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
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

Question on the difference between a video game controversy vs criticism[edit]

I've started working on Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and I had a question on what is technically defined as a controversy. Obviously, No Russian, and the allegations of homophobic content with the F.A.G.S. video and Don't ask, don't tell easter egg were controversial, but the article also lists three other "controversies". One was that the PC port didn't support dedicated servers, which led to boycotts from the PC community; another was the Javelin glitch, which rendered the multiplayer unplayable for the first few weeks, and cost $40,000 to fix (at least according to this); and the third is a painting in a bathroom that had to be removed when the words "Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty" were discovered, which is forbidden in Islam. Are these three controversies or just criticisms. Even though just about every major game site covered these stories, I always thought that controversy meant that journalists outside the video game industry found it to be controversial. Just wanted to make sure. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If it has been covered outside of the usual circle of video game sources, then its reasonable to address it as a controversy, but I don't think this is a requirement to be something considered a controversy; there are ones that occur w/o outside sources commenting on it. But I would be careful to label things that involve player expectation (like the dedicated PC server thing or the Javelin thing) as "controversy", since this can be easily overblown by a few articles. It would be a controversial issue, but not necessary a full-blown controversy. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, anytime it sounds more like its just the fanbase whining. (No dedicated servers, small gameplay tweaks, etc), I relegate it more to a criticism description. (If sources can be found at all - frequently you'll see its just unattributed complaints from "fans" that didn't even get coverage from sources, its just whining from user reviews and comment sections. I tend to not use "controversy" unless sources are literally using the term, but as Masem says, if it seems like issue is getting a lot of sources dedicated to it from outside the smaller video game websites, that's probably a starting point for an argument for it too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
To your point about sources, the PC port was well documented by sources, with 2 Game Informer articles, 2 by Ars Techia, 3 by Kotaku, 2 by Destructoid, as well as a GameIndustry.biz, 1UP, and IGN article. So I feel as though it may have received enough coverage to constitute a section in the Controversies article. The Javelin glitch was coverage by 6 sources, but 4 of them just say that the glitch has been patched, and given the fact that major glitches are bound to happen in the multiplayer mode of big games, I don't see it as a controversy. The final topic was the Favela painting, which, while covered again by a decent amount of sources, most of them just say the map was removed over criticism and then replaced, without giving their opinions on the matter like the F.A.G.S. video. So with that being said, I'll remove the Javelin and Favela painting sections, but keep the PC port section for now. It can always be removed later. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Just rereading the PC server aspect, I agree it is a controversy, in that it appears that most at the time considered the locking down of server control on the PC side to be insulting, and not just an aspect of gamer entitlement, so it is proper to include. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Masem and Sergecross73: So something just came to my attention. After the release of Modern Warfare 2, Infinity Ward founders Vincent Zampella and Jason West filed a lawsuit against Activision. While I haven't looked too much into the lawsuit, it appears that it's focused on Zampella's and West's roles in the company, not on the game itself. So I'm assuming that it shouldn't go in the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree the Zampella/West lawsuit was broader than just MW2 , so should not be included. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I know this is a strange scope for an article, but what are the grounds for splitting it out, exactly? I'm not seeing coverage that discusses "controversies of MW2" as an independent topic, so we're looking at why it was split summary style from the article. The controversy article appears to consist of major post-release events that should all be covered within the main article (and not as a "controversy" section, which we avoid) and only split out summary style as necessary. The No Russian split was certainly warranted, but I see the best endgame for the rest of the content merged into the main article. czar 23:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, this one's a tough one for me. I personally feel that article is justified, since a number of the sources used also mention the other controversies, and how they just kept on piling on top of each other. There's even this Daily Telegraph article about how the game managed to sell well despite the controversy surrounding it. Personally, I'd like to keep it. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Czar, Masem, and Sergecross73: Just wanted to make sure you guys saw this. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, the issue is that "controversies of MW2" is not an independently notable concept discussed by sources (perhaps the topics are individually discussed but not as a group) so this is a split. But then the main article doesn't actually cover this stuff in detail, which it should before it's split out. On my last read, I remember seeing extraneous info that would only be relevant if the minutiae of the events were important... but in any event, the topics should only be split out if they can't be given due weight (proportional to the coverage) in the parent article. czar 21:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, which articles do you want to split? The GA review of the controversy article is on hold and awaiting the outcome of the merge(?) discussion. The article meets the 'broad in scope' part of the criteria IMO, given how many sources there are for it. For future reference, I am really really tired when writing this and can't bring myself to understand anything. JAGUAR  22:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The controversy article is ostensibly a split from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2#Controversy, though the latter section is gutted. I suggested merging the controversy article back into the section and see what actually remains. If everything fits in the section, we don't need a separate article. The question becomes whether there is too much necessary content to not split out the concept. I'd wager that "MW2 controversies" is not an independently notable topic. No Russian definitely is, but the other stuff appears to be jammed in (a.k.a. the controversy article functions as a coat rack) czar 20:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here... :)[edit]

[1] --MASEM (t) 00:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Casual readers may not notice that the English Wikipedia’s video game articles are usually written to a set of stringent guidelines that can set them apart from other articles on the site." That's one way of saying that we have very high standards here. Anyway, congrats Masem.GamerPro64 00:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Being active in this project has given me a good sense of the kind of guidelines I should try to adhere, and I hold on to that knowledge when writing about other topics on Wikipedia, like webcomics. I wanted to add that I strongly appreciate this project's standards, as they influenced me a lot. The low barrier of entry of contemporary topics with a large web presence of course also helps :) Congratz, Masem, that's a very nice interview. Good read~ ~Mable (chat) 00:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course, the average Wikipedia editor is an English-speaking male millenial, and so is the average gamer, so it makes sense that VG-related articles would be amongst or most well-attended-to topics. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  12:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Are there any actual numbers on this? Back when I edited the Swedish Wikipedia regularly, I got the impression that most editors were men in their 40s and up. It's harder to get a sense of what the ENWP "community" looks like since it's so much bigger.--IDVtalk 13:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice to see the guidelines mentioned outside of editing disputes. On a related note, I was also featured in a similar post about Pokémon Go last month, if anybody cares. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Nice, Dissident! I'm getting jealous of all you Wikimedia-famous people :p ~Mable (chat) 12:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread (Missing) No. 26[edit]

Since we've got a severe backlog of stuff, here's a new review thread to bring things more to the fore. Some of the GA nominations here have been hanging around for over two months!

FAC
  • Ellie (The Last of Us) (nom): On its second FAC, active since 27 June, and currently has four supports.
  • Rare Replay (nom): Active since 4 July, and currently has one support and three sets of comments.
  • Dota 2 (nom): On its second FAC, active since 12 July, and with no supports and a lot of comments. Closed.
  • Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward (nom): Active since 20 July, and currently has one support and two sets of comments.
GAN
Other

I hope anyone here is willing to contribute to clearing the backlog here. I don't have anything I can offer personally at this moment, but as per usual, I'm creating a "Begging thread" for editors to exchange reviews/comments/ect. I am barred from the currently-nominated Deus Ex, Shin Megami Tensei and Fire Emblem games due to them being my own nominations. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Begging thread[edit]

  • I'm getting a bit worried about the lack of activity on the Virtue's Last Reward FAC. If anyone would be willing to do a review of it, I'll do a review of any video game FAC or PR of your choosing, or any GAN except Fire Emblem Fates, Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne and Deus Ex: Human Revolution (I'm okay with doing The Missing Link, however).--IDVtalk 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain, Czar, Omni Flames, PresN, Anarchyte, Gamingforfun365, ProtoDrake, GamerPro64, and AdrianGamer: Pinging people with current nominations, as I don't know how often everyone checks the WikiProject talk page.--IDVtalk 16:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I owe a review on Zero Escape; I'll try to do it tomorrow. Famous Hobo already reviewed my last FLC, I don't need another trade (unless you just love Commander Keen games, of course, like all right-thinking people). --PresN 01:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Trouble at the Metroidvania page[edit]

Over the last couple of months, User:Phediuk has taken it upon himself to create a bloated and inaccurate table purporting to list Metroidvania games. His methodology is to simply take any game that a source has indicated has a feature similar to Metroid and add it to this list of Metroidvanias. This would be akin to labeling every movie with a shootout a Western regardless of its setting or other characteristics. The definitive and largely unchallenged definition of a Metroidvania is a 2D side-scroller featuring, combat, platforming, a continuous world, and the need to backtrack and overcome obstacles through the use of inventory upgrades (see, for example, this quite thorough Gamasutra article). Unfortunately, Phediuk has so far reverted every attempt to trim the list to include only those games that are actually part of the genre. Therefore, to avoid edit-warring, more eyes are needed on this. Indrian (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • First off, I've only included games that sources have explicitly noted as similar to Metroid, which is what matters for the list. Your opinion on what should count and what should not is pretty much irrelevant; it's not our job to make sure the list rigidly adheres to some arbitrary definition. Second, there is considerable variance in the definition of the genre. A few examples below:
      • VentureBeat: "a non-linear platformer".
      • Matt Fox, The Video Games Guide; "[A] non-linear platform game" (189).
      • USGamer "Games that, like Metroid and the latter-day Castlevanias, revolve around non-linear exploration, acquiring permanent power-ups, and advancing into the adventure with the help of the tool and weapon upgrades you collect along the way."
      • PocketGamer "Then games like Metroid came along, offering massive interconnected worlds that you could explore at your leisure - as you hunt for upgrades and items that will let you bypass obstacles. They're all about exploration, making maps (mental and paper ones), and soaking in the atmosphere."
      • GamesTM 116: "a classification of two-dimensional side-scrolling videogame in an open-world environment, containing platforms to naivgate, where progress is dependent on item acquisition and non-linear world exploration" (148).
      • Paste Magazine: "all [Metroidvanias] need is to bear some mechanical similarities to Metroid and mid-period Castlevania, the two franchises from which this “genre” took its name. This translates into in-game platforms, exploration elements and serialized item collection."
  • As you can see, some don't mention a platforming element at all, while others make it central; some restrict it to 2D games, others don't; some emphasize the interconnected world, while others require simply some degree of non-linearity; some mention permanent upgrades, while others include any kind of item acquisition, and others don't even mention items. The point being, pretty much every source defines the genre differently, even disagreeing on what its name should be. There is no universal set of criteria that a game must meet to be considered "like Metroid"; all that matters is that the source considers the game to be so. Phediuk (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Every source you have posted here (including the VentureBeat source that later in the same article says there is more to the definition than merely "non-linear platformer") agrees on the basic point that a Metroidvania requires progress through a continuous world through inventory upgrades. You are putting games on the list that do not adhere to that definition like Jet Set Willy, Shadow of the Beast, Saboteur, and Thexder. Again, just because a game is influenced by some aspect of Metroid or has one gameplay element similar to Metroid does not make it part of a genre. And the sources you are using do not define these games as Metroidvanias. For example, the sources for Turrican, a run-and-gun that took inspiration from Metroid for its morph ball and weapons but does not gate progression through inventory upgrades, merely states that its "a close relation to Metroid" and features "taut-Metroid-esque gameplay." That is drawing parallels between two games, not genre classification. Is every film starring military personnel a war movie? Indrian (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • The VentureBeat source doesn't prescribe any of those elements to the genre; in fact, it opens up the article by simply saying "nonlinear platformer". True, it later describes elements that made Super Metroid a particularly potent example, but it also doesn't mandate those to the genre at large, it simply discusses them as elements that led to Super's hallowed reputation. The article says, and I quote, "Most Metroidvanias that came before lacked refinement, which makes sense given that many NES games were fairly rough. Super Metroid is just leagues better..." So yes, the genre existed beforehand, and furthermore, the article uses the term "nonlinear platformer" interchangeably with it. As for the war movie point, if the source referred to it as a war movie, then yes, I would add it. Likewise, if the source used a slight variation on the term "war movie", such as "war drama movie" or "war combat movie", I would certainly still add it. Phediuk (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If the list is to be kept, I think it should be split into List of Metroidvania games, or something similar. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree Wuthering Anarchyte: having such a list in the Metroidvania page makes no sense. As for whether this is a proper way to establish a list of Metroidvania games, I sincerely doubt that as well. The ideal sources for any Wikipedia list would be articles or books that also include lists, such as a "top 10 best Metroidvania games". Such lists put these items next to exothermic and establish "Yes, there is a connection between all these. When it comes to lists of works that fall within a specific genre, I feel like just categorizing then is fine. This list of Metroidvania games simply doesn't have any real content other than being sortable on release date and such. At the very least, I'd love to see the table split, with Pensford the "Metroidvania-ness" of actual Metroid and Castlevania games being under discussion in an earlier section/table. We need something to give this list a reason to exist. ~Mable (chat) 09:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with moving the list to List of Metroidvania games. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • That's all fine and good, but we also need to make sure the list is populated by actual Metroidvanias as defined in reliable sources. The other important issue is that Phediuk is adding games like Jet Set Willy, Shadow of the Beast, Saboteur, and Thexder that do not fit the definition and are not referred as such in sources. He is just taking every game that a source lists as having any elements similar to Metroid and putting them all on the list.Indrian (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Only to add that 1) when I built out the Metroidvania page to start, the list was short enough to have been easily kept within in, the number of titles added since beg that question and 2) I did ask Phediuk when they started adding to the list to make sure that unless it was a blue-linked game, to make sure they were all sourced. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • He is sourcing, but in many cases the source is just identifying certain gameplay elements as similar to or influenced by Metroid. A source needs to identify the game as falling within the genre. Indrian (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
        • This is false. Shadow of the Beast is explicitly referred to as "Metroidvania-esque" in the source, and both Jet Set Willy and Thexder are identified as immediate predecessors to Metroid. I have not added everything that shares an element with Metroid, but only such games where the source affirms an overall similarity or close relation in gameplay. Please act in good faith. Phediuk (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
          • The suffix "esque" is defined as "resembling." That phrase means it is similar to a Metroidvania, but not actually a Metroidvania. Language matters. Indrian (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
            • It's a common variant used in reference to the genre, as with "Metroid-style", "Metroid-like", and "Metroid-esque". You are splitting hairs here. Phediuk (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
              • Shadow of the Beast is an action game that takes place in a large continuous overworld, which is the only part of the game that is "Metroid-esque." It features no inventory-based progression, which is required by pretty much every definition of Metroidvania including the ones you have provided above. It's not splitting hairs: you are going against the definitions in reliable sources, making your determination original research. Indrian (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                • Shadow of the Beast does not have to conform to any individual definition of the genre. First off, to do so would be an inappropriate synthesis of sources, since these articles aren't responding to each other or anything, and many different definitions exist regardless; second, even the point that I'm defying the definitions doesn't hold up, since two sources refer to "Metroidvanias" as simply non-linear platformers, which SOTB certainly is; and third, the source already refers to it as "Metroidvania-esque". I'm not going against anything, I'm quoting the source, and yes, debating the difference between "Metroidvania-esque", "Metroid-esque" and "Metroidvania" is hair-splitting, and I would prefer not to have to gather bunch of sources to demonstrate this quite simple point, but if you insist further, I will. Phediuk (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                • This is basically why I recommended using listacles as sources, as they would actually put different metroidvania games side-by-side without there being any question of whether "Metroid-like" or "Metroidvania-esque" means its a metroidvania or not. Regardless, I'd recommend getting rid of this list at this point, as it's just way too long and doesn't have any value that Category:Metroidvania games doesn't already have. ~Mable (chat) 16:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
              • I would be careful equating "Metroid-like" to "Metroidvania". There's elements of the latter that the original Metroid game lacked to a degree. One could argue that a "Metroid-like" game is one that has platforming and shooting elements, but not necessarily the RPG-ish connected world aspects. On the other hand, if someone compares a game to SOTN without actually explicitly saying Metroidvania, that's likely still a good reason to consider it a Metroidvania since SOTN is considered the ur example. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                • Nah, there's already reliable sources referring to the original Metroid as a Metroidvania. In fact, similarity to Metroid is practically the only thing all the definitions agree on. Phediuk (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                  • How about games that are similar to Metroid in controls or atmosphere, Phediuk? Using the definition "similar to Metroid" doesn't always work. Games that are similar to Symphony of the Night but aren't akin to Metroid at all may also be considered metroidvania by sources. I don't believe a simple "Metroid-like" quote is enough to categorize a game under Category:Metroidvania games. ~Mable (chat) 16:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                    • Those types of cases (i.e., merely similarity in aesthetic) have not been added; I've only utilized "Metroid-style", "Metroid-like", etc., when the source is clearly referring to similarity in gameplay. If the source refers to similarity to Metroid both aesthetic and gameplay, all the better. Phediuk (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                      • Similarity in gameplay =/= same genre. Breakout and Space Invaders have incredibly similar gameplay in which the player controls an object located at the bottom of the screen and destroys objects arrayed at the top of the screen. In fact, Breakout is a direct antecedent of Space Invaders as it served as one of the designer's main influences. No one calls Breakout a fixed shooter or shmup though, just as no one would call Space Invaders a ball-and-paddle game. Practically every definition of Metroidvania, including those both of us provided here from sources, require inventory-upgrade-based progression. The definition is not nearly as vague as you continually attempt to protray it. To expand to all games that are referred to as having "Metroid-like" elements is original research that goes against the sources. Indrian (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                        • Okay, and including Breakout on a list of shmups would be completely acceptable if a source called it a "Space Invaders-like" or a "Space Invaders-esque game". There's no issue here. Phediuk (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                          • See, this is where you are going wrong. Calling something Space Invaders-like or Metroid-like is identifying games as sharing some similar elements. It is not categorizing a game in a genre. It takes more than similar gameplay elements to create genre. You have to examine the totality of the game objectives, atmosphere, controls, aesthetics, and play elements, which is what our reliable sources that have defined the genre have done. I am not sure how to explain this any clearer. We describe some people as "bird-like" to conjure a certain image. Do we therefore include every human character described in this way in a work of fiction in our list of fictional birds? Indrian (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                            • Actually, a cursory glance at that list reveals a number of "bird-like" entries, such as "Digit, a bird-like cyborg in Cyberchase", "Hot Dog Harpy, a bird-like monster in Undertale", and "Coco, a bird-airplane-palm tree hybrid in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends", and includes numerous robots that resemble birds, so it's evidently not a problem there. The list also includes a number of dinosaur-like predecessors to birds. Lastly, that list (and any other comparable list on Wikipedia) doesn't exclude "fictional robins" for not being "fictional birds", which is the kind of hair-splitting you're getting into here. Phediuk (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                              • I like how you neatly sidestepped the question with a straw man. If I write a book about a man named Bob and describe him as "bird-like" would he go on the list? Of course not, because he does not exhibit the well defined criteria of what constitutes a bird. The term is merely used to invoke a certain understanding from the audience. Likewise when a genre is clearly defined as requiring certain elements, one cannot add games that do not contain those elements to a list of games in that genre just because a source says one game is "like" another, which is just a short-form way of helping the reader get a feel for a game's elements or style. I should really stop belaboring the point, however, because you seem unwilling to see the problem here and the current consensus is against your position. Indrian (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                                  • There is no consensus here regarding either the definition of the genre or the acceptable terminology for it. In fact, it's pretty much just us here right now. The argument about the bird-like man is irrelevant, because we're not talking about differences in species, we're talking about minute differences in terms referring to the same species, the equivalent of saying "bird-like man" versus "bird-esque man", or "crayfish" versus "crawfish"; I would include both variations in any such lists. By that token, "Metroidvania-esque" games, along with similar terms like "Metroid-like", "Metroid-esque", and "Metroid-style" refer to the same style of gameplay as "Metroidvania"; thus, games should be included in the list if sources refer to them as such (and they do.) That is my position on the matter, and I'm sorry we haven't come to an agreement so far. However, I believe we can come to an agreement that will make both of us happy, as our interests are not that different. Phediuk (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                                    • Well, if we need any help reaching a consensus, then allow me to be a little less polite than Indrian: Phediuk, what you are proposing is batshit crazy, and you probably should have kept it vague rather than explicitly saying that all games with "Metroid-like" elements are Metroidvanias. You would be well advised to consider why the term Metroidvania has that "vania" tacked on the end of it, and to revisit Masem's comment on Symphony of the Night above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
                                      • First off, I didn't say anything containing the word "Metroid-like" meant "Metroidvania", but rather, only in such cases when the gameplay and structural similarity was explicitly noted. Second, "Metroidvania" has "vania" at the end of it because Castlevania (that is, Symphony of the Night and its follow-ups) is the second-best-known example. As Metroid is itself generally considered the biggest influence on SOTN, practically all sources link the origin of the genre with Metroid. The term arose specifically to describe these later Castlevania games until it began being applied in a wider sense by Jeremy Parish back in his 1Up days, circa 2006, as explained here. This is why the "vania" portion of the name tends to be ignored and sources usually focus on the Metroid aspect. Yes, the terminology is muddled and often confusing, and we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion if the genre's name was "exploratory platformer" or what have you. Nevertheless, there are quite a few sources that use the term "Metroid-like", sometimes interchangeably with "Metroidvania". Phediuk (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete or split?[edit]

The question of how to fill this list is interesting, and I am glad that the discussion is taking place, though I'd like to split off the following question so I can get some feedback on it: Should the list on Metroidvania be split to a page titled "List of metroidvania game", or should it simply be deleted? I personally don't believe the list has much value as it is now, due to the overlap with Category:Metroidvania games. Therefore, I'd !vote Delete. Opinions? ~Mable (chat) 17:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm in full support of a split. I think the list getting its own page is well overdue, for two main reasons: first, the bevy of reliable sources shows that it's both a notable and frequently-discussed subject; and second, WP already has list pages for practically every other genre of video game imaginable, so this is well within standard practice. I don't think the overlap with the category is that big of a deal, since practically every list on the site has a corresponding category. Phediuk (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nuke it. This argument is exactly why we can't have nice things. 1) The definition of "Metroidvania" is nebulous. Sources disagree about the necessary and sufficient properties and many actually admit that the definition is inconsistent even within the same publication or article. 2) The leap from something being "Metroid-like" to being a "Metroidvania" is a bridge too far. Things can be Metroid-like without being a Metroidvania because it ignores the "-vania". 3) Because of 1 and 2, it's impossible to properly categorize things as Metroidvanias, even if reliable 3rd party sources call them as such. The only parsimonious criterion that could work is if the developer of the game specifically states "I designed this game to be a Metroidvania". Anything less is just some barely qualified journalist or blogger speculating on the internet about their opinions. And for what it's worth, definitely do not split either. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that, if the prerequisite for properly categorizing the genre is that reliable sources have compiled lists of the games that qualify, along with a coherent definition, then the list should probably be deleted. There's only about 3 or so reliable sources that have ever attempted to compile the history of the genre in a coherent fashion, and they're all by either Jeremy Parish or John Szczepaniak ("Backtracking: The History of Metroidvania" in GamesTM 116 is probably the most comprehensive, rigorous article ever written on the topic.) The term "Metroidvania" is used in most sources as a buzzword with little attempt at rigour, in much the same way that film articles will use the term "reboot" without any real consistency. Even articles that do define the genre (aside from being like Metroid, which brings up the question of which aspects of Metroid "count", and how they're weighted) often begin either by acknowledging the inadequacy of the term "Metroidvania" and/or by discussing the difficulty of defining it consistently. I mean, Jeremy Parish, who's practically the guru of the genre, does exactly that. Seemingly every kind of game imaginable is on record as being a Metroidvania; some emphasize Zelda's influence and include games from its lineage (Darksiders, Okami and the like), some only consider platformers, some think Dark Souls is a modern Metroidvania, some think practically any RPG counts, some think certain FPSes fit the bill (System Shock, Bioshock, Deus Ex), some refer to earlier games as "proto-Metroidvanias", some consider the genre to have not existed until Symphony of the Night came out, and so on. The thing is, definitions pretty much never include all of these kinds of games together, and it would be hard to tell anyway, since "Metroidvania" is generally only used when relevant to the game being discussed, rather than in the more general sense.
    • And I think that might be the biggest problem of all: that is to say, "Metroidvania" is rarely itself the focus of any articles that could be considered to be reliable sources. The majority of sources simply mention the word in passing to describe whatever game it is they're discussing. Finding explicit mentions of "Metroidvania" for a given game is rather like a scavenger hunt; granted, I don't think that sources like that are necessarily worthless, but the term may make more sense as a category, than a list. In that format, one can simply slip in a mention in the article where relevant, which would retain pretty much all of the useful value of the list without bloating any individual article. Phediuk (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Then it seems we're in agreement. The vague term "Metroidvania", in its common everyday use, is cultural shorthand meant to evoke certain feelings concerning what the game is about and I think gaming culture has generally agreed to keep its definition vague for this very purpose. Thus, it's a great tool for writers to save on word count but a terrible means of organization on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
        • More or less. I think that, if there was more comprehensive analysis of the genre along the lines of what Parish and Szczepaniak have done (though, even Parish has waffled considerably on what the term means), it would be more valuable as a concept, and I do think it's interesting what games people have included in the genre. A name like "exploratory platformer" would have also simplified things, since it actually refers to gameplay elements, but unfortunately, this awkward and vaguely-defined portmanteau stuck instead. I agree with the point that the word "Metroidvania" tends to be used as an emotional appeal, i.e., "Dark Souls isn't just an action RPG, it's a Metroidvania!" It's used to invoke two popular and well-respected series and, thus, often used as a compliment more than as a descriptor of what the game actually is. So, I think that any attempt to nail down a single definition of "Metroidvania" is a futile effort, destined to end in Wiki-bickering over which sources say what. I think that, if the list is removed, the article should also reflect the variance in the definitions, i.e., treating the elements of the genre as common, but not mandatory traits (as some of the definitions themselves do.) The article pretty much already does this, but a few people want a more prescriptive definition, which the sources don't support, and probably never will. Phediuk (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this discussion is still active, but I think it's fine to keep the list in the article.... but shorten it. In the long term, it'd be nice to demand no less than 2 references that explicitly use "Metroidvania" as phrasing so that one random listicle calling Mass Effect a secret Metroivania or whatever can't throw things off, but for now, I'd say that deleting redlinks would be a good start to trimming the list - or, at best, moving them to a very clipped list at the end. (e.g. "Other Metroidvanias include RedLinkedGame1, RedLinkedGame2, RedLinkedGame3.") SnowFire (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library resources[edit]

Hi WPVG! Whilst reading a certain blog post it occurred to me that I haven't really given much thought into paywalled resources that are used in this WikiProject that we could try to get access to through The Wikipedia Library. We have McFarland, who have a number of VG related eBooks, and Gale who I'm also aware have some Video Game/Computing related magazine archives but are there any video game focused paywalled/subscription-based resources that we could look into the possibility of starting a partnership with? From a quick search I found the GDC Vault - how useful would that be? Let me know about that and any other requests you have :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Samwalton9:, I tried to get some ebooks in October-November last year. I requested them in epub format. An ebook in epub format can be uploaded and read in Google Play Books, so it syncs across my devices and I can add highlight text, easier to mark down notable and interesting information. I however received password-protected PDFs, which were anything but convenient. I did send a message regarding the issue, but I never heard back. If this time it's more easy to get some ebooks, yeah, I'd love to some. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Soetermans: For McFarland? I wasn't aware of any issues with this - perhaps The Interior could look into this for you. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Soetermans: if that's the case, the password should just be "McFarland"—was for me, at least. @Samwalton9 (WMF): as far as I'm concerned, GDC Vault would be incredibly useful. I tried to see if anyone had access back in December 2014, but received no response; the Vault has so many useful videos and presentations, I'm sure there'd be an abundance of useful content there. A lot of development information, anyway. – Rhain 15:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain: Alright great, I've dropped them an email. Let me know if there are any other sources that would be useful for WP:VG, or more broadly, either directly or at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases/Requests. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain: the password wasn't the issue; because they were protected PDFs I couldn't upload them to Google Books, and couldn't sync them across my devices or highlight text. @Samwalton9 (WMF): (by the way, I see now that I pinged your other account before, sorry about that), the last message that I received from The Interior was that they would relay the message to McFarland and when they would hear back, I would too. I haven't heard back, but I didn't mind, we've got plenty of stuff to do around Wikipedia :) I'll check again for some ebooks though (as long as they're in epub format though! ;-)) soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
soetermans, I did pass on your request, but did not get a reply. Would you like me to pursue again? Happy to do so - they did offer the Epub/Google Play option. The Interior (Talk) 23:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @The Interior, if you would, that'd be great. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Saurian Wikipedia Page[edit]

Hello, I am the main editor of the Saurian page. I wrote up, among other things, an in-depth history of the game's development thus far and some basic planned gameplay, and would like suggestions on how to improve the writing of the article further. Full disclaimer; I am a community moderator for this game, so I do have a personal stake in getting this article as good as I possibly can. I feel strongly at the moment that this is not the case, and would like to ask if there are any outside eyes who would mind taking a look at the article and point out what needs improving and how. I must confess, this is rather new to me- I have made use of Wikipedia for a long time now, but this is my first time writing an article like this. I do hope I am going about this the right way...

Edit: Thank you for the Feedback- and the help in formatting the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurian_(video_game) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarrusSaurian (talkcontribs) 03:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. You should read our Conflict of Interest guidelines - in short, its strongly discouraged that you don't write Wikipedia articles about something you have a close connection to personally.
  2. You should probably read the WP:GNG. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written about third party sources say about an article. I can't help but notice that the article is almost entirely written according to what the game's Kickstarter and Facebook articles say about the article - that would be first party sources. That's a big no-no too.
I don't mean to be harsh, but these are rather large problems that would need to be overcome. If third party reliable sources aren't writing articles about the game, it could be deleted if nominated for deletion. See WP:VG/S for some examples on what is usable or not usable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I recommend using this Custom Google Search for Saurian, which only includes articles from reliable sources. I'm seeing some articles from Siliconera, CNet, and Kotaku, which is a good start, but unfortunately, that's all I'm getting. Try and see what you can do with those articles. I read through a bit of the article, and it reads well, and it's obvious a lot of time and effort went into writing up the article. But unfortunately, due to limited coverage from reliable sources, I'm afraid other editors might not see Saurian as notable enough to have it's own article. Hopefully that helps. It's a bit late out here, but I don't mind going through the article and copyediting tomorrow. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The article should be written for a general audience. I'd move the primary sourced stuff to an external wiki and rewrite it from the sources FH mentioned above. czar 05:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Fighting game tournaments[edit]

As some of you may have noticed, I've spent the past two weeks creating articles for more recent Street Fighter, like Evo 2016, Capcom Cup 2015, and even NorCal Regionals 2016 and Stunfest 2016, proving that these events are ripe for getting their own articles. I've been annoyed for a long time how an event like the Evolution Championship Series had only one article for all of its events, while many of the newer ones easily meet GNG. Of course I understand why this is: no one ever wanted to come forward to write such articles well. My works aren't Featured Articles by any means, but I think I managed to describe these events completely as they are covered by reliable sources. Now the question remains of what to do with these articles in the future. I have no idea if I'd be up to creating Capcom Cup 2016 or Evo 2017 when these events roll around, knowing how much work they are to create and how busy I tend to be during actual tournament season. I hope someone would be able to create at least C-class articles for these events once they roll around, and maybe I'll be that person. I don't think it's too important to start creating articles for older tournaments (though it could be pretty awesome), but these are the things that have been going through my mind lately. I was wondering if other people on WP:VG have any interest in this subject area, so that this gap in our coverage could be covered even if I weren't around... I'm open for ideas, anyway :) ~Mable (chat) 12:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

To expand on how these tournament articles relate to notability guidelines: all major Street Fighter tournaments seem to be covered by Steve Jurek from The Daily Dot and Michael Martin from Red Bull since the second half of 2015 (making it fairly easy to find sources for Premier Events of the Capcom Pro Tour). If a tournament gets coverage from multiple reliable sources outside of these two, it is likely that it meets GNG. ~Mable (chat) 12:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I even created the following navbox which illustrates the kind of coverage we can give to the larger Street Fighter tournaments:
I am planning on creating the article on Final Round 19 today/tomorrow, so don't worry about that. I don't know if all Capcom Cup 2016 Premier Events are/will be notable, but quite a few are :) ~Mable (chat) 17:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like some input over at Talk:Community Effort Orlando, as @UltraDark: created some really cool tables that may be rather excessive. I'd like to know some opinions. ~Mable (chat) 19:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Soma Bringer question[edit]

Hi. I'm in the middle of doing work on Soma Bringer. I've got all I need in my sandbox for every section except "Synopsis", which is clearly the most difficult part as I haven't got access to the game and it's in Japanese (which as a written language isn't my strongest suit). Can someone help me with some kind of synopsis of the plot, or direct me to some safe site that has it posted? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Not what you're after, but fans have created an English translated rom. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Was always shocked this game wasn't officially translated, between the system's massive userbase, and relatively good track record for having JRPG's translated for it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
For a second I thought this was the very awkwardly titled sequel to Soma. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's alright, everyone. I did manage to put together a synopsis. Thank goodness for Japanese fan resources and online playthroughs! --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

List of baseball video games question[edit]

Hi, I just started editing the list of baseball video games article as I noticed it doesn't include any of the R.B.I. Baseball titles on it. There is one question I have in regards to this page I'm hopeful someone here can answer. Is there any standard way to list a games platform in regards to computer releases? For instance, the Out of the Park Baseball series have been released on Steam, but also list Windows, Mac, and Linux (but it doesn't list Steam under Platform). Super Mega Baseball does list Steam, but none of the OS's. -Electricbolt (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Relevant RFC[edit]

WT:MOS#RFC on unifying "OS X" and "macOS". An RFC about whether we should unify this across the project. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation and Xbox page move requests[edit]

RightGot's page move requests: Talk:PlayStation (console)#Requested move 16 August 2016 and Talk:Xbox (console)#Requested move 16 August 2016. I put these here, in case they catch anyone's attention. – // Hounder4 // 12:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

While we're at it, what's the score with renaming everything from "Category:PlayStation" to "Category:PlayStation (brand)" that we have seen recently? Cats are being renamed one-by-one, "Category:PlayStation (brand)-related lists", "Category:PlayStation (brand) magazines", "Category:PlayStation (brand) screenshots" and so on. — TPX 13:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)[edit]

An anonymous editor is continuing to change the infobox without consensus and I'm not entirely sure why. I've dropped a edit war notification on their talk page--I'm reaching my limit for 3RR. An eye from another editor or two would be appreciated. My read of my changes is that I'm correct to be making the reverts. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protected. (Par for the course with terrible anonymous editors for the Sonic fanbase though...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

On gaming website italics or not...[edit]

I noticed while editing an article with the vg reviews template that we have a mashup of styles that doesn't feel consistent. Sites like Polygon are italized in there, while IGN and GameSpot are not. I've seen a few other cases where this has happened in prose. Since all these are websites I feel they should be similar, but at the same time, websites like MetaCritic or Twitch.tv don't feel right to be italized.

I would like propose that we standardize this in the project (grandfathering existing articles, so we're talking only about making sure these are set on GA and FAs going forward) , following this piece of advice from MOS:TMMOS:TITLE "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post)."

For us, this means video game sites that are aimed to provide original content (IGN, GameSpot, Polygon, Eurogamer, Gamasutra, etc.) should all be italicized. If the site's primary purpose is for any other reason but just happens to include original content in the form of developer blogs, etc., they should remain non-italicized - MetaCritic, Twitch, YouTube, etc. This should be consistent in prose and in the reviews template. This also means we need to be careful in cite templates: "website=" or "work=" (they are aliases) will come up as italic while "publisher=" will not. This probably means a MetaCritic reference needs to include the italics marking so that in the final markup when used as "website=", so that that effect is cancelled out. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • On the topic of the citation formatting, I was under the impression we only ever use website= for the source of the citation; publisher= is for something like "website=GameSpot|publisher=CBS Interactive", i.e. the owner of said website.  · Salvidrim! ·  01:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • These fields have metadata equivalents too, so it's not a good idea to force/unforce italics as a hack. The standard book citation includes the book's publisher in non-italics alongside the italicized title—that's the precedent for using that field. Metacritic, Twitch, etc. should use the publisher field. Also it's not a good idea to use both website and publisher fields unless the website on its own is somehow ambiguous (and since the website is wikilinked to an article most of the time, it rarely is ambiguous). I was one of the bigger proponents of the dual field format (doesn't really matter as long as you're consistent), but it really just adds unneeded clutter to the citation section if it doesn't give information the reader will need. Also we typically get the publisher wrong since they change so often with companies buying websites... But the proposal? Yes, a thousand times yes czar 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve. I've been italicizing (if that's a word) website nans forever now and it's always annoying when someone else doesn't, and I agree that Metacritic, etc, shouldn't be in italics. ~Mable (chat) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why does WP:MOSTM have any comment on whether to italicize a work's name? --Izno (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • My bad, I meant to type MOS:TITLE as where that advice comes from. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also agreed. This practice is in compliance with the MOS, as well. MOS:ITALIC (but strangely not MOS:ITAL) notes Medium of publication or presentation is not a factor in italicizing the titles of magazines, journals, newspapers, and other publications. —zziccardi (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So unless there are any other concerns, I'll add this to VG/GL, and update the reviews template to use the proper italics in a day or so. The "work=" vs "publisher=" aspect for the cite web templates is something else beyond our control and needs to be something discussed at the cite template talkpages to resolve that issue if we don't want to use "publisher=" for works like Metacritic. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I should note that, after having been part of this discussion, I've changed my habit of writing "publisher=SiteName" to "work=SiteName". Regardless, I've always used italics for such websites, so no concerns here. ~Mable (chat) 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't want to put a bold "oppose" here, so I'll not... Please review Help:CS1#Work and publisher. While the help page isn't the MOS, the choice of the citation templates to italicize always the work's name should be respected (if users here are going to use them), rather than worked around (as suggested above by Masem at If the site's primary purpose is for any other reason but just happens to include original content in the form of developer blogs, etc., they should remain non-italicized - MetaCritic, Twitch, YouTube, etc.), since the MOS specifically doesn't say what to do when the content is not "original" (only if it is original). Basically, the MOS leaves it open on what to do. The citation templates in this case obviously go beyond that, and that is permissible by the MOS. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • What I think is at odds between the MOS and the citation templates is how to work with a website that otherwise does not offer normally original content. (As noted, MOS positively says when to use italics which the CS1 work= parameter follows, but not when not to use them for websites). And we should have consistency between prose and references when it comes to the style of a website's name. I think that if that if we recognize that sites like Metacritic are generally not italicized, they should be treated as publishers within the cite templates, and that respects the styling. (I spot-checked a few film articles of FA quality and Rotten Tomatoes is neither italicized nor use the work= citation). Also in reviewing this I do note that the CS1 templates also have a "via=" parameter for legit-published videos or other media that sites like Youtube only act as the hosting provider, and that field is not italicized either. So we can still make this work as long as we agree that Metacritic and similar aggregators should be treated as unitalic and as publishers for citations, so that that should all work. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

      We agree on what the MOS says, but I'm puzzled why you think that Metacritic is undeserving of italics. So let's hash that out. "It feels wrong" to italicize such isn't sufficient to me to suggest that they should/should not be italicized; similarly, films and video games which currently do not italicize them don't make me feel squishy inside. So then, are they publishers? I'm not sure. I think we can also look at them as the equivalent of anthologies or collections of works, which would put them squarely in the italicized vein.

      Regarding "via", this is a freeform parameter--you can put whatever you want in this, so looking at that parameter isn't relevant to this discussion. "Via" is there to take care of the "republisher" scenario, as with e.g. JSTOR.

      Maybe the above needs a wider RFC, or it needs to be taken up at WP:MOS to see if they have opinions, since I am not convinced they are solely publishers. --Izno (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

      To me, the difference is between "website as a creative outlet" vs "website as a service", and what Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and others are are services. It's like there's IGN the website and IGN the network. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
      A "service" is still a creative work. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      Not really, as implied they are only doing a service, not creating original content. The thing is is that through WP, we don't italicize these types of sites despite the lack of any specific MOS advice positively suggesting this. (MOS:TITLE only suggest when to italicize, not when not). And it's also worthwhile to consider that in the CS1 templates, for what they are used for as inline cites, 95% of the time (if not more) when you have a work= field, it will be a site that MOS:TITLE recommends should be italicized. It is the sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes that CS1 and MOS:TITLE and current practice on WP conflict on when it comes to references. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      Here's another data point [2] A discussion/RFC from last year about the work=/website= parameter and non-italicized sites (and italicization being forced on them by these parameters). While there was no conclusion about this about changes to CS1 templates, one this is clear is that editors readily accept that sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo should not be italicized in prose. This should apply to our similar "service" websites like Metacritic. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Interest in a WP:VG Facebook page?[edit]

Yesterday I was checking to see if there were any decent Dutch-language video game discussion groups on Facebook, but there isn't one. For kicks I typed in WP:VG, and found a Facebook page, dedicated to WP:VG. But it's not about the English-language Wikipedia WP:VG, the page is dedicated to our Vietnamese equivalent. It got me thinking, is there any interest in a WP:VG Facebook group? A little while ago there was a discussion where we exhanged some usernames. A dedicated WP:VG Facebook group would allow for more general bantering about video games, but would also make it easier to share and post new sources (especially with game conferences and the like). What do you think? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Facebook certainly seems like a better place for discussion than Steam or PSN; I suspect a fair amount of us use Facebook more, anyway. I think starting a Facebook Group could be beneficial too, for the reasons you stated. I'd definitely join. – Rhain 09:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've joined! Maybe another incentive to join: we could possibly exhange Steam keys (or Team Fortress 2 hats, if that's your thing) and video game literature. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds fun, and I think sharing sources is a good idea. I submitted a request to join. :) —zziccardi (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, if you are strongly attached to the pseudonimity that Wikipedia provides, note that many people I know use pseudonyms on Facebook in addition to a personal account with their real names for family/work/etc. I think that may be technically against Facebook's ToS so I'm not officially recommending you do it, I'm just saying many people do so without issue, so make your own decisions.  · Salvidrim! ·  22:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I joined the thing. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    The thing accepted your request. :p  · Salvidrim! ·  23:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    The thing clearly doesn't understand what it did. --Izno (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I just bought the Humble Capcom PlayStation Bundle, mostly for the Resident Evil PS4 games. I already own a bunch of them so I'll have to give some of it away. If you'd like a code for say, Ōkami HD for PlayStation 3 or a coupon for 45% of Street Fighter V for PlayStation 4, you better join the Facebook group before someone else receives them. (note: this works on North and South American PSN accounts, not European/Asian/Australian etc). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

SNK of America date of creation[edit]

Hi

Regarding the citations available about the date when SNK of america was created, i think it is unclear because some citations differ, giving different dates. I started a discuccion about this on an user talk page (and a long time ago on the SNK talk page [3]), but it's better to try here. I think the problem is clearly explained there. Sorry for my english, I'm non-native english, and perhaps it will be easyer for you to find the truth. Best regards. --Archimëa (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hola, the current SNK article has this, "The North American division (SNK Corporation of America) was opened on October 20, 1981." Sadly, the sentence is unsourced. Maybe the guys from the SNK wikia know about it?Tintor2 (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, "Maybe" ? This is enough reliable to accept this as real informations ? --Archimëa (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour Archimëa! Tintor2 voulait simplement mentionner que la phrase détaillant la date d'ouverture de SNK North America comme étant le 20 Octobre 1981 n'était pas référencée et qu'aucune source fiable ne soutient cette affirmation. Il conseille de demander aux usagers du wikia de SNK pour plus d'informations. Entre temps, j'ai ajouté un tag qui souligne le caractère non-référencé de cette affirmation ([4]) jusqu'à ce qu'on puisse trouver une source fiable soutenant une information valide quant à la date de création. Cela nous permettra de continuer à chercher la vérité! :)  · Salvidrim! ·  17:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour, merci pour ton intervention sur la page SNK ! J'ai engagé cette discussion car le modèle {{Citation needed}} que j'avais ajouté a été supprimé et le message correspondant sur la page de discussion a été archivé... C'était aussi un moyen de trouver de l'aide pour découvrir la vérité ! J'espérais que des locaux, en Californie, puissent trouver plus facilement des informations...
Je comprends mieux le retour de ce modèle.
J'ai déjà discuté de ca avec des personnes très actives de la scène Neo-Geo française, et ils n'en savent pas plus que moi sur cette date de création et n'en tirent que des "guess"...
Merci d'avoir faire l'effort de t’exprimer dans un bon français.
Je ne connais pas le système de création d'entreprise aux États-Unis, et c'est peut-être un problème de dates, "date de création" et "date d'incorporation" sur lesquelles les sources ne sont pas claires...
Regards. --Archimëa (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Effort? Sache que je suis francophone de naissance (Montréal, Québec), bien que ça paraisse pas beaucoup ici. ;) Et note que tandis que la plupart des utilisateurs de FrWiki sont peut-être concentrés en Europe francophone (Suisse, Belgique, France, etc.), EnWiki est composé de gens de partout dans le monde, pas seulement d'Américains et d'Anglais. Je ne crois même pas qu'un des contributeurs régulier au WikiProject Video Games soient de Californie. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  23:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Tu pourrais venir contribuer sur le projet jeu vidéo français Face-devil-grin.svg. Il y a beaucoup à faire, beaucoup d'articles essentiels à développer, comme de choses à décider. --Archimëa (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamescom 2016[edit]

Hey, is anyone going to Gamescom 2016? If not, does anyone have any image requests I can try to fulfil? Sam Walton (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It'd be great to have a shot of players at the Halo Wars 2 booth if you're around there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
And the Half-Life: 3 poster... :) --MASEM (t) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Metal Gear Survive maybe? I also like to see pictures of developers. Those can be used on several articles: if they have one, on the article about the developer, the studio they work at and on the games they've created. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be pretty cool if someone could take a shot of that "Half-Life: 3" banner if it's still there. It's gotten quite some attention from RSes (Polygon, PC Gamer, etc), and it's only a matter of time until the whole "Half-Life 3" can't be contained anymore in its main series article :p ~Mable (chat) 09:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I wasn't interested enough to queue up to play Halo Wars 2, but I got a quick picture of the queue and booth exterior. @Maplestrip: Here's a picture of the HL3 poster. @Soetermans: I didn't see anything public for Metal Gear Survive, and didn't see any developers other than for some indie games that we didn't have articles on. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks, Samwalton~ I may add that image to the current Half-Life series article at some point, though it doesn't seem to mention the Half-Life 3 joke/meme/conspiracy at all yet, so I'll have to do some more research first :p Thanks again! ~Mable (chat) 12:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot mate, that was the kind of image I was looking for. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Metal Gear[edit]

The reception box from Metal Gear#Reception felt so big few sentences could be seen. I tried removing the GameRankings score to avoid undue weight and also since the project has also began using more Metacritic. However, an anon reverted it since some games from GameRankings have scores in contrast to Metacritic. Is there a way to avoid having such a big box and focus more on the prose? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, I would shorten the GR scores to two significant figures (no decimals) and lop off the scores that have fewer than four reputable reviews. If there is no difference between the Metacritic and GR scores, then there's cause to drop the GR column. czar 05:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I should call the anon here @86.154.3.65: rather than starting an edit war.Tintor2 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Should we tackle WP:CSC?[edit]

It seems that lately, at least from my experience, that we've deleted/merged/redirected a lot of "List of [x]"-type articles. Thanks to the amazing WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it has never been easier to look up sources. Still, not everybody agrees on what counts as notability, so for some reason the unreferenced and unnecessary List of MySims characters has not been deleted. Most editors who are against deleting/merging/redirecting those articles bring up WP:CSC often, especially the second criterium, which reads:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles (...)

But then it goes on with:

Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (...)

Isn't that contradictory, or am I reading that wrong? "Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic", so a list of MySims characters would "almost always better placed" in the main article. What is "almost" always? When is it not better to do so? What I find ironic is that the two examples given, List of minor characters in Dilbert and List of paracetamol brand names, both have been redirected. I think it is because of this ambiguously way of phrasing that some of these unnecessary are able to pass AfD's. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think an important criteria for a list, and one which is entirely missing from CSC, is that even if every item in the list does not meet the individual notability criteria, the concept as a whole does. CSC doesn't get into that, though it does have a seealso just above to WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTN), which begins:

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group.

I think the idea behind CSC is to say that it's okay if none of the items in a list could have articles, that a list is still okay for that. It doesn't supercede LISTN, which is why we've been purging a lot of the wikia-esque lists this past year. MySims characters as a collective are not talked about in reliable sources, and are not notable as a group. CSC point 2 does not override that. --PresN 17:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • One thing important on all of these is that removing "List of..." from the titles of these, at least to me, makes me think of the ensemble group as a whole, which can help strength the lists as these above examples show. However, this isn't necessarily going to be possible for every game or series where the characters are otherwise individually notable (example would be the BioShock series, where development or reception of the cast as an ensemble is not really there but individual characters are just barely notable not to have a standalone page but to contribute to the notable list overall).
    • I will say that unless you can present the cast in this ensemble approach as The1337gamer's examples given, we never should have a character list as a separate article for a single game. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree, but I feel that by playing the WP:CSC card all other arguments are put aside. "None of these characters are notable? Well, WP:CSC says they don't have to be!" soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I have the feeling that we're getting ahead of ourselves here, as most of the horrible lists simply call notability and can't be sourced properly. I'm not entirely sure what the meaning is of 'tackling WP:CSC', but if the goal is to make the guideline clearer and less ambiguous, we should have this discussion over there. ~Mable (chat) 07:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I was actually thinking of creating a thread here much like this recently, but I've held off. While I wish we weren't so harsh on these articles, even I'm quite surprised that the MySims character list article resulted to keep at AFD. I was expecting a "no consensus" at best.
You know, as someone who has been using Wikipedia since 2006, I remember when we used to have articles on virtually any and every video game character, regardless of how much coverage (or lack thereof) they got. Eventually, notability started to be enforced on those articles more, so then we started just having character list articles. Somewhere along the line, character articles and as of more recently, character list articles, started to have been judged overly harsh on Wikipedia, leading to endless heated debates on their notability. I just wish for a middle ground between the old days of all characters having their own articles and the borderline draconic standards being enforced for character and character list articles now.
I like the character list idea as a compromise when some of the individual characters may not be notable enough for their own articles, which is why I think we should be more lax with those kinds of articles than we are now. But with that said, that's not to say we shouldn't enforce notability on them at all though. Adding something about notability at WP:CSC should at least clear up some confusion. It's just a tricky subject altogether.
Also, I think we should have the editors who have provided the whole WP:CSC argument be pinged here, like @Jclemens: and @Patar knight:. Kokoro20 (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I would imagine that living through the standards of the mid-2000s and then seeing the enforced notability of today would be really jarring, yeah. ~Mable (chat) 09:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I second The1337gamer's suggestion. It's always baffled me that Wikipedia permits list articles, as it seems obvious to me that both conceptually and in practice they're simply a way of getting around WP: Notability. Have an article that doesn't even remotely meet notability requirements and has been taken to AfD? Just merge it to a list article and you're good to go! The "List of" format even encourages readers and editors to treat each item in the list as a standalone article which simply shares a page with other standalone articles. Moreover, it encourages comprehensive coverage, so that even the most minor items on the list get writeups. The "Characters of" format doesn't have those two problems; it treats the article as a single unified subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The context you are talking about is that of a parent article on a notable subject, but with a list with sub-notable entries. I interpret "almost always" in that context as the list is strongly dependent on the parent article and so should usually be in the parent article. One exception is that if the list is so long that it would unbalance the presentation parent article, one might break it out of the article, summary style. But I don't think that absolves the list from having verifiable entries or from the parent subject from being notable. As a hypothetical example, suppose we have an article on "national flag"--the list of national flags would be quite long and unbalance an article. It would be better to break this off as a list, even if some flag entries are verifiable, but sub-notable. I agree with others that rewriting game character lists in prose with good sources, as with some of the "Characters of" examples above, is much preferable and makes for a better read. But there is a place for big lists as supplemental adjuncts to a parent article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
What often happens though with character lists for video games when spun out of an article is two-fold. If it is a game like GTA, editors have a tendancy to insert every minor character or named character into the list. These quickly bloat the list; character lists should be confined to characters that (unless otherwise notable) are essential to describe if you are giving a broad overview of the game's narrative. The second is that when a character list is separated from the game's article where one can reasonably expect to find the game's plot, people will tend to overly-duplicate that plot on the character list article as to explain the plot for each character's stance on it, and that further causes problems on these lists (It's also a problem on valid single-character articles too). Lists of characters aren't necessary a problem but they are the types of articles that attract excessive detail if we're not careful. Aligning them to be about the characters as an ensemble helps towards that, to a degree. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
You raise good points and effectively argue against "list of" articles for characters in video games. I wasn't trying to justify "List of characters in" as a good idea for VG in particular, but give my POV on the more general WP:CSC question that Soetermans raised. Sorry for not being clear. --Mark viking (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So, since I've been pinged, here's my take on it:
    1. If a topic is notable, any verifiable content on that topic is fair for inclusion. DUE applies, but it you're going to write a HUUGE article on a videogame (or any other topic) then anything can be covered.
    2. The only reason we don't cover everything in ONE mondo-huge article is that it'd be unweildy and unreadable. Thus, we have breakouts for certain parts of the article.
    3. And HERE is where it gets tricky: What does "notability is not inherited" really mean? If "Game X" is clearly notable, a list of characters in game X could remain within the article on "Game X"... but if it's broken out into a separate article, does it need to demonstrate notability for the LIST of X? Here's where wikipedians have differed and offered alternative, conflicting, rationales. My take is that a "list of X" where "X" is notable is not a violation of "notability is not inherited" even if no element in the list is individually notable, because it would be legal and appropriate (if only hugely annoying and unwieldy) to merge it back into the clearly notable article.
  • On a more pragmatic note, nothing good is accomplished by deleting these lists. Readers view them regularly, and hopefully anything COPYVIO was wiped out long ago, so that there's nothing left but possibly trivial, possibly non-notable content, which is not hurting anything. The number of people who just don't care about the readership who likes the trivial "cruft" or the dedicated fan base who creates it saddens me. I genuinely believe it has no more merit than older teens kicking down crude looking sandcastles made by enthusiastic if inept gradeschoolers. All that content was put in by people who loved the work, and we can't even be bothered to keep it around? Have we, as Wikipedia, no shame? Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't the only proper reason to spin a list out of a parent article be that there are many sources covering the content of the list that covering everything the source cover _in the parent article_ would lead to undue weight? I think that in the past, people have opted for splitting an article where trimming away original research would have been the right move. ~Mable (chat) 08:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps those sandcastles should be built on a fanwiki instead? Just because someone put a lot of work into something doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. If few or no secondary reliable sources discuss a game's characters, we should cover them accordingly - one paragraph in the story section of the game's article is probably plenty enough in a lot of cases.--IDVtalk 09:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I second IDV's comments. It's not a matter of completely eradicating trivia from the internet; it's a matter of keeping trivia in its proper place. WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, what constitutes as trivia is often very subjective. What could be seen as trivia to one person could be very useful and important information to another. I think that's where Jclemens was getting at. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
To the editors who donated it, their content mattered. Leaving aside COPYVIO or promotionalism, the endless detailed lists mattered enough that those editors chose to contribute their time to write up that information. That's where new content comes from, and a single list can represent tens of hours of various editors' time. Fanwiki is a non-starter as a solution because a) when was the last time you saw anyone "transwiki" anything to a fan wiki? It was dying out as an option 10 years ago: even though there are tons of fan wikis, Wikipedia does not spend time moving NN content elsewher, and b) Per WP:ELNO #12, we can't even link to the fan wikis where that content might be better hosted. Think on that for a sec. Understand that the "crufty-cruft" that seems useless or ill-placed to those outside the specific genre is the reason so many of these editors got into Wikipedia in the first place. When we delete their content, we show them that they aren't welcome, rather than converting them into general-purpose Wikipedia editors who learn to create and improve content outside their niche. It's a sad thing--heartbreaking, really, when we have nothing better to do than this. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Jclemens, by that logic, a new member should be allowed to write an article about anything (as long as there is some primary source, I suppose). What would then stop me from writing an article on clearly non-notable webcomics, for example? Frankly, your suggestion undermines the entirety of WP:NOTABILITY. I have no idea if that would make Wikipedia better as an encyclopedia.
Look, I get what you mean. I always feel uncomfortable undoing an edit my a new person trying to be helpful as well. I can't imagine how painful it would be to see a list get deleted where you put multiple hours into. Luckily, many of the lists we are discussing here are pretty old now, so no one would really miss them, but for new articles... sheesh, should we try not to hurt anyone's feelings or should we try to improve our encyclopedia? I think the answer is the latter myself. ~Mable (chat) 09:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm rather shocked to hear the "well someone worked hard to write it so don't be a meanie and delete it" rationale coming from such an experienced editor - usually that's something a newbie throws out there in efforts to keep their misguided efforts from being deleted. That argument never matters on an individual basis, so I can't believe you're trying to apply it on a general level. (This is coming from someone who supports about 75% of these list mergers - there have still been many I've objected to - just not on the grounds you're arguing though.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't be surprised at all. I'm still here, ten years since my first edit, and I still believe in the volunteer and amateur editor as the base of our pyramid, and the pool from which we develop more active, less niche, and more polished editors. So yes, they will initially write stuff that's mostly useless: but storage and text bandwidth are cheap, that as long as there's no other problem (again: attack, copyvio, promotionalism) we do more harm to Wikipedia's future and vibrancy by eliminating the "cruft" and in the process giving the middle finger to the volunteer editors who donated it, than we do by polishing what's already here. Let's face it: there's a ton of stuff that doesn't belong in Wikipedia... but the scope of this and similar Wikiprojects is where new editors who will become great editors will cut their teeth, and why it's ever-so-important that we do not alienate them by crushing their contributions. Frankly, I think that WP:NOT has become so well developed that there's no real reason to enforce WP:N any longer: if it passes WP:V and doesn't fail WP:NOT, then it's at worst harmless junk. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:V by nature states that an article should be based on reliable sources. I assume you mean verifiable as per primary sources in this case? ~Mable (chat) 20:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. WP:SPS and/or WP:SELFPUB discuss when such sourcing is appropriate. Establishing the basic facts regarding fictional elements, such as video games, is such an instance. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
However, WP:V does warn "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Now, that doesn't necessarily condemn any character list, but it does tell us where to put the priority of information, alongside WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Rambling details of a character in a video game, while wholly sourceable to the game to met WP:V, fail these others policies even if we're not trying to consider notability factors. Major characters in a video game should be documented and should be reasonable search terms, but we dont need to reiterate every plot twist that the main work already covers, which is what a lot of these character articles end up being (because it is one of the most easiest places to get involved with WP, and doesn't require normal sourcing). There's a proper balance of describing characters and summarizing the work as a whole, and standalone character lists, if they don't focus on third-party sourcing, tend to not have that proper balance. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of that. But cleaning up excessive detail or merging NN content into lists is not the same as deleting it wholesale. That's why lists of NN elements are the best balance between allowing rampant trivialism and kicking down sandcastles, in my opinion. Going after lists to delete them instead of just cleaning them up appropriately (to include merging back into a main article if appropriate) is a very, very different and more hostile action. Deletion is punitive and, ultimately, lazy; editing things down to the core of what SHOULD be in the encyclopedia somewhere takes far more effort and I find few people who are willing to work to curate the donated content in such a manner. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally think deleting an article is a lot harder than to just trim away all the original research, plot info, primary sources, etc. However, for a non-notable topic, nothing remains left, as there are no realiable secondary sources to use. I've found that new users hate it a lot more when you just delete all their plot description than if you go through a deletion discussion. ~Mable (chat) 10:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

List of -genre- games[edit]

When I saw WP:CSC being brought up, my first thought was that we were going to talk about articles like List of adventure games and the like. I'm worried that we have a lot of lists of games by genre that simply aren't encyclopedically useful. The first paragraph of prose in WP:CSC makes a comparison to a hypothetical "List of Norwegian musicians", and that's what genre lists tend to feel like for. The recent list of metroidvania games is a god example. This is also an issue I'd like to tackle. ~Mable (chat) 07:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That article reminds me of list of horror games. I'd really like to see that one go away forever. The problem with these lists is that they are far too broad and poorly sourced. Categories serve this function just fine. The horror list is based off theme rather than genre too, so you have games from Castlevania to CoD Zombies to Resident Evil to The Walking Dead. Although these games may share thematic elements of horror, they are completely different when it comes to genre and gameplay style. A list of survival horror games would be much more concise, useful, and notable, but currently does not exist. I would absolutely help with creating a survival horror list if others thought it was a good idea.TarkusAB 14:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip and TarkusAB: How do categories serve just fine if I want to compare publishing dates? Creators? And etc. --Izno (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem with "List of -broad genre- games" is that it is easy for the tables to become far too long if there is no clear metric for inclusion (see the discussion above about List of Metroidvania games); it's only worse for a broad genre like "adventure", "action" or "rpg". Add the plethra of indie games coming out, and unless you require sources, that's just kudzu.
I think that lists of exemplary games in a genre is important to include but at that point it becomes very much an issue with how one interprets or takes sources and to avoid favoritism. I think it can be done if all editors involved have good agreement on when a title should quality, but unfortunately WP is not well-geared towards this type of editing approach. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and semi-related to that note, this issue is kind of "bigger" than WP:VG too. I mean, for example, I recently stumbled across List of albums, which shows many lists of albums by broad genre. List of songs is even crazier. For whatever reason, people just literally obsess over genre and subjective categorization. It's an omni-present issue over at WP:ALBUMS and the other music projects too, not just here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "obsessing over genres and categorizations" is a problem with human nature, so in that sense of course it is bigger than WPVG.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Very true - I sometimes forget that since WP is the only place I try to actually mediate and control it. When someone in real life calls Tool (band) "neo post-progressive psychedelic viking grunge metal", I just roll my eyes, because they're free to their (crazy) interpretation and opinion. Here, I actually bother to argue it, since it usually flies in the face of WP:V, WP:FRINGE, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 19 August[edit]

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

13 August

14 August

15 August

16 August

17 August

18 August

19 August

Salavat (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

HotArticlesBot[edit]

This idea has been previously discussed, but nothing came of it. What's everyone's stance on adding every single mainspace article into a single category and then listing it on User:HotArticlesBot/Subscriptions? An example of the way this works is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism#Hot_articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this idea sounds really cool, and would love to get better insight in the project's most active articles in real-time. How much work would it be to go through with this idea? Categorizing all VG articles using a bot should be possible, I hope, but it would be a pretty large project. ~Mable (chat) 11:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I was about to say, if this proposal goes ahead then I'll get JaguarBot to sort out all of the categories. JAGUAR  12:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no need for a bot; we just modify {{WikiProject Video games}} to add articles to a single super-category as well as the class/importance ones. Most project do that anyway.
Do note that you'll probably have to hassle the HotBot owner, though- WPSE has an outstanding request from years ago that they never got around to (though it looks like other projects have had requests fulfilled since). --PresN 12:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@PresN: Why would we need to hassle Kaldari? Looking at the history, it seems people are just adding the WikiProjects as they wish. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WikiProject Video games has too many articles (73,000+). The query to generate the HotArticles list is a bit expensive, so it's currently limited to categories with 50,000 or less articles. Kaldari (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, over 28,000 of those are images, and another 5000 are categories, so if we restrict the total-articles category to just articles themselves we'd be fine. --PresN 14:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for Trickster Online on 22 August 2016[edit]

There needs to be a change that removes the wording from the Trickster online entry that states it is offline. Considering I logged in today, and the website www.playtrickster.com is alive and well, this game is certainly not offline. 50.39.200.134 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 13:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

TCGs as MMOs[edit]

Interested parties may wish to answer the question at Talk:Massively multiplayer online game#Card games. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about addition of character list to a GA[edit]

I started a discussion thread on Talk:Chaos;Head#Character section about Landingdude13's addition of a lengthy character list to the article. I don't think a lot of people watch the article in question, so I figured I'd notify the WikiProject about it. If you have the time, please drop by and share your thoughts.--IDVtalk 15:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinions sought "the greatest" vs "one of the greatest"[edit]

Please see discussion at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time#Changed to "considered by many to be greatest ever". -- ferret (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)