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


The Monopoly Conundrum[edit]

Yesterday I was Wiki-hopping, as one does, and stumbled upon the Monopoly video games article, and decided to start making articles on some of these Monopoly games. Thank goodness for Mobygames' collections of reviews, because other than that site I'm finding it especially difficult to find information on the individual games due to their shared titles (which is also the same as an everyday English and business-related word). E.g. there's a bunch of sources thorugh Amiga Magazine Rack but I'm not 100% sure which review is for which version. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Note that not all the games below are notable; I'm just aiming to create a comprehensive list of all the versions for the Monopoly video games article, and then writing articles on the notable ones. (Also, what solution should we come up with for the naming scheme?).--Coin945 (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


  • I was going to suggest the same. Are these all pretty much the same basic games, with minor variations to themes or rules? Seems like a "list of Monopoly video games" article would be sufficient for all entries, with a sentence or two about outstanding variant traits or notable reception details when they can be mustered up. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe in the style of List of Looking Glass Studios video games, not a regular table, so you have plenty of space to discuss relevant information without having to repeat the... nearly identical gameplay. --PresN 19:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that these games can be reduced into a list, as they each have different designs, technological restraints, gameplay, and critical reception. Think of it like games within the Super Mario series; they are all part of a franchise and follow a basic template but are unique in their own way and independently notable.--Coin945 (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
If all of the articles/entries are going to look like Monopoly (1985 video game), I strongly disagree. There's nothing of substance there. You could easily convert that info into an entry like what PresN suggested above. There's nothing of value lost when that's all you can muster up for a reception section... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. There are a few games on this list that are well beyond re-implementing the board game as a video game and those may be independently notable, but most of these are different applications of the board game as a video game. You're very much unlikely going to find any technical development info for these and relatively little reception. A list/summary style article with blue-links to those where there is reasonable development and reception is the proper solution. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree with the lack of sources. The current state of the articles is simply because they are stubs. The sources are out there; take Monopoly Streets as an example. The 3 versions have 11, 18, and 9 Metacritic reviews respectively - that's certainly not "relatively little reception".--Coin945 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, but the content isn't there. A number of these articles I've spot checked give MC score and nothing else. Or consist of nothing other than sentences that read literally as nothing more than "Magazine X said it was "very good". You seem to be falling back into your old bad habits where you start up far too many short articles at a time with little to no substance. You've got to rethink your approach, or I think you're going to find your work being redirected/merged/deleted again. There's already a consensus forming that these individual articles aren't warranted. I can't imagine these articles would do well at AFD when there's such a plausible redirect/merge target present... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Think of it more as summary style. The vast majority of those redlinks are, at best, destined as repositories for regurgitated press releases. Instead, Wikipedia has the tradition of using summary-type articles where we can explain documented variations on a type (Monopoly video games is a better title, in my opinion) where we can dedicate a section to each game. And if there winds up being enough info to make one section outweigh the others, we can reduce its content on the summary page and spin-out the full details to its own article. And with a summary-type article, you are free to talk about how one source characterized a 199X Amiga release without needing to drop it in a specific section (sections could be by era instead of by game, etc.) czar 06:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with this approach as well. I'm probably going to start redirecting some of the individual articles to this page if they don't get expanded substantially. Unless Coin intends to make the list article, then they could be redirected to either target really. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remember that the above is meant to be a comprehensive list of all Monopoly games for a list. Some of the above are non-notable. Others are very notable indeed. like the 2008 EA version whose 4 versions have 9, 4, 11, and 3 reviews on Metacritic (as well as 8, 6, 5, and 10 on GameRankings). I'm not sure why it is necessary to redirect articles on notable games. But I trust your judgement. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Coin945, I see that you created a few of these (check out the weekly new article digest on this page) but can you please merge those for which you have no reliable sources? If we don't have at least several reviews from vetted vg sources, we shouldn't be creating articles on the subject. That's the main reason for the communal Monopoly video games page. czar 00:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Czar, good to hear from you. There are many non-notable Monopoly games - probably around half of the ones listed above. But I made sure to only create articles on ones that had a myriad of reliable third party sources. If you head to the Mobygames, Metacritic, and GameRankings entries for those games, (as well as this Amiga Magazine Rack) you'll find a host of reliable reviews. I've also found interview content for the development side of at least two of the games. A merger is not needed for the games I created.--Coin945 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting to redirect some of the short ones with no real content present, as there seems to be a consensus to do so right here, and its been 10 days and no real improvement is happening. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Good morning @Sergecross73:, it's great to hear from you! As I've stated in previous discussions, I think it is counter-intuitive to redirect/delete stubs that have either proven notability (3 reliable sources in the article), or whose notability can be proven through the sounces listed through the Mobygames/Metacritic/Game Rankings links at the bottom. Just because they are short and aren't GA isn't really a reason for redirection. After all, WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Perhaps it is better for Wikipedia for WP:VG to add information to the articles rather than reversing all the work that has gone into them. Just a thought? :)--Coin945 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
As long as there is no proper list for monopoly video games, I don't believe there is anywhere to merge the less notable ones. However, if you only have three or four sources to work from, merging into such a list sounds like a good idea. There's no hurry, though: we have worse articles than these :p ~Mable (chat) 14:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no harm in merging even "notable by 3 sources" but short articles into a list that has the format that gives space to give a paragraph or two about each individual game such as the one in Monster Hunter. You gain a much more comprehensive list article that will likely never be challenged for notability, than having a dozen short stubby ones with little chance to grow. It helps that the rules of Monopoly hardly change between the versions, and you can provide a reasonable chronology for the series. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I know there's "no deadline", but the problem is that there's also no realistic reason to believe improvement will ever occur either. How much interest do you really think "Monopoly game from the 80s" is realistically going to garner. The articles you work on are commonly rather obscure - and that's fine, same goes for many that I write - but the issue is that you or anyone else rarely go back to ever improve them. I remember from when we were investigating your articles for COPYVIO issues - many of the articles had been created months and years prior with no one making any significant improvements. I'd look some up for proof, but I'm not sure how many I'd find because so many were deleted in the end... Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to redirect articles to Monopoly video games, the onus is on the redirecter to make sure that the sourced content is reflected in the target article. I reverted the Monopoly (1985 video game) redirect. If you want to turn Monopoly video games into good article, do that. The redirect did not do that. - hahnchen 15:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A List of Monopoly video games should give due weight to the more notable games. Creating such a list would take work. Feel free to put that work in, but until then, there's no place to properly merge this content to. ~Mable (chat) 19:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the articles I have created do not have a mere "three or four sources to work from". Each of the articles I created have a myriad of sources. For instance, the 1985 version that was redirected had about 25 reviews, just through a cursory google search (haven't even checked Highbeam, The Free Library, GoogleBooks, and GoogleNews yet).--Coin945 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Why are there only 5 in the article currently then? Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 7 October[edit]

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

30 September

1 October

2 October

3 October

4 October

5 October

6 October

7 October

Salavat (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Need a fourth opinion on Talk:Deathmatch_Classic#Redirect. I'd prefer to not take it to AfD but we don't have anything near significant coverage and yet an editor insists on not redirecting/merging its contents. czar 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Can we get an admin in here? We have three users for merge/redirect and one editor that insists that unreliable sources are enough ("I would recommend you drop this, because I am never going to"). It'd be a waste of time to bring this to AfD for a single user so would prefer to handle this the normal way czar 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Just making sure the project is aware of this effort here: Wikipedia:Meetup/RaceAndGaming2016. I've seen several edits related to it but so far have no real concerns. Just seems like a broad effort, felt project should be notified. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor keeps re-adding wrong info, don't know what to do[edit]

In the List of World War I video games article, this editor [[40]] keeps re-adding the game The Snowfield (article currently in Draft stage) to the list, even though nothing in the game points it towards being a WW1 game (and some things suggest WW2). I posted in his talk page asking him to stop, but he keeps re-adding that game to the list.

I don't think this is the right place to post this, but i don't know where else to go. Could he receive an official warning or something? YuriNikolai (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't worry so much about something like this. You can always revert his edits, no one can say you didn't already try reasoning with him, and it's no big deal if his addition remains in place for a day or two (or even a month or two); it's not like it's a WP: BLP article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't even have a single source, so is there really a need to fight a user over it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 15 October[edit]

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

2 October

8 October

10 October

11 October

12 October

13 October

14 October

15 October

Salavat (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible genre warring[edit]

Just wanted to notify the project that an IP editor disagrees with and repeatedly (well, twice so far) removes a reliably sourced genre for the games Persona 4 Arena and Persona 4 Arena Ultimax. Based on their edit comments ("NO" and "STOP") when re-removing it after I reverted their original edit, I would not be surprised if they remove it again. Would be great if there were some more eyes on these articles for a little while, and if some of you would like to write your thoughts on Talk:Persona 4 Arena. Thanks--IDVtalk 06:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I've protected the pages to force discussion, though as long as his argument is based entirely around WP:GENREWARRIOR and WP:OSE, while the other side is based on WP:V and WP:RS, I see no issue with restoring the sourced version in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • All right, thank you. I will restore the sourced genres then, and make another comment on the talk page.--IDVtalk 18:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Did Rockstar Japan actually exist?[edit]

The Rockstar Japan article was created by .:Alex:. in May 2007, loosely based off the contents of the Japanese Rockstar Games website (, where the most aspects featured already in the first revision remained unsourced: the Tokyo location, the studio's task, the studio's future, the year of inception, and the partnership with Capcom through this subsidiary (though Capcom was the JP publisher at the time, CyberFront Corporation continued it after Capcom, not directly Rockstar, wherefore the claim on the current page is false.)

The only sources that were ever there are the Japanese website (as correctly pointed out by Dmartin969, the website is not about the studio, but the Japanese-localized homepage of Rockstar itself. The next reference claims the Lincoln studio being responsible for Japanese localization today, with simply the job offerings page being cited, however, this was always the case, just is there no saved version on neither the Web Archive nor WebCite. The logo currently found on Rockstar Japan is visibly based off the image visible in the background on the original page layout's background, but look again: By that logic, there would also be "Rockstar USA" and "Rockstar Brazil", no?

Then there is the reasoning of Rockstar Japan just being a label, however, easily disproven, Rockstar International Ltd. (based in London) has responsible for all marketing around the world since 2005, including Asian (+ Japanese) markets, which formerly was done through Take-Two itself. Furthermore, no annual report ever listed a subsidiary titled Rockstar Japan, or any other titled company based in Japan. The only actually reliable source that could be used was at IGN, a short sentence saying "Rockstar Japan localized games for Asian markets." is the only thing that actually hints at such a company having existed. That article was written in 2013, six whole years after the initial Wikipedia article, which the claim is most likely based on. The credits, even in Japanese versions, do not state anything about Rockstar Japan, but do list Rockstar Lincoln for QA and Localization.

Finally, the third source available is simply the Japanese page for Grand Theft Auto V as citation for the claim saying that Take-Two Interactive (the parent-parent company) now does Japanese distribution. Falsely cited: The source does claim the publisher to be Rockstar Games (ロックスター・ゲームス Rokkusutā gēmusu?), but nothing about Take-Two (although the claim is true regardless, as that is with all Rockstar-published games, also in Japan nowadays).

I have cut down the article so far as the sources go, although the location in Japan is still not verfied, even if likely. The question is: Did Rockstar Japan actually exist? Can we go off wrong thoughts by an author, which are today accepted as fact? Can we use a single sentence first noted eight years after the studio's supposed closure as verification for its existence? I don't think so. And therefore I would like start a 'movement' to delete all Rockstar Japan-related content off all Wikipedias, as 16 other-language articles on the company adopted the information from the original English artcle (interestingly, there also is no Japanese Wikipedia article). But what do you think? Does anyone have additional verification? Any input would be lovely. Lordtobi () 09:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I have found two further articles that detail an alledged "Rockstar Japan" to be present at the 2013 Tokyo Game Show (the same year the other IGN article above was published in), at IGN (yes, IGN again) and Siliconera. Quick disproval: Exhibitions as such have been presented by other companies, such was Capcom in 2013 and also (as example cases, what I found the earliest) Capcom in 2012, and Microsft in 2006. Therefore, the presence of Rockstar in Japan is misinterpreted as being "Rockstar Japan", where it is just Rockstar International-organized partnerships with external companies. With those out, nothing at our custom search engine has valuable information (other items listed there include "Rockstar , Japan" as tags, or comments including the queried string; also note that the German GamePro article only reflects exactly what the Wikipedia article said back then—a carbon copy which cannot be counted). I don't believe we will find any more than what we have in one sentence. I will see if I get the original authors to respond and report here. Lordtobi () 15:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If Rockstar Japan does exist, I would still like to see this stub to be merged with the parent article, as there clearly aren't enough people talking about the company for there to be a separate article for it. Whether or not it exists or not, I don't know any more than you all. ~Mable (chat) 12:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree with a redirect/merge regardless too. I doubt such a move would be controversial - outside of LordTobi's edits in the last 24 hours, the article's only had about 10 edits over the course of 2 years - its not exactly a high traffic/importance article. It should just be a small part of the main parent article, containing whatever info can be verified by sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If it exists/ed, we would have no further information than the one sentence by IGN, "Rockstar Japan localized games for Asian markets.", and we don't even know if that might simply be based on the article in the first place. Nothing else verifyable exists thus far. Lordtobi () 12:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If that's all the sourcing we have, then I guess one sentence would be appropriate weight in the main article. But lets see if anyone else has any input. I'm only casually familiar with Rockstar. Perhaps someone more into their stuff knows more? Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OTOH, if it is fictitious, it should not be merged/redirected because that'd mislead/misinform readers.  · Salvidrim! ·  13:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    This basically is the problem, and why I am turning towards this page. This "fact" has spread too far without any proper verification; across 17 Wikipedias. I am currently trying to reach out to the authors of the article and hope to find out more. Lordtobi () 14:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Have anyone here thought about contacting Rockstar to see if they have/had a Japanese division? GamerPro64 16:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@GamerPro64, good point. I will get onto that. Lordtobi () 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lordtobi: I see that you were able to a query string to the site. Was there a "link generator" somewhere on the search engine or did you add that manually to the link? It would be immensely useful to know! --Izno (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    I added it myself for the people reading finding my references more easily. Essentially, you append &q=[string] (or, in the rare case that no "?" is present, ?q=[string]). The quotation marks also serve as "search exactly this string". Lordtobi () 17:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, I'm aware of what the quotation marks do--I just didn't know there was a specific way to link to a specific result set. Much help, indeed. --Izno (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This is an open and shut redirect to the main article. We don't need to adjudicate whether it exists. It was used in an IGN article and might be a potential search term. If a user comes to the Rockstar Games page and doesn't find anything about a Japanese branch of Rockstar, they get their answer. czar 01:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

PSA: Nintendo NX announcement trailer coming tomorrow morning[edit]

See here. —zziccardi (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling this will mean we will finally have an article on the upcoming device. Well, we'll see what they'll reveal. I'm hype, anyway :) ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the trailer, I have the feeling an article is in order. I'm sure the sources are flowing in now. ~Mable (chat) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks neat! Did we have a discussion on whether we still class this as an eighth generation console? JAGUAR  14:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've already removed an edit calling this the start of the 9th generation. We need reliable sources to make a claim one way or another. The new Xbox and PS4 models did not start a new generation, despite hefty hardware improvements. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh God no.... Let's just see what sources call it. I'm sure one or two will mention the generation. Urgh ~Mable (chat) 14:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this will surely lead to endless arguing, but right now, sources aren't calling it anything, so neither are we. I've already admin level protected a number of "9th gen" article startups, but let me know if you come across any. Its way too soon to have a 9th gen article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling that we're going to have one normally RS site call it a "next gen console", probably meaning next gen for Nintendo, but that's going to lead to editors jumping on calling it 9th gen. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thread: next Nintendo console[edit]

The Trailer for the new home console from Nintendo has just gone live. It's called "Nintendo Switch", due in March 2017. No further details are available, but everyone should keep their weather eyes open. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to information from Nintendo via Kotaku, it's a home-portable hybrid console of some sort with detachable controllers. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Update #2: A detailed press release detailing the console and controls, in addition to current gaming companies supporting the console. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone move Draft talk:Nintendo NX to Talk:Nintendo Switch? The latter redirects to the draft. GamerPro64 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
FWIW , the logo for the console is definitely PD-USonly, but haven't found a clear source to grab it from. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Cluebot archiving[edit]

I removed the secondary Cluebot config that was meant to archive closed threads sooner. I don't think it's really done that since being added, but it immediately archived the Nintendo console thread because Serge posted {{done}}. Additionally, the config caused Cluebot to take over all archiving duties (Lowercase Sigma went silent), and a review of the last two archives show some other weirdness, such as some threads being archived double. -- ferret (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the second bot is useful for closing threads that don't need to linger around for a week once resolved. We can also set it to trigger on a smaller set of templates. czar 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
At this point, I'm more concerned about how it was doubling up archives for some reason. I didn't find any in archive #124, but #125 had at least 10 duplicate sections. Is there a way to have cluebot only do the closed threads? Let lowercase sigma handle the rest? -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Strange how that's only happening in Archive 125... I imagine it's a bug. Let's continue at this thread: User talk:ClueBot Commons#Duplicates in WTVG archives. czar 03:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 21 October[edit]

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

15 October

16 October

17 October

18 October

19 October

20 October

21 October

Salavat (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The 1000 Challenge[edit]

You may or may not of heard the recent "10,000 Challenge" contests – a series of programmes led by Dr. Blofeld to encourage expansion in certain areas. The first one has been quite successful and was diverged from WMF-funded contests like Awaken the Dragon and The West Country Challenge. There are now three other 10,000 Challenge projects, one for Asia, Africa, and Latin America (as well as smaller 1000 challenges for Turkey and Nordic countries). I spoke about this and thought it would be a good idea to create one for the video game project too, which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games/The 1000 Challenge.

I think it would really be something if people contributed to it everyday by just adding the articles they recently expanded, created, destubbed, DYK'd, or promoted to GA/FA etc. You can see that I added the recent articles that have been created or promoted to GA in the past few days just to help start it off. The basic principle of this is to add articles to the list whenever you feel like it, so everything will eventually build up to the ultimate goal of 1000 articles. The 1000 Challenge is not a contest in any shape or form but rather just a list of 1000 improvements which could help improve this project in the long term. It's too early to talk about contests, but if this is successful then there's always the possibility of staging some potential funded contests like a core contest or a de-stubathon. Bearing in mind that the WMF will not likely put a large prize fund into a video game-related contest anyway, unlike the The Africa Destubathon which has a fund of $2380! To summarise, if this 1000 Challenge is a success then we could make a proposal for funded contest in the future.

Also, I noticed that this project doesn't have a list of core articles so I didn't add it to the page. I should imagine that core articles would be top-importance ones like Nintendo, History of video games and Seventh generation of video game consoles etc. That could be something to save for later. I know that the current 1000 Challenge is looking a bit short but I noticed that the VG project isn't as diverse as geographical ones, so I think the scope will be limited to what we have; video games themselves, biographies and development articles etc. JAGUAR  13:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, but that page isn't really maintained or kept updated. --PresN 14:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)