Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Archives
1 - 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114
Threads older than 10 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk

viewtalkeditchanges


Outside canvassing[edit]

Editors need to made aware of a co-ordinated effort from the subreddit /r/pcmasterrace to add derogatory information to a variety of console articles. A search for "wikipedia" provides some idea of the problem [1] One prominent example:

Some of the names are familiar. In this thread [2] the creation of several new articles is suggested, with the purpose of "showing the peasants how small their collections really are". These articles were eventually created by editor User:Wikinium but later redirected after they were AfDd. The aforementioned editor is now on the Xbox One talk page attempting to add unflattering information there. [3] I have only made a cursory glance at the subreddit. The problem appears to go much deeper and requires further investigation. — TPX 11:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears Paid exclusivity was an article incubated via /r/pcmasterrace. They explicitly mention this article in their discussions. It was nominated for deletion in April. The result was redirect to 'console exclusivity'. User Wikinium ignored the result and quietly restored the page. [4]TPX 11:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted back to the AfD consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Glossing over it, some of these don't seem particularly dangerous. In particular, their goal of adding titles to lists could possible do those lists a lot of good. The lack of NPOV can create a lot of problems, though. This one in particular doesn't look very reassuring: [5] . I guess people will have to keep an eye out on these articles.
About the lists: are they worth having? I'm honestly not entirely sure: their reasoning might be bad, but that doesn't mean that the lists aren't notable. I'm sure that there are even specific sources handling what PlayStation 3 titles are exclusive to the console, for example. It might make more sense to incorporate exclusivity into the lists of games per console, though? ~Mable (chat) 11:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Xbox One[edit]

We've been hit. This is absurd along the lines of the old NDT controversy I was in the middle of. Source/Citation Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 07:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, when I saw this section pop up here on WPVG, I assumed it was to blame for all the canvassing and current arguments at the Xbox One article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrator noticeboard[edit]

The issue has been raised on Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsTPX 20:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Console generation End-Of-Discussion Source to end all Sources for the various History articles.[edit]

IEEE interactive timeline of the console generations. I have not checked how exactly it matches up but it looks very close to what we already have (8 gens to date, generally by date, etc.) --MASEM (t) 22:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Citogenesis, in any event. I also spy me some @Evan-Amos – czar 22:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we can establish that WP has had a role in naming the console generations, but pretty much, saying on this that we can use that IEEE thing to cement that the IEEE society has come to accept the same terminology. I know we were having some discussions to this point a few years ago, but at this point, I don't think we can ever vere off the Generation approach now. (And yay for great reuse of free images from Evan-Amos.) --MASEM (t) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, though: no handhelds whatsoever! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Very nice, though it's limited to the consoles featured (especially the last few generations only seem to have the big three consoles featured) and won't, of course, help a single bit when the next console generation hits. (Also, gotta love how I didn't even notice they were using Evan Amos photos until it was mentioned here, haha) ~Mable (chat) 09:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Tristan Donovan just presented a critique of this (defining video game history by console generation):

    The gap between the computer-focused European and console-focused American gaming histories of the 1980s and early 1990s also highlights another issue I had with the histories I read: console generations. The history of games had somehow become the history of game consoles. It is understandable in some ways. It is a much, much easier story to tell. It’s clean, linear and tidy. But neat and easy a structure as console generations are for a writer, it’s a deeply flawed framework.
    — http://www.kinephanos.ca/2015/rewriting-history/

    – czar 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Any Harvest Moon expert here?[edit]

I'm not familiar with history of this series. Is the recent move of Harvest Moon (series) to Story of Seasons (series) appropriate? Same goes for the creation of this split article Harvest Moon (Natsume series). --The1337gamer (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be too soon since so far only one game has been released under that the Srory of Seaosns name.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, how has this not been reverted yet? One game compared to 15+ is enough to change an entire article? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty familiar, and yeah, that move would be against COMMONNAME... Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • However, the editor may have a point that these could be separated by series. The longstanding series should obviously remain the primary topic for Harvest Moon, but a separating the other games under a title analoguous to Harvest Moon (Natsume) or something might not be such a bad idea.  · Salvidrim! ·  00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Until more games in this "separate series" come out, it is useless to make such an article. I think we should handle Story of Seasons similar to a new game in the series, though perhaps somewhat separated like a one-off spin-off title would be. We don't even know yet if more games under the title Story of Seasons will be released in the future and I doubt any reliable sources have described it as a "new IP", let alone a "new franchise."
To avoid any confusion does that mean that you are suggesting that the Story of Seasons (series) article be moved back to Harvest Moon (series).--64.229.165.154 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WebCite and the GameSpot/Giant Bomb conundrum[edit]

Currently I am doing the The Last of Us: Left Behind GAN. While checking the archives to the links, one of them by GameSpot directed me to a clip from an Eddie Murphy comedy special (link in question). I pointed this out to Rhain1999, the nominator, and they said out that not only is it effecting the other GameSpot archive links, but also a link to Giant Bomb. This also seems apparent to other archive links for The Last of Us and even one for the Mother series. Bare in mind these are all WebCite links cutting to a YouTube clip for the same Eddie Murphy clip. Seeing how both GameSpot and Giant Bomb are both owned by CBS Interactive, that raises some flags, with Rhain saying that this might be happening because some people don't want these links archived. As to why I'm unsure. This is just something that might be a big problem in archiving those two sites using WebCite. GamerPro64 02:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Disabling Javascript prevents the redirect to the video, with the citation info still there. I doubt it is a CBS thing, but something on WebSite itself where someone had injected bad JS code. Trying to debug more. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, well, maybe not. I still can't figure out where the javascript the video is being called but I tried a random webcite from a non-vG article and had no problem. It's not an ad blocking thing either (I checked on a fresh browser profile w/o those options). --MASEM (t) 03:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned on the GameSpot or Giant Bomb forums or something? GamerPro64 03:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
We probably should try to figure out what exactly is injecting the video, which I'm not a skilled JS programmer so I cannot figure that out. I'm going to ask over at WPT to see if anyone can help. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, that's not going to help, that's more for WP base issues. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to bring this in, but Wayback Machine has a similar problem for me with those sites, but if I stop it loading before it's completed, the clip doesn't play. I tried a clean-up of my browsers and systems, but it made no difference. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've spotted an additional problem with GamePro articles on Webcite, the article is present, but the java code renders the text as invisible on the screen. - X201 (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've experienced that same problem with IGN. I thought it would clear itself up, but it's persisted over several weeks. 1UP and YouTube do not seem to have that problem. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Query about Prince (Prince of Persia)[edit]

I've been doing work on the article above, and currently the only major thing bothering me is the image. I tried to upload something, but it is not transparent, and I don't have the stuff on my computer to make the necessary changes. Can someone help me with that? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - X201 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@X201:, many many thanks. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Dark Souls series[edit]

Hi, I recently created the page Dark Souls (series) for the Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 2 and Dark Souls 3 games as well as the related Bloodborne and King's Field (series) games. The page was recently patrolled by DangerousJXD, but it is very bare and I could use help from anyone willing to fill in the article. Osh33m (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the term "Souls series" is more commonly used; the name "Dark Souls series" seems to imply that only the DaS line of games is included, excluding games such as DeS. --benlisquareTCE 05:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be better yeah, just might have to move the Soul (series) article to Soulcalibur (series), to ease confusion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think confusion would be an issue; there is enough difference between non-plural Soul series (a la Soul Calibur) and plural Souls series (a la Dark Souls) for there to be adequate distinction, plus that's also the purpose of articles having hatnotes such as {{confused}} at the very beginning. --benlisquareTCE 05:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems that the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME would be "Souls series", since this is the name most commonly used on gaming websites, internet forums, and among the western (non-Japanese) DaS and DeS fanbases. Compare 270,000 hits for "souls series" and 134,000 hits for "dark souls series", not to mention the latter doesn't even have enough data to be represented on Google Trends, while the former does. The only advantage of "Dark Souls (series)" that I can think of would be that it's less confusing given that Soul (series) exists, but as I've mentioned earlier, there's no technical limitations and generally a hatnote can suffice (e.g. GALILEO vs Galileo). --benlisquareTCE 06:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, only brought that up as a suggestion, but I still think that article should go under "Soulcaliber series" regardless. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay I guess I don't have an argument for changing the name back but I'll explain that I named it Dark Souls in the first place because most of the games in the series was named as such. Anyways, could some editors please assist in filling in the article please? Osh33m (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Corpse Party[edit]

Someone might want to take a look at this (permalink). Does this person have a point, or are they just making stuff up? I have only played some of the first game, so I can't know for sure, but I kinda doubt it's true... and considering PEGI only gave the games a 16 rating and didn't even mention sex it seems unlikely. Still, would be nice if someone more knowledgeable than me looked at it.--IDVtalk 09:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't easily find any sources that go into this, oddly enough. If someone can, feel free to add such information in a reception-section. Right now, the article is lacking information on encyclopedic reception, so obviously, it also lacks information on controversy surrounding the game, if such exists. Whether or not the game is immoral doesn't matter to us: we just have to make clear what reliable sources have said about the game. ~Mable (chat) 09:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I've played the original Corpse Party many years ago. The IP editor's just writing a load of meaningless bullshit, ignore and move on. Surely reading his edit history with a string of flamebait edits and talkpage BLP violations would have made it obvious that we have a troll here? --benlisquareTCE 11:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Welp, didn't even think to check their edit history. Thanks for pointing it out. --IDVtalk 11:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention the obvious fact that XSEED wouldn't touch the series with a 10 foot pole if it was anywhere near as indecent as that.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Second Life articles[edit]

Do we really need so many articles about Second Life? See Template:Second Life where there are a number of poorly sourced or just poorly written articles that seem like they could be consolidated into fewer with less sprawling coverage. Having not played the game or looked at these articles before I'm not sure where to start with this and wondered if anyone with experience could share their opinion. Sam Walton (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm only skimming some of the articles, but surprisingly, most of them have decently sized reference lists. Recreation in Second Life being an obvious exception, and depending on whether there are sources for it, it could be proposed for deletion (or whatever the protocol is). Looking at Real estate (Second Life), however, I see that most - if not all - of the sources are either primary or unreliable (blogs). Again, depending on whether sources do or don't exist, it should probably go through a deletion thing. Others, like the Arts in Second Life article, are harder to quickly decide on. It has some blog posts and primary sources as well as more unusual sources of varying reliability...
As you can see, I'm not too sure of how this goes into work, but it does seem some don't make it through our notability guidelines and any notable information should be moved to the Second Life article. ~Mable (chat) 10:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a veritable mess. The few I spot checked had questionable sources and atrocious prose. Next step is to review each article individually for the reliability of its sources. If it's mostly from Linden Lab (primary source) and blogs, I'd redirect/merge it on the spot. If it's more questionable, collect the evidence and either bring it here for a second opinion. We likely can avoid AfD with the whole lot, as redirects are cheap. Short answer is yes, it looks like many of them can be consolidated, but not without discretion. – czar 17:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I just went ahead with the recreation article, as it had no reliable sources at all. ~Mable (chat) 17:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
A lot of those lists articles to me read like a split between a game guide and a tourism guide/business directory, neither which are appropriate content for WP regardless of how well they can be source. Where we can note real world businesses that have set up in SL, that can be part of a brief list on a broader article on the topic if not at the main SL page. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Citoid and video game site references[edit]

mw:Citoid appears to be the future of referencing on WP. Short of it is: enter a URL, it uses a Zotero "translator" to scrape the page's metadata, Citoid compiles the citation for insertion. Logical process. Only problem is that most VG sites do not play well with the scraper since no one has written a translator. Wanted to bring this to the project in case someone interested in coding or sources might want to take it up as a project. We would all save a lot of time by using Citoid/Zotero over our current manual methods. (I wrote a Chrome plug-in for Polygon citations—my source of choice—but I'm a novice at this and wouldn't have time to look at it for many weeks.) @X201, PresN, and Thibbs – czar 17:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If we could get appropriate translations for Polygon/TheVerge, Kotaku, Gamasutra, IGN, Eurogamer/USGamer, Game Informer, and Gamespot, that would be like 80% of the basic references I'd use. It would make to have a targetted list of sources we use regularly to avoid an extensive wishlist. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to count at Special:LinkSearch but your list covers most of my needs. I'd add Metacritic and VG247 to the bottom of the wish list. – czar 17:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Those seem to be the most important ones, yes. I might add Nintendo Life to the list, simply because I happen to run into it a lot, as well as Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun. I kinda doubt I'd ever use the function, though, seeing as how used I am to manually build up citations. I'm sure it will be quite useful for videogame reviews, though, where the same sources always pop up. ~Mable (chat) 18:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There's also GamesRadar and The Escapist that can work for this. Could this also work out with video defunct websites like allgame or Joystiq? GamerPro64 20:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, it can work on any site—the above was a matter of priorities – czar 22:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little busy just at present, but I think it sounds like a great idea. I recognize my own feelings in Maplestrip's comment. I've been a manual ref-builder for a long time and old habits die hard. But as someone a few years ago said, "my feelings about this are constantly evolving". I do see a lot of value to consistently structured data between citations. I've been making an effort to use citation templates when I can and I think some kind of automated citation manager like Zotero is probably the logical next step. Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on this. -Thibbs (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm also super busy, so I couldn't touch it for another week (a laptop at my mother-in-law's house is not the best coding environment), but I'm really interested in working on this. I also do manual citations, but I'd be willing to give it a shot to one-click the process. Now, if we could add in automatic archiving... --PresN 19:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can do one site as a template, I can help figure out others—I have no idea how to debug this type of thing but I know how to stumble around in a template. @Hahnchen mentioned User:WebCiteBOT above. I think that would be the smartest way to handle archiving. – czar 22:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Still issues with Sega articles[edit]

I'm only sporadically active on WP at the moment, and I haven't been following things as closely as I had been doing. But after a quick check of my watchlist, it is evident that User:Tripple-ddd is still trying to brute-force in their way, with the exact same disregarding of consensus - and that's not all of the diffs I can find. Can someone please give them a final warning? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

They were already warned and blocked last week. Unfortunately, they are still adamant on making huge changes to articles which other editors contest. Given how much edit warring and content disputes are happening on these articles, it might be worth requesting full page protection on some them. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked him again, since he immediately returned to the exact things that got him blocked the first time around. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Troy Baker's credit list[edit]

I was reading a Polygon interview with Troy Baker, when this bit jumped out at me (emphasis mine): "[People] start ascribing these roles to us when we're not in it. There's so many things on my IMDb and Wikipedia that I'm like, I never did that." Wait, what? Does anyone think we might want to do some bit-by-bit deep review of what Troy Baker is credited for in his article, make sure everything's true and sourced? I know he may have just been using Wikipedia as an example without being aware of specific inaccuracies, but I can't help but to shake the feeling we might've let some incorrect OR in!  · Salvidrim! ·  00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This would've been great to use for the Newsletter last quarter. But seriously. The article might need reevaluation. Starting with the unsourced material. GamerPro64 01:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the PlayStation TV a platform?[edit]

There is currently a content dispute that I am involved in which spans across multiple articles related to PlayStation Vita games.

Background

The PlayStation TV is a variant of the PlayStation Vita which does not feature input buttons, a portable battery or a display screen; rather, it connects to a television via HDMI so that a player can play TV-compatible PlayStation Vita games on a television using a DualShock 3 or DualShock 4 controller. It is a fully-fledged PlayStation Vita system, complete with ARM processor chip, dedicated RAM, motherboard connectors, game cartridge slot, and other hardware components, and all of the core components are completely identical to the components found within the portable Vita; even the graphics scaler in the PlayStation TV is identical to that of the portable Vita, per this interview with Sony Computer Entertainment Software Development Director Muneki Shimada and Hardware Planning Division Manager Kiyoto Shibuya. It features the exact identical system software as the PlayStation Vita (see PlayStation Vita system software), and all games within its library are marketed, by Sony, by publishers and by retailers, as "PlayStation Vita games". Of course, not all PS Vita games are compatible with the PlayStation TV, since some games rely extensively on the Vita's touchscreen, camera or gyromotion controls, features which are not supported by the variant device. Hence, some games are marketed as "PlayStation TV-compatible PlayStation Vita games".

No third-party reliable source ever refers to the PlayStation TV as a videogame platform, and thus referring to the PS TV as a platform would fail WP:V and WP:OR policies. Based on the rationale provided above, I am of the opinion that the PlayStation TV is NOT a videogame platform, just like how the Super Game Boy is not a videogame platform.

The dispute

Special:Contributions/Kalsolesse has been adding "Playstation TV" as a videogame platform within the VG infobox to a wide multitude of articles about PlayStation Vita games, including but not limited to Persona 4: Dancing All Night, Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, Killzone: Mercenary, et cetera. In response to an edit warring warning I placed on their user talkpage, they have responded on my talkpage that they intend to "edit the information back in in over 24 hours... If you see fit to revert it again, then I see no other choice but to seek arbitration".

In the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS, I'd like to seek a third opinion, given that I am party to a content dispute, per standard procedure. --benlisquareTCE 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It's not its own platform, its just a variant of the Vita, similar to the Super Game Boy. The PSTV has no exclusive games, and had identical processing hardware. Above all, sources don't refer to it as a separate platform. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I see both sides of this. It seems to me that at the core it's clearly just a variant of the same platform. The pragmatic side of it, however, is that it's potentially helpful to the average reader if the infoboxes actually reflect real game compatibility, i.e. it seems very much reasonable to include clear information somewhere about which games will work on the variant of the platform. One question springs to mind, how has this been handled for past variances in PS platforms, if there's been different subsets of compatibility (e.g. between original PS and much later PSone, and I'm not sure if this issue exists for that case of platform variance)? --Murph9000 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is where WP:NOTGUIDE comes in. Wikipedia isn't meant as a buyer's guide, that's what dedicated gaming websites are for. There are many articles about multiplat games where Vita is listed alongside many others (such as PS3, PS4, XB360, XBO), and it is simply impractical to have every one of these individual game articles denote the compatibility status of the Vita version. Rather than having this on every single game article where it would be WP:UNDUE (why does Vita get special treatment over the others?), such information can be located in a single location, and in fact, it is: List of PlayStation Vita games. There, the PS TV compatibility of each game is clearly stated. This is as best as we can get without negatively impacting each individual game article in terms of WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --benlisquareTCE 12:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree again, for the exact reasons you just mentioned. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Does the same situation exist for any of those other platforms, i.e. games which will only work on variant A and not on variant B? I'm not immediately convinced that WP:NOTGUIDE is relevant, as it makes no mention of "buyer's guide". Having the info clearly available in the list article does satisfy my thought that the information should be included somewhere. The other points are probably reasonable enough. I am, however, still left pondering the question of what harm would it do, if the infobox was allowed to list all platform variants where there is not universal cross-variant compatibility? (i.e. no special treatment for this case, but rather allow infoboxes to include all variant cases where the variant makes a difference.) --Murph9000 (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The closest example would be the aforementioned Super Game Boy, which is not tracked as a separate platform. Basically, we tend to list just the platform it was developed for, not all the platform variations that could also play it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, there has never been a precedent that's exactly equivalent. Sega CD and Sega 32X games are not compatible with the Sega Genesis, however third-party reliable sources consider them separate platforms. These are also hardware add-ons rather than hardware variants, just like the Famicom Disk System and 64DD, which again would make it a unrelated issue to the one we have at hand. Xenoblade Chronicles 3D only works on the New Nintendo 3DS and not the vanilla Nintendo 3DS, however as of present that game is literally the only New 3DS game; meanwhile, the PS TV can play upwards of many hundreds of games.

There are no game compatibility issues between the original PlayStation and the PSone, nor between the original PS2 and the PS2 slim. The original PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 games while the slimmer variants are not, and while the slim PSP versions run games faster due to increased RAM compared to the fat PSP, there are no games which are actually incompatible or unplayable as a result of the negligible hardware difference. Hence, we have a rather unique case on our hands, and I don't think reflecting on other examples would be of much assistance.

In regards to having the information placed conveniently on every game page for readers to view, we can't list the PS TV as a "platform" per WP:V and WP:OR (it's simply not a platform, calling it that would be outright misinformation), which means that we would need a dedicated area for variant device compatibility. However, this issue only affects the Vita platform, and none of the other current platforms, and for a game that is available on PS3, PS4 and a wide variety of others (for example Borderlands 2, which is PS TV compatible), it's simply WP:UNDUE that there are parts dedicated to Vita variant compatibility and irrelevant to the other platforms.

Finally, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are the reasons why we don't have prices within infoboxes for videogames anymore; a long time ago, every single game article contained the launch prices of games for every region, plus system requirements and media formats. I see compatibility notes within these articles as falling within similar territory, a type of "for your information" tidbit that isn't really what an encyclopoedia usually entails. --benlisquareTCE 13:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Games released for one console but playable on others (such as GBA games playable on DS, GBC games playable on NGC's Game Boy Player, XB360 games playable on XBONE, NGC games playable on Wii) only have the console they were released for listed as a platform, while games with separate releases for separate platforms (such as Dr. Mario which have had many releases on many platforms) have all their releases' plaforms listed. The only time I would bother to list PSTV is if a game was released specifically for it.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • tldr, this is a matter of compatibility vs. porting. Feel free to mention its PSTV compatibility in the prose but the infobox only lists platforms that received a port or the original release. Salv covers many other instances of compatibility that don't go in the infobox. – czar 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree, the only reason I can see the PSTV being mentioned in the infobox would be if a game was released for it that could not be played on the Vita. something like 32X exclusives or the small handful of DSI games that could not be played on the DS due to needing the system's camera etc.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Round 2: GameSpot/Giant Bomb archiving issue[edit]

As people might know, there is a problem recently with archiving urls on Wayback Machine and WebCite belonging to GameSpot and Giant Bomb (I don't know about any other sites): instead of archiving the url and showing the page, it redirects to a YouTube clip from an Eddie Murphy comedy routine. The problem is still outstanding. Is there any sign of a solution to this, or any update about what is going on that offers a glimmer of hope? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I sent an email to the technical lead of WebCite but haven't gotten a reply yet. Also, has this been brought up on those two site's forums? Still think its suspect that they're both owned by CBSi but seeing how it doesn't effect Metacritic and GameRankings I have no clue. Also, this is effecting Archive.org, too? GamerPro64 22:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I can say it is a Javascript issue. If you browse with it off, at least Webcite links will display the content; the page rewriting to YT is coming from something in the javascript. I just can't figure out which JS code is doing it but I'm also far from an expert JS programmer to debug what's happening cleanly. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
And to add, what this probably means is that there is a bit of JS code that recognizes that if the page load is either not originating on the website in question or coming specifically from Webcite, that it tells the JS to rewrite the page to the YT video. A live link to a url has this WebCite issue doesn't show any problems. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There's also an issue with normal GameSpot links. Links made before they changed their site layout are broken, but going to GameSpot and searching for the article - even a review - results in zero hits. I'm now having to use Google site search to find the new location of articles on GameSpot servers. - X201 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the issue needs raising on their boards. I'm not a member, so can someone else bring these issues to the attention of the site admin? On a side-note, they were briefly down for maintenance this morning. Just mentioning it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a member either. The problem has been present for a number of weeks. - X201 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy this is bringing back memories. Good times. GamerPro64 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about sourcing an article[edit]

I have been doing some desultory poking around for sources concerning the development of Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. The most outstanding one is a video making-of featurette created by Ubisoft and originally published on the game's official website. The website is now defunct and the videos lost at their original source and in archived captures of their respective pages. The only one from the site I have found on a fully usable site (GameTrailers) is an interview with the character Kaileena's voice actress. The main video (titled Making of Prince of Persia: Warrior Within) can be found in various places online (the best version I found was on YouTube), but it's not published through through Ubisoft's official channels, only on user-based accounts which found and published the videos before the original website closed. Is it possible to use these videos as sources and cite them, or at least use them as a reference for my citation without using a link back to them? I do know how to cite videos, it's just using it in a way that would be acceptable in a good-quality article that's the problem. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You could certainly use {{cite AV media}}. I've done so in the past for citing trailers, video interviews, and making-ofs.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015 TFAs[edit]

So with the influx of more and more video game articles becoming Today's Featured Articles, we got two articles making the front page this month: Sinistar: Unleashed on the 6th, and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within on the 13th. Cheers. GamerPro64 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition, July 24 will see List of Sega 32X games as the day's Featured List. So congrats to ΛΧΣ21, Freikorp, and Red Phoenix! --PresN 03:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread XV: ...Need I say more?[edit]

Once again, we bring back this reviewer/reviewee tool to show what is being neglected, what needs urgent attention, and to barter amongst outselves over who does what and how and when. There is the usual backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests, and contributors are welcome.

FAC
  • Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy - Was nominated on June 1, and seems about finished with completed Image and Source reviews, and four Supports. But putting it up here as we should be thorough.
FT
FL
FP
GANs
Peer reviews
  • L.A. Noire has been up since 17 June and has two small comment sections from two editors.
  • The Last of Us has been up since 19 June with no comments at all.

Begging thread[edit]

Not putting anything here myself, but as usual, here is the place where people can request reviews, either in exchange for something or as a straight-up request for help with something. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Note on Future Publishing articles[edit]

I caught this [6] over at Portal:Video Games, but it appears that they've consolidated all old content under Gamesradar, meaning all url links are broken to these sites. I have not had a chance to affirm, but this would be a serious problem if true. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This was brought up a while ago: discussion. A bunch of CVG urls were archived. But yeah, it's a problem for the other sites. They moved Edge, CVG, OXM, OXMUK, OPM, ONM into GamesRadar so all those links are basically dead or direct to incorrect articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)