Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk


Lists of video games by system and genre[edit]

I've noticed articles on lists of video games by system and genre being proposed for deletion (e.g., List of Super Famicom and Super NES puzzle games or List of Super Famicom and Super NES role-playing games). Was there any discussion or consensus that these were inappropriate? Despite what is stated in the prod rationales, I don't see any reason these articles would fail the guidelines for lists. They seem to have well defined topics that are neither too broad nor too narrow, as called for by WP:SALAT, and they seem to be useful both for information and navigational tools as called for by WP:LISTPURP. I also don't think we have any other lists that fully cover the information in these lists. List of Super Famicom games and List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games exist, but they lack some information presented in these lists (the Super Famicom one doesn't have genre, for instance). Is there any reason why lists by system and genre are considered inappropriate and need to be deleted? Calathan (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't need. One list per platform is enough. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I do think one list is probably enough, but for Super Nintendo and Super Famicom games, we currently have three lists, one of which is divided into sub-lists. We have List of Super Famicom games, List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games, and List of Super Famicom and Super NES games by genre, with the longer sections of the list by genre split out into separate pages (presumably because having them on one page would be too long). I think having separate lists of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games is a poor way to organize the information, because games that were released both in Japan and outside of Japan are redundantly listed on both lists. I think the combined list by genre is actually the better list (though a combined alphabetical list might be even better than that). I also think that whatever list we keep should at least list genre as a column (if the whole list isn't organized by genre). The Super Famicom list currently doesn't have that. Even if we don't want to keep the list by genre, I think someone should at least add the genre information onto the Super Famicom list. So my preference for how to handle these articles would be to either (A) Keep the list by genre and redirect the separate Super Famicom and Super Nintendo lists to it or (B) merge the separate Super Nintendo and Super Famicom information into one alphabetical List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games, add the genre information for the Super Famicom games to that page, and redirect the genre list and sub-lists to that page, and then divide that page into sub-pages if it ends up too long. Calathan (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess I should have checked through the page archives, as that is exactly what I was trying to find. Calathan (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the prod tags from the lists with tags on them (someone else had already removed them from three of them), and also asked that a couple of the sub-lists of the genre list that were already deleted be restored. I think Martin IIIa just missed that there are separate Super Nintendo and Super Famicom lists, that genre information isn't included in the Super Famicom list, and that neither of those lists individually indicates which games were released in Japan versus in the US and Europe. I think being able to see something like what RPGs were released for the Super Famicom but not for the Super Nintendo is useful, so I'm in agreement with SnowFire from that previous discussion. While I think all of the lists could probably be worked into something better than any of them, I think the genre list (including its sub-lists) provides the most useful information right now, and is the one to keep if any one of them are going to be kept. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I realized all those things, but I prefer to deal with one problem at a time. We don't need to salvage all the "List of Super Famicom and Super NES ..." articles just for the genre and regional release information, as that information is poorly sourced in those articles, probably largely inaccurate in the case of the Japan-only games, and would need to be reformatted anyway. As The1337gamer pointed out, we only need one list for each platform, and that list doesn't need to include every name the platform was branded under. That's why we have List of Sega Genesis games, not List of Sega Mega Drive, Sega Genesis, CDX, Multi-Mega, Sega Nomad, Sega TeraDrive, Mega-LD Pack, JVC Wondermega, and JVC X'Eye games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel like you've missing my point, since I'm also asking for one list, and what that list is named is really besides the point. I just don't think it is a good idea to throw out a lot of potentially useful information instead of merging it. If you feel that all that other information is too poorly sourced to use, that would be a reasonable argument to make for getting rid of it (I don't think I agree, since I think those lists are a good starting point for seeing what information we should be trying to source, but it is still a reasonable argument). However, you didn't make that argument in the previous discussion or in your prod rationales, and instead made arguments for deletion that simply weren't correct. Regardless, I think having those articles redirect to any list we end up with is better than deleting them, since anyone looking for those lists will probably want the new list. Also, I want to point out that the genre list is one list, not several lists . . . it is merely divided into multiple pages for length. If we can fit all the games onto one page without it being unmanageable, that would be preferable, but if there are so many SNES/Super Famicom games that they can't reasonably be listed on one page, then we'll need to split them up somehow. That doesn't mean we'll be ending up with multiple lists though, just that we'll have one list divided into multiple pages. Calathan (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Calathan: You can usually request at WP:REFUND for a page deleted under notability reasoning to be moved to your sandbox. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Calathan - I don't follow why you would think I'm missing your point, since what you say is your point was directly addressed in my post. Your claim that I need to anticipate any possible counter-arguments in all of my discussion posts and even in prod rationales (which are supposed to be brief and to-the-point) is even more baffling. Most baffling of all, though, is your continued referring to the practice of listing all games for a platform in a single article as if this was some daring new format that we need to work out the details of, rather than a system that has been in place without problems almost since WP was founded. Take a look at a few of the articles in Category:Video game lists by platform.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been in favor the whole time of having one list, but I just felt that the content of those lists would be useful in making that list. If you can make one complete list without referencing that content, then I am fine with that, but I felt it would be easier to do so with that content viewable. I don't understand why you think I want something any different than what we have for other systems. It feels like you are just being combative for the sake of being combative, and I really don't appreciate it. Calathan (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, now that I take a look Category:Video game lists by platform, the articles we have for other systems are a total mess. I see more than 20 lists for the three Xbox systems and more than 10 lists for the two Wii systems, for example. I agree that ideally we would have only one list per system, but I think you need to actually take a look at what is in that category, since what we have right now isn't nearly as clean as what you seem to think. Calathan (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say the person who is "just being combative for the sake of being combative" is the one who keeps on bringing up irrelevant points for argument and insisting I've misunderstood after I've demonstrated clear understanding. I have no interest in arguing over nothing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated all the "List of Super Famicom and Super NES ..." articles for deletion. I invite everyone to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Super Famicom and Super NES games by genre.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that these would be better served as redirects to the current list, rather than as redlinks. There could be links to the deleted articles from both inside and outside Wikipedia, and it would be useful to get people clicking on those links to the actual list (especially for any external links). Would anyone object to me creating redirects from the deleted titles to List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games? Calathan (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I've already reviewed the links to the articles; I always do this for articles I find have been deleted. There were very few links, and the overwhelming majority were under "See also" for individual games. While I don't know of any consensus supporting this, I'm pretty sure including "List of _ games" links for every platform a game is on isn't something we want to do. For one thing, this would make the "See also" sections for games like Doom and Myst absurdly bloated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, what I was mainly concerned about was external links, since any links internal to Wikipedia can just be removed or changed to point to the other list. However, I admit they aren't really important to have. I definitely agree that we don't want to link to the lists from the articles for individual games. Calathan (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 3 February[edit]

23 January

27 January

28 January

29 January

30 January

31 January

1 February

2 February

3 February

Salavat (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Arc System Works[edit]

The Arc System Works article is a complete mess. I've tried my best to clean it up but it's just so difficult to find information about the company. It's especially important to bulk up this particular article considering the acquisitions that they've made with Technos Japan and WorkJam intellectual properties. I need all the help I can get with this particular company article. Thanks Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out as I do my researches. I'm going through 1996 gaming magazines right now; with any luck the company is mentioned somewhere during that time.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail unreliable[edit]

Hey guys. Just a heads-up for the future that The Daily Mail is now considered unreliable and prohibited from use on Wikipedia. In case you see it on a Daily Mail article on a page, you should remove it from there. GamerPro64 01:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the VG project uses the DM much, but be aware it's not outright banned, just that you don't use it for factual information. It can be use for opinions or when the DM is part of the story, and other reasonable cases. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Already found a link to them on the Manhunt (video game) article. That article is a Good Article at that. GamerPro64 01:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Which looks like the one DM source can be replaced [1]. That's the thing with the Daily Mail, is that most of the factual stuff it reports can likely be found in other more reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
My first thought was that this was a source that people are always using for esports, but that's a different "Daily", isn't it? Daily Dot or something? Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a British Tabloid newspaper so I doubt they ever regularly covert eSports let alone be contanatly used by Wikipedia in that capicity.-- (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Serge, The Daily Dot sold off their eSports section. I don't even think they cover that anymore. GamerPro64 01:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Huh, I did not know that. I mean, I guess it's been a bit since I've seen it be used, but I thought it was just that we stopped having all those esports guideline and AFD debates, which is the only times I really participate in the esports area. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's a list of project articles with links to Daily Mail. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just an FYI: Based on the closure discussion at AN there is a chance that this ruling might be challenged - either for a change of wording or to complete overturn it. While it probably wouldn't hurt to gradually start replacing the sources if comparable alternatives exist, we may want to keep an eye out for any future developments. ZettaComposer (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Essentially, just search "video game daily mail" or "video game", and we can spot every article such as this to clean up. After having been in WP:RSN, I was going to start a section on this talk page called "Video game articles are doomed" about the incident, but I have just noticed that it already has been covered. Gamingforfun365 04:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
With a sensationalist thread title like that people would be calling you out for blowing things out of proportions. With The1337gamer already pointing out only 70 or so articles include The Daily Mail, this isn't that big of a deal for this project. Not like it was decided Kotaku was deemed unreliable all of a sudden. GamerPro64 04:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The blanket ban is ridiculous. It's not like the Daily Mail is any more unreliable than any other UK tabloid, and there's no ban on any of those. That said, there is very little reason why a video game article would choose to cite the DM over other more reliable sources. I'd treat the Daily Mail in the same way that we treat Forbes contributors, discourage their use and encourage better sources, but I wouldn't remove the DM sourced information from our articles. - hahnchen 21:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 10 February[edit]

2 February

3 February

4 February

5 February

6 February

7 February

8 February

9 February

10 February

Salavat (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 31: It's 2017 and a Month Edition[edit]

We have a lot of GANs. Let's get started.

Peer Reviews

Also we still have requests from 2012 in the Request board if anyone is interested in making new articles. GamerPro64 17:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Someone uninvolved should just close and demote the Space Marshals GAR. It's been open since August and issues still have not been addressed. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'll go ahead and do that. GamerPro64 18:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Begging Thread[edit]

  • Well, I have been focused largely or entirely on the two articles, Xbox One and Kinect Star Wars, that I wish to greatly improve, of which I had wanted one to reach a GA status, but I did not receive suggestions for improvement so far this year. Perhaps, it is because of my recent attitude for how I would deal with conflict? (P.S. Is this what the begging thread is used for: advertising one's GANs, FACs, etc.?) Gamingforfun365 01:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I currently have Steins;Gate Drama CD Alpha, Beta, and Gamma up at GAN and am interested in trading reviews. Jaguar, would you be interested in reviewing it in exchange for a Wipeout review?--IDVtalk 15:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good! I've taken your GAN. JAGUAR  19:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I'll do Wipeout Fusion then.--IDVtalk 19:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Twinfinite 'ight?[edit]

Detroit has ended motion capture footage, but Twinfinite is the only publication that picked it up. Is it reliable? I don't see it on the list. Cognissonance (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it around before, and I don't see anything that immediately jumps out as unreliable, but somebody else should be the judge on that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Could've sworn that Twinfinite was decided to be unreliable here. GamerPro64 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to whether Twinfinite is reliable or not, but Cognissonance, it is okay to cite primary sources for uncontroversial information, so the tweet Twinfinite cites should be fine.--IDVtalk 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Twinfinite's staff don't appear to have much credibility at a glance. Their 'about us' page also states that they're an enthusiast site, so I'd say they're not reliable. JAGUAR  19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In this case I agree with the suggestion to use the tweet as the source since unlsss there is something overlooked it's hardly controversial.-- (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Colony Wars articles[edit]

Now that the RM discussion is closed, what to do about Colony Wars (series), Colony Wars (video game), Colony Wars: Vengeance, and Colony Wars: Red Sun? Is merger likely? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The games are independently notable based on their reviews, and there is no source coverage of the series. I boldly merged the sole series source to Colony Wars (video game)#Legacy, where it can be developed further. I think more sources/edits and less discussion is needed in this case. czar 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
In other words, ignore the results of RM per WP:IAR and be bold anyways? George Ho (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
What? The RM was "no consensus" and content was the reason. If you find my solution unsatisfactory, you can undo it, but I don't see what other conclusion you're banking on. czar 03:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh... sorry. I didn't mean to dismiss your efforts. The bold change was nice and efficient, and I like that. I just hope everyone else agrees with this. --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, you're right. More improvement, less discussion. Let's move on. George Ho (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Forbidden Siren (film)[edit]

This article was unmerged from Siren (video game series) article because it "caused a constraint violation in Wikidata" (see talk page). Is that really a valid reason for unmerging something? --Mika1h (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. As pro-Wikidata and metadata as I am, even I know Wikidata cannot dictate enwiki content policy.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
To add to Salv's comments, nothing requires that Wikidata match Enwiki. Even if Enwiki has one article for both topics, Wikidata can still have two separate entities. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thirded, absolutely not. Wikidata's internal item structure has no bearing on's article structure. --PresN 14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a pitty. In every other wiki this article is for it's own and had a chance to develop see e.g. pt:Forbidden Siren (filme). A Video game is not film. And with merging you lost information, too. MovieFex (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@MovieFex: ignoring that your example of a developed article is a 4-paragraph plot summary + trivia section, the discussion is not whether or not the film article should be merged to the video game series/franchise article because of the merits of the articles in question, but your opposition based on the effect it would have at wikidata. One is an acceptable thing to debate, right or wrong, the other is absolutely unsupported and raises alarming red flags about future trends. --PresN 16:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, its not a valid reason for making decisions on en-wiki. Consider myself a fourth (of probably endless) people who oppose this as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: I was aware of the article because of wikidata, there at a maintenance page. So I checked the article here and saw, there is enough potential to develop (how was shown in other wikis e.g. frwiki/ruwiki/ptwiki) and enough for a stub. Beg me pardon that I hadn't the right words to explain all reasons for a seperate article. So I thought a hint to wikidata would be helpful enough and in interest of enwiki to get an item for it's own. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that there is an expectation that an editor will not create unreferenced stubs with unproven notability on English Wikipedia, regardless of the fact the same topic may have equally unreferenced articles on other languages of Wikipedia.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I see, references were missing. May be next time someone creates an article which is enough referenced for your strict eyes. Here are some for the one who tries again:
@Salvidrim!: May be you're pro-Wikidata, but I doubt you understand. -- MovieFex (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Enwiki policy trumps anything Wikidata or Ptwiki related. Of the sources above, at least 3 are immediately unreliable because they are user generated Wikis. I'm also pro-Wikidata, I've written much of our integration for it. We don't create articles on enwiki just because they have a Wikidata item. There is a known problem with Wikidata in that it cannot link items to redirects, but that's not a reason to create an article that lacks notability. Nothing that Enwiki does will cause data constraint issues on Wikidata. That's an issue with someone using the wrong items in the properties. For example, Q4038879 is the item for the media series as a whole. Q660294 is the item for the film, and this is where the IMDB property belongs. -- ferret (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: You're right, IMDb belongs to the film. You're wrong if you say ENwiki does not cause data constraint issues on Wikidata e.g. Beverly Hills Cop (Q3222883) -> Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P345#.22Unique_value.22_violations (one of many maintenance pages where ENwiki causes constraint violations). For this problem there are two solutions: in this special mentioned case, the IMDb's have to be deleted in the article Beverly Hills Cop (franchise) because there is no item about it in IMDb, only single entry's to the films (which are linked already). The other possibility we are talking about here is what I did: trying to make a difference between a video game and a film. Wikidata is an young project and it will need some time, until Wikipedia and Wikidata are passably synchron. But may be there is another reason that my contribution was not welcome ... -- MovieFex (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Lemme make something clear here MovieFex, it's not about "my strict eyes", it's about English Wikipedia's content policies. I'm very much in favour of metadata in general and Wikidata in particular and hope one day most categories and infoboxes will be populated from Wikidata. That being said, global Wikimedia projects (Wikidata, Commons, Meta) cannot trump the content policies of individual-language Wikipedias. The fact that creating an unreferenced English stub makes Wikidata "cleaner" or removes a conflict doesn't mean that, on English Wikipedia, such an article's existence is allowed or justified.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Siren is not a video game. It is a video game franchise. It can also be seen as a multimedia franchise. Any piece of media that does not have an article on its own, such as a film or a manga, can be listed there until the section on it gets too big. If Wikidata cannot handle franchise articles, then may I suggest that there is a significant problem with the project? How does Wikidata currently handle the Siren manga? ~Mable (chat) 21:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, this is good argument, thanks. Siren -> main article Siren (video game) / Forbidden Siren 2 -> main article: Forbidden Siren 2 / Siren: Blood Curse -> main article Siren: Blood Curse / Forbidden Siren (film) -> main article Nope MovieFex (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you telling us Wikidata is unable to handle topics that are redirected to a broader concept (such as sequels being redirected to the first entry, or franchise articles covering multiple items), or topics for which an article does not exist? Seriously? But there are thousands of the former and millions of the latter.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In regards to "You're wrong if you say ENwiki does not cause data constraint issues on Wikidata e.g. Beverly Hills Cop (Q3222883) -> Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P345#.22Unique_value.22_violations (one of many maintenance pages where ENwiki causes constraint violations).". Enwiki doesn't cause this. Users who aren't reviewing their data in Quickstatements cause this. For example, you removed the IMDB link from Q4038879. It was added by another editor using QuickStatements back in December. It was not automatically imported from Enwiki or anything like that.

In regards to Salvidrim's question about redirects: Yes, Wikidata has an issue here. Wikidata items cannot be linked to redirects. It's an issue recognized and discussed at d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects (Which seems to be most recent RFC on the issue) among other pages. @Izno: You can probably better state this issue, I can't recall the page you once linked me on the subject. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I'm functionally AFK atm (vacation) so I can't really hash on the entirety of what's going on in this section, but the page you're asking about is probably d:Help:Bonnie and Clyde problem. --Izno (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"Enwiki doesn't cause this. Users who aren't reviewing their data in Quickstatements cause this." No, that's wrong. First users in ENwiki are adding these links here which are integrated to Wikidata - not otherwise. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Enwiki doesn't have a policy against it. It's perfectly allowed, unless it goes against WP:EL or similar. Again, nothing in Enwiki is automatically added to Wikidata like that. A editor of Wikidata used Quickstatements and imported the data without reviewing if it violated constraints or was appropriate. To add to this, you've already repaired the constraint violation as a Wikidata editor, by removing the property. -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to give an explanation. First step is a wrong entry here. About the millions of different datas some (may be more) users work with Bots from maintanace pages, which read out the Wikis. If there is any (and even wrong) link they will add it. You see, Wikidata is second. But this also is a great advantage, as you can see in my latest edits - so errors are detected and can be fixed. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware that Wikidata was inherently linked to the notability guidelines of English Wikipedia, in that you can't have entries on Wikidata without an article existing on the topic on Wikipedia. I'd imagine that this would be a severe limitation on more abstract topics, but when it comes to a film... Well, feel free to argue about the viability of the article, but don't get upset when it doesn't meet notability guidelines. ~Mable (chat) 22:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't. Wikidata has its own notability policy separate from enwiki or any other language wiki. It's a very weak notability policy compared to enwiki, you can read it at d:Wikidata:Notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It was not my intension to be a laywer for Wikidata here. I only have some skills to use it and try to fix errors, which were detected. Perhaps my explanations weren't as good to understand, so I've to apologise that I'm no English native. My aim was to improve, no matter which wiki-language it is. This should be the major target of every Wikipedian. -- MovieFex (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

N00b here, what is Wikidata? Amwisdx (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

At a very high level, Wikidata is a separate Wikimedia project that deals with structured data. For example, you have an item for "Super Mario World". This item is defined through a set of properties, such as "Instance of: Video game", "Release date: January 1982", "Platform: Nintendo", "Developer: Nintendo". In many ways, the data is akin to what you might find in an infobox. This is a very simple view of it. If you interested in how to work with it, there is a guide I wrote with VG templates in mind at WP:VG/WD. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

How to handle NVidia Sheild exclusivity[edit]

The Witness has a version for Android that is (as best I can tell), forever going to be exclusive to the NVidia Shield console and not to any other Android device. Prose-wise, not an issue, but what about the Infobox? Is this an "Android" release or a "NVidia Shield" release? --MASEM (t) 23:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say nVidia Shield. We know it's only on that specific device, and it's sourcable. To say Android would be a bit misleading to readers. (I double checked this since I wanted to make sure it was actually a native port... I've seen people recently trying to add Android as a platform to games on nVidia's NOW streaming service. Akin to OnLive). -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Seconded, for the same reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Heads up on console generation issues[edit]

Microsoft plans to talk more about Project Scorpio during E3 this year. It's supposed to be a HW refresh of the Xbox One rather than a new console, but we know the drill by now. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

World of Guns: Guns Disassembly recreation and reworking proposal[edit]

I am not positive that this is the right procedure to bring it to your attention. User UY Scuti, in a discussion here, suggested I discuss the reworking of deleted article for World of Guns: Gun Disassembly with the Video games project members. The previous version of the article was deleted on dubious significance / scant sources. Here is my case for its recreation as a small article or stub.

Besides a few reviews of the initial version of the simulator (1, 2, 3), the game was briefly featured twice on Rock Paper Shotgun (here and here). Notably, World of Guns was also covered very positively in one of the more popular (and, uniquely, politics-free) US firearm culture blogs, The Firearm Blog.

This, I think, reflects its unique position: it lies somewhere between being a hardcore simulator, a casual game for proverbial CSGO fans, and a real, viable engineering reference and teaching aid (The Firearm Blog editor notes that he actually used the game as a reference for repairing old firearms). The effort put into the simulation library over the years seems sizeable to say the least - developers list "150+ models with 19 000 individual parts".

Here is its Russian-language article - according to ref section, it got more coverage in the Russian-language gaming press, including a segment on a TV show about videogames. Also, the game seems to be reasonably popular in terms of user base (Steam Spy lists around 2.2 million installs, and Google Store lists "1 to 5 million" installs for the earlier version of the app; plus about a million users total on and Facebook).

Being an avid firearm enthusiast, I've personally used the app a lot over the years. I think it's extremely unique, sort of like Microsoft Flight Simulator of firearms. Pity it doesn't have more coverage, again probably because of its awkward position between casual and niche markets. So, these are my points for creating a stub / small article with a video game template. AyeBraine (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I do think it is likely that an article could be made out of this. Please start Draft:World of Guns: Gun Disassembly and make it a reality, then let us know so we (or at least I!) can look it over before moving it to mainspace to ensure it won't get re-deleted.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, you can use WP:VG/S to see a list of video game related sources that are considered acceptable/not acceptable on Wikipedia too. Touch Arcade and Rock Paper Shotgun are currently classified as reliable sources, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot like removal of categories[edit]

A now blocked user (Special:Contributions/Chocolatejr9) has been removing categories and other info from VG articles. There are about 100 that need repairing. - X201 (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the bulk of his category removals. Not so sure about the other edits which added text upon existing categories. Just realised that he's done something like this before. JAGUAR  10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The basketball example seems OK given that the parent cat is Video game franchises by year. It's puzzling why they'd make a useful edit like that along with the mass removal edits - X201 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Maze video games[edit]

I've found discovered that we have an article List of maze video games but no parent article Maze video game. Not sure what the best fix would be here. Move the existing article to Maze video game? Leave it as and create a stub parent article? Some other option I haven't thought of?--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is much you can talk about maze games beyond "here there are", I'm not coming up with a great deal of sources that get in depth of origins/etc; in other words you can't get more detail beyond just a list, so that's reasonable. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that this list could be converted into a couple of categories; Category:Top-down maze video games, Category:First-person maze games, Category:Maze chase games, and Category:Grid capture video games (of course all categorized under Category:Maze games). That being said, the current situation is fine if we conclude that there is value in listing the non-notable games. ~Mable (chat) 11:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 17 February[edit]

7 February

11 February

12 February

13 February

14 February

15 February

16 February

17 February

Salavat (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Artists, Writers, Composers in Infobox video game series[edit]

See Template talk:Infobox video game series#Artists, Writers, Composers. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Attendance at TooManyGames 13 (2016)[edit]

Does anyone know the attendance number for that edition? If so, please edit it in, since I couldn't find it (which is why a left a question mark in that cell of the table). I already wrote a copy of this post at Talk:TooManyGames, but I then Copied and Pasted here just to cover my bases. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)