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
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
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 talk


Help: Popular Pages[edit]

It looks inactive, so should we revive it? If we do, should we use bots to maintain it? If we don't revive it, should we take it off the WPVG sidebar? If we keep it on the sidebar, should we give a rational as to why it's on there?

What do you think? Catfrog (Edits 🐸 Talk) 00:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Inactive? I was about to agree until I saw new titles on there such as Pokemon Sun and Moon and No Man's Sky. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Traffic statistics, on the other hand, hasn't been updated since 2011. JAGUAR  18:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the chart says the last time it was updated was to give figures for March, out of date, yes, but not really "abandoned" yet. I find the page interesting, though I have no idea what it would take to get it up and running. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. It looks like it used to be updated on a monthly basis by Mr.Z-bot, but I suppose the onus would be on the bot's owner or somebody who is super-savvy with programming. JAGUAR  19:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I hate that these don't get updated anymore, especially because I really want one made for another project so I have a better grasp of what articles are most important in that scope. I would love to see what the situation is in VG as well, so I hope someone could do something about this. Spoilers: Pokémon Go will be at the top ;) ~Mable (chat) 12:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the bot's latest repo, for anyone interested czar 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wikiproject could try out the HotArticlesBot instead and see how that turns out. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't, actually (or at least not in one group) - HotArticlesBot requires that all the articles be inside of a single catagory, like Category:WikiProject Cats articles, but Category:WikiProject Video games articles contains no articles and instead leaves them to the class/importance subcategories. So, we could see which B-class articles are being actively edited, but not all articles unless we had like 8 groups. --PresN 14:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't be too hard to change that, though. Change it so everything with {{WikiProject Video Games}} is added to Category:WikiProject Video games articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

PS-themed book needed[edit]

I'd like to know if someone's got access to the duology of Pix'n Love books about the making of the PlayStation titled La Revolution Playstation or to Revolutionaries at Sony, an earlier work by the same author containing much of the same information. The reason why I'm after one of these is that they are chock-full of valuable info tidbits that I could use in beefing up an article about a certain early PS title. Any help would be much appreciated. -- Electroguv (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Video game TFAs[edit]

Wh-what's going on? By my count, there have been three video game-related TFAs this month. Is someone on the TFA committee asleep at the wheel? Are there proportionally more video game FAs being promoted than other topics? I'm not complaining; I'd just like to know if anyone has any insight on this phenomenon. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I had to get Nights into Dreams... on the main page on its 20th anniversary (5 July), and Satoru Iwata's death was on 11 July, so at least two of the three video game TFAs had to be up there for important anniversaries. That could explain why so many are appearing, not to mention the TFA process is looking dormant as well... JAGUAR  20:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I heard that there's been a push for more FA articles about video games for the front page. Honestly I kinda enjoy people getting upset about the frequent amount of them. GamerPro64 03:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

While video game related I don't think Iwata should be in the same boat since he was a programmer and later a president of a video game company.-- (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mischief Makers should have ran next June for its 20th anniversary. It was picked early I guess, and I didn't realize it was supposed to be next year instead of this one. So much for planning ahead czar 04:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are "three" same-subject TFAs in one month considered a lot? Because I could swear that there are at least six or seven articles on boring plants that appear on the main page every month. JAGUAR  11:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, on an average month, 3 articles from the same domain is 10% of all TFAs for that month. I'd be hard-pressed to argue that video games encompasses 10% of all things on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
We're sitting around 30k articles. Out of 5 million, that's 0.6%. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
What percentage of all Featured Articles are video game related? I would assume that that would get closer to 2% or something. 10% is definitely a bit much, though that just means other wikiprojevts should step up their game ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 21:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:VG has 208 FAs, and Wikipedia has a total of 5785 FAs, so that's 3.5%. I did the maths. That's not too bad actually! JAGUAR  22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
By that measure, two per month isn't surprising, and a month with three was to be expected eventually. Keeping it with one or two per month is probably more balanced. To be fair, I personally do like seeing more culture than nature on the front page, but opinions may differ. That's the beauty of this whole project. ~Mable (chat) 22:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Historically, VG articles have been on the main page about 13 times a year over the past few years, roughly one a month (~3.5%!), and pretty evenly too. My perception was that this pattern was a relic of about 8 years ago, when having VG articles any closer together generally resulted in curmudgeonly complaints on the main page's talk page. That hasn't been true for several years now, and perhaps the "new" coordinators (since the start of 2015) simply aren't sticking as closely to the pattern if they have TFA requests they can fulfill. --PresN 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. On an interesting note, there has already been eight (!) military-related TfAs these past two months. Three video game TfAs in a month is nothing, haters gonna hate. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested merger for the stuff packs articles in The Sims[edit]

I propose that

Be merged into

For those whom are familiar with The Sims topic area, every Sims game since Sims 2 has had stuff packs in addition to expansion packs. Stuff packs are comparably small to other packs that are put out for the game, which leaves little to talk about a stuff pack, even where the stuff packs are all listed within the same game which they were released for. So to even have separate lists of stuff packs for each game is too far a stretch to section things off into their own articles. These are effectively list articles with just a small amount of content within each section. Its not as much article size that's the issue, its the fact that the individual sections average out just a few sentences long. I thought to make things easier to navigate, so readers will be able to read up on stuff packs within a single article. If the articles were to be combined, anyone whom was looking for only a specific games stuff packs could still simply rely on the TOC and click on their desired section, and since stuff packs add littler content compared to other packs, some readers may very well want to read things in a single article. Long story short, I think such a merger would serve as a compromise to keep things that need to be in one place, whilst still allowing readers to read into which stuff packs they so choose. But also that I'm looking to discuss things from the perspective of all video game article editors, not specifically editors of The Sims. —Mythdon 04:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps List of The Sims stuff packs as the merged title? Disambiguation can be avoided as this topic would definitely be a list. ~Mable (chat) 04:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds a bit more reasonable. Since the word stuff packs originated from The Sims, then you're right, putting the Sims title in parenthesis would falsely imply that the term stuff packs exist elsewhere. —Mythdon 06:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The Sims articles are a total shitshow but here's how I think it would be done best: (1) main articles on each major entry (Sims 2, Sims 3, etc.), (2) spin out the "Expansions" section of each, summary style, (3) summarize each expansion in these pseudo-list spin-outs (Sims 2 expansions), which can also carry these "stuff packs". No need to make it more complicated than that. Choo choo get on the merge train czar 10:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed with Czar. List of The Sims expansion packs and etc. is the right home for these, and would definitely include the expansion packs as well as the stuff packs. I've had my eye on these The Sims articles for a while for merging. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I would even go as far to say that we don't need a separate article - a discussion of what Stuff Packs are should be at The Sims (video game series) ,and then a short table of pack name(s), release date, and one-two sentence description of the contents within each of the game articles. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    The expansions need cleaning as well, however, so it's not like the stuff packs couldn't use the same lists as the expansions. --Izno (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 23 July[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

13 July

15 July

16 July

17 July

18 July

19 July

20 July

21 July

22 July

23 July

Salavat (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Graphical timeline[edit]

Hi everyone,

I just changed the horrible looking graphical timeline to the neatly {{Video game timeline}}. I went through the what links here page of the graphical timeline and didn't find any other video game-related articles, so hopefully this is it. If you do happen to run into one and you haven't got the time to change it, let me know, I'd be happy to do so. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

COMMONNAME discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Great Detective Pikachu#Reverting title of page about the use of WP:COMMONNAME: Should COMMONNAME only be applied when the common name has a basis in an official name? I would like to see more participation in the discussion, so if you have the time, please give your thoughts.--IDVtalk 13:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it's even contested czar 20:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's really not, anymore, but when he first posted this, it was only like a 2 vs 1 argument. (That's where it was at when I jumped in.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. It's quite frustrating when I feel I have a solid case based on MOS and WP policies and guidelines but so few people partake in the discussion that it almost doesn't matter. Happened earlier with Battle Tendency, where 1-2 people insisted in keeping a huge character list and plot summary and a separate fair-use image of the protagonist despite him being depicted on the cover art already. I couldn't get consensus to follow MOS, and while I can't revert multiple times if it's not outright vandalism, an IP user doesn't have to care about that. Is there another way to go about this? Articles with only few editors watching it can get steamrolled by a single person who insists on having it their fanwiki-like way, and that just doesn't seem right.--IDVtalk 21:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you did the right thing. I know what you mean, the same scenario happens with me from time to time on the obscure JRPG articles I work on. Dropping a neutrally worded request for input here usually helps build a consensus pretty quickly, especially when its obvious Wikipedia MOS/Policy stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've had the same problem before in the past. But if you post it here asking for help, more often than not you will get editors who are more familiar with WP:VG guidelines that help. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Pokemon Go - CIA involvement, seeking third party[edit]

Yes check.svg Done Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 26 July 2016 (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.

Could someone, perhaps an uninvolved admin, read over Talk:Pokémon_Go#.22CIA_involvement.22 and determine if this should simply be closed as disruptive at this point? The user is mostly attacking editors without providing any sources to back the content they wanted. -- ferret (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 26 July 2016 (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.

Video game release new - Font size discussion[edit]

Please see Template talk:Video game release new#Font size is not accessible concerning the font size of country codes in this template. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The current way that country codes are displayed in {{Video game release new}} & {{Video game release}} has been found to be non-compliant with the MOS section on accessibility. The solution we are planning on implementing will slightly increase the text size of said country code (from ~61% of base font size to ~85.5% of base font size) to make them acceptably readable for visually-impaired readers, and would add a colon after said country code for clarity since it will be on the same vertical level as the date. If you have any objections, let us know in the discussion Ferret linked to above. You can see examples of before-and-after here: Template:Video game release new/testcases.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
At some later point merging the two will also be under discussion but for right now that's now the crux of the issue. :) 20:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

For those working on first-party NES games...[edit]

Nintendo is publishing its own book on the history of its games for the NES games. Its only up for pre-order right now, slated to come out with that mini NES console this fall. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a book that will probably end up notable on its own. I hope the book will discuss some niche titles that are difficult to find sources for. Will this book be considered a primary source? I haven't checked who is writing it yet, but it sounds like it will be closely tied to Nintendo either way. Wouldn't use it for opinions. ~Mable (chat) 22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Assuming it was written in the last year or so to talk about creating the carts from then, that's likely secondary (reflecting and commenting upon the process). It does say it will include some reprints of Nintendo Power features too. Judging by the blurb, this is basically about the same games that will be in the 30-in-1 system that they are putting out, which all are already notable on their own; this will just help out. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Either way, this sounds great. We'll see what we can use it for when it gets here, but I'm expecting good things :3 ~Mable (chat) 22:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I would still consider it a primary source. SharkD  Talk  21:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple release dates in the infobox[edit]

Please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox video game#Multiple release dates in the infobox czar 06:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 29 July[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

23 July

24 July

25 July

26 July

27 July

28 July

29 July