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, 116, 117
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


Character articles[edit]

Collapsed above is Neku_Sakuraba#Reception. I think it's symptomatic of a widespread problem that I think the project should confront. We have many of these refbombed articles that easily impress people who don't follow the links. The collapsed section above is a stringing together of every Neku mention from the reviews of a single game. Yes, in a plot-driven game, you would expect the main character to be covered in the review. It doesn't make the character individually notable (more on that in a second). This is to say that, of course, the character should be covered, but it would be undue weight to give the character his own article instead of covering him, as the sources did, within the confines of the game/series. This is what I mean by dedicated or in-depth coverage. Anyone can string together an article with paper-thin sourcing—a quote from every review about the character—but the point of the GNG is that we should cover topics in the same manner that the sources do. If sources are not running dedicated articles about these characters, we shouldn't be either. And if it's close enough that we have maybe one source about the character and a bunch of little blurbs, we should be working summary style out from the game's character/plot section within its article (because the source material is mainly little blurbs about the game, and we give due/proportional coverage). Any merge discussion gets caught up on the role of "dedicated" sources as not being a requirement of the GNG, but it's just semantics. The point of significant coverage is to keep in mind how much a source is really about a subject and then to write proportionally. "Notability" as a phrase has a habit of setting editors off. What it really means is "sufficient coverage to warrant its own WP page dedicated to the topic". ("Notability" is shorter.) We do not treat minigames, game settings, or any other constituent elements of a game with the same carefree hand that we treat fictional characters even though those game elements might receive as much coverage in a game's reviews as Neku did above. When the abundant GTAV reviews discuss the lushness and opportunities of Los Santos, we do not aggregate every mention and write an article about the single element because we do not see its coverage to be set apart from that of the game. If Los Santos became the subject of multiple, dedicated articles, the case would be obvious and uncontested. So it is with fictional characters. When a character is notable apart from its game—and like main characters in other media, very few are—there are more than ample sources to prove so. But if we can't acknowledge that Reception sections like Neku's are propping up full articles when we have no real encyclopedic bases for one, then it's hard to have any substantive conversation about what makes a character notable enough for an article because... every character becomes notable with enough reviews of its game. I'd really like to see the project take a harder lines on merging articles such as these. czar 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This type of approach to writing character reception is also how those list-heavy articles get used a lot (eg "Top 10 hottest characters"). I know editors are trying to justify notability by adding all those sources but I agree they need to be used more in a summary style, not necessarily addressing each source directly but still used in broad terms. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of complaining on the existence of "those list-heavy articles" in articles yet not one policy-based rationale on why they are inappropriate, especially when WP:GNG specifically claims that "Significant coverage [...] need not be the main topic of the source material"; i.e. if the list covers every item listed significantly then it's still a proper source, even though it's a list. Nevertheless, I'd recommend holding your horses for a bit until the storm at AfD/Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter) and AfD/Reiko Nagase dies down, as this discussion here parallels much of the problems raised over there. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 05:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Most top X list articles give a name and then 2-3 sentences that really don't "cover" the character significantly. This is a prime example of such a list that does not significantly contribute to understanding the character. (In contrast with the more recent Game Informer top 30 characters of the decade which is not online but easily had 2-3 paragraphs for each character in the list) --MASEM (t) 05:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, it's tempting, but I'll always go for actual commentary on the character in a reception section before "Top Tens" any day. That's the real problem with Aya Brea, too many lists and not enough commentary. But unfortunately, this issue looks like one of those things that can't be handled through any new policies. But if something can be worked it, it would be useful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and put in a very strong oppose to this idea right away. Undue weight should have no bearing on notability. The differences with characters and other elements of a game is we normally accept character articles on Wikipedia, like with TV shows and comic books, so why should it be any different with video games? I'll be blunt and say that the idea of restricting video game characters only to those who have full dedicated articles in sources to them would be way too strict, especially considering that WP:GNG or any notability criteria in general doesn't even support such a practice, so why do that here? I've never even seen notability enforced quite this strictly on Wikipedia before. Why should cram all video game characters from a certain series into one article, just because they don't have whole articles dedicated to them in sources? To me, that is very ridiculous, and I've always believed that it's just more convenient to give characters their own articles. Even as an inclusionist, I understand why have notability here on Wikipedia, but it gets way too out of hand sometimes, like here.
Also, some top lists do give more than 2 or 3 sentences, so it would make no sense to ban top lists from establishing notability completely. In fact, many top lists I come across discusses the character for several sentences and even paragraphs. For this reason, whether top lists can be used to establish notability really should a case-by-case basis. Not to mention, there was also a consensus a while back that top list can be used to establish notability, depending on the case, which is rather fair, if you ask me. But either way, debates will continue to pop up on what constitutes as "significant coverage". Some will say only a few sentences satisfies the criteria, while others would argue that it would need at least a few paragraphs discussing the character in detail. The bar should not be raised too high, especially when people are more lax with character articles in other media. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
What Czar is proposing really isn't removed from the WP:GNG in general. I mean, if a video game itself only had a few top ten lists appearances and maybe a paragraph about it in a retrospective about the system it was on or something, it's notability would probably be debated too. The difference is merely that video games themselves are much more likely to get dedicated articles in the form of previews, reviews, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe (even though I would disagree with a merge proposal in that case too), but especially considering the nature of characters being far less likely to get dedicated articles, I do not think raising the bar would be the way to go. WP:GNG also doesn't require dedicated articles, which sadly seems to be a misconception on Wikipedia. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
We tend to have these discussions every year or so, whenever a bunch of frivolous character articles are deleted, much of the time with more experienced editors agreeing it should be this way, its just that editors making them always seems to outpace the enforcement of it. Its really more of a "lets start enforcing it" than a "lets get more strict". I support it, I just generally don't have that much of an interest in working on character articles, so my activity is usually just quickly trimming out ridiculous "reception" like the type I outlined below. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I admit that I haven't been working on character articles much lately either. I should start again. I even have been interested in getting some of them to GA. I just don't like the harsh attitude given towards these character articles, and I disagree with the whole "let's start enforcing it" thing for reasons I already mentioned in my long post. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does irritate me that many of these character articles "pad" the reception section with every little mention that comes up, often times using random observations or basic descriptions of the character rather than actual reception. (John Smith of GameSpot said "That Sonic, he's so fast! He's blue and faster than that Robotnik, for sure!") Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering that being a subject of extensive debate, I think what constitutes as "actual reception" should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, rather than a project-wide consensus. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC) you feel that that this type of thing should be considered reception? Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No, not really, but it wouldn't surprise me if some people do. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, some definitely do... Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I should note that notable characters don't need to get as much reception as we'd have for GLaDOS or Alyx Vance, but they should be more than just commenting on the character as a playable element of the game; we want the notably to be more about the character as a representation of the game they are in and its out-of-universe reception, rather than within the universe. That's a point that many of those top 10 lists fail on, they are just taking in the in-universe aspects. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
But why do they need out-of-universe reception? As far as I know, no notability criteria says that coverage must be out-of-universe. Some out-of-universe reception for characters would be nice, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
In general, Wikipedia treats works of fiction from an out-of-universe perspective; we're not a fan guide where every nuanced story detail will be iterated. We want to help a reader that may never have played a game with that character before and may never actually play that game at all, to understand why that character is important beyond the bounds of the game itself; we're trying to establish what type of role this video game character serves in the larger aspect of the video game industry and more broadly, the entertainment industries. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, its really more of a general Wikipedia guideline thing than a GNG thing, that's why you're not seeing it there. For more information, see the Manual of Style info at WP:INUNIVERSE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I normally don't see such a practice being held in articles about fictional material though. I see no good reason why we can't use in-universe reception to establish notability, as long as they pass WP:GNG. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Just because you see it happen, doesn't make it justified. What you're saying flies directly against WP:INU, which itself grounded in WP:NOT. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything at WP:INU suggesting that reception must be out-of-universe, just that articles about fiction should pass WP:GNG and stuff. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
From my experience, the only time that GNG is met for a character article - that is, having significant coverage - is when that significant coverage is talking about the character out-of-universe - either how the character was developer, voiced, drawn, etc. (production), or how the character made the game stand out, or became iconic to the video game industry, or influenced other characters in other games. This is not to say that all GNG-meeting characters only have this type of sourcing; I can fully believe that it should be possible to find a character where its significant coverage is only from the character's in-universe background, story and narrative so that GNG is still met. But I am saying that is an extremely rare situation that I have not yet encountered - the way this industry comments on characters, the significant coverage is the out-of-universe style. The in-universe coverage (eg "Sonic is fast!") is rarely significant, just enough to establish some descriptors for gameplay and narrative understanding. Also, WP:WAF is a good guideline on how we want to approach fiction in general, and that's where we stress the out-of-universe approach. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
INU is about writing Wikipedia articles in general, and there's no reason/indicator to think it not talking about Reception sections. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Which bring me back to what I said about what constitutes as "significant coverage" leads to extensive debate. I agree that quotes that states the obvious like "Sonic is fast" is not actual reception, but I don't think banning in-universe coverage in general is the right way to go either. It's something I believe that should just be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much eliminating such in-universe but being aware that 1) by itself reception of the character that strictly handles it in-universe is likely not sufficient for notability 2) when you do have a good mix of out-of-universe coverage and in-universe coverage, adding the weak in-universe commentary atop the stronger out-of-universe coverage can be out of place. And what's happening as ID'd in this section is that users are shoehorning in all this in-universe, the top 10 list mentions, and other things that don't really talk about the character atop a section that could stand alone with the out-of-universe aspects. Now, there still is some common sense here. It would be silly of us to ignore how many times a character like Lara Croft hits various top 10 lists that come from how she appears, but obviously there's a lot more coverage about Lara that we can go into about her character's development, various story arcs, etc (particularly with the reboot). I've seen people find one brief secondary source on other attractive characters, start with that, and then flood the rest of the reception with the top ten list entries due to her attractive appearance. That's not helpful to our readers, and the caution that must be made - we want weight on more out-of-universe aspects. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Which further backs up my case to evaluate in-universe sources on a case-by-case basis, rather than outright banning them from establishing notability. Speaking of common sense, common sense would tells me not to cram a character who gets a lot of reception in character list article, regardless if the reception is in-universe or out-of-universe. Not helpful to our readers? I would have to disagree. I'm sure some readers would like to know much attention a certain character gets, regardless if the reception is about their attractive appearance. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not banned, a degree of it is necessary to explain concepts or plotlines. It can be used some. The point is, the notability standards should be able to be met with out-of-universe reception. If there's not even enough out-of-universe coverage to meet the bare-bones requirements of the GNG, there's no way there's going to be enough out-of-universe content to write an entire article that doesn't violate WP:INU. If the only sources covering it in detail are in-universe, then all of the content is going to be in-universe, and that's objectively not okay with Wikipedia's current consensus. If you want in-universe-based stuff, there's plenty of places for that, but its not here, its at Wikias and GameFaqs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Case by case is fine, but we do want to have some milestones of where it is reasonable to start from, along the lines I've described. The other thing to consider on your second point is that we do want to be aware that if a character is very commonly on these lists, that's fine and important to include (the Lara Croft case) but we do want to make sure these are valid points. There do exist top 10 lists that I would call out as clickbait, and along the lines of "Top 10 Hottest Chicks/Babes in Video Games" or "The Most Bad-ass Villains", and really that's not even a reasonably fair starting point in trying to describe a character in an encyclopedic way. When these do exist in reasonable numbers, I agree we should not ignore them, but as the example in this section gives we do not need a sentence with a quote for each one of these list appearances. A one sentence summary that combines 3 to 5 sources is fair enough. The above example under the hide section could be cut from 3 paragraphs to 1 following this advice without losing any of the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Well done for actually discussing this instead of just unliterally redirecting it and hoping no-one notices. But I don't think we'll ever get anywhere. I'm in favour of deleting listicle-sourced character articles, but I have been in favour of that every time it's brought up - 2012, 2012, 2014, 2014, 2014 lol. There's more, obviously. The problem is actually worse outside of the video game space, where you have articles like Stacy X, Sway (comics), Mickey Shea, Henry Grubstick without even the typical listicle bullshit propping it up. - hahnchen 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I think that was someone's reason for calling us being "too strict" in one of the past discussions, the fact that comic book characters are typically even worse off. But the problem there is just that it doesn't appear to be as active of an area. I mean, look at WP:COMIC. They've had 5 edits made in the month of October that weren't related to archiving. We had 45 edits today alone. The problem is that they don't have experienced users maintaining this kind of stuff. We do, so we could be. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
VG editors should get active in deleting comic book characters if they want VG characters deleted. You don't want to be seen as targeting VG articles unfairly when the problem is fictional minutiae across the entire project. I don't think most Wikipedians care or know about the issue of in-universe trivia, to get them to notice, you're going to have to nominate a lot of articles for deletion over a sustained period of time. - hahnchen 21:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I come back to Wikipedia after taking a break to sort out stuff IRL to find this massive wall of text... oh boy. Anyway, I'd like to echo Kokoro20's thoughts and strongly oppose - it's rampant deletionism at its finest, and is backed up by absolutely no policy, and frankly flies in the face of what Wikipedia policy actually conveys. As I'll demonstrate below:

  • I see plenty of editors here stipulate that "out-of-universe coverage" is necessary to demonstrate notability, and then cite WP:INU to back up their claim. The problem here is that the guideline has been taken out of context - read what INU actually says and it becomes clear that the guideline is about writing plotlines and removing fancruft, and is completely irrelevant to notability.
  • There's people saying that fictional characters need "dedicated coverage" in order to meet the GNG. Yet the guideline says absolutely nothing about this. In fact, there's a line directly to the contrary: "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Thus, as long the sources discuss the character in some detail (as opposed to name-dropping, which would be a "trivial mention") then the characters notability is fine, even if those mentions occur within a game review or list article.

When you start using personal interpretations and opinions in citing Wikipedia policy, instead of taking them at face value (as they're meant to be taken) you enter dangerous territory. (Using WP:INU in a way it's not meant to be used, by applying it to notability instead of its intended purpose of writing about plotlines, is a prime example). Another example can be seen in the following quote: "From my experience, the only time that GNG is met for a character article - that is, having significant coverage - is when that significant coverage is talking about the character out-of-universe" - although good-faith and unintended, it distorts the actual meaning of the policy. In actuality, GNG is met when it "[receives] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to quote from the guideline. (Apologies in advance if some of my points have already been addressed. I didn't have enough time to read all the text that's been posted above.) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

    • Significant coverage doesn't require a dedicated third-party article but it absolutely needs to be more than a line or two as the example that leads this off gives; the character in question is only mentioned briefly in the sources given and little more than that. Otherwise, it is just name dropping or trivial mention. We also have to remember that this is only the issue on stand alone character articles; list articles for characters in a game are fine still, and a better place if all the type of third-party sourcing are the name-dropped style. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem is that people are not taking the context of those sources into consideration. This listicle, for example, are more just passing or trivial mentions of the characters in it. This source and other similar ones were brought at the AFD for Frank Tenpenny, but were discounted, just because their listicles. Kokoro20 (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with you Masem. But certain other editors don't see it this way - at the recently closed Sarah Bryant AfD sources were discounted or ignored simply because they were listicles where other characters were present (a list that covered all of them in great depth, BTW), or it was part of a game review, or there was no "out-of-universe coverage", etc., essentially the same twisting of policies as what's happening right here. My protests arguing otherwise fell on deaf ears. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 10:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe this concern is more of a website-wide one. We know a passing mention isn't good enough, and that a lengthy, dedicated article usually is good enough, but there is a lot of subjective, gray area in between, where a judgment call has to be made. If you think about it though, it kind of has to be that way, as some of it just can't quantified. It's not like we could say something like "4 sentences = significant coverage" or something, as the content within those four sentences could vary wildly. In one article, it could be detailed insight into a character, while in another, it could amount to "Sonic is fast. He is blue. He has red shoes. Sonic is cool." I think its something that needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. (If its any consolation, of Czar's 3 controversial nominations, it looks like we'll have 1 keep, 1 redirect, and 1 no consensus at this rate.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (Side note: Satellizer, I know its quite the wall of text, but try to read it over when you get the chance, it does address some of your concerns regarding INU and the GNG. Short version: It isn't so much whether or not the GNG allows for in-universe reception, it's more that, if the only way to meet the GNG is with just in-universe coverage, then that's going to leave you with only in-universe content to write the article with, and that's where the problem comes in, because INU says article's shouldn't be primarily written that way.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Thanks for the response. I agree 100% that it should be decided in a case-by-case basis, and judgement calls used for those articles in gray areas. However I disagree with the current interpretation of INU - it is a Manual of Style article that details how articles should be written rather than what is written, and it shouldn't be used as an indicator of notability (or whether something deserves an article or not). If GNG and INU were somehow to come into conflict, then GNG should trump INU every time as it is a core Wikipedia guideline whereas INU is something more secondary (i.e. if something violates GNG, you delete it, but if something violates INU, you fix it). That really shouldn't happen, though, as the "in-universe" content can easily be written in an out-of-universe way. For example:

In 2010, UGO listed her among the 50 "hottest girls" in video games, describing her as "quick, efficient, and super-deadly". (taken from Taki (Soulcalibur))

Isn't violating INU in any way as the sentence explicitly says that the list is about video game (thus fictional) characters. It can't be taken to mean that Taki is a real person. Here's another example (paraphrasing the one you gave above):

John Smith of GameSpot wrote that he loved Sonic as he is fast and beat up Robotnik at the end.

Can be taken as an INU violation as it does not distinguish between the real world and an in-universe perspective. But this can easy be re-written:

John Smith of GameSpot complimented Sonic's character, praising his speed and his victory over Robotnik at the end of the game. (emphasis mine.)

Now there is no INU violation as the fictional context becomes clear. Thus, articles shouldn't be removed as they violate INU, but instead should be fixed. To use INU as an indicator of notability would distort the original purpose of the guideline and it should not clash with GNG in determining an article's value. Hopefully my points are a bit easier to read this time. Thanks :) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much the writing style we're using to address those points (which as you rightfully say is using out-of-universe), but that the details being emphasized - Sonic's speed, Taki's efficiency as a brawler character, etc. - are in-universe details that border on gamecruft if we're not careful. I am absolutely sure that somewhere on our VG pages, there is a good example of a brawler game character that has a significant amount of reception across multiple sources about how that character plays in their respective game(s) (whether he is hard to learn but lethal when the player gets the hang of it for example), of which use is not in question. But simply using one comment about a brawler character being quick and efficient is focusing too much on a gameplay element that only those that will play the game may appreciate and if it is only one voice saying that, while everything else on the character's reception is more on out-of-universe factors, it stands out. Particularly when there is no metric here: for the brawler character "quick and efficient" compared to what? Its fine for the off-the-cuff writing style of game reviews, but doesn't work here. The Neko example at the top demonstrates when too much emphasis is placed on trying to find any in-universe point that has been picked up by sources to try to flesh out a reception section. I rather see a slimmed down reception section that highlights out-of-universe points than one that tries to make the character seem more important than they are by stuffing the box with anything that looks like faint praise (and having written the main The World Ends with You article, I absolutely can say that the above example for Neko is overblowing the character; it was the character set as a whole that the game was generally praised for). --MASEM (t) 00:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The crux of my points, which I've detailed above, is that such a viewpoint is flawed IMO as it is based on misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy. The argument that we should redirect character articles in this discussion revolves around GNG and INU - but, like I said, whether something is in-universe or part of a "top 10 list" is completely irrelevant to GNG and INU is, like you said, only about writing style and not "details being emphasized" - you can't apply a guideline to something it's not meant to be used for. There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy barring reception from "focusing on a gameplay element", just like there is no policy barring in-universe coverage (when WP:INU is about writing style) or coverage with other characters. I wouldn't exactly say that "Sonic's speed" or "Taki's efficiency" is gamecruft when they've been mentioned by RS coverage and thus forms a notable facet of their character.
However, I feel we're going off-topic here. So, a quick, tl;dr summary of my points: WP:GNG should be the one and only factor in judging the notability of a fictional character. Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial. Whether the coverage is in a list article or a game review is irrelevant, as GNG explicitly states that the character does not have to be the main topic. WP:INU is irrelevant, as the guideline is not about notability and in-universe writing can be easily fixed anyway (as demonstrated by my examples above). If a character has "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then I feel the character deserves an article. No ifs, no buts, and no misapplication of guidelines or taking them out of context. My apologies for being blunt, but I feel that's the quickest and most straightforward way to express my points. Thanks :) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Case of Ken Rosenberg[edit]

I think there are some suggestions above that would make some really easy resolutions for WP:VG/GL, but before we get there, I thought I'd toss this out for the weekend: This morning, Game Informer "Top 10 Grand Theft Auto Characters of All Time" was suggested as a substantial "listicle" not deserving of the term's pejorative connotations. I would ask that you click on it, for your frame of reference. I read this article as the epitome of the articles we should be ignoring when determining whether a character is sufficiently notable for their own article. There is a lack of depth or interest in each list item such that each is treated in a cursory manner closer to an item in a Letterman top ten than to an AFI Top 100 entry (and this isn't even to address how meaningless it is to count inclusion on this list as some kind of meaningful superlative). So, playing along, if this Game Informer Top 10 "counted" towards Tenpenny's notability (as originally cited above), what else would count? I picked the next character: Ken Rosenberg. So in addition to the aforementioned Game Informer piece's paragraph, there are also paragraphs at IGN‍‍ '​‍s favorite badasses, IGN‍‍ '​‍s best supporting characters, and IGN‍‍ '​‍s economics of Vice City, each with a paragraph on Rosenberg. I implore you to actually check the four articles rather than me copy-pasting here. Rosenberg is only notable in an ultra-literal read of the GNG that acknowledges four separate paragraphs in four separate articles about him as making him notable, when anyone actually reading the content sees that there is nothing of substance in those four articles. I'll go further. I used to have a literal read of the GNG until Trade In Detectives—I found multiple articles that covered the company in depth and thought that was that. But if the articles (which cover the company in more depth than these articles cover Ken Rosenberg, Tenpenny, or Sarah Bryant) have a promotional air or just aren't very good reporting, WP doesn't count them for notability. That's why we don't have an article on Ken Rosenberg, that's why we shouldn't have one for Neku Sakuraba, and that's why we should be enforcing the source quality we require of other types of articles. It's a cop-out to say that listicles are okay on a case-by-case basis (because anything can be okay on a case-by-case basis)—the point should be that listicles (articles from RS presented in a list form without editorial credence to the difference in rank and, come on, usu. intended as clickbait) are predominantly unacceptable at AfD until proven useful, the same way that being included in a BuzzFeed listicle wouldn't "count" in any culture-related AfD. We never get anywhere at AfD particularly because someone refbombs a bunch of low-quality or otherwise vapid sources (not unlike the Neku text above) and a horde of passersby at AfD vote to keep without actually reading the sources for what original contribution/commentary they make and how that would make an encyclopedic article. Bon week-end, czar 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you've identified the problem. "Rosenberg is only notable in an ultra-literal read of the GNG" - thing is, the GNG, like all other Wikipedia policies, should always be read literally, because otherwise editors are free to personally interpret (or should I say misinterpret) key policies to fit their own agendas, there would be millions of different arguments based on these misinterpretations and nothing constructive would come out of them. Editors would also be free to introduce arbitrary restrictions on source usage, such as the "list articles are not proper sources" dilemma which has repeatedly plagued this WikiProject. As for the four sources you've nominated, I daresay that all four of them would contribute their part to Rosenberg's notability as in each a reliable source discusses their opinions on a character. I fail to see how that is not "substance". Listicles from reliable sources should be presumed reliable until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
p.s. Rosenberg doesn't have an article not necessarily because he's not notable but simply as no-one has bothered to make him one (excluded the stub way back in '04). Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that policies are not to be treated as strict law. They're descriptive of our practices, not prescriptive. That's what's been argued here is that if you consider how these have been applied in the past, we would normally handle articles in a certain manner, that if you take a very exacting read of the guidelines and policies may seem off. --MASEM (t) 06:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
With that AFD example you posted, just because consensus was against your keep on there with the sources you provided does not mean we should now be enforcing these notability standards elsewhere. Besides, there's also been AFDs that has closed with keep without any sources provided whatsoever. As for "vapid" sources, that's a very subjective term, and is genuinely something that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as I've mentioned before. And yes, many of these listicles come from sources are considered reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, so unless proper evidence can be found that a listicle at one of those sites shouldn't be reliable, they should be presumed to be reliable, like how the source already is in general (unless it happens to be user-submitted, of course), per WP:NEWSBLOG (under the assumption that listicles can be treated like blogs), which merely says to use them with caution and not for extraordinary claims. It even suggests that such sources are fine for opinion pieces, which is what reception is. As for Ken Rosenberg, I agree with Satellizer that most likely is the case that no one has bothered to create an article for him. In fact, if someone were to create an article for him or anyone else with similar sourcing, I would be in favor of keeping it, based on those sources. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Reading WP:GNG as ultra-literally as possible and most of the listicle detritus that supports character articles (such as the Rosenberg links) still don't magically become "significant coverage". Satellizer brings up the point above, "The differences with characters and other elements of a game is we normally accept character articles on Wikipedia", which is why I think the problem goes way beyond video games. - hahnchen 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel a bit lost. For example, both Ken Masters and Sagat (Street Fighter) are notable for being overpowered (that they have to strong moves). Chun-li is popular for being the first female fighter. This results in top tens used in many of these articles. If the top tens or something like that can't be used then I'm afraid lots of fighting game characters should be merged.Tintor2 (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Most of the "top ten" listicles/mentions are not worth individually citing (e.g., "X from Magazine said she was "attractive"), or can at least be combined (e.g., multiple refs added to a general statement). And I think the overarching point is that when a set of characters primarily receives coverage as a group and not as individuals, they're best covered as a group and not as individuals. As for the individual characters mentioned above, if there is little secondary source coverage after the top list refs are combined—for example, if a character is only known for a one-dimensional character trait and has no other commentary—it is almost always best to cover them in a series character list. czar 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There's also the case of Horstachio ([1][2][3][4]m[5][6]) ... the point is that it's extremely easy to string together mentions of a major character within any franchise, but it doesn't mean that the character is independently notable (i.e., having enough coverage to justify its own Wikipedia page) from the series article. czar 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Rosenberg resolution[edit]

I'd like to see some resolution here, so I'm inviting outside parties. (I'd rather not have to create Ken Rosenberg as an AfD test case.) The question is whether the Grand Theft Auto character Ken Rosenberg should have his own article or redirect to another article. To summarize the above, this is a proxy case for the line when listicle coverage becomes significant coverage. The four main sources (already vetted as reliable) are as follows:

The question is whether these together constitute significant coverage. There are arguments for and against above, so let's limit input to new voices, please. czar 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  • By my personal estimate, "significant coverage" exists if there are enough independent reliable sources that you can write an article about a topic that isn't a mere stub or significantly unbalanced towards one aspect of the topic. This requires the sources to be more than a passing mention, not simply repeat the same thing and be somewhat comprehensive in aggregate. For this character, these sources appear to have enough material for an article, although having some information on critical reception and the like as well would be ideal.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • These do not constitute significant coverage to meet the GNG. The bulk of information in these articles are primary recaps of the work in question, and barely make it secondary by making some comments on the nature of the character but without actually getting into any critical discussion of the character - eg we're still missing significant discussion on the character that is beyond recapping the primary work. It's great to use to include on a character list article on WP, but not for standalone. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • For a standalone article on a fictional character, it needs to have sources that are non-trivially about that character. Interviews with the designer about the character design, discussions by critics about the impact of the character, etc. Brief mentions of the character in reviews of the game, or inclusion in top-10 lists, even when numerous in aggregate, do not make up for a lack of non-trivial coverage. So no, Ken Rosenburg cannot support a standalone article, nor can any equivalently-sourced article. --PresN 23:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I also don't think this would meet the GNG, per Masem and PresN's arguments. There's very little content to extract from these sources. If that's all the coverage he has, then it'd be better if he were just covered in the context of his respective game(s) articles. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not an outside party, but I'll make my post here anyway. All my above posts within this whole "Character articles" thread pretty much sums up my thoughts. Again, listicles should be taken in context, because many of these listicles contain more information about characters than you will find anywhere else. Game reviews usually just make passing mentions of characters, while listicles often do not. So, yes, I would argue that this or any other character with similar sourcing meets the GNG. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Just two sources (gameinformer and IGN) is a bare minimum to even attempt to claim notability, but even with more similar sources the coverage I'm seeing is way too thin to justify independent notability and an independent article. Consider Pokemon, most of the characters could cite multiple thin sourcing, but almost all characters redirect to a list-of-characters. (Pikachu on the other hand does have an independent article, and it's sourced out the wazoo, including sources such as Forbes.)
Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages says:
  • Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article
  • Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page
A game character is better handled in the context of an article on the game or within the context of a character-list for that game, unless the character has achieved in-depth coverage and/or coverage independent of the game. A listicle is thin coverage, but I'd give it a lot more consideration if it were covering noteworthy characters from various games rather than merely listing GrandTheftAuto characters. Alsee (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Easy No To pass GNG you need significant coverage in multiple sources. All the above mentioned sources just mention the character as part of a list. They are not the focus of a single one. This falls under trivial coverage at best. If the best sources use a list format then that is a good indication that we should do the same in our article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As PresN says, such things as interviews, etc., would be helpful if you want to establish notability. The four sources provided would probably turn into a two-paragraph article, as they all say much the same things. So for right now, no. Eman235/talk 05:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No - I agree with most of the above users that this would not meet notability requirements for an article. It would be the bare minimum - and would then be a stub which is something that we don't want. Two different websites does not suffice for an entire article nor doe sit meet GNG requirements. You would definitely need more coverage and more independent sources, aside from websites like gameinformer. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, per my comments above I'd say this is a borderline case but I'm leaning towards a yes. Quite the unpopular opinion here. (I know this was meant for new voices but others above seem to have already ignored this rule.) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Recombobulating List of Nintendo Direct presentations[edit]

Hey there all~! Dropping in with another plan for improving Satoru Iwata-related topics. I have a slight pipe dream of creating a featured topic around the late Mr. Iwata and the article mentioned in the title is one of the targets (the other would be List of Iwata Asks interviews and potentially his gameography—rather than arbitrarily picking games to include—which I have tucked away in a sandbox for the time being). Anyways, since Nintendo Direct is fresh on everyone's mind after it's grand return yesterday I thought it would be a good idea to try and whip the article into shape. The current style is hardly informative to the reader, merely giving dates of the broadcasts and only mentioning content when it's a game-specific Direct.

To alleviate this, I came up with a potential replacement table (see here for example) that would give us leeway to include some of the actual content of the broadcasts. Since some of the Nintendo Directs have long lists of games that are either announced or covered, I got to learn a nifty new feature with tables and added a scrolling component to forcibly limit the length shown. I've used yesterday's Direct as an example of such. As per normal with the tables I make, there's a notes column which I think will largely go unused aside from noting non-video game topics (mostly just Amiibo) or relatively major info, such as Cloud being introduced in Smash Bros. or if it's a special Direct broadcast (i.e. Mini, Micro, etc.). I'd like to get some of your thoughts on this so we can maybe get this beast back in order. Thanks in advance, everyone! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the effort, as the current list is unreadable to me. The list on this userpage of yours currently looks much easier to understand. I also believe that newly announced games and large updates should definitely be listed, if possible. The way you've done it in your draft seems appropriate~ Listing all games covered within each direct might not be entirely appropriate, but I am sure it should be easy to source these micro-lists if needed, and these scrolling tables would definitely be the best way to do them. I'm rather neutral on this aspect.
Getting all prior Directs into this new format is probably going to be a huge pain, but it seems to be an improvement to me. One thing I have noticed is that many Nintendo Directs have a name or a type, such as "Splatoon Direct" or "Nintendo Direct Micro" respectively. I think it is much more important to list this aspect prominently than listing each game covered in a video. Your current format only really allows this in the notes column, which seems odd. ~Mable (chat) 22:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The new table does look better, but I'm asking myself if an article like this is even needed? Nintendo Directs are just advertisements for upcoming Nintendo games, and while they may be notable, it's a pain to manage an article on them, as you have proven. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I want to say that it was turned into a list article years ago when someone brought up notability concerns with the topic itself. I can't find the exact discussion though, it was years ago. I'm not crazy about either forms of the article, but I can't deny that it's a helpful wiki-link, making it so I don't have to explain what one is every time I create a new Nintendo article that was announced in one... Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I would believe that Nintendo Direct is definitely notable, as both announcements of new Nintendo Direct presentations as the content of said presentations are covered by reliable sources. Whether it is appropriate to have a list of Nintendo Directs is more difficult to decide, but we should definitely have the sources to do so. It might make more sense to simply have an article titled "Nintendo Direct" with barely any specific games mentioned in it anywhere, but I suppose that would be difficult to do, as there is indeed not that much to say about it. A permanent stub wouldn't be a big problem, but it is not optimal.
The fact that List of Nintendo Direct presentations is difficult to maintain shouldn't be a reason not to try to keep it, right? ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Pardon my lack of replying...been busy with trying to keep the Paris attacks article in order. 'bout to head off for the night (or what's left of it, already 5 am here) so I thought I'd at least drop a comment. Notability for Nintendo Direct is already established via numerous reliable sources documenting it. Nintendo Magic covers it briefly as well, but there's really not much to substantiate an article on the topic itself—I'm not a fan of perma-stubs either. As for the special Directs (such as ones focused on single games), maybe a separate table specifically for them is appropriate? This is, of course, if my suggested format is maintained. If we scrap listing all the games it'll be easier to integrate the game-specific Directs with the main series. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I recommend "games covered" and "third party titles", keep the "new games announced" and "notes", and add a column for presentation titles or something of the like. This should make the table both easier to maintain while giving readers an appropriate amount of information. It can be difficult to decide which news is worth mentioning in this list, however. To take the recent presentation as an example:
  • Cloud being added to Super Smash Bros. is the most covered news from the presentation by far, so it should probably be mentioned.
  • "Linkle" (female Link in Hyrule Warriors) seems to covered a lot, and could be mentioned.
  • The original Pokémon games being released on the 3DS Virtual console seems to be covered a lot, and could be mentioned.
  • The January Amiibo wave seems to be covered a lot, and could be mentioned.
  • Two new Splatoon levels were announced as well as other updates.
  • This is the first Nintendo Direct presentation since Iwata's passing, which is what the video starts off with, and this could be mentioned.
However, if we mention all of these things, we might as well just go ahead and mention all games covered in the video. We have to decide for some kind of balance, but I have no idea how. New game announcements are the only obvious ones to include. ~Mable (chat) 10:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Maplestrip, Dissident93, and Sergecross73: Looked into MOS a bit more and turns out that the scrolling list is heavily frowned upon (or outright not allowed) for mainspace articles. I've come up with a few alternatives (again located within a sandbox of mine). Version 2 is the same as 1, but with MOS compliance to show the full listing of games. Version 3 removes the games altogether and lists only major topics of the Direct. I'm personally a fan of Version 4, which leans more toward prose and allows flexibility in listing games discussed as well as alternate types of Directs. It also allows for the addition of images (such as fair-use ones of a newly announced title). Specials such as the Splatoon Direct will be fairly short but can be covered appropriately in this format without breaking any tables. If there is more than one Direct in a given month, the section headers can simply be adjusted to add the date for that month to avoid a misleading duplicate. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I personally strongly advice against both version 2 and 4, because I don't believe listing all games mentioned in a Nintendo Direct is in any way useful or practical. It's basically giving the games undue weight. For example, in the most recent Nintendo Direct, we got five seconds of footage from The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game) and it was confirmed that it would be released in 2016. That is literally all. I do not see why we have to list stuff like this on a page that, by nature, will already get very long. I like version 3, but would suggest adding announced games to the table (Pokémon Picross and Twilight Princess HD). I think that would create a nice balance. I'm fine with no games being listed at all too. ~Mable (chat) 08:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: I've added a Version 5 and Version 6 based on your suggestion. Version 5 is the same prose style as Version 4 but removes the list of games. All the necessary information is present but allows for longer discussions on particular topics (table format limits main points to bullets). Version 6 is an exact representation of your suggestion, using the table of Version 3 but including a "New games announced column". Alternatively, the notes section could be used as a prose box so I guess it's actually flexible *shrug*. I've also included an example of a Direct that did not include a game announcement for convenience. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I like both version 5 and 6 and am not sure which is best. At this point, I'd love to hear more opinions from others :) ~Mable (chat) 11:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I prefer version 5, if that helps. Having it in prose with only the notable announcements mentioned looks way better than some table listing every one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings discussion[edit]

I think we need to talk about the use of GameRankings. With current talks about use of Aggregation websites here this one seems to be the most expendable. At least, in my opinion. OpenCritic has been the new up-and-coming site that might become more popular than industry standard Metacritic. That's speculation right now as we don't know what's going to happen in the future. Metacritic is also one of two aggregation websites we consider reliable and use at this time. The other being GameRankings. Why do we still use GameRankings? It's older than Metacritic, as well as both sites being owned by CBS Interactive, but you don't hear critics or publishers talk about its importance. So I'm wondering if there should be a cutoff of using GameRankings on Wikipedia. Just stop using it past a certain date. Any other suggestions are welcome of course. GamerPro64 19:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Might want to set this up more like an RFC or something - this may not be as clear cut as you think, as the consensus the last time we discussed this was pretty strongly in favor of keeping it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In the 18 months since the last discussion, GameRankings has continued to be an irrelevance in the games industry, its presence on Wikipedia outweighs by its presence anywhere else. It should not be used for modern games. A lot of articles probably include it just out of habit, it might be difficult to do anything about it unless someone decides to go all Giraffedata on it. We could update Template:Video game reviews/doc to recommend the use of only one aggregator. - hahnchen 20:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"GameRankings has continued to be an irrelevance in the games industry", maybe by your opinion or the people you have around you but just a simple look at Alexa shows it's far and above more popular than a site like OpenCritic. I'm not taking a stand on the use of aggregators (although I'm somewhat against linking to them), but they are pooling scores from published sources. They don't change the scores. You not liking them doesn't make the scores they recorded any less valid. If we're going to link to aggregators, I don't see why they are any more or less relevant than MetaCritic, OpenCritic or Rotten Tomatoes for that matter. And I absolutely am against the idea of picking a favorite. BcRIPster (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that trying to enforce not using it will require more effort than its worth to remove something that has nothing actually wrong with it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Iff we were to decide to omit GR from the table, I would consider it a deprecated step, grandfathering in all existing uses and recommending it not be used for others. But I would also insist that we should GR as an external link because it serves the purpose of being a launching board for other review sources for the reader, in addition to those by MC (and possibly OC). --MASEM (t) 22:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not done on articles on any other form of media, it shouldn't be done for games. Our reception section should already give a good overview of the critical landscape, and its references should be sufficient. We don't link to exhaustive lists of news or previews. Generally, for video games, I link to the official website(s) and to Mobygames, which itself has further links to reviews already. - hahnchen 22:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Spot-checking a number of film articles, many include 3 or more links to aggregation sites (not just reviews, but things like RT, MC, Box Office Mojo, IMDB, AllTheNumbers, etc.) I see the aggregates that aren't used in the review table in the same way, alongside a link to MobyGames. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Mobygames is the IMDB equivalent. The Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes links are already in the references, we don't usually repeat these in the external links in games articles. We have removed links to GameFAQs, Gamespy, Gamespot, IGN, StrategyWiki and many others. I do not support the addition of aggregators to WP:VG/EL. - hahnchen 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel the same way about rounding GameRankings' scores… —zziccardi (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Given that we have nearly 12000 links to GameRankings on the English Wikipedia alone, I think we should remember that their Alexa rank may be largely determined by our use of them. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. There might be a possibility of removing a large amount from here might cause a plummet in ranking. Now that's an article I would like to see, "Gaming Aggregator's traffic plummets thanks to Wikipedia". GamerPro64 23:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a Wikipedia article I would love to see: Wikipedia's impact on gaming aggregators. ;p ~Mable (chat) 11:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The indents are getting a little crazy at the top, so I'll put my response down here: For the record, when I say "not worth the effort to enforce", I'm talking about all the repetitive discussions/arguments that are going to break out over and over again.

  • Newbie: Hey, Serge, why did you remove Game Rankings?
  • Serge: Consensus is to not use GR on Wikipedia.
  • Newbie: How come?
  • Serge: Its not as prevalent as MC the industry.
  • Newbie: But I like GR/don't like MC. Here's some reasons why. What's wrong with using GR?
  • Serge: Well, there's nothing wrong, its just redundant.
  • Newbie: But what's the harm? And its on Sonic 2. And Super Mario 3D World, and etc etc etc.
  • Serge: Well, we set a cut off point.
  • Newbie: Why that point? What changed, and when? I want to open up a big RFC at WP:VG and get everyone all worked up over it.
  • (excessive arguments ensue)
Repeat Ad nauseam. Which is why I think its all more trouble than its worth. I fine with having this discussion over and over again about something like using VGChartz as a source, where there are issues that clash directly with WP:RS, and always a pretty strong consensus against it, but not this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think "it is too much work to keep arguing about it with newbies" isn't really a valid argument. Shouldn't we think about what is best for Wikipedia, rather than what is easiest for us? Either way, if we do stop using GameRankings, all you need to do is link to this conversation whenever someone brings it up. There is no use in talking about it on specific article talk pages. ~Mable (chat) 16:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
But that's the foundation of my argument - there isn't any any detriment to using it. There is detriment to wasted time and effort better spent on other things though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think newbies are really the ones to bloat review tables with Gameranking scores, it's generally regulars who follow a pattern. We can refer those editors back here, and make the instructions clearer at Template:Video_game_reviews to establish that those patterns have changed. It's more important to establish a precendent rather than to look at policing. - hahnchen 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether we should, we could remove the GR field from Template:Video game reviews such that the tables no longer contain the GR figure; this would likely discourage its use with minimal effort, while removing it from one of the prominent places it is frequently located. Sam Walton (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm guilty of adding it, even when I don't like it, for this reason. The template supports it, and as long as it does, that's viewed by many as implicit approval to use GR, if not an outright mandatory requirement. In places where I only add MC, I often find that an IP editor adds GR within a day or two. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, its either drive-by IPs that are making the changes, or the type of editor that is somewhere between "newbie" and "editor who regularly edits at WP:VG. There's a lot of them - the type that are huge fans of video games, but edit WP infrequently and don't really have a vested interest in following things, they really just want to add their 2 cents and be on their way. These are the types that these arguments are going to arise with over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The above dialogue has not been my experience. I remove GR whenever I see it not adding value (this is often) and I honestly cannot recall even a single article steward contesting the action. I see no issue with leaving GR in the template—it can be useful on specific, older games (really isolated cases). It just should be removed from the template default. I don't think it's a hard ask. It works the same way as the other Reception box rules and it's only unintuitive for those who have not read the documentation overview at all. I think it is fine to revisit this conversation if enforcement turns out to be a mess, but I really don't see how it will be. So the proposal is to remove GR as a default but leave it as an option if it adds value in the absence of Metacritic. czar 19:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings proposal[edit]

Only include GR in {{video game reviews}} when it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic (especially in the case of recent games)
  • Support. I'm not seeing any honest defense of GR's importance above. I haven't seen any warring over including GR—we should be basing our decision to include something based on its use and not on the perceived difficulty of changing editor habits. I haven't seen a substantive reason for keeping GR as a default alongside Metacritic when it's just duplicating its numbers and makes no characterization about the reviews as a whole ("critical acclaim"/"overwhelming dislike") for us to use in prose. I don't think it should be scrapped outright because there are some edge cases in which it provides at least some description of the sources as a whole. czar 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggested tweak: Deprecate. I think there's still some value as a secondary set of numbers, and for older games, but I do think looking forward the future of our articles doesn't include GR. Rather than removing it outright I think it'd be better to no longer recommend or encourage its use but bide our time another year or so and see if another option takes its place or we agree with the sentiment previous and go ahead and remove and/or discourage entirely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, really per above. No need to remove it in articles where it is already in use, but seeing as it doesn't add anything to the article, I feel like we should discourage its use. ~Mable (chat) 15:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Partial support, in that for any new games (not articles) since, say 2010, that GR should be deprecated over MC. GR is still rather valuable for older games that we might not have full articles yet and where MC doesn't capture the same websites that existed at that time. I would support removing it from the example at vgr but it obviously needs to stay part of the template. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As long as there's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's not worth the effort to remove/enforce. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • This proposal suggests neither of those. There is no need to remove any GameRanking numbers in currently existing articles and it is only discouraged and advised against in new articles, if this idea passes. There's nothing inherently right with it either, so why should we keep adding it to our articles? ~Mable (chat) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Neither of what? I'm saying it's not worth the effort to do anything towards making a change. Unless he's proposing changing nothing, then effort to change or enforce is involved, and in my opinion, not worth it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't feel it is worth the effort to keep adding GameRankings if it doesn't add much of anything, and would prefer this effort to go into something else. ~Mable (chat) 09:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I tweaked the proposal for clarity czar 17:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose — I'm not seeing a strong and convincing argument for actively discouraging the use of GR. I believe that having more than one aggregator is beneficial in terms of neutrality. Overall, I'm just not seeing any harm or a need to change current practice. --Murph9000 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Neutrality means giving the correct weight to opinions. By discouraging Gamerankings, we're giving it the same weight as reliable sources do. Compare a Google News search for Fallout 4 and Metacritic against Gamerankings. - hahnchen 12:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Partial Support: It still has a valid use in articles for pre-Seventh Gen games. Others after that, it could be removed unless Metacritic does not give a proper view of aggregate scoring for a title. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - We should not be using Gamerankings for modern games. - hahnchen 12:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I can dig this. GamerPro64 19:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I find GameRankings useful for older games, but I agree that it shouldn't be encouraged in modern games, like anything seventh-generation plus. JAGUAR  14:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - In case this proposal goes through, how should we handle series articles? For instance, The_Legend_of_Zelda#Reception_and_legacy currently uses the Metacritic and GameRankings scores of each game in the series to give a sense of the quality of the games and series. I assume for the 2016 game, we'll still add the GameRankings score here? For consistency sake? ~Mable (chat) 22:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Animanga infoboxes for video games?[edit]

Are we supposed to use animanga infoboxes for articles on games that have gotten a manga adaption? Or ones that haven't yet, but might at some point? I'm not a fan, but I don't want to replace them with video game infoboxes without discussion. These infoboxes very easily get way too long in proportion to the importance of the manga/anime - Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair only has a three-line section about manga, while the infobox is just huge.--IDVtalk 08:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I would argue no, we should stick to the video game infobox. The intermix of manga/anime is common to make sense for those works, but for video games, it is much more rare for the game to generate a manga work or anime (it happens, ala Persona 3 for one), but since the video game came first, and the manga/anime a spin off, we should treat it like that. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@IDV: I agree with Masem on this point. On a side-note, I seem to remember articles somewhere that had separate boxes for anime and manga within a video game article that had received such adaptations, but I don't feel that this is a good thing to do. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with Animanga infoboxes for visual novels TBH  · Salvidrim! ·  17:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I too agree that the animanga infobox is fine for visual novels. They are very closely related to manga, perhaps even moreso than to (for example) platform games. However, I have to agree that listing five non-notable manga publications with detailed information in the infobox like done in Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair is not appropriate. Though it's fine to list manga releases in an infobox, I don't think it is useful for anyone to create an infobox this long for it. Personally, I find it very difficult to navigate large infoboxes. Japanese franchises that span anime, manga and visual novels tend to grow quite big, so I feel that we should figure out a solution for non-notable releases. ~Mable (chat) 17:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think a game's genre should be what determines if something should be in the infobox or not - if adaptions should be in at all, which I question, it should just be because of their importance to the article subject, right? And besides, Danganronpa Another Episode isn't even a VN, it's an action game.--IDVtalk 01:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Describing games with ongoing major feature updates (not DLC)[edit]

This specifically is for Rock Band 4 which was developed to be an expandable platform so Harmonix has promised that they will roll out significant new features (atop bug fixes) in patches over time. This is not the same as, say, DLC which is new content, but here, significant additions to existing gameplay. We don't have a good feel yet how frequent or significant these will be right now but there's a major one coming in a few weeks. To give an example, it will add asynchronous online challenge modes, which the original game did not have beyond leaderboards.

I am trying to figure out if it is best to add these as Gameplay elements, Development elements, or perhaps a section under Gameplay or Development. Or perhaps another solution. Any suggestions will help. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Could someone give an existing example of this? Should this be compared to something like Splatoon or World of Warcraft or what? I don't really know what the plans are for Rock Band 4. ~Mable (chat) 19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
At least comparing to WoW, when they release expansions, at least those are more on new content rather than new gameplay, though they may refine gameplay or add some elements. But they also feel at this point more discrete compared to what HMX might be proposing here (I only have 2 data points, but this is basically so far a 2 month cycle, one month being a minor patch, and second month being the new gameplay). With WoW, you'd likely just add sections to describe the additions of one new expansion. And with Splatoon, I'm not seeing that being a long-tail of new content, as HMX has promised with the gameplay on RB4. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Our articles in general do not capture "updates" well (might be the format we use for video game articles) and so I've also been thinking to raise this question also.

Suggestion/opinion follows: I think, at the minimum, any gameplay changes which cause gameplay sections to be "old" should cause the offending paragraphs in the Gameplay section to be removed and subsequently replaced by the new gameplay description. In addition, a brief description of the old gameplay and the change implemented should be in the Development section. This of course doesn't apply to DLC updates significant enough for their own article, or expansions which cause gameplay changes (though perhaps the Legacy section for the prequels/base games should note briefly the majorest-of-major gameplay changes made in the expansions), though it would probably be appropriate to make "new" DLC follow this format since that more closely integrates the DLC with how one would expect to play the game. --Izno (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What I did for now is put a short section in gameplay, first outlining their expansion plans overall, and then a short para on the known updates in this first major patch; this is arguably close to what happens in other expanded games. This I'm only considering a placeholder until I have more data points to work with. As a note, I'm not sure if HMX plans to actually remove any features. (In contrast, a game like Awesomenauts has had major gameplay revisions from its start so we should present its current version, and only note in development past changes). --MASEM (t) 00:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions for esports/ pro video gaming people[edit]

In the world of eSports, its competitors seem to go by a wide variety of names. WikiProject Video Games is attempting to either standardize or come up with rules on how their article's should be named.

Some examples, to help demonstrate the variants possible. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Legal name

Chris Loranger

Name used when competing


Current Article title

Chris "HuK" Loranger

Possible options include
  1. Chris Loranger (legal name)
  2. HuK (stage name)
  3. Huk (stage name, MOS:CAPS applied)
  4. Chris "Huk" Loranger (hybrid name)
  5. Feel free to propose something else.
  • The name which conforms with WP:STAGENAME. I see no reason to specify in the context of video games. --Izno (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    So Izno, basically, 2 or 3 then? If so, any preference on those? If not, please correct me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree with picking an option. We already have a well-established guideline for naming people. We should use it. --Izno (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    Is there any discernible difference between between your stance and option number 3 though? If there's a difference, that's fine, but if not, I'm just trying to make it easier for the closer to read a consensus in all of this... Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    Actually there is: WP:STAGENAME provides for reliable sources to choose the name. Simply going with a stage name as I interpret 2 and 3 would thus be incorrect. Some players may be best covered by reliable sources by their stagename, others by their real name. One thing that comes to mind as immediately important is whether the reliable source is general (BBC) or domain-specific (Kotaku). We should prefer the name in the general publication rather than the domain-specific. --Izno (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    If I may, Sergecross is asking whether you prefer edited capitalization style or original capitalization style. Should it be "Huk" or "HuK"? ~Mable (chat) 21:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    To which my response is WP:LOWERCASE, perhaps with the general WP:AT and WP:STAGENAME in play. I reference the latter STAGENAME since it provides for RS; LOWERCASE because it may be the case most articles don't rise to the level of recognition required for odd capitalization/article title styling, and AT for any other needs such as disambiguation. --Izno (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - I believe that best complies to Wikipedia's naming conventions. Option 4 violates WP:NICKNAME, Option 3 violates MOS:CAPS, and Option 1 violates WP:COMMONNAME, as these guys rarely just play under their legal name, and they're all known primarily for their gaming. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NICKNAME seem to suggest either "Huk" or "Chris Loranger", depending what the sources use most. "Chris "Huk" Loranger" variant (which seems to be used frequently enoguh) has always seemed excessive to me. If in doubt, I would go with the stage name, since nicknames is the default thing in video games, so it seems appropriate. I would expect most gaming sources to use the nickname or both legal and nickname, in which case nickname is preferred. Now, strictly speaking "HuK" violates MOS:CAPS, but it's probably not always that easy. I suspect video game sources will mostly use the stylized versions, so it will definitely conflict MOS. Does "AmazHS" stay "AmazHS"; does "JJu" become "Jju", does "CaliPower" stay "CaliPower"; does "ToSsGirL" become "TossGirl"; does "Fatal1ty" become "Fatality"; does "nanonoko" become "Nanonoko"; does "PPMD" stay "PPMD"; does "[NC]...YellOw" become umm... —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I prefer Option 1 or 2 depending on common name. Neither should be preferred unless sources pick one over the other. Stagenames and real names are both good, and it depends on what they are commonly known as. I think that in most cases, we should not apply MOSCAPS, though it can depend on the name. With a lot of these names, it is impossible to find the original meaning. Is the "HS" in "AmazHS" an initialism? What does "JJu" even mean? Should that be "Jju" or "JJU"? In a case like "ToSsGirL", I have less isue with applying MOSCAPS. ~Mable (chat) 21:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In order of preference Option 4 - 2 - 3 - 1. A hybrid name, while seemingly violates WP:NICKNAME (avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name.), there is also WP:COMMONNAME to consider, which would suggest using first "tag" last form, which is used in many media outlets such as The Daily Dot. From what I've gathered from Korean and Chinese language sources, gamers are usually refers to by their full names, with the gamertags being more of an in-game name (analogous to say a player's jersey number) (see for example this OSL Starcraft video) However, perhaps due to Westerners' unfamiliarity with Asian names, they are more commonly referred to by their tags. Option 4 seeks a compromise between the two. Furthermore there are many other BLP pages on Wikipedia which editors have decided to use the first "tag" last format these include:[1]
  • Concerning unusual capitalization methods, I'd say a name like "HuK" should be okay, while "NaDeShOt" is probably not (the New York Times article on the later listed him as Nadeshot) WP:CAMELCASE does not advice either way with camelcase, but I'd be willing to say that a name with more than three capital letters shouldn't be used. While WP:Se7en suggests eschewing numbers, again citing WP:COMMONNAME many news outlets including the 60 Minutes report on Fatal1ty used numbers in his gamertag.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I started some discussion on this a while back so it's good to see it's brought the attention of the Wikiproject. Anyway, I feel that Option 2 should be made default as I agree with Maplestrip's point in that the gamertags often become incomprehensible when their initital capitalization is altered. Option 1 can be used in clear-cut cases where the legal name is clearly the common name. Oppose option 4 as it is a violation of policy - namely, WP:STAGENAME which prohibits "adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name". Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Follow WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME; there is no difference between professional gamer pseudonyms and pro actor or pro writer pseudonyms. What exact name to use varies on a case by case basis, so all this "Option 1", "Option 2" stuff is a waste of time. Do not, however, that WP does not use titles of the form Jane "JG37" Garcia, per WP:NICKNAME (the only exceptions would be when the entire name in that construction it itself the professional pseudonym, a very rare case, exemplified by "Weird Al" Yankovic, whose works are all published under exactly that name, punctuation and all, and who is near-universally referred to this way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Per SMcCandlish; I see no reason not to follow the existing applicable guidelines. Sam Walton (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe SMcCandlish hit the nail on the head. It's all case-by-case with defining the common names utilized, which will likely make the renaming of all the pages a long affair, but one that will be worth it. The disambiguation discussion, however, is still very much open and really the only component in need of further discussion. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, I hope these "just follow the current guidelines" people will consider helping in namin/renaming the actual articles if this indeed become the consensus of the RFC. The whole reason this RFC was created was because the current guidelines were causing disagreements... Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't understand how we bear the burden of naming/renaming. Is there an instance of actual "disagreement" causing article instability? --Izno (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    I said nothing of "burden bearing", I merely said that I hope people will consider helping. Is it unreasonable to merely hope for help on something? And while I don't really edit eSports articles, so I don't know for sure, but I thought that the initial discussions came up because people disagreed on how to title them, and that the names were inconsistently named, with many going against various naming guidelines. I'm saying I hope people will stick around and help enforce it because the prior arrangement of guidelines and editors involved weren't enforcing the guidelines very well. I also say this because, based on many of the discussions (and AFDs) that occur at the WikiProject, I don't believe there are many experienced editors dedicated to this area. I believe that's why so many are deleted at AFD or named inconsistently. And thus, the hope for assistance. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    Oh. I took that completely different. I'm more than happy to help say "this name is not the best name" if specific instances are brought up or someone wants to trudge through the list of gamers and finds specific instances requiring feedback (much as we do with judgements on reliability of certain articles). But I read your comment as requiring "by the guidelines" people to go about mass-moving pages around on their accord. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I saw a request over on the MoS page. wp:stagename should only apply if the name is a stage name, or is otherwise a pseudonym that the person is well-known by. Gamer tags seem to fit that general description. However, I would want that gamer tag to appear in a mainstream media article (BBC, gaming magazine, newspaper, etc.). If that gamer tag does not appear in such an article, I would question whether the subject person is sufficiently notable as a gamer under that name to merit an article at all.

    Of the options presented, #1 (Chris Loranger (legal name)) isn't his commonly known name. Additionally calling it out as a legal name seems excessively formal. #2 HuK (stage name) seems weird, since he doesn't go "on stage". "stage name" should be varied depending on context (e.g., "pen name" for authors). #4 breaks all existing naming conventions on wikipedia. I would favour #5 (something else). "HuK (video gamer tag)". I would definitely want the "video" bit included, to distinguish from non-electronic forms of gaming. Rhialto (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

    The way these article titles are described in this RFC has no impact on how the names would be used. I prefer to describe it as a "legal name" rather than a "real name" because neither name is "more real". It's irrelevant, though, because everyone knows what it means. "stage name" is used to describe option two because it ties in nicely with existing guidelines on such pseudonyms, but I'd personally use "screen name" (as in, user name) to describe this name. Still, though, this is irrelevant. These bracketed words are not actually to be used in the titles. It'll just be "HuK" or "HuK (gamer)" or "Huk" if we decide to remove the capital letter. The article is about the person, not the name. ~Mable (chat) 16:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Additionally, its been debated which disambiguation should be used when necessary.

Possible options include
  1. Name (gamer) - current term for one who plays video games - see Gamer
  2. Name (video game player) - some feel this is more formal/appropriate than "gamer"
  3. Name ("name of video game played") - more in line with how its handled in sports - John Smith (basketball)
  4. Name ("name of video game played" player) - more in line with how its handled in other areas, like poker players - Bill Smith (poker player))
  5. Name (esports) - the term for competitive video gaming in general
  6. Proposing a new option
  • I believe we had reached consensus on that the articles should be renamed independent from eachother, depending on common name in sources. That being said, we still hadn't reached consensus on the disambiguation to use. Most of us feel that it is best to standardize the form of disambiguation, but some disagreement exists on whether it should be 2, 3 or 4.
I personally prefer number 2 or 4, and would advice against 3, as it describes the field rather than the person's occupation. I brought up the comparison "John Smith (Engineering)" to "John Smith (Engineer)", to illustrate why I feel only listing the game would be jarring. ~Mable (chat) 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC) --EDITED per clarity
  • I strongly opt for (gamer), or if that's too casual, (video gamer). Options including the name of the game fail immediately for subjects who are known for playing multiple gamers, and the last one would be acceptable for leagues/events/terms that are ambiguous, but for players, I think (gamer) is better, like how we prefer (footballer) to (sports). As I've said before, "(Hearthstone streamer)" is amongst the worst disambiguator I've seen. Others have "(professional video gaming)", "(esports player)", and "(video game player)", "(Halo player)", "(Counter-Strike player)", "(StarCraft player)", "(video gamer)".... Whether one is professional or not, whether he's a player, a streamer, a speedrunner... it doesn't matter. The goal of a disambiguator is to disambiguate using the simplest, shortest possible addendum to an article title, and (gamer) fulfills precisely and completely the very purpose of disambiguation.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, and as I had mentioned in the other discussion as well, "gamer" seems sufficient, and "video gamer" excessive, because its not like we've got professional "board gamers", or other types of gamers, to distinguish from. (As far as I've ever seen at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In order of preference: 2, then 1. Not 3 or 4 since this is less easily understood for the general reader than either "video game player" or "gamer". Some players also wind up playing multiple games (with none particularly dominant) making this disambiguation an unstable disambiguation. Would prefer also not 5 since this doesn't make it clear that I'm talking about a person. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Option 1 is the most WP:PRECISE and is currently the term we use on Wikipedia for this sort of thing (gamer). Two effectively means the same, but is longer, and not the term Wikipedia seems to currently prefer. I do not like Option 3 or Option 5 because, as Izno mentions, its not clear that we're talking about people, and not just elements of video gaming. Similarly, I feel that many games as a disambiguation may not be recognizeable on certain games. Everyone may know who Super Mario is, but many outside of esports may not know what Dota is - its not a household name yet. Option 4 is probably going to be longer than we'd like in many instances, probably not the most precise option. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Well I mean Dota isn't a household name, but neither is bandy outside of the Nordic countries, even though the articles Joachim Persson (bandy), Stefan Persson (bandy), and Erik Pettersson (bandy) the the game name as disambiguation. You've brought up the issue of recognizability in regards to using a video game as a parenthetical disambiguator, but I'm not entirely sure guidelines were intended to be read that way. In any case I'd almost even say that a parenthetical DAB not featuring the game's name is unhelpful to someone who doesn't know what a particular game is since "video games" isn't a single game; it's a huge array of more or less unrelated activities.--Prisencolin (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, well I'd argue "bandy" shouldn't be used either then. Based on the terrible shape of those articles, I imagine not much thought or review was put into those example bandy articles. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
        • In any case though, what kind of DAB would you use then, "athletes", "sports"? Granted, the bandy parenthetical DAB was probably used in these cases since there were athletes by the same name in other sports, but a better example can probably be found. The point is it seems most natural for a base-level DAB to use the specific discipline the person is involved in.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (gamer) or (video game player) if "gamer" is too jargon-y. Gamer seems like an accepted term and sufficiently widely known to not be confusing. Including game title(s) is unnecessarily precise until there's further disambiguation needed (after all, before disambiguation it was just the name), so "Hearthstone player" ("HS gamer" seems weird and "HS video game player" seems redundant). "esports" is just weird, because it's the field, not the role, same as any stand-alone game title. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (gamer) is the best option in my opinion and has just the right degree of specificity, (which is very little), to describe the career's relation to the name. Also, let's not forget that many professional gamers play/have played multiple games, such as Dan Stemkoski and f0rest. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I can't help but point out that you've made the point about players of multiple games, but I'm not sure its as prevalent as you make it sound. I took a quick look all of the video game player articles currently on the wiki, and I'd say only around 1/5 could be considered notable in their achievements in multiple games. Of these only a few of them would need disambiguation if the first RFC decides that only tags will be used. Edit: f0rest is only notable for the Counter-Strike series, in which case (Counter-Strike or Counter-Strike player should be enough; Counter-Strike is regularly used to describe CSGO without ambiguity.--Prisencolin (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • What will we use for those who do need disambiguation? Opt for the more general "Video game player" or "Gamer"? ~Mable (chat) 12:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
        • It should probably decided on a case-by-case basis, but something like that would be sufficient.--Prisencolin (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
          • But why chose that when you can chose an option (gamer) that wouldn't require any special consideration (unless by some bizarre chance that two separate "John Smiths" both randomly decide to enter esports under the name "Huk", which strikes me as unlikely). Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • With regards to f0rest, (of which the naming is yet to be discussed further), the disambiguation probably won't be necessary, as there's only one Patrik Lindberg, as with a lot of gamers that have their legal names known as well as their pseudonyms. However, on the topic of applying the disambiguation, I don't believe we should make it a case-by-case affair; people are either gamers or they're not. Naming them with the specific games they play can be misleading, especially if they're in that one fifth you mentioned that have multiple titles they excel at. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Patrik Lindberg seems like a very generic Swedish name, so at some point in the future it might be useful. In any case though, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that no gamer is better known by their real name than their gamer name, unless their gamer name is their real name (Justin Wong, Hai or are known for other things, (Dennis Fong, Bertrand Grospellier). Edit: Also, from what I know players in Asia are typically known by their real names, although in the West they are better known by their tags, first "alias" last (option 4) seeks a compromise between the two.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Can this RfC affect policies and guidelines?[edit]

As I mentioned before (#Esports naming conventions) some of the options proposed above would require an update of guidelines and/or policies:

  • (policy) WP:AT: WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS doesn't allow to use quotation marks in article titles, unless they're part of the actual pseudonym;
  • (guideline) WP:NCP:
    • WP:PSEUDONYM: doesn't allow to insert a nickname in quotes between the first name and the last name
    • WP:NCPDAB: advises against using capitals in the parenthetical disambiguator (when they can be avoided)

As this RfC has not been widely publicized (meaning: not in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nor at WP:VPP), any outcome of this RfC would be void as far as a rewrite of guidance or policy is concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • It has also been mentioned that rendering "HuK" (and similar names) in its original style could affect WP:MOSCAPS. ~Mable (chat) 14:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In the interest of keeping it a neutral RFC, I included all proposed ideas, even ones I didn't feel were according to policy. I was trusting that well-informed, experienced editors would rule them out. IAR was quoted as well, as a way to justify some of them. Again, I don't agree with it, but you don't write RFCs according to your personal stance. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    A reasonable approach, although including "|pol" in the RfC tag and/or linking this RfC from WP:VPP would only take a few seconds (and BTW can still be done), and would probably be less skewing this in a "no guideline change" direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    Feel free to do that or anything else you think may help. In all honesty, I usually instruct people to write up RFCs more than I actually carry them out myself, so I'm no expert in that respect. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's good that you noted a few more sitewide guidelines for disambiguation. Regarding the naming question, as you can see above, I do not believe that it is necessary to have a !rule for this in the context of video games. I think the answer to the disambiguation question can safely be added to WP:VG/GL without any particular consequence for the sitewide !rules. --Izno (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NCPDAB also mentions exceptions where "instances where more specific guidelines specify particular exceptions", seeing as (American football) and (Australian rules football) are disambiguators, (League of Legends) should be okay as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarified: No, we cannot change any wider policies or guidelines with local consensus. We can only adjust WP:VG/GL and WP:NCVG (as WP:TITLE allows) to be clear and consistent where otherwise multiple or non-obvious options can appear equally satisfactory. This cannot trump WP:V.
    Previously: I think the only reason to have exceptions to existing policies/guidelines is if we can show that reliable sources predominantly prefer a certain naming convention. I don't see that we need to have exceptions to dab stuff. Then again, my view is against the variants with specialized rules, in other words, I don't see where we would break the existing guidelines/policies. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Is is considered breaking rules when a rule (other than WP:IGNORE) says there are exceptions to certain rules? In any case if the sole reason for not making a particular decision is based on the fact that it may possibly violate a rule, I'm not sure that's a very sound objection.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree with Prisencolin that we should think about what is best for our goal of reflecting reliable sources and improving Wikipedia, rather than worry about the existing rules, when making these decisions. However, I doubt much controversial things will happen here: The 'name "alias" lastname' format isn't particularly popular, for one. ~Mable (chat) 17:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Isn't that exactly what I said? If reliable sources show different syntax, then we can "break the rules". Otherwise, this RfC's result does not contradict any sitewide policies or guidelines. In the end, we enhance our topic-specific guidelines. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Maybe get a grip on the overall situation:
            • Roger Taylor (Queen drummer) is an (acceptable) exception to the general parenthetical disambiguator recommendations of WP:NCP. No problem there: decided on a case-by-case base, i.e. while there is another drummer named Roger Taylor.
            • When a WikiProject on rock groups or whatever would inscribe in its rules that every drummer needs to be disambiguated with the name of the rock group in the disambiguator, then the WP:CONLEVEL policy is clear: such WikiProject guidance has "no more status than an essay". Many of the proposals above would, even when approved by RfC, immediately be overruled by policies and guidelines. Just to be clear on the stakes.
          For clarity: I'm very much OK with the fact that this RfC, in the form it has been posted, would not affect guidelines and policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
          Yes, so am I. I clarified my original comment to express this clearly. I never implied local consensus could override sitewide policy. While WP:TITLE allows topic-specific naming conventions, it does not imply we can abandon WP:V or simply create novel naming schemes. I am aware some of the options above fail this, but my !votes are for options that do not (I hope). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
          Just to be clear, neither I nor anybody involved with the wiki invented the first "alias" last naming scheme for video game professionals. Just look up a notable player on the web, "dyrus" for instance, and you'll find that he is routinely listed as Marcus "Dyrus" Hill in The Daily Dot and TheScore eSports.[2][3] Granted it's not "universally" used in that format, to whatever extent that means, but neither is "Weird Al" Yankovic really.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
          That's very true. When I worked in the upper management of SK Gaming, we used the naming convention of First Name "Pseudonym" Surname. However, it currently goes against the aforementioned policies so... yeah, I think we're in a corner at this point. We'll need to bring this to NCP. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 07:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation by game title[edit]

  • I'm still not entirely sure what NCDBAP's purpose is with the following line: "Try to avoid using abbreviations or anything capitalized or containing hyphens, dashes or numbers (apart from instances where more specific guidelines specify particular exceptions)." Could someone explain why these things are discouraged, so we have a better idea of whether it applies in this situation? ~Mable (chat) 17:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It applies in this situation, whatever the rationale. If you want to know about the rationale the WT:NCP archives may provide (part of) the answer. As I see no intention (thus far) to make any connection with the current state of the guidelines (and I'm OK with that), I don't think this is the place to second guess over ulterior motives of these guidelines. So, if you can't find the answer in the WT:NCP archives, the only right place for such question would be WT:NCP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Sounds like it could be problematic for us if all this discussion means diddly. Are you wanting to bring it to NCP, Francis Schonken? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Urgh, I suck at navigating archives. Have found nothing of interest yet. Either way, do understand that I ask this so I can understand why the guideline is in place before bringing it up at NCP. If it turns out the guideline is specifically designed for the situation we are in right now, it is obvious we should follow it. I'd like to know whether this is the case. ~Mable (chat) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
          • I really hope this isn't the ball of wax that requires NCP. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Re. "If it turns out the guideline is specifically designed for the situation we are in right now..." – Yes indeed, the NCP guideline was specifically designed for situations like this one. I can safely say so, because I initiated the NCP guideline over ten years ago with most of these parts already in it. For instance: "Try to avoid using abbreviations or anything capitalized or containing hyphens, dashes or numbers (in the parenthetical disambiguator)" because these (as a general experience) are impediments to swift navigation. It is easier to find "Firstname Lastname (gamer)" or "Alias (gamer)" than "Firstname Lastname (WhatWasTheNameoftheGameAgain-and–how—is1tSpelledCorrectly? player)" etc. With a lot of other considerations, like names of brands are better avoided in disambiguators (e.g. when a video game franchise is "happy" to have one of their players to have an ambiguous name, they get more exposure for their brand in Wikipedia?) The reason why I won't have such discussions here is while I designed the rules to a large extent, but that gives only a very limited scope of the reasons why, and I'd like to defer to my colleagues who have an interest in the guideline too to know whether over-all that has proved to be good guidance for the ten years it existed. Again, like I said above, we had something similar for wrestlers some time ago, but in the end, after a lot of back-and-forth, it was found standard rules worked best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh mercy, that is disheartening. Okay, who wants to bring this to NCP? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 05:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Thanks for explaining, Francis :) You give good reasons and my preference now definitely lies with "Video game player" again. DarthBotto, before we take this to NCP, let's see what direction consensus goes here. Hopefully, it won't be necessary and we'll go for "Gamer" or "Video game player". ~Mable (chat) 08:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Maplestrip, I realized that when I was talking with Francis last night, so I agree that it probably won't be necessary. Besides, it seems like consensus is leaning roughly towards a case-by-case scenario per the player with common names, followed by a (gamer) disambiguation. We'd better just see what others have in mind with this before we can say definitively. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pseudonym/legal name combination[edit]

  • I don't know too much about pro wrestling, but from what I gathered from a bit of research, pro wrestlers are almost exclusively referred to their ringnames in media and braodcasts. In comparison, esports players are mostly referred to their tags, particularly in shorthand, but in journalism they are always introduced as first "alias" last. In Korea they are usually known by their full names in general. Furthermore, pro video gaming isn't some fiction universe where people are known by other names, unlike in pro wrestling.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • You lost me where you tried to explain the difference between a ringname and a tag as far as Wikipedia's naming conventions are concerned. Yes a ringname is inherently very different from a pen name with initialisms such as those listed at List of pen names. For Wikipedia's naming conventions it is not, they are all pseudonyms, subject to WP:PSEUDONYM. So wrestling is more "fictional" than an on-line game? Sure. Or was it the other way around. Before anyone gets offended (wrestlers or gamers): IT DOESN'T MATTER which one is "more" fictional as far as Wikipedia's naming conventions are concerned. When people are better known by their pseudonym in English-language reliable sources the pseudonym is used as article title, if not, their real name is used. As a service to our readers (!) who would generally be looking for the name they know, not for the name they don't know (all the rest is better not crammed in the article title, can be explained in the body of the article, can be handled by redirects and disambiguation pages etc.)
    Something still I want to draw your attention to: the guideline says "avoid (...) adding (...) in quotes between first and last name" – the "adding" I bolded there is key to understanding the guideline. It's about Wikipedia editors not adding anything in quotes to a name. When the name in its standardized form in English-language reliable sources "has" quotes (and the Wikipedia editors don't add or remove anything from that), the guideline is followed. I've got really no clue whether or not that is the case for some or all of the video game players discussed here, but I suppose this has to be sorted out on a case by case basis then (not a general rule in the sense of always adding a tag in quotes when the subject of the article is a gamer). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @Francis Schonken: When you talk about helping readers who are "looking for the name they know", which WP:AT policy are you referring to specifically, is it WP:RECOGNIZABLE?--Prisencolin (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
        • As it happens I was discussing an underlying rationale for article titling in general, so as well for WP:AT (including WP:CRITERIA, which includes WP:RECOGNIZABLE but also WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONCISE etc) as for the many naming conventions guidelines (including WP:NCP). But as said, this is hardly the place to discuss such matters: the only thing that counts here is: yes WP:AT applies, without discrimination, for video game players, as also WP:NCP applies, without discrimination, for video game players. If you can't take my word for it, take it up at WT:AT or WT:NCP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I think we may all be getting ahead of ourselves, as consensus hasn't been reached for going with First Name "Pseudonym" Surname. So far, it seems as though we're leaning towards the case-by-case basis of "Common name"/"Performer name" (gamer) disambiguation. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Not only that, but I don't believe I've really seen anyone besides Prisencolin advocate for the First Name "Pseudonym" Surname approach. Unless there's a sudden change, it seems to be one of the least popular choices... Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)



Xenoblade series article[edit]

I am requesting more input at - as these days I'm really the only one who regularly maintains the related articles. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I know I've given my two-penneth on the issue you've raised, but you also mentioned your relations with the series. I have been thinking of doing something for Xenoblade Chronicles. I'm working on a rewrite of the Tomb Raider series article with the plan of bringing in to GA, but after that I could help with Chronicles, and find sources that you could use for Chronicles X. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ProtoDrake, and everyone else, for the swift responses there. And yeah, actually, that would be great. I've already done a ton of work rewriting Chronicles, so it shouldn't take too much effort for that one. Its got a huge dev section, however, unfortunately, I still haven't parred down the story section enough, as I've still only played about 2/3rds of the game, and don't want to spoil it, so I've only revised the first part of it. (Sorry, I know Story sections aren't your favorite either.) In regards to X, that would be great as well, as I've been meaning to get that article into good shape for its upcoming release. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Pump It Up[edit]

I recently finalized a stale merge request from 2014 and merged this series's unsourced game articles into the series article. These merges were reverted by an IP: Special:Contributions/ If you disagree with the revert, feel free to be bold. czar 06:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, Czar, did you consider that "All Wiki erase important Mayan're fucking son of a bitch pups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck Czar wants to kill cubs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"? I think the IP makes a compelling point re:your murderous tendency towards baby animals, and how it relates to merging a series of stubs that only differentiate themselves via a songlist into a series article that also includes those songlists. --PresN 19:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Not the most ridiculous thing I've seen all year here. But at least you got a fan, Czar. GamerPro64 19:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about a source[edit]

So I'm currently working on making Draft:Afro Samurai 2: Revenge of Kuma to have it become its own article after the game got pulled and refunds are being made available. The news article that caused this huge blitz about the games removal, Versus Evil Explains the Disappearance of Afro Samurai 2, was by CG Magazine, a source that is currently considered an unreliable source at WP:VG/RS. What I'm wondering if I should use the source even through its considered unreliable here. Other sites use the article as a source in their articles. GamerPro64 20:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's okay in this case because they are quoting someone else (i.e. the actual source) rather than interpreting or making unsourced claims. Since other reliable sources refer to this, I would say that using Escalante's quotes for sourcing and other reliable source interpretation would be perfectly fine. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The point of reliability is reputation for getting it right. It doesn't mean CG Magazine got it wrong but that we trust those who use the site as a source to have a degree of verification atop the original story. I'd cite the secondary sources rather than CG Mag's own reporting. czar 21:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@GamerPro64: This in-depth interview with Escalante from Gamasutra just popped onto my newsfeed, it might help allevate the issue. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh cool. Thanks Masem I'll add it to the other sources I'll be using. GamerPro64 20:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim Sterling at WP:BLPN[edit]

Just a heads up that there is a discussion about Jim Sterling's article at the BLP noticeboard. The discussion can be found here if anyone wants to partake in it. GamerPro64 04:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Big huge Infocom document dump at[edit]

the Infocom cabinet was just uploaded by Get Lamp's director Jason Scott, consisting of thousands of pages of scanned notes, etc taken from Infocom (by permission, natch). Unfortunately I'm not sure on the copyright of these yet - Get Lamp is CC-By-NC, which we can't call "free" on WP, but even then, I see some various hand drawn notes, etc. that might be interesting additions to the various Infocom articles. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Website notice[edit]

Just a notice to editors: GameTrailers, which has been used for multiple reasons like reviews and its retrospectives (which contain development information) has undergone a major update/revision of its website. They appear to be still in progress with this, meaning that multiple reviews and videos are currently inaccessible (tried to find a video related to Tomb Raider Anniversary and the review for Type-0 HD; the pages are still there on google, but the links redicted to either the main or the "show" pages). Give it a few weeks, then we should check the various video links and see which are permanently dead and which just need urls updating, or whether any work is needed at all. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-primary source needed[edit]

In the section Space_flight_simulator_game#Trade_Wars, why is there a "non-primary source needed" tag after the bit about games being influenced by Trade Wars? Isn't a direct quote from a developer exactly the type of thing you want? SharkD  Talk  01:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, as long it is something assuredly published by the developers, its legit. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, I posted this question at Village pump first before posting here. SharkD  Talk  01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The source being a wiki is an issue, but not as big as one as TransporterMan might make you believe, as we're not dealing with a BLP here. Looking at the source given, the best approach would be to verify some of the quotes there where they were initially published, and link there instead. Wikis are subject to change and vandalism, so the current source is unreliable, but the best we currently have. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikis being subject to change and vandalism is solved simply by use of a permanent link to the content in question e.g. [7]. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I guess that fixes the vandalism problem, but we still have to deal with the fact that this version of the wiki page might not be correct. We should't link to a fanmade collection of quotes when we can refer to where those quotes were originally published. ~Mable (chat) 18:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Wiki's are an unreliable source except, as a self published source, for information about themselves which makes no claims about third parties (and also meets the other SPS requirements). The problem is not that they are subject to change and vandalism, but that they don't have fact-checking or other editorial oversight and, thus, do not meet the definition of a reliable source to have a "reputation for fact-checking and reliability". But Maplestrip is correct, those quotations may be able to be sourced from the sources quoted in that wiki. I have some doubt about that, but I haven't really looked at the issue closely so don't have a firm opinion about it and don't plan to spend time working on it. (By the way, since many of those quotes come from interviews the rule that seems to be applied over at reliable sources noticeboard seems to be that interviews can only be used if published in a reliable source, in order to help to guarantee that they're genuine and not edited in a misleading way, but are to then be regarded as PRIMARY sources and subject to the rules applicable to primary sources.) The question asked here and at VP was why the tag was needed. I answered that question, explaining why the tag is justified, and that's the end of the matter so far as I am concerned. Frankly, for reasons too complicated to go into here, I'm fine with the information remaining in the article with that source and that tag. If the tag were removed without removing the source as well, I might have an issue with that removal (but at the same time, I'm not watchlisting it to see if that happens, either; that's not an invitation, just a statement of fact). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't really care that much either, as it's just one line, though a [citation needed] tag might be more useful? Also, quickly checking, it seems Tradewars influencing Earth and Beyond was pretty easy to check, if anyone cares to add the source: [8] ~Mable (chat) 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! video games[edit]

I need a few opinions on whether or not keeping standalone articles for the games is a good idea (and a few more pages). The video games together as a whole seem notable, but I am not sure if having single games standalone would be good for now. Magicperson6969 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be determined on a case by case basis - if a game has been covered by reliable sources, been reviewed, etc, it's likely it deserves its own article. If not, it's better to just cover it in the list of Yu-Gi-Oh! video games. I don't really know anything about Yu-Gi-Oh!, so I wouldn't know whether a particular game is notable or not without doing research first.--IDVtalk 06:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I imagine most of the titles that were released in English territories probably have the coverage to meet the WP:GNG, I mean, they're titles released by major publishers. That being said, it probably depends on how hard one plans on working on such an article. If you plan on writing it out in-depth, it could be beneficial to the project. If you're going to merely write out a little more than what's available at its entry in the list article, then I probably wouldn't bother, as they'll probably just be redirected/merged back when people stumble upon them in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What really bothers me here is the inconsistency. What I'm about to say is clearly OR, but Reshef of Destruction generated a lot more buzz around my high school and the Yu-Gi-Oh! forums I was around in the early 2000's, while Sacred Cards was all but unheard of (despite being my personal favorite). The the latter has an article and the former doesn't is something I can't seem to wrap my mind around, especially considering Reshef was reviewed by IGN, GameInformer, 1up,, GameSpy, and a few others...  · Salvidrim! ·  19:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There isn't much I could do to really expand since I'm not the best at writing in depth...if they're going to be merged eventually, could I merge them now? Magicperson6969 (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

GameTrailers revamped, but old video reviews are gone![edit]

I noticed that the GameTrailers website has been getting a facelift, but now, when I try to search for a video review for Power Stone Collection, it never appears in the search! Same goes for these three links for the game review: they've all vanished or are replaced! It seems that all the video game reviews from 2005 all the way to 2015 have vanished! Why? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The website is still undergoing restructuring. I've been going back to it for a while. When I tried checking out their retrospective show when I first noticed, I couldn't find it at all. Today, some of the videos are available, and their video playback system has been greatly improved. I think that the reviews will be put back into place at some point, when the facelift is complete. If you check their Twitter, it is stated that some of the key staff are away, so the restructuring will take longer than might be liked. Don't write off the reviews as lost for good, but I agree that it's a niggle. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand now. I'll wait until the website facelift is finally complete before I can continue on with the video game articles. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

How much longer do we wait until we have to contact GameTrailers or Defy Media on these link issues? I get that the transitioning process will take a while but God help us if GameTrailers isn't going to be the next big website to shut down in the future. GamerPro64 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I can't decide this. I'm not a member of their community. If you know someone who is, it would be good if they could drop a line about these issues. And yes, it would be very awkward if those links went dead permenantly. But while the URLs remain there, I have some hope. When Andriasang went, the urls went too. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting presence of DRM in lists?[edit]

Is it important to list whether software has DRM in lists of articles? SharkD  Talk  04:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not, not in that type of list. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree the list in question has nothing to do with DRM so mentioning it is irrelevant.-- (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that, in this case, and in nearly all cases, DRM should not be listed. ~Mable (chat) 08:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Only case I think it's probably relevant are the more notable examples where the DRM was utterly borked and caused issues (some Steam Origin games, etc.) and there was actual press coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a defining characteristic and irrelevant to list in question. WP:OR to choose it over any other non game-defining field. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be more of a case of WP:WEIGHT-- (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


I don't know if there's interest in this but User:Moogy/crpg was a page to use as a template for console RPG articles from years back. It doesn't seem to totally match the WP:MOS or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines (not in conflict either just some differences) so I've listed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moogy/crpg. Please comment there if this could be useful for this project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Packaging art on Dragon Quest-related articles[edit]

I've been editing all the Dragon Quest-related articles lately and I've decided to replace all the U.S. packaging art for the earlier games on their infoboxes with the original Japanese versions. I've already made this change for the first three games (I, II and III) and I'm planning doing the same for IV, V and VI (and possibly VII too). Considering the articles uses the original Japanese titles rather than the Dragon Warrior names they were originally localized with, I think it makes sense to just use the Japanese packaging while we're at it, especially considering how inconsistent the localization for this series was until Dragon Quest VIII (where they finally used the actual Japanese branding globally). Final Fantasy IV and VI both used their Japanese packaging, despite the fact that they did get proper stateside releases at the time, so there's definitely an incentive to do the same for the Dragon Quest series. I know there was a poll to use the American art for the first article, I don't feel it was a strong consensus, since not enough people voted and I don't think it was conducted very well to begin with. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good job ignoring WP:VGBOX. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: See WP:IGNORE. I might also direct you to WP:CREEP, which applies to you. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
How is changing the artwork improving or maintaining Wikipedia? You could have just opened a discussion about this before forcing your own choice upon the articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This has already been decided by consensus and put into WP:VGBOX. WP:IAR is not justification to unilaterally override that guideline. I think that readers would prefer to see the English version of packaging, as most do not know Japanese and have more familiarity with the localized name & packaging. Mamyles (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This goes against prior consensus here at WP:VG. On the English Wikipedia, English language release cover art is preferred due to its better recognizability among English readers. Please stop doing this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: From personal experience, most Wikipedia users don't bother to participate in discussions until after changes had been made. @Mamyles:@Sergecross73: WP:IAR isn't the main justification, but rather the fact that the articles are using the Dragon Quest name while having packaging art for the Dragon Warrior versions. The Japanese logo for the games are all written in English, so it's not like they're unreadable, and I still kept the overseas packaging for commentary purposes on the body of the text. Both of you insist that the "Dragon Warrior" brand is more recognizable to English readers, yet you have no objection about using the Dragon Quest title for the older games that weren't use for overseas releases until after Dragon Quest VIII was released. I'm sure Wikipedia readers are more intelligent than you give then credit for and are aware of the localization changes between the Japanese and American version. Also all the Final Fantasy related articles between the the first game and VII all used the Japanese packaging (see II, III, IV, V and VI) and I see no objection for them. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Only two of those five Final Fantasy games have actually seen an English language release in the 80s and 90s, though I do think there is a good argument to use English language box art for those two games (something to discuss elsewhere). Making a change you know will be controversial simply to bring more attention to the issue is not how you should go about this, and I think the changes should be undone. That being said, if we want to discuss this guideline, I'm all for it. At first, though, you say the original discussion didn't reach a proper consensus? I'd like to see that, if anyone could find it. ~Mable (chat) 19:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jonny2x4: I would be far more comfortable using the localized cover art. I though it was Wiki policy or something, that we use the English cover where possible for games that were originally developed and released overseas. Also, I would have started a conversation and gained consensus before making such a grand change. Just a note. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: You can see the previous proposal here. I don't think enough users participated in the discussion and the idea of using the logo for the iOS version was a bad alternative, but that's just my opinion. @ProtoDrake: I always go by a case-by-case basis. Personally, I would prefer if video game articles were handled more like film articles, in which the native poster is given preference over foreign releases, but I understand why it would be confusing to readers (considering some video games often go through extensive changes during localization, especially RPGs). In any case, the use of Dragon Warrior packaging does clash with the fact that the articles are using the Dragon Quest name. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start up a new discussion to change the prior consensus if you wish, but you sure aren't off to a good start if the discussion here so far is any indication. Unless/until you've got a new consensus, cease making these edits. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I always assume any edit I make is uncontroversial (as long as it's not something obviously unethical) until someone objects to it. When that happens, I always bring the topic up on WP:VG or whichever happens to be the WikiProject relevant to the discussion for their viewpoints. At any rate, I'm not going to change or add any other packaging art for Dragon Quest games (since I predicted users like yourself would object to my changes) until a consensus is reached here. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Except you didn't bring it up here when someone objected. You continued restoring your preferred artwork to the article... --The1337gamer (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: You're right. I should've messaged you before undoing your reversions. But at the same time, you also undid some of the corrections I made to the article (such as this one) that were unrelated to the use of the Japanese packaging. You do know you could've restored the American packaging art without changing anything else? Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I restored previous article revision because of edit conflicts, I didn't intentionally revert your correction, which should have been clear from the edit summary. You could easily have restored your correction but instead you chose to use it as an excuse to put the Japanese artwork back on the article. On Dragon Quest II I simply reverted your artwork edit and yet you still continued restoring it. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's my instinct to usually undo any reversions to edit I made if the editor in question doesn't provide a reason for doing so or if I don't think the reasons given were convincing enough for the reversion. At any rate, I'll admit it was my mistake for not consulting you first, but I was convinced there was a precedent for using the Dragon Quest packaging over Dragon Warrior. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Since the change was clearly controversial should the original images be restored until there is a consensus one way or the other?-- (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Right now, I see five people preferring the English language boxart over the Japanese version, so I think we can be pretty sure that we'll settle on those images. Right now, I think it is valid to use the less controversial images (thus undoing Jonny2x4's edits). Is there anyone other than Jonny that feels Japanese boxart should be used? ~Mable (chat) 21:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that as the best choice of action. There is no rush to add the Japanese covers and they can easily be readded if there is future consensus for their inclusion. There clearly is not one now though.-- (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is a straw poll, I'll echo everyone else that the English language art should stay. This has come up before on the talk page before ( Talk:Dragon_Quest_(video_game)#Cover_art_of_Dragon_Quest , which you already read since you're linking to it!), and it was pretty definitive in favor of the original English-language release. As for Final Fantasy (video game), that article uses the original English packaging; Final Fantasy 2 NES & FF3 NES didn't have English releases, so they're not comparable at all to DQ2/DQ3/DQ4, which did have English-language releases. SnowFire (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, while we're at it, can there be some big disclaimer on Final Fantasy 4/ FF6 that these are not particularly precedent-setting cases? Honestly I think they should use English-language release box art too, but the sensible argument against is that it'd be shocking since they'd appear to have the 'wrong' number. This is considerably more confusing than Quest vs. Warrior; that kind of phrasing change happens for tons of localizations, and would imply that the original box art / cover art / etc. should almost always be used. SnowFire (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The first one was already changed so I changed 2 and three back since it is clear that the consensus is not to make a change before a consensus to do so was formed.-- (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

December Main Page content[edit]

Coming up for December, we have Infinity Blade as the TFA on December 9, Fez cover art as the TFP on December 11, and List of The Last of Us characters as the TFL on December 14. We also just had Children of Mana over the holidays as the TFA on November 26. Congrats to Czar (uploader)/Hahnchen (nominator) for Fez, and Rhain1999 for The Last of Us! (and I guess me for both TFAs). --PresN 17:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)