that talk page at Talk:RollerCoaster Tycoon 2#Discussion from WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Vandlism on the Mafia III article

There is a lot of vandalism done to the Mafia III article made by MySuperBelt85 who is sockpuppeting by using IP accounts, I have reported his IPs to be blocked so many times but he keeps coming back with new IPs and protecting the article for an amount of time won't help since he will continue to vandlise the article once the protection ends. I have requested the article to be indefinite semi protected so he can't continue to vandlise the article by no one has protected the article. This user is getting annoying, can anyone help? TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Article is now protected for three months, although he will return and continue to vandlise the article when it gets unprotected. TheDeviantPro (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
That should greatly cut down on it, but if you report it to my "Vandalism" section of my talk page I'll take care of any further disruption too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

COI request at Morpheus

There is a COI request at Talk:Morpheus (1998 video game) awaiting review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi! We have our system ready, and we can start recommending editors to your project now. We'd like to invite some of project organizers to our study. Participants will receive two batches of recommendations. If you think the recommended editors are good candidates for your project, we'd like you to invite them to the project.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, add your WikiProject and username to the table on my user talk page. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In case it's been a while, here are the references for the previous conversation: thread1, thread2. Bobo.03 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, we really appreciate the suggestions you bought up last time, especially thanks to Ferret, Thibbs, and Czar. Based on the previous discussion, we addressed the following issues.

  • We have tuned the system to filter editors who participated the project before (had edits on project pages and project talk pages), and editors who are blocked and vandals.
  • We add a couple more algorithms in generating the candidate editor list, and one is recommending editors based on their topic area.
  • We add an extra column to keep track of the activity level for those editors.
  • We are still in a discussion about how to indicate the propensity of an editor staying in the project. But our current algorithms are recommending candidate editors who are likely to contribute more and stay longer in the project after they are recruited based on the results of prior studies.

On the other hand, we are not able to provide solutions to the following suggestions, but will keep them in our backlog.

  • About how to help newcomers at a good timing, and how to help them overcome the potential culture difference in dealing with conflict, etc. It's a really good point, but unfortunately, it might be out of the scope of our current study. It needs further research work. We probably won't be able to resolve this at this point.
  • Monitoring the hot articles for the project is a great idea. We will try to develop tools for the WikiProjects in the future study.

Please let me know if these sound good to you, or you have any further concerns. We welcome you participate our study. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  • So far these sound like good improvements. I sympathize with the difficulties surrounding predictions of propensity for affiliation with the project. Sadly the best way to predict such a thing would be with an extensive editorial history from which characteristics like collaboration/cooperation, discussion, and adherence to site policies/guidelines would be apparent. New editors have to be considered from scant editing history and I see that this makes the predictor's job more difficult. I know you said it would be out of scope at present, but I also wanted to point out that as far as the monitoring of hot articles, another useful tool might be this external WP:VG watchlist. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Thibbs! Thanks for pointing out the point of making prediction based on editor's propensity of staying with the project, and yes, our system does extract and analyze the most recent 500 edits of the candidate editors, and decides if they are good candidates to recommend. Right now, we are recommending editors with a higher affliction with the project using the social attachment theories, identify-based attachment and bonds-based attachment (they are not in the table I presented earlier, but will show up in our final recommendation list). Predicting human behaviors in general is hard, but many prediction models for Wikipedia editors are actually out there. We are in a debate of whether include another algorithm based on the prediction model, for instance, to show the probability of this editor staying in the project in the next six months.
Thanks for pointing out that tool. Yeh, I think it's very helpful for our next project potentially. We are planning to develop a bot for WikiProject admins. Rather than the current bots in Wikipedia that only do tedious editing work in most cases like fixing templates, etc, the bot we are thinking about is more like a personal assistant that can help the admins do a more diverse set of tasks. Monitoring the hot articles sounds a good one to add! I am happy to keep discussing this idea as well! :) Bobo.03 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The vandalism at Grand Theft Auto V returns

As a vandal fighter, I would like to request assistance fighting the vandalism at this article. The article has just come off 1-year protection. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Page has been indeffed. Thanks Drmies! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources for edits at Star Wars: Rogue Squadron

User:LukA YJK has added this section about fan mods based on what I believe are unreliable sources, original research and is non-notable content. The sources are:

  • [1]: A WordPress site
  • [2]: A fan site that allows users to download the editor tools that the section talks about
  • [3]: A site that redirects to a WordPress site
  • [4]: A "news" article authored by the same wiki editor adding this section
  • [5]: An article hosted on a private fan website

I have removed the section once but the content has been added back with a note saying that we need to discuss before removal. Fair enough, so here we are! Thoughts? --TorsodogTalk 15:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted and opened a discussion at the article. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, the discussion is ongoing. However to sum up all conversations today: 1) I see it as an exceptional situation where primary sources can (and should) be used 2) We can omit the parts which do not have direct references i.e. release of the first player profile editor 3) We can refer to YouTube videos showing the use and effect of the tools as a reference for backing up the sentence about the released modification tools. Does it makes sense?LukA YJK (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No, as WP is a tertiary source and anything that needs to be said/covered re: fan mods should be paraphrased from what reliable, secondary sources decided to cover. There's no need to pull in primary sources (videos, fan blogs) to supplement that detail. czar 00:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Fansite interviews:

Sometimes sites which aren't considered Reliable Sources, will do original interviews with developers. Often the figures or games are a little obscure, or not involved in modern gaming, so modern gaming news sites might not have the time or interest to interview them. Can these interviews be sited? The only issues I'd say would be: 1. Is the interview genuine or a hoax? 2. Are there any translation issues? 3. Has the interview been edited in any way? The first issue would be easy to spot, and I consider it fairly unlikely a fansite would simply make up an interview. The second and third are more subtle issues, and some caution could be used with Fansite interviews, and the information in those interviews could be fact checked vs other sources. If a fansite interview claims something outrageous that is contradicted by other sources, then that interview could be suspcicious. Other than that, I see no major problems. The VG:Sources page does list fansites, but makes no reference to interviews. But does says that forum posts by developers is fine. By extension that should mean that forum posts are fine. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The way we typically do it is determine if the interview seems to be genuine, and if so, treat it as a self-published source by the interviewee. If the site often publishes articles of dubious accuracy, then you should avoid it; same if the interview seems to contradict facts known through sources we consider reliable. If the interviewee/the company they work at/etc confirms the interview is real (such as by linking to it through their social media), then you should be able to go right ahead and use it.--IDVtalk 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Harizotoh9: Fansites generally don't qualify as a reliable source. I would treat them as WP:PRIMARY sources if, and only if, they have a reputable history/background. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

More or less what I thought. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Development of Grand Theft Auto V TFA

Hey guys, long time no see. I've been very inactive over the past few years, but I'm still more or less around. Just to let the project know, I've nominated Development of Grand Theft Auto V (at WP:TFA/R) to appear as Today's featured article for 17 September, the four-year anniversary of the game's release. As the article hasn't received any formal review process in over three years, I've opened up a discussion here for anyone who was the time to leave comments and suggest any improvements that could be made to the article before it (hopefully) runs in a few weeks. Cheers guys! CR4ZE (tc) 16:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorting video game terms

I saw a category overlap of Category:Video game gameplay and Category:Video game terminology where a large number of articles were in both categories despite terminology seeming like it should be a subcategory of gameplay. After all, terms are simply ways to describe gameplay elements. I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the gameplay category from a number of articles, but I decided to ask whether people support my reasoning before continuing further, as I'm not sure whether there's some hidden reason they should be in both.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think two terminology cats would be better, Video game terminology with a subcat of Video game gameplay terminology A single cat would be an unspecific hotchpotch.- X201 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@X201:So let me get this straight. Category:Video game terminology becomes a subcategory only of Category:Game terminology. And then Category:Video game gameplay terminology becomes a subcategory of Category:Video game terminology and Category:Video game gameplay? I definitely thing we should have more thoughts on this.
That said, are there any examples of terminology that AREN'T about the gameplay, that would merit a separate subcategory like that?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Development section of Crash Bandicoot N Sane Trillogy.

I'd like to alert everyone's eyes to the Crash Bandicoot N Sane Trilogy page. The development section needs major cleanup. It seems that roughly every major mention of Crash from 2011 to 2017 is listed and it just looks sloppy. Furthermore this appears to be the majority of the section, with little to no details about how the project was developed, or how anyone approached the game. I think there's room for talking about the hints leading up the the revalation, but at most this should be a paragraph and not the entire section. --Deathawk (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Agreed, this has been an issue since the article was created. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Descriptions for Reception

After following some articles for a few months, when it came to the Reception section, one phrase stuck in my mind: "Stick with what Metacritic says." However, recently today, an editor critiqued me saying other articles don't use this same format as well. What's the consensus on this, as I am very concerned over this? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's as you've observed, really. It is generally preferred to use/direct quote an aggregator like Metacritic to avoid WP:OR/WP:NPOV issues. As you've witnessed though, fans frequently disregard that try to glorify games with more positive descriptors, while trolls try to use overly negative ones. Using the aggregate's term cuts down on that some. It's not required to do - there's times where no one is really going to disputed phrases like "the game was generally well received by critics", but any time time there's a dispute, the aggregate descriptor should probably be defaulted to. Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much this. Maybe it's a bit robotic to have every single article have the "GAME received generally positive reception from critics, according to review aggregator Metacritic", but that's the safest option that can't be objectively debated. If there is a better, more natural way of stating this without room for debate, I'd like to see it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually not against excluding this phrase over and over again. Though I think it's better to exclude this phrase from titles that don't have a clear average score on Metacritic (i.e. falls below the four review threshold.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Games like that normally lack notability anyway; I feel like that's an entirely separate issue. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, its generally better to use an aggregate descriptor when available, I was just making sure that to say that it wasn't mandatory, because otherwise 1) some overzealous editor would go and needlessly standardize it across 100s of articles, and 2) if someone dug around, they'd probably find some articles where I didn't use the MC rating, and it's not because I purposefully did so, its more just something like, for example, VS. Racing 2, where I probably just chose whatever phrase I first thought of when looking at the reviews available, and added it, and 4 years later, its still there, likely because it was just a relatively non-contentious call. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It would also make sense, with the way you wrote the aggregate back then, that it doesn't have to be the same exact sentence structure across other articles, i.e. "Game received "descriptor" reviews, according to review aggregator Metacritic." According to Dissident, it does seem monotonous to repeat the structure over and over again across multiple articles. Therefore, the way you wrote the section seems to work for me. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
However, the issue of wording comes up on something like Sonic Mania, where some of the reviews can be used to make the wording "highly positive" or "critical acclaim", as users have attempted to do recently. It's not necessarily wrong, but it allows for POV pushing and fanboys to craft the section to their liking, making the game seem better received than it actually was. The Metacritic standard is just safer to go with, as it's non-subjective since we use a direct quote. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Though they rarely do, a reliable, secondary source is in a better position of authority to summarize the Reception than Metacritic (e.g., Knight_Lore#Reception). The Metacritic summary is certainly better than nothing, though.

    ... I think it's better to exclude this phrase from titles that don't have a clear average score on Metacritic (i.e. falls below the four review threshold.)

    Metacritic describes the reception qualitatively (with words), which is much more helpful to a reader than saying it quantitatively "averaged 74 out of 100 across 34 [mostly irrelevant] reviews"—the point is to write for a general audience. You can also link to WP:VGG#Reception in your edit summary, which covers most of what's been said above. czar 23:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

CoD WWII and "clean Wehrmacht"

Looking for more opinions on this edit. It's been reversed a few times but the editor keeps coming back. While I understand the premise, it seems a bit OR-y, as none of the sources about the game or the developer seem to be broaching the topic of the "myth of a clean Wehrmacht", so it's being shoehorned in a bit. -- ferret (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that it has reliable references for what it says, the way it's been done is wrong. It's using non-neutral language like "...propaganda myth...", "Sledgehammer falsely claimed...", "...did indeed commit horrific war crimes". It could possibly be added in a different form, but the current tone is wrong. It's a subject that only needs the briefest of mentions in this article, we have numerous other articles that cover the subject better than a single line in a press release about a video game. Alternatively stick to the core fact, just say The Wehrmacht are the only playable part of the German army, and lose the attempt to explain who was and wasn't a Nazi. - X201 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Would you be willing to take a stab at that, X201? I agree with what you're driving towards, but don't want the edit history to be "me vs the IP". -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I've just been knocking it around, and I think I've got a way to solve it. But lunch is first on the list. - X201 (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The IP's edits constitute WP:OR indeed. I've reverted (naturally pending X201's suggested change). --Izno (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Done, hopefully that will cover it. The big point was that The second quote attributed to Schofield, about making a distinction between SS and Wehrmacht, wasn't in the given ref. - X201 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Dead by Daylight

I'd like to request assistance at this article. I just had to remove some WP:GAMECRUFT that some IPs added over the months and I'm currently having trouble looking for more, although I do notice a section that violates WP:NOTAGUIDE. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The gameplay description is excessive for a game not widely renowned. The setting also seems a bit long, and probably should not be divorced from both gameplay and plot (as in, pick one for the setting to live in). The reception and development need to be expanded. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion concerning Blue Dragon

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blue Dragon (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure this Wikiproject was okay with the rename as it had carried Blue Dragon as a primary topic and a GA. Thanks. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Article question

Hi there. I'm thinking of doing some editing work and expansion on the article for Monolith Soft, but I don't know of any equivalent GA article resources upon which to model my work. Can anyone point me to a company GA article I can use for reference. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

--PresN 17:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
CD Projekt is GA. -- ferret (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
PlatinumGames, Turtle Rock Studios, Avalanche Studios. GamerPro64 17:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, I'll have to keep this thread in mind - I too have thought of improving some company articles, but was unaware of any good comparison ones either. It seems there are plenty out there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep, check the "Industry and development" section of WP:VG/GA for more, there's a few more indie developers with GAs as well. and Thatgamecompany is an FA, though it's an indie studio as well. --PresN 17:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, this is beyond any responce I thought I'd get. I've already got sources to help thoroughly boot some of the more ridiculous stories about Monolith's work on Xenosaga (also been working on them), and the rest is much more straightforward, and now much simpler. Thank you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It'll be interesting to see what you come up with. Xenosaga is one of those topics for me where, its hard to keep straight what I've read from RSs, and what's unverified stuff I've just read through scouring fansites, messageboards, etc. So it'll be interesting to see what you can verify through reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
AdrianGamer definitely seems like the guy to go to for advice on video game company articles, having brought most of those mentioned in this thread to GA, with nine under his belt so far (Turtle Rock, Avalanche, Insomniac, Obsidian, CD Projekt, Rare, Starbreeze, PlatinumGames, Bohemia). – Rhain 04:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, this reminds me that I have to go back to every one of these and update them... Anyway, company articles are quite fun and easy to write if you can find the right sources, which is hard. I have wanted to rewrite Frontier Developments and Remedy Entertainment for a long time but never did so because I was never able to find a piece that covers their history comprehensively. Anyway, good luck on Monolith and I will definitely check it out if you bring it to the GAN queue. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete blocked users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Video games. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we delete perma-blocked users off the list? – NixinovaT|C⟩ 20:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I was about to say "only the indeffed" users since the title seemed ambiguous, but I have to agree. They can't contribute if they're indeffed. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Indefinite is not infinite. It would be reasonable to move them to an "inactive" list if you notice them. --Izno (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I mean, yes, technically true, but a vast majority don't come back from an indef block. I don't see an issue in removing them. We wouldn't be banning them from being on the list or members - they can always re-add themselves if they did happen to return. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Why do we have a list? If it's for mailings, we have a newsletter subscription list. If it's for community affiliation, we have a userspace category. Seems like the only purpose of the list is to collect junk. czar 23:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    The same can be said of that category--the list however isn't subject to the latest whims of WP:User pages. Someone interested in contacting a project member (rather than the project as a whole) might reasonably use that list to select a user to contact. --Izno (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    I mean, I think the list could be useful, if it was anywhere near representative of us. As is, with all these people who haven't edited in years (or literally can't due to blocks), it makes it look like there's hundreds of us, when in reality, there's more like 15-20 core members around here. I'm not saying scale it down to that, but it seems like there could be some middle ground on who is listed. I don't mean to turn this into a big debate or anything though, I recognize it doesn't really matter much either... Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being a bit thick, but what list are we talking about? Are we talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members? or some other list? - X201 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess I don't know what the list gains us. It's massively out of date, many common editors of the project aren't there, etc. What does it provide that a link to a category of user pages wouldn't? Double maintenance of the same thing in my eyes. -- ferret (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I just noticed that the automatically updated one is based on making at least two edits to WikiProject-area pages and discussions within a 90-day period, excluding bots - that's far better than we could ever realistically hope to maintain manually, and cuts way down on all the types who "Edited video game articles for a month in 2012 and then left forever" types that plague the manually built list, so I'm completely fine with this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - an automatic list is much better than un-maintained list of mostly drivebys from years gone by. --PresN 16:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Same as above. -- ferret (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Automation is better than adding things manually. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Nomader (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirected as per the consensus above; revert if you really disagree (but be prepared to maintain the list yourself, then!) --PresN 16:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Infobox and episodic games

I would like to propose that for episodic games (eg anything Telltale , but not limited to them) that the only key release date is the release of the first episode for that platform - or if it is a complete package for later ports, the release of that full package. This avoids the mess at places like The Walking Dead (video game). These articles will generally have an episode table so that the individual release dates remain, but they don't need to be in the infobox, and the lede should have language like "the game was released between MMM YYYY and MMM YYYY with full versions for (platform) released in MMM YYYY". --MASEM (t) 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I had just made an edit regarding Minecraft: Story Mode and its massive staff listing in the infobox, where I also saw its release field was even worse than your example. We need dedicated infobox guidelines for these types of games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Could the .hack//G.U. be also part of this? The infobox fails to mention the second chapter.Tintor2 (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we should look at TV series infoboxes - write spans, like "January 1 – August 1, 2017".--IDVtalk 21:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We could but I would be concerned with less-experienced editors using that approach as an example to use on other articles where it would be inappropriate to have a range of dates. Maybe that's a bit of fear. There's also an alternative that's used at the main Telltale Games page in that table, were we could say (for example) "Release: January 1, 2017 (5 episodes, bimonthly)" even if the schedule is as rigorous as that, but I think that would cause edit wars too. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

When uploading non-free images (screenshots, cover art), please use {{Non-free no reduce}}

Any image over the totally arbitrary 100,000 pixel count guidelines at WP:IMAGERES (which is self described as "not a firm guideline") is being tagged automatically, without any real review, for reduction. The entire process of downscaling images now happens without any human oversight. In one case, the tagger does not even bother to study the image or how it's used in the article, instead just using a search to generate 2,000 images and clicking a checkbox after a glance. The uploaders are not notified.

When you do notice, and ask for images to be reverted, you are denied. This is even when the images are Sega Mega Drive games which cannot possibly output "high resolution" images. These are images which have been rev-deleted so you require admin rights.

This whole process is bullshit, I trust the uploaders here have a lot more experience in the subject matter and Wikipedia's image use policies than some drive by, so I recommend you all use the {{Non-free no reduce}} tag. At least then, when you do get a drive by, they will have to contest the image and you will get a notification. - hahnchen 10:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Can you make the reversions requested at User_talk:Ronhjones#Revert_these_reductions. - hahnchen 10:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You appear to be forum shopping and canvassing. Stop that. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this automatically handled by a bot anyway? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
DatBot hasn't touched non-free images since July. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Grimoire: Review Summaries Dispute

Hello, can some uninvolved editors please evaluate the discussion at Talk:Grimoire:_Heralds_of_the_Winged_Exemplar? The dispute is about the misrepresention of three game reviews by citing only the criticisms and leaving out key areas of information. Towards the end of the discussion is a proposal for a neutral summary of the conclusions of those reviews. LadyError (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Jin Kazama

I have been trying to get information for Jin Kazama's creation section since other users made the reception huge. However, I barely have have three small paragraphs of decent creation. In my search I found this image which appears to even have comments from the main voice actor as well a Tekken 3 article which is sadly in Japanese. Any idea? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Should Drafts be reviewed to be moved into article space?

I apologize to interrupt the project, but I would just like to suggest that Drafts video games should be reviewed, so that it is decided if they will become articles or deleted. Should this message be accepted, would the drafts be reviewed weekly? Sinecode30 (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing drafts is what WP:AFC does. That said, we weekly get a list of new drafts (Along with articles, redirects, etc) and often times take a look at them -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this is the job of WP:AFC and their normal review process. As you can see above this thread, Salavat informs us of video game articles weekly, which includes drafts. It gives us an opportunity to improve the drafts alongside their original creators in preparation for the AFC review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Jackbox Games

I've already discussed this on the article's Talk page, but this article needs some heavy copyediting. While I've been welcoming most IP edits on this article, several of their edits were written in very poor English. I managed to copyedit some paragraphs in the section about The Jackbox Party Pack 4, but there might still be some more to copyedit. I also had to remove a paragraph temporarily pending a rewrite and possible WP:GAMECRUFT check. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I would think that the Party Packs would be notable enough for articles on their own-- they've had some pretty significant coverage individually. I'll take a look and see what I can do. Nomader (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Academic paper about video gaming has been retracted

A heads up: Please see It seems to be a fairly complicated issue, please read the article carefully. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't think it would affect anything I've particularly ever written, but its interesting nonetheless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Sergecross73 it may be worthwile keeping an eye out for further developments around the issue and perhaps add something about it to the First-person shooter article. The withdrawn paper was apparently influential in the industry. I'm unfortunately completely out of my depth here, the only shooter game I ever played with any regularity was Space Invaders way back in the early 1980s, on an Atari machine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Why was List of Pac-Man video games merged with Pac-Man (series)?

I haven't brought this up anywhere else, but I've worked on a number of VG lists and I think it'd be good for a consensus to be built on this topic. I feel that list games should be exhaustive, detailed lists even going down to spin-off games, while series articles should instead focus on thematic themes and the series over time. Is it worth it for us to have these separate list articles or should they be moved as this one was? I haven't been able to find the previous discussion on it if it was discussed at all.

Pinging @Iftekharahmed96: on this as well as he did the move. Nomader (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know, I wouldn't have made that move. It's clearly in list format. It really seems like the original name of List of Pac-Man games would be more appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we have a pretty long-standing consensus that tables of games/spin-off games/media are at "List of X games/media" titles, while "X (series)" titles are as you say for prose discussions of the series or franchise as a whole and its real world/industry effects. As such, I don't think this should have been moved. --PresN 15:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Though if the list and/or prose part is short enough, they should be kept in the same article (eg Monster Hunter). The Pac-Man game, however, is definitely not short and a standalone list makes more sense. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know why they keep moving Lists to series articles. They did the same with the Space Invaders list before: List of Space Invaders video games. It was brought here as well previously so I reverted it. Series articles should not contain exhaustive lists. An admin needs to revert this one back as the redirect page is preventing move back. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • With there already being 4-5 people opposed to this move, I've moved it back to the original location. Ifte, it'll be up to you to garner a consensus in order to move forward with ever implementing this move. (Or any similar moves, really, as it seems like most are opposed in a general sense as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
A little late for this don't you think? pretty sure my changes for the List of Space Invader games/List of Pac-Man games were reverted and was left to that. I don't see why a discussion about this had to be made? I never reverted it back. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Iftekharahmed96: It was moved back today, so no, it's a current topic. -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Even so, an edit war was never made out of it so I still don't understand the purpose of the discussion? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Um, you moved it in May, this discussion was held today, and then after the discussion it was moved back. The question was if you wanted to add on to the discussion on the opposing side; it doesn't sound like you do. --PresN 18:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there's official means to distinguish a "List of Space Invaders games" article, and a "Space Invaders (series)" article then I don't see why I should be opposed to enforced rules. That'd be counterproductive on my part as a Wikipedia editor. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I brought it up because it had been that way for a few months now-- it actually hadn't been reverted. I think it's good establish precedent and procedures for this kind of thing before I unilaterally moved it back and figured you might want to argue for keeping the move in place, hence bringing it up here first instead. Nomader (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Slow motion video games is up for deletion

Opinions wanted here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Evo 2017#Question regarding the removal of results

Please take a moment to comment on the discussion at the above link. (Please keep the discussion specific to the article in question. I would like, at a later date, to discuss tournament brackets as a guideline or policy item, but that page is not the place to do that.) --Izno (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

These kinds of discussions would be even more interesting to have about articles like The International 2017 and DreamHack Open Austin 2016, which go much further than the fighting game tournaments do. Not an 'other stuff exists' argument, it's just that the tables and brackets in MOBA and shooter games bother me, and I don't even understand them. ~Mable (chat) 08:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
What's your issue with them, specifically The International (Dota 2)? You don't need to know anything about Dota to understand that a team who won two games of a best-of-three series advanced in the playoffs. Nowhere on the these articles does it state heavy in-game info, such as what heroes were used for each match, which they do on the EVO article. All of the bracket information is sourced directly from the official event website, and plenty of third-party sources report on this as well. I just fail to see how it's potentially any worse that something like the 2014 FIFA World Cup article, which is just a bloated mess of numbers, colors, and names. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Looking at The International 2017, the "Teams" section and "Winnings" sections are fine. As someone with little experience with sports, the other tables in the article are fairly complex, though. More importantly, this is all much more detailed than what is used in fighting game tournament articles. By comparison, Evo 2017 only features the "Winnings" table and describes everything else in prose. Of course, both are a hundred times easier to understand than the FIFA one you just linked. Jesus. ~Mable (chat) 18:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

All the 411Mania game reviews pre-August 2017 have vanished!

I have bad news. When I was trying to find a 411Mania review for Battlefield 1943, it suddenly vanished without a trace. In fact, all of the 411Mania media reviews pre-August 2017 (including the game reviews) have vanished, and none of them have ever appeared in the 411Mania search since then. I've been trying to find an archived 411Mania link for the game that looks like the dead link shown here, but I can't find it. Does anyone know where the archived 411Mania link is? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost forgot: Here's the link for the search for 411Mania shown here. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Simplify the Wayback URL: [6]. That way, at least, I was able to find the requested BF1943 review at [7]. Though I would rather consider removing 411mania's reviews and coverage, as it has not been checked by our RS board. The review for BF1942, even, had my Antivirus to notice (though I'm not using Norton!). Lordtobi () 19:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I see no reason to consider this site a reliable articulation of fact (about us) czar 19:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thirded. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Fourthfted. No staff, no author pages, no editorial team, no publisher, no review policy or fact-checking policy and the about us page is very uninspiring. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the wrestling project knows better, because it is in 1600+ articles. I think this search of 250 some odd articles should be scrubbed, regardless of the other 1300. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

An article about a mod for Skyrim is being considered for merging into the Skyrim main article. Any willing individuals that can help reach a consensus can review the proposal at Talk:The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Proposed merge with Enderal. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've closed this as not done. Feel free to let me know if you disagree though. I've done some expansion of Enderal, nothing massive, but integrated 8 sources right off the bat, with 5-6 actual reviews still in refideas for integration, and tons more available. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request at Guild Wars 2

If anyone is willing to review the edit request at Talk:Guild Wars 2, please do so. I am unsure of how to handle this request at this time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Responded. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shadowgun Legends

I started a discussion at Talk:Shadowgun Legends about the article Shadowgun Legends itself. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Creation Club

Hello. I have started a new article on Creation Club. Please edit the article as you see fit. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Good (maybe old) news

It seems that 1UP's robots.txt exclusions have been edited since I last checked, and the Wayback archives are live again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Very nice, let's hope it lasts this time.--IDVtalk 12:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Wayback is choosing not to observe robots.txt where it is obvious that the website in question is not in good faith blocking certain pages from being indexed (i.e., 1UP and its ban of just about any crawler but Google's). --Izno (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Are we okay to rerun IABot on affected pages now? I just ran the bot yesterday on my entire watchlist and I'm unsure if I should rerun it again. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I actually checked on 1UP on wayback earlier and this didn't happen. Great news. Thanks for the heads up, Jimmy. GamerPro64 15:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ref ideas for Universe Sandbox

Hello again. Richard3120 and I have raised concerns about the status of the Universe Sandbox article (i.e. not enough sources), and since I myself do not have time to use the search engine to find sources, perhaps someone else can use WP:VG/SE to find references to use in the article? Hope this helps the both of us. Face-smile.svg jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I also provided some general VG guideline fixes, but I have to ask if we should be using the video game infobox instead of the software one? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the original authors used the software infobox since they thought the game was more of a software than an actual video game. Pinging Galodw13 as both the author of the article as well as the user who added the Infobox. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It would just be cleaner with the video game infobox, as stuff like version numbers are considered WP:GAMECRUFT, and the dedicated staff field would look much better with everybody in their proper roles instead of all grouped together. I just don't see any benefit to using the software infobox here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Characters of the Yakuza series

With the amount of attention, announcements, and releases the Yakuza series has gotten this year, it makes the most sense to bring back the characters page. I have also added a section for it in the Yakuza series page - the page looks incomplete without it considering how character-driven each and every single installment has been. It's taken a very long time to put the Characters pack back into shape and I haven't even finished it yet. For those of you familiar, please just help me complete it by taking away all of the ( − ) still left on the page but please don't come here to say that a Characters page is not necessary. It is. Osh33m (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The question is what coverage the characters as a separate entity have received. It's fine to merge limited content to the series page—no one objects—but it's not okay to keep a large tome of a page when you've shown no significant coverage to warrant its split from the series article. Third opinions would be useful in the existing section on the article's talk page: Talk:Characters of the Yakuza series. I'm not interested in re-litigating. czar 14:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There's no need to merge content when there is already so much content there, seeing as how there are so many characters already and I'm not interested in hearing about "other stuff exists" because I see it as nothing more than a copout for this page not being needed; there's no reason not to keep it and as for sources, the sources are the games themselves, playing through them will give you the information detailed in the wikipedia page. It seems as if the argument is that the Characters page shouldn't be allowed simply because the Yakuza series is less important than other series, and therefore requires less coverage. And I disagree. Osh33m (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you disagree. If the sourcing hasn't improved and you don't garner a change in consensus, it isn't happening. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I walked this article over to AFD and we crossed wires in the middle. Now listed at WP:Articles for deletion/Characters of the Yakuza series. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting assistance at Super Mario 64 DS

Both myself and PlyrStar93 have been trying to suppress a vandalising IP on this article, with the concern in question being both the infobox and the lead. I've already sent a report to Serge's Talk page. Any further assistance will be much appreciated. Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

See the comment I left you in response to your request for help. The edits really aren't outright vandalism, just misguided, and you guys aren't really explaining the specific issues very well... Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (11 August to 18 August)

11 August

12 August

13 August

14 August

15 August

16 August

17 August

18 August

Salavat (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Hellblade_Senua's_Sacrifice looks like it is deliberately a translation and needs to be moved to es.WP given that we have a fairly well-developed article at Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. Not exactly sure who I can ping about that though. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I've tagged Merchant Prince (video game) for A7 speedy, but I could not find an applicable section in A7 where it could apply. Anyone want to replace the speedy delete template with a specific template from A7 that would fit the criteria? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jd22292: Video games can not be A7d. The reason you could not find an appropriate section is because one does not exist. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting assistance at Mr. Pumpkin Adventure

Article was PROD'ded but article creator removed it. The article creator accused me of being on a tyrannical power trip, but I don't think the article is notable. I don't want to seem like I am trying to quash all newbies, and the article does have some sources, but not enough in my opinion. If someone agrees with me, then they can AFD the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:BEFORE and used WP:VG/SE to see if sources exist? I'll go ahead and make the AFD, but will have to withdraw if sources are produced and no Delete votes come in. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I also noticed that the creator violated a big rule of speedy deletion and removed a G11 tag himself when he wasn't supposed to. I would revert this change if I was able to, but I just can't seem to find which revision it was removed. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I did try WP:BEFORE prior to attempting to speedy delete it, and do not believe it has sufficient sources for GNG, otherwise I would have deprodded it due to WP:ASSERTN. He later denied it but at the time I speedied it, it read kind of like an ad "this critically acclaimed video game" without citing any sources for that claim. Especially since when you actually look at the reviews it's not really "critically acclaimed" and has mixed reviews.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC) links are dead?

A week back, I had run IABot on pages I watch, including LittleBigPlanet 2. Today, using AWB to find dead links, I noticed the Edge Magazine references on said page, both, were tagged dead. Can anyone confirm if the links produce a 404? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PES 2018

Hello, fellow editors! I'm currently in a war with TDLWH (1) because he thinks that adding "officially" before the release date in the article is necessary as it was written in the article when it was made (2) because almost anyone can make a parody, imitation or an unoriginal version of the game before the original one releases so the users know which one is official and which one is not (3) and people or other companies can make games using the same name. I told him to learn the wikipedia rules first and about the copyright thing, that no company can use its trademark of the actual copyright holder or otherwise the owner can sue them but he doesn't listen to me and uses aggressive language as he did with Ferret and Sergecross73 before (check his edit history). I admit that I too lost my temper but I don't want to fight anymore and want the opinions of other editors. Thanks in advance! ☺ Pure conSouls (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, please try to de-escalate edit wars if possible or you may find yourself blocked even if you are in the right. I do think you are correct but it is up to you not to be an equally disruptive party as the other editor. You can create a topic in the talk page and gather consensus if it gets reverted, instead of going back and forth.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reviews are dead?

In relation to the section above, I notice several pages on my Watchlist have several links tagged as dead as well. Can anyone confirm if this is the case or if the 1UP site is just down in some parts? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See ModNation Racers for an example. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. They've been down for years. Now is the time to start getting those archives from the Wayback Machine. And, for my recommendation, archive the Wayback links with to preserve those in case 1UP archives die again. GamerPro64 01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC) is up right now, and at least the reviews linked on the front page work for me. It's true that there have been issues with it for years, but it hasn't been down non-stop.--IDVtalk 01:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, while the main home page is up, the search feature isn't functioning, therefore making it impossible to recover dead reviews from older titles. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Use Metacritic, they have links that you can paste to --Mika1h (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 32: It's September!

Now here's a thread that hasn't been made since February. Let's get started:

Peer Reviews

And, of course, we have the Requests board. We are almost done with 2014 and 2015 so if anyone wants to help with anything from the listings, take part. GamerPro64 05:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've started the GA review for Somari. If anyone wishes to comment further on the review, they may do so at the review page. This is also my first GA review, so if anyone wishes to comment on how I did or am doing during the process, please do so on my Talk page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, as much as I wanted to keep my requests open on the Wikipedia Requests tool on WMFLabs, I've decided to move them to the board where hopefully they'll be reviewed faster. Please review my requests for Party Panic, Lupinball, Decksplash, and Ultimate Chicken Horse. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Small alert

Hi. I've just finished creating an article for Moonlight Syndrome, a notable game from Goichi Suda. I've taken it as far as I'm interested in taking it. If anyone else wants to tinker with it or take it further, they're welcome. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks great after a quick skim through, well done. The only issue I immediately spotted was "Famitsu gave the game a score of 26 points out of 40", review numbers like this shouldn't belong in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice work. Doesn't each "chapter" have a different set of writer/programmer/composer? That's what my manual says. I can't edit the article now but it's on my watchlist so once I beat the first two TS games I can play this one then review the article closely. (started up the first today, only played the DS game so far). TarkusABtalk 00:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • For what its worth, my gamerip soundtrack has Kouji Niikura tagged as a co-composer, but I couldn't find any staff credits or soundtrack to confirm this for the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes Kouji Niikura (6 chapters) and Chiharu Sugiyama (4 chapters) are the only ones credited for "Sound design" in the official manual. Masafumi Takada is not listed in there. TarkusABtalk 09:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Digital Collectable Card Games - own genre?

In considering games like Hearthstone and the like where the product originated in digital form and may happen to have a physical one, in contrast to something where the physical card game got a digital equivalent (like Magic the Gathering Online), I'm having some issues with a few editors at Collectible card game about keeping information about Hearthstone, etc there.

The easiest thing to resolve it is if digital collectible card games could be its own article as a VG genre. I think it can but I'd like to get opinions before rushing off to make an article about it. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I think an article for this should be made too. My only question at the moment would be the actual name of it. The article could be under a variety of different names, here are some ones that could work:
  1. Digital collectable card game
  2. Digital card game
  3. Collectable digital card game (probably my preference)
  4. Collectable computer card game
  5. Computer collectable card game
  6. Computer card game ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe it was purely OR, but I always figured TCG = actual paper cards (Yu-Gi-Oh, MTG, Pokemon), and CCG = digital, non-tradeable cards (PokémonTCG on GB, Hearthstone, Gwent, ESL, etc.) I thought this was a generalized perspective. Ben · Salvidrim!  02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • CCG has been used before computerized games to describe MTG. TCG/CCG are generally interchangeable to describe the paper versions. The "collectable" part makes more sense for computers because there's almost zero trading involved with these games.
  • I'm not thrilled on "Digital card game" because that would include Solitare, etc. I'm thinking "Digital collectible card game" is the best, as it covers mobile, console, and computer, and distinguises for simple computerized card games (though such an article needs to provide the clarity between these). --MASEM (t) 18:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also to caution on "Collectible digital card game", in that that would describe a game like DropMix from Harmonix ([8]) where it is a physical game, and you do collect booster packs but includes an electronic/digital component to play. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

TechRadar as a source?

Someone added details about an announcement for The Witness (video game), and a quick look at WP:VG/RS shows nothing in regards to TechRadar, the source they used. Can anyone confirm whether this source is reliable enough for use? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think they're reliable. Their About US page shows they've got along running relationship with Future Publishing, and they've got a dedicated staff and an Editorial/Review policy posted too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
TechRadar is regularly referenced outside of video game spheres, and Sergecross's research seems reasonable. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Minor aside: Source reliability discussions are usually at the talk page of WP:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll just WP:BEBOLD and add it to the list. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added the site to RS, but it needs quicklinks, which I didn't have time to add. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Exclusive categories

What is the consensus on "exclusive" categories? If the game was ported from the arcade to a single home platform, does it belong in the console-exlusive category? Asking because I was recently reverted at Category:Dreamcast-only games and a bunch of other articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I thought console-only games implies it is not available on any other platform, including arcade. Do we really need these categories anyway? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I thought so too. And really, if you're making exceptions like this, the categories lose their meaning. Given that, I'm not sure that these categories are needed anyway. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      • "The only exception to this rule is when a game has been ported from the arcade directly to the Dreamcast." Smells like WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me. That said I do think those categories ARE useful because it can be handy to know when something is console-exclusive so I would not support deleting them. Excluding arcades makes sense because they are extremely rare. So I think it's fine as the categories are currently organized.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Arcades are extremely rare? Nowadays sure, but this also applies to games released in the 1980s and 90s, in which that isn't the case. And just because a category is helpful, doesn't give it immunity from being deleted. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • If arcades are indeed to be excluded, then the categories should at least be renamed to something like "Dreamcast console exclusives" etc. Names like "Dreamcast-only" implies that arcade versions do not exist, which is just blatantly false. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting neutral help with US National Video Game Team article

Hello, I am a new editor here and I am afraid I have fallen into a bit of an edit war. I now realize I should have reached out for help much earlier.

  • The article in question is U.S. National Video Game Team. There is quite a lot of back and forth between me and an anonymous editor. Clearly mistakes have been made on both sides of the issue but we both appear to want a neutral party to come to the aid of the article. I have made some final notes in the bottom of the talk page. Talk:U.S. Nation Video Game Team.
  • The dispute has spilled over into an article for a former team member Carrie Swidecki. Any help there would be much appreciated as well.

datagod (talk) 🍁 17:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The best solution in this case is to discuss. This looks more like a content dispute than an actual request for editors to fix changes. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Malinaccier has protected the article while the warring parties calmly discuss the issues. Any uninvolved editor can also chime in on the Talk page, but there also seems to be a similar issue between both editors on another related article, Carrie Swidecki. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there some blowup a year or so ago about re: the same Twin Galaxies-related COI editing? I can't find it and don't remember what became of it, but this isn't the first time czar 17:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, you're right. There was definitely some sort of big commotion going on with this article a few years back, though I don't recall what it was... Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, well, don't have to be on the train to see the trainwreck ;) Perhaps it was that or just that this is the third or fourth time across various related articles I've seen this circle bring its infighting to Wikipedia (2014, [9], etc.) czar 18:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Madden 18's Longshot mode

Over the past few days, I've been trying to write about Madden NFL 18's new Longshot story mode (the first such mode in the series). However, since the story is so long (just cutscenes take up about 2-3 hours – even longer than major motion pictures), the plot summary I attempted to write is quite large. I would consider condensing it, but it's pretty hard to do so without removing crucial plot details and is split into multiple acts, so I was considering splitting it into its own article. I've run across some good reliable sources that focus on Longshot itself rather than the game, but I'm still pretty iffy on creating a separate article. Here is a link to what I have so far (assuming it remains just a section of the game article). Thoughts? ZappaMati 01:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Splitting a game's storyline into a separate article? Is there even another example of this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    No. --Izno (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing big copyedit opportunities. We can probably get this down to 1000 words, easy. --Izno (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    (And of course, take into account WP:MOSFILM's 700 word guidance. There's almost definitely fluff in your plot. Either way, get that moved to mainspace and then we can trim it there! --Izno (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above; the summary listed is a scene-by-scene description, which is a good start, but a true summary of the story can be much shorter. WP:FILMPLOT asks for 400-700 words for an entire movie; while WPVG isn't beholden to that, even complicated RPG storylines can be condensed to 3-5 paragraphs. --PresN 02:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I did some preliminary trimming before moving it into Madden NFL 18#Plot. After my cutting down, I was able to get it down to about 815 words. I suppose I can say my effort was quite a longshot. ZappaMati 03:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Neighbor alpha builds

Hi everyone,

Does Hello Neighbor (video game) give to much weight on its alpha builds? I'm not sure if it's necessary to give detailed descriptions of a work in progress, which might be very different when it comes out. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The game's notable, but given how little I've seen of the incremental builds, that should be removed. It's fine to note when alpha and beta testing started. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I started a review of Bullfrog Productions several days ago, but the nominating editor decided to retire from Wikipedia yesterday. I'm looking to see if anyone else wants to pick up this article and make a few minor changes to get it to GA status. It's really close, so I don't want to fail it, but we can't leave it open forever. You can see my review comments here:Talk:Bullfrog Productions/GA1. Thanks! Doctor (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed the status of the review to Second Opinion to help get a new reviewer. GamerPro64 19:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! @Izno: offered to make the corrections and as soon as he is done, I think I can pass it. Doctor (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (19 August to 25 August)

19 August

20 August

21 August

22 August

23 August

24 August

25 August

Salavat (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • All IP creations in this list were reverted back to a redirect. None of them had enough sources to establish notability. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The Talespin game creates a new situation. We have TaleSpin (video game) which the 1991 game by Radiance Software + Others for three different platforms (same effective game), while the new one above is Capcom's for NES but also released in 1991. Can't use the year to disambiguate, and having multiple platforms makes the first one difficult to find a simple title. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Both articles appear rather stub-esque. Wouldn't it be reasonable to just merge them together (e.g. "List of TaleSpin video games", or keep at first article's name)?
This could either be merged as proposed, or if the Sega and Capcom games both have enough coverage, convert TaleSpin (video game) to an WP:SIA linking to TaleSpin (Sega) and TaleSpin (Capcom) and mentioning the article-less TaleSpin (NEC) (unless the latter also has enough sources for a standalone). Ben · Salvidrim!  17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't TaleSpin (Capcom video game) and TaleSpin (Sega video game) be preferred? ~Mable (chat) 08:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yea, judging by the infamous Aladdin precedent and because it's multimedia, you would be correct. Ben · Salvidrim!  15:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just minor note but Draft:Spiel Times is essentially spam, created by the site's owner, and he's been reverted all week for adding that site to various articles. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just an FYI for anyone interested. This weeks New articles post will be a couple of days late as I'll be away in Melbourne hopefully watching the Perth Thunder win the Goodall Cup. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Importance of Jin Kazama

I think I'm done with expanding Jin Kazama's article considering it now has 90 references. However, in the reception section, a lot of journalists listed him as one of the most popular Tekken characters as well as fighting game characters often rivaling Terry Bogard and Ryu. Does this qualify that Jin could become a mid-importance category character? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

He easily qualifies as a Mid-importance character, and I'd say the characterization of him as one of the most well-known fighting game characters is correct. I'm going to take the initiative and change it because I doubt people would disagree on that point.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do that.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Fighting character advice

I have been working on Jin Kazama but I'm not sure what to do regarding his altergo, Devil Jin, who has his own section. Is it necessary like in Akuma (Street Fighter)'s Oni or should it become merged into the appearances section like Ryu (Street Fighter)'s Evil Ryu? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Oni section in Akuma's article is very crufty. It depends on how much you can cite it with reliable sources, if there are many examining Devil Jin you may want to make a separate section.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Video game engine navboxes

Hi everyone,

I might've asked this before, but are navboxes based upon video game engines useful? See Category:Video game engine templates. They list the games the engine is used in, like Template: LyN games, three completely different games. Does that pass WP:NAVBOX? And to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF remark, the engines are used only in a handful of games (Template:Titan Engine games, Template: Riot Engine games), there aren't any navboxes on, say, the Unity or Unreal engines. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like most of these are stretching the usefulness of navboxes. Engine is not really by default a group of related items. The relation here is fairly arbitrary as having the same engine doesn't really mean much most of the time. It's possible some of these are actually related, because the engine is such that it makes the games share common characteristics. For example, point-and-click engines are commonly such and you can instantly tell when they are using the same engine. But things like Unity or GameMaker or whatever are absolutely arbitrary. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems pretty arbitrary. Categories would make sense, navboxes don't. And some engines would be nigh impossible to make navboxes for.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If a game engine has a recognized "identity", there may be value in a navbox like that, but if it's as arbitrary as Unity, then I can't say it's worth having a navbox. It may depend on the relation between the engine and the game design. I don't feel like giving a hard opinion one way or another. Does it make sense to tie Drakan, The Suffering, and this Lord of the Rings game together in one navbox? Seeing as the engine is hardly mentioned in any of the articles, I'd say maybe not. ~Mable (chat) 11:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaming computer overlap with enthusiast computing

I feel like these articles should be merged. Gaming computer seems like the better target, since use of a high end PC as an enthusiast is pretty much linked with gaming, and is generally a subset of people who make gaming PCs. However, I'd like people's opinions on whether it merits a merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A good piece of advice from

on breaking the "outrage cycle"

We here should only be careful to discuss outrage towards a game if that outrage is the actual story, rather than recognize that it is players complaining in a loud manner that may or may not have long-term relevance. It's reasonable to highlight were there is review bombing in the review bomb article, for example, but unless there's long-term elements of those specific cases that drastically affect the game's sales/etc. we should avoid inclusion even if we can source the outrage, or at least wait to see if that's a key issue (ala the No Man's Sky aspect). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where covering negative response to a game would be undue (Which I assume is the kind of guideline that applies here) and needlessly harmful? ~Mable (chat) 14:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The example they give that works appropriately is the change of Shaders (things that allow you to apply new color schemes to armor) in Destiny 2 to a one-time consumable from how they were permanent inventory in the first game. It effectively makes them part of the game's DLC/microtransaction system. A lot of players are upset about that, and there's been a lot of stories over the weekend towards that, but its peanuts in the larger scheme of the game, so we shouldn't cover it. Another example is for PUBG where there were players upset that the game introduced microtransactions prior to exiting early release, despite the developers stating they were using it to test their planned mcirotransaction system. That again, right now, is peanuts to the otherwise explosive growth of the game, and we shouldn't cover it. The reviewing bombing of DOTA 2 following Laidlaw's "fanfic" of HL2Ep3's plot is similar - it is not about DOTA2, who it shouldn't be there, but it is part of the HL series annd an example of review bombing. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is basically already the case on Wikipedia, with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. In any case, the "outrage cycle" is essentially just another form of clickbait. I think the editors of the websites in question are quite cognizant that it hurts game developers and do it anyway, because it helps them get more views when there's an emotional headline like "Gamers enraged about X!"ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You'd think it would be common sense under UNDUE but it's not. First, we're not talking about forums or reddit posts or the like where the outrage is documented but in our RSes. Some see that if it s reported this way by RSes, it should be included, particularly if it is widely covered. It's also a problem in WP in general, more commonly on news events, which is very very difficult to get editors to turn around, and that problem at the larger level (as Sergecross points out) seeps downward. It's best that we keep this in mind within the VG scope since VG outrage cycles tend to be spontaneous and very loud when they happen, in contrast to other areas. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but it is really an uphill, constant battle, across a lot of articles, and sadly, the regulars around here who are most likely to see this, probably aren't the ones that need that reminder, as much as the editors that come to vent their rage towards particular games or companies for these insignificant minor issues. Still, an interesting read, thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It is a difficult balance to strike, but I'll be sure to put more thought into it from now on. ~Mable (chat) 18:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The source's lesson is more an appeal for game journalists to not feed outrage culture in their clickbait headlines than to not cover predatory behavior altogether. If "gamers angry" covered in the course of a piece on D2's shaders—as I would hope it would be—it should be an element of the "shader changes" story, not vice versa. And we would give the "gamers angry" proportional weight (read: not more than a sentence). Our lesson, as I see it, is that clickbait articles (low-quality reposting of Reddit shitposts with a captivating title) are often non-stories only worth single-sentence mentions on WP, not dedicated sections or entire articles, despite the length of the source. czar 20:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
For us, it should be more about patience when we see even non-clickbait coverage of outrage issues. The shaders stuff with Destiny 2 seems to be more click-baity ("hey, here's a problem with this game that just came out!") than compared to my example of the PUBG over microtransactions, since they game's been out a while. I haven't chosen to add that issue to the PUBG article because it is a situation to see how it resolves, and right now the resolution was but a whimper compared to the rest of the game's critical success, so I likely won't ever add it. This article may speak to journalists to avoid click-bait type coverage, but for us that means we shouldn't rush to include an outrage just because it got covered by a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability for Parascientific Escape: Cruise in the Distant Seas

I hesitate to nominate this for deletion as it's a well written article about a recent game, but its notability appears highly suspect. Brash Games is an unreliable source, and Digitally Downloaded is not listed but very dubious, considering their unusually low review score in comparison to the reliable and well vetted Nintendo Life. Even assuming Broken Joysticks is fine that only leaves a couple of reviews, not passing the WP:GNG threshold for significant mentions. I'd like to get a second opinion, but if someone else agrees with this, then you might want to nominate for deletion, in which case I'd support it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I dug up one source and put it on the talk page. Unfortunately it was about all I found that might be useful. Almost every other hit is either Nintendolife or just background announcements of 3DS downloads or download metrics. I wonder if it might be salvaged as a series article and cover the other two sequels as well though? -- ferret (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Did a search for 超科学脱出 and found a whole bunch of Japanese sources for the series, including two Famitsu reviews. ([10], [11]). At the very least a series article should be doable.--IDVtalk 00:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel like I could put together an article for the series as a whole. I agree that the games lack a need for their own solo articles, so feel free to delete them if you believe that to be necessary, either before or after I've completed the series article. --Astralyu (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is the series article. I hope it is up to scratch, and please delete the solo articles if you wish. -- Astralyu (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Astralyu: Rather than deleting them, they should be redirected to the series article, so as to prevent anyone else from mistakenly creating articles from those redlinks.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:SCI Games stubs

Dawynn (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of gaming platforms

Looking for more opinions at Talk:Comparison of gaming platforms#Non-neutral efforts to compare PCs versus all consoles. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

All hands, we have a canvasing in progress. Please come to counterbalance the problem and check out the AFD. KIA Brigade Thread and PCMR Brigade Thread. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Ehhhhh you may want to reconsider that post, Zero Serenity, or you're going to have to waste a lot of time with "Well we're just doing what you did!" type time-wasting arguments when you accuse them of canvassing. It's not really canvassing, but they likely take the time to understand the difference. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it's important to note that all I was attempting to address was a new column being inserted. From there, people removed the PC row entirely (quite a bit premature IMO) and that kicked off reddit. I'm watching but neutral on the AFD at this time, as that wasn't my goal at all. I was just asking for more opinions originally on the new column, but you need to be careful of actual canvassing for an AFD like the above appears to do.... -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You misinterpret me. As much as I think the article is junk, I'd rather have more eyes on it that don't have a fairly obvious PCGMR thing going on. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Coin945 addditions to WP:VG/R

I think that the additions to WP:VG/R by Coin945 need addressing, as he has recently dumped a tremendous amount of obscure video games there despite the fact that we are still churning through his former list from 2014. In addition, the adding of dozens of sources for certain games, seems to be more disruptive than helpful, as that time could be spent actually making the article in question.

I feel like a Quid Pro Quo similar to DYK, where if you create an article you can request an article, might be warranted to prevent the back log from being impossible to tackle due to "data dumps" from trawling Mobygames for ancient, critically panned and not historically notable games that squeak past notability but were never added to Wikipedia for obvious, lack of interest reasons. It seems more like an a attempt to create a WP:DIRECTORY than in the spirit of "building an encyclopedia". A QPQ system would account for personal preference while still making the system manageable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of the additions with usable sources are fine, but its the spamming of ones with just a mobygames link to support or youtube videos that are a problem. They should be doing a better job to make sure that the GNG is likely to be met for these games rather than adding haphazardly. --MASEM (t) 12:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure this has come up before in the past. I don't understand why he doesn't see it as a problem. Just because you slam hundreds of article requests doesn't mean they're going to be made. It just makes the list more daunting, and hides away probably more pressing requests. Would support any form of limiting. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, he did say that "you can remove as you see fit" in edit summary, but that still places a certain burden of work on people to sort through them and also implies people need a good reason for removing them. Maybe instead of a strict QPQ there could simply be a restriction on how many requests a single user can post per year. That would prevent any single user from simply spamming requests as they are supposed to be for newbie users or people who aren't comfortable making articles yet, not people who want to offload work onto others.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Conceptually, I agree, but realistically, I don't know who is going to monitor and enforce this on a yearly basis. Daily or weekly limits would be easier to eyeball through watchlists and page histories. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately I do think some form of limiting should be done, as I believe the spirit of Requests is for people with conflicts of interest, or who may not know how to make a good article as opposed to simply contributing to one, to ask for a game. If you are an experienced editor, you should rarely if ever be posting requests, as you should simply be creating the article yourself or putting it on your own "to do" list. It's not a "job board" or a directive for the entire Wikiproject.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I still think such a list with a few sources is ultimately useful, but agreed that it clogs up the board. Perhaps there could be agreement that Coin list these on a subpage and the subpage be linked on WP:VG/R? Ben · Salvidrim!  20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Having something like "Coin's list of potentially notable redlinks" would definitely be an improvement. Although that is somewhat of a situational thing and doesn't address the potential for other people to do it. Perhaps adding a new rule like "if you are adding more than X (I think it should be 3) requests, consider making your own list in userspace and linking it here so it doesn't overshadow other potential requesters with fewer games, and keep in mind that the more requests you make the less likely any one of them will be done".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
[12] This is just spammy and shows no understanding of what are RS. There may be a couple in that list, but definitely not all of them. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone! Here's my two cents. The way I see it,when planning new articles it is better to have a research phase before a writing phase. This insures that there is a wealth of notable sources to access when writing the article. Why hide these sources in my private userpage when I can instead share them on this... "Requests page"... where perhaps someone seeking a new poroject of a challenge can find them?
  • It's also a nice place to put articles that I wish to work on in the future (in those moments when I can't create one right now but I want to later), as it is the "Requests page", and thematically linked to my desire to have those articles someday on Wikipedia. The requests section shouldnt be something to be 'cleared'. Games should constantly be added and removed. I'm not sure why Zxcvbnm wants to treat this like DYK. :) (P.S. I went back and removed the ones that were less notable, and only kept those that I found suitable sources for. The list can still be trimmed.)--Coin945 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I can easily put my link lists into these! --Coin945
  • True, but that still contributes to the backlog of the page. I think userfication is a better option, because it doesn't give the page a permanent backlog, that will likely not be finished. Having a permanent backlog is a bit demoralizing for anyone trying to edit the page as there are then no more goals to reach. It's obvious that it will never be 100% cleared for very long, but there's a difference.
Also, from my experience, there are not many people who are wiling to tackle your articles besides maybe myself. Most people shy away from them as they are very obscure. For example, very generic mobile games that are just barely notable, but with not much reference value. So I don't think your point that "people will see them and therefore do them" holds merit as people pick and choose depending on what article seems interesting to write.
You do have a point that linking them from WP:VG/R can potentially increase their visibility, so I wouldn't be opposed to that, in a separate section sort of way that isn't part of WP:VG/R proper, in a way that implies it isn't part of any backlog but rather a list created for reference purposes.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And when you do clear the page 100%, what then? Do you bar anyone from making further reuqests because it will taint the perfect percentage? And make the page lose the goal it had once reached? No, I don't think that's a logical way to think about the page at all... :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • P.S. I don't think it's your or any other Wikipedians' place to devalue a game due their own perception of it being "ancient, critically panned and not historically notable". The sources speak for themselves...--Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Zxcvbnm, the whole point of WP:VG/R is to "contribute to the backlog"!! Ben · Salvidrim!  05:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Coin945, Maybe just add the article and link through to a source list that is stored on a Userpage. Eg *The Sydney Mystery (Sources). Cleaner approach, makes the request page less cluttered but doesn't hide away your requests. Salavat (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In response to Coin945, no, I never suggested that I would lock the page when it reached 100%. That's a fallacious, slippery slope argument. "If we restrict the number of articles that can be suggested, inevitably no articles can be suggested!" Suggesting there cannot be any kind of middle ground. All that I am arguing is that a small group of users adding a massive amount of suggestions is, in essence, forcing their will on any other editors in the Wikiproject by making it more statistically likely that one of their desired articles will be created. It's technically allowed, but not really fair or helpful.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just curious, but how many requests there were actually taken from there and ended up as a well-written article? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Almost none. It's more of a stubbing service. And if an editor doesn't like the quality of the request (few links, bad case for notability), the reviewing editor has just as much right to remove an item from the list as someone does to add it. Also no one should feel like it's their responsibility to "clear" the "backlog"—the point is to group redlinks with potential on the same page as more a communal reference than a list of favors-in-wait. But on the point of "what to do": Coin does a lot of research on games on the cusp of Wikipedia's notability, so perhaps best to compile those on his own user subpage (perhaps linked from our Requests page) until an item has enough sources to propose to the group. I'll echo the above that many of the refs given for those proposed articles are unhelpful. If the source doesn't have editorial credibility (i.e., is some blog on the Internet not known for accuracy/reliability), don't even bother listing sources we should never use. czar 17:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd dispute that, pretty much all the articles I've seen made from requests are well edited, start-class articles, not stubs. But I digress, I think that the title "Requests" totally contradicts the notion that it's a "list of redlinks", a request is something you are expected to do, while a "list of links" is a reference resource. If that's really the case then maybe it should be split into a separate page on the Wikiproject, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/List of notable redlinks, that is more fitting for data dumps by researchers than users to ask for small numbers of articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:VG/Potential articles maybe? Ben · Salvidrim!  18:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That title also went through my mind too, though I felt like making it clear it was a permanent "list" to differentiate it from Requests, which are also technically "potential articles". But, I would not be opposed to that title either.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I can name at least three articles that came from the request boards that are now Good Articles. Including Throne of Fire which I did personally. If people put more effort into articles that are on the board instead of fulfilling requests there I think we'd be seeing more quality output. GamerPro64 18:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the "Requests" title as an issue since our page is really just an extension of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment#Video_games. As for whether good comes out of the page, there's nothing wrong with a project to stub a bunch of notable concepts, but the question was whether the Requests board produces well-written articles, and that isn't the object. (P.S. Didn't get the ping) czar 09:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
A surprising number have gone on to be articles, actually. A few years ago I ran through the entire list and pruned anything that had no hope of getting made & added potential reliable sources to the rest. Take a look at how many of the previous red links are now blue. Perhaps it's time for someone to do another cleanup of the page. Sam Walton (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I still think it would be relatively simple to just make a rule that says "Please don't add more than 5 in a week" or something. I don't think that would burden, or even affect, hardly anyone. Besides, adding massive lists isn't going to help these articles get created. Coin, you've already expressed disappointment in the past that the WikiProject doesn't have more interest in helping you in creating these old, obscure PC/edutainment type games, so you must realize this. Listing them out en-mass isn't going to change that. It's not increasing interest in the content area, it's just irritating editors trying to work through the list. Even if nothing comes of this, Coin, this isn't helping your cause, its hurting the efficiency of the system. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Alternatively, a rule that would apply equally to everybody, not to single out Coin's actions, is that any request must be accompanied by at least 2 sources that fall within our Sources list (past or present), or a RS otherwise defined by WP as a whole (to account for newspaper articles), and by not more than 5 sources; any additional sources can be documented on a user-space page. If we don't have any RSes, the request is largely going to go unfulfilled, and keeping the list tight to those that are RSes helps to focus on what the article should be about. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      • That would be better than nothing, but I'm also afraid that may cut down on the requests from the more casual/newbie/clueless requesters, and the board, if anything, is really more about their requests, because they're the ones who don't know how to make any article for themselves... Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
        Three sources should be the minimum for the list. Let the requesters put a little effort into it—not very hard either when placed next to the video game reliable sources custom Google search. More than five sources shouldn't be an issue either, if collapsed properly. Whether an editor wants to split out a source list into a draft is their own prerogative, but better in the meantime to combine source research in the same location. czar 03:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sergecross73, let me phrase the issue like this: I opten come across various games that have enough coverage to warrant articles. There are lots of them. Too many for me to make GA quality articles for each. I have two choices (I'm excluding the "ignore them" option), and I see option 2 as the better one:
    1. Make lots of stubs for a lot of games. Yeah... not such a good idea as the past has proven.
    2. Make a list of requests at the Requests page and add a bunch of sources for each, to increase their visibility and allow them to be made at a slwoer pace because all the legwork has been done already. --Coin945 (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Why exactly are you bound to these 2, and only these 2, options? Why not keep your own personal list? Why not add to the list at a slower rate than you currently do? Or a different solution? There's absolutely no reason why you need to limit it to this bizarre, black and white, all or nothing scenario. Look, it doesn't matter to me personally much, I rarely work off the requests board, because I've got a backlog of things of my own I want to create. But how you're handling yourself is clearly irritating others, and quite frankly, I doubt its being very beneficial to you either, as I imagine a vast majority of your suggestions are either just sitting there until eternity, or just being created by you in the end anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And even if they were just sitting there for a little while, then I'm not sure what the issue is. It is the "Requests" page. If there were no or few articles there I would be worried. But now there is a wealth of games to choose from, so anyone looking for a new project can easily find one. My effoprts are only being singled out because I seem to be the only person adding games to the list at the moemtn. But I think more people should. I think the longer the list, the better it is, because it demonstrates that there is still much more work to be done. Loads of notable games crying out for articles. This entire thread seems like a non-issue and I won't comment further because instead of talking, we all could have turned a few of the listed requests into articles.--Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    For my, the issue is that most of the sources you are providing for supporting the request nominations are not usable sources for starting the article. They fail to meet WP:VG/R or the general concept of reliable sources. Thus, you're providing possible targets but giving little help to a user looking to start one. On the other hand, providing at least 2 quality RSes from our sources list at least is nearly passing the minimum barrier for notability (it's not an assurance) so you've helped out an editor seeking to make an article on that prospective target, drastically increasing the likeliness that someone will want to create that article. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Download Only Playstation Games

There is a series of articles that I would describe as problematic. It's well intentioned, however on multiple occasions I've seen titles in here that do, in fact have a physical release. I've also in the past noted that several of the titles appeared to be speculative, at which point it would be impossible to tell if they will have such a release. The thing to do in a normal case like this would be to make sure that everything is sourced, but because this list is specifically about having a lack of a physical release no one is really going to report on this. I'm tempted just to send the whole thing over to AFD. Thoughts? --Deathawk (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on a similar topic for Switch games. Most people seem to agree that release formats (digital vs. physical) are not notable enough to include in WP, but it remains a divisive subject. TarkusABtalk 00:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Which lead to this discussion here at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
A lot of these problems were raised in the discussion we had some time ago regarding the Switch games article. It pretty much proves the point that we don't need these sort of articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
From glancing at it, that seems like it's arguing whether or not there should be a column within the list of Switch games? Is it not? That's a bit different than what we have going on here. The list above is not saying if something is available physically. or digitally, it's saying definitively that it's not, which is increasingly wrong. --Deathawk (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really - if it doesn't warrant its own column, why in the world would it warrant a whole separate article? I'm against these articles as well. We're not a catalogue that informs on methods of purchase. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This is what I meant. If we don't mention what type of media the game is for in their own articles, why would we have an entirely separate set of lists literally just for that? All of these games are already covered in List of PlayStation 4 games, making this redundant on top of the multiple other issues. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree these lists aren't appropriate. Category perhaps, but this isn't really a type of list for standalone. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

For that matter: how about how List of PlayStation 3 games redirects to a list article with trademark formatting (subscripted 3)? Complete silliness. There is also no complete list of PlayStation 3 games, you have to check at least 3 lists. -- ferret (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Terrible. We really need a massive, planned community project to fix these issues. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There might be more that I missed, but on behalf of Steel1943, I want to inform this WikiProject of several redirects up for discussion here involving video game characters, mostly. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I've also listed three redirects in regards to the V for Victory series here. Discussion is open to any interested editor. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Move request for Mother (Earthbound Beginnings) started

Round 2: Talk:Mother (video game). -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Segata Sanshiro

I was interested in expanding the article Segata Sanshiro but now I'm in doubts considering he does not have multiple appearances and I could not expand his reception section too much. However, then I saw his Japanese Wikipedia article and it was way bigger. Could somebody give it a look? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (26 August to 3 September)

26 August

27 August

28 August

29 August

30 August

31 August

1 September

2 September

3 September

Salavat (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Notability discussion at Talk:Runestone_Keeper#Notability, a mobile game with few dedicated reviews czar 17:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • That's the sort of article I had in mind a few weeks ago talking about having a bit stronger notability for video games. It just squeaks by the GNG (with two sourcable reviews) and thus we can have a standalone on it presently, but will it ever be possible to expand on that beyond that point? If not, should we ultimately delete it? I'm not saying we need to do anything about this idea at this time, just an example of a case that I think we aren't here just to document every game that gains a RS review or two but really should look to something more to justify encyclopedic articles on video games. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
      • If we make our standards strict enough that even fully referenced, Start-class articles are not allowed, then it will be somewhat ridiculous. Deleting Start class articles because they can't be expanded further while there still exist Stubs to be expanded is hypocritical, and Start class articles can still be of help to people, as opposed to Stubs. I do think such things should be discouraged in, say, requests or lists of potential articles to be created, but they are not harmful in particular.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't be used to prevent start class articles as long as the GNG is met (eg two reviews in this case). But keeping in mind that the GNG is a presumption of notability, if after a year or so, all that can be shown to be said for this game are two reviews, that's probably a sign its not notable in the larger picture of video games and within WP's goals, and merge/deletion may be possible. For video games, moreso than any other area, we should have it easy to see if any modern game has articles to support it by online searches, as we have very few print-only sources now. Again, not saying that these articles shouldn't be created based on passing the GNG, but we as a project can say that in the long-term this may not be the type of things for standalone articles. But we'd need to flesh that out greatly before doing so. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
          • In terms of video games, notability needs to be interpreted differently. A vast number of games, while having a large subculture impact, are only mentioned by notable publications before or upon release. It's rare that games receive constant coverage and that is usually a factor of advertising budget, not encyclopedic value. Your proposed guidelines vastly favor AAA games with big budgets, not imparting encyclopedic value.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately, WP's core policies, alongside the way the VG media works, means this is always going to happen. We're supposed to summarize what RSes provide and if there are no RSes to provide that, we shouldn't be covering it. It is a clear systematic bias against smaller games, and we're unlikely to change WP policy to correct this, nor are we going to be able to affect the VG media. But also to that end, our goal is not to catalog every game, but to provided education content related to video games, focusing more on development, reception and legacy of games rather than just that a game exists. When you consider the number of indie and mobile games out there, only a small minority of games are going to receive this level of coverage, which is probably a good thing. So we can be a bit flexible at where we draw the line. I fully agree not to spite start-class articles that meet the GNG, but we could 'opt to if we want have a stronger requirements if after time a game simply doesn't show much more coverage than a few reviews. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I get that "significant coverage" isn't a bright line, but "two reviews" certainly is no community-set bar to cross that line—it's closer, in practice, to three solid reviews, which this doesn't have. In this case, I think it's generous to even call the 4gamer source a review (note too that the Softpedia "review" is of a demo...) And that's not even mentioning how the 2015 game has no claim to fame or any consequential/noteworthy impact apart from receiving brief classic games PR-style news announcements. I don't buy the systemic bias argument here as we keep all sorts of similarly non-noteworthy games because they at least get reviews in TouchArcade/Gamezebo/Pocket Gamer. The discussion about this specific game belongs on its talk page, but this title hasn't even received reviews in those mobile game specialty sites. czar 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know, I'm with ZXCVBNM on this one. Yes, there's probably 10,000 games out there that aren't realistically ever going to get more than a start-class article, and most don't have a handy series to merge them all up into. Does that mean we delete them, because we only want B+ articles? I say no. I think the mission of the VG project is to crate articles covering every notable subject, just like the goal of wikipedia at large is to create articles on every notable subject, and neither should limit the scope to "notable+" articles. Even at start-class, to the few readers that want to find those articles it's still a useful resource. Instead, I think that editor attention should be biased towards the more notable articles- and what do you know, that's exactly what happens (with the major counterpoint that of the super-notable-but-super-difficult articles). Pretty much everyone who posts on this board spends their time writing lengthy articles based on tons of sources (with whatever quality it shakes out to be); very few spend their time beating their heads against articles on barely-notable 10-year-old games that only have 2 reliable sources in existence. The problem, therefore, solves itself, to a large extent. --PresN 21:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately the definition of a "solid" review is subjective. It's a reliable source mentioning the game in a significant way, and giving their opinion on whether the game's good or not. There's no requirement that it get a large amount of critical analysis, the mere existence of it being mentioned makes it notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Never said it wasn't. But I don't think that anyone is arguing that this game has been mentioned in sources in a significant way. The coverage is as routine as it gets, and the review coverage is unexceptional. czar 07:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (4 September to 8 September)

4 September

5 September

6 September

7 September

8 September

Salavat (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Comedy video games redux


Uh... so I noticed that a category I created was actually made by someone else some months ago and deleted. However, after looking through the arguments for delete, I've found that I categorically disagree with them. The main argument against the category's existence was that it wasn't an "officially recognized" genre (whatever that means) and that the inclusion criteria were "arbitrary" (which is false). If a game is described as a comedy, parody or satire by reliable sources, it should be included - that will remove anything with a few witty lines that isn't an overt comedy.

There also exists a categorization scheme that includes comedy books, films and even role-playing games. Based on this, the lack of inclusion of video games itself seems arbitrary. They are a multi billion dollar industry and suggesting that games aren't specifically described as comedy oriented seems ridiculous.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it was a combination of two things- "Comedy" isn't a game genre the same way "first-person shooter" is (it's a thematic genre, which video games are not typically divided into unlike movies or books; games are usually split only into gameplay genres). Second, the category had been defined as "video games that are funny", broadly construed. I think restricting it to "video games that an RS has termed primarily a comedy/parody/satire" would make it much more useful. --PresN 14:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No one has come up with multiple reliable sources for multiple games that actually say that comedy/humour is that game's defining characteristic (WP:CATDEF). All the previous entries were basically an editor deciding that the game was funny in some way. At best, some reviewers said it was funny. If we can find sources that actually say this about multiple games, then we can have the category. But it was previously completely not based on any sources, rather editor interpretations. (Satire and parody are separate from this, their existence isn't really relevant.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm, what do you mean with "a category I created was actually made by someone else"? Concerning the deletion, if you're up to finding sources for those articles, yeah, in that case a category wouldn't be a problem. But what actually is a "comedy game"? A full-on parody, like Pyst? Borderlands 2 tries to be funny, and in my honest opinion, fails horribly. But I do find Stephen Fry's narration of LittleBigPlanet humorous. The Last of Us has some jokes in it ("I used to be addicted to soap. But I'm clean now"), but to say that game is funny... On the other hand, Duke Nukem Forever is so bad it's laughable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was "formerly made by someone else", so sorry for the confusion. In terms of "comedy game", what I mean is not whether it succeeds at actually being funny but whether its intent was to be a comedy game. A full on parody can be placed in the sub genre category, Category:Parody video games. Comedy can be a selling point that is critical to a game's success, and it doesn't necessarily need to be plot-based humor (see Goat Simulator which uses physical comedy, without which the game wouldn't have succeeded or even existed). For that particular game, here's a source - "Once I started linking to these videos, I was like, 'Come on, guys, goats are funny. Someone should make a game about a goat.' And as soon as I thought it, bam, Goat Simulator. It had to be the name. " ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Goat Simulator is indeed the first video game I think of when I think "comedy game", and sources like IGN and The Guardian agree, calling it "a joke". Still, though, it seems to me like just keeping things at Category:Parody video games is much easier, as it demands much less interpretation of the sources. It would be cool if "comedy video game" was better defined, but as it is, it simply isn't. The crux of the issue may lie at the separation between narrative comedy and comedy in gameplay. I find it hard to say.
I see that Octodad isn't in the parody video game category (as it probably shouldn't be), but it would definitely be considered a comedy game. Looking for sources, I found that NPR referred to Octodad as falling into the comedy game genre, together with "Maniac Mansion, Day of the Tentacle, the Space Quest series, Full Throttle and other games that used humor as a vehicle and not just as a distraction." Take that source as you will. ~Mable (chat) 08:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm, we've already had a deletion discussion for this and per the above, there is consensus against restoring it. Please revert its creation so it can be deleted as WP:C1. czar 16:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine FAC

Hi everyone. I've currently got Jill Valentine nominated for FAC: see here. I'm in pretty much exactly the same position I was when I last nominated it, being that I have seven votes of support and opposing comments from only one feminist editor.

I didn't post on here at all at the last nomination because even though I'd never ask for support as I believe that would be unethical, I still didn't want to contact any particular group of people on the grounds it might be interpreted as canvassing. However, I'm now at my wits end so I'm going to ask for your comments on the nomination.

At the last nomination the feminist editor insisted I remove pretty much all references to Jill being perceived as physically attractive, on the ground that women should not be sexualised, and when they are, it should be ignored on the grounds it is sexist. It was also demanded that I quote heavily from a feminist blog which complains about Jill being sexualised (Incidentally, an editor at the current nomination thinks this blog may not meet WP:RS). Despite conceding to these two demands, the feminist editor still opposed the nomination on the grounds that I should have already used the specific feminist blog prior to nomination, and that there shouldn't have been any coverage of Jill being perceived as attractive in the first place. Just to make that clear, the main reasons this editor gave for opposing the nomination was how the article looked in the past. To be fair I will mention that in retrospect I did have too much coverage of Jill's attractiveness and it would have been appropriate to reduce the amount (as opposed to removing it entirely), and a second editor also opposed on the issue of sources. However, I was more than half way through addressing the source concerns when the nomination was closed abruptly. I continued to address all the concerns regarding sources after the nomination was closed.

The article currently contains the text 'One of the few personal details given about Jill in the original game is her ethnicity being half-French, half-Japanese; in 1996, Computer and Video Games said this detail "doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her".' The feminist editor is complaining that it is too sexist to mention this. That's an example of the kind of thing they have continually asked me to remove. The editor has also demanded I remove any mention that Jill has been included on top character lists (such as that she was "ranked Jill 30th on the list of greatest heroines", on the grounds that even if the author and source are high-quality, the "list of greatest heroines" hasn't had any secondary coverage commenting on it, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned. I would actually find these concerns humorous, if it wasn't for the fact the coordinator gave this editor's arguments a surprising amount of weight at the previous nomination.

I would strongly appreciate any comments on the article, regardless of whether they join in on the current debate or serve as a new, independent review from yourself. Freikorp (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Someone is opposing your article from becoming a Featured Article because its "Sexist"? GamerPro64 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Short answer: yes. That was the feminist editor's main concern at the first nomination.
Long answer: I think they're coming up with every imaginable reason to oppose the nomination because they just don't like it. This editor cited the fact I hadn't personally checked the offline sources added by other established editors at the previous nomination as a reason for opposing its promotion. Now that I've done that and have offered to email scans to her to prove it she's come up with new bizarre reasons to oppose, such as the fact my high-quality sources don't have secondary sources commenting on them. Freikorp (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • All of her points are worth heeding. There are plenty of changes I would recommend for this article, especially in the Reception. And I'm extremely dismayed to see SV's detailed bullet points being shouted down rather than accommodated. czar 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: That's not a fair comment. I addressed most of her bullet points. The only one I could be accused of shouting down was her complaint about the reception area, and the reason I did that was because, at the time, she was the only person who had a problem with it. After what happened at the last FAC I am hesitant to completely rewrite something to address the concerns of a lone editor. Now that other people have given more detailed opinions on the reception section, rest assured I will happily work on the issue. Freikorp (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't singling you out, but if her bullet points were addressed, the responses read as quite dismissive of her message. I think it's surmountable, but if there's bad blood, it's more productive to extend the olive branch than to dig a deeper hole. czar 19:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Another person chiming in that SV has some valid points. Pretty shady coming in here trying to paint it as some sort of "Feminism POV pushing" or whatever that above stuff was supposed to be. Really disappointing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that some of SV's concerns, the ones about what information "should" be included, could have been debated- as in, a reasonable argument could have been made that regardless of how pointless or sexist they were, it would be accurate to the state of video game criticism to note that that was what they focused on, so context could have fixed the issues. The others- choppy flow, overreliance on listicles instead of reaching harder for better sources, etc.- are pretty on point. However, you didn't debate the debateable ones. You got your back up, and made weak arguments and snide remarks, in both FACs.
  • The FAC process isn't perfect by any means- it's annoyingly uneven between candidates and reviewers. But there's one way that it's not technically perfect that's in keeping with any other review process in life- the moment you insulted SV, there or here, was the moment that the whole candidacy was doomed. (And yes, since you obviously consider it to be one, "feminist" counts as an insult). SV is never going to support now, because why would she put up with that? You could probably drive her away, except now the coordinators will never promote unless she supports, because there's not much they hate more than nominators being rude to reviewers as the reviewer pool is so stretched as it is. Take this as a life lesson: don't do that. Regardless of how annoyed you are by what they're opposing over. --PresN 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all you admins want to look out for one another, but read this and tell me the Jill Valentine FAC hasn't descended into farce. It's beyond a joke at this stage. I was planning on getting several other articles to featured status over the next few months but, after all this, I don't think I'll bother. This whole website has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare! Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
That's just a dif of you complaining about "farces" again. Still unclear what I'm supposed to be outraged about here... Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Another snarky comment from another admin. Heaven forbid you actually read the content of a diff. *eyerollemoji* Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Dude. It's not your FAC. You're just the reviewer. Why are you having a drawn out, multi-venue, multi-hour tiff about Ealdgyth giving you suggestions about how as the source reviewer you should either save yourself a ton of time and only discuss the sources you have issues with, or else dig even deeper and find out if each source is "high-quality" instead of explicitly deferring to VG/RS. Like, source reviews are usually just "Why are sources a,b,c good enough?" "Because x,y,z." "Ok." I don't even agree with her about the distinction between RS sources and "high-quality", as separate from the concept of the "best available" or the content of the source being high-quality, but I still find the angry, personal way you've taken any criticism over an article you aren't the nominator for really... odd. (Also, accusing people of blindly supporting fellow admins is such an eye-roll-worthy attack. There are multiple people who I highly respect who are supporting that FAC. Perhaps instead of clumping everyone who doesn't agree with everything you agree with as "enemies", you should actually read what they wrote.) --PresN 02:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I did read your dif - you're missing my point. Your dif is very vague and doesn't articulate the issue at all. All it shows is you complaining about sources. Doesn't show the specific sources. Or the issues with them. Or any context at all. It's nothing but you making vague grievances. And as much fun as it would be to wade through a ton of text to figure out what in the world you're worked up about up about, you kinda threw any of my motivation out the window when you start off with your "admin sticking together" garbage. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@PresN:@Sergecross73: Believe it or not, I actually consider myself to be a feminist. Here is an article I created and wrote entirely by myself (save for copyedits), which is completely full of feminist themes: Murder of Leigh Leigh. Here are three where I am by far the main writer and have gone out of my way to add coverage of feminist themes to: Isabelle Eberhardt, Dark Angel (TV series), The Fifth Element. I do not, however, identify as a feminist editor, because I am not here to promote any agenda. I actually take pride in finding new topics to write about; I do not limit my editing to even one category of articles. Based on SlimVirgin's actions and comments, I consider her to be a feminist editor, because it's my interpretation of her actions that she is here to promote a feminist agenda. You are welcome to disagree. You are welcome to consider "feminist editor" to be an insult, however, that was not my intention. My intention is to call a spade a spade. I am always polite to people if they are respectful to me. As far as I am concerned, SlimVirgin set the tone for out conversation at the first nomination. I don't suppose you read it? She cited several specific problems with the nomination, and I undeniably backed down and submitted to her requests. To be fair, there were other concerns of hers that I didn't address, some because I disagreed with, and other because I requested clarification on exactly what she wanted, yet such requests were frequently ignored, such as this one [13]. I addressed specific concerns, yet she still opposed on these specific reasons, on the grounds of how the article looked before I made the changes. I think you're failing to understand the gravity of those actions. When you back down to someone's requests, and the person still opposes specifically because of how the article used to look before you addressed their concerns, it becomes apparent that they are not going to support your nomination regardless of what you do. In any case, my objective by posting the above comment was to get more people to comment on the nomination. That has now happened, so I'd rather focus on addressing concerns at the nomination and not continuing to reply here. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I just read through the first FAC and I both completely agree with SV's points and definitely would not have been as patient as her, especially after being continually insulted. What's rich is that SV points out POV issues with the sourcing/presentation but she is painted as an activist editor? How is it her fault and not the non-neutrality ("activism") of the article authors? Lack of humility aside, if the intractable end of the last FAC was for want of sources, (1) that's a sign to recruit a third party (through forums like WT:VG, WT:FCHAR) for help, and (2) you can't be faulted for sources that you cannot find (well, unless someone finds those sources easily and thus reveals laziness)—if you show your good faith attempts to find those non-existent sources and simply have no results, then the FAC has to continue past those points. Lastly, replace "feminist" above with "COI" or "Christian" to see how any descriptor used in that manner is made into a pejorative, no matter your personal inclination or intent. SV didn't dredge up the last FAC and gives no appearance of itching for a fight, but I see plenty of that from other parties, which brings us to the realm of projection and hypocrisy... When it gets that bad, the best recourse is usually a sincere mea culpa (without the hand-wringing) and just moving on. Here's the writing on the wall from a month ago, excellent observations worth repeating in toto, emphasis preserved and italics added:

Straight away, I have to say that it is extremely unhelpful for reviewers to post comments such as "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" and "Surely it would have been speedier/more appropriate to take the 30 seconds required to investigate for yourself if a source met the notability requirements, rather than simply asking multiple times: 'What makes X a high-quality reliable source?' or 'What makes X writer so important as to have their opinion featured on the article?'" No-one is required to do anything here, we are all volunteers. Alienating reviewers is an absolutely certain way to make sure that others steer clear of these articles at FAC, and without reviewers, nothing is going to pass. Simple. Another point that I am repeatedly labouring is that video game reviewers are often their own worst enemy, both in terms of cursory review and in what appears to be happening here: closing ranks. I'm absolutely sure that this is not the intention, but it is certainly coming across that way. And I would recommend not trying to tell source reviewers how to do their job: Ealdgyth has been doing this for years and years, and you will not find a better source reviewer here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

czar 15:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to keep debating this, but after reading that I feel the the need to mention two things. Firstly Ealdgyth also opposed my nomination, but I never lost my civility with her (and actually consider myself to be on quite good terms with her) because her criticism was the only criticism I got which I consider to have been constructive. She actually explained why she wanted me to do things, she didn't just tell me to do them and assume I would figure out what the problem was. For the record I also feel the need to state that those comments Sarastro1 was complaining about (such as "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" were not made by me. Happy to just move forward from here. Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Which pronouns should be used for Zoë Quinn's biographical article?

Hi all, just wanted to garner more input in this RfC located on the talk page for Zoë Quinn's BLP article. Not sure if this is your department or not, let me know if I'm overstepping.

Normally MOS:GENDERID would be very easy to apply, but unfortunately in this case some circumstances have made this difficult. Add in the inherent controversy and inflammatory nature that follows anything to do with Gamergate and you have the stew we now find ourselves in.

Can your editors provide some input so we can get this cleared up? Thanks. --Shibbolethink ( ) 19:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"Quinn has also self-identified as a woman and as feminine.[3]‪[4]‬" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow mystery solved. GamerPro64 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If only these things were so easy! I agree with your assessment, but a viewing of the page's history would find this has been a somewhat contentious issue. Mostly because Quinn in 2016 posted a blog post requesting they/their/them pronouns. Discussion has been reignited with the publication of Quinn's recent Gamergate book. Hopefully this is over soon and we can all move on with our lives. --Shibbolethink ( ) 20:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the talk page I'd say it's pretty open and shut. She never said "I want to be called they", she said that she didn't care what pronouns people used. That isn't the same as saying "I self identify as they, never call me he or she."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was very clearly reached. Thanks for your help, all! --Shibbolethink ( ) 14:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Pac-Man Arrangement merge

Outside feedback requested in Talk:List of Pac-Man video games#Proposed merge with Pac-Man Arrangement. It's been open since January. czar 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yooka-Laylee again

Another IP is causing disruption at this page and claims that everyone at the active consensus, listed here, says the subject of the consensus is wrong and should be used in quotes. Pinging Sergecross73 as the last admin to protect this article and @IDV, Grayfell, Dissident93, and Masem: as other participants in the original debate. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ignore this, nor did I, I just forgot to respond. The IP is in the wrong, but he stopped after 3 reverts, and has been appropriately warned, so there's really no action to be taken yet. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones up for deletion

Opinions wanted here. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, most of the regulars here already subscribe (or should) to WP:VG/D, where they are automatically notified of any deletion discussion tagged as video game related. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Enhancing Xbox One games list

So now Xbox One games comprise four separate lists.

Its a bit out of hand, and I was looking at the other side of the coin and thought it might be a good idea. So instead of four lists, we might be able to at least eliminate one (the last one) by using the tag system PS4 uses. Since this is across pages, I wanted to bring it here. Any thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was also thinking of eliminating List of PlayStation 4 games with 3D support by denoting supporting titles in the add-on column. Similarly, you can use a plain [x] to denote Xbox One X enhanced games. — Niche-gamer 19:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
For the two backwards compatibility lists, I would just make that a column in the original platform's list. I.e. List of Xbox games should denote it. -- ferret (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Friendly reminder to all that this problem is present across the board, especially with Wii/Virtual console lists, PlayStation lists, and Xbox. See Category:Video game lists by platform, Category:PlayStation (brand)-related lists, and perhaps the granddaddy indiscriminate lists of them all: Category:Lists of PC games. TarkusABtalk 22:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(series) dab

I though there was an agreement between projects not to use the bare (series) dab. Isn't it supposed to (book series) (TV series) (game series) and so on? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that. If there's no other types of series to disambiguate from, it doesn't make sense to use "video game series" when "series" is shorter and works just fine. That's just basic WP:ATDAB, unless I'm misunderstanding your question? Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Same position as Serge. If there are no other series, then the video game naturally falls to (series). However, soon as another series exists, it would move to (video game series) and the original would become a dab page. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

On a mostly-unrelated note, I've been wondering if "(series)" really does a topic justice. A number of our series articles are actually about franchises in that they discuss non-video game content, such as toys, other works, non-digital games, promotion, profits, and so forth. --Izno (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There's an valid argument probably that (franchise) or (brand) might be more appropriate, depending. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It does seem like "series" is being used less overall anyways, because the "series" ends up being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (For example, a discussion dictated that Sonic the Hedgehog (series) be moved to Sonic the Hedgehog.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
That should be what happens, and the old criteria for it used to be that it required a set number of games AND non-video game content like books, toys, DVDs, or towels. - X201 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Right, that's another point. It's only necessary if there are unrelated series of the same name. The basic guideline is at WP:NCVGDAB. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Importance of Raiden

Sorry for bothering again, but unlike with Jin Kazama, I wasn't sure about Raiden's popularity. It was initially so negative that there are articles dedicated about his lack of appeal. However, following his debut in Metal Gear Solid 4 (supporting character) and Rising (protagonist), the response changed a lot from negative to positive. Despite joking about how bad was his debut, GamesRadar and another site called him one of the best heroes and soldiers in gaming. Do you think article should be rated mid? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to relative importance compared to all video game topics... Well, Raiden isn't even among the most "important" characters from his series. Solid Snake is currently mid-importance, which sounds about right. Big Boss and all other Metal Gear characters are rated low. I'd personally keep it that way. That all being said, it really doesn't matter much. It's all subjective and not particularly important. I doubt you'd get much resistance if you'd be bold about it, because arguing about the importance rating is just not worth the effort. ~Mable (chat) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, I believe the only article I've ever changed the importance rating on was for Cave Story, which I personally believe is a vital linchpin in the history of indie games. The vast majority of the articles I've written happen to be of low-importance, which I suppose is natural. I enjoy the importance property. It doesn't have much use, but thinking about the notability and importance is what initially got me into Wikipedia! Importance gets a bit more useful with 'high' and 'top'. Still, subjective, of course, but it may get people to edit broad, important, historical topics. When it comes to the difference between 'low' and 'mid', it's really not worth arguing about, as I mentioned earlier :p ~Mable (chat) 20:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I personally believe that Raiden is Mid importance, as he falls under "playing a somewhat less major role in a more major series" as per the guidelines. I also think that Solid Snake is actually High-importance, as he has become "widely recognized or significant" on the level of someone like Master Chief.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


I don't recall the last time we talked about GameTrailers. All of their videos are back on YouTube these days, under an official verified channel, which redirects to. Should we see if it might be possible for a bot run to correct existing dead links? is of course useless for old Flash player based videos like GT hosted. -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not all their videos are there - I recall not being able to find some episode of their podcast GT Time - but yeah, most of their modern stuff seems to be available. Would a video's title be enough for a bot to find the equivalent video on the GT Youtube channel, though?--IDVtalk 00:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The ones I was looking for tonight had the same title (Final Fantasy Retrospect Part-##, in this case). It was a 2007 video. -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

IP addition of categories

Is anyone able to check this IP's edits here? I've already reverted category additions which I believed were implausible, but can anyone double check the other additions? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

They all seem to make sense. Those games do have procedurally generated levels. I'm not sure about the multiplayer but I'd assume it's the case.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor Infobox Video Game update for Wikidata

Mike Peel updated {{Infobox video game}} today to use Module:WikidataIB, which is more tailored for use with infoboxes. In general, this result in no change in use or display. However, it adds a few new features. For brevity, I'll just link the template doc changes here. The short version is its now possible to selectively fetch Wikidata properties, or suppress particular fields from being fetched, or to only pull data from Wikidata if it has a reference, and so forth. Otherwise, the infobox functions the same as it did before. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Is the large link to Wikimedia Commons meant to be there too? Seems distracting, and not really needed if so. Some articles, like Dota 2, also show two cover images now. Dota 2 also shows some old citations used in the infobox, not even sure where its calling them from. As far as I can tell, this is worse off than it was a few days ago, pending any fixes to it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Dissident93: The two images thing was caused by adding support for logos, which I've reverted. The commons link is what I normally include with astronomy articles, it can easily be disabled if needed. The references are being fetched from Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I keep wanting to like this idea, but it keeps not being thought out all the way when implemented- it now autoimports fields even if you were overriding them with a blank line (e.g. "engine= "), which worked last time this was tried. Which means that you get, for example, The Last of Us Part II linking to an unitalicized series page that doesn't exist, or Wolfenstein 3D linking to Wolfenstein 3D engine, an unitalicized circular redirect. Since this change effectively changed thousands of articles with no discussion or testing, I'm considering reverting. --PresN 12:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    @PresN: Please can you check again? This should now be fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Mike Peel: This appears to be fixed, thanks! --PresN 15:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: It's only fair that we ping him as we're talking about his edits. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of a logo, and blank local values not causing suppression, have been addressed by Mike. Please use Template talk:Infobox video game#Arbitrary break - new issues? if you notice anything else. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing Famitsu scores from Japanese ports of American games?

Lately TheDeviantPro has been removing all traces of the Japanese ports of the games in the Skate franchise, including Skate (video game), Skate It and Skate 3, by removing Famitsu scores and links! He's always acting as if the Japanese ports of games never existed at all! These GameFAQs links are the only proof that the games were ported to Japan, and yet he denies that proof by erasing all Famitsu reviews from American games that were ported to Japan for release! Why? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is some unique aspect of a Western game being released in Japan (or any other non-English region), we generally do not include the release there or reviews related to it. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And GameFaqs isn't a reliable source, not sure why you mentioned that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that we should, when possible, cover a game's international reception as well. GameFAQs is not usable as a source on WP, though - look the game up in Famitsu's database instead and source the review from there.--IDVtalk 18:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Removing GameFAQ sourced information is valid. Removing Famitsu is not. Famitsu is a reliable source and accepted parameter for {{Video game reviews}}. -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seconding ferret on this one. This is how I handle it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Secondary note: I agree with DeviantPro's edit here. @Angeldeb82: Could you please consider following the standard two column layout? Many editors find the multiple system format to be cumbersome and poorly formatted. Honestly, I think the option for a multi-system table should be removed entirely. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it's only useful when two different versions of a game (think Genesis and SNES) both got their own separate reviews. But even with games that do use this format, 90% of them only uses one of the two options anyway, defeating its entire purpose. As for this topic, I don't see any issue with adding Famitsu reviews on non-Japanese games. The fact they even bothered at all on something foreign to their culture should be considered notable, and the current guidelines do not prevent this (only release dates in the infobox and lead). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, ferret, I consider it done. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Third bullet at Template:Video game reviews says Only include reviews if they are cited within the text., and this doesn't just mean the review score is cited in the text. The text should include some of the opinions/conclusions that were part of the review. I frequently see Famitsu scores added to review boxes with additions made to the text. Likely because they are taken from other sources (NeoGaf, GameFAQS, Gematsu), which just post scores and don't translate the actual review. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That's valid enough and I agree, but it was not the reason given for the removals here. -- ferret (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay I'm a bit confused, I've been under the impression that we don't usually list Famistu reviews on the review table because majority of articles for western games on Wikipedia don't have Famistu in the review table (example: Grand Theft Auto V ect). Also why include Japanese reviews in article of an western game, if we not going to include the Japanese release date in the infobox? it seems to be pointless excluding the release date but having an Japanese review. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, we Americans have been including American and international reviews of games that were first made in Japan before being ported internationally, all of our lives. Would you then call including American and international ports of Japanese games "pointless" if you were living in Japan? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What does the infobox have to do with the reception section? In any case, I'm a fan of including Famitsu reviews in prose when available- it's a data point for reception of the game outside of America/England (aka English-speaking). While this may be the English wikipedia, if a game has a high percentage of players in non-English Europe and Japan, then it's useful to include what they thought of it (and for countering for countering systematic geographic/language bias. That said, I wouldn't usually include Famitsu in the reception table, as I usually limit those to 7/8 reviews, even if there's more in the prose, and it doesn't usually make the cut for non-Japanese games. --PresN 02:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • However, per our guidelines on the review box, we need to have prose from the famitsu review included in the prose. Yes, this can be done, but most of the time it is not, because of the translation issue. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Angeldeb82 If was living in Japan then I would learn how to read basic Japanese then I might not need to use the international port of a Japanese game, but that not what this discussion about isn't? This discussion about including Japanese reviews in an article for an non Japanese game in an English Wikipedia which I don't mind. But like I said, I was been under the impression that we don't usually list Famistu reviews on the review table because majority of articles for western games on Wikipedia don't have Famistu in the review table until Ferret corrected me by pointing me to Template:Video game reviews. But my point is with the release date that If we going with the international coverage that should we cover both the release date and the review, I mean we have Europe release date in the infobox and reviews covering the Europe region in reception same with the North American release date, so not the Japanese release date? But that's just my opinion. @PresN I highly doubt that the Skate series have a high percentage of players in Japan as skateboarding isn't popular there than in western countries. @Masem that's why Gematsu and Nintendo Life only include the scores it saves them the trouble of translating the whole review. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I tend to only include Famitsu if a western game has a significant impact in Japan. Besides, if there is no translation of Famitsu reviews around, then what we can write in prose is "Famitsu's four reviewers collectively awarded the game a score of x out of 40", which is considered as a bad way to write a reception section according to our guidelines, I'd say we should only use Famitsu if the review is worth noting and that it uses actually has substance to it. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Answers above are sufficient—I don't think Famitsu's perspective is crucial for the Skate series—but wanted to add that, in general, it's worth digging up the Famitsu review when the game's Japan release was significant. In terms of looking it up, I've had more luck with fan communities and reqs at places like Retromags than going the academic interlibrary loan route (which works too but good luck). But as someone who has had over a dozen reviews translated from several other languages (much appreciation to the Wikipedians who have helped with this)... the results are often only useful for a quip or two. Concepts are better sourced to English-language refs when available, which are less ambiguous to paraphrase and easier for readers to verify. And the shorter the review—as typical for Famitsu reviews—the slimmer the chance of extracting a useful comment. Perspective from non-English speaking locales often ends up as lip service.
But more importantly, I use the Famitsu website to easily look up awards ("Gold/Silver Hall of Fame") and scores. (examples 1, 2) The award fits into the first paragraph of the Reception, giving the de facto mark of quality for the Japanese-language market when relevant, and the score can be dumped in the usual template. I'd at least try pursuing the article text translation for purposes of FA reviews, but otherwise, the online listing is sufficient. czar 05:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Guide For Making Abandoned Articles Good Articles

I don't expect a set degree of importance given to this. Everybody does their own work differently.[citation needed]

  1. Source formatting — I tend to start implementing a reflist using the |refs= parameter so that the article is consistently formatted in one style (it also makes the source easier to read).
  2. Source additions — Reading through the article to see which claims are unsupported, and adding reliable citations there.
  3. Source checking — Checking original sources against the claims they are cited to support.
  4. General expansion — Once the above is accomplished, it will be easier to expand the article. Not just because you've taken care of the sources, but having read it through, you know what is in the article, so no information will be repeated.
  5. Copy editing — Either copy edit yourself, or get the Guild of Copy Editors to do it.

I'd also like to know how other editors do stuff, or get advice on how to improve the list. Cognissonance (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I rewrite them entirely from scratch. Examples: Burnout 3: Takedown, The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds. I will read through the original article but I usually don't use much or any of the material from it. Start with nothing. Gather all the references and sources I need. Order them chronologically. Read through all of them. Sometimes I'll make notes before I start writing so I have rough framework and key points for the article. Then start writing. I usually begin with Development (because that's the most interesting part), then Marketing and Release, then Gameplay, then Plot/Setting and lastly Reception (I always leave this section last because I hate doing it). I'm pretty spontaneous when it comes to writing articles up to GAN. Writing doesn't take too long but gathering and reading through all the sources before I start can get tedious. If I can't finish an article in a day, I usually end up leaving it and never returning. I have several dozen incomplete drafts for video game articles that I wanted to get to GA. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to try that sometime. Seems like a more rapid version of what I usually do, using sources over time. Cognissonance (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless the article's already in pretty good shape (like Sonic '06 or Somari), I usually make a draftspace where I can work on it by myself. That saves the pain of getting into edit warring over removals/additions, in my opinion. JOEBRO64 22:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm also going to put it out that I start at gameplay, then work down from there. JOEBRO64 23:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I always dread the Gameplay and Reception. Development pertains to me, so that's the most fun to write. Cognissonance (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite

Ughh...are these complaints valid in the slightest ([14] and [15]? I can always change the source to something like VG247 [16], but the talk page stuff...should I revert it? Wani (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You should revert it and optimally add the VG247 source to it while you're at it. At least bring this source up in some way. As for Metro being reliable or unreliable, I don't know. I've always treated it as reliable myself. ~Mable (chat) 09:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you use the actual charts as sources:
It's definitely notable to give the UK sales chart debut, and if it sells more in other regions later then you can add that in too. TarkusABtalk 10:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd definitely treat Metro (at least the dedicated gaming department) as a RS for VG news. Gamecentral existed in various forms for years before moving there and their reporting is sound. Unlike the rest of the site. Scribolt (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Jay Obernolte

So uh, anyone wanna even try to touch this article? It's been sitting in our GA nominations tab for a while now. Don't have much experience with political articles, but from what I've seen, the article appears to have way to many short subsections. Also, the article has way too many "In 20XX, Obernolte did such and such." I could be missing some huge details, but this is what I've gathered from my editing experience, stuff that should apply to any GA article. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: My guess is that having to adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it implies a more complicated review than regular video game articles require. However, it is also a Politics and government nominee, so we're not the only ones not touching it. Cognissonance (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't really involve myself in the GA process, but personally, it doesn't really look like its GA level stuff. It's...barely even written in paragraph form - there's so many really short paragraphs, stray sentences, and short subsections. It reads more like some sort of "fact sheet" than an encyclopedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with some new eSports articles/categories

So Afrogindahood (talk · contribs) just created a bunch of new eSports related categories, navboxes, and articles. However, many of them are redundant, such as Category:International eSports competitions hosted by the United States when we already had Category:eSports competitions in the United States, or badly sourced and a better fit for Liquidpedia like ESL One Hamburg 2017 (which I moved to a draft for the time being). Is there a better way to handle this outside of taking them all manually to AfD/CfD? If you check his recent contributions you'd see that most of them would fall under the same issues, and it was clearly done with good intent so a mass revert/ban isn't the solution. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged the new ESL One Hamburg redirect for R2 speedy deletion, mainly because there would need to be room for the article to return to the mainspace when it's ready. The categories, meanwhile, I'm not so sure about: are there enough articles to at least make these categories work? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, in regards to the categories, the newly created category can easily be deleted under C1 if no article fits it. If a group of articles do fit it, the category can become a sub-category of the latter. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Category:2017 first-person shooter tournaments and Category:2017 multiplayer online battle arena tournaments are good categories. Stuff like Category:ESports competitions in Ukraine and Category:ESports competitions in Poland are fine, but underpopulated and may need to be deleted until they can be properly populated. I agree that the "international" categories are silly and unneccessary. Most notable esports competitions tend to be international, actually. Template:ESLevents looks good to me. ESL One Hamburg 2017 was indeed 100% based on primary sources, so removing it from the mainspace was right. I hope the new draft can be improved with reliable secondary sources, though! ~Mable (chat) 09:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    Those categories mostly miss the WP:SMALLCAT boat and could/should be merged to a general Category:2017 video game tournaments. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    How? All of those articles that use the category only use a single game, so it's better to use Category:Dota 2 competitions for the Dota 2 ones (see Category:eSports competitions by video game for more). There isn't a single tournament I can think of that only did MOBAs or FPS games. For the ones that do feature more than a single game, they almost always include more than a single genre. @Izno:: we already have Category:2017 in eSports that fits that description, so perhaps this could be renamed if needed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, I don't think 2017 in eSports does since it also contains series rather than simple tournaments. I think that's part of the reason these are subcatted as they are--the main 2017 in eSports category could/should be clear of tournaments articles. I'm not sure if that's a good thing. :D --Izno (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    I like the current situation of using "Category: 20xx [genre] tournaments". I started the ball with that last year by creating category:2016 fighting game tournaments‎, and I think the three categories in this style we now have for 2017 work very well. I know that fighting game events usually feature multiple fighting game tournaments, but rarely feature tournaments for games in different genres. The MOBA category seems to include both Dota and League tournaments, which may be odd to combine, but I think it works? The first-person shooter category almost exclusively features Counter Strike tournaments. That may be a bit odd. ~Mable (chat) 09:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Afrogindahood (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Hello everyone, I will improve the new draft for ESL One Hamburg 2017 by adding the needed secondary sources needed. Thank you.

  • @Afrogindahood: While you did add third-party sourcing, now the issue is if they should be considered reliable. Three of them mentioned in my edit summary do not appear at WP:VG/RS. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Red Dead Redemption 2 or II

Please feel free to contribute to this discussion regarding the article name for the new Red Dead Redemption game. – Rhain 01:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (8 September to 16 September)

8 September

9 September

10 September

11 September

12 September

13 September

14 September

15 September

16 September

Salavat (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A small question

Hi. I'd like to ask a question. How does one apply for an article quality re-rating? AWearerOfScarves (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking the "Start/C/B/A" scale, you can request a reassessment by adding "|reassess=y" to the {{WikiProject Video games}} banner on the article's talk page.
GA or FA have to go through WP:GAN or WP:FAC, that's outside of our project. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
For ratings such as stub, start, and C, it generally isn't an issue to just be bold about it. No need to tag stubs with the 'reassass' parameter. ~Mable (chat) 19:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

System requirements?

Are we no longer including minimum/recommended system requirements? I noticed that someone deleted them from Virtual Pool 3 and was going to revert that, but thought I'd ask first unless I missed something. I don't edit in this topic are very frequently.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we do not include them by default. If they are the subject of discussion, then discussion via prose is reasonable, but rarely a full table would be needed. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless it's something that garnered critical discussion and/or is important (like Batman: Arkham Knight), I'd avoid it as WP:GAMECRUFT. JOEBRO64 23:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. This has an unhelpful "incomplete encyclopedia" effect, though, like having an article on a species and not covering what its diet is. Pretty much the only thing I've ever used WP articles on video games for is system details, which seem comparable to all the tech specs we provide about cell phones and other mobile devices. If we're no longer going to include system requirements in our game articles, and we think there's a reliable external site for that information, maybe we should be linking to it, either in the infobox or in the EL section. We do this with other external detailia, e.g. OMIM codes in disease infoboxes, IMDb links in EL sections on films and TV shows, review aggregator links in film/TV infoboxes and main text, breed standards in cat/dog/horse/whatever breed infoboxes, ISBNs and ISSNs in infoboxes on magazines and in main text on books, etc., etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  21:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Point of order, it's not that "we're no longer going to include system requirements", we haven't included them since 2012. And video games are not cell phones- an iPhone 3G has the same specs now that it always did, and they're just as relevent now as they were at release. The system requirements for a game from 2007, though, are generally irrelevent to almost all readers- the operating system matters (and is included), but the system requirements beyond that are "a computer that could play games from that era or better", and a pile of numbers and acronyms doesn't add any further detail. The only time they're relevent is for a newly-released game for someone looking to buy the game and wondering if their specific machine can run it, and at that point you're running into sales catalog data. --PresN 21:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, System Requirements have gotten more and more woefully inaccurate over time. Often in modern games the required and recommended specs vastly exceed what is really necessary because they haven't bothered to spend money testing it on weaker PCs.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Point of order, that's when we removed them from IVG. We started removing the system requirements template as a result of this discussion in late 2013, which stemmed from this discussion. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Satirical video games

Is this a defining cat for video games? Category:Satirical works would appear to cover the area sufficiently czar 07:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel it is. Yes, some games are made as satire, but that's very rare and not a defining feature. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
DEFCAT needs to be seen in context of DIFFUSECAT. It does most people (generalist readers or otherwise) little good to plop a bunch of video games into the context of a whole heck of a lot of other kinds of works. The cat seems fine. --Izno (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that its parent category (Category:Satirical works) is not in desperation of diffusion? Satire is not a genre in video games like it is in other media, as evidenced by the items currently in the category. czar 20:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I know there are games built are, from conception meant to be satire, like Pyst, but its one of the few clear examples. Like right now the GTA series is in the cat, and I don't think I would call those games "satire". They use satire as a narrative element in places, but it is not a whole satire. Similarly a game like Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard which is meant as spoofing a bunch of FPS elements, isn't itself a singular satire, only builds upon it. There's so few games in this cat to make it not very useful. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is that it's useful to be able to cross-cat the video game category as a subcat also of Cat:Video games. Eh, no skin off my back either way. --Izno (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Unreleased game vandal

FYI on a vandal that keeps adding misinformation on unreleased games for various platforms. Roaming IP, see:

I'm probably missing some of their edits and IPs. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: The1337gamer has this covered, per diff. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)