Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of Style talk
  Article naming talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles


New Articles (15 February to 23 February)[edit]

15 February

17 February

18 February

19 February

20 February

21 February

22 February

23 February

Salavat (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Gamezone shutdown[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameZone indicates that Gamezone may have shut down. I've requested to have IABot archive references to the website. --Izno (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Aw, that sucks. I use that one a lot. JOEBRO64 11:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm wondering why I ever thought this site was acceptable. Was there any discussion besides this 2009 lackluster list? Being used as a scholarly reference counts for next to nothing, especially without context. czar 13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you saying GameZone should be reevaluated, Czar? GamerPro64 16:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      Ah, turns out we had these same thoughts two years ago... Yeah, looks like it's been used out of habit rather than any basis in reliability (pedigree, reputation, editorial policy), no? czar 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I guess so. Didn't remember we talked about this before. GamerPro64 21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we discussed it, but there wasn't really any consensus on demoting it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason that GameZone wasn't deleted was that it's been cited by outside sources on numerous occasions and other discussions have established that reliability too. I think it definitely needs to be used for its reviews/staff content instead of the re-hashed press releases, but it's especially terrific for old portable games that I like to write articles on. Also... do you have a source for its shutdown? They just published a new article yesterday: [1] Nomader (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

From a former writer from the site [2]. GamerPro64 00:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
But a month later: [3] czar 02:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Honestly from the sound of it no one really expected the website to come back. GamerPro64 02:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (23 February to 3 March)[edit]

23 February

24 February

25 February

26 February

27 February

28 February

1 March

2 March

3 March

Salavat (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Does anyone know if major gaming magazines (i.e. EGM, GamePro) covered the 1996 Game Gear game Sonic Blast? Sonic Retro doesn't have any, and the only other sources I can find are listicles and two brief reviews about its Virtual Console release. JOEBRO64 22:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

EGM stopped covering handhelds about a year before Sonic Blast came out, so they wouldn't have anything on it. GamePro had also stopped doing regular coverage of handhelds, though their January 1997 issue has a feature with 10 capsule reviews of Game Boy and Game Gear games... Oddly enough, Sonic Blast is not one of those 10 games. Wish I had better news for you.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It had to have received some coverage, right? Of course, that doesn't help answer the original question. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
(Find sources: "Sonic Blast" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
(Find sources: "G Sonic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

--Coin945 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of these sources are probably not considered reliable. The PocketGamer and NintendoLife ones are good though. And the Kotaku one, while a brief mention, is interesting at least - it could be used to source a statement about its apparently rarity/value in Japan, something I wasn't personally aware of until now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Next Generation #19, though it refers to the game as "Sonic Blast", is clearly talking about Sonic 3D Blast (isometric perspective, platform is Genesis, etc.) I'll fix that in the reference library. That's one of the difficulties with searching for sources for Sonic Blast; as can be seen from searching, publications more often used "Sonic Blast" to refer to Sonic 3D Blast than to the game which officially used that title. And while the game certainly must have gotten some coverage in contemporary sources, I'm stumped as to where, as it seems like every major gaming publication back then had either stopped covering handhelds or had never covered them in the first place.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - I'd be shocked if there wasn't more contemporary coverage. The GameGear may have been pretty much dead at that point, but still, the game released just after the Sonic franchise was at its peak relevance in the 1990s, and the amount of coverage 3D Blast and Xtreme received at the same time was through the roof. I have no answers though - I read a bunch of print magazines back then, but don't particularly have any memories of reading about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Digitally Downloaded released a review of the 3DS version too. They're not listed either way at WP:VG/S, though I see their work a lot when source hunting, so I may start up a discussion on them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Coin, I appreciate the enthusiasm, but some of these sources you're adding are clearly not reliable, and he probably doesn't really have any need for 5+ sources that do little other than verify it was released on 3DS. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm mostly looking for contemporary coverage so I can find any other development information besides "it has 2.5D graphics", "it was developed by Aspect", "it's on the Game Gear", etc. Thanks for the input, though. JOEBRO64 20:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I didn't manage to find any development info... but surely this improves the sourcing of the article above the current four sources? Hope I've been helpful. :D--Coin945 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
There's also a few development facts you can pull from those sources: --Coin945 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sonic 3D Blast, Sonic Labyrinth, and Sonic Blast were released around the same time.[5]
  • Launched on the Game Gear just as it was on its way out (would be discontinued a few months later).[6]
  • The current graphics section can become part of the development section, and can be sourced by sites like [this
  • Released for the Game Gear as a more traditionally-designed alternative to the Genesis' Sonic 3D Blast [7]
  • Pre-rendered graphics was on par with its contemporary games of 1996.[8]
  • Saw the Sonic & Knuckles team re-headlining after their previous attempt.[9]
  • Had a Master System portage released exclusively in Brazil in 1997. [10][11]
  • Currently available on the Nintendo 3DS Virtual Console and in many Sonic game compilations.[12]
  • Sonic Blast was one of the "experiments" with which SEGA surprised in 1996 , since the company commissioned Aspect to design a Sonic game, but using the pre-rendered graphics, which had become fashionable thanks to 1994's Donkey Kong Country [13]
  • Int this experiment, the developers got rid of one of the house's brands: the speed of the hedgehog --> the small cartridge speed neccesitated Sonic reduceing its speed to the detriment of further exploration. [14]
  • Aspect chose to make the game on Game Gear to bring pseudo 3D graphics to the Sonic game. [15]
  • The title changed the concept and spirit of the previous games, since it required a much slower timing , where ending the enemies required measuring the attack and studying the movements of these. [16]
  • Precisely this console was the one that had received games like Sonic Labyrinth or Tails Adventure , titles that went out of the classic Sonic style in other genres.[17]
  • There's also this nice little assessment you can sneak into Critical Reception: "The worst handheld Sonic game ever. It feels like such a rush job. Thank God they didn't attempt the "3D" aspect of its 16-bit older brother."[18]
  • The 5th game of Game Gear 's Sonic series [19]
  • Features distinctive CG taste graphics.[20]
  • The Australian Classifications Board rated Game Gear titles Sonic Blast and Sonic Labyrinth for 3DS Virtual Console on 7th Mar 2012.[21]
  • The game is not fondly remembered as a classic title in the Sonic canon.[22]
  • last game commercially released for the Game Gear in Japan.[23]
  • 3DS version released in Japan on 18th April, costing ¥300.[24]
  • 3DS version released in North America on June 20, 2013.[25]
  • Was part of a "Sonic's 25th Birthday" digital sale. (I guess making a statement about the game's inclusion in the francise's canon, combating the source above) [26]
  • Sticks to mainline Sonic staples like running, spinning and grabbing[27]
  • Includes double jump as standard feature - only previous game to include this was Sonic the Hedgehog 3 .[28]
  • Coming back on this... the only contemporary coverage I found was a little blurb in GamePro #88 that mentioned the game was coming out that November. I'm sort of surprised that was all I found. JOEBRO64 23:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 4 games released on disc at AfD[edit]

Opinions wanted here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games exists; most editors are automatically notified of any deletion discussion tagged as video game related. JOEBRO64 01:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
While I'm aware of such a feature, I think editors who actually view it are way lower than ones who just watch the talk page. I know I fall into that group. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should try to feature it more prominently or something? I've been using it forever, but I remember it took me a year or two to find out it existed too... Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there are a lot of resources throughout this project here that aren't really well promoted or placed well for navigation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to address that similar articles like [29][30][31][32][33][34] fall under the exact same criteria. Unsure about these two, but I feel like those also don't belong here. Also what is the use of this article if it only refers to its sub-articles? Instant Game Collection doesn't have one either. Lordtobi () 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    Generally, most articles listed at Template:PlayStation are either notable (like the ones on the consoles themselves) or -- pardon my langauge -- utter trash. We should probably take some time to go through all of them for potential AfDs, mergers and redirects. Lordtobi () 18:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    Plus, is Template:PlayStation key press really of encyclopedic value? It is rather unstable (another letter other than those listed breaks it), IMO ugly and it is more of a WP:GAMEGUIDE-y template that is even rarely used on talkpages. Lordtobi () 18:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    I was going to nominate the PS3 ones, but realized that the info there is actually split and not just forked, meaning we'd have to merge the whole list back. As for the others (besides maybe List of PlayStation 2 Classics for PlayStation 3), they should all be brought up at AfD (or just merged without one, if that's allowed), which I will do after the current one ends, unless you do it first. And the key press template thing is really only used for the Konami code it seems. Couldn't we just use an image of it instead? It's not like the buttons themselves are well designed (some of them look off). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    With the current PS4 games on disc moving so strongly towards a delete consensus, someone might be able to bundle a bunch of the PS3 ones together and and allude to that consensus in their nomination, though I'd be more selective on what I bundled though. The ones that just track whether or not games are physical or digital, or what resolutions/displays they play at, are cruft and excessive for a stand-alone list, but some of the others are valid game lists. For example - the "PS2 on PS4 list" - that's different from a lot of the other ones listed - it's not just a "list of digital PS2 games" list, it's about a series of PS2 games that were remastered and given new features for their PS4 release. Its a separate line of releases that don't really make sense to be documented at the PS2 or PS4 game list. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Simplifying the exclusivity column in video game lists[edit]

So user Mordecairule (talk · contribs) says I should have a proper discussion about simplifying the stupidly over-complicated exclusivity columns in video game list articles (mainly the PS4 and XB1), so here I am. Even if not for some of the prior discussions on the List of Nintendo Switch games talk page, which I believe most were in favor of applying to other similar lists, I'm really not sure why Mordecairule is arguing to keep it. We don't need six values (including two redundant ones) to explain something that is either an exclusive (yes) or not (no). His argument that "it's been here for more than five years" is not valid, as one could just look at the mess that is the List of PlayStation 3 games WP:CONTENTFORK bloat to see that something being bad for a long time shouldn't be used as an excuse to keep it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I expressed the same point as Mordecairule on your talk page in January. My proposal was to broaden the discussion to include additional opinion because not everyone is aware of the conversation that transpired on the Nintendo Switch page.
Exclusivity columns are useful to inform visitors which console they will need to have in order to play Mario, Gears of War, or Uncharted. This extends not only to full exclusives but also console exclusives and timed exclusives, which you appear to want to eradicate entirely. An example of a timed exclusive is Rise of the TombRaider or PlayerUnknown Battlegrounds on Xbox One. The language simply reflects that a developer and publisher have stuck a deal to bring these titles to their platform first before releasing on other platforms at a later date. When the deal expires or new, reliable information becomes available, the column is updated to refelct that the game is no longer exclusive. An example of a console exclusive would be Helldivers which was in part funded and published by Sony on PlayStation 4 and PC, or Robocraft Infinity because the developer has explicitly said, in addition to PC, that Xbox One is the only console their game will ever release on.
Perhaps if you could explain in more detail why you think denoting titles in this manner is redundant so we could have a better handle on your position? — Niche-gamer 11:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed that the main argument for keeping this sort of thing (and the physical/digital media column) has been just because "it helps shoppers make informed choices", which should never be used as one, as Wikipedia is not a buyers guide like Serge said. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
"Exclusivity columns are useful to inform visitors which console they will need to have in order to play Mario, Gears of War, or Uncharted. " - That sounds an awful lot like WP:NOTGUIDE content - Wikipedia is not a catalogue or a buyers guide. Personally, I think we should simplify it to "Yes" or "No", or remove it altogether. In my experience, what we've got now is poorly maintained and commonly misunderstood, and isn't much more than console wars type boasting. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Why on Earth would a potential buyer come to the "List of Switch games" article, looking for information on whether a given game was going to be released on another console soon? And not check the article on that game itself? "Exclusive: Y/N" I can see the argument for, since "console exclusives" are sometimes used to indicate the relative popularity/impact of a console, but they are usually unmaintained as well so I'd be open to dropping it altogether. The multi-color "exclusive" or "timed exclusive" or "only on Nintendo consoles" or "exclusive except for PC don't think about it too hard" or "on consoles by more than one company" is unmaintained, unmaintainable console fanboy nonsense. --PresN 14:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
We could say the same thing about many different list articles on Wikipedia. List of Nintendo 3DS colors and styles; lists that denote Move support; list of Iwata Asks interviews; lists of Nintendo Direct presentations; lists that denote PS4 Pro and Xbox One X support. What is the rational for keeping some exclusives but disbarring others? If we are going to apply the rules uniformly then we should scrap the exclusivity column entirely. — Niche-gamer
That's textbook WP:OSE - we're not discussing all of Wikipedia's garbage lists, we're discussing this particular issue. (And no one has specifically voiced support for these otherr things anyway- I certainly don't think we should have "List of color of consoles" articles.) Anyways, I'm fine with removing it entirely, but the point of switching it to "yes" or "no" would simply be, its either exclusive or its not. If its playable anywhere else, then it'd be a no. So itd really only really be "Yes" for your Super Mario Odyssey and your Uncharted 4 type games. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Get rid of it altogether. It's fanboy cruft. - X201 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily knock exclusivity, it is a defining feature of the console wars, but I fully agree than on what is to be a quick reference table, that anything more than "Yes"/"No" (Yes for anything fully exclusive to the console, and not considered time exclusivity or later ports like the recent Crash remasters) is overkill. --Masem (t) 15:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. By the way, this ultimately should be captured somehow in MOS:VG if a decision regarding video game platform lists is reached, which means it needs discussed there. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
For everybody going with yes/no, does that exclude going with the "available on other Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft platforms" thing too? I don't think it's as bad as the others, but it's still technically a "no" if you can get it on another platform, and therefore would help ease of maintenance. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
To me, "exclusivity" is basically saying that the game was purposely designed only for a specific platform (either technical or licensing deals); if it happened later after the typical 2-some-yr life that they opted to port it to other consoles, it was still originally an exclusive title to the original console, which is where exclusivity is important (eg the Crash Bandicoot games still were PS2 exclusives, even though their remasters are for multiple platforms).. This thus should exclude time exclusivity deals. --Masem (t) 21:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that answers the question or not. I think what Dissident93 is asking is, in addition to a straight Yes or No, do we further agree to retain Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony exclusive games. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild would normally be denoted as "Nintendo" exclusive, and not Switch exclusive, because it's available on multiple Nintendo systems. — Niche-gamer 21:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it's exclusivity to the family, not the console, that's more important. --Masem (t) 21:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it's "exclusive to the [Switch] or not", aka "you have to have the console this list is about in order to play this game". I don't think it matters if the "other system this game is playable on" is produced by Nintendo or Sony or [insert massive multinational conglomerate here]; it's not a Switch so it's a "no" for "exclusive to this list's console". --PresN 22:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with PresN. Exclusitivity only matters in so far as "You must have this specific device". Being on two Nintendo consoles has no more importance than being on a single Nintendo and single Microsoft. It's still on two consoles at that point. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Also agree, if it's available on another platform (no matter whose), it's not an exclusive to the platform in question. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
So to be clear, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild would be marked as No on both the Wii U list and the Switch list? I must disagree with that decision. It should be denoted as a Nintendo exclusive. — Niche-gamer 17:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
But why? It's not exclusive to the Switch (or Wii U). It should either be a yes or no (or checkmark/x) in the column, nothing more. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
But the game is exclusive to the Nintendo family of consoles (i.e. you must have a Nintendo system to play it). We can accommodate two type of exclusive game without the column looking unwieldy, surely? It won't require a lot of maintenance either. Moreover, I would do away with the No altogether and just leave the space blank. — Niche-gamer 10:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it is exclusive to Nintendo consoles, but it's not worth sharing on the list. It's a list of Switch games, it's exclusive to the system or not. You can get very gray with it and reliable sources don't usually discuss "exclusivity" in those terms so why should we. TarkusABtalk 11:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but why does this have to be noted? You could be more general and say it's exclusive to eighth generation of video game consoles too, but how does that improve the list at all? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

While we are here can we try and reach agreement regarding the multitude of companion articles and merge them into the main game list? I see little point in having separate lists for Pro/XB1X when enhanced titles can easily be tagged in the main article. Same with PlayStation Camera and Kinect supported games. There is an add-on column for this kind of supplemental info. — Niche-gamer 15:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Going off-topic a bit, but yes I'd support this. They are actually almost always noted in sources, but they really don't deserve their own special list either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the reasoning seems fine as described above. Now that I see more opinions on the thanks for taking the time to discuss it here. I'm okay with "simplifying" the lists to remove the "console" exclusive designation, but I do also share the same opinion with Niche-gamer that the designation of "Nintendo", or "Microsoft" exclusive should be kept. I believe there is value add in noting that something like Mario Kart, which is available on Switch and WiiU is still Nintendo exclusive and you need a Nintendo product to play it. Mordecairule 15:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's best if the exclusivity designations are dropped from the tables entirely. As excessive as the current system is, it at least lends a degree of clarity to the term, so that we don't have constant disagreements over whether or not a game counts as an exclusive if it is emulated on another platform, or if it's included in a compilation on another platform, or if it appears on one home console and one handheld, or if a manufacturer has an exclusivity agreement for it, etc., as seen in the debating of the last several posts. In short, exclusivity is much too complicated a concept to be addressed with something so crude as checklist columns.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That makes 3 editors who would rather delete the column altogether. Readers can visit the game page to discover platform availability. — Niche-gamer 14:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that a yes or no column does have encyclopedic value, my intention with these discussions was to simplify the six-answer format that's prevalent on these lists, not to remove them entirely. That being said, I wouldn't oppose consensus if this is what we decide to do in the future, but it's going to take more than three people to change that, I would think. As there have been no real support for keeping the current format (besides Niche-gamer, who now apparently wishes to remove the column entirely), I will go ahead and simplify them to the yes/no/company exclusive format again for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm in the remove it entirely crowd. But generally I avoid looking at or editing these lists anyway so I don't care enough to make a point about it. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


This block reads messy. Why don't we try a vote please. Support: Keep the exclusivity column where it is. Oppose: Reform the column in some way. Eliminate: Remove entirely. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't see any real support for keeping the old format (any longer at least). Also your question is opposite of my original discussion, a "support" vote should mean if you support my original post, not keeping it. But if you do want a vote, then I'm currently going with simplify to yes/no/company exclusive. EDIT: On second look, some of these game lists (List of PlayStation Vita games, List of Nintendo 3DS games) don't have this column at all, so I'd give an equal vote to eliminate if we need a tiebreaker. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eliminate entirely. Individual game articles provide all the relevant information including platform availability. — Niche-gamer 11:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Equally supportive of Simplifying or Eliminating - whichever has a stronger consensus. Strongly against doing nothing about it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eliminate - In addition to the points I brought up above, the upkeep on exclusivity column(s) would be nearly impossible to keep up with, since most games which are exclusive upon release don't remain exclusive forever. In most cases an editor who adds mention of a newly released version of a game to that game's article isn't going to think to update the exclusivity column in the corresponding list article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pinging @PresN, Ferret, Masem, X201, TarkusAB, Mordecairule, and The1337gamer: just to make it easy to see which of these options they support, as this needs more activity before we decide to do anything. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Simplify to Yes/No or Eliminate. I'm fine with either, lean towards eliminate. -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eliminate - Per WP:NOTCATALOG #5. Exclusivity is notable within the independent game articles, but when aggregated onto the master game list, it leans further towards being a sales pitch and more like a consumer's guide to platform availability. TarkusABtalk 01:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eliminate - I support the opinions stated by others; people can see exclusivity on separate game pages that exist if they want. Mordecairule 01:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eliminate --PresN 01:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eliminate as I noted above. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eliminate It's not needed. (Also, thanks for the ping) - X201 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

GameZone reviews[edit]

As noted above, GameZone was recently deleted. This has left hundreds of redlinks, which I believe Username Needed is about to unlink, but I wanted to raise the issue here about whether to keep the reviews. Per the comment in the AfD, I imagine so, but I figured I'd start a conversation to confirm, if only because it looks weird. ~ Amory (utc) 11:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to suggest that the reviews are now less notable/important. Hardcore Gaming 101 and Gematsu are both considered reliable sources, but not inheritably notable in the same way. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly this. Websites don't necessarily need to be notable to be reliable. I mean, its fine to re-evaluate it if people want to, but not particularly for the reason noted above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe the question concerns the review table? If so, yes, it should be unlinked in the template. I can do that later today, if there is no opposition. Lordtobi () 13:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If it's just about unlinking in the review table, then yes, I'd support that. No use in linking to something that likely won't have an article anytime soon (or ever.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
      I've removed the link in the template. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Something interesting that was brought up in the deletion discussion was in regards to a video game site being usable as a reliable source, but not being inherently notable. To me this distinction was intriguing as I'd never considered it before. I was hoping to have a discussion about what this really 'means'.--Coin945 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of sites like that. It's confusing if you think of RS == good site, and good site == the kind of thing you'd write an article on, but reliable isn't the same thing as notable. Imagine if IGN had articles just like it did today, with editorial oversight and so on, so it's an RS. Now image that no other source ever wrote anything about IGN itself- no "state of the industry" posts that mention them, nothing. That wouldn't change IGN's own reliability as a source, but it would make it non-viable for an article, because reliability depends only on IGN itself, but notability depends on other sources taking note. And if you caught yourself a few sentences back thinking "who on earth would write an article about IGN", well, there you go- turns out no one would write an artice about GameZone, or RPGFan, or a hundred other small-but-pro-am websites, and yet they still are themselves reliable. --PresN 04:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Notability generally boils down to whether or not it's covered by other third party reliable sources. Reliability generally boils down to things like if they've got a dedicated editorial staff, editorial policy, writers with credentials, etc. Many popular websites satisfy both. Some only satisfy one or the other. That's all. Sergecross73 msg me 04:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In fact, it just occured to me taht teh best illustration of this difference is the fact that "Wikipedia" has a Wikipedia article. Clearly notable and clearly unreliable. ^_^ --Coin945 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Now it seems that was deleted as well. Somebody here should take care of the redlinks in the deleted article, please. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (3 March to 9 March)[edit]

3 March

4 March

5 March

6 March

7 March

8 March

9 March

Salavat (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Silent Cartographer[edit]

  • Are we really at the point where a single Kotaku piece alone justifies a standalone article, nevertheless with statements like, "It has received critical praise and recognition for its iconic visuals and level design, being called groundbreaking and the best level in the Halo series." Coat racks for trivia... Was the last discussion somehow unclear? czar 15:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If you are at the point where you are trying to "justify" articles with something other than notability, like whether it fits your idea of what is a "good" article, then you are misinterpreting the rules of Wikipedia. If the subject was non-notable, then yes, it would not qualify for an article. A single article alone would also not fulfill GNG. However, I think something being fully detailed and explained in a large article and receiving many smaller mentions elsewhere, is grounds for notability. See also WP:OBSCURE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I would only expect that a single work would be sufficient to justify a topic passing the GNG only if that work was a book-sized volume dedicated to the topic, not a single opinion piece. We look for multiple sources for good reason, to prevent cases of one opinion piece justifying a full article. --Masem (t) 16:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with Masem and with Czar here. That said, list of locations in Halo (list of levels? locations is probably fine) could probably take all of the articles recently created as well as a pointer to the article on the Halo (or even possibly subsume that as well, since the Halo doesn't have a lot of obvious reception in its current article). --Izno (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Same argument applies as the various character articles I did... not all locations in Halo are notable, in fact a very small fraction of them are. Silent Cartographer is widely considered the best Halo level, and The Library the worst. Blood Gulch is its most famous multiplayer map. Those are superlatives and the rest are generally not mentioned that much.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Lists need not be inclusive of everything related to the list title. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Well, it's pretty much inevitable that someone would try to add the rest of the levels/maps. There's pretty much no harm in splitting it up over a list article, but there is the high probability that a list article will become a crufty mess that will eventually be deleted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. Same reasoning as the cruft Sonic characters. Same reasoning as I made at Talk:Luke_fon_Fabre#Notability. - hahnchen 19:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Only other source I can find that hasn't been used is an article about how the level was the "holy grail of speedrunning [Halo]". [35]. Nomader (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree this doesn't meet the GNG and is better covered in the parent article. If you ask me, saying something is notable because it's considered the best is like saying Mnemoth is notable because he was the first villain in Hellblazer. JOEBRO64 20:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Wait, Mnemoth has an article? JOEBRO64 20:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Except the article doesn't "say" it's notable because it's considered the best, it's notable because it has many reliable sources saying that it is the best, which the article transcribes verbatim.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

it's notable because it has many reliable sources saying that it is the best, which the article transcribes verbatim

... what? As quoted in my original post, the lede claims without evidence that the article has been called the best level in the Halo series, which (1) is puffery when it refers to a claim without critical consensus, and (2) isn't borne out in the sourcing. What sources are cited as calling it "the best"? There's the Kotaku piece already under discussion (which disclaims that point about "the best" in its own article) and what, the Entertainment Weekly listicle that says nothing of the sort?
I have no idea where you are pulling your ideas of encyclopedic notability, but coverage in sources does not guarantee standalone articles. If you have sources that assert the noteworthiness of specific Halo levels, cover them in their dedicated game articles (not even a separate "Halo levels" article) until a split is warranted by a preponderance of sourcing and therefore length. Take The Library (Halo), which is 550 words of (1) basic description, and (2) repetition of the same point: the level was designed poorly and wasn't liked. To drag that point out over two cluttered paragraphs gives heat but no light. The sensible way to handle that sentiment: stack the simplified, paraphrased claim with multiple refs in the Reception or Legacy section of the game's article: "Reviewers found its Library level to be tedious, confusing, and detrimental to the game's pacing.[1][2][3]" And if warranted, perhaps a sentence or two of clarifying criticism, but only if needed. We don't just rip every mention of a concept from game review articles and call it an independently notable concept. We are a general encyclopedia, writing for a general audience about general concepts. czar 21:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
My views on these small, independent level/character articles made by Zxcvbnm should be known already, but these sorts of articles should not be done. Place any of the actual relevant information (dev and reception) in the game's main article instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Cortana (Halo) is a Featured Article. What exactly is the difference between it and the articles I created? The Reception section is still primarily just critics saying she is "sexy", with some light commentary about her appearances in various games. There is also no information about any works or characters that she inspired, or outside influence that Cortana made that would "qualify" her for an article, it's entirely focused on her development for the game itself and reaction by game critics. By your standards it should be deleted, not a Featured Article, because it's "puffery". Or do enlighten me about how that article is different and doesn't fall into your criteria.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned that people are suggesting to place critical reception of specific levels in the main article of the video game. I personally think it is very easy to run into undue weight issues when you try to do that. I don't believe these articles are of the level of significance as Cortana (who's "promotion" section and impact on the Windows software makes it more notable), but at least the articles Zxcvbnm is creating have the decency to be completely sourced using realiable independent sources (unlike Cortana's practically unsourced "in video games" section). Moreover, I find it very odd that people are suggesting that Kotaku is the only website to have praised "The Silent Cartographer". Hardcore Gamer, for example, calls it "one of the most iconic missions in the entire series." The lead section, claiming the level "has received critical praise and recognition," doesn't seem out of place at all (though perhaps a bit inflated). Whether these sources are enough, I don't know. I think all of these articles are a bit on the edge, but they don't seem nearly as unnotable as some of you make them out to be. ~Mable (chat) 08:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot of fluff in the article though. It'd be pretty easy to just drop a basic sentence of "Kotaku singled out (level) as a standout location, citing the (atmosphere/gameplay/notalgia etc)" and get the same general sentiment across to the reader just fine, without any UNDUE issues. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly what I did for Psychonauts to highlight the limited commentary on three of its levels (Milkman Conspiracy, Lungfish, and the Meat Circus); all in the main game's reception, a sentence or two for each. --Masem (t) 14:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I've done the same thing for non-notable characters in reception sections too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yet another unnecessary spinout, mostly consisting of clipping out every passing mention found in reception sections. I really don't think these articles would pass Wikipedia-wide AFD/Merge discussions if someone actually set up something formal. I imagine it'd go the same as the elimination of those non-notable Sonic character spinouts that were concocted it much of the same manner. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Season Pass[edit]

  • Season Pass should be moved to Season pass (or something like Season pass (video gaming)), right?--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It's referred to by game journalists as "season pass" but by game companies as "Season Pass", which I'd say is the better version because it's more of a term used to apply to an indeterminate amount of time rather than an actual season. If people think it should be moved to Season pass then I'd think there would be no problem with putting it in the main namespace.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Just like Early access is at non-cased despite the best known version being Steam's Early Access, it should be non-cased "Season pass" even though vendors want to make it a proper noun. --Masem (t) 17:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Decapsing it, I think, without a disambiguating term, would pretty much be opposed given that season pass outside of video games almost always refers to sports season tickets (as the disambig page makes evident). --Izno (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
          • While the capitalization would provide a sufficiently different title, I still think that's not the right approach for the VG term since it's reasonably generic. We'd have to do "season pass (video gaming)". --Masem (t) 18:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Per WP:NATURAL, Season Pass is much preferable to Season pass (video gaming), so I guess my original thinking was correct then. I don't think it should be moved at all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm inclined to think that season pass (video gaming) would be preferred since the topic is about the generic concept rather than any one company's Proper Noun implementation of it. There might be an alternative even to either of those two options, however. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
                • Also agree to this. Or maybe season pass (gaming) due to other similar gaming disambiguation pages omitting the "video" part. (health (gaming), magic (gaming), etc)~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • Yep, season pass usually refers to sports tickets, museums, and other places. Capitalizing the 'P' in "pass" is not enough to disambiguate that we're talking about games. It's not even a proper noun so why is it capitalized. TarkusABtalk 11:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
                    • Season pass is currently a WP:TWODABS, I'd rather say that we should move Season Pass to Season pass and apply a hatnote ("season pass" is just mentioned once in the season ticket article). Lordtobi () 11:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • The "(gaming)" disambiguation is only good when the concept applies outside of video games, so that's why health and magic are where they are at (they are standard tabletop RPG tropes). Season pass in the sense for VGs is only really a video game concept so "(gaming)" is too generic. --Masem (t) 13:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Why isn't this just covered in context at Downloadable content? The SP article requires knowledge of DLC in order to make any sense. This entire article is a subset of DLC marketing. I don't see the use in splitting it. czar 11:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The main article on downloadable content simply covers too much ground for "season passes" to be adequately covered without it being WP:UNDUE. With season passes raking in many millions of dollars and being a primary business model of the AAA industry for many years I don't see the need to downplay/merge it into a wider article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Nintendo products at AfD[edit]

Just posting this here as well, as I noticed that the List of PS4 games on disk AfD has gotten way more traffic after being posted on the talk page and not just listed in the deletion sortlist. (We need a better way to handle this still). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Maybe someone could post a weekly summary here of the new/ongoing AfD's, kind of like I do for the new articles. Salavat (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I like that idea. Salavat - Do you usually do your article creation report on a certain day of the week? Might be good to do it at a different time, as for one to not overshadow the other. (If article creation list was done on Sundays, deletion could be done on Wednesdays or something, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We have WP:VG/D from the deletion sorting project. --Masem (t) 14:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but as noted in another discussion, it seems many don't know of it, and/or don't use it, and ones that are specifically posted here tend to get more input. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
People interested in contributing to discussions probably already watchlist WP:VG/AA Ben · Salvidrim!  14:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
As above, I had no idea that page existed. I follow the AfD page for Video Games, but didn't realise we had an article alert screen. I personally believe that a weekly post regarding ongoing discussions here on the project chat would be beneficial. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this was my sentiment as well. I was editing for years before I found out about WP:VG/D, and I still don't follow VG/AA, though I probably should start. The core 5-10 WP:VG stalwarts that have been editing here for 5-10 years know about them, but there's a lot of newer or casual editors that just don't go through all of the sub-pages at random to find these things. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that AFDs run 7 days and close, a weekly report will be of limited use. The advice should be that more members watchlist the alert page. Extra step, yes, but otherwise we'll just make the talk page a redundant list of alerts. You don't really need to even read the alert page, as the bot links the AFDs in the edit summary so you can just click through from watchlist. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue that, as AfD's are 7 days long, a weekly report would be perfect. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On paper yes, but considering that not everyone reads this talk page all the time, waiting for a week for those updates is actually worse. As ferret points out, the AA page is a much better solution. How about we just transclude that page into a box on this page? That way the alerts could always be seen by people visiting this page. If we get AAlertBot to use sections instead of semi-colon headers, we could use labeled section transclusion to transclude only the section we need and we can put that into a box to avoid it becoming too large. Regards SoWhy 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
This is what I had in mind too, but wasn't sure if it could be done. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I've made a feature request at WT:AA. Let's see if it's possible to modify the bot this way. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Video game/media list[edit]

Resident Evil and Monster Hunter series don't have a Video game/media list page like other big franchises. Some series split their mobile games into a separate list from the main video game list. List of Crash Bandicoot mobile games/List of Crash Bandicoot video games; Mobile phone games of the Breath of Fire series/Breath of Fire; and List of The Elder Scrolls video games/The Elder Scrolls Travels

How many video games does a franchise need to have a video game list? and how many mobile games does it take to make a mobile game list? I checked the WP:MOSVG and I didn't get any help on it. In my humble opinion, Resident Evil needs a media list since there's so much media involved while Monster Hunter just needing a video game list because the main article doesn't list the expanded versions or the ports. (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the general lists, but I don't think there really ever needs to be a separate "mobile game list" - it should generally just be a subsection of a bigger video game list. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The short answer is that several of those look prime for merging back to their main series article. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They do? which ones specifically? maybe you're right and the mobile game list don't make sense and should be merged back. (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
All three examples you gave are ripe for merging together. There is no reason why the mobile games should be split from the main list in the first place. They are still part of the same series and not remarkably different enough to justify a split. TarkusABtalk 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I personally think the two Crash Bandicoot lists should stay as they are, but I agree that Breath of Fire and The Elder Scrolls can be merged. ~Mable (chat) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's no hard-and-fast rule; the general rule is that splitting off a list from a series article is a good idea if the full list is oversized for the article, and a bad idea if it's small enough to fit into the article without issue. (Also, in general you shouldn't make a list of less than 10 items without a solid reason.) The on-the-ground manner of handling these lists is wildly inconsistent, though. Sub-splits/scoping is generally handled just based on how large the list would be- List of Mass Effect media gets all media because it fits just fine, while Final Fantasy has both a media and video games list because it's a huge franchise. Also, people often shy away from media lists because its the games they care about, and sourcing non-game media tie ins is hard, leaving just "games" lists.
In general, you should not be splitting off a "mobile titles" list unless you really can't write actual articles about the games and include them in the overall games list- The_Elder_Scrolls_Travels seems to have its own list primarily so that the editors can write some description of the games, but they should really also be included in the overall games list. Most franchises are not so massive so as to need a separate mobile list.
As to RE/MH - RE could definitely stand to have a media list, what with the big, crammed table of games in the series article and the additional film series article, not to mention the comics, etc. It would be a large media list, though I still think it should all be together. MH definitely also needs a list spun out; the series article has two giant tables embedded in it that really don't need to be there. It doesn't "need" to be a full media list, but I'd personally prefer it to be. (I'm pretty much always in favor of media lists over games-only lists.) It'd be up to the editors that write it- you can certainly just do a game list and stop there for later expansion. --PresN 19:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that there is no rule, more of editor consensus on whether to split or merge. RE is more than qualified for a media list, no one has done it yet because it's a daunting task. TarkusABtalk 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Well if anyone starts the media list for Resident Evil or Monster Hunter, I'd be happy to try and help out. (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
LOL that's the exact reason why it doesn't exist yet, no one wants to start it and carry it through, adding all the films, books, and comics. I built the RE games list. I wish I had half a brain when I wrote it to spin it off into a franchise list. I suppose someone could just split that list off and put "improve" templates on the new page but then it needs sourcing and formatting and a lead and it will still be incomplete and ughhhhhh I just don't want to be bothered :) TarkusABtalk 20:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I can see how it would be a big project. I don't even know all the material for Resident evil. is there a way to have beta-pages before making it. so it can be worked on a little at a time? We would need a RE expert anyways. But how about Monster Hunter? I think it might be a simple copy/paste? Or any franchise that needs a video game/media list. (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
If you create an account you get your own personal sandbox where you can build whatever you want before copying it over to an article. You can also build a draft: Wikipedia:Drafts TarkusABtalk 21:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep, Draft:List of Resident Evil media will do you as far a draft page goes; you can take as long as you'd like as long as you keep poking at it. It won't take that long to actually build out the list- the templates aren't that complicated (just fill-in-the-blank). It's sourcing that takes a long time on these kinds of lists... (currently slowly sourcing: List of Raven Software games) --PresN 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ok sounds like a plan then. (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Hello. I just made a profile and I just started on the draft.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Splitting Fortnite BR from Fortnite[edit]

Given recent news that Epic is developing mobile versions of Fortnite Battle Royale, whereas the main game "Save the World" of Fortnite remains on Windows/PS4/XO only, I'm thinking we need to split the BR version to its own article. This also represents the fact that that game is F2P, and as part of the BR genre, Fortnite BR is talked about as being on par and perhaps surpassing PUGB in player counts. There's enough dev info and release information to do this, I'm just making sure if anyone sees any gotchas with this. --Masem (t) 21:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I fully support it. They are basically two separate games at this point, and I wouldn't be surprised if they go through name changes later in development like H1Z1 did. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • So there is at least one snag in this. "Fortnite" has been nominated for a number of major awards (and just today some BAFTA); except in one case, it is not clear if they are nominating the main game, or BR, but if you read between the lines, the awards are likely meant for the BR mode. If I split BR off, I fear I can't pull the Accolades table with it (OR to assume those awards are for BR), but it seems wrong to leave it for the main game. I'm not sure if this forces the two parts to stay together or not. --Masem (t) 13:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Majority of recent discussion of "Fortnite" is going to refer to the BR mode, I highly doubt any of them are giving awards to the underplayed and generic main survival mode as compared to the one that's overtook PUBG in player numbers. So I'll say that this shouldn't prevent a split. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The problem is, right now, I can't move the awards to the BR article, it is 100% original research for all but one to say the award was given to one. I fully agree they were likely given to BR mode but we can't assume that. --Masem (t) 19:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Then I suppose we leave all of the awards stuff on the main Fortnight article, for now anyway. An independent Fortnite Battle Royale article would still be an offshoot of the main page, so it's not like it lacking an awards section would be seen as a major issue. Wasn't something similar seen with Grand Theft Auto V and Grand Theft Auto Online, at least when both games/pages were new? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

How to handle unknown release dates[edit]

I've just finished a lengthy rewrite of the Sonic Blast article, but I've run into a bit of a problem. A version of the game was released for the Master System in Brazil; problem is, there are no reliable sources that confirm its release date (GameRankings release dates are unreliable, according to WP:VG/S). So it seems weird to have the Master System listed in the infobox's platforms section, but not in the release section. Anybody have an idea as to how I should handle this? (I've put a footnote saying "only in Brazil" for the time being.) JOEBRO64 23:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

1997. [36], [37] Ben · Salvidrim!  23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Allegedly December 1997, making it the last Master System game, but I can't cite that yet. Ben · Salvidrim!  23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've sourced this in the article. JOEBRO64 23:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-English regions are not usually supposed to go in infoboxes, by the way. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean, unless it's the ONLY region, right? Ben · Salvidrim!  00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue this is a case where it's necessary. As I previously said, it didn't make sense to include the Master System in the infobox if there was no release date, and it is significant that it was released on the system. JOEBRO64 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I assumed it was released in Japan too. Due to that, I have to wonder if it was actually officially licensed by Sega? Seems odd that it didn't get a home release in Japan as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also, it was reviewed (however briefly) in the Dec.1997 issue #122 of Ação Games (scan of the page or download the whole PDF) so that's further confirmation of the release month (and a cute ref to add too!) Ben · Salvidrim!  00:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Man, good find! I've added this to the article. JOEBRO64 00:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Manchester United Europe[edit]

I was wondering about this game, according to CGV Magazine Nov 1992, they were going to released this on the Atari Lynx, it was already released on the Commandore and was top of the game charts for a good few weeks that year in the UK. I was wondering if anyone knows about this oldie, cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nm, I was told on Reddit that European Soccer Challenge and this game are one and the same game. Govvy (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


I have nominated Chocolatier (video game) for a Good article reassessment to see if it still meets the criteria for Good Article. Please join the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Vanity Article?[edit]

If anyone wants to try and establish notability and better sources for Smiley's Maze Hunt before I prod it, feel free. But I don't fancy your chances, it looks like a vanity article to me. - X201 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It'll take a full redesign of the article even if it passes WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This one deserves an ion cannon from orbit. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • One more warning flag (to add to the rest) is that on their Facebook page (with only 20 likes by the way), they posted "Also check out our new Wikipedia Page!" the day after User:Sfarjal moved it out of their draftspace and onto mainspace, as if it was a website they had created, implying to me at least that they had some involvement in its creation.--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
X201, I've just prodded the article on your behalf as above; hope you don't mind. Looks like something we could seriously do without. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Was just leaving it for a day or so in case anyone fancied the challenge of salvaging it. - X201 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I checked out the articles creator, and his history is this article, and a stream of vandalism. Didn't think it could be saved, as one of the references was a fake link to a mirror article. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Halo: Combat Evolved FAR[edit]

I have nominated Halo: Combat Evolved 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. JOEBRO64 19:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Two items. One, the entire article uses the slang names of the alien species. Should there be an inclusion of those names, perhaps in parenthesis? Two, Vox Day's opinion is quoted. He's not in the reliable list at all. I think we could find a better critic to talk about Halo's legacy here. Apart from that, I think the article is full. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dissident93 is always distruptive in video game articles![edit]

WP:VG is not a board you report people to, like WP:ANI. That said, Dissident isn't doing anything wrong here, so Angeldeb82 would be better off asking him for clarification rather than attacking him. If you'd rather not discuss with him, you're free to ask on my talk page too. But this isn't the right way to do this... Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think Dissident93 is annoying because of his always bothersome disruptive editing abilities in video game articles! He always removes all the websites' personal Game of the Year Awards from awards tables without moving them to prose (see Overwatch, Mario Kart 8, etc.) and ALWAYS changes the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences link to D.I.C.E. Awards! When I try to avoid redirects by creating a piped link or changing it back to Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, he ALWAYS scolds me by claiming that I don't the meaning of the word WP:NOPIPE (always with a redirect) and ALWAYS restores redirects back again, which Wikipedia has forbiddden! This guy doesn't know the meaning of the word "no redirects"! Can someone please teach Dissident93 a lesson?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Bro take a huge chill pill and dial it down. Why do you say "Wikipedia has forbidden redirects", where is that coming from? Ben · Salvidrim!  20:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTBROKEN (which is the larger WP:NOPIPE guideline): "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect." It's like you've never read any of these guidelines I continually link you to, and just want to feel outraged for some reason. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Dissident93, I think you're the one who believes that D.I.C.E. Awards is the correct article, while Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences is wrong. Are you suggesting that the article's name be changed to D.I.C.E. Awards? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Can someone please teach Dissident93 a lesson?!" What's that supposed to mean? If anything, you're always the one making mountains out of molehills here. With all your freakouts about websites shutting down or archives not working. Have you ever thought that you may be the problem? GamerPro64 21:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's one thing to disagree with another editor, but saying you hate someone and that they need to be "taught a lesson" could be interpreted as a threat which is absolutely not okay. CurlyWi (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize. I changed the first thing I said about Dissident93 a bit. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just a heads up (and ignoring the tone of voice here-- please be civil), I think it's especially important that redirects be kept in certain situations-- it seems like Dissident is making the right decision there. I actually created an article (not video game related) this week because I clicked the link and realized it didn't exist-- I never would have made it without the redirect. From an article creation standpoint, we should always link to the accurate subject. Nomader (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
On the DICE Awards vs AIAS, I do believe they should be split. The individual ceremonies of DICE are not notable on their own (unlike the Game Awards) but they are notable awards, and the winners should be highlighted, but that shouldn't be done on the page about the organization. --Masem (t) 21:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would like to note that WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE have been pointed out to Angeldeb82 multiple times, I've done it at least twice myself. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have gone ahead and done something I've been meaning to do: AIAS now covers the organization and the DICE summit, while I moved the DICE awards to a separate page. I hope I caught all the redirects, but things might be wonky if I missed one. --Masem (t) 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Need other opinions at the GA review for Super Mario Bros.[edit]

Seems this has been resolved now. If someone comes here with the intention to provide a second opinion, there are a couple of other GANs in need of review. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indrian (talk · contribs) claims that adding in unsourced claims of a developer (also possibly WP:OR) with the promise of adding the source that says so "at a later date" is fine, and that me removing it with the WP:BURDEN being on him to source now is wrong and disruptive to the GA process. So I'm requesting additional opinions on the matter here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  • That is a charmingly POV way to put it. Super Mario Bros. is currently being reviewed for Good Article status. As part of the review, I suggested that the nominator add SRD as a developer because this was a separate company that worked closely with Nintendo and was responsible for the programming of the game. The nominator did so and asked if I knew of any sources for the SRD claim. While this review was still on-going, User:Dissident93 decided to come along and considered that info a little fishy, so they deleted it. I am, of course watching the article, but if I had not seen this act I would have assumed the nominator had not responded to this suggestion yet, which I don't find helpful. This was not a big deal, as Dissident did not necessarily know the review was in progress. I therefore reverted and informed Dissident of the ongoing review and that sources would be forthcoming, which is all fine and good. Since then, however, they have decided that the information is somehow not verifiable (it is, even if currently unsourced) and original research (this truly shows that their grasp of the underlying history is lacking, which is fine except that they are making themselves out as someone who can recognize OR in Nintendo articles when they clearly cannot). I told them to take it to the review, which I felt a more proper place to discuss these matters, and was even helpful enough to put a "citation needed" tag on the fact in question. It will be resolved before the end of the review, which is apparently not soon enough for our impatient friend here. So now we have a talk page fight over nothing of any real consequence. Anyway, that's probably more text than the subject is worth, but I do get a little piqued when another editor decides to take part in such unhelpful actions during a GA review. Indrian (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The idea that you are suggesting that unsourced information be added to an article as part of a GAN is.... odd. I consider it a criteria for passing GAN that the article contain no unsourced content, no CN tags. If the information cannot be sourced, it shouldn't be added. Once you find a proper source add it then. Obtaining GA status doesn't mean the article can't be later improved. Adding unsourced content during a GAN though....... If it'll be "resolved before the end of the review", there's no rush to add it either. Wait for source in hand. -- ferret (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This IGN article from the first page of my Google search results should be sufficient on the matter. Pushing an editr war over a GAN is plain unnecessary. Lordtobi () 22:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree totally. Also, its all right here. Its just not cited in the article yet, but its quite verifiable information. Also, the reivew is not finished, so no one is suggesting promoting with a citation tag. That would just be silly. Indrian (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems a little weak for giving infobox Development credit. They did some test work, as far as these sources show. {{Infobox video game}} says to omit such companies (programming assistance, ports) from the infobox. Fine to mention in prose though, and I'd support that with the above sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Umm, Nakago programmed the game. He is confirmed in the article as an SRD employee. Indrian (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
So I just I'll quote {{Infobox video game}} directly and in full: "Individual development tasks handled by different companies (e.g., scenario, programming) and ports should not be mentioned in the infobox but in the article text instead." -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That's fair, but I would point out that Super Metroid is a GA and Intelligent Systems is in the infobox. The situation is analagous: Nintendo designed it and Intelligent Systems programmed it. Indrian (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Super Metroid was promoted to GA a loooooong time ago, and relatively speaking the adjustment to the infobox documentation is recent, prompted by the modern era issues of almost every game having 4-5 developers listed (often in EFNs), which was getting out of control. At least it's now sourced, so I don't feel super strongly about enforcing the nuance of IBVG (Maybe at a FAC). -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That's also fair. We will take it out of the infobox and save it for the article body, but the original objection was to mentioning SRD at all. That has now been resolved. Indrian (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Cloud Strife[edit]

I have been finding new information about the character of Cloud Strife set around his origins and also tried rearranging his reception section. I have been wondering if this article could become a FA in a future considering there its use of out of universe information. However, I'm pretty sure I can't do it due to its large size and the fact English is not my first language. I already left a note in the Square Enix project regarding this, but I would also like to hear more comments. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Worldwide (WW) release date in infobox[edit]

I've recovered this unclosed RFC from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 135, in order to close it as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. As there is no guidance as such to influence the weight of arguments, it basically can only boil down to head-counting. And the consensus is therefore as follows:
  • A1 (7-5 in favour) - no WW where a game has a single worldwide release date
  • B1 (again, 7-5 in favour) - no WW where a game has multiple worldwide release dates (date varying by platform)
  • C2 (easiest one to discern, 9-2 in favour) - use WW where a game has differing regional release dates on some platforms and worldwide release date(s) on other platforms

So, essentially, the consensus is to only use WW to provide clarity where a game has various differing release dates including multiple regional release dates on some platforms and worldwide on other platforms. If you have any questions about this close please contact me.

A tip for the future - if someone places the {{RFC|topic=}} template at the top of your request for comment, it will prevent it being auto-archived until the RFC is closed.

Thanks, Fish+Karate 12:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If a game was released worldwide on a single date, do we use the {{Video game release}} template in the infobox? From what I've seen, the majority of infoboxes use this template even if there's only a single worldwide release date.

If your answer is no, then when exactly do we use the worldwide label (|WW|)? What was the point of even making it? -- Wrath X (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessary. I'd remove it if I saw it. JOEBRO64 12:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The Infobox documentation has in the past suggested using VGR with the release field in all cases, even for single dates. The templates job is to produce an unbulleted list of region/date pairs (Or similar data pairs). When there's only a single universal date, the template offers nothing. WP:VG/DATE was recently tweaked to note this. I wouldn't go around blanketly removing the use of single WW dates, but it's not necessary either. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the template offer the label WW? This explicitly states that the date was worldwide. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
There are cases of where there are staggered platform releases where one platform may have different regional dates, whereas another platform will have one single worldwide date eg Bayonetta. For consistency, if this situation occurs, we shouldn't drop the WW from those platforms that need it. But if it is the only release date needed, then it can be dropped. --Masem (t) 14:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. So basically if there are regional dates present then we also include the WW? Masem could you tell me if I'm correct:
  • For South Park: The Fractured but Whole which only has one worldwide date for all platforms, we don't use the WW.
  • For Mario Kart 8 which has different regional dates for Wii U but has one worldwide date for Nintendo Switch, we keep the WW.
  • But what if there are multiple release dates but they are all worldwide dates? Grand Theft Auto V has three release dates and they're all worldwide. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say the WW could be dropped if all dates for the different platforms are worldwide for that platform. --Masem (t) 14:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
So we don't use WW for Grand Theft Auto V. What about the other two I mentioned? Was I correct about South Park: The Fractured but Whole and Mario Kart 8? -- Wrath X (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion, you describe both cases right when to drop the WW. --Masem (t) 14:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IMO if there is more than one date, in whatever situation, the template should be used, as it also gives a cleaner view (with dates more clearly differentiated from the platforms). I'm not opposed to using it in single-date infoboxes either, as it else, at least to some, appears like we don't know where it released, just when. As such, many older game pages, where the region is unknown, only use the year. Lordtobi () 15:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the regional tags look awful and make the field look overcrowded when there several dates. If there are no regional dates and it's all WW dates, then I don't use it. An unbulleted list for multiple dates is far neater than have loads of WW tags.--The1337gamer (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Unbulleted with no mention of region? Unless I misunderstand, how is that an improvement? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Unbulleted lists for when there are no regions to mention. When it's just WW dates. E.g. These infoboxes. The left one looks far neater than the right one both in code and in an article. I hate it when people do the right one. It looks awful repeating the same tags over and again. It so inefficient stating worldwide release 5 times. There is no loss of information in the absence of WW tags here. If there are no WW tags then it is fair to assume the game was released worldwide unless otherwise stated somewhere else in the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Video games
  • Windows
  • 1 January 2018
  • OS X
  • 1 February 2018
  • Linux
  • 1 March 2018
  • PlayStation 4
  • 1 April 2018
  • Xbox One
  • 1 May 2018
WikiProject Video games
Release Windows
  • WW: 1 January 2018
  • WW: 1 February 2018
  • WW: 1 March 2018
PlayStation 4
  • WW: 1 April 2018
Xbox One
  • WW: 1 May 2018
Well, that's just subjective. I personally like the one on the right because it gives some more context and information to the date and is a form of organizing the information. The one on the left looks blank, as if it's missing something important. That's just my taste. Zoom (talk page) 20:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


I see differing opinions. Some oppose WW, some support it. Can we please form a consensus regarding the usage of WW?

When is it suitable to use the worldwide (WW) label from {{vgrelease}}? -- Wrath X (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


Release 1 January 2018
  • WW: 1 January 2018


  • Microsoft Windows
  • 1 January 2018
  • PlayStation 4
  • 1 April 2018
  • Xbox One
  • 1 May 2018
Release Microsoft Windows
  • WW: 1 January 2018
PlayStation 4
  • WW: 1 April 2018
Xbox One
  • WW: 1 May 2018


Release Microsoft Windows
  • NA: 1 January 2018
  • PAL: 2 January 2018
1 February 2018
1 March 2018
PlayStation 4
  • NA: 1 April 2018
  • EU: 2 April 2018
  • AU: 3 April 2018
Xbox One
  • NA: 1 May 2018
  • AU: 2 May 2018
  • EU: 3 May 2018
Release Microsoft Windows
  • NA: 1 January 2018
  • PAL: 2 January 2018
  • WW: 1 February 2018
  • WW: 1 March 2018
PlayStation 4
  • NA: 1 April 2018
  • EU: 2 April 2018
  • AU: 3 April 2018
Xbox One
  • NA: 1 May 2018
  • AU: 2 May 2018
  • EU: 3 May 2018
  • Support A2 and B2, and strongly support C2 - I personally prefer using the WW in all cases. When I see a date without the WW, I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Does it mean we don't know where it was released? Or is it the release date of the developer's country? Is it the American release date (since the US is the most notable English-speaking country)? Is it worldwide? On the other hand, using the WW label will make it explicitly clear that it is the worldwide date. I especially support C2. If regional labels (NA/EU/AU) are present in the infobox then WW should also be used for consistency.
Another reason I support using WW is due to the fact so many game infoboxes already use the WW and it's going to take a lot of energy and time removing them. -- Wrath X (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I personally look at the ones without WW, and think that it's been released on that date; but the information is incomplete. Like there may be other release dates unknown. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for B2 and C2 and support for A2 per my arguments above. Lordtobi () 09:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for A2 and B2 out of personal preference, but not a strong opinion. Basically, it's just what I used to seeing. Strong support for C2 for a consistent display. Once regional display is needed, it should be used for all the dates for a consistent look and view, with the regions/dates all lining up vertically. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1 and B1 -- less is more as worldwide is clearly implied by the lack of indicator. No opinion on item 3, though a slight preference for C1 (for the same reason). --Izno (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1,B1 and C2 - I think WW is needed is cases where other labels are present, to signify what that date means. - X201 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1, B1, C2 If there is zero regional distinction in any of the release dates, the WW is unnecessary. But as soon as at least one regional variation is introduced, that WW is needed to keep consistency. --Masem (t) 16:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for A2 and B2 and strong support for C2 per my previous argument. Also, think about this decision through the eyes of the reader. Would the reader prefer to have this information visible or implied or missing. This is what's important here. Zoom (talk page) 16:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1, B1 and C2 per my points above. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1, B1, C2. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear God, kill WW. 🔥🔥🔥 It's often added as if assumed that a release is worldwide if not specified to a region. How about: If it isn't specified, then we don't need to specify it either. How about: We shouldn't be including the mess of release dates in the C examples at all (keep only the initial release, save the rest for prose or footnotes). We write for a general audience, and "WW" is the most hideous of Wikipedia-generated jargon. (Also I don't buy the rationale that different PS4 release dates automatically means prior releases were worldwide rather than simply unspecified...) A1, B1, C1 and long live local consensus. czar 01:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1, B1, C2. A1 and B1 are better than their counterparts because there have only been worldwide releases. C1 leaves the WW releases somewhat ambiguous because everything else is labeled. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A2, B2, and C2': I hate that I'm !voting this way, but we are really just asking for confused people if we don't specify that it's a worldwide release. I think just having the date by itself will throw folks who are used to seeing regions on every other site that they look at. I don't think it's necessarily good policy but I do think that it'll save us a huge headache. Nomader (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • This needs updated in {{Infobox video game}} doc, if someone wants to take a stab. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Would the "only use WW to provide clarity where a game has various differing release dates including multiple regional release dates on some platforms and worldwide on other platforms." straight from the closing statement work? I feel like it could be explained a bit more clearly or something. EDIT: I don't have edit permissions there, or I would have already. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Stealth video game category IP LTA[edit]

Just a heads up, the sporadic category LTA IP was active in the last 24 hours. They were bouncing between at least 10 different IPs from different ranges, I blocked 2 that had made several edits though. If you're not familiar, this guy pops up every now and then and adds genre categories to games that clearly don't fit (Marking COD as "stealth" games, Age of Empires as "action adventure", etc). I believe he also does it to films, but I don't watchlist many. -- ferret (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  • That person has been around for a while now. Always adding Age of Empires and other strategy games into the adventure games category. Rather annoying but easy to spot. I added the category pages to my watchlist when I first came across them, so they usually end up getting rollbacked unless I miss it in the sea of vandalism on my watchlist. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

European Soccer Challenge Redirects and merging?[edit]

I've been told on reddit that Soccer Challenge and Manchester United Europe are one and the same game, should I merge what I have in my sandbox, User:Govvy/Manchester United Europe to it? Also should we redirect Manchester United Europe to Soccer Challenge? The other problem is CVG magazine say that the game was developed by a company called Krisalis Software, but the release dates for both games are exactly the same, along with the platforms they are on. Thoughts please. Govvy (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

When you say you were told on reddit, that they are the same game, what sources back this up/who told you. It's very possible the games are the same, and have different titles for particular regions (I'd have thought some countries may not be able to license Manchester United for various reasons Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
They're not one and the same. A quick viewing of Youtube makes that hard to swallow. Manchester Untied Europe uses Krysalis's side-on view point and a game engine that went on to be reused in European Club Soccer a few years later.European Soccer Challenge uses a top down view and and engine that was used in World Championship Soccer. There was a lot of re-skinning of football games in the time before Fifa and Pro Evo, it had been happening since the 1980s; with the infamous World Cup Carnival. - X201 (talk)
@Lee Vilenski:, @X201: Please review this Atari Lynx version of European Soccer Challenge, [38], it's been coded by Krisalis Software, so there are two different versions of European Soccer Challenge, but the Atari Lynx version??? Govvy (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Will do. I think it's probably a good time to try and nail down a time line and what is related to what etc as regards 1990's football games. - X201 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Categories[edit]

Hi all,

I've seen an established user by the name of User:Kjell Knudde creating a list of categories regarding "cultural depictions" (Such as Category:Cultural depictions of sportspeople, Category:Cultural depictions of British people and Category:Cultural depictions of men) and applying them to a long list of video games; even ones that don't seem to particularly have any real cultural bias to them (Such as Jimmy White's 2: Cueball, and Anna Kournikova's Smash Court Tennis.)

Is this something that we should be doing for all video game like this, or only for those that have a definitive cultural portrayal in the prose? Either way is fine, but I thought it neccesary to find a consensus for addition as these categories are very large, and I'm not sure how these sports games really add to this.

What are your thoughts? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked him about it last month. User_talk:Kjell_Knudde#cultural_depiction_nonsense_categories [39] Video games like this have dozens of historical characters. That's a lot of categories to clog them with. I doubt anyone who plays these games would be curious to what other games would have that historical character in them. They can click the name of the person in the article to link to the article of the actual person, and at the bottom of that person's page have a link to a list article listing where they have been featured at. That'd work out better. Dream Focus 09:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Seems like a violation of WP:NONDEF, at least the broad ones like "Cultural depictions of men", of which literally no specific article should ever be in because it would never be a defining characteristic of anything. This editor is clearly engaging in overcategorization and disruptive editing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
[40] Category:Cultural depictions of American people is being added to video game articles as well, just because the game has an American in it. I agree with what you say about "Cultural depictions of men", so thinking a note should be put there telling people when its appropriate to add an article to that category. Dream Focus 09:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
To be fair to the user, they did add Category:Video games based on real people to the articles, which seems fine, but I think most articles will not really be cultural, especially when its a simple sports sim. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A bunch of the games they've added to these categories are not cultural depictions. E.g. Colin McRae games don't depict or feature Colin McRae. It just a rally driving game with his name slapped on because he's a famous Rally driver. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It should only be if the cultural portrayal is a core prose element. I can't think of any immediately examples, like for example, I would not include the Civ games in this just because real world leaders were used - they're not narratively significant. --Masem (t) 13:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    I'd actually argue the only game I can think of is an article on Wheels of Aurelia, which is actually about historic Italian Culture. everything else is kinda pointless Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Send them to CFD and see if the broader community agrees (it probably will). --Izno (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, in other modes of fiction, I can see value of some of these categories. (eg Darkest Hour the movie easily categorizes into Cultural depiction of British people - it's core and essential). Video games tend not to make historical figures the core focus. That does lead me thinking that this might be where games like the Assassin's Creed titles , or even something like Day of the Tentacle (with George Washington + pals, even if spoofs), would fall into the appropriate cats. --Masem (t) 14:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Where's the new ShopTo News link for UEFA Euro 2012 (video game)?[edit]

I'm having a problem with the UEFA Euro 2012 (video game) article. There are two links for the ShopTo News website: one alive link, and one dead link] that is since archived. I want a new ShopTo link for the story called "Euro 2012 patch arrives, fixes game freezes", but I can't find it among the links in this search link, and Google won't let me find the one link I'm searching for? Can someone please help me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there is no live link; why do you need one? If you have an archive, then that's good enough- you know what the original url was, so just stick the |archiveurl= into the citation with |deadurl=yes and carry on. I'm going to cheerfully ignore the question of if "ShopTo News" is actually an RS; they're citing a forum post by an EA represntative that wasn't even the thread starter it was such a non-story, and honestly I'm surprised anyone bothered to cover a minor patch for this game. --PresN 03:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Manchester United Europe[edit]

I wanted to move User:Govvy/Manchester United Europe to Manchester United Europe, but there is currently a redirect on it that needs deleting, is there an admin that can sort it out for me, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPEEDY and slap a DB-g6 on the redirect. - X201 (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
k, done, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (8 March to 17 March)[edit]

8 March

10 March

11 March

12 March

13 March

14 March

15 March

16 March

17 March

This is my last New articles post and I will no longer be updating New article announcements or the New article announcements archive. Hopefully someone else can takeover and continue to bring the new articles into the project. Salavat (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Global Game Awards not a notable video game award game site?[edit]

I'm having a problem here! In the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article, I tried adding Global Game Awards 2017 in which the game was a winner for "Best Comedy", but Darkwarriorblake keeps removing them from the article and claiming that "it's a non notable award given by a non notable video game site," and he scolds me for putting the Global Game Awards here. Yet all the other video game articles like Cuphead, Mass Effect: Andromeda, Assassin's Creed Origins, Prey (2017 video game), etc. have the same Global Game Awards on the awards table. I'm getting confused! If Global Game Awards is "not a notable video game site" as Darkwarriorblake claims, then should I remove it from all the video game articles? Please help me here. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Isn't this just a user-voted awards on If so, then I don't think it should be included. isn't vetted as a reliable source at WP:VG/RS and I think we should generally avoid user voted awards entirely. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it tied to SXSW at all? I'm seeing links to that in the dif above. That would ties some sort if importance to them. Honest question, because I've personally don't recall hearing of these awards before (which probably isn't a good sign considering how much I read about the industry...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, South by Southwest and its gaming awards are notable as well. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, that's why I'm asking about it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No as far as I can see it has no ties to SXSW, it's being confused with The Game Awards and the Global GamING Awards. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


Where's the newsletter? Wasn't it supposed to be out in January? JOEBRO64 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Archiving weblinks on an article[edit]

  • Missing archive link: Archiving is not required, but is considered good practice. To archive: Go to IABot's Analyze a page. (Note that if you end up on the "IABot Management Interface", you'll need to find the small drop-down menu that says "Run Bot" and select "Fix a single page"). Type a Wikipedia article's title (carefully) on the line that says "Page title to analyze" Be sure to check the checkbox labeled "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". Run time for the bot can be from a few seconds to five minutes. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an easier way. Go to the article you want to run the bot on, click the history tab, and click the link "Fix dead links". By doing this, you don't need to type in the exact article title yourself.--Alexandra IDVtalk 23:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


Chocolatier (video game), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)