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


New Articles (13 December to 29 December)[edit]

13 December

16 December

21 December

22 December

23 December

24 December

25 December

26 December

27 December

28 December

29 December

Salavat (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (27 December to 5 January)[edit]

27 December

29 December

30 December

31 December

1 January

2 January

3 January

4 January

5 January

Salavat (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Statuette (aka Tajemnica Statuetki)[edit]

This is a little project I've been working on - Tajemnica Statuetki, the very first Polish adventure game. This is the first major project I've worked on in a while and I'm proud of my achievement, a very confident 10th-or-so draft. The article has been accepted for WP:DYK, but until it's rostered on the main page I would love for you to take a gander and perhaps offer advice or copyediting too.--Coin945 (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The production section is way too massive, which is the article's only real flaw outside of easily fixed minor things. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • There may be a little bit of repetition and waffle, which can be checked through a copyedit. But on the whole, I believe that as the first Polish adventure game, a beloved video game, and a cultural milestone for the industry, the amount of coverage in the media justifies a comprehensive article on all facets that led up to it, and all of the consequences.--Coin945 (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Just a bit of repetition? I've never seen such a massively bloated section on a video game article before. If the amount of coverage is that great, then it can be split off into its own separate article. See WP:SIZE. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
      • EDIT: I think the actual issue here was that you decided to group everything into one section for some reason. Spreading it out based on the standard WP:VGORDER made it way more readable, although it still can be edited down a bit. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, there's a few things going on- there's a good 3 paragraphs talking about the dev's personal history before getting to the game, which is unusual, and the text in general gets a little over-detailed and is pretty wordy. Honestly, I think a solid copyedit to remove wordiness would clear up most of the "bloat"; I don't think a "development of Tajemnica Statuetki" article is needed. --PresN 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
          • I agree. Removing all the bloat and setting it to the WP:VGORDER (which I already did) would solve all the issues I have with the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't read through the production section, but if it's all backed up by RSs it might be an idea to split it out to a separate article in the style of Development of Final Fantasy XV.--Alexandra IDVtalk 10:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I notice you're accidentally citing a google search rather than the actual entry on google books, you might want to fix that.--Alexandra IDVtalk 10:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Which source(s) are you referring to? I'll fix them up post-haste. :)--Coin945 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
        • @Coin945: Currently it's ref #80.--Alexandra IDVtalk 10:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Fixed--Coin945 (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
            • I'd say it's probably worth putting it forward for GA Status, but I'll let someone more experienced with the process see if it's right. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've only done a brief skim, but that looks like a good, detailed article. Nice work. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've only taken an in-depth look at the lead so far, but just by looking through the article I notice there are lots of redlinks. Might it be a good idea to remove them? Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    Aren't WP:REDLINKS encouraged though? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Only when the topic is known to be notable. I'm not sure about Ramon's Spell, Studio, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Its a subjective thing, and people approach it differently based on their own editing philosophy, but probably the most widely one held one is basing it off of "whether or not a future article ever looks likely to be notable, and likely to ever be created". Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
If you care for my opinion, I don't like using red links at all. Even if a future article on the subject is likely to be created, I'd just wait until it is before I start linking it. I think they also get removed in GAN/FANs. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have the same concerns with this article that I did with Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego?. The article contains excessive minutiae from questionable sources, and mixes critical commentary with hard facts. I suggest doing a source review to check for reliability, removing any info from questionable sources while also cutting back on the trivial information. TarkusABtalk 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I am open to a brutal copyedit to adress the issues listed above. I will close my eyes and cover my ears while my baby is hacked to pieces.. #SucksToBeACreator :D--Coin945 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Charlie Nash[edit]

Capcom appears to be using the full name "Charlie Nash" for the article Charlie (Street Fighter). Since it would avoid taking redirects, I tried being bold and moving it. However, it looks like I'm in no position to do it as the move was not allowed. Any idea? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm stating the obvious, but there appears to already be a Charlie Nash article about a different subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Try moving it to "Charlie Nash (Street Fighter)". In the case of another subject having the same name, it's always best to leave that subject as the primary topic. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, not necessarily - you'd want to evaluate the things outline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But in this case, yes, I imagine a real life professional boxer, who even performed in the Olympics, may be the primary topic in this instance. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the point. The WP:COMMONNAME of him is still just Charlie isn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It's hard to do a "Google Search" tests to gauge it, considering the generic terms and false positives that would occur, but if this is a recent change by Capcom, then yeah, you're probably right. I don't really see any issues with its current status either. Being at Charlie (Street Fighter) and having the opening sentence start with Charlie Nash pretty much covers all the bases - I can't see readers being confused with this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Square Enix franchises[edit]

I stumbled upon a two week long edit war at Template:Square Enix franchises that could use some eyes. TarkusABtalk 22:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ninja edit, it seems HÊÚL. (talk · contribs) has been adding the template to a lot of pages that may or may not fit the criteria. TarkusABtalk 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
User warned for 3RR to start. Talk page shows numerous warnings for vandalism, unsourced or OR edits. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
First I removed the franchise from the template because I said that was Natsume, then Namcokid47 reverted it back because he said that it is Taito, then you two reverted it back because it is not Taito but Natsume. It is being hard to improve the template this way. All the three SNES and GBA Kiki Kaikai/Pocky & Rocky games were developed by Natsume but licensed by Taito (Square) that owns its rights: / / (in fact in the last one it seems that Taito had a little more involvement: so now you have to decide if it fits of not in the template. HÊÚL. (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying you are wrong with Pocky/KiKi Kai, you may be right, my issue is with the long edit war without discussion and numerous other edits you've made without reliable sources. GameFaqs is not reliable. I also noticed you are adding unsourced entries to List of Square Enix video game franchises which is an FL and adding the template to some pages which don't mention Square Enix at all like Chuck Rock and Rick Dangerous. Not saying it's factually incorrect but from a quick cursory glance it doesn't seem right. TarkusABtalk 23:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, just because they might now own the rights to the company that made an older game, doesn't necessarily mean they own every IP from them. We've seen cases of IPs being auctioned off in the past (2), or allowed to be bought out like with Square Enix themselves and IO Interactive (1). I'm just going to remove the stuff like Chuck Rock unless it can be proven Square Enix holds their rights. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Why not keep it unless it can be proven that Square does not hold their rights? HÊÚL. (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Core policies like WP:V? -- ferret (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
So go on and show a reliable source saying that these two IPs are not owned by Square or it was just original research of you saying that they are not? HÊÚL. (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
To make a statement that they are owned by Square Enix, you need a reliable source. I don't have to prove the negative. We can't include something we have no sources for. -- ferret (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you joking right? Because in the Core Design article there are two sources saying that all intellectual property and the Core brand remained in Eidos' possession (the same Eidos that now is called Square Enix Europe since the takeover by Square). Or what was previously on another article does not count anymore? HÊÚL. (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
So you're saying you do have sourcing to back your claims? Don't expect us to dig through dozens of articles to find them for you, the burden is on you. If you have valid sourcing, that's fine. If not, then it can't be included. When you're challenged on something, simply provide the sources so we can all move on. -- ferret (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I always have sourcing to back my claims. I just think that is funny you acting like gods deciding what can be writen in an article without caring if it will contradict what was previously stated in a more important article (the only one that matters in this case and not a dozen to be digged) and the fact that you seem more interested in prove an user wrong than the information itself. So now that anyone can see that Chuck Rock and Rick Dangerous remained in Eidos' (now called Square Enix Europe) possession you can show a reliable source stating that these two IPs were sold because I do not have to prove the negative. HÊÚL. (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This was the first time (outside of GameFaqs) that you provided sources here. If you had just done this from the start, it would have avoided most of this debate. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
What a colossal waste of time this was. If asked for sources, just provide them, and everything is fine. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Always have sourcing? Really? Aren't you the guy who unsuccessfully proposed that Etrian Oddesey was a spinoff of Megami Tensei? And unsuccessfully argued that Final Fantasy Type 0 was a mainline entry and not a spinoff? You've got a long history of making questionable changes to video game templates that cannot be backed up by sources. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
But Final Fantasy Type-0 is a mainline entry no matter what you want to say. HÊÚL. (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no way you have the sourcing to prove that, which discredits your entire "always having sources" point. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Airborne Brigade, Brave Exvius, Dissidia Nt, Record Keeper, Triple Triad. All of them list Type-0 as a mainline entry of Final Fantasy. But maybe you know more about it than Square. HÊÚL. (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Listing off random game names is not providing a source. What you've said so far means nothing. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
For you. HÊÚL. (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Quit lobbing comebacks at others like a toddler and be mature in this. All that needs to happen is that you need to properly source your edits, as none of us should have to find the sources for you. If you can't find anything on it, then you might as well not add it at all. You seem to be making a huge deal out of practically nothing and I'm not a huge fan with that. Don't get all angry because others didn't agree with you (and for good reason), and you shouldn't take this so personal. Your edits aren't incorrect because people don't like you, your edits were incorrect as you couldn't seem to give anyone proper sources to them, hence the purpose of this discussion. I'm not going to deal with this any longer, so consider this my final reply. Happy editing. Namcokid47 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Let me know if more edits are done without proper sourcing. Protection or blocking will be done. Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, I've had my own experiences. King's Knight isn't part of FF, but he tried connecting it - or rather its remake - as part of not only FFXV's associated media but part of the FNC. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Watch Dogs - Help?[edit]

I am rewriting the Watch Dogs article in a draft and need more sources concerning Development and Gameplay. Help? Cognissonance (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: have you used these yet?
JOEBRO64 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Yes, and I found a few more, but this is what I have so far. Considering the subject, there must be more. Cognissonance (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This might be useful for finding sources. JOEBRO64 21:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The rewrite has now been implemented, but there is still an incomplete post-release reception section. @ProtoDrake, TarkusAB, Ferret, Dissident93, Sergecross73, and The1337gamer: Do any of you want to write the section? I would do it myself, except it's my most dreaded part of writing any article and the quality would suffer. It needs to be done before it can be copy edited by the Guild, and it needs to be copy edited by the Guild before it can be nominated for GA. I could review a GAN, FAN, or write a Peer Review in return. Cognissonance (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


There is currently a discussion in Talk:Riku (Kingdom Hearts Character)#Expansion on the article in regards to the fact the article was briefly created. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If it passes WP:GNG, there should be no issue. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments should go to the linked talk page. TarkusABtalk 15:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Hi all, When reviewing an WP:AfC article, on, I couldn't find enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. However, as it's a clone, the creator; @Cosecant57: was wondering if this should be something to be mentioned in the existing article. However, I understand there is also an article for; which are both GAs. I see that Cosecant has added information on the page, but was wondering if this was the correct way to go, as I believe there are millions of clones for this game. Let me know your thoughts Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Since to tied to via having the same creator, I would merge content there for now and redirect, until/if WP:GNG is met. No need to mention at unless there's a connection I've missed. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Everyone thanks for informing. Cosecant57 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (30 December to 12 January)[edit]

30 December

6 January

7 December

8 January

9 January

10 January

11 January

12 January

Salavat (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The new "Sky Temple" disambiguation page seems to direct readers to articles in which the term "sky temple" doesn't appear. As far as I am aware, this goes against what disambiguation is for, correct? May need another set of eyes. ~Mable (chat) 16:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it's supposed to link off to these fan sites like it does either. Kinda hard to tell - it seems like every time I'm at a dab page adding an article I created, it's in pretty rough shape. They seem perpetually inmaintaoned and sloppy, so it sometimes hard to tell what's acceptable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
A personal rule-of-thumb is that I add something to a disambiguation page if it would have been reasonable as a redirect. In this case, I would only add articles to the "Sky Temple" disambiguation page if I could justify making a redirect instead, if the disambiguation page didn't exist. I think I poorly explained that, but the thing is that I don't know the actual guideline and just figured I'd post here. ~Mable (chat) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
They are supposed to be links to subsections of articles at least. If they aren't even mentioned on the articles (they aren't), then they shouldn't be included in a disambiguation page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
DABifying was the consensus at RfD. It used to redirect to Metroid Prime 2. The DAB is an improvement. Feel free to comment out those instances which are not mentioned in-article and I'Ll work on improving the dab page. Ben · Salvidrim!  22:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Plus it's not like this is a radically new idea, we've had for a long time Fire Temple (dab), Water Temple (dab), Forest Temple (redirect), Spirit Temple (redirect), etc.; redirects or dab entries for levels/locations of a video game are commonplace. If an in-article mention is needed, then in-article mentions should be added, not the link removed. As I said, I'll work on improving this DAB since I've kind of adopted it :p There's no deadline! ^_^ Ben · Salvidrim!  22:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I saw three deletes at the RfD, not support for this. It should have probably been linked to here so more people would have contributed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
What are you looking at? Not a single final delete !vote in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 7#Sky Temple. Ben · Salvidrim!  22:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I misread it then, but two people (yourself included) voting for disambiguation is not a consensus either. Somebody should have linked it here to get more opinions before it closed, because I'm 100% against this idea. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I mean it was linked here which is where I found it..... WP:VG/AA. Plus, it's rare for RfDs to get more than two or three commenters. Look, give me a week to improve it, and if you still think there's a reason to delete it, we can always discuss it more widely at AfD next weekend. Fair? :) Ben · Salvidrim!  22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I do not oppose to the existence of this disambiguation page. It seems fitting. I just don't think it should link to articles when the target article doesn't describe the topic you may be looking for. I have hidden a few entries already, but I think more may need to be removed. The Heroes of the Storm article, for example, doesn't describe the Sky Temple. It just happens to have a screenshot of the location in the article. That does not seem like it would be enough. In contrast, linking to Ocarina of Time in the Fire Temple redirect is definitely good, because our article on Ocarina of Time mentions this location multiple times and even states facts about it specifically. ~Mable (chat) 21:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the reason I mentioned HotS is because any Google Search you do today for "Sky Temple" returns just HotS results for the first two pages or so. And I'm pretty sure if we use a screenshot of that map in-article, then it is both illustrative of the game in general and definitely counts as an "in-article mention". But yes, of course, lots of improvement to make. Ben · Salvidrim!  00:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Odd question[edit]

Hello. Can someone be kind and explain to me why sites such as Nintendo Life, Polygon, Destructoid and Eurogamer are italicized while sites like GameSpot, IGN, Metacritic, GameRankings, Game Revolution, GameZone and/or GamesRadar+ are not. They are both game websites, or am I missing something?--Biografer (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's mostly just people not doing it right (including me) in their articles because of muscle memory. Per this 2016 conversation right here in WT:VG, any website that produces content (e.g. IGN, GameSpot, or Polygon) should *all* be italicized. If it's just a service like YouTube or an aggregator like MetaCritic, it shouldn't be (but the citation template will do it anyways and we shouldn't worry about it). Nomader (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nomader: I meant it in the article itself, not citation. You see, one of the users have deitalicized GameSpot and IGN in NHL 18 article.--Biografer (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
They should still be italicized. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thank you all.--Biografer (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
To reaffirm Dissident's answer, websites like GameSpot and IGN are "creative works" in their own right and should indeed be rendered using italics. GameRankings and Metacritic are "services" first and foremost and should not be rendered in italics. Of course, this difference can be a bit confusing and hard to define at times, but if you would call something a "publication", then it should probably be rendered in italics. ~Mable (chat) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: So in other words if I see a whole bunch of text, then I italicize it, but if the site have only videos or rakings such as Metacritic, GameRankings and YouTube, then I don't. On the other hand all three are websites...--Biografer (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Sites like IGN, GameSpot, etc. provide editorial content (reviews, news, etc.), so should be treated as a magazine or newspaper. On the other hand, Metacritic, etc only provide factual information, so they are just publishers, so should not be italicized. --Masem (t) 22:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for explanation. :)--Biografer (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Easy way to know if it should be italicized or not, check the main article. --JDC808 02:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello everyone, I recently wrote an essay on how to write a dope video game article. I wanted to know if anyone had suggestions on how I could improve it? JOEBRO64 00:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice! I'd mention guide books for gameplay too. And for development (especially for retro games), I'd mention articles such as GamesTM's "Behind The Scenes" and Retro Gamer's "The Making Of" articles. Also, even guide books sometimes contain information about development. Adam9007 (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I've added that to the essay. JOEBRO64 12:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd mention that a manual of style exists, because new editors may well find there way to this before, maybe in a useful links section at the bottom. You mention that the reception section would be the hardest to write, which I've really never found to be the case. The order of the sections is also important, because if I'd never written a video game article, I'd maybe think that after the lead the reception section needs to come second, and then gameplay. I realise this is for an order of creation, but it's a little ambiguous. Everything else looks great to me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Under the part about writing "Legacy" sections, you mention Did it spawn memes?. I'd recommend qualifying "meme" to some capacity - like Did it spawn memes that gained coverage by third party reliable sources?. Because, as you well know in working in the Sonic subject area, there are any number of non-notable memes we wouldn't bother covering in an article. Something like Luigi Death Stare is worth mentioning. Nonsense like inspiring Sonic and Shadow romance fan fiction would not. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Done, but you'd be surprised... JOEBRO64 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a note here-- didn't we establish that GameSpot took all of GameFAQs's submissions? I think the old site used to have reliable date data (which is what all of my FLs are based on) but the updated version is just as bad nowadays. Nomader (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I got it from WP:VG/DATE that GameSpot's got reliable release dates. Maybe the guideline was never updated? JOEBRO64 01:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Crud. Hrm.... lemme go digging through the archives to see what I can find. Nomader (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Created a new section below to figure this out. Nomader (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Grammar: "He scored the game an 8/10"[edit]

This weird construction seems to appear in almost every WP article about games. Surely it should be "the game scored 8/10" or "he rated the game 8/10" or "he gave the game a score of 8/10". Does it seem blatantly wrong to anyone else? Do mainstream dictionaries support this specific kind of transitivity for the verb "score"? (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

All three scenarios you've proposed seem fine to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Ratings shouldn't be in prose anyway, instead their summarized opinion of the game should. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
As Dissident93 said, scores go in the {{video game reviews}} table and a summary of the content (what they liked, disliked, etc) goes in the prose. Sometimes Metacritic ratings are put in the prose but that's uncommon. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is GameSpot a reliable source for release dates?[edit]

Might be more of a discussion at WT:VG/RS, and if so, happy to move it over there instead.

I'm moving this out from the Essay section of WT:VG by @TheJoebro64:. One thing that he mentioned in his essay was that GameSpot was a reliable source for release dates, but if I remember correctly, there was a huge change where GameFAQs merged with GameSpot for release date information and it made it unreliable for sources. Just a note that WP:VG/RS says the following: "Their database is shared by GameFAQs which is unreliable", but it doesn't actually come out and say we shouldn't use it for release dates.

On the reliable sources noticeboard, Jinnai brought up in 2011 that the GameFAQs database was shared with GameSpot and was therefore unreliable. (Discussion here). He also brought it up on WT:VG back in 2011 and there didn't seem to be much consensus except "it's probably not right" (Discussion here).

I looked for GameSpot's release date guidelines but couldn't seem to find anything-- I imagine someone else might have better luck than me. Nomader (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird. I've never noticed that at VG/S. I put the part about GameSpot having accurate release dates in the essay because WP:VG/DATE says they do (I'll remove it though). I'm guessing that part of the policy hasn't been updated in a while? JOEBRO64 01:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the real problem is that all of these discussions happened way back in 2011 and I have no idea if it's changed since then or not. I remember there being a discussion about using archive links from right around those comments, but I can't seem to find that for the life of me either. It's all just from one user so I think it would be good to open it up to further debate and discussion. Nomader (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this should only apply to their game profile pages, not when they appear in written articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Their database, along with IGN's and Metacritic's (and many other websites) is full of errors. Only cite articles for release dates. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Atari Lynx games[edit]

I created this template to put on Atari Lynx game pages, I just wanted someone to double check if it's okay, also, I wanted it collapsed when people load pages. I was also thinking maybe having the top bar of it with a black background with orange text. All comments welcome please, cheers, Govvy (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that we're okay with such navigation templates when a system's library is so small, and this looks pretty similar to the Virtual Boy equivalent, so I have no objection personally. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I applied some formatting fixes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Cheers for the cleanup, I think I have linked them all up, there are a few redlink games I haven't included in the template know, Govvy (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Lemmings (video game)[edit]

Is the reflist okay on this article or is it running antiquated options? Govvy (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks fine to me - it is using List-defined references to group them all in the reflist to avoid their "noise" in the body, which is an option editors can do per our MOS. --Masem (t) 23:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, never seen it done like that before so was curious. Govvy (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
List-defined refs are a minority option (though still used not infrequently), but in my opinion objectively better. That said, actually, its the other parameter that's antiquated- you don't need to state "|colwidth=30em", because the reflist template now automatically builds out columns (with a default of 30em) if you have more than 10 references. --PresN 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I use this style whenever I create a new article, usually, especially for tags that get called often. It's sometimes better for anyone doing copyedits, I feel. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yea, I know Czar uses list-defined refs a lot, I've used them a few times too for VG articles (Puzzled, Freefall 3050 A.D.) and bios (Karen Greenlee, Suzanne Hopper), makes the article text "cleaner" in the edit window! :) Ben · Salvidrim!  14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As long as the ref style is uniform, many editors don't care. I, for one, am less likely to edit an article if its wikicode is a mess (read: paragraphs are two-thirds refs with little prose), hence why I prefer LDR. It's bad form, however, to drive-by convert an article's formatting (ref style or otherwise) to your preference. If you're planning to rework an article that others steward as well, almost always better to announce your upcoming change than to enter an edit war. In the case of the Lemmings article, I'd leave it alone unless you're planning to work it further. czar 02:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

GoodTools AfD nomination[edit]

Opinions wanted at the GoodTools AfD nomination, as it's relevant to video game ROMs. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (12 January to 19 January)[edit]

12 January

13 January

14 January

15 January

16 January

17 January

18 January

19 January

Salavat (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)