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 (19 August to 25 August)[edit]

19 August

20 August

21 August

22 August

23 August

24 August

25 August

Salavat (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • All IP creations in this list were reverted back to a redirect. None of them had enough sources to establish notability. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The Talespin game creates a new situation. We have TaleSpin (video game) which the 1991 game by Radiance Software + Others for three different platforms (same effective game), while the new one above is Capcom's for NES but also released in 1991. Can't use the year to disambiguate, and having multiple platforms makes the first one difficult to find a simple title. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Both articles appear rather stub-esque. Wouldn't it be reasonable to just merge them together (e.g. "List of TaleSpin video games", or keep at first article's name)?
This could either be merged as proposed, or if the Sega and Capcom games both have enough coverage, convert TaleSpin (video game) to an WP:SIA linking to TaleSpin (Sega) and TaleSpin (Capcom) and mentioning the article-less TaleSpin (NEC) (unless the latter also has enough sources for a standalone). Ben · Salvidrim!  17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't TaleSpin (Capcom video game) and TaleSpin (Sega video game) be preferred? ~Mable (chat) 08:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yea, judging by the infamous Aladdin precedent and because it's multimedia, you would be correct. Ben · Salvidrim!  15:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just minor note but Draft:Spiel Times is essentially spam, created by the site's owner, and he's been reverted all week for adding that site to various articles. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just an FYI for anyone interested. This weeks New articles post will be a couple of days late as I'll be away in Melbourne hopefully watching the Perth Thunder win the Goodall Cup. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Coin945 addditions to WP:VG/R[edit]

I think that the additions to WP:VG/R by Coin945 need addressing, as he has recently dumped a tremendous amount of obscure video games there despite the fact that we are still churning through his former list from 2014. In addition, the adding of dozens of sources for certain games, seems to be more disruptive than helpful, as that time could be spent actually making the article in question.

I feel like a Quid Pro Quo similar to DYK, where if you create an article you can request an article, might be warranted to prevent the back log from being impossible to tackle due to "data dumps" from trawling Mobygames for ancient, critically panned and not historically notable games that squeak past notability but were never added to Wikipedia for obvious, lack of interest reasons. It seems more like an a attempt to create a WP:DIRECTORY than in the spirit of "building an encyclopedia". A QPQ system would account for personal preference while still making the system manageable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of the additions with usable sources are fine, but its the spamming of ones with just a mobygames link to support or youtube videos that are a problem. They should be doing a better job to make sure that the GNG is likely to be met for these games rather than adding haphazardly. --MASEM (t) 12:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure this has come up before in the past. I don't understand why he doesn't see it as a problem. Just because you slam hundreds of article requests doesn't mean they're going to be made. It just makes the list more daunting, and hides away probably more pressing requests. Would support any form of limiting. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, he did say that "you can remove as you see fit" in edit summary, but that still places a certain burden of work on people to sort through them and also implies people need a good reason for removing them. Maybe instead of a strict QPQ there could simply be a restriction on how many requests a single user can post per year. That would prevent any single user from simply spamming requests as they are supposed to be for newbie users or people who aren't comfortable making articles yet, not people who want to offload work onto others.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Conceptually, I agree, but realistically, I don't know who is going to monitor and enforce this on a yearly basis. Daily or weekly limits would be easier to eyeball through watchlists and page histories. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately I do think some form of limiting should be done, as I believe the spirit of Requests is for people with conflicts of interest, or who may not know how to make a good article as opposed to simply contributing to one, to ask for a game. If you are an experienced editor, you should rarely if ever be posting requests, as you should simply be creating the article yourself or putting it on your own "to do" list. It's not a "job board" or a directive for the entire Wikiproject.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I still think such a list with a few sources is ultimately useful, but agreed that it clogs up the board. Perhaps there could be agreement that Coin list these on a subpage and the subpage be linked on WP:VG/R? Ben · Salvidrim!  20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Having something like "Coin's list of potentially notable redlinks" would definitely be an improvement. Although that is somewhat of a situational thing and doesn't address the potential for other people to do it. Perhaps adding a new rule like "if you are adding more than X (I think it should be 3) requests, consider making your own list in userspace and linking it here so it doesn't overshadow other potential requesters with fewer games, and keep in mind that the more requests you make the less likely any one of them will be done".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
[1] This is just spammy and shows no understanding of what are RS. There may be a couple in that list, but definitely not all of them. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone! Here's my two cents. The way I see it,when planning new articles it is better to have a research phase before a writing phase. This insures that there is a wealth of notable sources to access when writing the article. Why hide these sources in my private userpage when I can instead share them on this... "Requests page"... where perhaps someone seeking a new poroject of a challenge can find them?
  • It's also a nice place to put articles that I wish to work on in the future (in those moments when I can't create one right now but I want to later), as it is the "Requests page", and thematically linked to my desire to have those articles someday on Wikipedia. The requests section shouldnt be something to be 'cleared'. Games should constantly be added and removed. I'm not sure why Zxcvbnm wants to treat this like DYK. :) (P.S. I went back and removed the ones that were less notable, and only kept those that I found suitable sources for. The list can still be trimmed.)--Coin945 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I can easily put my link lists into these! --Coin945
  • True, but that still contributes to the backlog of the page. I think userfication is a better option, because it doesn't give the page a permanent backlog, that will likely not be finished. Having a permanent backlog is a bit demoralizing for anyone trying to edit the page as there are then no more goals to reach. It's obvious that it will never be 100% cleared for very long, but there's a difference.
Also, from my experience, there are not many people who are wiling to tackle your articles besides maybe myself. Most people shy away from them as they are very obscure. For example, very generic mobile games that are just barely notable, but with not much reference value. So I don't think your point that "people will see them and therefore do them" holds merit as people pick and choose depending on what article seems interesting to write.
You do have a point that linking them from WP:VG/R can potentially increase their visibility, so I wouldn't be opposed to that, in a separate section sort of way that isn't part of WP:VG/R proper, in a way that implies it isn't part of any backlog but rather a list created for reference purposes.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And when you do clear the page 100%, what then? Do you bar anyone from making further reuqests because it will taint the perfect percentage? And make the page lose the goal it had once reached? No, I don't think that's a logical way to think about the page at all... :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • P.S. I don't think it's your or any other Wikipedians' place to devalue a game due their own perception of it being "ancient, critically panned and not historically notable". The sources speak for themselves...--Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Coin945, Maybe just add the article and link through to a source list that is stored on a Userpage. Eg *The Sydney Mystery (Sources). Cleaner approach, makes the request page less cluttered but doesn't hide away your requests. Salavat (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In response to Coin945, no, I never suggested that I would lock the page when it reached 100%. That's a fallacious, slippery slope argument. "If we restrict the number of articles that can be suggested, inevitably no articles can be suggested!" Suggesting there cannot be any kind of middle ground. All that I am arguing is that a small group of users adding a massive amount of suggestions is, in essence, forcing their will on any other editors in the Wikiproject by making it more statistically likely that one of their desired articles will be created. It's technically allowed, but not really fair or helpful.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just curious, but how many requests there were actually taken from there and ended up as a well-written article? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Almost none. It's more of a stubbing service. And if an editor doesn't like the quality of the request (few links, bad case for notability), the reviewing editor has just as much right to remove an item from the list as someone does to add it. Also no one should feel like it's their responsibility to "clear" the "backlog"—the point is to group redlinks with potential on the same page as more a communal reference than a list of favors-in-wait. But on the point of "what to do": Coin does a lot of research on games on the cusp of Wikipedia's notability, so perhaps best to compile those on his own user subpage (perhaps linked from our Requests page) until an item has enough sources to propose to the group. I'll echo the above that many of the refs given for those proposed articles are unhelpful. If the source doesn't have editorial credibility (i.e., is some blog on the Internet not known for accuracy/reliability), don't even bother listing sources we should never use. czar 17:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd dispute that, pretty much all the articles I've seen made from requests are well edited, start-class articles, not stubs. But I digress, I think that the title "Requests" totally contradicts the notion that it's a "list of redlinks", a request is something you are expected to do, while a "list of links" is a reference resource. If that's really the case then maybe it should be split into a separate page on the Wikiproject, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/List of notable redlinks, that is more fitting for data dumps by researchers than users to ask for small numbers of articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:VG/Potential articles maybe? Ben · Salvidrim!  18:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That title also went through my mind too, though I felt like making it clear it was a permanent "list" to differentiate it from Requests, which are also technically "potential articles". But, I would not be opposed to that title either.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I can name at least three articles that came from the request boards that are now Good Articles. Including Throne of Fire which I did personally. If people put more effort into articles that are on the board instead of fulfilling requests there I think we'd be seeing more quality output. GamerPro64 18:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the "Requests" title as an issue since our page is really just an extension of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment#Video_games. As for whether good comes out of the page, there's nothing wrong with a project to stub a bunch of notable concepts, but the question was whether the Requests board produces well-written articles, and that isn't the object. (P.S. Didn't get the ping) czar 09:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
A surprising number have gone on to be articles, actually. A few years ago I ran through the entire list and pruned anything that had no hope of getting made & added potential reliable sources to the rest. Take a look at how many of the previous red links are now blue. Perhaps it's time for someone to do another cleanup of the page. Sam Walton (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I still think it would be relatively simple to just make a rule that says "Please don't add more than 5 in a week" or something. I don't think that would burden, or even affect, hardly anyone. Besides, adding massive lists isn't going to help these articles get created. Coin, you've already expressed disappointment in the past that the WikiProject doesn't have more interest in helping you in creating these old, obscure PC/edutainment type games, so you must realize this. Listing them out en-mass isn't going to change that. It's not increasing interest in the content area, it's just irritating editors trying to work through the list. Even if nothing comes of this, Coin, this isn't helping your cause, its hurting the efficiency of the system. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Alternatively, a rule that would apply equally to everybody, not to single out Coin's actions, is that any request must be accompanied by at least 2 sources that fall within our Sources list (past or present), or a RS otherwise defined by WP as a whole (to account for newspaper articles), and by not more than 5 sources; any additional sources can be documented on a user-space page. If we don't have any RSes, the request is largely going to go unfulfilled, and keeping the list tight to those that are RSes helps to focus on what the article should be about. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      • That would be better than nothing, but I'm also afraid that may cut down on the requests from the more casual/newbie/clueless requesters, and the board, if anything, is really more about their requests, because they're the ones who don't know how to make any article for themselves... Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
        Three sources should be the minimum for the list. Let the requesters put a little effort into it—not very hard either when placed next to the video game reliable sources custom Google search. More than five sources shouldn't be an issue either, if collapsed properly. Whether an editor wants to split out a source list into a draft is their own prerogative, but better in the meantime to combine source research in the same location. czar 03:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sergecross73, let me phrase the issue like this: I opten come across various games that have enough coverage to warrant articles. There are lots of them. Too many for me to make GA quality articles for each. I have two choices (I'm excluding the "ignore them" option), and I see option 2 as the better one:
    1. Make lots of stubs for a lot of games. Yeah... not such a good idea as the past has proven.
    2. Make a list of requests at the Requests page and add a bunch of sources for each, to increase their visibility and allow them to be made at a slwoer pace because all the legwork has been done already. --Coin945 (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Why exactly are you bound to these 2, and only these 2, options? Why not keep your own personal list? Why not add to the list at a slower rate than you currently do? Or a different solution? There's absolutely no reason why you need to limit it to this bizarre, black and white, all or nothing scenario. Look, it doesn't matter to me personally much, I rarely work off the requests board, because I've got a backlog of things of my own I want to create. But how you're handling yourself is clearly irritating others, and quite frankly, I doubt its being very beneficial to you either, as I imagine a vast majority of your suggestions are either just sitting there until eternity, or just being created by you in the end anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And even if they were just sitting there for a little while, then I'm not sure what the issue is. It is the "Requests" page. If there were no or few articles there I would be worried. But now there is a wealth of games to choose from, so anyone looking for a new project can easily find one. My effoprts are only being singled out because I seem to be the only person adding games to the list at the moemtn. But I think more people should. I think the longer the list, the better it is, because it demonstrates that there is still much more work to be done. Loads of notable games crying out for articles. This entire thread seems like a non-issue and I won't comment further because instead of talking, we all could have turned a few of the listed requests into articles.--Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    For my, the issue is that most of the sources you are providing for supporting the request nominations are not usable sources for starting the article. They fail to meet WP:VG/R or the general concept of reliable sources. Thus, you're providing possible targets but giving little help to a user looking to start one. On the other hand, providing at least 2 quality RSes from our sources list at least is nearly passing the minimum barrier for notability (it's not an assurance) so you've helped out an editor seeking to make an article on that prospective target, drastically increasing the likeliness that someone will want to create that article. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (26 August to 3 September)[edit]

26 August

27 August

28 August

29 August

30 August

31 August

1 September

2 September

3 September

Salavat (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Notability discussion at Talk:Runestone_Keeper#Notability, a mobile game with few dedicated reviews czar 17:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • That's the sort of article I had in mind a few weeks ago talking about having a bit stronger notability for video games. It just squeaks by the GNG (with two sourcable reviews) and thus we can have a standalone on it presently, but will it ever be possible to expand on that beyond that point? If not, should we ultimately delete it? I'm not saying we need to do anything about this idea at this time, just an example of a case that I think we aren't here just to document every game that gains a RS review or two but really should look to something more to justify encyclopedic articles on video games. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
      • If we make our standards strict enough that even fully referenced, Start-class articles are not allowed, then it will be somewhat ridiculous. Deleting Start class articles because they can't be expanded further while there still exist Stubs to be expanded is hypocritical, and Start class articles can still be of help to people, as opposed to Stubs. I do think such things should be discouraged in, say, requests or lists of potential articles to be created, but they are not harmful in particular.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't be used to prevent start class articles as long as the GNG is met (eg two reviews in this case). But keeping in mind that the GNG is a presumption of notability, if after a year or so, all that can be shown to be said for this game are two reviews, that's probably a sign its not notable in the larger picture of video games and within WP's goals, and merge/deletion may be possible. For video games, moreso than any other area, we should have it easy to see if any modern game has articles to support it by online searches, as we have very few print-only sources now. Again, not saying that these articles shouldn't be created based on passing the GNG, but we as a project can say that in the long-term this may not be the type of things for standalone articles. But we'd need to flesh that out greatly before doing so. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
          • In terms of video games, notability needs to be interpreted differently. A vast number of games, while having a large subculture impact, are only mentioned by notable publications before or upon release. It's rare that games receive constant coverage and that is usually a factor of advertising budget, not encyclopedic value. Your proposed guidelines vastly favor AAA games with big budgets, not imparting encyclopedic value.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately, WP's core policies, alongside the way the VG media works, means this is always going to happen. We're supposed to summarize what RSes provide and if there are no RSes to provide that, we shouldn't be covering it. It is a clear systematic bias against smaller games, and we're unlikely to change WP policy to correct this, nor are we going to be able to affect the VG media. But also to that end, our goal is not to catalog every game, but to provided education content related to video games, focusing more on development, reception and legacy of games rather than just that a game exists. When you consider the number of indie and mobile games out there, only a small minority of games are going to receive this level of coverage, which is probably a good thing. So we can be a bit flexible at where we draw the line. I fully agree not to spite start-class articles that meet the GNG, but we could 'opt to if we want have a stronger requirements if after time a game simply doesn't show much more coverage than a few reviews. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I get that "significant coverage" isn't a bright line, but "two reviews" certainly is no community-set bar to cross that line—it's closer, in practice, to three solid reviews, which this doesn't have. In this case, I think it's generous to even call the 4gamer source a review (note too that the Softpedia "review" is of a demo...) And that's not even mentioning how the 2015 game has no claim to fame or any consequential/noteworthy impact apart from receiving brief classic games PR-style news announcements. I don't buy the systemic bias argument here as we keep all sorts of similarly non-noteworthy games because they at least get reviews in TouchArcade/Gamezebo/Pocket Gamer. The discussion about this specific game belongs on its talk page, but this title hasn't even received reviews in those mobile game specialty sites. czar 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know, I'm with ZXCVBNM on this one. Yes, there's probably 10,000 games out there that aren't realistically ever going to get more than a start-class article, and most don't have a handy series to merge them all up into. Does that mean we delete them, because we only want B+ articles? I say no. I think the mission of the VG project is to crate articles covering every notable subject, just like the goal of wikipedia at large is to create articles on every notable subject, and neither should limit the scope to "notable+" articles. Even at start-class, to the few readers that want to find those articles it's still a useful resource. Instead, I think that editor attention should be biased towards the more notable articles- and what do you know, that's exactly what happens (with the major counterpoint that of the super-notable-but-super-difficult articles). Pretty much everyone who posts on this board spends their time writing lengthy articles based on tons of sources (with whatever quality it shakes out to be); very few spend their time beating their heads against articles on barely-notable 10-year-old games that only have 2 reliable sources in existence. The problem, therefore, solves itself, to a large extent. --PresN 21:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately the definition of a "solid" review is subjective. It's a reliable source mentioning the game in a significant way, and giving their opinion on whether the game's good or not. There's no requirement that it get a large amount of critical analysis, the mere existence of it being mentioned makes it notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Never said it wasn't. But I don't think that anyone is arguing that this game has been mentioned in sources in a significant way. The coverage is as routine as it gets, and the review coverage is unexceptional. czar 07:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (4 September to 8 September)[edit]

4 September

5 September

6 September

7 September

8 September

Salavat (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Fighting character advice[edit]

I have been working on Jin Kazama but I'm not sure what to do regarding his altergo, Devil Jin, who has his own section. Is it necessary like in Akuma (Street Fighter)'s Oni or should it become merged into the appearances section like Ryu (Street Fighter)'s Evil Ryu? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Oni section in Akuma's article is very crufty. It depends on how much you can cite it with reliable sources, if there are many examining Devil Jin you may want to make a separate section.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability for Parascientific Escape: Cruise in the Distant Seas[edit]

I hesitate to nominate this for deletion as it's a well written article about a recent game, but its notability appears highly suspect. Brash Games is an unreliable source, and Digitally Downloaded is not listed but very dubious, considering their unusually low review score in comparison to the reliable and well vetted Nintendo Life. Even assuming Broken Joysticks is fine that only leaves a couple of reviews, not passing the WP:GNG threshold for significant mentions. I'd like to get a second opinion, but if someone else agrees with this, then you might want to nominate for deletion, in which case I'd support it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I dug up one source and put it on the talk page. Unfortunately it was about all I found that might be useful. Almost every other hit is either Nintendolife or just background announcements of 3DS downloads or download metrics. I wonder if it might be salvaged as a series article and cover the other two sequels as well though? -- ferret (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Did a search for 超科学脱出 and found a whole bunch of Japanese sources for the series, including two Famitsu reviews. ([2], [3]). At the very least a series article should be doable.--IDVtalk 00:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel like I could put together an article for the series as a whole. I agree that the games lack a need for their own solo articles, so feel free to delete them if you believe that to be necessary, either before or after I've completed the series article. --Astralyu (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is the series article. I hope it is up to scratch, and please delete the solo articles if you wish. -- Astralyu (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Astralyu: Rather than deleting them, they should be redirected to the series article, so as to prevent anyone else from mistakenly creating articles from those redlinks.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Comedy video games redux[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_6#Category:Comedy_video_games
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_128#Category:Comedy_video_games

Uh... so I noticed that a category I created was actually made by someone else some months ago and deleted. However, after looking through the arguments for delete, I've found that I categorically disagree with them. The main argument against the category's existence was that it wasn't an "officially recognized" genre (whatever that means) and that the inclusion criteria were "arbitrary" (which is false). If a game is described as a comedy, parody or satire by reliable sources, it should be included - that will remove anything with a few witty lines that isn't an overt comedy.

There also exists a categorization scheme that includes comedy books, films and even role-playing games. Based on this, the lack of inclusion of video games itself seems arbitrary. They are a multi billion dollar industry and suggesting that games aren't specifically described as comedy oriented seems ridiculous.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it was a combination of two things- "Comedy" isn't a game genre the same way "first-person shooter" is (it's a thematic genre, which video games are not typically divided into unlike movies or books; games are usually split only into gameplay genres). Second, the category had been defined as "video games that are funny", broadly construed. I think restricting it to "video games that an RS has termed primarily a comedy/parody/satire" would make it much more useful. --PresN 14:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No one has come up with multiple reliable sources for multiple games that actually say that comedy/humour is that game's defining characteristic (WP:CATDEF). All the previous entries were basically an editor deciding that the game was funny in some way. At best, some reviewers said it was funny. If we can find sources that actually say this about multiple games, then we can have the category. But it was previously completely not based on any sources, rather editor interpretations. (Satire and parody are separate from this, their existence isn't really relevant.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm, what do you mean with "a category I created was actually made by someone else"? Concerning the deletion, if you're up to finding sources for those articles, yeah, in that case a category wouldn't be a problem. But what actually is a "comedy game"? A full-on parody, like Pyst? Borderlands 2 tries to be funny, and in my honest opinion, fails horribly. But I do find Stephen Fry's narration of LittleBigPlanet humorous. The Last of Us has some jokes in it ("I used to be addicted to soap. But I'm clean now"), but to say that game is funny... On the other hand, Duke Nukem Forever is so bad it's laughable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was "formerly made by someone else", so sorry for the confusion. In terms of "comedy game", what I mean is not whether it succeeds at actually being funny but whether its intent was to be a comedy game. A full on parody can be placed in the sub genre category, Category:Parody video games. Comedy can be a selling point that is critical to a game's success, and it doesn't necessarily need to be plot-based humor (see Goat Simulator which uses physical comedy, without which the game wouldn't have succeeded or even existed). For that particular game, here's a source - "Once I started linking to these videos, I was like, 'Come on, guys, goats are funny. Someone should make a game about a goat.' And as soon as I thought it, bam, Goat Simulator. It had to be the name. " ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Goat Simulator is indeed the first video game I think of when I think "comedy game", and sources like IGN and The Guardian agree, calling it "a joke". Still, though, it seems to me like just keeping things at Category:Parody video games is much easier, as it demands much less interpretation of the sources. It would be cool if "comedy video game" was better defined, but as it is, it simply isn't. The crux of the issue may lie at the separation between narrative comedy and comedy in gameplay. I find it hard to say.
I see that Octodad isn't in the parody video game category (as it probably shouldn't be), but it would definitely be considered a comedy game. Looking for sources, I found that NPR referred to Octodad as falling into the comedy game genre, together with "Maniac Mansion, Day of the Tentacle, the Space Quest series, Full Throttle and other games that used humor as a vehicle and not just as a distraction." Take that source as you will. ~Mable (chat) 08:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Importance of Jin Kazama[edit]

I think I'm done with expanding Jin Kazama's article considering it now has 90 references. However, in the reception section, a lot of journalists listed him as one of the most popular Tekken characters as well as fighting game characters often rivaling Terry Bogard and Ryu. Does this qualify that Jin could become a mid-importance category character? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

He easily qualifies as a Mid-importance character, and I'd say the characterization of him as one of the most well-known fighting game characters is correct. I'm going to take the initiative and change it because I doubt people would disagree on that point.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do that.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Download Only Playstation Games[edit]

There is a series of articles that I would describe as problematic. It's well intentioned, however on multiple occasions I've seen titles in here that do, in fact have a physical release. I've also in the past noted that several of the titles appeared to be speculative, at which point it would be impossible to tell if they will have such a release. The thing to do in a normal case like this would be to make sure that everything is sourced, but because this list is specifically about having a lack of a physical release no one is really going to report on this. I'm tempted just to send the whole thing over to AFD. Thoughts? --Deathawk (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on a similar topic for Switch games. Most people seem to agree that release formats (digital vs. physical) are not notable enough to include in WP, but it remains a divisive subject. TarkusABtalk 00:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Which lead to this discussion here at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
A lot of these problems were raised in the discussion we had some time ago regarding the Switch games article. It pretty much proves the point that we don't need these sort of articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
From glancing at it, that seems like it's arguing whether or not there should be a column within the list of Switch games? Is it not? That's a bit different than what we have going on here. The list above is not saying if something is available physically. or digitally, it's saying definitively that it's not, which is increasingly wrong. --Deathawk (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really - if it doesn't warrant its own column, why in the world would it warrant a whole separate article? I'm against these articles as well. We're not a catalogue that informs on methods of purchase. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This is what I meant. If we don't mention what type of media the game is for in their own articles, why would we have an entirely separate set of lists literally just for that? All of these games are already covered in List of PlayStation 4 games, making this redundant on top of the multiple other issues. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree these lists aren't appropriate. Category perhaps, but this isn't really a type of list for standalone. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

For that matter: how about how List of PlayStation 3 games redirects to a list article with trademark formatting (subscripted 3)? Complete silliness. There is also no complete list of PlayStation 3 games, you have to check at least 3 lists. -- ferret (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Terrible. We really need a massive, planned community project to fix these issues. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Video game engine navboxes[edit]

Hi everyone,

I might've asked this before, but are navboxes based upon video game engines useful? See Category:Video game engine templates. They list the games the engine is used in, like Template: LyN games, three completely different games. Does that pass WP:NAVBOX? And to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF remark, the engines are used only in a handful of games (Template:Titan Engine games, Template: Riot Engine games), there aren't any navboxes on, say, the Unity or Unreal engines. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like most of these are stretching the usefulness of navboxes. Engine is not really by default a group of related items. The relation here is fairly arbitrary as having the same engine doesn't really mean much most of the time. It's possible some of these are actually related, because the engine is such that it makes the games share common characteristics. For example, point-and-click engines are commonly such and you can instantly tell when they are using the same engine. But things like Unity or GameMaker or whatever are absolutely arbitrary. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems pretty arbitrary. Categories would make sense, navboxes don't. And some engines would be nigh impossible to make navboxes for.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If a game engine has a recognized "identity", there may be value in a navbox like that, but if it's as arbitrary as Unity, then I can't say it's worth having a navbox. It may depend on the relation between the engine and the game design. I don't feel like giving a hard opinion one way or another. Does it make sense to tie Drakan, The Suffering, and this Lord of the Rings game together in one navbox? Seeing as the engine is hardly mentioned in any of the articles, I'd say maybe not. ~Mable (chat) 11:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A good piece of advice from GamesIndustry.biz[edit]

on breaking the "outrage cycle"

We here should only be careful to discuss outrage towards a game if that outrage is the actual story, rather than recognize that it is players complaining in a loud manner that may or may not have long-term relevance. It's reasonable to highlight were there is review bombing in the review bomb article, for example, but unless there's long-term elements of those specific cases that drastically affect the game's sales/etc. we should avoid inclusion even if we can source the outrage, or at least wait to see if that's a key issue (ala the No Man's Sky aspect). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where covering negative response to a game would be undue (Which I assume is the kind of guideline that applies here) and needlessly harmful? ~Mable (chat) 14:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The example they give that works appropriately is the change of Shaders (things that allow you to apply new color schemes to armor) in Destiny 2 to a one-time consumable from how they were permanent inventory in the first game. It effectively makes them part of the game's DLC/microtransaction system. A lot of players are upset about that, and there's been a lot of stories over the weekend towards that, but its peanuts in the larger scheme of the game, so we shouldn't cover it. Another example is for PUBG where there were players upset that the game introduced microtransactions prior to exiting early release, despite the developers stating they were using it to test their planned mcirotransaction system. That again, right now, is peanuts to the otherwise explosive growth of the game, and we shouldn't cover it. The reviewing bombing of DOTA 2 following Laidlaw's "fanfic" of HL2Ep3's plot is similar - it is not about DOTA2, who it shouldn't be there, but it is part of the HL series annd an example of review bombing. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is basically already the case on Wikipedia, with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. In any case, the "outrage cycle" is essentially just another form of clickbait. I think the editors of the websites in question are quite cognizant that it hurts game developers and do it anyway, because it helps them get more views when there's an emotional headline like "Gamers enraged about X!"ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You'd think it would be common sense under UNDUE but it's not. First, we're not talking about forums or reddit posts or the like where the outrage is documented but in our RSes. Some see that if it s reported this way by RSes, it should be included, particularly if it is widely covered. It's also a problem in WP in general, more commonly on news events, which is very very difficult to get editors to turn around, and that problem at the larger level (as Sergecross points out) seeps downward. It's best that we keep this in mind within the VG scope since VG outrage cycles tend to be spontaneous and very loud when they happen, in contrast to other areas. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but it is really an uphill, constant battle, across a lot of articles, and sadly, the regulars around here who are most likely to see this, probably aren't the ones that need that reminder, as much as the editors that come to vent their rage towards particular games or companies for these insignificant minor issues. Still, an interesting read, thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It is a difficult balance to strike, but I'll be sure to put more thought into it from now on. ~Mable (chat) 18:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The source's lesson is more an appeal for game journalists to not feed outrage culture in their clickbait headlines than to not cover predatory behavior altogether. If "gamers angry" covered in the course of a piece on D2's shaders—as I would hope it would be—it should be an element of the "shader changes" story, not vice versa. And we would give the "gamers angry" proportional weight (read: not more than a sentence). Our lesson, as I see it, is that clickbait articles (low-quality reposting of Reddit shitposts with a captivating title) are often non-stories only worth single-sentence mentions on WP, not dedicated sections or entire articles, despite the length of the source. czar 20:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
For us, it should be more about patience when we see even non-clickbait coverage of outrage issues. The shaders stuff with Destiny 2 seems to be more click-baity ("hey, here's a problem with this game that just came out!") than compared to my example of the PUBG over microtransactions, since they game's been out a while. I haven't chosen to add that issue to the PUBG article because it is a situation to see how it resolves, and right now the resolution was but a whimper compared to the rest of the game's critical success, so I likely won't ever add it. This GI.biz article may speak to journalists to avoid click-bait type coverage, but for us that means we shouldn't rush to include an outrage just because it got covered by a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of gaming platforms[edit]

Looking for more opinions at Talk:Comparison of gaming platforms#Non-neutral efforts to compare PCs versus all consoles. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

All hands, we have a canvasing in progress. Please come to counterbalance the problem and check out the AFD. KIA Brigade Thread and PCMR Brigade Thread. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Ehhhhh you may want to reconsider that post, Zero Serenity, or you're going to have to waste a lot of time with "Well we're just doing what you did!" type time-wasting arguments when you accuse them of canvassing. It's not really canvassing, but they likely take the time to understand the difference. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it's important to note that all I was attempting to address was a new column being inserted. From there, people removed the PC row entirely (quite a bit premature IMO) and that kicked off reddit. I'm watching but neutral on the AFD at this time, as that wasn't my goal at all. I was just asking for more opinions originally on the new column, but you need to be careful of actual canvassing for an AFD like the above appears to do.... -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You misinterpret me. As much as I think the article is junk, I'd rather have more eyes on it that don't have a fairly obvious PCGMR thing going on. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaming computer overlap with enthusiast computing[edit]

I feel like these articles should be merged. Gaming computer seems like the better target, since use of a high end PC as an enthusiast is pretty much linked with gaming, and is generally a subset of people who make gaming PCs. However, I'd like people's opinions on whether it merits a merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:SCI Games stubs[edit]

Dawynn (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yooka-Laylee again[edit]

Another IP is causing disruption at this page and claims that everyone at the active consensus, listed here, says the subject of the consensus is wrong and should be used in quotes. Pinging Sergecross73 as the last admin to protect this article and @IDV, Grayfell, Dissident93, and Masem: as other participants in the original debate. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ignore this, nor did I, I just forgot to respond. The IP is in the wrong, but he stopped after 3 reverts, and has been appropriately warned, so there's really no action to be taken yet. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion[edit]

There might be more that I missed, but on behalf of Steel1943, I want to inform this WikiProject of several redirects up for discussion here involving video game characters, mostly. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I've also listed three redirects in regards to the V for Victory series here. Discussion is open to any interested editor. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Move request for Mother (Earthbound Beginnings) started[edit]

Round 2: Talk:Mother (video game). -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Segata Sanshiro[edit]

I was interested in expanding the article Segata Sanshiro but now I'm in doubts considering he does not have multiple appearances and I could not expand his reception section too much. However, then I saw his Japanese Wikipedia article and it was way bigger. Could somebody give it a look? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine FAC[edit]

Hi everyone. I've currently got Jill Valentine nominated for FAC: see here. I'm in pretty much exactly the same position I was when I last nominated it, being that I have seven votes of support and opposing comments from only one feminist editor.

I didn't post on here at all at the last nomination because even though I'd never ask for support as I believe that would be unethical, I still didn't want to contact any particular group of people on the grounds it might be interpreted as canvassing. However, I'm now at my wits end so I'm going to ask for your comments on the nomination.

At the last nomination the feminist editor insisted I remove pretty much all references to Jill being perceived as physically attractive, on the ground that women should not be sexualised, and when they are, it should be ignored on the grounds it is sexist. It was also demanded that I quote heavily from a feminist blog which complains about Jill being sexualised (Incidentally, an editor at the current nomination thinks this blog may not meet WP:RS). Despite conceding to these two demands, the feminist editor still opposed the nomination on the grounds that I should have already used the specific feminist blog prior to nomination, and that there shouldn't have been any coverage of Jill being perceived as attractive in the first place. Just to make that clear, the main reasons this editor gave for opposing the nomination was how the article looked in the past. To be fair I will mention that in retrospect I did have too much coverage of Jill's attractiveness and it would have been appropriate to reduce the amount (as opposed to removing it entirely), and a second editor also opposed on the issue of sources. However, I was more than half way through addressing the source concerns when the nomination was closed abruptly. I continued to address all the concerns regarding sources after the nomination was closed.

The article currently contains the text 'One of the few personal details given about Jill in the original game is her ethnicity being half-French, half-Japanese; in 1996, Computer and Video Games said this detail "doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her".' The feminist editor is complaining that it is too sexist to mention this. That's an example of the kind of thing they have continually asked me to remove. The editor has also demanded I remove any mention that Jill has been included on top character lists (such as that she was "ranked Jill 30th on the list of greatest heroines", on the grounds that even if the author and source are high-quality, the "list of greatest heroines" hasn't had any secondary coverage commenting on it, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned. I would actually find these concerns humorous, if it wasn't for the fact the coordinator gave this editor's arguments a surprising amount of weight at the previous nomination.

I would strongly appreciate any comments on the article, regardless of whether they join in on the current debate or serve as a new, independent review from yourself. Freikorp (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Someone is opposing your article from becoming a Featured Article because its "Sexist"? GamerPro64 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Short answer: yes. That was the feminist editor's main concern at the first nomination.
Long answer: I think they're coming up with every imaginable reason to oppose the nomination because they just don't like it. This editor cited the fact I hadn't personally checked the offline sources added by other established editors at the previous nomination as a reason for opposing its promotion. Now that I've done that and have offered to email scans to her to prove it she's come up with new bizarre reasons to oppose, such as the fact my high-quality sources don't have secondary sources commenting on them. Freikorp (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • All of her points are worth heeding. There are plenty of changes I would recommend for this article, especially in the Reception. And I'm extremely dismayed to see SV's detailed bullet points being shouted down rather than accommodated. czar 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: That's not a fair comment. I addressed most of her bullet points. The only one I could be accused of shouting down was her complaint about the reception area, and the reason I did that was because, at the time, she was the only person who had a problem with it. After what happened at the last FAC I am hesitant to completely rewrite something to address the concerns of a lone editor. Now that other people have given more detailed opinions on the reception section, rest assured I will happily work on the issue. Freikorp (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't singling you out, but if her bullet points were addressed, the responses read as quite dismissive of her message. I think it's surmountable, but if there's bad blood, it's more productive to extend the olive branch than to dig a deeper hole. czar 19:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Another person chiming in that SV has some valid points. Pretty shady coming in here trying to paint it as some sort of "Feminism POV pushing" or whatever that above stuff was supposed to be. Really disappointing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that some of SV's concerns, the ones about what information "should" be included, could have been debated- as in, a reasonable argument could have been made that regardless of how pointless or sexist they were, it would be accurate to the state of video game criticism to note that that was what they focused on, so context could have fixed the issues. The others- choppy flow, overreliance on listicles instead of reaching harder for better sources, etc.- are pretty on point. However, you didn't debate the debateable ones. You got your back up, and made weak arguments and snide remarks, in both FACs.
  • The FAC process isn't perfect by any means- it's annoyingly uneven between candidates and reviewers. But there's one way that it's not technically perfect that's in keeping with any other review process in life- the moment you insulted SV, there or here, was the moment that the whole candidacy was doomed. (And yes, since you obviously consider it to be one, "feminist" counts as an insult). SV is never going to support now, because why would she put up with that? You could probably drive her away, except now the coordinators will never promote unless she supports, because there's not much they hate more than nominators being rude to reviewers as the reviewer pool is so stretched as it is. Take this as a life lesson: don't do that. Regardless of how annoyed you are by what they're opposing over. --PresN 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all you admins want to look out for one another, but read this and tell me the Jill Valentine FAC hasn't descended into farce. It's beyond a joke at this stage. I was planning on getting several other articles to featured status over the next few months but, after all this, I don't think I'll bother. This whole website has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare! Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
That's just a dif of you complaining about "farces" again. Still unclear what I'm supposed to be outraged about here... Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Another snarky comment from another admin. Heaven forbid you actually read the content of a diff. *eyerollemoji* Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Dude. It's not your FAC. You're just the reviewer. Why are you having a drawn out, multi-venue, multi-hour tiff about Ealdgyth giving you suggestions about how as the source reviewer you should either save yourself a ton of time and only discuss the sources you have issues with, or else dig even deeper and find out if each source is "high-quality" instead of explicitly deferring to VG/RS. Like, source reviews are usually just "Why are sources a,b,c good enough?" "Because x,y,z." "Ok." I don't even agree with her about the distinction between RS sources and "high-quality", as separate from the concept of the "best available" or the content of the source being high-quality, but I still find the angry, personal way you've taken any criticism over an article you aren't the nominator for really... odd. (Also, accusing people of blindly supporting fellow admins is such an eye-roll-worthy attack. There are multiple people who I highly respect who are supporting that FAC. Perhaps instead of clumping everyone who doesn't agree with everything you agree with as "enemies", you should actually read what they wrote.) --PresN 02:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I did read your dif - you're missing my point. Your dif is very vague and doesn't articulate the issue at all. All it shows is you complaining about sources. Doesn't show the specific sources. Or the issues with them. Or any context at all. It's nothing but you making vague grievances. And as much fun as it would be to wade through a ton of text to figure out what in the world you're worked up about up about, you kinda threw any of my motivation out the window when you start off with your "admin sticking together" garbage. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@PresN:@Sergecross73: Believe it or not, I actually consider myself to be a feminist. Here is an article I created and wrote entirely by myself (save for copyedits), which is completely full of feminist themes: Murder of Leigh Leigh. Here are three where I am by far the main writer and have gone out of my way to add coverage of feminist themes to: Isabelle Eberhardt, Dark Angel (TV series), The Fifth Element. I do not, however, identify as a feminist editor, because I am not here to promote any agenda. I actually take pride in finding new topics to write about; I do not limit my editing to even one category of articles. Based on SlimVirgin's actions and comments, I consider her to be a feminist editor, because it's my interpretation of her actions that she is here to promote a feminist agenda. You are welcome to disagree. You are welcome to consider "feminist editor" to be an insult, however, that was not my intention. My intention is to call a spade a spade. I am always polite to people if they are respectful to me. As far as I am concerned, SlimVirgin set the tone for out conversation at the first nomination. I don't suppose you read it? She cited several specific problems with the nomination, and I undeniably backed down and submitted to her requests. To be fair, there were other concerns of hers that I didn't address, some because I disagreed with, and other because I requested clarification on exactly what she wanted, yet such requests were frequently ignored, such as this one [4]. I addressed specific concerns, yet she still opposed on these specific reasons, on the grounds of how the article looked before I made the changes. I think you're failing to understand the gravity of those actions. When you back down to someone's requests, and the person still opposes specifically because of how the article used to look before you addressed their concerns, it becomes apparent that they are not going to support your nomination regardless of what you do. In any case, my objective by posting the above comment was to get more people to comment on the nomination. That has now happened, so I'd rather focus on addressing concerns at the nomination and not continuing to reply here. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I just read through the first FAC and I both completely agree with SV's points and definitely would not have been as patient as her, especially after being continually insulted. What's rich is that SV points out POV issues with the sourcing/presentation but she is painted as an activist editor? How is it her fault and not the non-neutrality ("activism") of the article authors? Lack of humility aside, if the intractable end of the last FAC was for want of sources, (1) that's a sign to recruit a third party (through forums like WT:VG, WT:FCHAR) for help, and (2) you can't be faulted for sources that you cannot find (well, unless someone finds those sources easily and thus reveals laziness)—if you show your good faith attempts to find those non-existent sources and simply have no results, then the FAC has to continue past those points. Lastly, replace "feminist" above with "COI" or "Christian" to see how any descriptor used in that manner is made into a pejorative, no matter your personal inclination or intent. SV didn't dredge up the last FAC and gives no appearance of itching for a fight, but I see plenty of that from other parties, which brings us to the realm of projection and hypocrisy... When it gets that bad, the best recourse is usually a sincere mea culpa (without the hand-wringing) and just moving on. Here's the writing on the wall from a month ago, excellent observations worth repeating in toto, emphasis preserved and italics added:

Straight away, I have to say that it is extremely unhelpful for reviewers to post comments such as "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" and "Surely it would have been speedier/more appropriate to take the 30 seconds required to investigate for yourself if a source met the notability requirements, rather than simply asking multiple times: 'What makes X a high-quality reliable source?' or 'What makes X writer so important as to have their opinion featured on the article?'" No-one is required to do anything here, we are all volunteers. Alienating reviewers is an absolutely certain way to make sure that others steer clear of these articles at FAC, and without reviewers, nothing is going to pass. Simple. Another point that I am repeatedly labouring is that video game reviewers are often their own worst enemy, both in terms of cursory review and in what appears to be happening here: closing ranks. I'm absolutely sure that this is not the intention, but it is certainly coming across that way. And I would recommend not trying to tell source reviewers how to do their job: Ealdgyth has been doing this for years and years, and you will not find a better source reviewer here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

czar 15:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to keep debating this, but after reading that I feel the the need to mention two things. Firstly Ealdgyth also opposed my nomination, but I never lost my civility with her (and actually consider myself to be on quite good terms with her) because her criticism was the only criticism I got which I consider to have been constructive. She actually explained why she wanted me to do things, she didn't just tell me to do them and assume I would figure out what the problem was. For the record I also feel the need to state that those comments Sarastro1 was complaining about (such as "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" were not made by me. Happy to just move forward from here. Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (8 September to 16 September)[edit]

8 September

9 September

10 September

11 September

12 September

13 September

14 September

15 September

16 September

Salavat (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Which pronouns should be used for Zoë Quinn's biographical article?[edit]

Hi all, just wanted to garner more input in this RfC located on the talk page for Zoë Quinn's BLP article. Not sure if this is your department or not, let me know if I'm overstepping.

Normally MOS:GENDERID would be very easy to apply, but unfortunately in this case some circumstances have made this difficult. Add in the inherent controversy and inflammatory nature that follows anything to do with Gamergate and you have the stew we now find ourselves in.

Can your editors provide some input so we can get this cleared up? Thanks. --Shibbolethink ( ) 19:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"Quinn has also self-identified as a woman and as feminine.[3]‪[4]‬" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow mystery solved. GamerPro64 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If only these things were so easy! I agree with your assessment, but a viewing of the page's history would find this has been a somewhat contentious issue. Mostly because Quinn in 2016 posted a blog post requesting they/their/them pronouns. Discussion has been reignited with the publication of Quinn's recent Gamergate book. Hopefully this is over soon and we can all move on with our lives. --Shibbolethink ( ) 20:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the talk page I'd say it's pretty open and shut. She never said "I want to be called they", she said that she didn't care what pronouns people used. That isn't the same as saying "I self identify as they, never call me he or she."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pac-Man Arrangement merge[edit]

Outside feedback requested in Talk:List of Pac-Man video games#Proposed merge with Pac-Man Arrangement. It's been open since January. czar 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones up for deletion[edit]

Opinions wanted here. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, most of the regulars here already subscribe (or should) to WP:VG/D, where they are automatically notified of any deletion discussion tagged as video game related. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)