Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 90 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 Archive 100


Nomination for deletion of Template:Joint Operations series

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Joint Operations series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am new to WikiProjects

I have very little knowledge on how these things work and therefore wanted to know, where I can find articles that WikiProject Video games wants created or improving? Also, if I make improvements or create articles do I need to inform WikiProject Video games?

Respond on my talk please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talkcontribs) 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

All these things can be found on the top of this page in the Wikiproject template/banner. Hope this helps. Salavat (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Input requested at UFO: Enemy Unknown

Would appreciate some input at Talk:UFO: Enemy Unknown#Lead. Basically a dispute over how to summarise the game's various "one of the best games ever" accolades, how specific the lead needs to be on this point, and whether or not a citation is needed in the lead for a "best game ever" claim. I'm the GA reviewer on this so there'd need to be consensus before I can pass it. bridies (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Aggregators again

This time it's Hall of Light, part of Amiga Lore. Would like some input on this a reliable source/valid inclusion. It's also part of the UFO: Enemy Unknown GAN mentioned above. bridies (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC notification

Just so everyone is aware, there is a request for comment regarding the use of "Top X lists" to determine a video game character's notability if the list has significant coverage from a reliable source. As such, we need to build a consensus on this matter whether we should use them or not. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#RfC: Top X lists in video games. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Panzer Dragoon

I've been working on Panzer Dragoon so that it can reach GA status. Is anyone willing to check the article for syntax/vocab, and to see what could be missing ? Thanks !Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Season Ticket Basketball 2003

Sup? Anyway, I've wondered about all of your opinions on creating the article about the video game Season Ticket Basketball 2003. I've owned and played the game myself, and it features taking control of franchise(s) and leading them through an indefinite number of seasons. The game received an 8.1 score from Gamespot, but that's the only website that scored it that I ever found (there's obiously more.) So, what do you guys think? --Jayemd (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can find enough third party, reliable sources to establish the WP:GNG, then go for it. Usually four or five reliable sources that discuss the game in detail are considered enough to keep an article from being deleted. If you can't do that, then I wouldn't recommend making the article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless you are intending on making a stub or something like NFL Quarterback Club '96, but you should still try to gather some good sources. ZappaOMati 18:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That NFL article is terrible. It's all sourced with database entries (which don't count towards making it to the GNG) or Moby Games, (which is not a reliable source.) Someone would be well within their rights to redirect it to a series article, if it exists, or nominate it for a deletion of sorts... Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've seen more terrible out there. (Quarterback Attack with Mike Ditka, Quarterback (video game), Realsports Football, the other NFL QC games, ABC Monday Night Football (video game))

These articles are what I thought they were. They're what I thought they were. I've played them before and saw poor sources — who the hell takes a poorly sourced article like it's bullshit? Bullshit! I wanted to source them — everybody (not really) throws in MobyGames — these articles are what I thought they were! That's why I took to Wikipedia. (again, not really) Now if you want to crown them, then crown their ass! But they are what we thought they were! And we let 'em off the hook!

I'm terribly sorry for ranting, I had to get the frustration off my chest. ZappaOMati 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you had created and done virtually all of the work on that article, or I would have phrased that a little more nicely. That being said...I'm pretty certain that what I'm saying is inline with Wikipedia policy and consensus. The fact that more terrible article exist doesn't justify the existence of any other articles, and it's well-accepted consensus at Wikiproject Video Game's Database of which sources are and aren't accepted that MobyGames is not an acceptable source. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am one of the worst when it comes to sourcing, so I might need help in sourcing this stuff. --Jayemd (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I were you, I'd figure out something soon; in it's current state, it could be pretty easily nominated for deletion, and you just went out of your way to bring attention to that very fact... Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I added an image, a reference and an infobox. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 11:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


IGN is archiving the site, and the staff is moving to Broken Joysticks. Might be worth discussing as a reliable source, but for now I'm just passing along the news. --Teancum (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do they mean by "archiving"? Will it break any existing references? - X201 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope not. Dunno. --Teancum (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OnLive dead?

There are reports slash rumours that OnLive has fired all its employees and will quite possibly shut down. [1] and many more. So, after finally getting a consensus on including OnLive covered in articles as a quazi-platform it looks like it may longer be around. So.. now what? Яehevkor 21:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sit and wait a few days for firm details. quazi-platform to become legacy quazi-platform perhaps. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Too many conflicting reports to make any changes outside of the OnLive article itself. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if it does get shut down, it still existed, so the matter of platformness is still relevant. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is/has/going to have been closed. Hold fire. Keep an eye on the article, enforce the reliable sources requirement at a harder level than normal, and wait for the inevitable "official" announcement, the take-over speculation and probable eventual sale. Other than that, everything that went before regarding the platform discussion still stands. And remember, it only becomes "OnLive was a company..." on the day that they close the doors and turn the servers off. - X201 (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they have essentially restructured and will continue to operate under the same name, so it looks like little to no change will be required on our end. Source. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with the last story article

A user keeps changing the release date for the game in question to Auguest 24th. This clearly not the date because a simple search at the GameStop and Best Buy store locator options on their websites clearly shows that both stores have the game in stock in several locations. In case anyone does not know what I mean both sites allow for an option that if you select a game on the site you can then go to a menu and by typing a postal code or city a person can see if any stores in the general area have the product in question. I tried to make a discussion at the talk page mentioning the evidence showing that the 24th release date is inaccurate but the user in question has not responded there and has changed the date since I made that post. It should also be noted that the user kept the original source and that source lists the 14th not the 24th. The problem is I will be offline soon so can someone else please keep an eye on the article to make sure that the unsourced new release date is not readded at least not without a good reason.-- (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The user in question changed it again. I will change it back on more time but something needs to be done.-- (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Realizing that I don't count as a reliable source, I have the game sitting in front of me, will all of the swag XSEED's given me for their version of it. Has he prevented *any* evidence that the game was delayed to the 24th? There were stocking issues, but the game was never delayed. Emmy Altava 04:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
As per the most commonly cited reliable source for release dates, IGN, The Last Story was released on August 14th, 2012 ref. Salvidrim! 06:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The user changed it back to the 24th despite 3 citations to the contrary. I think we may need to take larger steps to prevent this from happening again.-- (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-Review Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes

Can someone re-review Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes? I made a major edit to the page. JC Talk to me My contributions 16:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking for. If it's an assessment then it's still clearly a Stub. It's sourced well, however there just isn't enough content to promote it to Start or C class yet. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Project coordinator position

I have been thinking about using "coordinators" for the project. Two similar discussions were raised at WP:MILITARY and at WP:FILM respectively, so I want to propose the idea about it here:

The coordinator(s) would be generally responsible for the procedural aspects of keeping the project running. In particular, the coordinator could manage the proposal and creation of new task forces. However, this position would not entail any executive power. The coordinator would merely be the designated point-of-contact for procedural issues (and would, by extension, be responsible for ensuring that the project as a whole was properly informed of them).

The question then: would the creation of such a position be acceptable to the project?

A temporary proposal is being drafted in my sandbox. Any comments or thoughts from project members would be appreciated. Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as necessary. The project mainly exists as a discussion hub, with various resources attached to it that are maintained by interested editors. What would a "project coordinator" even do? New task forces come up only every few months, and are dealt with pretty easily by whatever editors show up to the discussion. There's not really many "procedural issues" that come up that the project needs to be informed of, and those that do we seem to do a fine job of with the involved parties posting on this talk page. This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem; I don't much see the point of creating a formal position for what everyone does ad-hoc anyway. --PresN 04:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with PresN that this seems to be a bold solution to a startling lack of problems... Salvidrim! 04:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
So, does that mean the coordinator idea is useless for now? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
When projects where set up originally there was a coordinator position logged. I think I still am that for WP:Wales, have not noticed that changing nor actually making any difference whatsoever. Agathoclea (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Neptunia V

I received a request on my talkpage for help with Neptunia V, but my brain is in no condition to edit an article right now. Would someone mind lending a hand at that article? Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I did what I could, but being unfamiliar with Japanese games in general, I wasn't much help. Whoever "owns" that article really needs to use inline refs, but that's the best I can offer. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Planetary Annihilation

I tried to add a little bit to this Planetary Annihilation page, but it's still extremely empty, fresh, and raw. I think it's got a lot of potential to become a popular and successful title, so I'd love to see some involvement there. I'll try to contribute to it what I can. Thanks! Tibbs (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

References for Future Games

I have been stumbling enough on this that I want some definite sources of information that I can turn to. So, which websites would the people of this WikiProject recommend as a good source of info for upcoming or strongly rumored games like Final Fantasy XV, Remember Me, The Last Guardian, Tomb Raider and others like them if and when info is available. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Any of our reliable sources we list at WP:VG/S would be fine (I know as I've edited The Last Guardian that it relies on those). The one key source to avoid is vendor sites, particularly with regard to release date, since they usually are guessing a date to get it into the system for people to preorder. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, vendors often make up their own release dates. For example, currently lists the Last Guardian as being released on New Years Eve which besides not be confirmed by Sony or Team ICO is also highly implausible to say the very least. Most of not all of the regularly reliable sources for released games should be fine for unreleased games though.-- (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Call Of Duty listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Зов Долга: Современная война 3, Зов Долга: Секретные операции, Зов Долга: Секретные операции II, Зов Долга: Секретные операции 2. Since you had some involvement with the Call Of Duty redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:VG article competition?

Hey all, this is an extremely random and cooky idea that just popped into my head, so feel free to shoot this down if you want with no hard feelings. Why don't we have a local WP:VG WikiCup or something similar? I looked around for precedents and there's a few: WikiGrail (WP:CHRISTIANITY), MILHIST's contest (based on an old proposal from the LGBT studies WikiProject), and Bacon WikiCup all seem to be working contests which encourage article participation in a certain area. We could make some sort of award for participation and for the person who finishes in first place; with such an attachment to achievements and trophies in video game culture today, it seems like this could also be a really good way to encourage editors to get involved in video game article creation (although I could also see why there would be detractors as well). Thoughts? Nomader (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Content creation contests are almost always a good idea, in my opinion. Torchiest talkedits 19:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I also support the article competition as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll make up a draft sometime this weekend when I get the chance and see what everyone thinks before I put it into Project space. Nomader (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
During my brief stint at the LGBT wikiproject, one of the things I really liked there was their 'contest', although it had long since fallen into inactivity and thus I didn't suggest it here. I would definitely approve of trying such a thing, though! You have my full support! Emmy Altava 05:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well based on the comments above and borrowing heavily from the WikiGrail (which seems to have a nice small contest going), I created a draft at User:Nomader/GameCup. We could really modify those point values to whatever we needed (maybe some A-class reviews, Altava?) and I still need to create some general rules and the awards but this could definitely work out. I'd love to hear some suggestions though as I move forward (or any objections to its creation which should be considered). Nomader (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
A-Class reviews should be worth 9999 points. Nobody ever does them, people only ask for them every three months, nobody will even notice! Emmy Altava 08:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
...more seriously, though, I'd probably make achieving A-Class an extra 15 points on top of a regular GA, GA assessments worth 5, and A assessments worth 8, so that people will be more motivated to actually do them. After all, if this succeeds, we'll have an influx of GAs that will need reviewing. Also, maybe assign a point value to the Stubcheck and Pre-2008 FA drive as well, so we can get some of those out of the way. Emmy Altava 08:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I have shell pages for most of the competition. Before I start going into detail about what the competition should be scored with, who the judges are, and etc., I think there should be more comment from people in the project. Is the basics of the draft laid out at User:Nomader/GameCup acceptable to everyone? Nomader (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

People have already begun to signup at the signups page. Feel free to put your name down as we flesh out the rules. Nomader (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
All I'm wondering about is: Since I have school, and the Cup stretches through Thanksgiving, is it alright if I use my alternate account (NFLisAwesome) during that period since I'm on vacation, as I use it in public servers? ZappaOMati 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As long as you leave a note (like you did) prior to the competition, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be acceptable. Should be just fine. Nomader (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


I've now moved the draft that was in my Userpage to WP:GAMECUP which is in our project's space. The GameCup signups are now officially open, although we need to have a discussion about what should get points and create some sort of barnstar/award for participation and winning. Any more thoughts? Nomader (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

One note: I'd suggest adding Featured Article Reviews to the points total. A perennial complaint with these sorts of contests is the drag on reviewers lots of submissions can create.

While it's hard to judge quality of reviews, I'd say that giving points for a thorough non-VG related FAC review (to avoid attempts to influence the timing of other people's noms, etc.) should be granted.

In a best-case scenario, we're then helping to improve other areas, as well as our own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, would it work to give newly created articles (that appear on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements) 1 point? ZappaOMati 15:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be implementing a number of changes hopefully either tonight or tomorrow night with regards to the scoring system. David, I agree that FAC reviews (and possibly FLC reviews as well) in other content areas should be scored, especially now that we have a nice small group getting together to do this. It has to be conditional on the quality of the reviews. Something like, "Support per User:Nomader", would not receive points. Zappa, my only concern is that people will flood the system with non-notable stubs; I think there would have to be some sort of content standard that we'd hold new articles to. I also think though that WP:VG A-class reviews should count for points as well, but only if the reviews are thorough and neutral. Nomader (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your points on new and A-class articles. We should focus on improving existing content. Torchiest talkedits 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Nomader, how about for any new articles created, we just wait for a while (a day, maybe?) to see if it gets CSD or PROD or AfD, but then again, we probably should just stick to improvement. ZappaOMati 16:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I look at it this way: we have more than 28,000 video game articles, and more than 90% of them are stubs or start class. That's a ton of unfinished stuff out there. Seems like having to watch for deletion of new articles would also add extra work, when this should be lean and mean. Torchiest talkedits 16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you got a point there. ZappaOMati 16:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
So, uh, right. As said earlier, I think it might be a decent idea to add some kind of points for the other unfinished drives we have going on - namely Stubcheck and Pre-2008 FA reviews. There are 57 open Stubcheck sections left, and those don't require *too* much work, so maybe make those worth two points and limit it to eight per participant so we can clear it up without anyone getting an unfair advantage by doing them all for 114 points? Dunno what FA reviews would be worth, though. Emmy Altava 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Argh, I started an FAC on July 20. That wouldn't count, would it? -_- I've signed up... Also, I agree with Altava that we should incentivize some drives. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So uh

It's the 20th. This thing happening? (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we bump the date back? It's the 21st already. ZappaOMati 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not start submitting your contributions and see what happens. Nomader is bound to remember he started this sooner or later. Salavat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Should I go tell him on his talk page then? ZappaOMati 02:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't hurt. Also if this Cup is going to be running perhaps a spot on the "To Do List" could be helpful (seen as this conversation will eventually get archived". Salavat (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's just move to WP:GAMECUP's talk. ZappaOMati 13:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay everyone, real life caught up to me and I didn't get a chance to finish the rules. I'll start to accept submissions although I'm going to be tweaking the point totals and rules tonight (so sorry if I screw up your possible point total or planned submissions). Nomader (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

November and December TFAs.

We've got two high-importance featured articles in WP:VG that are celebrating fairly important anniversaries in the last two months of the year: Metroid Prime and Final Fantasy. Neither of these has been featured yet, and it seems fitting to use them on their tenth and twenty-fifth birthdays of November 17 and December 18, respectively.

That having been said, I have no experience with the featured article process, so I figured I'd just give you guys a warning that these dates are coming up and that it mightn't be a bad idea to look them over and ensure they're up to standards. Just in case you might want to show them off or something. Emmy Altava 10:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! It's annoying that sometimes I don't learn of an article I worked on getting to the front page until it's actually on it :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Those are really good choices. We'll probably need another reminder by the time those months come around, though. Also, it might be a good idea to keep track of whether any dates in October and November are video game articles so the two you suggested can be requested, since there's a penalty for similar articles requested within a month of each other. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that in the TFA requests. I'll keep track, and next month start the additional entry there to make sure Metroid Prime gets a Main Page slot on Nov 17. igordebraga 23:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

M60 in black ops listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect M60 in black ops. Since you had some involvement with the M60 in black ops redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Persona 4 characters peer review

I requested a peer review for List of Persona 4 characters at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Persona 4 characters/archive1 but one of the issues (the explanation of arcanas and minor characters) has already been discussed in the project and I wondered if I could get more opinions (especially if they know of the game) regarding this in the peer review before editing more. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Oscar Delta

Charlie Oscar Delta redirects to Call of Duty 4, but "Charlie Oscar Delta" is NATO-alphabetspeak for "C-O-D", so shouldn't it redirect to the franchise article Call of Duty (series) , or to the disambiguation page Cod (disambiguation) ? -- (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was the official website of CoD4. It doesn't work anymore, and instead they use the multipurpose domain instead. The is still owned by Activision. That's why the redirect exists. Right now though, I guess it can be redirected to the disambiguation page if you really want to, without much fuss. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've disambiguated it. -- (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Where to begin


I would like to improve the article XIII, but I am not sure where to begin, etc. I never worked with video game articles so far, so any suggestions are welcomed. I am also not sure what to do with the characters section (merge with plot? Or let it as is?). Regards.--Kürbis () 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The article could use a Development section and/or Release section. There are numerous online articles available (see [2] [3] and [4]). ~ Hibana (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! Will do the section. Regards.--Kürbis () 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, the Development section would be the place to start. That's probably the hardest section to do, and if you can complete that, then you're definitely on your way to a WP:GAN or even WP:FA. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty Mortal Kombat

Brothers of the Shadow, Brotherhood of Shadow, Brotherhood of the Shadow, Mortal Kombat Universe, Mortal Kombat storyline, Mortal Kombat Artifacts, The Mortal Kombat storyline, Mortal Kombat Ninjas, Black Dragon (Mortal Kombat); all redirect to Call of Duty, shouldn't all of these redirect to various Mortal Kombat articles? -- (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

They should be moved back to the Mortal Kombat article. Taking a look what happened was that some vandal in early March redirected the Mortal Kombat page to the Call of Duty page and a bot retargeted the redirects listed since them became double redirects. I'll change them back because none of them belong at the Call of Duty article.-- (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Since we've got all of them, consider it resolved. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Why exactly did they redirect to Call of Duty anyway? Was it because the person (or people) wanted the page to get more traffic or something? ZappaOMati 02:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh wait, it was a bot that botched the redirect, but how the hell does Mortal Kombat and Call of Duty connect? XD ZappaOMati 02:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason is a user in Early March redirected the Mortal Kombat article to the Call of Duty Article. That was quickly fixed but the retargeting of the redirects were not noticed until now.-- (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It may also be a good idea to see if the bot moved other Mortal Kombat related redirects since there could very well be more that were retargted to Call of Duty.-- (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Would Pulse Blade or Quickscope be another one of them? (isn't "quickscoping" something done in all FPSes with sniperscopes? ) -- (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Pulse Blade is one but quickscope is not since that was always Call of Duty related (Originally an unsourcerd article about a sniping technique said to be predominant in the Call of duty series) and was redirected to the Call of Duty article months before this incident. I have fixed the Pulse Blade article though.-- (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Persona 4 name

I started a discussion at Talk:List of Persona 4 characters#Protagonist's name requesting opinions regarding the title of a section. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lego The Lord of the Rings: The Video Game

Could someone please add some categories to Lego The Lord of the Rings: The Video Game, I would do it myself, but will stray into the 3RR zone. The user there keeps removing the cover art I uploaded and replacing it with a promotional poster. He removed the categories I added as well. - X201 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. The categories & footer you added seemed entirely reasonable. Let's see if he reverts again. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made contact with him/her so we'll see how it goes. - X201 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone re-add the categories, again, please. He's removed them again. I don't want to be the only one correcting his edits, to prevent it becoming a battle. - X201 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Regards.--Kürbis () 14:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. - X201 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The problems haven't stopped, but at least we seem to have got to the nub of the matter "can u just stop altering my page and leave it alone". Any one for WP:OWN? - X201 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Djjazzyb and WWE '13

Excuse me, I'm Mikeymike2001 and I need your help. Djjazzyb keeps adding a roster to WWE '13 when you guys have consensus stating no rosters are needed on those wrestling games. Can someone here help me with this situation?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 1:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Could someone please explain to me why legitimate & useful information is 'against consensus'? Kane (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
We are a tertiary source, meant to summary data, not to document it completely. Rosters of characters typically mean little to the non-gamer (though examples can be highlighted) and are far better documented on gaming wikis, so we avoid those, even if the gamer may find the info useful. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No offence, but that's kinda stupid. lol Kane (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Its not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so we lay out articles in an encyclopaedic manner. As it is, we're not a gaming wiki, so we don't list every character and point value. If Wikipedia looked the same as gaming Wikis, there would be no reason for the other to exist. - X201 (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I would take this page to WP:RFPP if going back and forth if there's an issue. By the edit history WP:3RR has already been violated, so it might be best to request protection for cooldown. --Teancum (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fine by me, I'm not gonna edit it anymore as I actually got an answer as to why we don't add rosters, which was all I asked for in the first place. Kane (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Warcraft 2 Release Dates

The release dates on the Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness article are all quite messed up, I wrote it up on the the talk page hope you can fix that. Thanks --MetalSnake (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My new article

To all those here, I am creating an article for the new FFXIII game that will be announced on September 1st, using my sandbox of course, and I would like to know when it would be safe to create the actual article without it being unwanted, badly researched or out of place. Also, since I don't want to stay up until two'o clock for something that is in Japanese, where do I get the jusy bits of news at a more usual hour for work? --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I think it really depends on how much is revealed about this new game. If all they reveal is a name and a few screenshots or something, one could argue an article wouldn't be warranted at all yet. On the other hand, if they do some 30 minute trailer with gameplay footage, and after the show the press get's to play it hands-on, then it would be easy to have enough coverage to establish notability. Chances are, it'll fall somewhere in between those two scenarios, so it's hard to tell.
  • As far as sources go, Final Fantasy is a very popular series, so I'm sure all the biggest sites will cover it. (IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, etc). In general, with dealing Japanese games, "Andriasang" and "Siliconera" frequently have the first scoop on things. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You said you're creating the article in your sandbox, then you talk about creating the article itself. Just move your sandbox version when it is ready, to keep the edit history intact. - X201 (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Move it? I didn't know you could move it. I have asked for it to be considered as an article and have stressed that it is not ready yet, but I did not know I could move it when it's a descent size. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, just hit the downward pointing arrow that is between the Watchlist star and the Search box, and select move. Put the new location in, and provided that there isn't a technical hold up, it will move to the chosen title. - X201 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You should have provided a link to your sandbox. Personally I think you should move it now, AFC is not required. I know others will look at it and agree. - X201 (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I kind of object to naming it Final Fantasy XIII-3 considering they haven't announced it being named that yet. Likely but not announced. Additionally, it looks like the body of the article was mostly ripped from -- and the lead is mostly speculative/not necessarily announced yet... Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, if people could rephrase it or rewrite it a little so that it does not sound like a ripoff, I would appreciate it. I thought it would not matter, given that I remember writing the bulk of the section I used and that the info-box is commonplace. This is only the third article I will have started. Here is the link. Sorry I forgot it. Incidentally, re the title, what else could I call it two days before the official title is announced? This is only a working title and that is partly why I am having reservations about moving it right now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the article should exist under any title yet, since it doesn't have a name, and the information that isn't speculative, is already included very nicely in a pre-existing article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I misunderstood, I thought the name had been confirmed. Probably best to hold fire for a while. - X201 (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I see your points. It is not time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


I have nominated Crush 40 for Good Article Reassessment since I don't think it meets the GA Criteria anymore. Please voice your opinion here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You posted on the wrong Wikiproject page, since they have music albums not video games. Dream Focus 23:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Crush 40, known for a lot of VG music in Sonic the Hedgehog, would have VG as one of the projects it is under. Completely reasonable to point out here. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception section for FNC-FF

I propose that we put in a section on the general critical, fan-base and commercial reception for the Final Fantasy sub-series Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy. The individual games have their various reception sections, but there is nothing on the general reception and impact of the sub-series. There are various veiled hints that it has had a mixed reception, but the article really needs a section on it. Could people please supply their opinions and official sites which have articles on the game series' reception, if that's possible? --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

F1 series' drivers' tables

I seriously think that Formula One video games (or any other motorsport game that doesn't have excessive amounts of drivers/characters) should have driver tables and perhaps circuit listings. This would go against concensus. User:X201 has started up a discussion about it but the link (on the page F1 2011 (video game)) doesn't take you directly to the discussion. I'd like to know what people think. Thanks. TollHRT52 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (AEST)

I don't link discussion threads in comments as they become dead after the discussion is archived, as has happened in this case, I created the discussion asking for people's views on driver lists, two people replied and both agreed that the lists weren't needed in the articles. (That discussion is in Archive 94 and is discussion No. 70) - X201 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and chime in again on this. The reason we don't include drivers/tracks etc falls under the same reason we don't include a list of wrestlers in a WWE game. That is that these games have the same people/locations as the real life sport, and also often the list is quite large. In those cases we link back to the real-life sport, such as the Formula One 2011 racing series for 'anchor info', then list any discrepancies in the game, such as missing drivers or tracks in this case. --Teancum (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that there aren't any as there are excessive amounts, but in F1 the max was 26 drivers in a game, I think. The max no. of circuits was 22. So this is why I am asking because driver/circuit numbers are quite low. TollHRT52 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2012 (AEST)
Yes, but the other principal still applies. It follows the F1 2011 season, thus it stands that the drivers and courses from that season are in the game. Better to direct people back to the source (the actual F1 2011 season) to not only get driver/track info, but other interesting things such as race results. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the game doesn't include things like driver changes (e.g Ricciardo replacing Karthikeyan). You see, games like F1 2002 had driver tables for yonks and no-one gave a, um, s**t about it, until I sparked up about the fact that the driver table in F1 2011 kept getting deleted, and that is why we are here today. I would have replied earlier but for the Muscle Car Masters. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2012 (AEST)
Things like driver changes should be covered in the prose. Prose explains the context better than a table can. eg. "The game uses the same drivers, teams and tracks as the real 2011 Formula One season but doesn't reflect driver changes that happened during the season. Such as Ferrari, who dropped Phillipe Massa mid-season and replaced him with the Ferrari tea lady. The game also features the ability to race at Barcelona, the actual 2011 race was cancelled when the track was eaten by an invasion of giant vampire ducks." - X201 (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Also be aware that F1 2002 probably was never changed because nobody ever looks at it. --Teancum (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I only meant F1 2002 as an example. TollHRT52 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2012 (AEST)

Wikias as external links

I have a quick question. Are Wikia external links acceptable in any video game article? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • WP:ELNO Point #12 says "No", unless it's especially well known/trusted. I couldn't give you an example of one that would be acceptable though, I don't know of any that are especially good. I tend to remove them on articles I'm cleaning up unless someone really feels strongly about re-adding it or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel, Animepedia (not sure of name) off the top of my head. Most of the large gaming or popular culture wikis are generally suitable. --Izno (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know. Some Wikias are rather accurate. Certainly the Lego ones I know never have the kind of info that is being put into Wikipedia articles, or at least such info is quickly rooted out. Not as sure about games, but if you look there is probably at least one that supplies good info. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I am not sure if we are Wika's are the same as Wiki's or something else but it should be noted that if we are talking Wiki's there was a consensus to keep the Minecarft Wiki in the Mincaraft article in early June. If Wikia's are something else please disregard.-- (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Certain Wikias are even leery of stuff ported over there verbatim from here, particularly content specific to the game that was deleted here. I know, I've seen it happen with R-Type Final and some guy at the R-Type Wikia tried to make his point against them. As for Wikias' notability here, VG wikias are not the only ones affected. I remember one editor inserting HIMYM wikia ELs only for another to delete them wholesale. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You can find out how many people are active on a Wikia wiki by putting Special:SpecialPages in the search box and following the link to users. Don't take the total number of users though as that will count people with single edits. e.g The Elder Scrolls wiki has 10,856 registered editors, but when you refine that to users that have made 100 edits or more the list shrinks to 396 users. Its a useful method of assessing a wiki. - X201 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to find that Wikias for games are actually some of the best sources of information for them (even moreso than Wikipedia). So, particularly for games that I've played myself and have used the Wikia for the game, I'd say that it's fair to include it as an external link for the game. It would rank lower than the official website, though. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a good and a bad wiki here, so these can be taken into consideration. This one, the Prince of Persia wiki, is horrific, full of terrible grammar and inaccurate information. Stay clear! However, despite the distracting ads, this one, the Final Fantasy Wiki, is very good if a little prone to tell the story from inside the universe, though sometimes that's a bonus. Also, there is a good one here, for the Legend of Zelda series. Here they are, so you can judge for yourselves. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ty the Tasmanian Tiger

Hello. I am going to do some major work on Ty the Tasmanian Tiger in order to get the article up to GA status. I am also working on this in my sandbox; please see this for what the article will look like. The discussion is at Talk:Ty the Tasmanian Tiger#GA?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Free screenshots to disseminate - your help appreciated

Awesomenauts - Screenshot 12.jpg

I did some indie developer outreach recently and have uploaded free-use screenshots for some commercial games. The games are Awesomenauts[5], The Ball[6], Rock of Ages[7] and Unmechanical[8]. I've emailed OTRS to formally log the licensing details, they usually take a week or so, but I don't envisage any issue.

I've updated those articles, and a few other relevant ones (such as Unreal Engine 3). However, they could go a lot further, and I'd appreciate your help in getting these images into foreign language Wikipedias - particularly those that do not support non-free images.

It's also a bit difficult placing images in short articles without them looking out of place. I've used Template:Gallery in Awesomenauts and I think it looks OK, but it'd look even better if those articles were expanded and the images worked into the text. Unmechanical is ridiculously short. Remember that as they are free-use, they can be used a lot more liberally, such as for decorative purposes, than our non-free items.

This is also a reminder for editors to check in at Commons every now and again to check for new material. It's a shame there's no alert system there (now that Bayo's bot is inactive), so just keep an eye on commons:Category:Screenshots by video game and check that any new resources you spot are being well utilised. Killing Floor (2009 video game) for example, should really be using images from commons:Category:Killing Floor, but it's not, even though they were uploaded over a year ago. - hahnchen 00:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap that is awesome, well done! Make sure to tag any game images as {{trademarked}} so the images aren't abused. But that is really awesome. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I was going to work on Awesomenauts at one point and bring it up to at least B class, but got burnt out. I may come back to it. It's fairly simple to explain with text, so I doubt so many images would be necessary. 2-3 would be more than enough. --Teancum (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wii featured article review

Hello, I have nominated Wii for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Atari arcade games

Hey, folks, I just finished up the List of Atari arcade games, a list that has been needed for a while. Take a look and see if you find any omissions or errors. There are plenty of red-links, ripe for having articles written. Peace. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The list looks very good to me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems fine, except that there aren't any references at the moment, but doubtless that will come in time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I was leaving the references for the articles on the games themselves. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Instead of simply erasing the games Atari published by someone else created, perhaps put them in their own section, or in a separate list. I created a new template since its easier to have a template than a long see also list in all these articles. Not sure what to name it, or sort things. Its shows all the list of games articles for Atari platforms. Dream Focus 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Template:Atari game lists by platform}}

Request for Comment at Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes

There is an important request for comment at the talk page of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes regarding the content of the article. The relevant RFC can be found Talk:Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes#Request for Comment. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


On Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment#Quality_scale, the A-class classification states that "Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class." However, articles must pass GA to be eligible for A-class assessment, according to WP:VG/A/R ("To nominate an article for A-class, start a nomination thread on the article's talk page and notify the project here with a link to said thread. Please note that articles must be GA-class before nomination. Two uninvolved reviewers will need to review the article (on its talk page) and agree it is an A before it can be listed as such."). Rather than becoming involved in the recent activity over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests and just revert war over this matter, I am bringing this up here so we can have a more centralized discussion to see if we should consider revisiting this proposal and update the A-class proposal on the assessment department's page to delineate this, as noted in this most recent RfC.

I would like to ask anyone who intends to comment on this topic, before they do, to read the relevant discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_59#A-Class_priority, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_66#A-class, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_72#A-class_assessments, as well as the recent discussion, so that they know exactly what has happened. With that said, I would welcome any comments, thoughts, ideas or objections on the matter. Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You know what. --Niemti (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This is all a bit convoluted, but I'm assuming you want discussion here. I personally think having articles pass a GA review before going for WPVG A-class makes sense. A-class is supposed to be above GA, and just like you don't really see articles go directly from C or B to FA, there should be a step-by-step process to ensure the highest number of editors possible vet the article as it rises through the ranks. —Torchiest talkedits 00:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, GA is separate from A, so to call A "above" GA is incorrect. GA is a Wikipedia wide assessment, whereas A is a WikiProject specific assessment. We could theoretically have an article which is an FA as deigned by the folks at WP:FAC, but is a stub or start class for the WikiProject (not that this would happen due to the criteria by which the WikiProject classifies its stubs, but I hope it illustrates my point). Just thought that should be clear (I'm repeating information from those archives, but that's okay). --Izno (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No, A-class is supposed to be higher than GA class. That's why it takes two reviewers to approve it instead of one for GA class, just as it takes three reviewers to support an FA class candidate. And that's why an article can be GA class WP-wide, but classed above that for individual projects. Once an article is FA-class, it's that for everything. No project had jurisdiction to overrule the FA-class in their project with a lower ranking. There have been larger discussions (i.e. outside this wikiproject) on the subject. —Torchiest talkedits 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Period. A and GA as classes exist separately from each other, regardless of implementation. It is the WikiProject's determination that it wants two reviewers for a successful A class assessment. That does not imply that A is better than GA. Period. X random WikiProject (even our own, see bridies' opinion on the use of A below) could simply say that A quality articles are the same as GA quality articles. They could say that A class is better. That A class is worse. And could implement their assessment so that those are the results.

How Video games should or does implement the two classes is a different story, and you can read my opinion on the matter just below.

As for FA, that was simply an example to make the point.... --Izno (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Compare the language at the project-wide assessment guideline: "Once an article reaches the A-Class it is considered 'complete'" and "article is well-organized and essentially complete" versus the good article criteria: "The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles." I'm know GA and FA are Wikipedia-wide and not project-specific, but that doesn't change the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks an A-class article should be considered not as good as a GA-class article. I'm not sure now what your example was meant to illustrate, since my point is that an individual Wikiproject can't overrule an overall Wikipedia rating with a lower rating. Hence the fact that you may see GA-class articles with individual Wikiproject A-class ratings, but never with a B-class or lower for one project, and you never see an FA-class article with any other rating whatsoever.
My point is it simply makes sense to use the system in the most effective way possible, stepping from one, to two, and finally three or more reviewers as the quality level increases. Sure, we can in theory put A-class below GA for our project, but it's incoherent, and it would eliminate A-class completely in practice, since it's clearly a lot easier to get a GA review from WP:GAN than an A-class review at WP:VG/A/R, so why bother with the latter after doing the former, since you would be "demoting" the article at that point. We can use whatever review processes we want, and obviously the goal is to improve quality regard of what you call it, but it's simpler to just follow the logic of the rating layout as designed. I mean, A-class is literally above GA-class on the assessment table. Let's treat it that way. —Torchiest talkedits 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion on the matter, GA should not be a requirements for A. That GA is a good indicator of likely A status, I would not disagree, or the vice versa (A for GA). GA has the benefit that it can attract editors from outside the WikiProject; one outside viewer may be more helpful than two inside viewers to indicate problems of poor writing and other issues.

Given the RFC this February (RfC about A-Class usage at WP:VG), I would continue to support option 3, and I see no reason that option 3 and option 4 are mutually exclusive. That said, the development of possible A class criteria for option 4 should be distinctly more rigorous than the B-class criteria used by other projects (see WP:MILHIST). (In other news, I had forgotten that I had weighed in at that RFC.) --Izno (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've understood it, and again by looking at the criteria, A is higher than GA and is basically GA with the "comprehensive" criterion of an FA (but without the prose requirements, and stuff like FURs, maybe top-quality sourcing, and whatever else). I've no opinion on whether an A class article needs to be GA, but what I would say is that A-class is a needless layer of bureaucracy and rubber-stamping and shouldn't exist. And I think this is evidenced by the struggle it's had in getting reviewers. bridies (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In a larger scheme, A-class articles represent an article that for our project meets and excels at all requirements and expectations for video game coverage. The reason GA is below this is that GA represents an article that generally meets all of the core global policy and guidelines for any article (not just those of the VG project). The reason A-class depends on GA is that for A-class articles, we start with the assumption that they already meet all global policy and guidelines, and further demonstration VG quality. Given that we explicitly do not expect all articles to reach FA class (FA is meant to be exceptionally the best), A-class represents the best we should expect all articles to reach. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia-wide standard (Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ). And I don't know why apparently so many people can't understand the so-simple "Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class." Maybe it should be bolded or something. --Niemti (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking a side either way yet, but if what people have said above is true, and I'm reading it right, FA/GA standards are Wikipedia standard, where as Stub to A are Wikiproject set. If that's true, then it seems that a WikiProject could set it so GA is needed for an A assessment on their side of things. I'm not saying it necessarily should be that way, I'm just saying I don't think it's as baffling as you're making it out to be... Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The way I would do it for the VG project is that you don't have to have a GA as a requirement to ask for A-class assessment, but one should be aware that that two reviewers will be looking to see if GA standards are basically there. Without some adherence to the GA criteria, it shouldn't pass as A-class. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm in primary agreement with this. An actual GAN should not be required, but I would suggest that the individual GA criteria are required of an A class article, at the minimum. This will usually bear out in an article being taken to GAN and passing, but sometimes, maybe the primary author of the article may not want to go that route. As I said earlier, should we implement criteria beyond GA, they should also be more stringent than the criteria required for those WikiProjects which implement B-class check lists. But that's an opinion. --Izno (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, the rule regarding the GA requirements for A-class on WP:VG/A/R has been removed without proper consensus and assumed that whoever wrote it was wrong, despite this ongoing discussion. FA/GA standars are Wikipedia standard, and Stub to A are set up by Wikiprojects themselves (and they are not Wikipedia-wide standards), so I find this kind of puzzling. I believe the articles that are on WP:VG/A/R can be taken to A-class once they pass GA and in this discussion, we are trying to reach a consensus to clear up this matter. Also, keep in mind that consensus can change and there is no deadline. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it was inserted, by someone, without proper consensus - and squarely against the perfectly clear "Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class." as written in both Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment spefically and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ in general. I just removed the incorrect and misleading information. And my proposal is to take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council so Stub-A would be separated from GA/FL/FA. --Niemti (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It was added it this edit about a year and a half ago. While I could not find any discussion of it at the time, I also didn't find any complaints, indicating a de facto consensus. —Torchiest talkedits 16:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"Forgot to add this", lol. I didn't even notice it, before being informed by people using it like a gospel. Anyway, I just thought about it: does A even matter? At all? Everything up to B serves, for all practical reasons, as a step stone to GA and from there to FA. But A? It's not even displayed in the article. Maybe it should be. --Niemti (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Nintendo 3DS games using Miis

This was prodded (and even prod2-ed), but I felt its deletion would not be entirely uncontroversial. Perhaps it should be merged with the Mii article? Tijfo098 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't better merge target be List of Wii games using Miis? --Mika1h (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
If merge is done the combined article should be changed to something like List of Nintendo games using Miis since the current title would not make sense if we included 3DS titles. It would also be useful regarding Wii U games since there will be at least one New Super Mario Bros. U using Miis and its almost certain it won't be the only one.-- (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that would make more sense. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

template:vgrelease confusion

I was reading through the template for vgrelease and saw some confusion on the parameter "INT" where unlike the other parameters are solely based on release date by region, the parameter "INT" is focused on being rereleased as an international version. I find that parameter extremely difficult to use considering, i doubt international versions will be necessary to be covered in infoboxes or any tables specifically, and its easier putting rereleases in prose. I actually find INT to be more useful and more accurate if it was used for WW.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There are games that use INT to mean International Version as opposed to International release date. If the meaning of INT is changed then it makes the infobox in those games incorrect. WW for Worldwide was introduced to provide a suitable alternate to prevent the incorrect use of INT. -X201 (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: There are only 290 articles that link to International version, and not all of them are video games. So if someone wants to start consensus building to change the use of INT, I'd be happy to do the AWB business on the editing. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The Issue is however that INT follows a completely different idea of the rest. The others follow by region, INT complicates things.Lucia Black (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
anyone want to ad their opinion?Lucia Black (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does it need help?

Hello everyone! I would like to ask if Call of Duty ,Black Ops is created, or if it needs help. I know just about everything about Black Ops for the Wii. If there is a slot open for that, I would like to help improve it because of my knowledge of videogames! Thank you. please answer this question on my talk page.= RAIDENRULES123. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAIDENRULES123 (talkcontribs) 18:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on List of God of War characters

Just so everyone is aware, there is a request for comment on List of God of War characters at Talk:List of God of War characters#RfC on some issues. More eyes would be appreciated there. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Genre changing shenanigans - On the Dead Space, Echo Night Beyond, Among The Sleep and Call of Cthulhu articles. The old swap-genres-without-source-rationale-or-explanation chestnut, oldest trick in the book. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh good, what's even more fun is that they're using the "psychological horror" non-genre as a replacement. It's nothing new, a handful of peeps are hell-bent on either using it as a sub-genre of survival horror or establishing it as a genre itself, despite the fact that there are no explicit gameplay mechanics to psych. horror. It's a passive-medium genre, IE novels and films, when was the last time you watched a platformer at the cinema? Someoneanother 17:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
(I should qualify that, there are certainly games where psychological horror is a valid descriptor, category etc. because they are called so in relevant sources. That's a different thing to using it as a gameplay-derived genre which is what should be in the infobox). Sorry, a little off-topic. Someoneanother 20:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


File:Seganomad.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No articles use it, and there are better images on Commons - X201 (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page creation help

The article The Legend of Spyro currently exists as a redirect. A while back, consensus seemed to have been reached that it should be developed into its own article, which we began building in my sandbox. The discussion can be found here. Over time, interest in building it waned, and even I forgot about it until a few days ago. But it's still there, and I think it's of sufficient quality that it could survive a vote for deletion. I want to move it into The Legend of Spyro, but I want to make sure that the development history, and by that I mean discussions on my sandbox talk page, are moved as well and properly labeled and such. Any advice? Is this even a common scenario? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it for a technical move. So hopefully it should get sorted. When it does, remember to add categories and disambiguations to it, along with checking the links from other articles. - X201 (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done Yunshui  10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I'll get started on the links. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Adventure games in space CFD

I don't how to add CfDs to the deletion page so I post it here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Category:Adventure games in space. --Mika1h (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Video game fictional chronology templates

I am sorry to say that this category is encouraging in-universe fictional chronology crap. Why doing the Star Wars EP I-VI rather than real-world perspective, like Star Wars EP IV-VI and EP I-III? Anyway, should there be category renaming? --George Ho (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Totally disagree. There are times that the interested reader will need to know the sequence of events to understand the plot summary in a given article, and at times the gameplay changes as well. I will, however, totally concede that we should be careful not to overuse something like this. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that these, from the nonfictional point of view, would duplicate the navboxes which are usually included below. From the fictional point of view, they encourage in-universe writing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I believe they provide more value as fictional chronologies than as nonfictional for the reason that they may order elements in a way which is not otherwise done. However, they are only really valuable on the main series page for each of these sets of articles, in my opinion. Renaming the category is undesirable from the point of view that these are, for the most part, fictionally oriented. Whether we should have fictionally oriented sidebars is a different story. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Image width in Template:Infobox video game

I've only really returned to editing in the last month. So I've only recently spotted that quite a few of our box art images are surrounded by whitespace, where there previously was none. It turns out that since February, our documentation has been recommending that we set no size for the lead image, and rely on user thumbnail preferences.

I reverted that today. Our infoboxes are a fixed width, and our lead image should fill that. The vast majority of readers have no idea that thumbnail preferences exist, and so will see needless whitespace in the infoboxes if we use the default size. I am posting this here, because there are users systematically removing the image sizing from infoboxes, please stop this. - hahnchen 13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's flawed reasoning. Our infoboxes don't need to have a filling image beyond that you apparently say so, it appears to me. I would argue further that it should definitively be left to user preference, always, on this point. They set their preferences for a reason, and Wikipedia has its default for another. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that infoboxes are meant to be kept at a fixed width across the entire (22ems), it makes sense to have images - whenever possible - fill the infobox space up to that. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The infobox size is fixed - take a look at the source, your user preferences can do nothing about that. I'm generally fine with default image sizes, but I think that when you have a predefined space to fill, you fill. This previous discussion may be relevant. - hahnchen 23:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Yea, even moreso on that. The user pref/default size will not affect how any other rendering of the page will be made because the infobox is a fixed width (it may push things vertically, but not horizontally). The user pref for size is more important in prose where things are freeform. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against it if someone wanted to rewrite the infobox though. By switching our infobox to use the standard Template:Infobox, the width would be determined by your browser text size. Instead of specifying "image=[[File:Cover.jpg|sizepx]]", you'd have "image=Cover.jpg", and have sizing as a separate optional paramter. By default you would have the frameless attribute, I would also suggest that the default size is set to something like upright=1.2 to fill the box at the browser default settings (font size 16). If the image parameter is blank, then it should auto-populate a category such as Category:Album_infoboxes_lacking_a_cover, which would be a lot more efficient, up to date, and self maintaining than our talk page based Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art. These suggestions though, will require bot support. - hahnchen 11:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I've wanted to fix the infobox to use T:Infobox for a while, but you would need to get consensus to abandon the striped rows, which is, from what I can see, the only reason why we aren't at the moment (and there is, if I recall, an older positive consensus on having striped rows). --Izno (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The striped rows are nice. Could you update T:Infobox to include support for alternating rows? - hahnchen 12:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That would likely require large-scale consensus to include since it would affect every infobox (not just VG's) on I'm trying to determine if the striped rows can be applied at the t:infobox level but I don't see an easy way, yet. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that they're nice; they're inconsistent with the usage of the vast majority of infoboxes (since these days most infoboxes use T:Infobox), they create inconsistency even between video gaming articles (what ends up striped and what doesn't), and I plain just don't like the look. I'm fairly certain there's no way that Template:Infobox would accept the striping and I would argue against it at that point also. The most natural implementation would be to use an optional template parameter and CSS3, which comes with associated issues (browser incompatibility among the topmost). --Izno (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
What ends up striped and what doesn't isn't really important, it's that it guides the eye. I would assume that zebra striping would be an optional parameter in T:Infobox that T:InfoboxVG would invoke. Even keeping T:InfoboxVG separate from T:Infobox, you could still implement some of the suggestions above. - hahnchen 16:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The CSS3 trick works for me on the latest Chrome, IE, and a year-old version of Firefox on Windows. I suspect that that compatability is an issue on browser age at this point. It would be "very easy" (in that its seems completely possible) to use the CSS3 trick with t:infobox to remake the vg infobox that standardizes on t:infobox but provides the zebra rows. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer version <9, for basically anything CSS3. 'Nuff said. Aside from that, this would be a change that goes to WP:Common.css, and I would suspect there you would find even more resistance. Partially for the fact that striping for this kind of box doesn't appear anywhere else in the wild on the WWW (for standard data tables, fairly common). I'm also faintly aware that the continued rollout of new skins for use on Wikipedia is taking a different approach to the style, and the striping sticks out like a sore thumb. I haven't argued against its current use because I was pretty sure I would get this reaction. :)

Hahnchen: That it it creates inconsistency due to the use of striping is a fact. Your is simply a claim. I'm not going to dispute the claim, because that leads down the path of "he likes it/she likes it". I am going to dispute your implicit claim that the consistency is not an issue. The consistency of display of the infobox with the rest of Wikipedia and even between video gaming articles is disturbing from the point of view that we strive to maintain a consistent article appears within the VG project. For an element such as the infobox, common to most if not all pages at this point, it is clear to me that our infobox should follow the general style of T:Infobox at the least to help create a consistent user experience.

This all largely digresses, because it's about a point that is not about the thread topic. I don't know if the changes you suggest can be made without the use of T:Infobox because I haven't looked into it, and so I wouldn't argue against your proposed changes. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My reading of T:infobox indicates that styles can be set there (inline as opposed the css stylesheet), so VGP could still strip via the CSS trick without affecting other projects. In cases where the css3 trick fails, the result gracefully degrades to a non-zebra table. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You need to set CSS like that in the stylesheet, because, so far as I'm aware, you cannot set psuedoclasses via use of the style attribute. So yes, you'll need support at the stylesheet level. --Izno (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what is the logic to not allowing users to set their image size? This is standard practice with infoboxes (built into generic infobox code), and it makes the wiki more usable now that more people have HD monitors. I don't know how an infobox can be "overly large" if it's conforming to user preferences. If there is a problem with infoboxes not accommodating user preference, shouldn't that be what is fixed? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It's covered in the discussion above, but the size of Infobox VG is fixed. For the vast majority of readers, they're going to see a space for a 250px image with a 220px default thumbnail in there. The infobox was designed to have the image fill the space, previous discussions had covered this, and the infobox documentation reflected this. I would not be opposed to rewriting the infobox to use a dynamic width and have the image width parameters removed, but that would be seemingly difficult to do without some crazy CSS to preserve the zebra striping. - hahnchen 11:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to note, the 22em size width for infobox is a standard across all infoboxes, not just VG. We don't want to mess with that. Vertical space on the other hand... --MASEM (t) 13:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
VG is not 22em. - hahnchen 14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Most (if not all) other infoboxes encourage frameless and often set that as default. The image is clearly not designed to fill the space, as image sizes would need to be 256px to remove any of the (somehow detrimental) whitespace, yet the default thumbnail size is 220px. If the image was designed to fill the space they missed the mark by 36px. If that is a problem, it seems that either the infobox needs to get smaller or the default thumbnail size should be increased to 250px. Using px sizing is useful for special circumstances, but it shouldn't be the rule. It negates user preference and makes WP harder to use for users with large or small screens. The infobox size does scale when the default thumbnail size is set to 300px (rather the image scales and the infobox scales around it), and this causes no issue. Are we seriously suggesting that ridding our overly-large infobox of whitespace is more important than user preference or accessibility? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The documentation specified 250px in order to fill the space. I agree that defining sizes in px is not ideal, I generally use the upright option unless I want to preserve a screenshot's native resolution for example. But our infobox is a set size, and our image should at least fill that. You could include the upright attribute alongside frameless to fill the infobox for default users, but I think the better solution would be to build sizing into the infobox and then bot update our existing articles. - hahnchen 17:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just updated Template:Infobox video game/doc/syntax guide to include sizing based on user preferences. upright=1.15 is 250px at default settings. But in future, you need to be up front when making changes to the infobox and its usage documentation, WP:Silent consensus is bullshit and should not dictate how a highly visible template evolves. You want to change the infobox? You seek consensus. I only found out after seeing too many frameless whitespace for it to be a coincidence, and seeing a user fair-use reduce lead images to 220px. Even then it took me quite a while to figure out whether the template had been changed, or whether the documentation had been changed, it turned out to be a separate sub page to the documentation that I didn't even know existed. Getting changes to the infobox should not be through the back door, it is not bold if you don't tell anyone about it. - hahnchen 15:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

While we're talking about the infobox...

Do we want to change over to the standard t:infobox basis that most other infoboxes extend from and have a few more features - though we'd lose our zebra stripping - or do we want to modify the existing to be better at image handling (possibly stripping out the sizing factor in favor of something like Hahnchen suggests?) Any change would require back-compatability: eg, it would require the existing use of the infobox video game template to be unchanged or something that can be easily run through with a bot to fix. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  • See the documentation of Template:Infobox. Default use of the image parameter is the same as our own usage, which means, should we make the desired change to either one, no benefits stem from that point of view. Where we do benefit is use of a standardized mother-template, which would simplify our current infobox coding to some small extent and standardize on the style point of view. I've made my argument earlier on whether we should have striping and why that standardization is good...

    I personally detest the idea of changing the default images through the template rather than through changes to the individual pages. There will be times and places where it is inappropriate to have a full-size box-art, or whatever ends up in the infobox as its image. Additionally, forcing image formatting through the template "complicates" the image syntax, in that bots have a more difficult time dealing with it at the page-level. It also results in the addition of any number of parameters to the template to handle at the least the alt and the possible caption. --Izno (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Gaming Age

Okay. Past discussions have brought nothing substantial about this, so here I go. Gaming Age is a video game-dedicated website that publishes news, reports and reviews of videogames. The website have been active since late-1990s and still is there. Reviews on the website are made by professional video game journalists, some of them who have moved to other websits lige, IGN and Gamespot. Additionaly, Metacritic includes the website when compiling their score of games. So, my question is, is Gaming Age reliable enough to be used on the Reception section? It could also be used on other sections of video game articles citing facts like release dates, previews, information about the development of games and such? Or is it completely unreliable? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 17:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this would be better suited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources-- (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think maybe he's posting here after having tried and failed to get any discussion on the lower traffic sources page. I've looked at the site (assuming this is it), baulked at the Google ads, then I saw Help Wanted! Gaming Age is looking for reviewers. Aside from asking for people to do unpaid reviews, it says: "Gaming Age is a volunteer-driven videogame site with a staff who, at the moment, doesn’t quite have the time to keep up with each and every new release." So I'm saying completely unreliable. As if anything else were needed: the editor in chief is also listed as a staff writer, so substandard editorial oversight, by our requirements. Being listed on Metacritic does not mean a great deal in itself and I don't think having its writers moving on to more professional sites (or rather, just professional sites) helps its case. bridies (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, when I asked for the reliability of the site, i meant for old reviews, when the staff (who's now working on GameSpot, IGN and such) were comprised by professional reviewers. From actual games, i would never use it. — ΛΧΣ21 16:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we know they were then professional reviewers? If a particular writer could be proven to then have been a widely respected journalist, maybe. But generally, no. Also, another problem with that argument, is that - as you'll often hear around here and VG FACs - is that website reviews did not have much clout back in the '90s, vs. print reviews. bridies (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, an old archive of Gaming Age has a list of reviewers and where did they moved. I check them before adding the review. As i have not access to the printed reviews (I live in Venezuela) and because i work on games that hasn't received much coverage, i try to use all reviews I find and I can prove to be reliable. For me, the old Gaming Age from the 90s and before-2003 could be used. For me, the actual Gaming Age is unreliable. — ΛΧΣ21 16:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hahc, what games are you looking for? For two of the articles you're taking through a review process (System Shock 2 and Sinistar: Unleashed), you're almost certain to find something useful at Computer Gaming World[9] - the complete archives are online. - hahnchen 18:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the current Gaming Age and the classic one are unrelated. Could be wrong, but the site archives only go back to 2011. --Teancum (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I'd say that if we're talking specific individuals for specific articles/reviews that are now professionally employed at a reliable source, that might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise I'd say no. --Teancum (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Great. I agree with you. — ΛΧΣ21 16:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


I've noticed an IP editor adding a couple of "Hyper Awards" to scores boxes. I was actually pondering this recently so thought I'd ask: do we include things like "Editor's Choice", "Mega Game", "Gold Star", and so forth as "awards"? Is that accepted practice? I'd always assumed those awards fields to be for things like Game of the Year, Special Award for Innovation (see Dungeon Master (video game) and so forth. bridies (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The award section is generally for Industry awards such as the GDCs and BAFTAs. It's not useful to have magazine score awards (such as a PC Zone "Classic" award for 90%+ games) because its just duplicating the score section above. I don't think they should include publication GOTYs either, because there are just so many of them (sometimes at the same publication!). - hahnchen 18:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Magazine request

I'm interested in PC Gamer's October 1994 issue containing a Full Throttle preview. Considering the quality of the information found in print sources, I could definitely use it to improve the game's Wikipedia article. Electroguv (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move Layton


feel free to voice your opinion on this page. Regards.--Kürbis () 20:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Heads up: StarCraft: Ghost is on the Main Page on September 20

Just a heads up that StarCraft: Ghost will be on the Main Page on September 20. Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

shameless plug And don't forget to watch article alerts, which announce upcoming project-related TFAs. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 06:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Operation Rainfall articles

An IP editor has been recently removing information from the following articles: Operation Rainfall ([10]), Pandora's Tower ([11], [12]), Xenoblade Chronicles ([13], [14]) and The Last Story ([15], [16]). However, it has significant coverage and therefore, it is is notable. The user in question argues that the information is irrelevant and is self-promotional. Since we do not want to edit war over this matter (which is strictly forbidden), I am taking the BRD cycle and have opened a discussion here to see if others can voice their opinion on this matter. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Inclusion - The information should absolutely be kept in the articles. There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and the Operation Rainfall movement was found to be notable as a whole when taken to AFD while back. That IP's actions is very similar to an IP about a week ago I came across who was blanking OpRa information from articles on the same grounds. (See here.) No discussion or response to me, just page/section blanking. It's nothing more than vandalism or POV pushing... Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
EDIT - I hadn't checked all of Sjones links, but it appears that with his examples he already made the connection that these two different IPs are likely the same person. So my examples were redundant, but my points still stand. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The guy removing them might be an asshole, but those articles do give Rainfall undue weight by shoving a hatnote into the development sections. - hahnchen 14:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
If you feel trimming is needed to avoid undue issues, go for it. I'm not saying everything is necessary. I'm just saying section/page blanking, without any discussion, when reliable sources are making a clear connection, is not the way to do this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep the inclusion because in first games, most of the information on those pages would be empty because very few Wikipedia articles have information of games not released in NA, because of Operation Rainfall (mostly) this games were released here and ignoring these guys would be a very foolish thing to do because of their known involvement and the campaigns they made. That's why we should keep the information on the articles.
And talking about the articles I would also like to note that while most of the articles are complete (particularly the one of xenoblade) they still need some serious edit and to check minor details so as short development sections and story & setting, and many others. So it would be good if more people could contribute on these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The History Writter Guy (talkcontribs) 04:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Prince of Persia issues

Many articles within the space of this franchise (such as Prince (Prince of Persia), the main Prince of Persia page and List of Prince of Persia characters) seem to be either a little rocky or a shambles when compared to several Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider articles. What can people suggest to help? I can't find many sources and external links within the space of Wikipedia's standards to help me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Colony Wars

Hello everyone, I've started working on all three Colony Wars articles. I just finished the first one. Anyone who can help is welcome. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Special:WhatLinksHere/Colony_Wars, you'll see some links from our reference library. Thibbs has articles from GameFan, Mitaphane has articles from Next Generation which may help. - hahnchen 20:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I've found the SCEE site and I'm still working out in my head how Vengeance should look. Red Sun needs a full section breakdown too.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Halo movie (possible vandalism)

This is really urgent. User Xxfi3ld5yxx is putting in info on the possible Halo movie in this article, including the title and lead actor, without any references to back it up (and by that I mean apart from the IGN reference, which has no mention of this information and is over a year old). I removed the info and stated my reason, but that same user has put it back in again. Please, what should be done (and believe me something needs to be done!)? --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone stating Jack Black will play lead in a Halo movie, with no source? Tempted to call vandalism. bridies (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I have found and fixed a similar edit to the Jack Black page, along with repairing the page section, which had been left in a shambles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Pokémon

May I nominate List of Pokémon for featured list?--Lucky102 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You can but it won't stay for long: Unreferenced lead, prose not good enough, questionable sources, not all Pokemon in the table are referenced, table does not meet MOS:DTT. If you fix these issues it will have better chances there. Regards.--Kürbis () 08:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Do all Pokemon in the table need to be referenced? o.0 Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 00:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Ideally all entries on any list are referenced, but certainly on a featured list. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
So, yes or no?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping you from nominating it, you don't need permission or consensus for that. Whether it's fit to be an FL (now or in principle) is a different matter. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ratings field in Infobox video game

Your input is desired at Template:Infobox video game regarding the use of the ratings field. See Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Propose_removal_of_ratings_section.. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Studio Ghibli WikiProject/Task force discussion at WP:ANIME

There is an important discussion whether we should form a task force or WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Studio Ghibli. The discussion is at WT:ANIME#Studio Ghibli WikiProject/Task force?. Comments, input, ideas, or suggestions from project members would be encouraged. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the goodwill of "Nominate one, review one"?

I was looking over our current GANs. Of the 18 currently listed, only three are not nominated by User:Niemti, and that user has only ever completed one GAN review. I checked their user page and found a few more that had recently been reviewed. I tried leaving a friendly message on their talk page requesting that they chip in with reviews for other articles, but this was ignored. Then I popped over to the assessments page. Currently this user only has three assessment requests, but previously had 21 at one time. I searched the history and saw no instance where they have once assessed an article in return. Someone talk me down, this is infuriating (or at least as maddening as Wikipedia work gets). I personally have decided not to participate in any of this user's GANs or assessments until they contribute equally. --Teancum (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly relaxed about this. Unlike DYK, which enforces this in order to ensure their articles are recent, GAN has no such expectations. It's not like a good article gets any kind of special attention, if a user wants to write good content but doesn't want to review other work, that's fine. You've authored a load of B-quality articles according to your user page, I hope lack of reviewing doesn't stop you from nominating them to GA. - hahnchen 20:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think Niemti can be blamed for this: he's a non-native speaker of English, and good though his English is, it is not of a sufficient standard to judge articles on the prose criterion. He actually recused himself from the one he started, I presume for this reason. I'm personally happy for him to be nominating and not reviewing. Also, I think another reason the backlog of his articles are accumulating is that he's nominating character articles and fewer people are confident about what a character GA should look like. That's why I've left those anyway. bridies (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair enough assessment. I totally agree on the character article thing, too. I won't touch those with a 10 foot pole. I just don't feel comfortable with what's required for those types of articles, and I've never found guidelines for them (though I assume they exist -- I've never looked). --Teancum (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was willing to accept Hahnchen's comments at first, but there are now 28 GAN nominations, only four of which are not User:Niemti's (not to mention the Assessment page). It's becoming a good faith disruption. Say I was to nominate a GAN (I have some I plan to) -- what's to make mine stand out from the sea of GANs that are already there? --Teancum (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It does look a bit ridiculous, but someone picked out Minecraft the same day (today) as it was posted, and it's not by Niemti. And there are 3 articles on review not by Niemti, to the 2 on review by Niemti. I don't really see what can Niemti can do, even if he reviewed all the the other GANs, there'd still be 20+ of his nominations waiting; obviously he can't review his own nominations. So what would we do, ask him not to nominate anything, or not to write the content? Not really seeing how that's much good. You might post at good article talk asking for more reviewers/input. bridies (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


Anyone familiar with the Español Wiki and its FA criteria to decide whether Mario & Sonic passes or fails? Its already an FA here and the article looks like it was simply translated into Spanish. Super Mario Kart, a GA here, is also listed. es:Wikipedia:Candidatos_a_artículos_destacados#Videojuegos_(3). « ₣M₣ » 16:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception sections

There has been a disagreement that has arisen in the last few days regarding how best to handle the reference section (if indeed one is even a good idea) for games whose original release version was an arcade cabinet. The discussions have hit a dead-end and I've decided to seek the input of the broader community. Please weigh in if you have a view here.

Basically all parties agree that for the majority of classic big-name arcade games (Pac Man, Space Invaders, Galaxian, etc.) the emphasis of the article should remain on the arcade version that originally popularized the game and that arguably led to its great success and multiple succeeding ports/remakes/rereleases. Both sides further agree that a list of ports/remakes/rereleases (if there are any) should appear in the "Ports" section per the suggested guidelines at WP:VG's Arcade Task Force.

The disagreement begins with the question of whether a reception section is needed or whether it is even a good idea to have one in game articles where the original version was an arcade cabinet. On the one hand, the Arcade Task Force doesn't mention a reception section (if the suggested sections are interpreted narrowly), but on the other hand WP:VG lists a "Reception" section as Essential content. Since the Arcade Task Force is a part of WP:VG, WP:VG's MOS would presumably apply to their articles just as it does to the games covered by the Nintendo Task Force, those covered by the Sega Task Force, and indeed all other video game articles. This aside, the suggestion has also repeatedly been made that reception that is anything other than facts-only (i.e. subjective review scores, critical opinion, etc.) is inherently biased because it represents individuals' POVs. By adding information on what a reviewer thought of the game we are harming Wikipedia with unencyclopedic content. Curiously, there's no column for the arcade, but what do we think of this?

The second point of contention concerns how the reception section should be used if in fact it turns out to be something that should be added to the article based on the guidelines and consensus. One view is that the reception section should cover all different versions of the game if reliable sources can be recovered as references. Under this view the coverage of as many different versions as possible provides a fuller picture of the history of the game and how it evolved over time and dissipates any POV by showing all reviews within the spectrum. While care should be made not to emphasize inferior later versions unduly, brief prose coverage should be able to present all scores in context. The other view is that because the game was initially released as an arcade only version, the subsequent ports with different underlying code really aren't the same game at all and that the "Reception" section should be limited to critical reception of the original arcade version if it can be found. Under this view, a brief listing of the ports/remakes/rereleases should be limited to the "Ports" section and critical reception coverage of these remakes should be excluded or limited to separate stand-alone articles covering the later releases.

We've discussed this in depth on my talk page here, and there was a brief discussion of the matter here as well, but we find ourselves at an impasse. I've invited the members of the Arcade Task Force to comment here and if anyone here has any views on the matter, please help us to resolve this. -Thibbs (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr summary

  1. Are subjective critical reviews something we want to include in video game articles?
  2. Is a reception section something we want to include in arcade game articles?
  3. Should reception sections in arcade game articles cover only critical reception of the original version of the game or can we include sourced reception of remakes as well?

-Thibbs (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of "port" reception if a port can't be pass WP:N to be spun out as with Bionic Commando Rearmed, Pac-Man Championship Edition and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled it doesn't need it's own information in the Reception section. The exception would be the inclusion of an aggregate score (GameRankings/Metacritic). It may be useful for a game that did not age well with its re-release, such as Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project (it was panned in its re-release). --Teancum (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This sounds strange to me, though. Are you saying that the only time reception information for a port should appear in an arcade game article's reception section is if the port is notable enough for its own stand-alone article? Wouldn't that be unnecessarily duplicative? My understanding is that in articles covering a game and its ports, remakes, rereleases, etc. then all non-redundant information pertinent to the offspring versions should appear in the parent article unless there is a stand-alone article covering the offspring version. Is that off the mark? -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry -- I was typing that with a screaming baby on my lap. Basically I'm just saying that if the port/remake has received enough unique coverage it can be spun out, otherwise a basic port can simply have its reception merged in a summary article for the title, like Crazy Taxi. --Teancum (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I would think that, in regards to the tl;dr questions, the answer should be "Yes" to all three, if it's available and reliable. Reception sections are a major part of any sort of related media articles. (Music releases, Television shows, etc.) Subjective or not, it's typically a large of what makes the topic notable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the tl;dr questions as well (plus the more detailed version above them) and I would say yes to all three. As Sergecross73 has said, the reception section is a major part of any media article, and what is Wikipedia for if not to allow someone to access this kind of info without going to a specialist site and going through goodness knows how many different sub-menus and triple-categories to get it? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the age, I would almost think that it is impossible to build a notable article on an arcade cabinet without some type of reception or legacy section, since back then, aspects like development were not widely reported. This may come from the ports of the cabinet to console or other platform (for example, I can't tell you much about the original Crazy Taxi arcade cabinet but I can tell you how all the subsequent ports did per Crazy Taxi (series)), since it was rare for arcade games to be rated and reviewed. There may be fringe cases where an arcade game article is notable without any reception of it or any of its ports, but I expect that to be exception. If there are ports that don't have their own page but have reception, they should be summarized, alongside any reception of the arcade version, in the article. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes to all three. No. 1 and 2. are kind of "duh", since a reception section is the crux of probably most video game (those which are not hugely influential classics) articles, and changing our minds on that would be to be to overturn the way we've done things for years, all our FAs and GAs, and so forth (same with articles on other fictional works). Yes to no. 3 also: although many may have a fondness for the arcade original, we summarise the secondary material: so if that includes critical material on the ports, it should be included. bridies (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the responses everyone. The consensus seems pretty clear here.

For the record, my personal feeling is that it is dangerous to treat games that started as arcade versions differently from other games because it has such a potential for content forking. If any sort of reception discussion of ports/remakes/rereleases is barred from articles on games that were originally arcade games, then the only option to present this reliably-sourced info is in articles devoted only to the remake/port/rerelease. Considering that it's practically impossible to review these remakes without comparing them to the original at least in your mind, it seems that the best place for them would be in the parent article which would still emphasize the original version but would also cover the rereleases. The only reason I can see to keep this information out of the parent article is if you're worried that the reception of the remakes will paint the original game in a bad light but first of all that sort of effort to "correct" the historical record is exactly the POV fork I was talking about and secondly I think that issues of dueness can be addressed simply by expanding the breadth of reception and potentially by turning it into a prose section that could explain the reception in context.

Generally I think that WP:VG's basic MOS should apply to games covered by the Arcade Task Force and that no special infoboxes should be created to drive a wedge between games with arcade versions and the rest of the games under WP:VG. Doing so is likely to provoke the same reaction in those that view PC games as entirely distinct from console games and from those who view handhelds as completely distinct from home consoles, etc., etc.. There is no reason to fragment the rules covering different kinds of games under WP:VG. I'd rather not see arcade-specific rules and nes-specific rules and pc-specific rules if possible because it will make article creation that much more difficult for new users and will make regulation of the existing articles that much more complex.

Thanks again to all who weighed in. -Thibbs (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not too late to chime in. (1) yes, we should include the section in all games. If we're unable to, we would have to question why a game has an article to begin with. (2) yes, there should be no difference between formats. We don't treat DVD/TV-movies any different to those with a cinema release. (3) It's an interesting question. Sometimes the home versions differ significantly from the arcade, because (a) the target hardware was not up to the job, or (b) the developers decided to go their own way and change things around. Generally in this latter case, we might possibly have a second article. In the first case, I'd see it as a grey area. Sometimes the conversion captures the feel of the arcade, and sometimes it is way off. When it's way off, it would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, maybe sometimes excluding home reception, and sometimes having a second Reception section, with the text making it obvious which is which, and why it's separate. Out_Run#Reception is an experimental example which is explicit. Curiously, there's no column for the arcade verswion, but what do we think of that?

VG Term Glossary

I've seen the suggestion hinted around before, so I'd like to formally propose we start a page Glossary of video games (eg in line with Glossary of chess in terms of naming). The page would be able to include both the notable terms (like "boss") as well as non-notable ones (such as "kiting"). The only issue is in sourcing - I don't think, like the chess article, we have a handful of ready refs that cover all possible terms, so I think that unless it is a notable entry like "boss" where sources exist on the other page, all non-notable ones need at least one reliable source to assure that definition.

Regardless, the terms can cover everything from hardware, software, and gameplay strategy. Terms that don't have pages should be given redirects to this, or added to appropriate disambig pages since we're saying these are reasonable search terms. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, certainly something I feel should bee done. Adycarter (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The care I would think would be relevant would be WP:NOT#DICT #3 (I'm sure we can find citations for definitions). --Izno (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Izno brings up a good point, but apart from that it sounds like a good idea to me. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Visual novel as a genre

This has now been brought up several times, most notably at video game genres and {{video game genre}} -- that is, whether visual novel is a game genre. (Latest edits) I don't want to edit war about this and the other parties have yet to expand the discussion and its implications broader (such as Category:Visual novels, for example). So I'm hoping for some consensus on this so that future changes can be referred to an existing decision. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it contains enough elements of gameplay and interactivity to qualify as a genre to me. If there were absolutely no choices made, then I'd probably say no, but it looks as though plenty of examples of the genre involve player decision-making and control. —Torchiest talkedits 19:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The section was readded but removed again by the same user on the premise that are no credible sources for its inclusion as video game genre. Is that an accurate assessment and should entire sections be removed multiple times?-- (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

He argues that there are "no credible sources". There are in fact WP:RS sources cited, but having checked them, that 1UP source doesn't consider them "real games". One of the others calls them "visual novel games" and points out they have 70%+ of the gaming market in Japan, but haven't yet seen "genre" used. Basically, I don't have time right now, but someone needs to go through some sources looking to see it if's called a genre, which will settle it one way or the other. bridies (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd say it overlaps more than enough with interactive fiction to be considered a subgenre of it and not necessarily a whole genre in and of itself. Salvidrim! 23:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    I believe this is the most accurate assessment. The issue with Visual Novels is that they do not contain any means by which to interact with the medium using chance/skill/logic etc. They do not contain any goals, rules, or challenges. If one wishes to view the story in a certain way, consulting a flowchart walkthrough for the title will lead to 100% rates of success in achieving the desired outcome. There is a complete absence of the user needing to consider or ruminate on any action taken, as there are no consequences. The only means by which this software could be considered a video game let alone a video game genre is by virtue of the fact that they are virtual. The issue with that consideration is that a digitized comic can serve the same purpose as the Visual Novel, presenting an overarching story which the user must interact with (by clicking the 'next' comic in the series) in order to receive a continuation of the plot. It does not seem sensible to call such a thing a 'game' simply because it is hosted within an executable in lieu of images on a web-page. In addition, there are no credible sources that outline the Visual Novel as a game. As such, its inclusion is not sensible. --Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not particularly familiar with this (potential) genre, but what you describe seems to apply far more generally than you might think. For example, if one consults a guide, one should be able to complete a puzzle game 100% every time, assuming the puzzles are not time restricted, reaction-time based etc (at which point they aren't really just puzzles as they have additional elements). In a broader sense, what about card games that are solely based on luck? Are they not games? If not, what defines a game? Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Just based off my general video game knowledge/reading of the past, I was under the impression that it was a genre. I've seen arguments of people saying "They're not real games" or whatever, but I've always dismissed that as nonsense, in the same way I think it's ridiculous to claim casual Wii or iOS games aren't true games or whatever. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, all this speculation here is moot, because secondary sources - and not editors' conjecture - is what determines if it's a genre or not (for our purposes). But don't worry, I've checked for you: here is another 1UP article calling it a genre, Kotaku using the term "visual novel genre" (this author used to write for GamePro, so reliable IMO), Wired, GameSetWatch. That's just the first page of a Google RS search. It's pretty clear that this merits mention as a "genre" in the video game genre article. It's probably not the best idea to just revert the content back in, as the particular source used was misleading, but it can easily be replaced by one of these, or surely others. bridies (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • WP:IRS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Kotaku and the web section of WIRED do not have a reliable reputation of journalistic integrity. Bad sources.Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that both Kokatu and the web section of Wired do not have a reputation of journalistic integrity and are bad sources? I ask since there is a consensus here that both are reliable source as can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. If you do think that this WikiProject is wrong in its assessment some evidence should be presented or it would be your personal opinion vs an existing consensus of multiple editors that came to the opposite conclusion. In this case your opinion in itself would not be enough to discount the existing consensus without some sold proof to back it up.-- (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
As the IP above me said, there's pretty clear WP:CONSENSUS that those sources are useable. Bridies could have gone about saying what he had to say a little nicer, but he is in fact correct. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the two other sources I provided. Are those unreliable too? And do you want more? As for Kotaku, that would be why I pointed out that that author in particular used to write for GamePro among others. You have a pretty interesting take on Wikipedia policy for someone with a mere handful of edits, and a redlinked user and talk page. bridies (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Since it looks like a but one user agree that there are reliable sources for calling Visual Novels a of video games genre and that the previous source in the video game genre article was not as good as the new sources I think its time to readd the visual novel section to the genre article with one or more of the new sources. I would do it myself but I am not good at formatting so it should be someone else.-- (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, there does seem to be consensus, and sources, that back the stance up. However, I'll let the involved parties make the changes...Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally - as I said - I would rewrite it based on those sources rather just revert it back in; so I might do that at some point, if no one is able to. bridies (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I just came by this WP while looking for something else when I saw this topic. But is the person removing visual novels arguing that they are not games? Where here is a link to with a whole slew of visual novels under the adventure game section. The section that was being removed also had links to and Anime News Network, the latter having been established as a reliable source at WP:ANIME and WP:RSN (see WP:ANIME/ORS). It is also very clear that the Japanese game publishing industry consider visual novels as a type of game, which is what video game genres appears to documents. So, excluding it would be detrimental to the world view that the article is attempting to document. —Farix (t | c) 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It does not change the fact that these sources are unreliable. From: WP:NOTRELIABLE "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion."
Articles Kotaku has published about rumors:,,,, The last being the worst, in my opinion, where the published an article that a game was not going to be created, only to be rebuked by the creators of the game. The source is unreliable. As for WIRED:,,, etc. The sources rely on sensationalist titles and articles and prefer style over substance as a way to get more 'hits', and more ad views for greater revenue. They should NOT be used as the basis for an addition to a Wikipedia page. Especially sources which take information out of context to write sensational articles that aim to implicate industry developers for the sake of views: In other words: WP:NOTRELIABLE. --Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You are ignoring a large number of sources that does describe visual novels as a type of video game. Kotaku is only one source that describes them that way, but it is not the only source. And you would be hard press to have declared an unreliable source. In short, all you are saying is that because the sources do not agree with you, they must "not be reliable". —Farix (t | c) 21:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
So it is the case that when an uninformed writer from a credible source makes an article about an unrelated topic using terms broadly this is to be the basis for information on Wikipedia? Moreover, that the source cannot be considered unreliable in part or whole because other sections of the site are reliable? I should like to get a freelance job writing for Wired and Kotaku if only to publish inane articles that would be used for Wikipedia. Kotaku: 'Best Japanese word processing software'
"Japanese word processing software is a relatively unknown genre of game in America, but here are some of the best that many people in Japan use to write documents daily!" New genre: Word Processing Games.--Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that sources like IGN, 1UP, Retro Gamer, Destructoid, and GamesRadar along with a dozen other sources, including the entire Japanese video game market, are not reliable because you disagree with them? These sources aren't as "uniformed" as you claim them to be about video games. MangaGamer, G-Collections, Peach Princess, and Nitro Plus will also disagree with you. And since they are in the business of translating visual novels to English, they are not "uniformed" about the subject. In fact, when someone claims that an entire industry is somehow "uninformed" about itself or that the people that regularly cover the industry are all "uninformed" about the industry they cover, then that person is either POV pushing or trolling. —Farix (t | c) 10:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
We treat Kotaku as a self-published blog per WP:SPS, which, as I've said a couple of times, was why I gave the credentials of that particular writer; it's not particularly relevant what other writers have published there (the first one linked, which I did read, is a respected writer and he pretty much openly treated them as rumours). I also fail to see what's "sensational" about calling visual novels as a game genre one way or another. And as if it needed pointed out again, why the focus on Kotaku when it's just one of many? bridies (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Visual Novels are indeed games, and these games make up a significant proportion of the Japanese videogame market, both on PC and platforms such as the PSP. Within Japan, they are marketed as games, sold as games, and are considered no less to be games. What people from one side of the world may consider to be a "game" may be different to what someone from another side considers "games", and the concept of videogames may be interpreted differently. That does not change the fact that within the population in Japan, the are most definitely known as games. As a (probably very horrible) comparison, in some countries Kosovo is considered a country, and in others, it isn't. Even with this as the case, we shouldn't be having crazy arguments on Wikipedia as to whether or not Kosovo is a country. Now, if Visual Novels weren't videogames, then by logic they wouldn't be marketed as such; however the reality is that they are marketed as games. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 11:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Master Chief in Halo 3.png

There's something weird going on at File:Master Chief in Halo 3.png. The original version is nominated for deletion as unused non-free. But the current version is about HALO 4 and not Halo 3. So the new upload should be removed as it is misleading. (Indeed, one wonders why a Halo 4 representation was uploaded at the Halo 3 filename). The file has undergone reversion twice. -- (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

03:26, 27 September 2012‎ Juhachi (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,494 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Juhachi moved page File:Master Chief in Halo 3.png to File:Master Chief in Halo 4.png: As the image is now from Halo 4) (undo) -- file was moved after I made that comment -- (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. :) Salvidrim! 04:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Roll it back, contact the contributor to the new file. They have less than 150 edits, so it's probably a WP:GOODFAITH problem and they didn't realize they were breaking things. --Teancum (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you link the article where you got the image from instead of hotlinking? « ₣M₣ » 01:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Salvidrim! 18:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)e

Tales series and "characteristic genre name"

So, lately, I've been working a lot on articles related to the Tales (series) and wanted some advice on how to handle something in their game articles, and figured I'd ask here since a majority of the game's in the series are both in terrible shape, and have no one around to ask anyways.

In the Tales of games, the game titles always have what the developers refer to as a "characteristic genre name" associated with them. More or less, it's like a phrase or sentence that describes a general theme of the respective game. It seems the people who created most of the Tales articles that I did not, mention that in the opening sentence or paragraph of the article.

However, this creates problems. First off, these CGN's are never used in their English release, which leads to awkward literal translations that don't make any sense. For example, the one for Tales of Graces is RPG to Know the Strength to Protect and the one for one of the Tales of the World games is An RPG For Your Sake. Not only do they not really make that much sense, but it is never explained anywhere what in the world a "CGN" is, and that's certainly not a commonly known name/concept in the English language. Conversely, explaining that in every lead section would bog things down with clutter as well.

So what to do? As is, I think it's very confusing for the general reader to list it right away, and unexplained at that, in the lead, but I wonder if I'll hit a lot of resistence if I remove it altogether, considering it's almost like a sub-title in the Japanese releases.

Considering it's always dropped for the English releases, one thought of mine was that it may be less off-putting if it were moved to the Development section, where it would be less jarring and could be explained a little better without introducing undue issues into the lead. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be treated like a subtitle? I agree characteristic genre name is a pretty wordy little phrase, and the actual examples you've given are borderline incoherent. It could just be an artifact of poor or confusing translation to English. —Torchiest talkedits 20:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
But wouldn't that still leave that borderline incoherent chunk of text right in the very opening of the article pretty similar to how it typically is now? It also doesn't help that there's always the CGN written in Japanese text characters either, so there's both a chunk of "Engrish" right next to a bunch of Japanese characters that don't mean anything to a vast majority of English readers. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

VG character proposal

Hi. Per the most recent RfC at WT:VG/GL, we have reached a consensus that Top X lists should be used with caution, as it must include a decent description of the character and needs to be from a reliable source to verify the information (see also the relevant information at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability). Also, quotefarms about aesthetics should be discouraged per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Describing aesthetic opinions. As such, I am currently working on a proposal with Sergecross73 (talk · contribs), which can be found at User:Sjones23/Proposal. Ideas, comments or suggestions from project members would be very much appreciated before we take this proposal to WP:VG/GL. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I left some comments on the proposal's talk page. bridies (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi everyone. In case some may have forgotten me, this is GamerPro64. I was gone for about four months due to wanting a break after 5 years of editing. Since a lot can change after four months, can someone please inform me of any major changes in the project? Thanks in advance. GamerPro64 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • One issue that didn't really get resolved was a discussion on A-class articles versus good articles about a month ago. Look at the archived discussion here. Since you were the one who originally added the criterion, I'd love to get some input from you on the matter. —Torchiest talkedits 15:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sjones and I started work on a VG character notability criteria because there's been a lot of arguing that the requirements are either being enforced too strictly or too loosely. He linked our rough draft a couple sections above. There's some work done, but it's by no means finalized, as both he and I seem to have plenty of other things going on, in real life and here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The ratings field has (almost) been removed from the infobox. - X201 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

-To answer your question Torchiest, I believe that there was a discussion about A-Class and we decided Good Article would be the only ones allowed to become A-class. As probably the biggest supporter for A-class article in this project, I believe that we reached a consensus about doing that idea and I changed it. Unfortunately, since I have problems remembering, I will look back to see where the discussion is. GamerPro64 20:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Is every entity with at least two games automatically considered a "series" and a "franchise"?

I've noticed quite a few categories created, such as Category:Rolan's Curse series, Category:Dual Orb series, Category:Mutant League series, Category:Tel-Tel series, and others. Not only do I think the category structure in this matter is somewhat misleading, I question the need for such categories, especially if the pairs of games (or even groups of three) are all linked to each other in the articles themselves. --MuZemike 23:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I really really hope not, or at least for the purposes of Wikiorganization. Yes, a game gets a sequel you technically have a series but its silly to go and create all the templates and categories for that if there's only 2 pages total on WP about it. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be technically yes but I don't think we need a category for a series that small.-- (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It would be useful if we had the same guideline that is used for article disambiguation(WP:NCVG). i.e. we only create a category if it has at least 3 titles and an additional item from a different media (soundtrack cd, cartoon series, etc). - X201 (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources determine when it's a series or franchise (technically, they are); but we determine when to categorize articles. That should stay separate. And it should be at least 3 games. Even then, series rarely needs a separate category unless there is additional articles about the series that may be harder to find. The above categories and similar ones should all get the CfD axe. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
From what I understand, it is a series or simply 'a couple of games' until there are more than three. Also, I think a franchise needs other tie-in products and media like web-serials, books, toys, movies, ect, ect. I don't think it should be considered a franchise unless some of these criteria are met (though there are clear exceptions outside the gaming world, like Aeon Flux). --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Final Fantasy III's GAR

FF 3 is currently GAR. So please add your comments on if it should have its status kept or delisted. GamerPro64 12:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed userbox

Hi, noticed that there is no userbox for the Newsletter department and I was wondering if anyone thought it would be a good idea to create one and if anyone would even be interested in using it if it was created? The idea was actually proposed a little while ago in 2008 (see here), but it failed to get much support. I tweaked the suggestions given there a little and came up with this. I think it might serve dual purposes by spreading the word that the Newsletter exists and by allowing new editors who may wish to contribute to find editors already involved with the newsletter so they could get help on how to contribute and on what is needed. What do people think? Is this a good idea? Does it need tweaking? -Thibbs (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Final Fantasy alert

I have noticed an unregistered user,, putting in bad info about Final Fantasy XIII and XIV, with silly release dates and deletion of info about platforms. I have found and corrected the edits, but they could come back for more. Keep an eye out for this user, especially in the Final Fantasy articles. They may not come back, but you can't be too careful here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We should also notify WikiProject Square Enix as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I've done it. Nothing fancy, just a note that it was a message from this page, then copied the text, since it seemed to sum things up fairly well. Hope it was alright. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility

So, since a user is making changes amongst a number of articles in regards to this, I figured it might be better to come to a general agreement here, rather than starting up several concurrent discussions at the respective articles.

Okay, so sometimes, Backwards Compatibility is pretty clear cut. A Wii plays all Gamecube games. 3DS plays just about all DS games. But User:Arkhandar, I believe, is being too loose with the defintion. For example, he wants to put Sega Game Gear as a backwards compatible platform for the Nintendo 3DS just because Sega has digitally re-released a handful of titles for the system. I feel that label is misleading, backwards compatible seems to imply you can dig out all of your GG cartridge and plug them into a 3DS, or play most/all of the libary of the system. The truth is, Sega made 5 or 10 out of a library of 100's playable. We don't list that the PlayStation 3 is backwards compatible with the Sega Genesis because you can download Sonic 2 on PSN, right? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on this? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

System Y is backwards compat with System X iff one can use (most of) X's original game media (physical, not digital) in Y's hardware. Having a game from X available digitally on a storefront to be downloaded to console Y is not backwards compatibility, that's just a port. (The "most of" is a qualifier for the Xbox 360 b.c. with Xbox 1 titles, and I'm sure there's some games that simply just don't work right in the newer system). --MASEM (t) 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the user is definitely confusing backward compatibility with porting. Backward compatibility means, as you said, that the hardware inputs (or equivalent) on newer consoles are the same or similar enough to accommodate the discs or cartridges of older consoles. Porting means that the game has been rewritten or recompiled or reissued to work on incompatible hardware. Essentially, they are the opposite of each other: backward compatibility suggests that the newer product was designed to work with the older, whereas porting suggests that the older product had to be remade in some way because there was no such backward compatibility. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've been researching this myself. I would agree that "backwards compatibility", in regards to gaming consoles, implies that Console B will run Console A's games whenever a Console A game is inserted into Console B. Consoles that emulate or run ported versions of earlier games, such as Wii's Virtual Console or the various classic game ports for everything from PCs to tablets, should not be considered backwards compatible. If we said it was, the Xbox 360 that runs a ported version of Streets of Rage would be considered BC with the Genesis, and since I can't plug a Genesis cart into my Xbox 360, that comes across as overly stretching a point, at best, or inaccurate, at worst.
That said, and speaking of the Xbox 360, I'm having a time rationalizing the Xbox 360 being backwards compatible with the original Xbox since (a) not every game can run and (b) a downloaded software emulator is required. Then there's the BC obtained by addition of a special device, such as the Power Base Adapter that allowed a Genesis to play Sega Master System games, and the Super Game Boy that allowed a Super NES to play Game Boy titles. So, by these standards, is an SNES backward compatible with a Game Boy? --McDoobAU93 19:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It's still, for the most part, using the same media (which did differ between consoles); the small patches are to fix some issues but otherwise you're still using all the assets from the original game media. If anything, it would be partially BC since not every Xbox 1 title works on it. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look at the definition of Backward compatibility before making any assumption. As for your example, being the PlayStation 3 backwards compatible with the Sega Genesis because you can download Sonic 2 on PSN is just pure nonsense because that's ultimately considered a port for both Sony, devs and consumers since it doesn't fall into any kind of re-releasing universal service (like Virtual Console) . As for the Sega Game Gear being a backwards compatible platform for the Nintendo 3DS "just because Sega has digitally re-released a handful of titles for the system" is still considered backwards compatibility no matter the number of titles Sega decides to support it with. As Iwata himself said, in E3 2005, Virtual Console is redefining of the hardware backwards compatibility, and since every system I've categorically put on the pages I edited belongs to the Virtual Console service, then it should be considered as such. --Arkhandar (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
So, your stance that if a digital re-release is on PSN, it's not considered "backwards compatibility", but if it's released on VC, then it is? That doesn't make any sense, they're virtually the same type of release! Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
What Masem said. Basically, to be called backwards compatible a system has to be designed to be able to run the majority of games without modification. Re-release is a re-release/port and nothing to do with backwards compatibility. If the game's code has to be changed to fit a newer system, it is not backwards compatible on those grounds. If this reasoning fails, there is of course WP:V and WP:BURDEN, so one has to show a reliable source that says a system is backwards compatible. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No, the SNES is not backward compatible with a Game Boy. The SNES is compatible with a Game Boy, since they're from the approximate time frames / belong to the same generation so you can't really say it's "backwards compatible" but "compatible" instead. As for Sergecross73, yes, you're right. In PSN it shouldn't be considered backwards compatibility because there's currently no reliable source that says so. --Arkhandar (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
There's also no source calling Game Gear is Backwards Compatible with 3DS, unless you'd like to present that... Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope, but there's this (pro tip: it applies to GameGear on 3DS too): "Finally, I'd like to give you one full answer to a piece of the Revolution puzzle I talked about recently: Backward compatibility. As I said, the disk drive will accept GameCube games, but we are redefining the term "Backward Compatibility." That is because we have designed the Revolution to be a Virtual Console, with the ability to download 20 years of Nintendo content. You will be able to purchase games originally created for Nintendo, Super Nintendo, and Nintendo 64. It is accurate to say that Nintendo Revolution is technically capable of playing virtually every Nintendo game ever created." - Satoru Iwata @ ( Isn't this the reliable source thing you taught me in the other talk page. So, there it is. What now? --Arkhandar (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Nintendo can "redefine" all it wants. In that case, Nintendo becomes the source, and per WP:SELFSOURCE, there are limits to what kinds of such statements Wikipedia will allow. Item 1 under that guideline reads: "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". This comes across as marketing-speak from Nintendo touting its own system. If other reliable sources say the same thing, then it might be something to consider. However, the published gaming community widely regards Virtual Console as a legal emulator, not a means to make Wii (or 3DS) backwards compatible. --McDoobAU93 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Marketspeak. It's like car makers saying "We are redefining elegance with our new model." No, they aren't changing the definition of the word "elegance". Similarly, Nintendo is not changing how BC is defined, but what one would hope to expect with their console in considering playing the past library of games. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It's exactly as Masem and McDoob say. The very fact that they say they have to "redefine" the term just goes to show that it doesn't in fact fit in the actual definition... Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
This definitely sounds like someone not putting in a proper piece of info. It could be disastrously misleading for anyone reading it who wants to, say, play Resident Evil Code: Veronica on their 3DS, but can't because they have a Sega copy, to give a possible example. Yes, this has me more than a little worried. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That's why there's been the title "Virtual Console" before compatible systems and it has been added in parenthesis "(limited tittles)" to avoid situations like that. McDoobAU93 says: "However, the published gaming community widely regards Virtual Console as a legal emulator" - please give us a source to that. --Arkhandar (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it just seems you misunderstand the concept of backwards compatibility and porting or digital re-releases, and are just clinging to a misinterpretation of a Nintendo marketing buzzword/catchphrase. I'm going to remove it from the article because there has never been, nor is there now, any consensus or agreement that it should have been added like this in the first place... Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As requested (properly) by Arkhandar: here's my source. Please note the first and last paragraphs of this story. As noted earlier, Gamespot's descriptions carry more weight than Nintendo's, in this case. --McDoobAU93 20:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
There's zero mention of "backwards compatability" in that article. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Then I think we can all agree that "Virtual Console" and other downloadable titles from legacy systems should not be considered "Backwards Compatibility". This includes, of course, every platform to be released after 2005 (release of XBOX360). Does anyone oppose to this? --Arkhandar (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
On principle, I wouldn't oppose that. But I'm curious as to why your redline is the Xbox 360. --McDoobAU93 20:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about that, it's just a placeholder since to my knowledge it was the first system to introduce official software emulation. (To clear things up: This whole thing started because the PSVita page had downloadable software as backwards compat. That's why I edited the other articles.) --Arkhandar (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Backwards compat offered as a feature where the user still put in the original disc from the older console and was able to play it on the newer system - regardless if that was directly through the hardware or as an immediately available software feature for the console - is still backwards compat. That is, the little wrappers one may have to dl for Xbox 1 games on the X360 to play the disc-based versions doesn't equate to emulation as would normally be considered. Similarly, the second run of PS3 units where there was software-based backwards-compat support for PS2 games is still backward compatibility even though it was an emulator to do that -- to the user sitting behind the controller, they put the old physical disc in the new system and began to play it. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just thought this would help. CHCSPrefect (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not as simple as that. This would make the entire Virtual Console library form both Wii, Wii U and 3DS backwards compatible with their supported systems.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

PSP/Vita situation

Okay, so for the most part, it seems like we're at an understanding regarding backwards compatibility. What about the PSP/Vita relationship though: Basically, the Vita only allows PSP compatibility through download only, as it doesn't have a UMD/disc drive. However, there's an endless list of sources that refer to PSVita having PSP backwards compatibility.(, Siliconera, Eurogamer, etc etc.) I'm inclined to think this is an exception to what we're saying below, due to the sources, and because the systems are literally successors to one another, but I wanted to get input on this one too. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Although this is true to some point, the issues discussed in the argument above are still present in this situation. You still can't physically take your PSP games and play them on the Vita. Like it was already said above, these are re-released legacy titles, and shouldn't be considered true backwards compatibility. --Arkhandar (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I realize this, but it's also called backwards compatibility across the board by sources. And thus, the asking for more input. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Check the dates of those articles - mid 2011. I know for certain (as an avid PSP fan), that what was "backwards compatability" of the vita changed as the release date neared. Today, no one would call the Vita backwards-compat with the PSP, since you have to re-download the title to it as it uses no physical media. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Er, I think that's coincidence. Also, the 1UP ref is from Feb 2012, and I'm sure I can find more if I were to pay attention to the dates... Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Unless we're going back to the "redefinition of backward compatibility" argument, though, it seems like inter-article consistency should be the order of the day and perhaps we should avoid calling it backward compatible. Considering the term to be a redefinition, I think the general rule to avoid neologisms would apply, but is this is becoming an established usage in the RS realm then it might be best to use a prose subsection to explain exactly what is meant by "backward compatibility" in this sense. It might also be worthwhile updating the Backward compatibility article to reflect the new usage of this term if it is/becomes established. -Thibbs (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but that is not the point. The point is that is the PSVita is to be considered backwards compatible with PSP, then all other Virtual Console tiles should be considered as such since it's the same situation here. the key aspect here is how are we going to manage the definition of "backwards compatible". --Arkhandar (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
If a new definition is emerging then we have to proceed with caution. Recognition of the new usage must be based on reliable sources, and I'd say that if the new definition grandfathers in other systems that previously wouldn't have been considered "backward compatible" then we'll still need sources saying that the older system (Virtual Console for instance) is backward compatible with the NES or whatever the specific claim is. I too am a big fan of consistency between articles and I appreciate what you're saying, Arkhandar, but it's tricky when we're talking about new definitions. Since they did away with the logic caveat, I think it would probably be original research to say that a system is backward compatible based on just our understanding of the term's new usage and our (personal) logical extrapolation to other systems. -Thibbs (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, we should proceed with caution. Since there are little to no reliable sources explaining this new concept as it is, than we should only consider as "backwards compatible" as it has been all these years, hardware compatibility that is, no emulated software included. --Arkhandar (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. It's all based on RSes in the end. If a direct case can be made through RSes then it may be worth mentioning in the article. If the evidence is indirect, though, (e.g. by comparison and extrapolation only) then we should wait for the world of RSes to catch up to the modern definition and we should only start using the term on WP if a direct RS-based case can be made. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Until then, "backwards compatibility" should stay as hardware compatibility only and no emulated software should be included in the definition. Does anyone oppose to this? --Arkhandar (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I won't push the topic if it's not supported here, though it's definitely not something I'm willing to try to explain/defend/enforce/clean up at the article either, as I'm sure this is something that will be re-added time and again, with all the sources that call it as such. If anyone feels strongly about it, you'll probably want to monitor it... Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Well if multiple RSes directly say that the Vita is backward compatible then this should be discussed and probably added to the article in some form (probably with an explanation of the repurposed term). And in that case the "backward compatibility" article could probably do with an update. I don't think that any amount of RSes stating the Vita to be backward compatible can be used to support a claim that the Virtual Console is backward compatible though. -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Why can't RSes stating the Vita to be backward compatible be used to support a claim that the Virtual Console is backward compatible if it is literally the same process in those systems? --Arkhandar (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Because it would be considered original research ever since they did away with the deductive logic caveat. We now have to have sources that explicitly state the claims they back up. A source stating that the Vita is backward compatible with the PSP directly supports that exact claim, but it cant be used to extrapolate the definition to other systems even if it's just deductive logic. What can I say? Wikipedia has weird rules. -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Because it would be our conclusion that it is the same process. No proof has been provided that it is. And let us not forget that the PSP had downloadable-game support natively. If anything, the Vita's closest analogue would be the PC ... software written for earlier operating systems can often (but not always) run on newer operating systems (a game written for Windows 98 may run on Windows XP if XP is told to mimic 98), provided you can get the software into the system. --McDoobAU93 14:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Then again let us not forget that the Wii had downloadable-game support natively too. So by this philosophy, the Wii U would be backwards compatible with Wii's Virtual Console, making it backwards compatible with all these systems:
  • NES/Family Computer
  • Super NES/Super Famicom
  • Nintendo 64
  • Sega Master System
  • Sega Mega Drive/Genesis
  • TurboGrafx-16/PC Engine
  • Neo Geo
  • Commodore 64
  • MSX
  • Virtual Console Arcade
You can't play these games with their original cartridges, but you can play them with your original purchase (downloads). --Arkhandar (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A key difference though is that no third party sources are defining the VC at backwards compatibility. All there has been shown is that one marketing-ploy by Nintendo, and even that claimed they were "redefining" the term, which kinda goes to show it doesn't fit the definition outside of that statement... Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Forget that marketing-ploy thing, we already got past that. What I was talking was that like the PSP, the Wii had downloadable-game support natively. So if you consider the Vita backwards compatible with the PSP, then it would made sense that the Wii U would be backwards compatible with the entire Wii's virtual console. And, like I said, in both systems you can't play these games with their original cartridges from older systems, but you can play them with your original purchase (purchased downloads). I know that this is considered original research, but there aren't many RS's justifying that PSVita is backwards compatible with PSP too. --Arkhandar (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There are tons of RS's calling PSVita backwards compatible with the PSP. I stopped at three because I thought listing more would be overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
And like the Playstation Vita / Playstation Portable backwards compatible relationship between them, there are also tons of RS's calling Wii U backwards compatible with Virtual Console / WiiWare(Inside Gaming, GenGame, ScrewAttack, Edge, etc.). --Arkhandar (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I read each of those articles you cited. Each one refers to the Wii U being backward compatible to Wii, something that was already known. In other words, the Virtual Console emulator will also be available on the Wii U, allowing users to bring their emulated software over to their new console. None of that proves that emulated and backward compatible are interchangeable terms. --McDoobAU93 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And where does it say that emulated and backward compatible are interchangeable terms in the PSvita sources? Take ScrewAttack for example, it specificaly says: "Wii U to be backwards compatible with old Virtual Console titles". --Arkhandar (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Your'e not proving the right point with your examples. You're giving examples of the Wii U being backwards compatible with Wii features, in this case, the VC. It's still not saying that the VC itself is an example of backwards compatibility. The only thing you're proving is that the Wii U is backwards compatible with the Wii, which so far no one has contested. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Good point the ScrewAttack article could just as easily be interpreted as the Wii U being backward compatible with the Virtual Console service and not the individual consoles the games that can be purchased on that service originally appeared on.-- (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So just so there's a clear answer either way, should the PlayStation Vita backwards-compatibility list include digital downloads, like minis and PSone content from the PS Store? I'm running into trouble again with User:Arkhandar who is rejecting sources that I include to back up the inclusion of minis and PSone classics as "backwards compatible," but they continue to revert the changes I make. I'm at a dead end here and would like a clear answer either way. --GSKtalkevidence 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I mean, I support what you're doing, but I guess there really hasn't been a consensus for Vita/PSP yet... Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a PlayStation Vita myself so I can be of help here. The Vita does not have a UMD Drive so the games and movies are down to downloads but as big as the downloadable collection is on the PlayStation Store there are games that have not made it on there such as Secret Agent Clank and no doubt there are others. This also covers movies since the Vita currently only has games on the shelf. CHCSPrefect (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I think it's reasonable to say that the PSVita has limited backwards compatibility with the PSone and PSP, just like the Wii, for example, has limited backwards compatibility with Virtual Console tittles.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, regarding the Vita, no towards the VC. As we've already been through, there's pretty strong consensus against that wording regarding the VC. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It's just a naming difference. Both systems literally work the exact same way.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You can come to whatever personal conclusions you want, I'm just reminding you that both consensus and sources don't support altering the 3DS or Wii U articles to say they're backwards compatible with any system that games originate from on the Virtual Console. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, yet again myself and others have added that PSone Classics and PS minis are backwards compatible with PS Vita, and yet again, User:Arkhandar has reverted. I suspect this will continue to go on indefinitely. Can we get some sort of clear answer to refer back to in future situations like these? Should these be added to the backwards compatibility section of the PlayStation Vita article or not? --GSKtalkevidence 21:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Like I've said before, while I personally consider PSP, Mini's, and PS1 games all to be "backwards compatible, it's hard to get the literal wording on the last two. (There's plenty of sources for PSP, like this CNET carticle, but there's never that explicitly says "backwards compatible" and "ps1" in them. If one can be found, I'd support it. Otherwise, I'd say leave them out and only list PSP. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This should avoid any future conflicts.--Arkhandar (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I do not agree with this decision, but I will respect it. --GSKtalkevidence 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Platform(s) field in infobox

I've just had a disagreement with an editor over whether appearances in compilations should be included in the "platform(s)" field of the video game infobox. I am of the opinion that a compilation including the game's content being released for a platform is not the same as the game itself being released for the platform. I checked the documentation at Template:Infobox video game for guidance, but it has nothing to say about compilations, so I'm asking you all here if there is a consensus on the issue one way or the other. If so, I think it should be added to the Template:Infobox video game documentation.

Another thing to consider is that, if a compilation including a game's content being released for a platform is considered the same as the game itself being released for the platform, this affects some non-compilation games by extension. For example, Space Harrier should be listed as being on the Dreamcast (which it currently is not) since its content is included in Shenmue, and Deep Scan should be listed as being on the Saturn (which it currently is), since its content is included in the Saturn port of Die Hard Arcade. And Doom II should be listed as being on both the Saturn and PlayStation, since their respective ports of Doom include the vast majority of Doom II's levels and other assets; currently, the article doesn't even mention this fact, much less reflect it in the "platform(s)" field.

Obviously there's not much consistency on Wikipedia on the subject, so any thoughts you guys have would be appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Platforms listed should be for those where the game got a standalone release, nothing more. The more complex situations you describe can be discussed in more depth in the body, but there's already little room in the infobox to assert a game on a system it was never released as a single title for but being as part of another. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Without too much digging, I would say yes, games in compilations ported to another system should be considered as games for that platform. These are ports after all, no matter how they are presented (e.g. in compilation). Technically, most compilations are just pretty marketing wrappers with game code being stand-alone and gameplay-independent. That said, I don't think they should be listed in |platform= field, because those are not discrete/stand-alone releases, which I would assume the field is for. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The infobox is used as a summary of the article itself; if the game is available on that platform, it makes sense to list it in that field, unless some reliable source can be found which dictates what is considered "on a platform or not", it seems like removing them from the field based on criteria that we came up with would be out personal interpretation of it. If a given game is available on a platform, it doesn't make sense not to include it just because it was a port of that game or isn't a standalone release. I think it would make more sense to list them and explain the standalone aspect as opposed to not listing them. I see two scenarios here: one of them where a reader looks at the platform field and sees that a game is listed on a platform they own. If clarification is needed, the reader can look in the article for an explanation of the summary given (similar to the lede). In the other scenario it isn't listed in the infobox, and the reader would have to read the article in-depth to see the information. A reader doesn't in-depth read every article they come across, so that might be overlooked and makes the article seem incomplete if the summary is half-correct. Including the information in the infobox would be a benefit here, and I don't see any reason not to include it. - SudoGhost 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I kind of have to agree. And it gets a bit tricky when you try and define what constitutes a compilation. Metroid Prime was on the Wii. Space Channel 5 was on PS2. Do they not count because they came with 2 and 1 other games? (Both are currently listed in their infoboxes as I type this). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
SudoGhost - First of all, you seem to have misunderstood my last edit summary at Shining Force II. I posted on this page in hopes of finding that there was already a consensus on this matter; since there is not, I just linked you to my rationale here, since it was too long to fit in the edit summary. In any case, there is no "after the fact" - this is not an AfD or merger proposal. Anyway, as for your two scenarios argument, you're assuming that Wikipedia is a buyer's guide; in fact, it is an encyclopedia.
Melodia - I don't see the problem with the two examples you cite. From what I understand, Metroid Prime Trilogy contains remakes of Prime 1 and 2, not the original games, so it's clearly not a compilation. And Space Channel 5 on the PS2 was a standalone release. In general, when it comes to video games, there is a very clear line between compilation/not compilation. In the meantime, no one has addressed the examples I brought up which make the inclusion of compilations in the field problematic.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no issue, "Is the game available on a platform?" If the answer is yes, it makes no sense not to include it in the infobox, and if it needs to be explained in the article proper, that can be done but not to the exclusion of information in the infobox, because that's the entire point of the infobox. When you decide that editor interpretation of what "counts" dictates the article's content, that becomes a mess because what you call "clearly not a compilation" I would say clearly is, and "it's a compilation so it doesn't count" isn't a very compelling argument, it's not as if a game does not exist on a certain platform just because it is not a standalone User:Martin IIIa approved version. - SudoGhost 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that attitude is that by saying the game can be emulated on a different platform than it was actually retailed on, then we start to basically include platforms the game was not designed to run on but hacked to do so. EG: I could claim every Wii game should have Microsoft Windows due to the Dolphin unofficial emulator, which no, doesn't make sense.
It would make sense to include all original retail platforms as well as platforms for which the game was released for as part of a larger collection (eg: the God of War games being on the PS3 due to the HD collections). When a game is an easter egg or equivalent inside another game, that's far different and I would not include that platform. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's anywhere near the same logic, not only is that a legally questionable action but companies do not offically license emulators or sell them for public consumption. You cannot go purcahse a Wii Game for Microsoft Windows, so perhaps I should have said ""Is the game officially licensed for and available on a platform?" - SudoGhost 20:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't think easter eggs would apply here (for example I don't think the best game ever being included as an easter egg on Call of Duty: Black Ops would make it appropriate to list Xbox360/PS3 as a platform for Zork, but this also very good game being included in this collection is not an easter egg; the game was released for Xbox 360/PS3 and I don't think it should be removed from the infobox just because there are other games bundled with it. - SudoGhost 21:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Collection games - sold as retail - are fine, hence why I suggest that God of War being on PS3 is fine as part of the GOW collection for it; the infobox should clearly identify the release as part of the collection in terms of release dates, platforms, etc. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
...oh...well then we may have been agreeing without me realizing it. Just so I'm clear, you're saying that this would be appropriate since the game was part of the above collection? - SudoGhost 21:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
For me, that's fine though I would add in your example something as "(as part of Collection"). Without that clarification it looks like I can go to the PSN/XBL store and find the standalone title, which is of course not the case. Adding the collection clarifies - without having to read the text - it's not a standalone title but can be found on the collection. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have phrased my question in more general terms to begin with; looking at the posts from Masem and SudoGhost, it seems they have strong thoughts about what should be listed in the field but not much idea as to why. Ultimately, what I want to know about the platform field is: Are we looking at the game's content, or the game's actual release? If the game's content, then obviously releases such as Space Harrier on Shenmue and Sonic the Hedgehog and Shining Force II on Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection should be accounted for. If the game's actual release, then clearly Space Harrier should not be listed as being on the Dreamcast and Sonic the Hedgehog and Shining Force II should not be listed as being on the XBox 360/PS3, since they were never released on those platforms. The suggestion that compilations should be accounted for but not Easter egg games seems obviously inconsistent (and it certainly involves more grey areas and personal interpretation than the simple rule, "If the game wasn't actually released on the platform, don't list it.").--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What is a platform?

While we have a platform discussion open. The infobox guidelines about a platform being "The console or operating system the game was released for." are still current aren't they? as I've seen an increasing number of articles where PSN and XBL have been listed as platforms, when they're obviously the distribution method.

I'm also a bit puzzled about categories like Category:PlayStation Network games. In their current form they're turning into categories where almost any digital (re)release is added to them (eg Command and Conquer Red Alert). This is effectively making them "Things for sale in Store X" categories which we don't do for Amazon et al, so we shouldn't do for PSN and XBL. The categories would be more use if they listed games that were only available on PSN or XBL. Opinions on both points? - X201 (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The category: make it Category:PlayStation Network-only games. As for the Infobox listing, I would say if re-releases of old games on the Wii's Virtual Console are included (and they should be as it is a notable release), then games released on PSN (either for PS3 or Vita) or XBLA/XBIG should also be mentionned in the Infobox. Any argument for or against has to include all relevant release systems. There are also cases (Legasista comes to mind) where the PSN and PS3 (disc) releases are completely distinct; different dates, different regions. Salvidrim! 08:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Those should be |distributor= if at all, definitively not |platform= (or |distribution=). Perhaps we should get a consensus and finally fix all the articles? Unless, that is, we want to change the purpose of |platform=, which I don't think is a better option. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly concur with moving the category to PlayStation Network-only games. The infobox field is a tougher call, but I lean towards listing such releases by the platform name; e.g. a Super Nintendo game re-released on the PlayStation Network should have "platform(s) = Super Nintendo, PlayStation 3". I strongly agree with Salvidrim that the release is notable and should be listed there, but I don't think distinct digital and physical releases are a problem. After all, we have to deal with distinct releases for the same platform even on systems without a digital distribution system. For instance, several Saturn games (e.g. Sega Rally Championship) have a Netlink Edition and/or a Saturn Collection edition in addition to the regular version of the game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
At the same time, Satellaview and SNES are considered distinct platforms, so personally I'd tend to consider PS3 and PSN (for example) as separate also. Salvidrim! 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
PSN is the distribution channel. I generally place Steam/PSN/XBLA/OnLive in the distribution field. - hahnchen 22:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Closure (video game) for example, should not be merely tagged as Category:PlayStation Network games, which it is right now. The infobox also only mentions the PlayStation Network, so we don't actually know which Sony platform the game is for. It should be tagged as Category:PlayStation 3 games, with the infobox showing "platform=PlayStation 3", and "media=PlayStation Network". (I disagree with our current infobox guidelines, I place service names directly in the media field) - hahnchen 13:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Third quarter's issue

So when exactly is the new issue of the Newsletter supposed to come out? GamerPro64 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the previous couple issues, it looks like it would be due this week. —Torchiest talkedits 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It was due 2 days ago, but we're a smidge behind. Like Torchiest said, it's usually out within the week though. Do you know if anyone has any features (interview or article) for it this quarter? -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
If someone else wants to take a crack at a feature within the next couple of days, I can hold off sending out the Newsletter until then. (I've written the last two, so I think it's someone else's turn.) Unless we just want to send out one sans a feature or an interview. --MuZemike 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at something in one of my sandboxes, but I'd like some review before it's accepted at face value or rejected. I've never written anything for the newsletter before so I don't really know what I'm doing here. Anyway you can see the details in talk here. -Thibbs (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Last call. MuZemike is likely to show up any minute and then I think the newsletter will go out. We've added a small section at the end of the feature to cover "News in Brief" this issue. As of now we only have one brief news item. Can anyone think of anything else very brief (1 line or so) that needs to be added? Contests or competitions? Important ongoing RfCs? New consensuses formed regarding interpretation of the rules since June? -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody verify the number of GA's that we actually have? I added Category:GA-Class video game articles and Category:A-Class video game articles, which I get 583. However, counting all the articles on WP:VG/GA, I only get 577. The number of FA's and FL's are correct. --MuZemike 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That's puzzling but think about it. We're in October and there have been more articles promoted to GA and A-class status. As well there have been some demoted. But I don't really know a clear answer. GamerPro64 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd go by the category count. Since the VG/GA list maintained by us manually, it's likely a few are missing, due probably to what Gamer said, that articles have moved up or down and someone forgot to change the list when that happened. As far as I know, there's no way to check except to painstakingly compare the list with the category. —Torchiest talkedits 15:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Genre War time!

Hi everybody,

We need some help. Resident Evil 6 is considered a 'dramatic horror' title by its developer Capcom. Should Wikipedia call it as such, or go with the more accepted term 'survival horror'? Please join the discussion over here. Thanks guys. --Soetermans. T / C 11:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting dialogue. I'll bite. Thanks for x-posting it for our attention. czar · · 06:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ace attorney aticles

Recently the article for the 3 three Ace Attorney games had the English DS covers removed and replaced with the Japanese GBA covers (The first 3 games were originally on the GBA and were later ported to the DS but were no English language version was released until the DS versions). I think I know what covers should be used due to the DS versions being the first official English release and the fact that the current boxarts titles no longer match the article title but I want to have more input before making any drastic cases. I should also note that the first game now has the Japanese GBA boxart as well the Japanese DS boxart which I am quite sure should be changed regardless of whether or not the we keep the Japanese boxarts.-- (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure the general rule is to use an English version's box art if there is one (with no bias toward which out outside of whatever was put there first). So yeah, probably should be changed back. Dragon Quest V for instance uses the DS version. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted them. Thanks for the heads up. « ₣M₣ » 02:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I was quite sure that the English boxarts were the correct choice but I wanted to make sure.-- (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, you need WP:VGBOX - X201 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Or WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. --PresN 05:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with a peer review

I recently put up Transformers: Fall of Cybertron at peer review here, but haven't received any feedback as of yet. Is there anyone who can give the article a once-over and help me to find any glaring issues I may have missed? Sometimes you look at "your own" article too long you start to glaze over the imperfections and omissions. (not claiming ownership, just a little lite humor) Thanks to anyone who can help! --Teancum (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Xbox → Xbox task force

Xboxlogo-custom.png I have initiated WP:RM on the inactive Xbox WikiProject. The Project would become a task force within WP:VG. See the thread for elaboration. czar · · 04:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nintendo Direct artcle input

Please see my concerns at - Any input is welcome. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No thoughts? Anyone?? My inclination is some major cutting down, or merge/redirecting. But I'd like to have some consensus on my side. (Or conversely, someone to tell me that's not a good idea.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Level Up! Games

Nominated for deletion, but it seems borderline salvageable. 15:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tijfo098 (talkcontribs)

Broken Sword 1

I have one featured article (Ed, Edd n Eddy) and one featured list (List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes), but a put Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars through FAC 4 times and it never passed. While the first 3 times was long ago, and it really wasn't ready yet (backed then I was at the start of my Wiki-Journey), but the fourth time was only a few weeks ago, and I worked on it for a very long time. - But it didn't pass. Now, after some more work, I'd like to see what you think of the article currently. - One of the issues will probably be the long plot, but I'd like some assistance on that - I can't seem to make it any shorter. You should've seen the plot way back though, it much, much longer than the current one... --Khanassassin 14:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you gotten the article copyedited? GamerPro64 15:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability standard for video games

Is anyone else interested in establishing or collaborating on a notability and verifiability standard for video games? The Project page says we follow WP:GNG, but most of our deletion cases are linked by common threads (un-"published" games, esp. shareware, backed by self-published links with no independent, reliable sources, homebrew games without critical foundation/reception or cultural influence). An established N/V guideline would be helpful for triaging such articles. Likewise, our WP:VG/RS could use some updating, especially to help with game platforms/genres that tend to rely on self-published links. So I am interested in attempting to define these areas for VG similar to WP:NF and WP:NM—any thoughts? Is this a good idea? (Somewhat relevant old threads: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].) czar · · 17:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We really don't need a separate guide for video games; nearly all require GNG coverage, and the common links you mention all can be justified on the GNG. We can provide some notability considerations in our guidelines, but most importantly, we don't have any criteria that we can use that presumes notability. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah,that was kind of one of the problems I was starting to feel we were having with the VG character notability guidelines Sjones and I were mainly working on. Outside the big debate on using "Top X Lists" as the sources, it kinda just felt like we were basically just compiling a list of rules from elsewhere. (Follow the GNG, abide by NPOV, etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Relatedly, I recently re-discovered WP:VGSCOPE, which does a good job of covering most of my quick use cases. czar · · 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Are game reviews from listed RS alone enough to establish notability by GNG? Or, if a game's only available sources are self-published/official and a handful of reviews, is the game still notable? What if the reviews are half-reviews (not full)? I know this can depend, but I want to make sure I understand. Here are a few examples of games I'd consider non-notable: Hammer of the Gods, Guardian Cross MC, and Mall Tycoon. They all have RS reviews (ranging from sparse to a few) but haven't won awards, made a mark on the field, or passed any test of critical import (other than accruing number rating/text review). If any of them are indeed notable, what about their sourcing makes them pass GNG more than the others? czar · · 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Significant coverage by an independent, reliable source. A review ABOUT the game is significant coverage, reviews from a general gaming site are assumed independent, and reliability of the site has to be established. Salvidrim! 18:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (Disclosure: I've edited a few of those and related AfDs.) For GNG purposes, a review is real-world critical reception and thus a well-suited source for GNG. It is editor judgment if reviews alone make a game notable, but that seems to be the case for almost all released video game AfDs I can recall -- two in-depth quality reviews pass GNG, usually with "weak keep"s. I would hazard a guess that at least a third of our games have only reviews as broad coverage sources. Of course, awards and cultural impact would erase all doubt of notability concerns. However, consensus (that I've seen at AfDs) has been that this is not a requirement. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I defer to your experience here (and the norms of AfD), but I can't help but feel like the bar for quality/notability is set very low (much lower than that of similar media: WP:NM, WP:NB, ~WP:NF). Yet it doesn't appear that many share my sentiment or have made an effort to change that. czar · · 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I tend to think the same thing of albums, singles, and films, which outnumber video game articles more than 3:1 each per year. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the best way to explain the low bar for WP:Notability is that it is ultimately only a guideline and while it is clearly a very important one, any perceived weaknesses in its strictures can be attributed to the fact that it is not a hard rule (policy) like WP:V. I think the balance may be struck slightly in favor of over-inclusion currently, but as long as deletionists exist to address the most egregious cases I think that this may be the best case scenario for an encyclopedia that hopes to stay relevant. -Thibbs (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel like I'm almost constantly running into opposition saying that the inclusion criteria is actually too strict as it is right now. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I'm saying it does come down to who's writing everything, and who's enforcing these guidelines. In my experience, it seems like a vast majority of users/IPs aren't very familiar with most policies/guidelines, they just casually write what they know or what they can prove with any old source they can find. If we make things too strict or convoluted, no one's going to take the time to learn it (It's just a volunteer effort after all.), and even fewer people will even have to know-how, or motivation, to enforce increasingly unpopular ideas to increasingly rising opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

New cat proposal

I'm considering creating a new category consisting of games to which Famitsu gave a perfect review score (there's only 19, it wouldn't be excessively huge). There doesn't appear to be anything in the way of a notability guideline for categorization, but would the review scores of a single magazine, regardless of how well regarded it is, be seen as too trivial/subjective/non-notable for a category of its own? danno_uk 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember there being a template like this in the past. I can't tell you where I saw it, but I believe it was decided that it was inappropriate. The majority opinion was that templates like that are for navigation, and no one could give a good reason that someone would be looking for games that got a perfect score from Famitsu. If anyone knows the case I'm talking about, feel free to correct any bad information I might have given. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This looks like an overly specific criteria. If Famitsu was one of the very few worldwide importance magazines and their 10 had an award-winning significance, then yes. But it's just one of many outlets, region-specific, and their score is listed on equal grounds with any other notable review. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. And the list is available on the Famitsu article (for now at least—it doesn't explain why a perfect score matters). czar · · 09:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe that category would be a little too subjective. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 08:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Well the category isn't subjective at all. "Games with a perfect review score" is an objectively determinable criterion. We just look at the score printed in the physical magazine itself. Subjective editorial interpretation would play no part here. The underlying concept of the score may be subjective, but probably not more so than Academy Award winners or any of the other notable subjective awards that do have cats currently.
But I also think that this is the sort of thing that is best presented in a list form and as Czar points out, the small list already exists in Famitsu. A perfect score for that magazine was at one time quite a notable thing, but this has changed through time. It's still rare and noteworthy, but less jaw-dropping today as perfect scores are given every year and can come as often as three times a year sometimes now (2011). And it's not necessarily more notable (especially anymore) than the "Game of the Year" designations from a number of magazines. Just like with chart-position succession tables, I think it would invite the creation of many similar categories that could lead to unhelpful bloat. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It was purely a navigational thing. I was reading one article about a game that noted it was one of those which had a perfect score and wanting to be able to quick find the others out of curiousity, thought it might be helpful. However I am aware that the list is available on the magazine article and also of the risk of setting a precedent for an influx of new cats, so on balance I won't go ahead. Many thanks for the feedback. danno_uk 22:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy check?

Is there a way to formally request an accuracy check on an article, or is that largely left to individual editors? I ask because there seems to be some factual disagreement between editors of The Legend of Dragoon concerning the names and roles of characters and locations. I've never played this game, so I can't dispute either side. There's no mention of the dispute on the talk page and half of the editors in question are unregistered. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No one really gets around to it, and outside mediation is a last resort (though there are other in-between steps). Per WP:AD, I added a template message ({{disputed}}) and a comment on the article's talk page. I'm watching the page and will send the IP users warnings if the edit war continues. Feel free to do the same. Hopefully they'll chill out. czar · · 09:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


I have been hearing all this stuff about Darksiders being a franchise. Also, about DLC and other stuff. Why can't we have an article for the Darksiders series as well as the two individual articles for the games. So, is it feasible or should we wait a year or two until any Darksiders 3 is announced or discarded? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Two, even 3 games, doesn't necessitate a franchise - though it also can be as simple as two games. The question to ask is if sources have discussed the two games as a series, or that DSII is just a sequel to the former? As a counter-example, Portal (series) is basically 2 games, but more than enough about the two as a whole have been written. On the other hand, there's no way to put Ico and Shadow of the Colossus into the same article due to weak connections between them. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
If you read the Darksiders articles, the two games run parallel to each other, and are very closely linked. Yes, I see that 'franchise' might well be the wrong way of referring to it. But it a series, and there has been info released that indicates that there will be a third game if the second sells well enough, that there is still good enough chance of that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have enough RS to establish notability for the novel, comic books, merchandise outside the individual games, you may have a case. I'm personally not finding much more than announcements—nothing that would warrant more than a small mention on the individual games' pages. czar · · 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Navbox for Category:City-building games

Should we have a navbox for Category:City-building games? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Why would you do a navbox for unrelated games outside the fact they are in the same genre? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"List of Spyro Voice Actors" article

See this:

Suggestions? My first inclination is that it needs to be sent to AFD because it's one giant example of WP:GAMECRUFT. But browsing through it -- I hadn't realized how many medium-to-high level voice actors had done work for them. Maybe it's not a clear-cut delete? (Though, the sourcing is just terrible, so at the very least that would need fixing.) Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this pretty interesting, but I think WP:VGSCOPE #10 applies—the notable parts of this could be worked into the articles (again only if a game's voice crew is "particularly notable"). I could be swayed, though. I'd like to hear what others think. czar · · 19:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was the very part that made me question things. Usually I hate these types of article; listing off VA information for a game that isn't really based around dialogue or story. (I easily had a similar List of Sonic VA's article deleted a ways back.) But these are bigger names than with Sonic. But even with that, there's still the question of whether or not this belongs as a standalone article, or just part of a subsection in the individual games too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that Lists of VAs should be a thing. The information should just be in each game's article- we don't have "list of actors in movieX", and actors are generally more notable than VAs. There's also generally nothing in these lists' lead that talks about the voice acting itself- in this one, it just mentions which languages it was in. That said, I notice that one of the links at the bottom, List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series, is a Featured List- if we decide to not do this type of list, we should deal with that as well. --PresN 22:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
That list was promoted in July 2008, which is over four years ago... I'm slightly troubled by that. --Izno (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed that some of the FA/GA content from 4-5 years ago is of a much lower standard than more recent work... Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If these kinds of lists are to be worked into the game article, I'd also suggest that they be worked into the VA's article if they have one. Rules aside, I actually have no real problem with this kind of article. They are a bit crufty, but at least they're self-contained and have a distinctly limited scope. If there's RS coverage and notability is established, what's the harm? I realize of course that the VGSCOPE guideline trumps my opinion and it looks like it would bar this kind of thing. And I'm not actually suggesting a change in consensus to allow it at this time. -Thibbs (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a merge too. I think the key is that none of these guys (as far as I can see from the article) are notable solely for their voice work on Spyro, and the voice work from Spyro is not a critically notable subject on its own. The good content should go in the respective game and VA articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have started a merge discussion here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would remove the article, but as said, work the notable ones into the actual games. I'm also sure there's a series article where a brief mention of some of the talent can be addressed. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Watch Geoff Keighley

Read this article by Robert Florence - A Table of Doritos. The fallout from that article has made the Geoff Keighley image very visible.

Right now, if you search for Geoff Keighley in Google, the Knowledge Graph side bar (which takes information from Wikipedia) describes him as a "Doritos spokesman". While funny, it doesn't make Wikipedia look that great. - hahnchen 14:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I requested temp page protection for vandalism. czar · · 23:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Support for "Langrisser Schwarz".

I would like to request support from the WikiProject Video games members on this article. I am kindly asking for members to either help check the article for errors or review the article if you can. Your assistance will be appreciated.--Bumblezellio (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I see no immediate problems, sourcing seems appropriate, I stubbed it. Good work! :) Salvidrim! 03:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support. (^v^) --Bumblezellio (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Did some minor changes for you to note for the next time- to whit, adding "date=" tags to the references and sorting out the publisher and author information when available. Also, instead of doing [[faction|factions]], you can just do [[faction]]s. Just little changes, nothing worth worrying about. --PresN 16:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


Page protection on Grand Theft Auto V expires today, and I think this may cause an upsurge in traffic. Any chance of extra eyes please chaps. - X201 (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Defining a game's genre

This is something that has been poked around but not an edit war, but may be an issue later with any game.

BioShock and its sequels are clearly FPS. But some users have asserted that they are also survival horror games, and specifically can point to one review from an RS that states this. [17] is just one but it is the one cited to make that claim. Arguably there are elements of the game that are survival horror, and that concession is made in clarifying the game type (an FPS with SH & RPG elements), but some users over a long edit war keep trying to promote SH to as one of the main genres.

As a comparative example, the indie FTL: Faster Than Light is called by several sources as a roguelike, but its developers have come out to state that it is only roguelike in some elements and don't consider it roguelike themselves. As such, the concession there is to explain this point out in the gameplay section how "roguelike" works into the game.

There is some aspect of OR when we are determining the main genres here for a game (eg the ones that are usually listed in the infobox and within the lead), though most games will easily fall into the main genres without problems. But when you have these new experimental games that borrow from other genres, we may have issues with "fighting" about promoting the side genre to be a main one. I'm curious what others think about this and how we should be approaching the selection of genres to describe a game. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I go back and forth on working on video game and music articles, and this issue comes up all the time with music articles, whether it be arguing over genre that become super-popular, to extremely undesireable (nu-metal, glam rock), to all these ludicrous, obscure genres being forced into articles (funeral doom metal, mathcore, etc) Usually, it's handled in two ways:
  1. The obvious answer: how third party reliable sources classify them. (We do try to stay away from 1st party accounts though, since the band/artist themselves, while the most involved in their own sound, also have the most to gain/lose in their own marketing, and as such, may be biased into describing it as something it's not.)
  2. If there's a lot of conflicting reports or if they really do have a rather unique sound, a lot of times there is a "Musical styles" section, which outlines a lot of that. Tool (band) has one at the WP:FA level, though, honestly, they much more frequently look more like what Breaking Benjamin has.
I would like to point out that this system is far from a perfect solution, as this still commonly leads to endless arguing. (It's actually one of the reasons I rarely work on any music articles that are anywhere near mainstream; there's almost always tons of time wasted on genre type stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I've also had a lot of similar experience with this editing music articles. I think the general practice there is to keep the most generic, broadest genres in the infobox, in this case FPS, and then, like Sergecross73 said, get into the nitty-gritty details in the prose, if necessary. —Torchiest talkedits 15:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Uw-genre1 and co do exist for editors who won't come to the table and talk about it. (Used by Twinkle.) --Izno (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I would use the genres that reviews and supporting RS use most often. If the game is controversially between genres, that's worth noting in its own section (if enough RS exist to support it). Yet even in those cases, there is always some form of macro-genre consensus. It may not be specific or perfect, but it cuts genre soapboxing down to a simple proposition: show the RS. czar · · 15:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear Union

Reminiscent of the early history of the Dead Island article, Nuclear Union, an upcoming video game, was put up for speedy deletion by an editor. I was hoping to get some more editors to look at this article and help contribute sources. Thank you. Calendar2 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring/vandalism in Otomedius Excellent. Request for indefinite time protection.

Since more than one year ago Otomedius Excellent is suffering edit warring and/or vandalism. In August 2011 I asked for protection, getting it for two weeks. However, this issue keeps on being unsolved, and while I add info supported by official references (as the fact that it is a sequel and not an alternate version of Otomedius), I keep on been reverted without any reason by anonymous IPs or recently registered users. That's why I think that this article should be protected for as much time as possible. Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a talk page—did you mean to post this on WP:RFPP? I recommend avoiding this WP:EDITWAR and leaving warnings on user talk pages of those who make disruptive, undiscussed major edits so as to create a trail of attempts to stop an edit war. czar · · 03:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you think those warnings would be useful considering how rude their edit summaries are? Through my summaries I have underlined that, unlike him/them, I do show references, but I am ignored by him. Besides, he (or they) is probably using a dynamic IP. Anyway, I guess I will post on WP:RFPP as you advise. Thank you for your suggestion. --Canyq (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I assume best intentions. I don't know of the official way to bring soft sanctions on IP-hopping unproductive edit-warring like that you saw, but I know that a trail of warnings across multiple IPs fares better when requesting mediation/blocks. Also there's a chance that engaging the user calmly via her talk page could defuse the situation. The edits look more misguided than intentional vandalism—I'd WP:AGF in those cases. czar · · 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Engaging the user calmly? In my edit summaries I've written things like

"It's a sequel of Otomedius, not an alternate version. Official references from Konami with quotes are given."

while he/they writes

"Stupid Wikipedia Contributor.", "AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!", "AHA! I KNEW IT!", "HOW ABOUT I THRASH THE BAD FAITH FOR YOU?!", "YOU Will Respect For MY Capacity!", "It's an alternate version of Otomedius, not a sequel!", "NO! NO! NO!"

What kind of conversation am I supposed to have with someone like that? By the way, my request on WP:RFPP has been declined and I've been sent to WP:DR, so I'm invited to discuss with... whom? dynamic IPs? Anyway, I'm fed up with this, so I'm afraid I'll remove that article from my watchlist and let them write things like Konami Okinawa and so on. Anyway, thank you again for your ideas. --Canyq (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to suggest you did anything wrong—adding warnings is just best practice, as I understand it. I'll keep an eye on the article if you want a break from the nonsense. czar · · 18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand you. Maybe I sounded a bit harsh; I'm very sorry if that is the case. It is just that, after more than one year, these situations end up being tiring. Thank you again. --Canyq (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've warned the ip, on the one they seemed to be using the most- if they continue I'll block them all for a couple weeks. Process is nice at times, but this guy is contributing nothing and is wasting other people's time. --PresN 07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Canyq (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
User's back. czar · · 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Their penchant for all-caps screaming edit summaries makes it really easy to see all the ip addresses/accounts they're using. Blocked 'em all for 2 weeks. I'll keep an eye on the page in case they hop to a new one. --PresN 01:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Well done! Thank you both. --Canyq (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
New IP involved—take a look czar · · 03:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I also noticed that many of the IP's that have edited the article in question have also edited List of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan episodes and it has been the same set of edits each time. The fact that multiple IP's are making similar edits to two unrelated articles indicates to me that this is either one person using multiple IP's or a a coordinated by by a small group since this seems to unlikely to be a Coincidence.-- (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's one guy, and he's bouncing around his school computers- one of the IPs he was using had a school district tag on it. All his favorite computers are blocked, and the article is semi-protected for a month, so hopefully it will stay quiet for a while. --PresN 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)