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
Archives
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk

viewtalkeditchanges

UK release date in infobox[edit]

Should the United Kingdom release date be in the infobox if it's different from the European release date? One one hand, it's an English-speaking country; on the other hand, it's not a region. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The template is not restricted to "regions", and if there's a significant deviation in release date, or if the developer is based in UK specifically, there's no issue including it in my opinion. -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
If the UK release is the initial release, it should probably always be included. Otherwise, what Ferret said above is entirely correct. ~Mable (chat) 14:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
What if the deviation is only one or two days from the European release? -- Wrath X (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Then you have entered fairly controversial territory on English Wikipedia, haha. I think opinions differ on how best to handle it. In my opinion, only list the first of the two. Listing both seems like overdoing it. ~Mable (chat) 14:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The documentation actually used to state this too, but it seems somebody removed it recently. In my opinion, we shouldn't list UK dates in addition to European unless they differ by more than a couple of days, just for infobox simplicity. Of course, if the developer was British, it should always be included. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But the United Kingdom is an English-speaking country so shouldn't it always be included if its release date is different from Europe's? In fact, Europe without the UK is non-English-speaking so when you think about it there is more reason to include the UK release date than Europe without the UK release date. -- Wrath X (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would only include UK under one scenario, normally: The developer is UK based, and the release date is different from the rest of EU. If the release date is the same as EU, there's not much point, even if the developer is UK based. -- ferret (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
What if the developer's not UK based but the UK release date is different from the rest of EU? I explicitly stated "shouldn't it always be included if its release date is different from Europe's?" -- Wrath X (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't take this as a shining endorsement but: If you feel the date is different enough to warrant listing UK, go for it. Personal discretion in these things is fine, follow WP:BOLD. But if another editor later reverts saying its "close enough to EU", I wouldn't argue the point personally. Whatever you do, don't get into edit wars over it. -- ferret (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The UK is an English-speaking country (it's probably the second most prominent English-speaking country, behind the US) so shouldn't it, provided it's different from the EU, be treated in the infobox similar to North America and Australia/New Zealand? It's not like Japan which is a non-English-speaking country. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is Wikipedia's ever-present "example bloat" problem. We try to keep the infobox release dates to a minimum because otherwise, people keep on adding more and more until you've got a massive list going. Add UK, and people will say "What about Australia? What about New Zeeland? What about China?" Before you know it, you've got an overwhelming list, usually unsourced, all listing minor deviations in release days (commonly different only due to timezones.) Which is why you'll see people usually recommend keeping it to the major 3 - NA, EU, and JP. That's my stance as well. I only support the main three unless the UK release date is substantially different or especially noteworthy. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Video game release explicitly states to "Add release dates for English-language regions and the developer's region." Therefore NA, AU and EU (also UK if different from EU) should be in the infobox since they are English-language regions, while China should only be in the infobox if the developer's based in China. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I can promise you that it's very very unlikely anyone is going to agree with "Always include UK". If deviation is significant from EU, go for it. If reverted, don't sweat it and move on unless you have a strong argument in support. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I never said always include UK; I meant include UK if different from EU. Template:Video game release/abbr states that "Release dates should be provided from primarily English-speaking regions, including North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand." My argument is that the UK is primarily English-speaking therefore it should also be included (if different from EU). Why Australia but not the UK? -- Wrath X (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The keyword there is "regions". EU is viewed as inclusive of the UK as an English region. AU/NZL (Typically linked to Australasia or Oceania) is a completely different region from Europe. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) UK is not mentioned specifically because it's already encompassed as part of EUR. Australia is not. But you're illustrating the exact problem here. There's always someone else who has a "Well why not "X"? Why not "Y"?" Is this even a commonly occurring situation? Does the UK commonly have vastly different release date? Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Nevertheless, there is one thing that bothers me: If Europe and the UK have different release dates, then wouldn't that make Europe a non-English speaking region since it doesn't encompass the UK in this case? Therefore, from a certain point of view, we shouldn't include Europe in the infobox anymore since it's non-English speaking. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
We want to capture Europe for the very reason we're talking about here - its a major region in the video game industry that encapsulates many countries so we don't need to list all the countries out individually. Again, the main purpose here is to eliminate long, redundant lists. We're not meant to be a release date data base - there's other websites for that. But it is important to get a brief "snapshot" of the time of release too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You're forgetting Ireland. --Mika1h (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
How does release dates for video games in Ireland tend to relate to those of the UK and the rest of Europe? ~Mable (chat) 21:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wrath X said Europe is a non-English speaking region without UK. --Mika1h (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I still think that the best option is to list the first of the two. For example, if a game was released in the US on March 10, UK on March 15, and the EU on March 16, I would only list the US and UK. If it was released in the US on March 10, EU on March 15, and UK on March 16, I would only list US and EU. I don't think the country in which a game is developed is relevant at all. I don't think listing them both is reasonable either. ~Mable (chat) 14:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note that my understanding is that due to the better schooling systems in EU in general, most gamers there are generally fluent in English as well as their home country's language, and while EU titles generally include the major localizations (French, German, and Spanish), they use this English to play games that lack that localization until its available. So EU is a major English speaking area and certainly should not be displaced by the UK. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been AWOL from Wikipedia for a few years. So I was about to say, "Add the date to Wikidata, and let a script decide whether to include it in the article or not." But there seems to be a ban on Wikidata in Mainspace at the moment. SharkD  Talk  03:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

About Koei, Koei Tecmo and the revolving pages[edit]

Good day lovely people,

I need some help/advice about the Koei/Koei Tecmo pages on Wikipedia.

I was recently editing Koei's page, adding the date I thought it disbanded and turned into Koei Tecmo (Or Tecmo Koei at the time.) A IP user reverted my edit and pointed out that Koei, the developer, simply renamed itself Koei Tecmo Games Co. Ltd., when absorbing Tecmo, rather than becoming a newly established company called Koei Tecmo. I provided a source mentioning the merger, but the user pointed out that the document says they've only renamed themselves after absorbing Tecmo, rather than becoming a new entity.

After closer inspection of the document - and checking Koei Tecmo Holding's business site, it seems that, yes, Koei turned into Koei Tecmo Games Co., Ltd.

https://www.koeitecmo.co.jp/e/company/group/#koeitecmogames (or the legal document https://www.koeitecmo.co.jp/news/docs/news_20110207_01.pdf - It's using the Emperor Date System, so, 昭和53年)

Not only does this mean that some of the information on the current Tecmo Koei page technically belongs to Koei's page, not to mention that the Koei page would need to receive a major overhaul, since it was never properly updated to accommodate this.

But... technically, this would also mean that:

Koei Tecmo should be renamed/moved to Koei Tecmo Holdings Co., Ltd., and Koei should be renamed/moved to Koei Tecmo Games Co., Ltd., to my understanding, right? As a normal user, I can't do either, as people have already created redirect pages a long time ago. Not only that, but this would also mean that most of the pages linking to Koei Tecmo right now, should actually direct to Koei Tecmo Games - which, as I said, is Koei right now - and that is, well, a lot of pages. Every KT game page since either 2009 or 11?

T'is a bit confusing for me, so I might be missing something. I'm still kind of a noob in terms of Wikipedia knowledge. Does anyone have any advice or solutions on what to do here?

Much love,  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the article titles- I'd argue against moving them. Wikipedia articles do not need to completely reflect the exact corporate structure of the businesses they are about; instead, they reflect how those companies represent themselves and are viewed in sources. To give an example- in 2003 Square and Enix merged to create Square Enix, right? That's how everyone thinks about it? It's not true at all- technically Enix bought Square, renamed itself to Square Enix, and then changed its board to be made up of mostly former Square board members. And to be completely accurate, in 2008 Square Enix renamed itself to Square Enix Holdings, and formed a new wholly-owned subsidiary company named Square Enix that took over all of the actual game development/publishing work that the old Square Enix was doing. So, if we went by the actual corporate technical structures, Enix should be renamed to Square Enix Holdings, covering Enix/SE/SEH from 1975 though to today; Square would cover only the Square entity, and a new Square Enix article would cover only the time period from 2008-today when the modern Square Enix came into existence.
If you thought the above sounded complicated and confusing to readers, you're right. The common perception is that the two entities of Square and Enix merged together into Square Enix in 2003, and that new merged entity has persisted since. So that's what the articles are- S, E, and SE.
So, there's really two options for the Koei and Tecmo articles: Option 1, have Koei (ends at 2009), Tecmo (ends at 2009), and Koei Tecmo (starts at 2009). Or Option 2: have Koei Tecmo (includes Koei and Koei Tecmo from founding to today) and Tecmo (ends at 2009). I'd vote option 1. Note that even with these options, you'd still mention that the actual structure is a holding company that owns a subsidiary named Koei Tecmo, and that the holding company is the successor to the original Koei, just like the SE article does. As an aside, to extend this beyond video game companies- we have Amazon.com, which lists its subsidiary companies... but what it doesn't reflect is that "Amazon.com" is actually like 6 companies (only one named Amazon.com) that all work together on the main amazon.com website, as well as numerous other subsidiaries for different countries that it operates in- they present themselves and are thought of as a single company, so it gets a single article. --PresN 17:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The [User] that made me think about this, actually made a similar edit on the Enix page, removing that it is defunct and akin information, I'm seeing.
This is all a bit confusing, though. So, just to clarify, we list the Koei and Tecmo pages as defunct in 2009, (2011? Technically, both Koei and Tecmo still existed as development subsidiaries under KT Holding until 2011 before Koei absorbed Tecmo and renamed itself KT Games, but as you said...) with the successor being Koei Tecmo (Holding), right? Despite the official documents still listing "Koei Tecmo Games Co., Ltd." as being founded in 1973, and simply mention in the article that Koei Tecmo Games is a successor to Koei, right? And then updating the template to reflect Tecmo and Koei's creation date, like on Square Enix's? Possibly simply creating a new section on the KT Page for KT Games, as the currently listed "Studios" section are all part of KT Games, not KT Holding?  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  19:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I was invited to comment on this discussion. In terms of article names, I don't have a problem with either of the options proposed by User talk:PresN. I could also add a third option, which is to have four different articles: Koei, Tecmo, Koei Tecmo Games and Koei Tecmo Holdings. Again, I don't have a preference with either options in term of article breakdown and I'll let you guys decide the one you prefer.
Where I do have some concerns though is about the actual content that is being proposed in the articles.
1) I would definitely be opposed to label the 1978 Koei as a defunct company. We can certainly stop the history of Koei in 2010 (not 2009). But just because we stop the history of Koei in 2010, that does not mean that we have to automatically consider Koei as a defunct company either. We can just say that Koei got renamed to Tecmo Koei Games by absorbing Tecmo and bring everything after to Koei Tecmo Games or Koei Tecmo without considering Koei itself a "defunct" company. It's like the Enix article. The article pretty much ends in 2003 but we don't label Enix as a defunct company either. We just brought the aftermath content to Square Enix.
2) There really isn't much to change about the Tecmo article. The original Tecmo was dissolved in April 2010. I guess you could also say that Tecmo was dissolved in 2011 if you want to take into consideration the new game developer that was spun off in March 2010. But one thing is for sure, Tecmo did not get defunct in 2009. Tecmo and Koei intially stayed intact when Koei Tecmo Holdings was created. I know there was some shake-up in 2009 with the European operations. But for the Japanese parent companies, it was "business as usual" for Tecmo and Koei until April 2010.
3) The successor of Temco is Koei Temco Games, not Koei Temco Holdings. Koei Temco Holdings is an holding company and does not produce video games. Not to mention that Temco and Koei initially remained intact even within the new holding company.
4) Koei was renamed Temco Koei Games in 2010 (at the same time Temco time got dissolved), not in 2011. 2011 is simply the year when the new video game developers Koei and Temco (both created in 2010) were folded into Koei Temco Games.
5) Koei was founded in 1978, not 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2017

If you don't mind my contributions, why don't you add a successor section to the Infobox linking to Koei Tecmo from the Koei page? That's what I did with the Enix article to identify that it renamed itself to Square Enix. Sometimes providing a brief context with a citation that identifies that Koei renamed to Koei Tecmo, after the absorption of the latter company helps give context to readers. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made things a little easier by providing the successor sections myself for both Koei and Tecmo. It's an easy indicator to identify that a former company was only dissolved to be succeeded by a new corporate brand. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It still seems a little bit strange to not display them (Enix and Koei) as defunct though. I think it's an unnecessary technicality; Having two pages for Koei Tecmo Games (forming from Koei) and Koei Tecmo Holdings seems redundant as well.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  14:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It would probably be an unnecessary technicality if Wikipedia was a video game website. But it isn't. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that must present facts, not video gaming fancruft. Wikipedia's video game articles may be read by anyone (videogamers and non-videogamers alike). Enix and Koei aren't defunct; they have simply renamed themselves after swallowing their former rivals. There's no reason why they should be displayed as defunct companies just because some people from the video game community personally feel they are defunct. I have never understood that fixation on Wikipedia of labeling everything as defunct anyway. Is an article that much better or has more merits just because the word "defunct" appears somewhere on its infobox and/or categories?????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2017
In your defense, Koei Tecmo Games and Koei Tecmo Holdings don't need to have separate articles. The Japanese Wikipedia has separate pages for them. But just because the Japanese Wikipedia does, that does not mean the English Wikipedia has to follow their example. Each language Wikipedia does what it's best for it. As I said before, I'm only concerned about the content of the articles, not how they are divided. The status quo is not a bad idea either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2017

Need opinion on a topic name[edit]

An idea I recently came to for a good encyclopedic topic is on the subject of archiving video games, which can include the various video game museum efforts, ROM/equivalent capturing that's used by the Library of Congress and at archive.org, other efforts of similar merit, and some of the technical and legal issues of preserving digital video games (such as hardware obsolescence and the DMCA).

There's plenty of RSes here, that's not the question, its mostly a matter of a proper title, whether it is "video game archiving" or "video game archeology" or something equivalent for that. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Video game preservation. See also Film preservation. --PresN 20:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, that also follows from Digital preservation. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Great idea for a topic. If you're looking for sources, Frank Cifaldi is really into this and has written for RSs. He runs http://www.lostlevels.org and gave a great speech on the topic at GDC 2016. There is also lots of news these days about byuu running the SNES preservation project. TarkusAB 22:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, part of this idea was the recent story of that lost package (eventually found) of 100s of carts that were shipped from EU to US for digital preservations, as well as seeing a recent article from Tim Schafer about it. And just a spot check shows plenty of sources for this. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Should definitely be able to support its own article, since game preservation has unique requirements above and beyond digital or film preservation (code designed to run on specific hardware, where neither the original hardware designs nor raw code is available as a rule, and where no one involved had any thought for long-term or even medium-term preservation). --PresN 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I've started a draft over here User:Masem/Video game preservation for this, if anyone wants to contribute. There is definitely enough just from the LOC side alone that I'm still trying to unravel the details and timeline there. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 10 March[edit]

2 March

3 March

4 March

5 March

6 March

7 March

8 March

9 March

10 March

Salavat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's about time someone finally created that Minecraft draft! (???) Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Characters of the Yakuza series[edit]

I just have a question of why this page had to be deleted. I don't want a detailed and complicated explanation of how wikipedia runs things because honestly it is quite convoluted and nonsensical. I previously provided examples of other video game characters doing the exact same thing and got hit with an "other stuff exists" argument, but I don't find this argument convincing or compelling argument because the fact of the matter is it shows bias on wikipedia's part of it favors giving more information out on certain video game franchises rather than others. There is very little information about the vast amount of characters of the Yakuza franchise on the internet, and I myself as a reader of wikipedia wanted to look for more info about the characters on wikipedia only to find nothing, why? If the page was too informative why not trim it down instead of axing it? Osh33m (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The article was redirected, not deleted.
  • Checking the talk page for the article, your question was already answered by Czar's last two posts there.
  • Information being deleted from the Wikipedia mainspace is not the same as it being eradicated from the entire internet. The Yakuza Wiki is just one good place for information on the characters of the Yakuza franchise. If you find The Yakuza Wiki lacks some information that the Wikipedia article had, you can just copy-and-paste that information into The Yakuza Wiki yourself.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    Dedicated wikis are great places for this kind of in-depth, in-universe information. The smallest details that would be completely arbitrary and useless for general purpose readers, can all be put there. ~Mable (chat) 17:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how to help you if you reject both a "complicated" explanation of how Wikipedia works and reject WP:OSE. Seriously, what sort of input do you expect with limitations like that? "The article was bad." "It was not encyclopedic." I don't know. The best I can do is point you towards WP:ITSUSEFUL maybe? Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
First of all, what difference does it make if the article was redirected or deleted? The point is all the information is absent from the page. And second of all, even if the Yakuza wiki is an option, there exists wikis for plenty of video games yet the wikipedia articles also have dedicated pages for video game characters, why is Yakuza being rejected of this? If it was not encyclopedic, then convert to being encyclopedic - as I said in that previous discussion, I don't see any other video game pages getting erased/redirected. What's the logic there? Osh33m (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but you're saying: "Other character articles exist, therefore this one must be fine"; "Wikipedia is the biggest encyclopedia therefore it should not have inclusion criteria"; and "Nothing else is ever removed". To answer: The quality/notability of other character articles has nothing to do with the quality/notability of this one; Wikipedia does, in fact have inclusion criteria whether or not you approve so that we don't have 100 million pages of nonsense that drown out the rest; and actually quite a few articles a day are redirected/deleted in just the video game space alone. Other people have pointed you towards the inclusion guidelines that have been hashed out over the years; saying "nuh uh, they're all wrong" isn't going to win your arguement any supporters. Show why Yakuza characters, as a group, are notable in and of themselves by providing sources, or take the article to a wiki that doesn't require that. --PresN 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Since you don't want to discuss policy, perhaps this analogy will help you understand the flaws of your complaints: This whole situation is much like going over the speed limit on the highway. Do people do it all the time? Yes. Is it legal? No. Lets say a police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket. Can you get out of a ticket by arguing:
  • "But I've seen lots of people speed on this highway, and you didn't give them tickets!".
  • "What so wrong with speeding? Nothing bad happened!"
  • "I speed to work every day and I didn't get a ticket then!"
No, of course not. A police officer would say your excuses were irrelevant, and give you a ticket anyways. Same thing in your situation. The existence of other crappy, policy-breaking articles doesn't provide any defense of your crappy, policy breaking article. Once your article has been singled out, whatever the reason, you need to defend it, not allude to all the other injustices.
Also, if you "don't see other characters lists being merged", then you're not paying attention or not looking very hard, because they're constantly a point of discussion around here. Some get deleted/redirected, some are improved and kept. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want to keep this list intact, you can try to find reliable secondary sources like magazine article, trusted websites, and other such sources about the cast of Yakuza. Maybe you'd be more lucky when looking through Japanese-language sources in this case. I don't know if enough sources exist for a separate list to exist for this topic. It really depends on the kind of coverage these characters get. If we know how all the main characters were designed, how their voice actors felt while portraying them, and how their personalities were crafted by the writers, then there's plenty of reason to have this list. However, as long as we don't have those kinds of sources, there's just no reason for this list to exist. Because we have so many completely unsourced character lists, we just started redirecting them all without too much research in the topic. Maybe we made a mistake in this case, but we need sources to know that! ~Mable (chat) 19:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright so with your cop analogy, you describe one person getting caught and complaining, fine. The difference here on wikipedia is, it's not hard to catch more than one lis of video game character pages, tons of them exist. As for the source you state you are looking for, the information on the page are found just from playing the game, shouldn't that all be evidence enough? Osh33m (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That's essentially the definition of a primary source. – Rhain 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
A fictional subject is considered "notable" when people discuss it outside of its original context. If the purpose of this list is to document the fiction itself, then, again, a fanwiki would be the appropriate place for it. Not an encyclopedia. ~Mable (chat) 15:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow how what you're saying breaks my analogy. As for the rest of what you say, I recommend reading up on the WP:GNG. The questions you're asking would suggest you don't have a good grasp on Wikipedia's concept of notability at all... It's going to be difficult to help you if you don't even know the basics... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Vgrelease Lua Module conversion[edit]

I have started on a long planned effort to convert Vgrelease new (Which is now simply Vgrelease, post merger) to a lua module. This will remove any limitation on the number of region/date pairs. The sandbox module has been completed and the template sandbox updated to use it. If you have any thoughts or comments please swing by Template talk:Video game release. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Will be doing this today. If issues pop up, feel free to revert to the last version. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 16 March[edit]

2 March

10 March

11 March

12 March

13 March

14 March

15 March

16 March

Salavat (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiplayer, single-player infobox order[edit]

I've always wondered, is the order we list "multiplayer" and "single-player" in the infobox based on the game's main mode, i.e. if the game is primarily multiplayer we enter "multiplayer" first, if the game is primarily single-player we enter "single-player" first? If so then there is a problem because I've seen many infoboxes of primarily multiplayer games list "single-player" first. Of course one could argue that deciding what the game's main mode is is subjective and that a more objective way should be used i.e. we arrange them alphabetically (Category:Multiplayer and single-player video games is even arranged alphabetically). I need some clarification. The way I see it is there are two methods to choose from: main mode or alphabetical. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a decent argument to be made for the "Single-player, multiplayer" order as well, though I'm personally not sure how to vocalize it. It seems much more natural than arranging the two alphabetically. ~Mable (chat) 13:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it feels more natural because it's numerical. Single-player = 1. Multiplayer = 2+. – Rhain 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's just long-standing tradition in the industry that "single player" comes before "multiplayer" when discussing the two modes (even at the Atari 2600 days), even if the multiplayer is the defining element. It's the same type of order we do with "Windows, Mac OS, and Linux" or PC systems before consoles before mobiles in available hardware lists. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I've never thought about this, but–by anecdotal evidence–I have always seen it as SP before MP. That's just how industry evolved. Nowadays, there are games that are primarily MP, but I don't think the listing logic has followed. I guess we could find sources that say about certain games that they are primarily focused on multiplayer. But it would be a very small portion of the games. I tend to follow consistency over something that can rarely be checked. Then again, we already group genres and such pretty much arbitrarily or what we feel is the right order. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and there are far too many games (e.g.Ghost Squad, Grid Runner, Toy Commander, Virtua Cop) where I daresay it's impossible to even form an argument for their being either primarily single-player or primarily multiplayer. All else being equal, game publishers want their games to be enjoyable as both single-player or multiplayer, so it doesn't always work out that one or the other is put in as an afterthought.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe off-topic, but is there anyone else who wouldn't care to see this removed from the infobox? If the mode for the game is actually important/notable (look at the No Man's Sky fiasco), then it would be mentioned and sourced in prose. Otherwise, it just seems like something we do just because we've always done it, and it almost never helps (or hurts, to be fair) the article, outside of the exceptions. As for the category, I say we list it with the "Single-player, multiplayer" order. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't be against that idea. Or at least its applicability may be more limited to, say, arcade games, rather than computer or console games. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against that either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind it being removed either. -- Wrath X (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Should probably do a separate, formal RFC for removal though. I think there'd be some push-back on its removal. I'd want to make sure we've got a clear consensus on this before doing it, because I see it being another "GameRankings in the review table" type on-going battle. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, for sure. I only brought it up to even see if people would be ok with the idea in the first place. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I would probably argue against. It's still a defining characteristic more often than not, and it's something that almost every game has. Plus, there are things like hotseat or co-op. This is also a great WikiData field. One thing though is that I'd want it see it limited to specific items and not others. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Note this discussion has partially spilled to Template Talk:Infobox video game. If there is interest, I can write up a small support module that will output the wikidata property with a filter of QIDs to allow. This would allow us to filter out "game modes" that Wikidata supports but Enwiki excludes through consensus. -- ferret (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The fact is that this should have started on the infobox talk page. Zzzz. --Izno (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick set of eyes on Star Wars: Masters of Teräs Käsi[edit]

I recently put quite a bit of work into Star Wars: Masters of Teräs Käsi. I'm proud to say that I think it now meets B class criteria, it previously being just a Stub. I was wondering if someone could give it a quick, unofficial once over copy edit. I'm not looking to take the article any further unless others feel that it can meet GA class criteria, but at the same time I'm sure I missed a few little things. Someone else reading it over and making those little changes would help. I'm leaving this out of formal requests as I'm not looking for major updates at this point -- that is unless people feel it's worth a formal peer review. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Did a quick read through and minor gnoming/tweaking. The one thing I planned to ask was "Where is Teräs Käsi defined?" and finally found it at the end of the development section. I think it might deserve to be mentioned sooner since the phrase appears so frequently. -- ferret (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I made some copy edits, feel free to roll them back. Ferret makes a good point, Teräs Käsi should definitely be mentioned further up. Scribolt (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Originally the article had the Teras Kasi definition in the lead (that's all there was). I added it to the plot, but maybe I should add it to the lead as it's not a very common Star Wars term. Thoughts? --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd add it to the lead, with the short form of: "Teräs Käsi" refers to a fictional martial arts. (Edit: Though your plot edit would be fine too. I had read all the way to development when I first thought "so what does that mean") -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing magazine article names[edit]

Every now and again I go through the video game featured articles, and do a bit of maintenance, especially on articles that haven't been featured on the front page yet, or were promoted several years ago and were forgotten about. I recently came across the featured article Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, and although the prose still meets the FA standards, the references are in severe disrepair. In addition to the absurd amount of dead or redirected links (seriously) one of the biggest problems is that magazine sources do not include the article titles, which causes an obvious reference error. There are missing titles from three Nintendo Power articles, one Official Xbox Magazine article, one Electronic Gaming Monthly article, and three Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine articles. If anyone has access to these magazines and would like to help out, that would be much appreciated. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried to get a few but these aren't really out there. A note is that most of these except the Nintendo Power ones look like reviews, and their standard practice is to title the review with the title of the game, so that could be a hodge-podge solution. Nintento Power, however, I can't even find TOCs online for those. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

ToonTown Online and Independent vs. Primary Sources[edit]

Over on Toontown Online, there's a user that's been radically deleted unsourced content. After sources to the gameplay section were added, the user deleted the section again because the source was Primary, not independent. First, is this kind of radical editing welcome? And second, should primary game guide sources be used for Gameplay sections? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Sources independent of the article subject are preferred, but it's fine to use primary sources to fill in the gaps between secondary sources' coverage, as long as it's factual, non-controversial information that doesn't promote the article subject too much (ie you wouldn't cite a primary source to say that the game was well received). It's quite common to see manuals and similar types of sources used for gameplay sections, and I see nothing wrong with using that here either.--IDVtalk 08:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Giving the gameplay due weight is really the crux of such issues. Looking at the article now (in its longer state), I think the amount of detail in the gameplay section is about right. The structure is a bit odd (I've never seen an article split combat and non-combat activities), but the number of paragraphs is quite alright for a video game. It may use some trimming, but I agree that outright deletion of the entire section is unnecessary. ~Mable (chat) 10:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

CD Projekt and CD Projekt RED[edit]

This concerns the CD Projekt article. I've seen it multiple times on the web and this confusion keeps coming back, not sure why.

"CD Projekt S.A. is a Polish video game developer, publisher and distributor based in Warsaw"

CD Projekt S.A. is a capital group. Sure, it's involved in video game development and distribution but it's made through its subsidiaries - not directly as suggested. The article states as if CD Projekt S.A. is a video game developer when in reality CD Projekt RED does just that. Same for video game distribution - GOG.com.[1] Having this in mind I feel this article should be rewritten and split into two - CD Projekt and CD Projekt RED.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debeet (talkcontribs)

The article is a good article - meaning a lot of time and review went into it, so I find it hard to believe the foundation of the entire article is wrong. Is this something that just be solved with better wording or something? Just talking in a general sense, I'm not terribly familiar with the company, I just read about them and The Witcher here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think what you mean is CD Projekt S.A. is a holding company, not CD Projekt S.A. is a capital group. The opening sentence could be rephrased to reflect this. If you read the entire article though, it is made clear that RED is their game development studio. I don't think splitting the article is really necessary or beneficial here. Their subsidiaries fall within the scope of their core business and are integral to the history of the company. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I meant holding company. Still, in the summary it is stated (or rather suggested) that CD Projekt itself is directly a video game developer, publisher and distrubutor which is not true. These functions are split between its subsidiaries or divisions (CD Projekt RED, GOG.com, cdp.pl [formerly]). Looks like about 50-60% of the article talks about its video game development side since my suggestion for splitting to CD Projekt (holding company) and CD Projekt RED (video game developer). --Debeet (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
CD Projekt is in a similar situation to Square Enix - the actual head company is a holding company (Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd.), which has under it a Square Enix Co., Ltd. which is the actual corporate entity that publishes/develops video games. That said, "Square Enix" refers to the collective entity, generally thought of as a single company... which publishes and develops video games. So, in this instance, "CD Projekt" is a collective entity that develops, publishes, and distributes video games. The head company is CD Projekt S.A., a holding company, and its main subsidiary is CD Projekt RED, which does the actual video game work. The article text should reflect this (right now the lead doesn't say such, and the infobox claims RED is a division, not a subsidiary), but the article title and whether or not to split does not need to be determined by the corporate structure but by how it is thought of by the general press. --PresN 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
RED being a division is wrong? I've always thought that subsidiaries are more like how Monolith Soft is to Nintendo, with their 1st-party development teams (Nintendo EPD; Nintendo Software Technology) being divisions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's... wonky. A "division" is a segment of the overall business- which can either be a subset of a single company, or a subset of the overall meta-company, comprising 1+ subsidiaries. a "subsidiary" is a company that is owned >50% and usually 100% by the parent company. So, you could make the case that "CD Projekt" has two divisions: RED and BLUE, each of which is composed of a single subsidiary company: CD Projekt RED and GOG.com. (we know they're subsidiary companies because CD Projekt S.A. is a holding company: a company that only exists to serve as the parent company to its subsidiaries). So the infobox needs to refer to both of them as subsidiaries (ideally), or both as divisions, but one and one implies that GOG.com is a subsidiary company but RED is just an internal division of CD Projekt S.A. --PresN 21:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Under Polish law, CDP RED is registered as CD Projekt RED Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (Sp. z o.o.) in Poland's court register (img) (I can't use a direct link here because sessions expire in a matter of seconds), so technically and legally, it is a subsidiary. GOG Limited under Cypriot law is also a subsidiary (can hardly be a division overseas), wherefore I'd suggest both being listed as subsidiaries. Also, per the source linked by Debeet above, CD Projekt Inc. is registered under Californian law, in case that is relevant to this discussion. These three make up the subsidiaries of CD Projekt S.A. (the publisher/distributor, of which the subsidiaries are the developer, the digital distributor, and the North American publisher/disitributor). Lordtobi () 22:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hm. I normally stay away from documenting corporate info on Wikipedia for this very reason, as most of this means nothing for the casual reader. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

New reference source for arcade games[edit]

Archive.org has just added scans from Atari's Coin Connection newsletter it sent to arcade owners and other similar customers, which can be of help to date releases of arcade games and some of the marketing language used to sell these games. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh sweet, I've been poking at the 1974 Atari arcade games recently, and it looks like these start at 1977 so I'll catch up to them sometime soon. --PresN 21:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

FFVII now FAC[edit]

After looking through the article, I've taken the step. Final Fantasy VII has been nominated as an FAC, potentially culminating a colossal collaborative effort to bring the article back from the brink. Anyone who wants to leave comments and either support or oppose this nomination, please do so. To have this article FA before the end of the year would be the ideal ending to this project. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 24 March[edit]

12 March

15 March

17 March

18 March

19 March

20 March

21 March

22 March

23 March

24 March

Salavat (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata newb[edit]

How do I add a new genre to here? I want to add "space combat sim", but can't figure it out. SharkD  Talk  10:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The item you linked is that of "genre" itself. You will need to head to the Wikidata item of the game you would like to edit, and add a "genre" statement (using "+ add" at the bottom), and enter "Space flight simulator game" (the Space combat sim head genre, because I don't know if, but also don't think that there is a Wikidata item for Space combat simulator game [or similar], but you can try) as its attribute. If you however want to create a new Wikidata item for another genre, such as "Space combat simulator game", you simply have to create it, using "Create new item" on the left (fourth from top), and append an en-wiki link on the new page's right side, then a description etc. Lordtobi () 10:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks. "Space flight simulator game" does not exist, but "Space Combat" does, so I will stick with that. Next problem: I am trying to add "Space Combat" genre to a game. I am able to do this, but can't figure out how to add a source to it. I.e I want to add a reference to an article as a source, but Wikidata is asking me for "Developer", "Distribution", "Official Website", etc. of the game, when what I want to add is "URL" and "Access Date" of the article. What am I doing wrong? SharkD  Talk  10:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. "Space Combat" is the title of a game. I had to go ahead and add a new "space combat game" genre. SharkD  Talk  10:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I was going to say that "Space Combat" refers to the game Space Combat, but I see that's cleared up already. Regarding the existence of "Space flight simulator game", it is right ici. I found your new item and made a few edits to it. If you wish to add a reference to a statement, click "+ add reference", where the reference is "imported from" and its attribute "English Wikipedia" (make sure you click on the item for en wikipedia, and not its disambiguation page, both of which have items on Wikidata IIRC). Cheers! Note though that because Space combat is just a sub-section, its article link inclusion conflicts with that of Space flight simulation game, same with redirects. Lordtobi () 11:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
There are different genres of Space flight simulator games. If you look at the talk page for that article, you can see that some people get really upset if you don't pick the right one. Hence why I chose "Space combat game" instead. SharkD  Talk  13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:VG/WD may be helpful, though I think you've figured it out now. Wikidata has an issue that items can't be linked to redirect pages, so you won't be able to do a sitelink for Space combat sim unless you split it out. See d:Wikidata:WikiProject Cross Items Interwikis for more information on that issue. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't linking back to Wikipedia a bad idea since we're not a reliable source? I linked to a game review instead. SharkD  Talk  13:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
When I say sitelink, I mean like the old inter-language sitelinks. Wikidata links items to their articles on each Wiki. But it can't do it for redirects. As for referencing, "imported from xx wikipedia" is unfortunately pretty common. However, if you do have a solid reference for something, follow the direction at WP:VG/WD for adding a reference. The only part you MUST do is the reference-url property. The rest is nice but window dressing, just like bare urls versus CS1 templates. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Glanced at your edits, they're just fine. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Last of Us[edit]

Could someone please add this game as an exclusive for PS3. There is a PS4 release but it has different name with better graphics. K3kale (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The correct place to make this request is Talk:The Last of Us. I don't think it is correct to list it as a PS3 exclusive. The PS4 version has a different title, better graphics and a separate Wikipedia article, but it is still the same game. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is about adding PlayStation 3-only category to the article. Actually I think it should be added since the PS4 version has its own article. Same thing was done with Final Fantasy X. --Mika1h (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Complex question. I think the argument holds that The Last of Us is a PS3 exclusive, in the same way that The Wind Waker is a GameCube exclusive despite the HD remake for the Wii U. You just kinda have to consider it as a separate game. An argument against listing it as such can also be made, though, and it may depend on the practical purpose of a category. ~Mable (chat) 12:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The intent of the original release was to be a PS3-exclusive, which is what we're trying to capture; the remasters are not just ports (as would be the case for Limbo, which was originally meant as a X360 exclusive but was ported to other platforms a year later, so that "exclusiveness" disappears. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[http://www.polygon.com/2017/3/26/15064976/esports-ap-style "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)