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
  Search engine
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


Category:Nintendo eShop[edit]

Are the subcategories beneath this one useful? It's similar to listing every game on a distribution platform, like every game on Steam, no? czar 00:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that consoles are generally more closed than PC, and moreso for Nintendo, there is some element of discrimination here that does seem fine to have. It would be more comparable to the Steam issue if there were multiple digital stores for Nintendo software where now the eShop just becomes one of several storefronts. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think they should be upmerged to their respective platform categories. Aren't most (if not all) games released on Nintendo platforms now also released on the eShop? That means there's a large overlap. Also, I just don't think they meet Wikipedia:Defining. Being distributed on eShop seems pretty insignificant to me. Not something I consider to be defining characteristic of a game or worth mention in the lead of an article (WP:NONDEF). It's like having Category:Xbox Games Store games or Category:PlayStation Store games. The latter of which I have just realised actually exists... --The1337gamer (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer and Masem, are there any others? These categories seem to be about games that were distributed on a digital platform, which I don't think is a defining feature. We also don't categorize when a game is distributed only in brick-and-mortar retail (by disc). What about Category:Xbox 360 Live Arcade games? czar 17:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I think you're right this category doesn't make sense. The Virtual Console stuff is fine, but the eShop is just a storefront and even if unique to Nintendo, is not much more than that. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Could the word "exclusive" add value to these categories? ~Mable (chat) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't consider the distribution or the way you obtain a game to be a defining feature of a game itself whether its download-only, retail-only, or only available through a specific store. Using the word "exclusive" might cause some confusion for categories like this. e.g. Game releases on PS4 and Nintendo Switch. Nintendo Switch version only available through eShop. So it gets placed in Category:PlayStation 4 games and Category:Nintendo Switch eShop exclusive games. But some people may interpret the latter to mean the game is only available on Nintendo Switch. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Category:Virtual Console games has a similar issue too—is being distributed on a digital emulation platform a defining trait? The category is also partially subcategorized into VC for Wii U but not for other platforms. czar 01:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In the VC case, I would think the category is reasonable; it is basically an idea of forwards compatibility which can suggest how important a game is if the necessary steps are made by Nintendo, MS, or Sony to bring that forward. We should have the same for List of Xbox 360 games compatible with Xbox One. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      Does that mean breaking out VC for Wii separate than for Wii U or 3DS? Or breaking out the original Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360? Neo Geo games released on the Switch? Is an official, emulated release a defining trait? Cats for VC, Xbox Originals, etc. appear to be no different in function from cats for digital distribution platforms. Even our lists of those are just us compiling what is available in a specific marketplace, and especially with emulation, more indicative of licensing agreements than of port development labor or distributor discretion (i.e., digital release on a specific marketplace is not a defining trait). czar 08:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      My understanding, though, is that the Virtual Console category does more than just identify distribution marketplace; it distinguishes between which games were developed for a certain platform and which games are simply emulated on it. To me, the difference between a contemporary release and an emulated retro release is a defining characteristic.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • We definitely want to avoid tracking just a list of products at a digital storefront per NOT#CATALOG, but games that gain official emulation on later system are a different matter, even if the only way to get those games is via a digital storefront. As long as the companies involved are being selective (eg at least for the initial PS3 models, I would not call the PS1/PS2 emulation it supported something we'd catalog), then there's reasonable refinement here. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa and Masem, but we don't use categories to track when games are emulated for release on contemporary platforms: Nintendo, Sega, Atari, etc. Are those not official emulations? If it's a matter of the games being released individually and not in compilation, why is VC release a defining trait but not when released via a similarly selective, emulated distribution service (e.g., Game Room)? The solution of removing eShop cats but not VC does not appear to be consistent. czar 17:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Categories for games officially related through emulation[edit]

(Note: I'm splitting here and reformatting the discussion, but this is a continuation of the above --MASEM (t) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC))

Only because I have started digging into the topic of video game preservation, the nature of official emulation (either as standalone games as on VC, backwards compat, or part of a compilation) is actually a subject of interest in that field. As such, we should track games that have been "blessed" with official emulation from its publisher or similar deal (such as VC Neo-Geo games) through categories. Yes, for VC games, this is going to mirror its eShop listing but that's merely the nature of how VC works.

This actually may means we need two sets of categories to do this properly: "(Platform) games available through emulation", and "Emulated video games available on (platform)" (not set on the naming but to get the point across). Note that in both cases, this requires the emulation to be an official, legal thing, so just because I have a MAME emulator doesn't mean those arcade games should be classified as such. Now, for Virtual Console games, I don't know enough if something like Category:Virtual Console games for Wii U would be subcat of this hypothetic "Emulated video games available on Wii U" though it would make sense. Similarly, a category "Xbox One-backwards compatable Xbox 360 games" would be a subset of "Emulated video games on Xbox One".

Having these categories helps to alleviate some of the platform kudzo that is happening in this. I just checked Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) and that's a platform mess by our infobox standards: the only two unique platforms that should be listed are the Genesis and the GBA game (as it is more than just emulation, it adds features). All other platforms are emulations with some features of the emulation system wrapped into them, which shouldn't listed, nor should they be classified in the top level of "(Platform) games" (though if we have "Emulated games on (platform)", that would be a whole subcat.) --MASEM (t) 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I completely follow, but how many cats are we looking at adding in the case of your Sonic 1991 example? Emulated releases can come with some fanfare, but I still don't see how it's a defining trait—it rarely affects anything about the gameplay, development, reception, other than that it was released. In that sense, it's like a VHS film being re-released with up-res on DVD, which is to say not necessarily adding anything to the film/game, but a re-release nonetheless. But we wouldn't even think of categories for such releases for film (nevertheless by platform). czar 03:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, for example we do have a cat for video game remasters. Now we don't break that down by platform, but we have that. I would think that a company offering a legitmate emulated version on newer platforms is completely reasonable, even if it lacks the fanfare, is an implicit sign of the game's importance relative to an area like video game preservation.
That said, in thinking of the problem, we shouldn't try to define by the source platform; the existance of the "(platform) video games" category should be sufficient. But we then have an overarcing "Emulated games" with "Emulated games available on (platform)"; these cats would be a subcat of "(platform) video games". This would make something like Sonic come up if one did a cross-cat search on "Sega Genesis video games" and "iOS games", for example. This takes the need to list out all platforms emulation is done on and moves it to the far-less obnoxious category list on an article, as long as editors used the "Emulated" category and not the main platform category. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Masem, are you saying that we should categorize each game for every platform that receives an emulated release? I thought that was what we were trying to avoid. Also want to throw Category:PlayStation Network games into this discussion, alongside the storefront cats mentioned above. czar 18:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
What I think we want to avoid is spamming the infobox and lede with platforms that the game was released for via emulation, but I don't see the problem with doing this by categorization. It's non-obtrusive in contrast to the infobox/lede. I do agree that the categories that are principally storefront lists are problems. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it definitely doesn't belong in the lede or infobox but I don't see emulated platforms as a defining trait worthy of categorization either, whether on a game that was remastered for a single platform, or older games that have been emulated or otherwise released across more than ten platforms. When we get to listing emulated releases, or even later ports, I think we start veering into information more fitting of a database or index than an encyclopedia. I'm more willing to call it trivia based on its non-essential mention in the article and the lack of attention generally afforded to distant port/emulated release info in articles. czar 03:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You are probably right we don't want to go to being that database. I just worry that I think we should be able to document (where documentation is available) games receiving official emulation but distinguish that from being a store front. For example, the list of Xbox One-compatible Xbox 360 games (which when new titles come out, are reported in RSes); it is unfortunate that effectively makes it a one-to-one list with the XBox live storefront issue too. Whether we do this by list or category, I'm not sure (a category, though, makes sense for searching). --MASEM (t) 15:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Associated Press's MOS - "esports" not "eSports"[edit]

"esports" is the proper term rather than "eSports" (more specifically, they are treating it like how they have used "email" verses "e-mail", dropping the hyphen). This now makes the term (per AP) different from how our MOS suggests , see MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.

We here at the project should decide some consistency for the term, either staying with our MOS or going with AP's. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't really have a bone in this fight, though I have reverted many efforts to change the article's format since the last consensus, just as part of patrolling. This needs a WP:VG consensus rather than a local article consensus, which has resulted in something like 10+ move discussions over the years. -- ferret (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I really don't care as long as there is consensus. The uncapitalized form is a bit prettier, but I just don't want another huge argument to pop up, because it's just a waste of time... I hope there can be an updated consensus fast, without too much arguing back and forth. ~Mable (chat) 17:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this matter, but more and more publications in the last year or two do seem to be using "esports" now more often than "eSports". Whether that is enough to move the page (again) remains to be decided. That said, having Associated Press-backed MOS helps the move to "esports" a lot. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Might be good to just table the question until another group makes a decision. We don't need or want to jump on the latest change in someone else's style guide to go about changing our own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

To look through the sources a bit more:

From all of this, I'd say there's a good argument to change our MOS. Does anyone have significant recent sources that discuss esports with a capital S? Red Bull seems to be the biggest issue. ~Mable (chat) 09:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer eSports. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want to decide it here, but should we set out to have a formal RFC/equivalent process to set a standard for how we should write eSports/esport in VG articles? We have clearly several data points which can be presented as part of an RFC to help readers decide which is best. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • WP's house style is not AP... Read past the sensation/headline to see that the AP adopts the usage of its official source (Webster's New World College Dictionary). Not exactly a sea change. It's likely a trend, but it doesn't mean it's the common usage right now (nevertheless at this instant). As for the on-wiki standard, we already established the camelcase at the eSports talk page with lots of links. The gist is that newspapers use the older format with hyphen or camelcase, while the younger eSports sites drop the "s" to lowercase. It is patent to see that this is because of readership: readers familiar with "esports" will not trip on the word while newspaper readers who know nothing about pro gaming will better understand "e-sport" from "esport". We're a generalist encyclopedia. We have articles on eSports figures written in really obtuse jargon and we have broader, topical articles—both should be written for a general audience. czar 07:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so in the sources given we have:

  • Four sources that capitalize neither 'e' nor 's': i.e. esports
  • Two sources that capitalize the 'e' but not the 's': i.e. Esports
  • Six sources that capitalize the 's' but not the 'e': i.e. eSports
  • No sources that capitalize both: i.e. ESports
  • One inconsistency

Personally, I've always known it as 'eSports', and I think that the consensus of sources shows that 'eSports' is the preferred MoS. I don't think we really have a reason to change it, because it's the most popular stylization. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Besides, eSports technically stands for 'electronic sports' (like how email stands for 'electronic mail'). Using 'eSports' distinguishes the two words, whereas 'esports' makes it appear to be a single noncompounded word. If we change it to anything, we should change it to ESports and keep the distinguishment. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
But that's not the common name and almost no modern publication uses that style. Although it seems a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL like, I think that over time more and more will be using "esports". That being said, I don't think we have a clear winner here, and should keep the page at eSports for a while longer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me. One question: isn't PR Newswire a press release "bulletboard, so to speak? I don't know if it's relevant in this discussion. But yeah, either is fine, really. I'd like to see it move to "esports" at some point myself, but as long as there is no strong preference among sources, it is more effort then it's worth. ~Mable (chat) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
In January I started collecting sources to convince people here that "esports" is the best way to write the word (and Esports at the start of sentences and in titles). So I made a a google spreadsheet. The ones listed as "Reliable" are the ones video games section of WP had listed as reliable and someone here had made a google news search filter, which I readily used to figure out what those had to say. Since I got the very even 11-11 for esports vs eSports I went ahead and looked at other esports industry publications and outlets, for example what does Riot, Blizzard and Valve use in their publications, and what does "unreliable" news sources use. Here it was much clearer in favour of esports, but there might be more bias on my part then since I didn't use a list provided by someone else. Some of these sources might have changed their usage since the time I collected them, it's been three months but I think it's still fairly accurate. About Maplestrip's list, the four publications that use lower case "s", they're the big mainstream media outlets that have decided to have dedicated esports coverage, not just a one-off article like a lot of other mainstream media has, that surely ought to be weighted heavier than a one-off article in LA Times. Like I said at the beginning my personal preference is esports, being part of the wiki Liquipedia I know how divided both the community is between both spellings and how divided the industry is since there are a lot of teams and organisations within the industry that use one or the other. However, I think I can see that within the community there's still a clear majority for a lower case "s". --salle81 (t, c) 19:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Salle81: - I think that you shared the spreadsheet wrong as I don't have permission to see it; you need to turn link sharing on. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So sorry. Changed it so it should be working now. --salle81 (t, c) 14:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • On the matter of style (and this is one such matter), the AP style book is a reliable source. Usage in reliable sources on video games is not the same as a reliable source on style. This is not a simple headcount of "just another source" but instead a book to which people who are professional copyeditors pay attention when dealing with matters of capitalization, dashes, and what-have-you. (Maybe SMcCandlish can dig up similar in other style books--which went unconsidered in the latest move request.) --Izno (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing that. I'd definitely put more weight on such general-purpose style books. ~Mable (chat) 19:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • While we're on the page of Google Docs, I made a list of the pros and cons for each term. Feel free to comment or request permission to edit. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Seems about right, but that info should have just been posted here, as it's more likely to garner a response vs. an external link. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I find Google Docs easier to make and maintain, and edit confliction doesn't occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Following AP style book, that is "esports", per Izno (Assuming I haven't misread his statements). Additionally, once this discussion decides either way, WP:VG/AG should have a sentence covering the consensus. -- ferret (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    Ferret and others: Just to be clear, I didn't actually !vote because I don't want to base a stance like this solely on a single stylebook going one way. I would guess that there are prescriptions in the other style books on the likes of "email" and others (and by extension, "esports", if those do not cover the phrase "esports" directly). --Izno (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We could really use a consensus here, one way or another. The main article has been repeatedly protected due to constant name/format changing, and I just protected it again since almost every edit following the expiration of the last one in March has been to continue changing the format of "eSports". I have no strong feeling here, but feel the last consensus should be respected till we decide otherwise. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, to me it seems like "esports" is slightly more popular among the various sources, per the Google spreadsheet linked above. Activision, Valve, and Twitch using the uncapitalized version should be taken into consideration. ~Mable (chat) 10:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • CMOS announced a move from e-mail to email yesterday.[1] Likely spurred by (or organized with) the AP release. --Izno (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The Associated Press Stylebook is a style guide for news style, and has nothing to do with encyclopedia writing. WP is not written in news style, as a matter of policy. Our own MoS is based on academic style, primarily from The Chicago Manual of Style and New Hart's Rules, plus Fowler's Modern English Usage, Garner's Modern English Usage, and a few other such works (some of them specialized like the CSE's Scientific Style and Format. But none of them are going to address this topic yet. News style guides have the virtue of being frequently updated, but for WP they remain only a small subset of sources to consider, and ones to take with a grain of stylistic salt. It is also correct that usage in reliable sources devoted to video games tells us very little, because VG sources are reliable about games, not about English usage matters. This "specialized-style fallacy" comes up very, very frequently on Wikipedia ("WP has to write about underwater basketweaving in exactly the same way as the International Journal of Underwater Basketweaving, including rampant overcapitalization of "Basket" and "Underwater", just because it's the most reliable source on underwater basketweaving." Um, no.)

    Anyway, what to do with this article title should be determined by a new review of source usage, beyond newspapers and beyond gaming-specific magazines/site, to the extent possible, with heavy reliance on Google Books (after weeding out any claptrap), and any other way at getting at what mainstream book publishers are doing. It would be preferable for clarity to use e-sports, but the hyphen seems to be dropped in many sources, and a previous proposal to use that version did not gain consensus. The mid-word capitalization is weird, and is inconsistent with MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM (especially since the usage here isn't even a trademark), so dropping that overcapitalization is probably the way to go. It just needs to be done on more of a basis than "one news-style manual says so".
     — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an esports writer coming in to throw my hat in the ring. :) I think half of esports world is going to throw a fit if that capital "S" doesn't get chopped to size. It's extremely important to a lot of people - the capital "S" makes esports feel like a new-age fad, and not an industry with a relatively prominent history in the last 30 or so years. Semantics do matter. Endemic esports experts that I'm in touch with are pretty irritated that people are still arguing it. (ESPECIALLY Red Bull, which should know better by now.) Wiki users would do good to change it. Riningear (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not the one who created or maintained the use of the capital S. As you can see with some of the examples provided above, multiple publications still use eSports as of 2017, so until the majority use esports, it won't be changed here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    "it won't be changed here" doesn't seem to be the obvious case based on the discussion above, especially in regard to the fact that two English style guides (one news, one general) have moved on this point. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I was going more on that the discussion has existed for nearly a month now, and has died down to the point that any consensus results could be read as inconclusive. If we are going to move it to esports, then why wait? For the record, I do support the move to esports (which I didn't in the past), so let's just do it now and be done with this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
      I concur with Dissident, noting that there is at least a slim majority of sources using a non-capital 's'. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
No way is there an actionable consensus in this thread. There would need to be a whole lot more research than the cherrypicked samples in this thread (especially to make a conclusion about a majority), with much more consideration for (and assessment of) mainstream (non-VG) sources. SMcCandlish hits all these points above. When this does inevitably come back up in the future, it should be a very public RfC. czar 05:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Using an image to show "best" example of graphics[edit]

A good example of Pointillism

I want to show this image in this article as an example of one of the best implementations of a graphics technique. I am using this as the source. Would that be appropriate? SharkD  Talk  10:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you would, of course, you'd give it a description along the lines of "person of Kotaku called Shadowrun Returns one of the best looking isometric games" or something like that. However, I personally don't believe this would add much to the article. The most typical examples may be more useful for an encyclopedic article than the (subjective) "best" examples. I think the current CC-licensed images used in the article are fine. ~Mable (chat) 13:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I would rather use a screenshot of Stasis, but there doesn't seem to be one on Wikipedia. SharkD  Talk  02:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There exists no free alternative for "isometric game with visuals that are considered the best," Czar. The question is whether such an image is worth adding to the article, which I don't think it is. ~Mable (chat) 10:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
But there is also no in-text need to illustrate "isometric game with visuals that are considered the best". There's also nothing specific to Shadowrun in the article that would require the particular use of non-free Shadowrun screenshots. Other isometric concepts can be adequately illustrated with free-use images. czar 16:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It says "(Concept Art)" for SR, which isn't the actual game art. I don't think it can serve as example for art. Also, despite the title, it also says "some of the most beautiful", not implying these are the best or are in any particular order. Even without these issues, I would say that just one source is insufficient to establish something as "best". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we necessarily have to say it is among "the best". Calling it a "good" or "great" example might be good enough. I don't think it's so unfounded to include a good example of art in an article about said artfrom. For instance, the article on Pointillism has a picture of Seurat's La Parade de Cirque (1889) instead of some random free art drawn by a Wikipedian. SharkD  Talk  16:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, the image I want to include is an actual screenshot, and the "concept art" looks pretty much like the game itself. SharkD  Talk  16:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
But we're trying to minimalize non-free use here; the Pointillism example doesn't apply since it's a free image now to start. The article on WP that you want to use it in doesn't really seem to go much into artistic merits (how isometric art is made, yes, but that's a different factor than how good it looks), so I really don't see how this would qualify. The one non-free, being Zaxxon as the first known example of isometric art, seems reasonable, but I can't see the need to justify another non-free with the LinCity and user-generated examples already there. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The article actually has more text than Pointillism, and goes into more detail about "artistic merits"; yet Pointillism has a list of notable artists and notable works, as well as a gallery at the bottom. A single example of "contemporary" work (as in, post-2010) is too much? SharkD  Talk  05:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to note that our article on isometric graphics is of far higher quality than our article on pointillism. I'd also like to note that isometric graphics may be a much more technical field, where aesthetic preferences are less discussed. Though, I mean, I agree that a section of artistic movements and thoughts within isometric graphics could be very interesting. I'd say we wouldn't need another non-free image in the article, however, unless we really have something interesting to say about it. The fact that many pointillistic paintings are now in the public domain simply gives us more options there, but it's not like any of the examples in our isometric graphics article are ugly or anything. ~Mable (chat) 11:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Using listicles are a source for anything is usually bad, especially the kotaku nothing article referenced above. There are some very good free isometric examples in Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art#Gallery already. If you would like to include examples from your favourite indie games, just contact the developer directly and ask for a free-use media release, I used to do this when I had more time for the project - it's really valuable. Incidentally, I asked the Shadowrun devs via email in 2013, and they explicitly would not release any materials without a non-commercial license. - hahnchen 11:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Do not use "good" or "best", per WP:NPOV policy. It's sufficient and much more encyclopedic to have a caption more like "[Work title] by [Artist Name], a typical example of a pointillism." See also MOS:WTW.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Pointillism also uses the word "Notable". SharkD  Talk  01:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 7 April[edit]

1 April

2 April

3 April

4 April

5 April

6 April

7 April

Salavat (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Linux Installers for Linux Gamers[edit]

Hi everyone,

I stumbled upon Linux Installers for Linux Gamers. It has been nominated for deletion a while ago, titled Loki installers for linux gamers. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I don't get any results when I look up "linux installers for linux gamers" or "loki installers for linux gamers", and I get a single one with its acronym "liflg" (all three with apostrophes of course). Am I missing something, or is this not a notable article? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a mention at PCWorld, and that's all I saw in the first few pages on Google. Start with a prod or ship it to AFD. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
As a note, there is a book at Google Books referencing the name (I didn't check to see if it was passing), but the author of the book is a primary source relative to the website. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a second PC World mention. SharkD  Talk  14:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Installers for Linux Gamers czar 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 14 April[edit]

30 March

31 March

7 April

8 April

9 April

10 April

11 April

12 April

13 April

14 April

Salavat (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Installation 01 is clearly being pushed by a game community canvas effort, including edits by the creator. May need more eyes or someone who feels AFD is warranted. I'm on the fence. -- ferret (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a dash of sources. The article may be premature but at worst it ends up in draft space. I'm always happy to cut primary sources and information. I will look some more later today at home. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: Rewritten. Might be some close paraphrasing there or slightly-disorganized stuff, but with a full integration of the RS available, that should satisfy ease-of-watchability for advertising/COI/primary sourced concerns (and other poor quality indicators). The coverage seems somewhat routine, but I expect we'll see an article or three on Microsoft either OKing the game or shutting it down. --Izno (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. It's unreleased, so I doubt there's much more to say right now. They'll have to be satisfied with that, we're not a blog for them to keep updates on. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception sections[edit]

I'm not a video game editor, but I've reviewed quite a few video game articles at WT:FAC, and talked to several of the editors in this WikiProject about reception sections. I'd like to make a suggestion here for how to write reception sections, perhaps for inclusion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.

Here's an example paragraph from an article currently at FAC, Resident Evil 5:

Reviewers praised the game's visuals and content. Corey Cohen of Official Xbox Magazine complimented the game's fast pace, and called the graphics "gorgeous". It was praised by Joe Juba and Mark Miller of Game Informer, who said that it had the best graphics of any game to date and that the music and voice acting helped bring the characters to life, and Brian Crecente of Kotaku said it was one of the most visually stunning games he had ever played. Adam Sessler of X-Play said the game's graphics were exceptional, and Edge praised the gameplay as exhilarating and frantic. For IGN, Ryan Geddes wrote that the game had a surprisingly high replay value, and GameZone's Louis Bedigian said the game was "worth playing through twice in one weekend".

This is a completely standard reception section for a high-quality video game article; many other FAs could be found with similar paragraphs. Here's a suggested rewrite:

Reviewers described the graphics as exceptional; two reviewers described the game as having the most visually stunning graphics of any game they had played. The gameplay was also praised as fast-paced, exhilarating, and frantic, with surprisingly high replay value, and music and voice acting that helped bring the characters to life.

For a non-video-game aficionado, I think the second version of this is both more readable and more informative. It's far easier to extract the information from the second version of this. What is lost is the details of who said what and where they said it, which is preserved in the citations. When you use direct quotes in a reception section you will often want to keep the reviewers name or publication or both; I think that's fine, but without a direct quote I believe there's rarely a reason to do so. These suggestions don't apply only to video games. I've been working with Carbrera on "Make Me Like You", a music article, and in this section you can see a suggested rewrite. In that case several of the original reviewers are named, because direct quotes are used.

I've had conversations with some other video game editors about reception sections, so pinging them here: Czar, Jaguar, and also Freikorp, who is the nominator of the Resident Evil 5 FAC. I do a lot of reviewing at FAC, and I wrote an essay about reception sections in general, hoping to capture some advice I found myself giving repeatedly. Freikorp quite reasonably replied to my comments at the FAC saying that he had received different advice from other reviewers, so he didn't want to comply with my suggestions. That's why I'm starting this conversation: I would like to see WP:VG adopt some guidelines for reception sections that can be referenced at FAC.

I don't have a suggested formulation for the guidelines; I'm more interested in starting a discussion about whether the rewrite above is actually an improvement or not, and seeing if we can get some consensus first on how reception sections should be written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No real bone in this, as I only very occasionally do GAN/GAR, but what you are suggesting is essentially the reverse of what I see brought up during most VG article GANs. That is, the example from Resident Evil 5 that mentions the reviewer's name and publication is what reviewers often tell the nominator to add. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The publication is useful, but not for a lead paragraph which is what the example shows. I would expect further paragraphs to expand upon that lead, which is significantly more readable than the current version.
Reviewing VG articles, I usually go straight to the Reception section, as that is where the game's real world impact is detailed - and I usually oppose because it's badly written. Very few video game editors seem to care, or are qualified to comment, so I think it best for the co-ordinators to encourage or require non-VG editors to review these articles.
PS - the example above displays one of my pet hates, which is one word quotes. They're needless and are oftentimes read as ironic airquotes. - hahnchen 13:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I try to write reception sections from generic to specific: for each major area I plan to summarize, a lead sentence to give an idea but without necessarily referring to any specific review, capturing elements common to reviews, and then using specific review quotes to help emphasize any points. I do agree jumping to specifically named reviews in the first sentence of the reception is a bit too fast. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned before, I think this should be more of a recommendation for FAs rather than GAs or B classes etc. GAs are designed as a lightweight process and thus the organisation of the reception section would matter less, whereas a FAC can be as intense as an editor wants. It's sad because as far as I'm aware only me and czar write reception sections that read as cohesive prose instead of having a wall of text which consists of an arbitrary list of reviewers themselves. I certainly changed my attitude to writing reception sections thanks to Mike's revelation. I agree with Hahnchen too, one word quotes as well relying on excessive quoting should be avoided whenever possible. JAGUAR  14:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam Goodall of Gameplanet called the graphics "stunning" and said that the game had a "surprising presence" of a pervasive artistic statement. Langshaw said that they showcased the PlayStation Vita's "graphical prowess". David Meikleham of the Official PlayStation Magazine wrote that Wipeout 2048 "brilliantly shows off" the new hardware with its "pretty" lighting effects, solid frame rate and "gorgeous" colours. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) - hahnchen 16:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To suggest this for FA material? Sure, maybe. But to have this be the new norm? It'd never happen. Most editors just don't/can't write at that level, or agree amongst themselves on how to word such things. You may as well make the suggestion of "Hey, no more original research" or "Hey, let's not argue about music genre anymore guys." You can say it all day, but it won't happen on a widespread level. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. This sort of premium writing would only be reserved for FAs as the casual writer or newcomer to Wikipedia would struggle with this. Even I have to spend an hour or so trying to decide how to organise a reception and make it flow cohesively. It's not an easy thing to implement and should be more of a recommendation for FA-level articles. JAGUAR  14:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Mike suggested only that we find consensus on what we'd like to see in our Reception sections, not that we enforce it czar 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • He suggested reviewing/adding it to our guidelines. What's the point of writing guidelines if we're not enforcing it? Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
So that we don't have to repeat the same advice at every review. The guidelines have plenty of suggestions that aren't hard lines—it's all advice on writing better articles, and it will only be pursued by the willing (not enforced). czar 17:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I had thought of these guidelines as more as representations of consensus's held at the WikiProject level, which is why I was concerned about the topic of feasibility and enforce-ability. But if you're just talking about writing some optional thoughts on FA writing, then sure, knock yourselves out. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • [looks at Homeworld#Reception (my current FAC), where every opinion is tagged with the last names of the reviewers who had it, as well as the publication the first time. Notes one use of a single-word quote, and swiftly looks away.] I actually first started tagging last names onto review quotes/paraphrases due to a reviewer at FAC itself, though I don't remember who. I do think it's a relevant thing to do, given the large emphasis readers place on the reviewer/publication that give opinions of games. I personally find it really jarring, though, when the sentences are structured "X said Y. Z said A. B stated C.", and I'd feel that way whether X was "Joe Blo of GamePunk" or "Two reviewers"- the reviewer names just make it a bit worse. Which I why I write lengthy blobs like 'Reviewers praised the full 3D nature of the game as elevating it from its otherwise standard real-time strategy gameplay systems; Levine said that the 3D was what made the game unique, and Ryan explicitly termed the base gameplay as "fairly similar to any tried-and-true real-time strategy game" but said that the 3D elements and connected mission structure turned it into a "different breed" of game.', but that's its own issue. --PresN 23:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Mike is encouraging grouping it even more, and I agree. Names are hard to track, especially for readers who know none of them. Every time I read Levine or Ryan, I'm making a mental association with their respective publication. Was it important to note which reviewers said what, or is there an underlying sentiment more important and easier for a general audience to read? For instance, the Levine line duplicates the previous sentence. Sometimes we are too strict with putting reviewer claims as opinions when, if repeated by several reviewers, they can be stated as a common claim (same as would be used in the Gameplay section). Homeworld's 3D environment deviated from the standard 2D format of real-time strategy genre games. While its base gameplay retained hallmarks (which?) of the genre, Ryan of X differentiated Homeworld by its 3D elements and connected mission structure. czar 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The way I assumed reception sections should be written is to split each paragraph into the parts of a video game rather than conflating everything together, per the ludonarrative. Then I would see if the literature leans toward a favourable or unfavourable assessment and that's what I lead the paragraph with before adding the opposing comments below. (I don't often do all these steps, but in a perfect world that's how I assumed it should be done). E.g.--Coin945 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. Writing/Plot/Characters
  2. Gameplay
  3. Art style
  4. Voice acting/music/sound effects
  • I have a lot to say on this matter but I'm not sure what kind of discussion we need here. Does anyone disagree that the revised example above reads better for a general audience? I think the next steps are to add some guidance to the guidelines, which editors can use and/or reference at their discretion. There's nothing holding editors to writing in any specific style, but the guidance would at least be a centralized point of reference for articles and editors going through quality and peer review. Also, is anyone good with SVGs and interesting helping me workshop a diagram? czar 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    I'm no expert, but I can produce an SVG if needed, and would be willing to work with you. Might be better to involve someone who actually knows something about video games, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Generally I agree that the revised example is an improvement, and that's the format I try to follow whenever possible. However, it runs into practical difficulties. You really need at least three reviews before you can begin making generalized statements, and even then, it's not uncommon that three reviews present three completely different opinions of an aspect of a game. Moreover, compartmentalizing the Reception section into each aspect of a game works fine if the reviews are all similarly compartmentalized, but if they are not, you wind up missing the forest while extensively discussing the trees. For example, a review might say "Game A has gorgeous graphics, smooth animation, wonderfully sensitive control, and loads of replay value, but it plays exactly the same as any number of last-generation games which you can still find in bargain bins for $5, and with Game B due out in less than a month, this is really not a wise place to spend your money." Under the above model, you could easily spend several sentences noting the reviewer's praise for the graphics, animation, control, and replay value, while completely missing his entire point. On a final note, I must strenuously object to the use of statements like "Two reviewers described"; among many other problems, it overlooks the strong possibility that there are reviews which are not covered by the WP article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Killscreen is back[edit]

Killscreen, which seemed to be dead the first half of this month, is back, with changes and no explanation. The site... now seems to be hiding most of its articles off the main page? And has two subsites, The Meta (eSports) and Versions (VR), which seem to have been existing sites now merged into KS proper? Except The Meta hasn't posted anything since February (and only has bylines from one guy) and Versions also has bylines only from one woman (and no dates at all). So... maybe not the most coherent relaunch, but the links should be live again (or at least findable- looks like the link structure changed slightly without redirects.) --PresN 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would consider it to still be defunct in terms of publication. This just seems to be an archive of old articles. GamerPro64 21:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Having an official archive of its old articles is very nice :3 ~Mable (chat) 09:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm just confused how they seem to have stopped posting articles (so, defunct) but at the same time are apparently partners in putting on a games section of the Tribeca Film Festival in a couple weeks, and had a website design refresh (though not a great one). It's an awful amount of work for a defunct publication, but if they're not posting new articles what else are they? --PresN 11:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that the company is becoming a games-events company, and limiting its editorial work. - hahnchen 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing[edit]

In the article Wipeout (video game)#Music there is the sentence, "Notable is the omission of all tracks by CoLD SToRAGE in favor of more established artists, especially given his contributions to the game and its numerous successors, as well as the furtherment of video game music in general.

Can someone rephrase the last part? My brain is not working today. The point I'm trying to make is that the original video game music artist was snubbed in favor of more established artists when it came time to create the CD/vinyl LP that was released a year after the game. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  17:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Use active voice: "The CD featured music by established artists rather that of series composer Cold Storage." I'd be wary of the POV in the rest of the sentence. czar 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I approve of Czar's suggested revision. Personally, I eliminate the word "notable" whenever I find it in an article; invariably it is used either as a WP: NOTETHAT construction, or (as in the above example) as an unnecessary added emphasis on a POV.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Fantasy video games[edit]

How is this category supposed to be used? It's currently used as if it belongs to every game. czar 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Could we replace this with Category:Video games with no fantasy aspects? It would be less populated. Snark aside, this category seems pointless to me. ~Mable (chat) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think there needs to be non-diffusive sub-cats in that. Fantasy is a reasonable genre, if we use the definition at Wp's article "Most fantasy uses magic or other supernatural elements as a main plot element, theme, or setting." But I think that needs to be further sub-cat'd per the list at Fantasy#By theme (subgenres). (Not all of them though!) One that caught my eye was the Mario games on that list, but that really should fall under Comic fantasy, for example. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I generally only use "Fantasy", "Sci-Fi", "Historical" and "Modern/Contemporary" in lists. SharkD  Talk  01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do sources call the Mario series "comic fantasy", though (the way it's used in literature, other media)? If we're calling it a common or defining aspect of games, there should be at least one source for each game that classifies it within the genre. Based on my spot check of the category's 835 articles, very few even mention the word fantasy, nevertheless as a defining aspect czar 03:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd be fine with using this category as a non-diffusive category, but Czar is right in that we would need good subcategories first. ~Mable (chat) 10:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
There are good points above, and this represents one of the issues with video game coverage. The gameplay genre is readily covered, but when it comes to thematic genre (which definitely seems something we want to categorize works into as to stay consistent with other contemporary media forms), very few sources go into this detail unless the thematic genre is a key defining detail. I have arguably never seen anyone attempt to classify any Mario into a thematic genre. (Just doing a google search, I came across a passage in "The Medium of the Video Game" by Wolf that explains why we readily take up gameplay genres, since the objective of a game helps to make these clear, while the thematic message is part of supporting that, whereas in film, the theme is a more critical instrument). Perhaps we should default to not including thematic genre if it is not either referenced or clearly obvious. Halo is clearly science fiction, Elder Scrolls is clearly high fantasy, but I'm sure those can be sourced, but maybe Mario just needs to be left unthemed. Either way, I would still insist that we need non-diffusing subcats to the fantasy category to thin that out better. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with former Xbox exec article[edit]

Hi there! I'm posting here to see if any editors in this WikiProject might be interested to help with the article for former Xbox executive, Jeff Bell. On behalf of his current company, LegalShield, and The Pollack PR Marketing Group, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted an updated and expanded version of his Wikipedia article, which currently has a warning banner saying it is written like a résumé and needs additional sources for verification. Since I have a COI, I won't edit the article directly, so I'm looking for neutral editors to review this draft. Given he was quite well known in the gaming community during his time working on Xbox 360 games at Microsoft, hopefully some of you may be familiar with him and his career. If you're interested, you can see my edit request on the article's talk page. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Now addressed. Summary of comment on talk page: read through both versions, yours is better with no downsides or policy violations, copied it over with some small changes. --PresN 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That said, while there's no sources linking Bell personally as an representation of it nor big scandals during his tenure there so it's not a big problem to have it lacking, readers should note that his current company, LegalShield, is, if not a scam, a completely pointless company- "legal insurance" is worthless to most purchasers, and they avoid being a get-rich-quick scheme for their sellers by the virtue that none of them get rich at all. --PresN 20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Professional Super Smash Bros. competition[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition#RFC on inclusion of material in a number of sections. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Video game related stale drafts[edit]

Hey, I've done this twice before, but then completely forgot about it. Anyway, here's a list of some stale video game related drafts that you guys may want to take a look at.

  • Draft:Music of Grand Theft Auto V by Rhain
    On one hand, this one seems pretty well written and sourced. On the other hand, it seems to be an overview article of all the music from GTA V, and all the separate releases/specific aspects already seem to have their own article (like The Music of Grand Theft Auto V), so between those and the GTA V article itself, maybe it was deemed unnecessary? Or maybe he had decided to make the offshoot articles instead, and abandoned this as a result? I don't know, all the related articles are rather detailed and lengthy, so I personally am not making any calls on whether or not its redundant. Any clarification, Rhain? Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    I'm fairly sure Rhain explained his reasoning behind this page last time it was brought up, so courtesy ping: @Rhain:. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the pings—I've been away for a few days. I created the draft as a result of this discussion, as it seemed like a logical choice to merge the individual articles into one, but I never returned to finish the project. I intend to complete it eventually, assuming there's no opposition—however, I'm happy to work on it offline until it's complete, if we'd prefer to avoid it looking like an abandoned draft. – Rhain 13:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    User-spacing would be sufficient, I think. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Draft:Leave Home (video game) by Razr Nation
    The sourcing present shows it passes the GNG with flying colors, its just that no actual prose was really every written. The editor in question has only made 2 edits in 2017, so I don't know if they have any future plans on it, but its certainly feasible if someone would simply write it according to the 19 sources they already gathered. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Draft:Fighters Uncaged by
    Its got 30+ reviews at Metacritic, so its almost certainly notable, but I dont know how likely it is to find someone interested in writing an article for a poorly reviewed Kinect fighting game in 2017... Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Sergecross73: I'll see if I can flesh it out to be a decently referenced stub sometime soon and then put it into the mainspace where more people will be able to notice it and possibly help. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, turned this into a mainspace stub. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Draft:Kenichi Tokoi by DrDevilFX
    This looks like one of the many Sega-related staff pages that is little more than a list of every game they ever worked on, with minimal sourcing. The created challenged the speedy in January 2017, so there's no grounds for actual deletion, but I don't see this draft leading anywhere personally, based on so many similar ones I've seen before... Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Draft:From The Depths (video game) by Epicgamerbro17
  • It's Metacritic entry suggests it could probably scrape by the minimum requirements of the GNG, but with virtually no work done in writing it, done by an editor who's only three edits were to "write" it in May 2016, makes it unlikely to go anywhere unless someone jumps in here. Is G13 elligible. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Sergecross73: It didn't go through AfC, so G13 wouldn't be eligible. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Anarchyte - Oh, I didn't realize it specifically had to go through AFC to be G13'd. I thought it just had to be in the "Draft:" namespace, (opposed to the userspace.) I'll rescind those parts of the comment if that's true then... Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73:Yeah, according to WP:G13: This applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits). IMO it should include all Draft namespace pages without edits over 6-12 months, but after seeing the results of other discussions about this, I don't think the criterion is going to change any time soon. (edit conflict) Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Extremely short stub sourced only to MobyGames. Another one of those articles that probably technically meets the GNG, but all its sources are locked away deep in the 1980s, when the game was released. Unlikely to ever develop into a properly sourced article, in my opinion, but many exist out there anyways, so its a toss-up. It's creator is still relatively active, but hasn't revisited it since its creation in April 2016. G13 eligible. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    This one didn't go through AfC either, so it's not G13 eligible either :/ Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is about a 2015 free browser game - not exactly the type of thing that is typically notable. Outside of the opening 2 sentences, the entire thing would have to be scrapped per WP:OR/WP:TRIVIA. A source was added in January 2017 (so not G13 eligible) but its in a language I can't read, so its hard to make a call on it. No other sources present. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The first couple sources in the reflist look like dedicated, RS coverage, so I think it would meet the GNG...but they didn't really write much of an article. Izno edited it in December 2016, so its not G13 eligible. I wouldn't advocate for its deletion anyways, I feel like someone could work this into a notable stub without too much work... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like the type of esports/youtuber type article that is routinely deleted at AFD. Nothing in the article resembles an RS other than "Wired", but that's merely a name-drop passing mention of his nickname. An editor opposed its deletion in Aug 2016...but it would be G13 eligble again by this point, as there have been no edits since. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A free, browser based game with zero reviews on Metacritic. Looks like the type of article there would be big arguments about - WP:VGers would argue it fails the GNG, while fans of the game would argue that their intense passion and enjoyment would somehow trump that. Izno stated he felt it may be notable back in June 2016, though no further edits have ever been made, making it G13 eligible. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Draft:Tap Titans by I Like Cheeseburgers
    This one looks fairly passable as it is after the work Omni Flames did last summer.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    I wouldn't put that in mainspace czar 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    Neither would I, in that state. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ditto, but I don't think it's deleteable at MfD either. Only four Metacritic ratings, not sure of its notability tbh. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with Salv in that there's potential, but with everyone else that it's not there yet. With dedicated coverage from the likes of Pocket Gamer and TouchArcade, I think it could scrape by the GNG, but with focus more on the game's reception, and less on these bullet-pointed game item and move stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Draft:Tower Unite by
  • Probably WP:TOOSOON for an article. A kickstarter game, I couldn't find any RS coverage outside of the article's PC Gamer source, which covered it in some detail. Was recently declined through AFC last month. Should probably stay in draftspace until more previews arise. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a lot of people felt strongly about draftifying it, but no one's touched it since. It kind of looks like the broad, conceptual stuff that users like Masem or Maplestrip would write about. If neither of them show any interest, I'm all for any avenues of deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A spot check shows that "narrative game" is a valid notable topic, but its use seems to be more about games like Gone Home, or the upcoming "Narrative Legos" approach Ken Levine wants to with his studio (among others). This current draft seems more about "games with narrative" (which technically is nearly all of them) and less about this specific genre. I would probably restart from scratch if we were to make an article on that. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to add that checking more, I can't find an absolute definition, but "narrative games" seem to be those where gameplay is only there to augment the storytelling, whereas most games use narrative to augment the gameplay. So this would include Gone Home, Firewatch, That Dragon, Cancer, most Telltale Games since TWD, the various "walking simulators", etc. Completely valid target, but not from this draft. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Digging through the sources listed in this draft looks like it would be a pain. Some of these sources might be worth looking up, but I would definitely understand if someone would want to start over entirely. I know I would. ~Mable (chat) 17:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem, I just thought of you guys when I saw this one. I don't have interest either, so its fine. I'm not really one to do much with conceptual pieces like this, outside of Remote Play and Off TV Play I suppose. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Created 6 months ago by an editor in one edit - his only edit - and that was it. Entirely unsourced, with just a few sentences defining the subject. I doubt this is notable, or likely to be worked on by anyone here even if it was. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No real claim to notability and no source present. Just vague defining sentences that call him a Twitch streamer. Not touched since created by an editor in May 2016, who never returned. If someone did ever try to create an actual article about him, there's no particular reason for them to start here, there's virtually nothing in the way of content, structure, or formatting here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Written in a promotional and informal manner. Nothing salvagable here at all. Untouched since SPA created in September 2016. Useless draft. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I exactly understand the content present here, but regardless, its largely a chart ripped straight from the subject's website, and there doesn't seem to be any third party coverage in existence. Nothing to create such an article with, and if there was, this wouldn't be the starting point. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
G13-Postponed drafts
  • Draft:Future Perfect (video game) by Kerbonaut
    I'm not entirely sure why BU Rob postponed G13 on this, nor precisely why czar moved the originating article to draft space. It should probably just have been redirected to the developer's article until it can be filled in. I've moved to mainspace and redirected. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
     ? The article was a single sentence with a single source. That's what AfC is for. Redirect is fine by me. czar 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Draft:Miscreated (video game) by CarlPlusGaming

Everyone is encouraged to fix up these drafts or add more to the list. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 21 April[edit]

14 April

15 April

16 April

17 April

18 April

19 April

20 April

21 April

Salavat (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A better way to display this information?[edit]

I'm not the best at timelines on Wikipedia. I came up with this method of displaying all the Carmen Sandiego media but I feel like there must be a better way. Any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Use a table and create List of Carmen Sandiego media rather than keeping it on the main series article. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree, there are way too many games to place in a timeline and still keep it comfortable to read. TarkusAB 11:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Note that they're not only games. There's games, TV series, books etc. in there, so any system would ideally have a colouring scheme for the different mediums.--Coin945 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Or use {{Video game timeline}}, which drasticly simplifies making release timelines. -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll have another look at that. I remember not going with it because when I put too many entries under the same year the template kept screwing up. I assume you could use a colour scheme for different types of media? (green = video game; yellow = TV series etc.)--Coin945 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there something that allows for both "point entries" (like a video game that was released and that's it), and "period entries" (like a TV series that ran for 5 years)? I'm thinking of those tables of when band members joined and left kind of like this:
I don't know of a template that does horizontal timelines like most band pages use. But for vertical timelines, the template above is vastly superior and has replaced most of our manual timelines. -- ferret (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the old style timelines into the newer ones a couple of times, see List of Sim video games and Ghosts 'n Goblins for instance. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I did a few dozen of them as well. It's a lot more compact both in syntax and output. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on it currently, before anyone else does the same. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Yayy!! It looks so good! Is there any way to colour code it for different mediums within the franchise? Like green for video game and yellow for TV series? With, say, "black" for the years without a release?--Coin945 (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't you use local HTML color coding there? It wouldn't be clean, but it should work. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Coin945 doesn't sound possible to me because there is only onw square per year so you can't have multiple colors for a single year where more than one media type released.  · Salvidrim! ·  18:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The name "Birdo" is "derogatory"?[edit]

The user Ewindisch recently moved the article Birdo to "Birdetta" citing that "it's what the character prefers." I reverted this, citing WP:COMMONNAME. The user is claiming that the use of the name Birdo is "discriminatory and abusive, and supportive of violence against LGBT people by disrespecting gender identity." I haven't engaged in discussion, but I given this remark I already think that a rational discussion will not ensue. I don't know any Wikipedia policies off-hand that can be used to quietly (and inoffensively) bring it to resolution. Would anyone be willing to help out? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm experienced in this field, and as far as I know, Birdo has never said that she'd prefer to be called Birdetta, so this user has no ground to stand on. I'll join the talk page ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 07:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've left a reply also. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Me too. Nice work pretty much already handling things though - I don't think I would have had the patience to so calmly address such a ludicrous argument. I have a hard time believing this was a good-faith move. Regardless, let me know if any further moves (against consensus now no less) occur. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Things get weird when dealing with transgender topics on Wikipedia. At least this isn't as messy as Mr. Garrison was back in the day ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) now archives websites that have robots.txt activated[edit]

🖕🔥💯 Axem Titanium (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Still can't access GamerPro64 18:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The blog suggests they are still transitioning (they started with US Gov't sites). Also, I would expect if they respected robots.txt in the past and did not cache, they're not going to magically have that cache back just by ignoring the new robots.txt. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hooray! I agree, 🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯. And yeah, sounds like it will transition over some time, but this should hopefully retroactively fix the problem where a site throws up a robots.txt file and it kills archives made before that date as well. --PresN 19:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Please let WP:VPM know. I imagine there are other users that will care about this in the general sphere. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Uukrul assessment, please[edit]

I've enhanced the article for The Dark Heart of Uukrul, mainly from the review and interview at RPG Codex. Added box front cover. I'd like another volunteer to read through it, and remove any alert (there's one for the introduction) or VGProject category as they seem fit. Since english is not my first language, fix or reword anything excessively akward too, please. Thanks! Pi (π) 10:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi72 (talkcontribs)

@Pi72: One obvious issue is the lack of sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I am trying to improve WON2, which has no references but some external links to primary / unreliable sources. I can't find any indication its notable (but it has articles in 2 other language WPs, so I'm guessing it is) and can find no reliable sources to add. Can anyone help me edit the article or point me toward reliable sources? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:VG/RS has a list of vetted reliable sources for video games. Note that having articles in other language Wikipedia's is not a sign of notability, as each language has different notability requirements. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The German articles as well incorporates no sources, only copies an older version of our article, but also adds a trivial comparison between WON2 and Steam (which we, and actually also they, shouldn't do, as we have WP:TRIVIA and the German counterpart). The Swedish version is a carbon copy of the lede from the German article, translated into Swedish. So zero indication of notability there and here, if I see that correctly, there might be false information in the German article. I guess we should just AfD it and merge into World Opponent Network, despite that article doesn't show any signs of notability either. Lordtobi () 12:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bias in favor of Japanese games and marginalization of western computer game history[edit]

Recently, I've began more frequently reading articles on general video game concepts such as specific genres, gameplay mechanics, etc., and I can't shake the uncomfortable feeling that they tend to focus primarily on Japanese games and downplay western games. Articles on Japanese games also tend to be much longer and contain more detailed and varied information.

I assume this is because of the dividide between computers and consoles. Historically, western games came out primarily on computers, whereas console games were primarily made by Japanese developers, until the X360/PS3 generation. Because consoles have always had a much larger audience and consumer base than computers, it would make sense that more people would simply have more knowledge of Japanese games and be more interested in writing about them. That's fine.

The issue comes when these articles falsely inflate the importance of Japanese games and downplay the importance of western games. For example, one article claimed Vagrant's Story gameplay mechanic of aiming at individual body parts was later used in Fallout 3...while completely leaving out any mention of the fact that Fallout 1, which came out years before Vagrant Story, already let you aim at body parts and that Fallout 3 was logically a continuation of that. I constantly come upon instances such as these. It really harms the idea of Wikipedia as a semi-objective source of information. At times, the heavy pro-Japan bias almost feels fanboyish in tone.

I'm not really sure what can be done about this however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Without any specific quotes, sources, or counter-proposals, it's hard to do much to help you. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I would need the IP to confirm as an example, but one area that I have been doggedly trying to avoid is the Japanese game history at Adventure game. (I have had a hand in all the other parts, but I have no idea how to start trimming there). --MASEM (t) 22:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As above, but I will add that a lot of this nonsense was added by a single user named Jagged 85 that was finally banned for his consistently erroneous and biased edits and still comes back from time to time to edit anonmously. He blankets so many articles so quickly that sometimes its hard to catch and revert everything. Indrian (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

When to create an article on a game that just entered crowd funding?[edit]

Phoenix Point is a new game that is in initial development and crowdsourced funding stages from Julian Gollop, who was one of the original X-COM designers, and this new game is in that spirit. Hence, there's a good 6-7 articles today (including detailed interviews with Gollop) given that the crowdsourcing just opened today; it's already at 70% of the expected funding amount. However, at this point, I would be hesitant of starting the article on Phoenix Point; at minimum I would at least wait until the required funding is reached, and to be more safe, until the pledge period is over since that assures they would have reached it. Of course, if we have a similar situation of explosive funding growth ala Double Fine Adventure, that is well documented, I would have no issue starting it sooner, but in the general case, if you have such a game that has gotten coverage while it is still in its crowdfunding period, should we go ahead at any point or wait until we're sure the funding is in place? --MASEM (t) 23:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I'd say an article should wait until there's significant press coverage about the game aside from Kickstarter/crowdfunding stuff. So many projects fizzle out or get delayed for years that it seems like jumping the gun to report on PR for a crowdfunding round years before it will actually appear. We don't normally create articles about unreleased games where all we know are the basic details, after all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been mulling WP:NFF of late with regard to all video games, and not solely those that would be easy targets such as crowdfunding or indie games. Not the exact same with regard to criteria, because I don't know that there is analogous point to principal photography in video games. --Izno (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Aside: I would hate to adopt some guideline of some sort which discourages mainspacing information that we believe will be notable or which is otherwise covered in another article (as in a sequel or an addition to a series). The film editors aren't quite rabid on the point, but they will write draft articles when they could just as simply write something in the mainspace, in many cases. --Izno (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
In theory, I'd probably handle it the same way I handle other games - wait until I've got 4-5 WP:VG/RS approved sources, and enough content to squeeze it out of stub status. But I haven't had much interest in many kickstarters, and almost none before they were actually funded, so it's not something I've had much success/failure with historically. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A good measure is to ask whether the game would still be notable if there was no further sourcing. I don't know the specifics of this case, but it looks like the mentioned sources would be merged into the developer's WP article as part of his history. That's how I'd handle it until the game received coverage as an independent entity (read: independently notable, usually when previews/demos are reported, to Izno's point about NFF, though I wouldn't generalize into a guideline). czar 09:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)