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
Archives
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk

viewtalkeditchanges


New Articles (17 November to 24 November)[edit]

17 November

18 November

19 November

20 November

21 November

22 November

23 November

24 November

Salavat (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (23 November to 1 December)[edit]

23 November

24 November

25 November

26 November

27 November

28 November

29 November

30 November

1 December

Salavat (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

List of unsourced video game articles[edit]

Is there a way to access a list of unsourced video game articles? From what I've uncovered so far, you can only access a list of every unsourced article, by the month that the 'unsourced' tag was added. But I want a list of only video games. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, what you're looking for is the intersection of (unsourced articles) and (video game articles), so head on down to catscan. Here's the intersection of "All articles lacking sources" category with "articles that have a WPVG template on their talk page":
I've been unable to successfully load this page.--Coin945 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox space[edit]

Can Template:Infobox video game, Template:Infobox video game series and Template:Infobox video game character be edited so that they can have more space for data? These three infoboxes don't afford much space, especially the character infobox. For example, take a look at at the infoboxes for Solid Snake and Dante (Devil May Cry); the labels on the left side are taking way more space than the data on the right side. In contrast, other character infoboxes such as Template:Infobox character and Template:Infobox animanga character allow way more space and their fonts aren't too large, see Darth Vader. -- Wrath X (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the same topic you've brought up before, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 128#Infobox video game and video game series. Same suggestion: Stop using the multiple language labels which are long, and instead use {{Vgrelease}} to list multiple languages in the normal field. I provided an example last time. -- ferret (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Solid Snake done. Dante is a mess and needs re-thought. Suggest having a table due to so many different voice actors and linking the infobox to it. -- ferret (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is no one uses {{Vgrelease}} and no one will use it. That method isn't mentioned anywhere in Template:Infobox video game character. What is mentioned are the English and Japanese voice actor fields, and editors will continue to use them. You're the only who came up with the {{Vgrelease}} method; it wasn't agreed by consensus. Who knows if other editors will agree to it, there's bound to be disagreements regarding your method. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Suit yourself. There's an alternative available that results in shorter labels if you want it, which is widely used for multiple fields in {{Infobox video game}} already, even in fields not mentioned in the template documentation. Updating template documentation is easy. -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is no one uses {{Vgrelease}} and no one will use it - well, the template is used on over 14000 pages (compared to 22000 for Infobox VG), so that's a heck of a lot of no ones. If you mean "no one uses it to condense the voice actor lines", that just means they hadn't thought of it. If you think it's better, use it. If you don't, don't. Claiming that you can't because of an invisible potential lack of consensus for something that hasn't been tried yet isn't a strong arguement, and isn't how consensus actually works- someone has to try something first before other people can have an opinion. --PresN 12:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Another alternative for a mess like Dante, if a table outside of the infobox isn't desired, would be to use two collapsible lists in voiceactor, each labelled with the language. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
For Dante (as the example), if you either chose the actor most associated with the role, or simply left it at "Various", or removed the specific games, and in all cases, putting such a table in the body of the article, you'd get a lot of space back and use the infobox more effectively. --Masem (t) 14:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Direct proposal to remove japanactor[edit]

I mentioned this the last time WrathX brought it up, but I think we should just eliminate this field altogether. The labels are too long when it is in use, and other character infoboxes don't use separate fields like this. There's only 650ish uses of the infobox, so I'll handle the cleanup.

General proposal: Infobox video game character has three fields for voice actor: voiced_by, voiceactor, and japanactor. When both voiceactor and japanactor are used, the language is suffixed to the field label, taking up most of the space in the infobox. The fields voiced_by (In template but not documentation) and japanactor will be removed and condensed into voiceactor. Where only a few names are used, {{Vgrelease}} will be used to quickly list the entries next to their language (See Solid Snake example). In cases where long lists of voice actors exist, such as Mario, Princess Zelda, Dante, etc, a collapsible list will be used to wrap each set of actors, with the language as the title, similar to how we do release date when many platforms exist.

I'll do this work in a few days if no one voices a strong opposition. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with this. If it was up to me, I'd remove all mentions of Japanese actors for non-Japanese developed characters. Do we really need to list who voiced a Call of Duty character in Japan (hypothetically)? This sort of info belongs in prose instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Under way, see as an example. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Secondary proposal: Retire VG Character completely[edit]

What does Template:Infobox video game character (Approx 650 uses) bring us over Template:Infobox character (6266 uses)? The latter includes enough fields to handle any in universe subtemplates we have as well. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Only doing a cursory glance, but could the VG char one be redone as to build a templated call to the main infobox character but filling in the spare labels that infobox character offers? ----Masem (t) 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll side with Masem here. Both infoboxes appear to contain the same parameters, and a templated call / merge into Infobox character could allow for expansion of the current VG character template as a whole. compare Template:Infobox video game character to Template:Infobox character. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Masom on this point too. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Infobox character has the same dedicated fields. Most of our in universe subtemplates also have dedicated fields (or equivolent ones) in it as well. I'm not sure how we'd do a templated call, do you know a good example? I would worry that maintaining it separately that way would fragment updates to Infobox character or risk documentation being outdated, as the main one has far more attention and traffic. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, basically, "infobox video game character" would itself invoke the infobox character template, but filling in the additional label fields with the VG-specific terms, and passing arguments to that. --Masem (t) 15:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Something to add to this is that by this means, any changes made to Infobox Character (itself also based on a generic infobox template) will automatically propagate to Infobox Video Game Character, without us having to change anything. This is a Good Thing (TM). --Masem (t) 18:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of fields in Template:infobox character that fail the In-Universe test. I wouldn't have an issue with deprecating/deleting IVGC in the case those fields were removed, nor an issue with turning IVGC into a pass-through, but I would guess those fields in IC are a no-go. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
That's not really something we can solve. IC is in use across 6000 articles by film, tv and novel projects. If it's in violation of policy somehow, that's really a separate issue. IVGC still strikes me as redundant, and many video game characters use IC besides. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
separate issue No, I'm saying that's a blocker to using anything but IVGC. It may need to be solved with different persons included, but for video games characters to use that one by default would require those changes IMO. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Removing in universe fields? Like I said, a lot of VG character articles are already using IC instead of IVGC. So do we basically have IVGC to limit the fields that other projects using IC have? -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven't looked into how or why the one started, but that's been its function since recent times that I've observed--we have regular requests for certain in-universe parameters (family members, jobs) on the IVGC talk page that all get shot down here but which have been the MO at IC for a while now... --Izno (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (27 November to 8 December)[edit]

27 November

30 November

1 December

2 December

3 December

4 December

5 December

6 December

7 December

8 December

Salavat (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sonic Adventure/GA3[edit]

Uh, can someone do something about this? A random IP just opened it with the phrase "DADDY SEN-PIE NOTICE ME." JOEBRO64 13:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol, people are weird. I'll just take over the review if you don't mind. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I initiated the review through the 'start review' link but it's not updating at the WP:GAN page as being under review. Clearly by making that edit the IP has screwed up how the coding or whatever is supposed to work, which I assume will create problems when I try to close the review as well. I'll still do the review but I think we'll need to get someone to fix that. Freikorp (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: I can delete it so you can restart if you like. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: Yeah that sounds like a plan, cheers. Freikorp (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually it looks like its working now so never mind. Thanks anyway. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi-Tec Software -- tried to add, but system does not work ??[edit]

Tried to add this request: "Hi-Tec Software Ltd: commercial UK games software publisher, active in late 1980s, early 1990s, on ZX Spectrum and other platforms. Known for licensed games based on Hanna-Barbera cartoon properties." The WMF Labs thing said it had been added but it does not appear in the list. Maybe someone can add it for me? Equinox 15:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a request system. It does not make the articles but puts them in a queue for others to review. Your request is here. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it didn't show up in the list of requested articles either: probably just a caching issue. Thanks. Equinox 23:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tomb raider template[edit]

The Template:Tomb Raider has a link in the 'related' section to the Media disambiguation page. The other two links in this section, Lara Croft & Toby Gard, are obviously relevant but why is 'Media' here? And what should it be disambiguated to? Leschnei (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Somebody fixed it in this edit. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Need a source review for reliability and accuracy[edit]

Hi all. It's been a while since I've been around, but I do lurk around with some frequency. Over the last few days, I've been looking at doing expansion work on Sonic X-treme for whatever reason I'm not even sure it interests me again, but as I'm going through the references, I'm seeing something of concern. @Indrian: You may be a good consultant on this, if you're still around. A large part of the article right now leans on a source from Lost Levels, a website published by Frank Cifaldi, who was a journalist for 1Up.com. The article it leans on was not written by Cifaldi, but by a member of his staff, with interview quotes from Sega producer Mike Wallis and developer Christian Senn. In the GA review a couple of years ago, I suggested it was a reliable source because it was published by Frank Cifaldi, but I feel a little sketchy about it now in retrospect. It has a couple questions of accuracy - for instance, it places more emphasis on Christian Senn's inability to complete the game due to illness rather than Chris Coffin, who other sources pin down as the person whose illness caused the game not to be released. It also cites a visit to Sega from Shoichiro Irimajiri, when all other sources say it was Hayao Nakayama who came to visit. My question is this: though it's written by an established video game journalist, is Lost Levels reliable and accurate? Should it be removed and the article rewritten from other sources? As time allows, I may be willing to undertake this project. Thank you for your input. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps ask Frank if he holds editorial oversight over the articles published there. I'm not familiar with who wrote the X-Treme article and what their credentials are, but if Frank has editorial oversight, that gives it more credibility. On a related note, I tried emailing Frank a month ago to see if he would make his magazine library available to wiki editor source requests (he has nearly every issue of every American game magazine). I never received a reply. TarkusABtalk 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin technical move needed[edit]

I noticed that someone recently created Bayonetta (franchise). Per naming guidelines, it should actually be at Bayonetta with the first video game being at Bayonetta (video game). However, that would require an admin to delete the page after it is moved.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: I'd say TOOSOON to a series article, especially in it's current state. I'd suggest moving it to Draft and completing it. We can do the technical move when the article is in better shape. Wikipedia:NCVGDAB also requires one unrelated video game (i.e. spin offs) or related non-video game item. Does Bayonetta have anything other than the two sequels, one just announced? -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Should it be? If the first game is more notable than the series (and for Bayonetta, I think that could be argued), then the first game should have the principle name, and the series disamb. (Eg see BioShock is the first game). --Masem (t) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit conflict, was about to add this: It also requires 3 articles, and the third game is just a redirect at this time. Primary topic should still be the first game according to NCVGDAB. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Does the Bayonetta Film not count as a "related non-video game item" to satisfy that requirement? Also Bayonetta herself has an article, so that's four articles total, not even counting the upcoming 3rd game. CurlyWi (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Not familiar with the topic and didn't spot the film in my initial look (As the franchise article itself is nearly empty of any content). The film would count as the fourth non-VG. I don't think the character would count, the series is looking for three GAME articles. -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
But it should help its case in some way too, I would think. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
With the film noted now, it probably passes the NCVGDAB rule. However, I still wouldn't do the move myself with the series article's current state. -- ferret (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Really should redirect/draftify that "series" article. It's horribly incomplete. Not even close to ready for the mainspace, and it's been 2 days now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Redirected TarkusABtalk 17:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
...aaaand I was reverted. TarkusABtalk 12:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Restored redirect, especially since the revert reason was basically "I made it but I'm not going to work on it." -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
It's from Osh33m huh? They've been a problematic editor in the past. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Debated mentioning that. Most often in regards to series articles and respecting consensus. -- ferret (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Award navboxes[edit]

Why do Template:Metacritic GOTY, Template:GDCA GOTY, Template:Golden Joystick GOTY, Template:The Game Awards, Template:JGA GOTY exist? Navboxes are for linking articles that are closely related. The only link between the games in these navboxes is that a group of people voted them the best on one particular year. That's not a meaningful relation at all. They fail to meet guidelines 3 and 5 listed at WP:NAVBOX: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. (These game articles don't refer to each other in any way) and If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. (Nobody ever dumps links to articles of other good games in the See Also section). The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild now each have three navboxes that just link to articles on completely unrelated games. Dumb. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Been thinking similar... Sounds like prime place to use category instead. -- ferret (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I assume you mean {{The Game Awards GOTY}} vs the one I just made {{The Game Awards}} that links the specific shows/results. That said, there does exist similar GOTY navboxes for other media forms , eg {{Academy Award Best Picture}}, but that's hard to tell if it is right or not. --Masem (t) 23:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that the guideline states, "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines". (emphasis added) This means that every navbox doesn't have to meet all five of the guidelines. Note also that the guideline states, "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles". (emphasis added) All of these awards templates contain a small, well-defined group of articles: they all won that particular award. It is not unreasonable to assume that a person might be interested to read articles about other games which won the award. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
At the very least, there could be just a primary Game of the Year award template, with groups for each of the main ones. I'm not sure if that is any better, but it would probably fall under more of the guidelines if that is what is needed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As long as we have navboxes for movie/music/television awards and Hall of Fames, VG GOTY awards should be just as fine. Ben · Salvidrim!  00:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
So you'll have no complaints if I create a navbox for every award category from every awarding body just like the film ones? --The1337gamer (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't do all of them. For example, browsing Category:Academy_Award_templates , only the "Awards of Merit" (not technical ones) are given navboxes, and many of them are towards persons rather than games. In the case of video games, at least right now, across the key award ceremonies, the only one that seems sufficiently constant to track is GOTY. The sub-cats "Best Action Game" etc don't make a lot of sense, and if we go into the more creative ones like Best Music or Best Art Direction, how they are awards varies drastically between individuals and/or studios. GOTY is clear in what it is, and thus easy and objective to track. --Masem (t) 17:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheap reference book headsup[edit]

"Blood Sweat and Pixels" is $2 for Kindle. Book covers: Pillars of Eternity, Uncharted 4, Stardew Valley, Diablo III, Halo Wars, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Shovel Knight, Destiny, Witcher 3, and Star Wars 1313. --Masem (t) 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ProQuest Archiver has vanished from the website![edit]

I have a problem. I was searching for a Detroit Free Press review on Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, only to find that the archived link wasn't there before December 5, 2005. I then went to the ProQuest Archiver page, only to find that the website page was removed, and I got a "404 Not Found"! I can't even search for the Detroit Free Press article through ProQuest Archiver anymore. The only thing I can search for Detroit Free Press' review for Mercenaries is through this archived link, but I don't know how to do it! Life stinks without the ProQuest Archiver webpage! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone answering me? ProQuest Archiver has disappeared from the Internet. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Parts of the website are still up. So, a) for the tenth time, please just wait a bit to see if the website comes back online, or google search around to see if they posted a status update somewhere. b) No one is "answering you" because you didn't ask a question. You let us know that ProQuest archiver is down. That's a shame. What exactly do you expect the rest of us to do about it? We don't have any special powers over other websites. --PresN 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

AFD input[edit]

Hello. I know this is only tangentially related, but since there is some overlap in music and video game subjects, I figured I'd mention it here too. Any input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records would be appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back: Sources[edit]

Hello. I'm looking for sources for The Empire Strikes Back, the vector game from 1985. I found a bunch of articles on the ports on the severals platforms that came later (see here, page& talkpage), but only one for the original arcade version [1]. Could someone help me (only for the arcade version) ? Any help would be (greatly) appreciated! Thanks --Archimëa (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Retro Gamer Issue 70 has a "Making of" feature on the game. Its one of the smaller making of articles, but it can provide a little development information. Indrian (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for help. But I allready listed the Retro Gamer issue 70, and it will be usefull of course. I'm looking for sources from years 1985-1986 or 1987, i thought this point was obvious, sorry. All theses sources I listed was published around the release of the games. --Archimëa (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, did not look at that page because you indicated that all the sources you had were for ports. I doubt there was much coverage of the game in consumer-oriented publications of the time, as 1985 fell during the nadir of the arcade industry after it crashed between 1982 and 1984, and the game was merely a kit upgrade to the original Star Wars. Replay and Playmeter probably announced the release of the game, but would not have reviewed it (and good luck finding those anyway). Good luck with your search! Indrian (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    After a night, sore eyes and a headache :D i found this [2]. I'm pretty sure there are more (even this one seems to be published by Atari Games), probably no big review, but at least some sentences... If anyone can see something about this game, notify me! regards. --Archimëa (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia Requests/WikiProject/WikiProject Video games[edit]

So I don't think this template gets updated anymore by the bot for the project. Since its part of the Request board should it just be removed from the board and be deleted? GamerPro64 16:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

People definitely still use that request system, would be better to find out why the bot stopped or if there's some other issue to resolve. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Metascore[edit]

Hello fellow editors! 😀 I came here to ask your suggestions on whether we should mention the Metascore of the games again in the reception section (beneath the review table) or not. Like X game got Y/100 by review aggregation website Metacritic for Z platform?😕 Because I removed it from Batman: Arkham Asylum's "Reception" section but Darkwarriorblak again added it 😕. I offered him to see MOS:VG#Reception (6th bullet). 😉

I've seen that most of the recent video games doesn't mention the Metascores in that way. 😐

(If I'm wrong here this time, please let me know) 😃

Thanks in advance! 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no firm rule about it - proponents argue that it's an important bit of information for the reader, opponents argue that it makes for dry, hard-to-parse sentences leading off the section, and creates the impression that the metacritic score is the most important thing about about a game's reception. I'm on team anti: I think it's bad writing. DWB, obviously, disagrees. --PresN 18:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm indifferent. I don't have a problem with it, but I don't have a problem if they exclude it and just have it in the review table too. Either way, the core information is there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but the MOS:VG's reception section's 6th bullet says "remove minutiae inappropriate for a general audience. For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose" .... .Pure conSouls (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It does, so they should almost never be mentioned in prose. Summarize the wording, and keep the scores in the template only. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Every article I've worked on, I've always included the Metascore (and for a time the GameRankings score) in the prose starting the reception section (and those articles that I've taken through a review process have become Featured Articles). The score reflects the overall assertion of the critics (e.g., critical acclaim, generally favorable, etc.). I disagree with the Metascore being "inappropriate for a general audience". Quite the opposite, actually (I mentioned the FA notion as many of the FA reviewers are not gamers and had no issue with the Metascore in the prose). I do, however, agree that we shouldn't include the score in the prose for every individual review. --JDC808 20:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@JDC808: We're not talking about "generally favorable", etc, the text from Metacritic we often use as a summary of general reception. We're talking about putting the specific scores in the prose, such as: Suchandsuch received "Generally favorable" reviews according to Metacritic, with scores of xx/100 on platformA, xx/100 on platformb, and xx/100 on platformC". It is the second half, with the actual score data, that the guideline is opposed. The first part, using Metacritic as a summary statement, is supported by guideline.-- ferret (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I think if you're into it that including the Metacritic "summary statement" e.g. "Generally positive" or whatever can be useful, though I think including a specific "68 out of 100" (which is very much different from a 67 or 69 out of 100) is boring and pointless. I personally don't include the Metacritic aggregation in the prose at all, even when summarizing the critical reception, and I've taken a bunch of articles to FA as well. That said, just between the two of us its obvious that there's no solid consensus on the issue, nor any pressure from external reviewers one way or another, so at the moment it is down to personal taste. --PresN 20:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we are discussing the scores/numbers/rating in prose only. They mean nothing if they aren't backed up with the actual opinion from the author. And even when they are, they just look out of place, and should simply remain in the template created specifically for them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind, we do not require the vg reviews template to be used. The review prose section should be written as if the table didn't exist (and the table should be supporting the prose if it is used). That doesn't mean the score is necessary if you go prose only, and a solitare MC score doesn't hurt. That said, when you have a game with more than one release platform, the endless string of MC scores (particularly if they're all close to each other) is drab, and there I would definitely encourage just the "generally favorable"/etc. language. --Masem (t) 20:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, is there any valid reason for not using it? I understand what you mean, but the same logic can be used for basically adding anything to the article. In my opinion, scores should only be added if actually notable, such as a game receiving a 10/10 from a publication that rarely gives them out. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
A case where I would avoid including the table is if a game got only 3 notable scored reviews (in addition to non-scored reviews), such that MC does not qualify a rating. In that case, I would not use a table to list out three scores and instead spell out those scores in prose. Of course, when I do use the table, I do not repeat the scores in prose unless I need to call out to an outlier. The way to work this is that the prose of the recpetions hould still be fully understandable if the table did not exist; it may not be 100% comprehensive since the scores are lacking, but that's not a requirement to include. But taking it from that standpoint, that's where just stating that "Aggregate MC called the reviews "generally positive" gives me no idea exactly where that stands because that's a pretty wide scale. --Masem (t) 20:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, Dissident93: You've misunderstood me. Let me clear it up. I always include the score in tandem with including the summary statement. Basically, the score is what is dictating that summary statement. --JDC808 21:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I usually don't include it in my articles. I don't think it's useful for a general audience—the qualitative summary is much more helpful on its own, IMO. JOEBRO64 21:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The original issue was ConSouls performing mass changes to articles without discussion. The user is citing point 6 on the earlier mentioned link, but none of that states that Metacritic overrides reliable third-party sources, and there's no reason that it should. Metacritic is already given undue weight without us opening the lead of every reception section by highlighting it as the sole voice of critical status. We have already removed GameRankings, taking away any alternative voice. Like Rotten Tomatoes, it is not independent but owned by a massive corporate entity and generates scores and summaries based on concealed weighting procedures. ConSouls originally replaced sourced commentary about "critical acclaim" purely with the Metacritic reception, which made no sense. Then when this was undone, the user instead removed all the Metacritic scores and lumped the Metacritic reference into the claim of critical acclaim alongside the other existing references. I don't know how a) led to b), but the critical reception summary was already present and sourced, so the reception sections in Arkham Asylum and Arkham City do not open with Metacritic, and the scores do no harm per @Masem:, that the section should be written as if the Reception Template does not exist. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I will point out that ConSouls came to me first about the issue, to which Ferret, as a watcher of my Talk page, pointed out number 6 of MOS:VG#Reception. I, however, am indifferent in regards to how a reception section is written, so long as it meets the criteria described in the MOS. I tend to not include Metacritic scores in the prose as it's usually found in the Video game reviews template anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
So what's the decision? 😕 Pure conSouls (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Based on where this discussion is going, it's up to the writer of the article. I usually don't include the statistics in prose, but if DWB disagrees at Arkham Asylum, then it's fine. JOEBRO64 20:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's always up to local consensus, but show me another generalist encyclopedia that includes "scores" apropos of nothing in its prose. It's lazy writing. The reader has no way of knowing what a 70/100 represents. If the writer clarifies that the score indicates a mixed reception, then the "70/100" part adds nothing but bulk to the sentence. Metacritic is also the fallback—if a more reputable editorial source has summarized the game's reception, go with that instead (or in addition). czar 15:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

XBLA Fans discussion[edit]

Hello all, I've recently opened a discussion about the reliability of XBLA Fans and would like some input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#XBLA Fans. Thanks. JOEBRO64 21:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (9 December to 15 December)[edit]

9 December

10 December

11 December

12 December

13 December

14 December

15 December

Salavat (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Atari, Inc. (Atari, SA subsidiary)[edit]

Shouldn't the Games published be in it's own list article? Govvy (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Atari, Inc. (Atari, SA subsidiary) games exists, though it's not linked there. --PresN 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed that list and added the link to the page in See also. Govvy (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of reception[edit]

I don't know if @Disturbedasylum: is trying to remove unreliable sources from Wikipedia's Tekken characters, but in one article, Jin Kazama, he simply blanked the character's reception from the liveaction film so I would like a third opinion before he keeps removing content. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked the user's contribs, and they've done similar blanking on other pages, namely Kazuya Mishima and Heihachi Mishima, as well as unexplained removal of maintenance templates on Akuma (Street Fighter). All such edits occurred today; no use of edit summary. Possibly compromised? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)