Done! thanks to @AdrianGamer and all who pitched in. There was some really old stuff in there—lots of 2008 tags.
Maybe Category:Video game cleanup next? Could we knock 150 down by the end of the month (or before this thread gets archived)? These requests are a bit more vague, so I suspect that many articles won't need much cleanup at all (besides the maintenance tag removed). – czar 07:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
All right, another milestone down! Do you think we can kill the whole Category:Video game cleanup queue (400 articles) by the end of September? Feel free to jump in wherever: just make the article minimally presentable, remove uncited text and trivia (or add citations), and remove the cleanup tag. – czar 08:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters?
The consensus here is coming out pretty overwhelmingly "No, in fact they're standard." The only issue is whether the MoS or MOS:FICTION should state this explicitly or whether it's so obvious and the problem so minor that it can be expected to go without saying. Contributions are still welcome. If you know of any edit wars or other conflicts that have arisen because someone wanted to change "a character who" to "a character, which/that," then please contribute. If you know that this problem is rare, please come say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I created the page for the console RetroN but I can't find any references for the RetroN 1 and 2. I don't know if I'm looking in the wrong places or using the wrong search terms. Could some people please help me with this? Anarchyte 08:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Coverage seems meager, there are a few video reviews for the Retron 2 on Youtube. Here's a pre-release reference on Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/5916563/behold-the-retron-2-a-machine-that-is-both-an-nes-and-a-snes. Considering the Retron 2 came out after the Retron 3, and is 'only' a cheaper version for NES/SNES without the capability to play Genesis games, that would explain why not many people bothered with reviewing it and major news ignored it. Technical specifications for models 1,2,3,5 can be found on the company's website (looks like only the 5 has HDMI output and the other ones have S-video and/or Composite AV outputs, so the current intro of the article is a bit misleading). Rh73 (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A model 4 doesn't seem to exist (no mention on the company website or internet). My guess is that they skipped to '5' because that one plays games from 5 major systems (Gameboy, NES, SNES, Famicom, Genesis; 10 subsystems in total). Rh73 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Oops, there are pre-release references for the #4. But no mention on the company site, nor any post-release reviews (not even forums, blogs, youtubers), which is a bit unusual. Was this project cancelled? Rh73 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The template for the canned NFC rationale for video game screenshots has been nominated for deletion . However, I think I've offered arguments for why it needs to be kept which the nominator has agreed are reasonable, which boils down to the fact that the "purpose" (the part for meeting NFCC#8) of this template is terribly poor and while the intent is there, it really should have a stronger "default" position. So I don't think this will be deleted (so this is not a call to participate there), but instead that we do need to come up with a better "purpose" rationale language or choice of language that is better than "to show what the game looks like". This is based on the fact that nearly every video game article, that as long as it is notable, has sourcable discussion of gameplay, and for that, the image helps to explain gameplay. There may be more reasons beyond that in other cases, obviously, and when better rationales can be provided they should be, but the default gameplay-demonstration reason needs to be much better. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the discussion, the purpose of this template is to fill out a main NFCC template - not to replace it. The NFCC template is the canonical template used for all fair-use images, and this template is simply a helper to reduce the amount of work required to generate a rationale for images that are being used in common ways. Used properly, this template results in a real NFCC template, and any editor can then go and alter the text in the resulting template. As such, improving the generic descriptions will affect future images that are rationalized with this template, but would not affect existing ones.
I think that we can go one of several ways with this:
Simply improve the text or add more options to make this helper more specific - we should be careful not to make it too complex, because at that point it would be easier to just manually type the entries into the main template than to use this one.
Turn this into an actual template that is intended to partially replace the NFCC template. This would involve getting approval from the folks who monitor image use so they can include this template in the set of allowed templates when they patrol images.
Delete this template outright and instruct users to go back to filling out the NFCC template by hand.
Given that the need for this helper has likely waned quite a bit since I first wrote it, and it was intended just as a way to save time and effort, I don't feel too strongly that it needs to be kept. I think it served its purpose when we had a huge surge of images without proper fair-use rationales and apparently looser rules on what text was acceptable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think #3 is reasonable considering how often this same rationale is invoked. I'm for a combination of the first two, and would prefer not substituting the template (#2) so as to make future maintenance easier. – czar 15:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think #3 is fair too - or at least deprecating it. Unfortunately, because the template is linked in the screenshot license template, I can't easily tell how many instances of the template are not subst (as they were supposed to) to know how many to fix as to "freeze" this template before we consider deletion and switch over to recommending just using a standard NFC approach. (Though we should adjust guidelines to explain what to include in such rationals specific to video games). If this was a small task , like under a 100 images to fix this way, we could clean that up quickly and move to deletion. But right now I'd recommend deprecation until we have a better handle. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Can articles with in-game screen snaps be FA?
I was under the impression that articles can only go to FA if all the images in it are permissive. Halo has a number of screen snaps that are clearly marked Fair Use. Is there a special-case rider for these articles? Or is the article in question from before the permissive licensing became an issue? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no requirement that a FA VG article has to only use free media. NFCC has to be met, meaning that typically only the game cover and one screenshot can get by as somewhat standard elements, any additional screens need to have clear context to be included. We'd like you to try to get free media particularly if it is a small indie studio in control of their own work, but there's no requirement for that. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. I've actually removed some images from FA entrants because I was told otherwise as part of the FAC. I'll wise up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
What FACs were those? I'd be curious to what the reasoning was. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a requirement for any image appearing on the main page to be free-for-use, which may be a/the point of confusion. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is that one. But when that's the only one you have... in the case of Halo, what would be the solution? No image at all? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture of a key develop or development team? In the case of Halo, pictures of people cosplaying as Master Chief? (Which we do have at commons, I know there's some guidance on where and when this is not a copyright issue). --MASEM (t) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Review Thread 17: Er... we don't have anything applicable yet
I think we know the drill for now: listed below are all the unclaimed GANs, featured content reviews, and other objects such as peer reviews. As a matter of course, and hoping this continues to whittle the list down, users willing to reduce the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests are welcome.
I'll begin this by saying that I'll leave comments on anyone's Peer Review for comments in the Peer Review for Persona. Still a little flaked from a bit of a recent GA marathon, so not feeling fit to take on reviewing GAs at the moment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I know it's only been up at GAN for a couple of days, but I'd love it if someone could take a look at Labyrinth for me. The article's pretty clean—it should be a fast review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not have much things to trade, but I have few articles sitting at the reassessment category. Would be great if someone can carry out a reassessment for them. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I sometimes see IGN wiki landing pages (e.g., ) cited for release dates, and I usually see them removed. Where do these release dates come from? Are they reliable or are they coming from a user-submitted database? Are they coming from the same database that IGN uses in its own article review infoboxes? The same database that lists all games made by a dev/publisher? I don't recall seeing a discussion about the dates provenance and whether they should be cited as reliable. Was the site redesigned recently? I remember the dates appearing much more obvious as user-submitted, but I'm not that familiar with IGN's backend – czar 17:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to know myself too, if anyone finds out. I've only used it typically when working on things like 90's video games, where it can be hard to track down release dates that don't trace back to Gamefaqs, and its varied from exactly right to "obviously wrong", so I've tried to use it sparingly... Sergecross73msg me 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they are "user-submitted" but it doesn't mean they should be taken as true without exception. I've seen "fudged" dates; such as games which were released, say, "Fall 1996" but we don't know when exactly, but for which IGN presents a specific date such as "September 1st, 1996". I don't trust this date specifically, but this mistrust is definitely OR, so unless we have better sources, Wikipedia policies probably say we should use and cite that date. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Given a recent republished post-mortem for the game on Gamasutra, I've been able to fill out Psychonauts's development, and have done a whole bunch of other cleanup, so it should be rather close to GA. I'd like a tiny bit of help trying to flesh out the review and award sections (including if necessary trimming out non-notable/sourceable awards), but this should be pretty much it of any difficulty within the project's guidelines. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A thought: Using non-breaking spaces in console/platform names
AFter coming across an article where "Wii U" was line-wrapped at the space between those, I checked that the MOS does suggest that in some cases like this (their example is the Boeing 747) that we use the NBSP character to avoid this break. I would argue that this definitely applies to the Wii U, but would also apply to any console name where the second word is four letters or shorter, so Nintendo 3DS, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, Playstation 3, 4, or Vita for example. It should not apply to longer names like the Magnavox Odyssey. This might be something to stick into our guidelines to be consistent. (I'm sure that for FA and PR this is picked up but doing it from the start might help). This also should apply to game titles where the last word is short or often a number (ala Mass Effect 3). --MASEM (t) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the article certainly falls under the scope of the WikiProject, but I'm not quite sure if it's suitable for Wikipedia yet. A lot of it reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedic article (particularly sentences like "Their effect ... varies from mod to mod. For example, a specific mod may replace the model of the player's character with a fire breathing cat, while some other will spawn unfriendly zombies"), and there's quite a few grammar mistakes. I also think that the "Favorite GTA mods" section is a bit unnecessary. However, the references are pretty impressive, and there's a considerable amount of coverage there, so I think the article might meet the notability guidelines. I think we might be able to determine its standing on this site after a basic copyedit. – Rhain1999(talk to me) 07:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. I'm pretty much wikipedia noob so I probably did do a lot of mistakes when it comes to copyediting. I'll be looking to fix it. For Favorite GTA mods, I added it to provide some sort of list for most media coveraged single mods, but it might be unneeded. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Some articles have their links bolded and others don't, why is this? Anarchyte 10:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think any new additions since the previous edit are bolded. Also any alerts that have their status changed (AfD closed, GAN promoted/failed, PROD deleted/deproded, etc.) since the previous edit are bolded. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to help bring Freedom Planet up to date? I left a message on the talk page a couple of weeks ago expressing my concerns, and Tezero hasn't been around. I tried emailing him as well. I hate to bring it to WP:FAR based on what shouldn't be too much work, so I'm asking here before going there. --Laser brain(talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take care of it. JAGUAR 12:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've addressed all of the initial concerns. If anybody else here would like to add any additional insight to the talk page, that would be great. I'm surprised how rapidly a Featured Article can become out of date in just a few months... JAGUAR 15:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit extreme to suggest FAR based on something so minor. Most of WPVG's FAs have gotten into way bigger problems since they got their bronze stars. Glad the issue's been resolved, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Scare tactics get the job done it seems. GamerPro64 18:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled across an archive link to this Edge making-of, but only the first page is live. An early version of the post is available (, , ), but you can't access each page by clicking "next" or the page number. Instead, you have to work through Wayback to read all three pages. The question is this: how is it possible to cite three separate archive URLs? I considered using the |pages parameter and adding external links from there, but that's not an ideal solution by any means. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't you just make three refs, one to cite all content on page 1, one for all content on page 2, and one for page 3? That way you can use the three archives, and whatever you are citing are from the actual page it came from not the article as a whole. At least that's how I'd do it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a possibility, actually. If there isn't a better way, I'll do that. Thanks for the tip. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that's your only option, besides dropping the cite template altogether and just manually writing out the ref+formatting inside the <ref> tag. --PresN 00:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Might get hassled over that at FAC, unless I drop citation templates across the board, which would be a mess. It's probably best if I use Favre's suggestion. Thanks guys. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)