Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
1 - 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115
Threads older than 10 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk


Infobox backlog[edit]

It's been a few months and we now have almost 80 articles sitting in our Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes. I just killed about 25. Feel free to join in – czar 01:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done
99.4% complete
  • Done! thanks to @AdrianGamer and all who pitched in. There was some really old stuff in there—lots of 2008 tags.
Maybe Category:Video game cleanup next? Could we knock 150 down by the end of the month (or before this thread gets archived)? These requests are a bit more vague, so I suspect that many articles won't need much cleanup at all (besides the maintenance tag removed). – czar 07:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
257.3% complete
  • All right, another milestone down! Do you think we can kill the whole Category:Video game cleanup queue (400 articles) by the end of September? Feel free to jump in wherever: just make the article minimally presentable, remove uncited text and trivia (or add citations), and remove the cleanup tag. – czar 08:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
59% complete

VG infobox credit field oversights?[edit]

Couple of questions and remarks concerning Template:Infobox_video_game#Credit_fields:


The popular names of the game producers in overall charge of the production of the game. The names can be wikilinked.

  1. List only the person credited specifically with the title "Producer";
  2. Do not list the "Executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits, as they are not generally as intimately involved in a game's development;
  3. If three or more people are credited as "co-producer"s, discuss whether any one played the most significant part and, if decided, list that person;
  4. List the "Creative producer" only if said person's involvement in the game is discussed in the article's development-related section.

I don't understand this. No. 1 says: only producer. No. 2: says: no "sub"-producer. No. 3 says: if there are three or more people credited as co-producer, we should decide who played the most significant part. But there are co-producers, someone must be listed as producer, right? Does that mean we can list co-producers, if there's a producer, or that we shouldn't? What if we can, what if there's one producer, and three co-producers and we don't know who of those three did the most work? Also, discussing who had the most significant part in the development starts from three, so we should pick one name. But two is okay? Unlike other fields, this doesn't have a limit to it. What if there are eight producers credited?


The popular names of the game designers, i.e. people who worked on the game's system. The names can be wikilinked. This field is often unfilled in modern high-budget development due to large team sizes and collaboration. Older games and indie games are more likely to use this position.

  1. If a single person is credited as "Lead designer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Game-design director" and "Lead planner";
  2. If there is no equivalent to #1, omit this field;
  3. If three or more people are credited as "lead designer"s, discuss whether any one played the most significant part and, if decided, list that person.

Same thing, what if there are two lead designers, that's okay? Or what if a small indie game just has 'designer' as a credit, right now it says that name should be omitted. Sidenote: why don't we change the name of the field from designer to lead designer?


The popular names of the game's writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers.

  1. If a single person is credited as "Scenario director" or "Scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Lead writer";
  2. If there is a person credited as "Scenario concept writer" or "Original concept", also list that person here;
  3. List no more than three people in this field.

If there is one 'scenario director', we should list that person. If there's a 'scenario concept writer', we can list that person too. If either one of these titles are listed, does that mean other writers shouldn't be mentioned? Also, again we can have three names, without having to discuss to pick one.


The popular names of the composers who worked on the game's music.

  1. List people who contributed significantly to the soundtrack. Discuss inclusion criteria on a per-game basis on the talk page.

Here, there is no limit of names, unlike other fields.

Do you see what I mean? These discrepancies might not our biggest problem, but I think it would be helpful to have a clear understanding of how the infobox can and should be done. Soetermans. T / C 10:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've asked twice in the past to help redo this section and make them all standardized with each other, but nobody seems to have any opinions regarding it. If people are ready this time, we can go through each field and give them new/updated guidelines. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Some of these questions require some odd reading of the text to reach, but whatever, it can certainly be tightened up. Here's my suggestion for a revamp; I tried to make the wording similar in the different roles: --PresN 00:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Producer: The popular names of the game producers in overall charge of the production of the game. The names can be wikilinked.
  1. List only the person credited specifically with the title "Producer"; do not list the "Executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits, as they are not generally as intimately involved in a game's development
  2. If a second producer or co-producer is credited they may also be included; if there are three or more, list only the one who played the most significant part
  3. "Creative producer" is generally treated like other "sub"-producers unless said person's involvement in the game is discussed in the article's development-related section.
  • Designer: The popular names of the game designers, i.e. people who worked on the game's system. The names can be wikilinked. This field is often unfilled in modern high-budget development due to large team sizes and collaboration. Older games and indie games are more likely to use this position.
  1. If a single person is credited as "Lead designer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Game-design director" and "Lead planner", or simply "Designer" on games with very small development teams
  2. If a second lead designer or co-lead designer is credited they may also be included; if there are three or more, list only the one who played the most significant part
  3. If there is no clear lead designer, omit this field
  • Writer: The popular names of the game's writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers.
  1. If a single person is credited as "Scenario director" or "Scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Lead writer"
  2. If there is a single person credited as "Scenario concept writer" or "Original concept", that person may additionally be listed in this field
  3. If three people are credited as Lead writers or Original concept (or equivalents) they may be listed; if there are more than three, list only the three (or fewer) who played the most significant parts
  • Composer: The popular names of the composers who worked on the game's music. The composers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those contributing the most tracks/music listed before those with fewer contributions
  1. If a single person is credited as "Composer", list that person
  2. If a second or third composer is credited they may also be included; if there are more than three, list only the three (or fewer) who played the most significant parts
  • The composer field should also state that if a composer was known to only do one song, AND if his role is already mentioned in the article, then he shouldn't be included in the infobox. (look at Xenoblade's for the best example.) The rest I agree with, though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In the infoboxon Xenoblade, Yasunori is currently listed as a composer - isn't that exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting, Dissident? Either way, I think these guidelines all sound very good; much more clear than the original guidelines and it makes a lot of common sense :) ~Mable (chat) 07:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
That complication could be my fault. I wrote/maintain the article, and argued that his involvement was important enough to be mentioned there. (He's got a big role in the Xeno (series), sources reported his involvement a lot, and his specific role for this title was to create one massive track that was meant to sum up/represent/encompass the games entire massive soundtrack... Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
How, exactly? He did one track out of 91, I simply feel like it's better to list their role in the game in the article in detail, (which it is for Mitsuda/Xenoblade), while having these type of contributions omitted from the infobox. For some games, you could have 3 or more composers who only wrote a single track for the game. If we added every single one, the infobox would get mighty bloated, wouldn't you agree? Of course, if the article doesn't have any mention of the composer's single track role, then I think it's fine to leave them in the infobox.
On another topic, could we use something like that's been done on the Sonic 3/Sonic & Knuckles articles for games that have more than three composers? (collapsible lists) I'm fine with this, as it doesn't bloat up the infobox, but doesn't omit details simply because it goes over three. The "three or less" should be used as a general guideline, what if there were four members who did 25% each? @Wrath X: has been removing producer information in the Metal Gear Solid series because of this, but this information really should remain. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Er, I thought my last comment covered that? It's an all encompassing centerpiece to the game, created by a long-time contributor. I don't mean to get in the way of a consensus here or anything, I don't really care much about what the standard is, just as long as we get a consensus for one to be enforced, I'm merely saying that there should be room for important exceptions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
My comment was meant for Maplestrip, but agreed. All of these should be used as general guidelines only. Exceptions should exist on a per-article basis if they improve the article, and aren't aren't misleading. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I should note for clarity: I agree that a person who has only composed a single track should generally not be listed in the infobox. ~Mable (chat) 20:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
User Wrath X continues to remove personnel from the MGS5: Phantom Pain article, simply because the number of producers and writers goes over the arbitrary three. Does anybody mind having four in the infobox, as long as they were all the lead producers/writers, which is the case here? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Another thing, Wrath X states that, for composer listings in the infobox, we should go with what the game itself lists, rather than how much they actually contributed. He claims that, what the original soundtrack states (how many songs each composer wrote is clearly listed in the liner notes), is WP:OR, and that because the game itself credits Harry Gregson-Williams first (for "music" in Ground Zeros, yet it actually states Akihiro Honda is the lead composer right after), that we should go with that the game states. Does anybody disagree with this? It's not like I'm guessing on how much they contributed, like screen time for an actor in a film. This needs to be changed, as we are supposed to list writers by order of contributions, and we don't even have something as clear-cut as soundtrack liner notes for them. It just doesn't seem right to have Williams listed first, when he really only did two tracks in the entire game. I'd really like to have all this wrapped up soon, since it's becoming just edit warring between us two. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The order or hierarchy credited makes more sense, I agree. ~Mable (chat) 07:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the opposite of what he said, actually... anyways, it seems clear from the example that the game credits them in alphabetical order, but if it clearly says that one was the lead composer, then they should be first, and the others ranked by contribution amounts- if there's liner notes with track credits, then you don't have to guess. In the end, though I guess it doesn't really matter that much, so if it's frustrating you maybe just drop it for now and work on the body text. --PresN 16:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It's misleading and shouldn't have to be, it only exists because of the template guidelines being vague for the most part. I mean, nowhere does it state to order it the way he's doing either, if you want to be technical. Everybody seems to be on the same page here, but since none of this is in the official template doc yet, he keeps reverting it, going by the old and vague guidelines. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anybody against making this public? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not really following what issue is under discussion. If the problem is unification of standards, why wouldn't we just put a notice above all fields that (1) the goal is to provide quick reference to the clear, "lead" contributors, (2) a "lead" distinction is preferable (see individual fields for equivalent titles), (3) if there is no clear lead, it likely isn't worth enumerating in the infobox, but generally do not list more than three co-leads. And (4) prefer the order of the credits, whichever requires the least original interpretation. Something like that and reduce the redundancy. – czar 04:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with all of your points, but is it really "original interpretation" if the liner notes (considered a reliable source) clearly state one composer did 3 tracks while the other did 20? Most games (MGS excluded) have the composers billed in the correct order (in order of contribution), so not like this is a major problem for all game articles. To the general, mostly unaware reader, it's most likely assumed that the first listed in the infobox did the most in their field, be it art, music, etc. Even though the MGS games do credit guys first under the "lead" role, in reality, it's only because they wrote the main theme and nothing else. The reason why I argue this is that it could be misleading to some readers, however slightly. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Would be hard to comment on that without the full context, but if one composer did seven times the work (though this might not be reflected by track count alone), I would hope to see that reflected in the credits order. It's very hard to argue with how a work chooses to portray its credits, egalitarian or not. (Liner notes aren't "reliable" in that they have no reputation for fact-checking/accuracy, but they are usually "official" as a self-published source.) – czar 05:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is exactly the issue I was having on the MGS5 articles. (Ludvig Forssell did 90% of the soundtrack, but Justin Burnett, who was credited with just four tracks by himself, was listed in front of Forssell) And how do liner notes have no reputation for fact-checking? Many of them have comments from the composers/game designers themselves, so it would be silly to not consider them reliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that's for Forssell to take up with the publisher—not our place to right great wrongs, and we don't know the production differences between the soundtrack and the game (hence we are best off engaging with the least amount of original interpretation). Self-published sources can lie or at least not remember accurately while secondary, reliable sources, by their mandate to fact-check, review the evidence to make a judgment call. Secondary sources provide that extra degree of vetting. Anyway, I'd like to stay on topic about unifying the credit fields' documentation. – czar 10:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't see how this isn't relevant, especially as the current documentation says to list the writers in order of contribution. And I really don't see how liner notes can lie any more than the game's credits could, if we're worried about that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, why aren't character artists to be listed in the infobox? (Do not list people with titles such as "Character designer" or "Environment artist" (these should be described in the article's development-related section);) This rule is ignored all the time, even on FA ranked articles such as Chrono Trigger. I say we change this to include them in the infobox officially. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

GameZone review pages end up with errors![edit]

Something is terribly wrong with GameZone's review pages, as all of them have gotten error messages! And it seems that these review pages haven't been fixed yet! Here are these two examples. Does anyone have any idea why? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably links that are broken. Maybe use the Wackback Machine to get them back or contact GameZone to see if they can do anything about it. GamerPro64 03:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of errors, it seems that the entire website except its home page has been down for days! When will it be back up? Here's an example of the link I'm trying to post to the Medal of Honor: Infiltrator article here. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Well the issue with 1UP is that its dead and they have robots.txt to prevent the Wayback Machine from archiving it. And with being banned from Wikipedia, unless you have used WebCite on a link before it died on 1UP, its pretty much gone forever. Basically we're watching a corpse of a body once loved slowly deteriorate without being able to properly preserve it. GamerPro64 21:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
A bunch of articles on Halo: Reach that were down a few days ago are accessible as of right now; I was just able to archive those and I archived the Infiltrator page for you just in case. —zziccardi (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirected articles[edit]

Electron toolset, Aurora toolset, and Infinity Engine were recently redirected without any apparent attempt to merge them. In review, the sourcing looked a bit weak, but given the popular games they were used on, I'm sure the sources exist somewhere to restore and improve them a bit? (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • What is there to merge exactly? All three were rubbish quality articles with poor sourcing. The Electron toolset article was just a list of unsourced engine features, and barely any of the content was useful or encyclopaedic. Summarising any reliable sourced and noteworthy information under Neverwinter Nights 2#Development is more appropriate. Same thing applies to Aurora toolset, it can be appropriately covered under Neverwinter Nights#Development and BioWare#Aurora Engine. And information on Infinity Engine can be covered under its respective game articles. Notability isn't inherited either so having a game engine being used on popular games isn't a valid reason for separate article. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    • My reason for bringing this up wasn't to determine whether or not the articles, in the state they were in, were worth keeping. What I wanted to know is if anyone had any sources to improve the articles. If I wasn't clear on that, hopefully I am clearer now. (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Toys-to-life tables[edit]

Hi everyone,

A little while ago I asked about release tables in the "toys-to life" articles, like Disney Infinity and Lego Dimensions. Is there someone familiar with these franchises? Because I don't think a table like Level packs is the best way to go right now. Starting from the left: first column, name of franchise. Second column, level pack, repeating franchise name with the words "level pack" behind it. Third column, content of level pack. Fourth column, release date. Fifth column, "series". Sixth column, "wave". Starting from the level pack table, it is the first time in the article that "series" and "wave" are mentioned, so what exactly are they? --Soetermans. T / C 13:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this violate WP:CATALOG and some other policy? I say we remove it, and redo it as prose if possible. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The release of these packs get coverage, and particularly with the cross over nature. There is likely a better way to do the example table to explain the terms, and reduce the duplication. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, make them collapsible? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd classify Disney_Infinity_3.0#Characters as an indiscriminate collection of information. If these toys are important in specific, it's through how they're discussed in secondary sources. What's important is their real world context, what critics said about them, not their "wave" or release dates (that's the type of stuff for Wikia). The names of their "packs" is trivia. The Disney table also has accessibility issues as is—it should repeat itself rather than using those merged cells. Prose-ify wherever possible (e.g., list the franchises from Lego_Dimensions#Level_packs in prose and drop the rest, unless there are RS to show its importance). czar 02:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings and Metacritic gave it a score of X and Y, Part II: Too confusing[edit]

Continuing on from this link here, I have a problem regarding the Reception sections for the Medal of Honor (1999 video game), Medal of Honor: Underground, Medal of Honor: Frontline, Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, Medal of Honor: Infiltrator, Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, and Medal of Honor: European Assault. It's just that all of them use the Reception article's English that is too convoluted. For example: the Medal of Honor: Underground Reception section says, "The PlayStation version of Medal of Honor: Underground was met with positive reviews. It received an 85.65% on GameRankings and 86/100 on Metacritic. The Game Boy Advance version of Medal of Honor: Underground was met with negative reviews. It received a 49.67% on GameRankings and 46/100 on Metacritic.", which is just ridiculous. The Medal of Honor: European Assault Reception section claims that the game "received favourable reviews", when in fact they're mostly mixed, not "favorable". And almost all of them say, like European Assault, "Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the PlayStation 2 version 73.23% and 73/100, the Xbox version 73.09% and 72/100 and the GameCube version 72.78% and 71/100." This wording is too ridiculous. I tried to take someone's advice from SSX 3 and round the GameRankings scores to the nearest whole number, but kept reverting my good edits to too confusing English and GameRankings' decimal numbers and kept warning me to use only one separate way of one score instead of two, which they accuse me of, and that if I kept using two separate ways, like this, then they will ban me! What can I do? I'm too confused, I just don't know what to do anymore! I don't know if I can continue to edit video game articles or just quit. Please help me. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We have a reviews template for score. In prose, scores should simply not be mentioned whatsoever IMO. See Back to Stone, an article I wrote without mentioning a single score or aggregator summary in prose.  · Salvidrim! ·  01:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
First off all, saying things like "This wording is too ridiculous" doesn't really help in proving your point because the previous wording makes it better for the Wikipedia viewer to read. And also, I NEVER reverted any edits on SSX 3 because I didn't even bother reverting that article and you did what you were told. I looked over mine and your edits on that article and nowhere did I EVER revert on SSX 3. Are you seriously trying make yourself even more of a bully and a liar than ever before? Calling your edits "good"? You still have a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia because your edits are NOT ENTIRELY good by the looks of things. If you read the Wikipedia guidelines more often, you would know more about how to edit Wikipedia. Take a look at Watch Dogs and Wolfenstein: The New Order for example. They have the best Reception sections in their articles and they both have one thing in common that goes with the Wikipedia guidelines. (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Admin warning- tone it down. You're being entirely too aggressive and ALLCAPS for a discussion of how to word a couple sentences in a video game article, and calling Angeldeb82 "a bully and a liar" is way over the line of no personal attacks. Do it again and blocks come out. Perhaps you should read some of the wikipedia guidelines you're so confident in?
As to the debate itself, we're discussing whether putting a bunch of review percentages in the text is a good idea or not. Saying that it is because Angeldeb82's edits are "not entirely good" makes no sense, and proclaiming that her arguments are ridiculous because you're clearly correct is pretty nonsensical, especially when several other people here agree with removing the numbers. Including myself, it's much harder to read them in the text as prose then in, say, the table in the box 2 inches to the right. --PresN 14:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
If I was too aggressive, I would have every single word in "All Caps". Then how come Angeldeb82 made up an accusation that I reverted that person's edits on SSX 3 when I clearly did NOT? Please look at my edits and you will see that I have never EVER even reverted those edits on that article.
I brought up Watch Dogs and Wolfenstein: The New Order as examples of reception sections because they use the two digit percentage per T:VGR and WP:VG in the Wikipedia guidelines and that applies to both "in the review box" and "in the review text". Since when did I say "I was right and Angeldeb82 was wrong"? I NEVER said that, I just said that they need to improve. Don't get me wrong, I need to improve too, but I do NOT call my edits "good" because I'm right and they're wrong. And yes, I did go overboard by saying "You still have a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia because your edits are NOT ENTIRELY good by the looks of things." because I really don't like people that claim themselves to be the best Wikipedia editors and claim that their edits are "good" in their snobby and disrespectful attitude. (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
No. You don't get to define yourself what "too aggressive" is, especially not as "well, I could have been more aggressive and confrontational so it must be alright". You've received the warning; whether you take it to heart or blow it off is up to you. --PresN 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are you being so aggressive all of a sudden? When did I define myself what "too aggressive" is? I NEVER said ANYTHING about that in the previous comments I wrote. OK, I definitely did NOT say "well, I could have been more aggressive and confrontational so it must be alright" in the previous comments I wrote. Why are both you and Angeldeb82 suddenly making "false accusations" about me such as "Broken English" and "Too Aggresive"? Are you REALLY trying to get something out of me when I actually don't? Because whatever it is that you two are trying to do, I'm not buying. (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Quiting Wikipedia because GameRankings and Metacritic is confusing? I think you're taking this too seriously. I mean Metacritic's scoring is a trade secret, to the point that a lot of people do not take it seriously (film wise at least. Rotten Tomatoes is more beloved). My suggestion is to not use Metacritic or any aggregation. I'm using them for Dyscourse but that's mainly because all the reviews for the game are sevens. GamerPro64 01:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about GameRankings or Metacritic. I'm talking about the confusing words and grammar in the Reception sections of Medal of Honor articles, because they sound a bit robotic, IMO. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
"The confusing words and grammar in the reception sections, because they sound a bit robotic, IYO"? Since when did you make up that accusation? It NEVER sounds robotic. It makes it a lot easier for the Wikipedia viewer to read. How are they "confusing"? Because your wording and grammar needs a bit of work as well. Have a look at Watch Dogs and Wolfenstein: The New Order before making up accusations. (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As mentioned last time, drop the scores from the prose and instead write, "The game received 'average' reviews, according to video game review aggregator Metacritic" (quote their exact phrase). The scores numbers are worth little without context. czar 02:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I see. I'll do that next time if I get a chance. Thanks, Czar. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
To the point at hand, I would agree that rote repetition of MC/GR percentages in the prose in "complex" situations (games with multiple console releases) can be dull and not helpful. There's no point to reiterate the difference between an MC aggregate scroe of 71%, 72%, and 74% for different consoles for the same game - that's all, give or take, the same score, and the extra digits should be summarized in the table. So instead of being drab, I would simply go "The game received 'average' scores on all platforms according to aggregate Metacritic." If there is a console port that stands out far outside the 5-10 point range (such as the case the OP points out), that should be the start sentence of a separate paragraph to focus on why that port was good or bad. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I've been trying to say to Angeldeb82 but won't listen to me because I'm wrong and have "Broken English", which doesn't make sense since the term "Broken English" is people that go "wuy dunt u git ur eidets prubpaley". Now, THAT'S "Broken English". (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I took czar's advice and removed aggregate scores from prose on the aforementioned Medal of Honor articles and the Mad Maestro! article in order to satisfy all of you. Hope this helps. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget to round the GameRankings scores from 4 digits to 2 digits and it goes by WP:VG to make life more easy. (Example: 74.51% to 75.50% = 75%) (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll do that too. Thanks. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Foreign language titles in the lede's opening sentence[edit]

(example) Our project has a strange habit of putting Japanese titles in the lede's opening—the article's most precious sentence. Non-English names, unless the article topics have strong affiliations with the language, really have no business being in the first sentence. MOS:FORLANG:

If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local language equivalent

Chibi-Robo might be a Japanese series, but its Japanese title is of little consequence to understanding its content, and it is not closely associated enough to warrant that type of exclusive real estate. Unless we need the Japanese characters/alt title to understand the sources ( we ever?) it makes little sense to give whole lines in the intro to stuff that is useless to almost all of our readership. (This is not limited to Japanese titles, but that is the language most often abused in the opening sentence.) I suggest moving the foreign language titles to a footnote, if not just eliminating most of them altogether, and updating WP:VG/GL accordingly. czar 03:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for it, I've always thought all the Japanese names/characters always cluttered up the opening sentence to a majority of readers, who don't know the language. However, I've been met with a lot of resistance whenever Ive briought it up in the past, so I don't know how well this will go over... Sergecross73 msg me 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
An idea was raised at the FAC for Children of Mana that I've decided to adopt going forwards that's kind of a compromise- putting most of the Japanese title in a footnote. For that article, the lead sentence is now "Children of Mana, originally released in Japan as Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana,[Note 1] is a 2006 action role-playing game for the Nintendo DS handheld console.", with Note 1 as "Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana (聖剣伝説DS CHILDREN of MANA Seiken Densetsu DS: Chirudoren obu Mana?, lit. "Legend of the Sacred Sword DS: Children of Mana")". That one came about because the nihongo template got stupidly long, but I think in general even for shorter names yanking out everything but the romanization de-clutters the lead quite a bit. The original name of the game may be important enough to put in the lead sentence, but probably not 3 versions of it. --PresN 04:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with PresN and the approach given on Children of Mana. For anyone trying to look up Japanese sources for a video game, knowing the Japanese title is the first step, but leaving most of the title as a footnote declutters the lead.-- 05:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm on board with shifting it to a foot note as well. Keeps the content but prevents it from cluttering the lede. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless the Japanese name of a game is common to the majority of its international releases as well, example Ni no Kuni, I concur with de-emphasizing the importance of Japanese titling or {{nihongo}} use in article leads by either the footnoting method laid out above, or any other solution that's determined as workable. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 14:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Also would add the case where there was never a western release, such as Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan. (Katamari Damacy would also qualify for the above as a Japanese title that remains adopted with the western release). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Take note of MOS:JAPAN#Using Japanese in the article body, which I would believe is why this occurs. You should seek a guideline change there in tandem if you believe this to be poor form. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Chibi-Robo might be a Japanese series, but its Japanese title is of little consequence to understanding its content is not the criterion, which you even quoted for our provision. It is not understanding that a name is to impart but a close associat[ion]. Your argument on this point is specious. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If it isn't clear, many of us think that most games developed in Japan do not show a "close connection" with the country, especially when their Japanese titles are so sparingly used in English sources as to be impertinent. I also see no conflict with MOS:JAPAN, especially when the title moves to a footnote in the pertinent cases. If it's a video game developed and exclusively released in Japan with only Japanese sources and only known by a Japanese title, by all means add the template. Those cases are not my concern and are but a small subset of the ways in which we currently invoke {{nihongo}} in the lede. czar 14:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the Ni no Kuni is the exception that proves the rule. Rule being: place the Japanese name or names in a footnote. Exception being: unless the name of the article is in Japanese to begin with. What's the call on translating a fully Japanese title in the lead? I'd also like to open the discussion about a policy on use of {{nihongo}} to provide katakana for every. single. character name. E.g. Goemon (series). Axem Titanium (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've got a feeling this should be determined by the length of a game's foreign language title: for instance, the lead of Final Fantasy Type-0 doesn't seem overly long to me, while something like Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga is rather large from the inclusion of katakana and romaji. A single long title can be seen in Dragon Quest Heroes: The World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below, which is properly gigantic. Mind you, this could make things overly complicated, so it might be easier to make something like this a footnote for all titles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the more caveats you add, the more editors will try to find ways to weasel out of them. Better to have a cut and dry rule, IMO. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Understood. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree too, especially it seems like a lot of the time its drive-by or newbie editors - it'd be best to make it simple to explain and understand... Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
How about a suggested minimum length of characters before a foreign name should generally be moved to a footnote? Seems to me that once something goes over 50-or-so characters, it could be moved into a footnote. Of course, this could be used as a general guideline. ~Mable (chat) 18:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree; I always thought that "Metal Gear Solid (Japanese: メタルギアソリッド Hepburn: Metaru Gia Soriddo)" wasn't particularly necessary to mention. --Soetermans. T / C 09:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I consider nihongo templates overly excessive if the game's title is "western" to begin with, even if it is a Japanese-developed game. Example cases would be Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy, where even the Japanese title is a katakana rendering of the western title. In cases such as Toukiden (討鬼伝?), however, the Japanese name in the lead paragraph would make more sense. Perhaps something should be written in the VG guidelines which points out when it is best not to add Japanese names to the lead paragraph? --benlisquareTCE 10:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Should multi-platform Reception charts be removed? Part II[edit]

Continuing on from this link here, I was following the rules by using multi-platform Reception charts for only two to four console versions, and yet broke the "not too tall, not too wide" rules by reverting them all to Standard Reception charts and using improper English on the following articles: Burnout (video game), Burnout 2: Point of Impact, Burnout 3: Takedown, Burnout Revenge, Burnout Legends, Burnout Dominator, Burnout Crash!, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2002, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2000, Tiger Woods 99 PGA Tour Golf , and Minority Report: Everybody Runs. Could somebody do something about it? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I remodified Reception charts to multi-platform for two to four games, dropped the GameRankings digits to two, and removed aggregator scores from prose on all articles, and I did it all by myself, if that makes you happy. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, it's your choice. But for me, it's the standard reception charts because it doesn't take up/waste too much space by filling in N/A to review websites that don't have publication reviews on a port such as iOS, but it's your choice which one to use. And can you please stop using the word "improper English" because that is a very rude and hypocritical thing to say and that completely disrespects the Wikipedia guidelines. (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'll be careful and watch my manners and language next time, okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Quest subtitles in the page name[edit]

According to WP:SUBTITLES, it's preferred to omit the subtitle in the page name. Does anybody oppose this? If not, I'll ask User:Anthony Appleyard to move them. The other main series Dragon Quest already omit the subtitle. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen > Dragon Quest IV
  2. Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride > Dragon Quest V
  3. Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Revelation > Dragon Quest VI
  4. Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King > Dragon Quest VIII
  5. Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies > Dragon Quest IX
In the general, WP:SUBTITLES needs to be balanced with WP:DISAMBIG. In the specific case of video games, it seems to me we have a large number of articles including subtitles outside Dragon Quest. I'm not sure it's sensible to move Dragon Quest around and no others, if we think that SUBTITLES is something we should care about. --Izno (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, I don't believe we should apply a naming convention guideline meant for books to video games. :P --Izno (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Also if we do decided to remove subtitles we should not remove them for games that use them but don't have any Roman or Arbaric numerals to denote sequels (ex the Zelda and the ace Attoney series).-- (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been applying SUBTITLES for years. I don't think the idea is to blindly chop the subtitle off, but to see what the sources use. If the sources refer to "Chapters of the Chosen" instead of "Dragon Quest IV" throughout the reviews, then there would be a strong case to keep the subtitle as a necessary part of the common name. (I don't think it needs to be all or nothing for the series.) This said, reviews rarely use the subtitle alone and it's rarely ambiguous when the subtitle is not invoked often enough to be part of its common name. czar 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The policy you linked was originally only applied to books. It was unilaterally expanded to include "other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game" on April 27, 2013, on the basis of one person's suggestion at a completely unrelated discussion. As far as I can tell, the Film, Television, and Video games WikiProjects were not consulted about the change, nor provided any concerted project input to the discussion. My preference for subtitles has always been to include them in the article title wherever possible to aid in precision (except to the point where it crosses into nebulous "super long title" territory, e.g. Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden), but to omit them for reading flow as necessary in the prose. A prime example is an article I'm currently working on: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, when Final Fantasy XIV exists. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I understand, but there is only one Dragon Quest IX, so would that still apply? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm very much opposed. WP:SUBTITLES points to WP:CONCISE. That says "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area". There is also WP:PRECISION: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". How is having article titles like The Elder Scrolls V, Metal Gear Solid 3 or Assassin's Creed IV more "concise" or more "precise" than having the actual title of the game? I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies either, because then we would wind up with titles like Skyrim, MGS3 or AC:BF. Besides, what's keeping us from changing a guideline? --Soetermans. T / C 09:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Nothing, I just thought it was inconsistent with the other DQ games (Dragon Quest II and III don't have the subtitles listed) Would it be better for articles that don't have the subtitles in the name, to add them? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I say we should. We can't have inconsistencies like this. What has been pointed out already is that the subtitles guidelines was decided elsewhere that it should apply to video games also. --Soetermans. T / C 08:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the actual official title (unless it's super duper long) is the most concise and precise name that requires the least amount of interpretation to arrive at, and a worthy basis for a project-wide style guideline. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
...the common name is what sources use most often to refer to something. So I think there's a solid case for Skyrim as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim‍‍ '​‍s common name. How does the game's title appear in sources? When sources use the subtitle just as much as the series name+number, it makes sense to keep both (I imagine Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag would fall in that category). Again, the subtitles shouldn't be unequivocally chopped off but reflective of how the sources refer to the game. If the subtitle is rarely used in reviews, it should absolutely be removed per the guideline as is established practice. czar 15:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly the point I tried to convey, most omit the subtitles when talking about the main series DQ games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Video game articles are rarely called their common name, which I still think is a good thing, because most of WP:VG/RS is, in the end, still written for an audience familiar with video games. So we have articles starting with Call of Duty, not COD. GTA 5 is a common abbreviation, but the article's title is Grand Theft Auto V. Sources use The Phantom Pain, we have Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. James Cameron's Avatar: The Game is called, understandably, Avatar. Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie is called King Kong in reliable sources. In the end, most "common names" for video games is just a VG/RS dropping half of the title or using its initials. --Soetermans. T / C 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles is a WP policy and it explains why "GTA V" would not be a sufficient for most people to know what it was. The full yet subtitle-less name is usually the most concise and precise name over the abbreviation. I also cannot recall a single move request to an abbreviation like COD or GTA in my years here. Again, The Phantom Pain is not sufficient for recognizing the subject and I just moved PJ's KK (while distinguishing from the film by the same name). czar 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Though I agree that with video games, we should usually use the official name for articles (though I doubt anyone would want to rename Call of Duty to "COD" ;p), I was wondering about Street Fighter II: The World Warrior - I've never even known Street Fighter II had a subtitle until I was redirected to the article. I figured I'd bring it up now the topic is being discussed anyway. ~Mable (chat) 20:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

TWW is likely to distinguish it from all the other SFIIs. Sometimes the subtitle is better for distinguishing the title than the game's release year. czar 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sort of related, so I'm gonna ask about it in this thread. Gyakuten Kenji 2, the sequel to Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth, is almost always referred to as Ace Attorney Investigations 2 in English by reliable sources, and even by Capcom themselves. Should it be moved to Ace Attorney Investigations 2, despite how it has not actually been released in English? --IDVtalk 12:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support that based on a skim of the sources used in the article. (For those following the above, it's a better fit for recognizability and naturalness.) czar 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

More eyes on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources[edit]

Since sourcing is essential for a proper article here, this is a call to have more people to take a look and get involved with the Source talk page. There are a lot of sources that are being discussed on their reliability and consensus hasn't been reached for some of them. GamerPro64 16:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to be more active with it again... Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

More general language to avoid : calling out position on MC/GR w/o non-MC/GR source[edit]

This is a problem that I've seen come up for films too (particularly The Shawshank Redemption) in that editors will want to include a game's position on the overall MC/GR lists based on lists these sites have. I would argue that we should avoid using that type of approach, and only call out the MC/GR position if a secondary or third-party source does so (such as [1] that covers GTAV hitting the highest score in 2013, where a number of other games are listed). This avoids any type of potential OR that might come from favoritism (eg, does one consider only one platform, ignore other platforms a game came out of, etc.) as well as reflects the fact these lists remain dynamic. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ugh never do this. Hopeless to maintain and a largely meaningless metric. Not only are the publications different between games, but most likely different people reviewed them within the same publication. There's not even a basis for comparison at this point. You're not comparing apples to apples, you're comparing apples to cream of IKEA furniture soup garnished with the tears of the fallen 2016 Republican Presidential candidates. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Eyes on Masafumi Ogata[edit]

Can someone take a look at Masafumi Ogata? My redirect was reverted. czar 21:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I focus mainly on VGM and it's composers on Wikipedia (you might have noticed), but besides co-composing Sonic CD, he isn't notable at all. He's a better fit for Sega Retro. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but I need extra eyes/external judgment on these sorts of articles so it's not just me making broad strokes. I plan on bringing more cases to WT:VG so more people can watch & participate (instead of me writing tomes in isolation on the articles' talk pages). czar 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Help needed with K′ reception[edit]

In trying to add reception for the character of K′, one review that talked about him was removed from Gaming Age. I tried using the archive [2] to find in the Dreamcast section King of Fighters '99 Evolution but it gives me a mistake. Any possiblity to still find this source? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Formatting for DLC content titles[edit]

What is the proper way to format DLC content, if it is named, with italics or quotes? I've always done quotes because I felt that was the most appropriate. Or might it depend on what the content is? I'm wondering, due to it being brought up in the GA review for Batman: Arkham Knight. Here are some examples of its DLC, with the titles put in bold now for uniformity here. Example 1: story, playable DLC Batgirl: A Matter of Family. Example 2: Bat-family Skins pack, which includes six character skins based on alternate timelines for the playable characters of the game. If the format isn't uniform, would 1 be italics and 2 quotes? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am definitely not an expert, but I feel that if the DLC pretty much is its own work (new campaign, new levels, new story... that sort of thing), it should be in italics, and if it merely adds onto another work (like a costume pack or a new set of weapons or items), it should be in quotes.--IDVtalk 05:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with IDV. The scope and tone of, say, BioShock 2#Minerva's Den is not the same as Just Cause 2#Downloadable content. --Soetermans. T / C 08:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This doesn't come down to rules about size of the DLC—it's about what is and isn't a creative work. If Minerva's Den and Enter the Dominatrix are treated by sources as creative works (usually as standalone experiences distinct from the main game), then its title should be italicized. But the Bat-family Skins is just a proper noun—it doesn't even need quotation marks... unless you need to refer to it as some kind of discrete entity? In most cases, it's better to use a description of the DLC instead of "Bat-family Skins" (i.e., "Following the game's release, the company released a series of cosmetic downloadable content packs for purchase, including alternative character models for the main character.") The article's sources use no quotations, quotations, and italics in different places for "Batgirl: A Matter of Family", but the most common treatment is quotations. After it's first introduced in quotations (as a discrete entity alongside the other quoted DLC releases), I would drop the quotes and leave it a proper noun in title case (or, better, refer to it as the Batgirl story/whatever). czar 15:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm. It doesn't seem likely that the MLA/New York Times is going to come up with formatting rules for DLC anytime soon, but this is how it goes for written works and visual media:
  • Standalone creative works get italics (Book Title, Movie Name, TV Show)
  • Creative works that are a part of a larger whole get quotes ("Chapter 1", "Short Story in a Collection", "Episode Name")
  • Non-creative works get nothing
  • Note that TV episodes and Short stories, even though they could be a "standalone thing" that's read/watched on its own still get quotes, because they're part of a series or larger book. By that logic, the game is a standalone work (Batman: Arkham Knight), a DLC that is a creative work only exists as a part of the game ("Minerva's Den"), and a skin pack is just a thing (Bat-family Skins). I agree with Czar that it's usually less awkward to just drop the "name" of a skin pack/item pack and just say what it actually is in prose. --PresN 15:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input everyone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Potential alternative to Metacritic in the works[edit]

Before I begin, it's important to note that the site in question is still in its building stages and definitely not ready for consideration right now. However, I see that it has potential and worth keeping it in mind for sometime down the line.

I'll be blunt. Metacritic is problematic. Extremely problematic. It's a for-profit website that seems to have an undue influence not only on the public perception of a game, but also in some cases the payout of bonuses for developers. It has a deliberately hidden weighting system that obfuscates the basis of its primary metric, the metascore. Certain major publications are omitted for unpublicized reasons and the ones that are included may be subtly increased in weight for purposes unknown (read: money). A disingenuous Metacritic-reviewer-publisher industrial complex has developed in which publications which have "made the cut" to appear on Metacritic are favored by publishers and get review copies of games early. This Wikiproject's reliance (or over-reliance) on Metacritic scores to set the tone of a Reception section is also quite problematic, given the above. This has been discussed many times, but this particular discussion jumps out in my head. In including Metacritic on virtually every modern game reception section, we are contributing massively to the feedback loop echo chamber that is only amplifying Metacritic's power. Whether or not that's a bad thing is something I'd like to discuss more as a project but not here.

The new website is called OpenCritic. Here's the link to the FAQ. Pros:

  • It's not for profit, no chance for even the appearance of collusion
  • The "formula" for composite score is open: it's just a simple arithmetic mean
  • Unscored reviews are featured instead of excluded (but still don't contribute to composite score)
  • Sensitive to the current trend of "updated review scores" based on actual performance post-launch (e.g. SimCity, Halo Master Chief Collection, DriveClub, etc.)
  • Documented criteria for what publications have earned a spot in the system


  • Not currently planning to populate the back-catalog of games from before 10/1/2015. They have about ~1000 major releases of the past three years which fit some criteria outlined in the FAQ but they only claim "comprehensive coverage" for all games released post 10/1/2015
  • No 3DS and Vita (yet?)

I just wanted to get this site on people's radar as a potential alternative to Metacritic when/if it becomes comprehensive enough to rival the big MC. I had previously argued for the inclusion of GameRankings because its mere presence (even if potentially unduely high) dilutes the monopoly that Metacritic has established. Hopefully OpenCritic will become a resource that provides the same function as Metacritic without the caveats and problems. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I made a draft for the article: Draft:OpenCritic. Sources for it are hidden in the References section but if anyone wants to help make it into an article that would be great. GamerPro64 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Draft expanded. It should be ready to be moved, but would rather have someone else check that. Note that the site's logo should be PD-textlogo (too simple to be copyrighted), though a screenshot of the website would of course be copyrighted if it uses game images. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Mainspaced it. And I think OpenCritic might be a swell source to use in the future. Probably also help offset the controversies Metacritic bares. GamerPro64 00:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think it should be a consideration for WP:VG/RS, as well as for inclusion on {{Video game reviews}}, in the future. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see how the rest of the industry reacts to this before we solidify it as a source. I would say that if we don't use it for reception including an external link to the game's page on OC would be easily within the realm of reason. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course, we should definitely wait and see how the site is received beforehand. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, we definitely need to wait and see how this goes, and if/how well its adapted to the industry. I hate to be the only negative one here, but sometimes hyped things like this flop. A few years ago a lot of people thought that the Ouya was going to redefine the industry, and we know how that turned out... Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"reviews are presented with the review author's name listed" I take it Edge won't be on Open Critic then? Seeing as they never list reviewer names in order to allow the reviewer freedom to say what they want. - X201 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

adding opencritic to the videogame template[edit]

This is an alternative to metacritic that is transparent in calculation method and includes editorial reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait a little bit before adding it to the template. The sites three days old. Though I will say I like what I'm seeing from it so far. GamerPro64 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree we need to wait to use it on the template, but as I mentioned before I can fairly see an EL to the site on game pages that have it. --MASEM (t)
For the sake of keeping everything in the one place, I'd suggest continuing the discussion within the thread made earlier: #Potential alternative to Metacritic in the works. --benlisquareTCE 15:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Navbox style?[edit]

Does someone know of a general guideline on video game series navboxes? WP:VG/T doesn't say anything about them. Is there a reason to shorten titles? For instance, {{Borderlands series}}, was changed, from Borderlands 2 to 2, from Tales from the Borderlands to Tales. Is this necessary? Does this save space? Would the general reader automatically assume that 2 is short for Borderlands 2? Or {{Fallout series}}, with Fallout: New Vegas as New Vegas? Or the {{Assassin's Creed}} games, dropping Assassin's Creed from the link? --Soetermans. T / C 10:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no guideline. I like to shorten because it helps the reader to more quickly identify the page they are looking for, as they already know the context is "X topic" and the game "X game". There's a discussion in there about accessibility to be had, but that's really only a question for the 1-numeral games such as Borderlands 2 being shortened to 2, IMO. --Izno (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, more to the point, one single character is a lot tougher to click than the series title plus that character. Tezero (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but when you have a bunch of games in a row with similar names and no shortening, you end up with a sea of blue links where most of the words are repeated. --PresN 15:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Single digits are passable when everything in that line is a single digit. When you start getting sub-titles and single digits mixed together it looks a mess and is a navigational pain. - X201 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe its generally acceptable, though in the templates I maintain, I only do it if the naming structure is the same in every title. I usually revert it if the naming structure differs. For example:
Acceptable - Assassin's Creed * 2 * 3
Not Acceptable - Borderlands * Tales
I'd only keep the "Tales" version, for example, had the title been literally been Borderland Tales, which it of course, was not. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems like potayto/potahto aesthetic fixes for stuff that ain't broke. I can see it working with numerical sequel titles like Assassin's Creed 2/3/etc. but with names that don't follow a consistent format like the Tales from the Borderlands -> Tales one, it doesn't seem very intuitive for someone unfamiliar with the series (like me!) to look at that and surmise what the title actually is. @ClassicOnAStick:, comments? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
What about New Vegas, keep Fallout or drop it? Or say, {{Five Nights at Freddy's}}? --Soetermans. T / C 17:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
While I did come up with the question after seeing @ClassicOnAStick:'s edits, I by no means mean that those are somehow incorrect :) --Soetermans. T / C 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I dunno, I'm no expert, but... for FNAF, I would say that since that new "FNAF World" game isn't structured with the full name (Five Nights at Freddy's) as part of its official title/common name like the other entries, just the acronym, I would say it should be 2 - 3 - 4 - FNAF World, but I don't feel strongly enough about the aesthetic difference to disagree with 2 - 3 - 4 - World; at most it would just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT grumbling from me over personal preference. As for the Fallout one, it's more cut-and-dry for me; Fallout: New Vegas consists of a subtitle that doesn't have an unusual structure in comparison to other entries, and I'm pretty sure New Vegas is referred to as such often in RSes and is also easily recognizable by readers as what game it may be. I think it would be better as 2 - 3 - New Vegas - 4, but I wouldn't be bothered that much by it being done differently. My 2 cents-- again, over aesthetic differences that I don't really think make a huge difference to the WP reader's experience overall... ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 17:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops, forgot FNAF World is a spin-off that's in it's own row, but yeah. Just took a proper look at the FNAF navbox, and yeah, those IMO shouldn't all be written out in full. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - 18:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
My 2 cents - If Five Nights at Freddy's World is on its own row, then I'd write it out fully. If one were to merge it up to the mainline level, then I'd shorten it to World. Same with the Fallout template. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion at Crytek UK[edit]

See Talk:Crytek UK#Requested move 3 October 2015. --Mika1h (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about character lists[edit]

I keep running into stuff like DC_Universe_Online#Characters, or Marvel:_Contest_of_Champions#Playable_characters, and, again, Disney_Infinity_3.0#Characters. As is my understanding of WP:VGSCOPE, lists of in-game characters is not appropriate. These characters are an important element to the games, but from an article point-of-view, there is no description whatsoever about their gameplay aspect. Should these lists stay or go? --Soetermans. T / C 12:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If an pre-existing character's appearance in a game is notable, I am sure we can figure out how to let readers know about it through the prose. We're not a game guide or a game wiki; we're an encyclopedia. These kinds of lists are generally useless. In the case of Disney Infinity, it is somewhat more complicated, though... ~Mable (chat) 12:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, we've been more lenient with character lists in crossover type games, where the characters are a little more core to the concept... Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am leaning towards accepting character list for licensed video game, or video game based on existing books/comics/films, but only if those characters are playable. They are something that makes these games different from others after all. I feel like character in these cases are similar to song lists for rhythm games. They offer no new information about gameplay but they are the most important aspect of the game. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless sources discuss the set of characters as important, it is likely unnecessary to address them as a group. With your linked character tables, the stuff about the retailers, wave, release dates, pack names are all video game trivia. But I'd say that even the character names is overkill. The article can mention specific characters with the weight in which they're used in supporting sources. czar 17:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    I agree. Shall we expand WP:VGSCOPE a bit to mention this? --Soetermans. T / C 10:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    VGSCOPE #5 and #6 are relevant. I see no reason for expansion for either. That said, a list of characters is rarely inappropriate, but can usually be covered best in the context of the plot or in a dedicated article/list. Contrast however VGSCOPE #10, which says cast lists are appropriate in some cases--which implies that embedded character lists are appropriate in some cases (I think my point about coverage in the context of the plot is still salient in the case of "cast lists" but on a per-article basis there may be reason to separate that out into its own section, as plots can be cluttered by such things). --Izno (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Lists of characters are always appropriate. WP:IAR any electronic book burners try to come up with any bogus pseudo-policies telling you otherwise! :) -- (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    IAR isn't a license to do whatever you want though, without any actual rationale or reasoning given, comments like that are just going to be disregarded... Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

VG templates for deletion[edit]

Checking the VG templates, I've nominated a couple for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_5. --Soetermans. T / C 10:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And another one. --Soetermans. T / C 12:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mushihimesama Futari[edit]

user_talk:czar proposed merging Mushihimesama Futari to Mushihimesama#Sequel. I believe the article has enough mention/external sources to be notable for an article by itself as per Reliable Sources for Video Games [3]) as stated under WP:VG/RS. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 09:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Dark Souls series[edit]

I notice that the page for the Dark Souls series was renamed to Souls (series). However... there is no "Souls" series.

Dark Souls is the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls, not the sequel. The page in question states as much itself, as do the Eurogamer article it cites, the pages for the individual games, and those pages' own citations. Also note that Hidetaka Miyazaki, the director of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, directly states "Dark Souls series" in interviews such as this one.

I believe it would actually be a violation of copyright for Dark Souls to be part of the same series as Demon's Souls, as Demon's Souls is a Sony IP. This is why From came up with a separate IP and developed a spiritual successor instead. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There was already a discussion about this. Souls Series is the WP:COMMONNAME. And if you want sources, in this interview with Eurogamer, Hidetaka Miyazaki says that his favorite boss from the "Souls" series is a boss from Demon's Souls. CurlyWi (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm finding it difficult to consider it a series at all. But if any name is suitable, then I htink it would be "Souls". That's what I think I've heard it called most often. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel that the series page should make some distinction that the name is a term of art rather than a proper "series" name (ala Call of Duty). I don't have a problem with the grouping of the games together as it does, sources clearly support that, but I do think that "Souls" is not as much a proper name but a shortcut for lack of a proper name. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind, reading that article carefully, the only person calling it "Souls" is Jeffrey Matulef (the Eurogamer writer), not Miyazaki. That shows that "Souls" is a term adopted by the press, but not any official name. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
That's the whole WP:COMMONNAME discussion again... Is one source (I don't know if there are more) enough to call it the series Souls? And more importantly, are we going to consider Demon's Souls a Souls game? Sony might own the IP to Demon's, it was developed by From. While not an actual Souls title, Demon's Souls is similar in tone and gameplay. I am not familiar with Dark Souls; are the games narratively connected? If so, does it refer to Demon's? If not, I'd call the series' article Dark Souls and mention Demon's as a spiritual predecessor. --Soetermans. T / C 15:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) As far as I can tell, only the Dark Souls duology have any kind of plot connection, and then only a very tenuous one. Demon's Souls is its own entity (Dark Souls is a "spiritual successor" rather than a sequel of any kind), as is Bloodborne. The only "series" connection between any of them is their dark tone and hardcore gameplay, which isn't as strong a connection by any means as many other series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
On top of that, Demon's Souls is itself the spiritual successor to the King's Field series. If being spiritual successor is a strong enough relationship for different works to be considered part of the same series for the purposes of this wiki, then the article should be merged into King's Field (series). Splatterhouse5 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear from any basic search that (1) sources refer to Demon/Dark Souls as a series, and (2) they call this series the Souls series. From the first page of hits without any quoted text in search: [4][5][6][7][8]. It has less to do with what its creators call it as much as what the sources call it, as that's what we're using to substantiate an article (a.k.a. its common name). czar 15:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • This is why I think we should have an article but we should be clear that "Souls" series is a name adapted by the press and far from any official capacity. Instead of "The Souls series of video games devloped by From Software." we should state "The Souls series is a term-of-art used by the video game press to refer to several video games developed by From Software feature common gameplay elements and themes but otherwise not linked in any narrative fashion." (roughly). --MASEM (t) 16:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
      Wouldn't "The Souls series refers to ..." suffice? I.e., phrase it such that it doesn't imply official status. I think the extra detail about what journalists do strays close to original research. It would be better to follow-up with a source citation that says so if the dev doesn't see the series as a series. czar 16:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
      • That works too. I would just want to make sure that it's set as a non-official designation for the set of games. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    Those links don't prove that Souls is the common name for the series, only that three media outlets have called it such. And only sometimes; each has also used Dark Souls as the name of the series. [9][10][11] Furthermore, it's not just that the creators choose to call the series Dark Souls. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are legally distinct IPs with separate ownership rights. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Personally, I would move Demons Souls to the Related titles section. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


I think anyone should take a look at Godzil's statement in Talk:WonderSwan#To Hounder4 and any other try to revert correction. -- Hounder4 12:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding expansion packs to a company's games list[edit]

So a user states that because other articles list expansion packs to their main games in their work list, such as BioWare, Obsidian and Bethesda, the CD Projekt RED article should as well. My argument when reverting him is that these expansion packs have their own articles, while the ones for The Witcher 3 just redirect to a small subsection on the main article, so I didn't think they were that notable to be listed. Opinions? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There's the red link/redirect aspect of "you will never know those pages exist in that context without red(irecting) links to the articles". Then there's the "this isn't a WP:NAVBOX problem nor a WP:WTAF problem". My feeling is that including the links is not a problem in this context and will enable navigation from the developer's list of games. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Premature GANs[edit]

So I've just noticed that Lucasstar1 has rapidly nominated five Sonic articles at GAN, all of which they have not contributed to and will most definitely fail once reviewed. Sonic the Hedgehog CD still has numerous citation needed tags and a big "verification needed" tag at the top. Sonic Heroes and Sonic Colour‍ '​s leads are too short and just will not pass. I left a message on his talk page asking if he would be interested to contribute to the articles instead of nominating them or if he would withdraw the GANs. I don't want to discourage him, but it would put my mind to ease if I just removed all the nominations now and help him improve the articles if he's really interested. Should they be removed? JAGUAR  16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think they should. Editors shouldn't throw things at the wall and hope something sticks. Especially when its editors who barely edited on the article. If at all. GamerPro64 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Lucastar1 should be contacted too just in case.Tintor2 (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Quick fail them, or whatever the not-WP:BITEy way is at GA. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the GANs from the talk pages and let Lucasstar know that they would have been failed without improvements made. It would saved somebody reviewing them just to quick-fail them, I suppose. I didn't want him to feel discouraged from improving anything, so I explained that I might be able to help him out if he's interested. JAGUAR  16:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw these pop up on my watchlist earlier today but didn't have the time to do anything about it. I would have done the same, I maintain a lot of those articles, and they aren't quite GA-ready. (Sonic Generations actually failed a GAN years ago, and really hasn't been reworked since...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)