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, 115
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

Infobox backlog[edit]

It's been a few months and we now have almost 80 articles sitting in our Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes. I just killed about 25. Feel free to join in – czar 01:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done
98.1% complete
(152/155)
  • Done! thanks to @AdrianGamer and all who pitched in. There was some really old stuff in there—lots of 2008 tags.
Maybe Category:Video game cleanup next? Could we knock 150 down by the end of the month (or before this thread gets archived)? These requests are a bit more vague, so I suspect that many articles won't need much cleanup at all (besides the maintenance tag removed). – czar 07:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
137.3% complete
(206/150)
  • All right, another milestone down! Do you think we can kill the whole Category:Video game cleanup queue (400 articles) by the end of September? Feel free to jump in wherever: just make the article minimally presentable, remove uncited text and trivia (or add citations), and remove the cleanup tag. – czar 08:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
14% complete
(56/400)

Using "easier" titles?[edit]

Hi everybody,

I haven't been very active lately, so if this is a thing I must've missed it. Yesterday I edited the article on Saints Row IV, which has been partially reverted by @Czar:. For some reason the article uses 4 instead of the Roman numerals IV, which I changed to, in my opinion, to the correct IV. Czar said in their edit summary: ""SR4" should be fine, as it's what many of the sources use, easier to write than the official title". Is this a thing now? Street Fighter 4, Final Fantasy 7, Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link? The Metal Gear Solid games are titled 2 through 4, but Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain have the Roman V. Or to stay on Saints Row, some sources went for Saints Row 3, instead of The Third, can we now use that too? --Soetermans. T / C 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a poor reason to arbitrarily change the official title of the game. "Easier to write"? It's Roman numerals, not a dead language. This only leads to consistency issues. In fact, in that revision of Saints Row IV 4 and IV is used interchangeably throughout so it's not even properly enforced. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. That's not how we handle any of the Final Fantasy games, the last time I checked. I mean, its fine for redirects, but that kind of flies squarely against WP:COMMONNAME and our efforts to stay consistent within articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't think it's that cut and dried. The sources predominantly used "Saints Row 4" and "SR4" throughout their articles rather than "Saints Row IV" despite the latter being the official name. (The official name is not always the common name.) The "IV" is more of a stylized trademark than the common name—RS may use it in titles but generally not throughout their reviews. I felt that it was a fine editorial decision to use "IV" as the official name in the lede and as the article title but to use "4" throughout the article, which would be similar in practice to what the RS did. – czar 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there much of a precedent for handling it like this though? I was under the impression that we wanted to stay consistent with whatever the article is titled (outside of listing long subtitles over and over again, etc) in the prose. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No, but it worked, and it was fine for GAN. I raised it at MOSTM and they recommend just going with the common name. IV is fine for now and I'll bring up a RM in the future if warranted – czar 16:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:NCVG#Games item 4 says to use the official numerator. This is contrasted by items 5 and 2 in the same section (5: consistent within series even if differing numeral types--not sure we follow this one at all; and 2: use most common name) and given an interesting exception by WP:NCVG#General item 1 (1: prefer most specific convention where conventions conflict). Perhaps WP:NCVG needs a look (explicitly on these points). --Izno (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Sergecross73. Between the generally serious tone of, say, Edge or Game Informer and the more casually and entertaining approach of, say, Kotaku or Giant Bomb, I do believe Wikipedia should maintain a formal tone. Even if codblops is easier to write than Call of Duty: Black Ops :) --Soetermans. T / C 11:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would make an argument that "codblops" is the game's common name. And Saints Row 4 is just as "formal" as Saints Row IV... so I'm not sure what you mean. It's more a matter of style and usage in RS (common name) than of gamerized concatenations. – czar 16:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Article review[edit]

Hi. I recently created page GTANet.com. And I need some help. I'm wondering if there are enough references. Also I'd love to hear some tips on how to improve it.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, I was actually going to post this here myself, to see if there was anyone who was interested in looking into it. I'm not not really into GTA or writing articles about websites, so I'm not the best for actually working on the article. My extent was just advising on policy. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Salvidrim. Yes, Sergecross73 gave me very good tips on how to improve article and I'm following his guidelines. Since than I added a lot of references that are third party and are discussing and referring to GTANet.com. Of course it will be very hard to find news article which are discussing sole GTANet content without mentioning GTA. Google news give a wide coverage over GTAForums (GTANet), but many are only mentions. However I managed to find few good sources, I believe. Some of them are: BBC one (Hot Coffee), International Business Times (article about tool on GTANet), April Fools' Day joke covered by n4g and qj, DigitalTrends (Google street view of GTA provided by GTANet). Any further tips will be welcome.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that meets our notability or verifiability requirements. I've started a discussion at Talk:GTANet.com#Notability. Woodroar (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The BBC one does not mention GTANet as a place where mod was hosted, however gives information on something that is a content of GTANet, GTAModding. On right side of article there are references and the second one, below Illspirit, there is GTAForums. This source serves for what it was put on. Claim that GTANet has developed modding community as Illspirit is one of GTANet modding staff. The IBT one, the whole article was written based on content that was found on GTAForums and it serves the claim that GTAForums is active in predicting new content. For April Fools', originally the whole story was transferred to media by Whatifgaming, however it is not possible to reach the article no more. When talking about trivial mentions you need to understand that many sites listed in reference list literally wrote gtanet or gtaforums once, however whole article was based on rewriting of something made by gtaforums. No one can affect on how many times they will use word gtaforums while writing article based on solely something found there.

For subject like this, fansite or forum, it is not possible just to say: there are no verifiable content because article makers didn't write: GTANET is a website and I am going to make thousand words essay on its features while mentioning word gtaforums at least 100 times. It is not possible to find such sources, no one will do that for any forum. For the coverage of content GTANet has, I believe GTANet is notable enough to be here. Besides, coverage on that April fools' joke satisfies that field to some point. I'm also considering the influence this fansite had on GTA itself which I referenced in many sources.

I'm using mostly google news and books for finding sources. Could anyone suggest me some alternative to this. Thanks. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Try the video game reliable sources custom Google search – czar 16:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! It provided me a lot of links. I was able to find some sources for which I believe fit WP:N for primary and secondary sources. I'd love to hear feedback. List is in my sandbox.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters?[edit]

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus here is coming out pretty overwhelmingly "No, in fact they're standard." The only issue is whether the MoS or MOS:FICTION should state this explicitly or whether it's so obvious and the problem so minor that it can be expected to go without saying. Contributions are still welcome. If you know of any edit wars or other conflicts that have arisen because someone wanted to change "a character who" to "a character, which/that," then please contribute. If you know that this problem is rare, please come say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

RetroN[edit]

Hi, I created the page for the console RetroN but I can't find any references for the RetroN 1 and 2. I don't know if I'm looking in the wrong places or using the wrong search terms. Could some people please help me with this? Anarchyte 08:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Coverage seems meager, there are a few video reviews for the Retron 2 on Youtube. Here's a pre-release reference on Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/5916563/behold-the-retron-2-a-machine-that-is-both-an-nes-and-a-snes. Considering the Retron 2 came out after the Retron 3, and is 'only' a cheaper version for NES/SNES without the capability to play Genesis games, that would explain why not many people bothered with reviewing it and major news ignored it. Technical specifications for models 1,2,3,5 can be found on the company's website (looks like only the 5 has HDMI output and the other ones have S-video and/or Composite AV outputs, so the current intro of the article is a bit misleading). Rh73 (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A model 4 doesn't seem to exist (no mention on the company website or internet). My guess is that they skipped to '5' because that one plays games from 5 major systems (Gameboy, NES, SNES, Famicom, Genesis; 10 subsystems in total). Rh73 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Oops, there are pre-release references for the #4. But no mention on the company site, nor any post-release reviews (not even forums, blogs, youtubers), which is a bit unusual. Was this project cancelled? Rh73 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-free video game screenshot rationale[edit]

The template for the canned NFC rationale for video game screenshots has been nominated for deletion [1]. However, I think I've offered arguments for why it needs to be kept which the nominator has agreed are reasonable, which boils down to the fact that the "purpose" (the part for meeting NFCC#8) of this template is terribly poor and while the intent is there, it really should have a stronger "default" position. So I don't think this will be deleted (so this is not a call to participate there), but instead that we do need to come up with a better "purpose" rationale language or choice of language that is better than "to show what the game looks like". This is based on the fact that nearly every video game article, that as long as it is notable, has sourcable discussion of gameplay, and for that, the image helps to explain gameplay. There may be more reasons beyond that in other cases, obviously, and when better rationales can be provided they should be, but the default gameplay-demonstration reason needs to be much better. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the discussion, the purpose of this template is to fill out a main NFCC template - not to replace it. The NFCC template is the canonical template used for all fair-use images, and this template is simply a helper to reduce the amount of work required to generate a rationale for images that are being used in common ways. Used properly, this template results in a real NFCC template, and any editor can then go and alter the text in the resulting template. As such, improving the generic descriptions will affect future images that are rationalized with this template, but would not affect existing ones.
I think that we can go one of several ways with this:
  1. Simply improve the text or add more options to make this helper more specific - we should be careful not to make it too complex, because at that point it would be easier to just manually type the entries into the main template than to use this one.
  2. Turn this into an actual template that is intended to partially replace the NFCC template. This would involve getting approval from the folks who monitor image use so they can include this template in the set of allowed templates when they patrol images.
  3. Delete this template outright and instruct users to go back to filling out the NFCC template by hand.
Given that the need for this helper has likely waned quite a bit since I first wrote it, and it was intended just as a way to save time and effort, I don't feel too strongly that it needs to be kept. I think it served its purpose when we had a huge surge of images without proper fair-use rationales and apparently looser rules on what text was acceptable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think #3 is reasonable considering how often this same rationale is invoked. I'm for a combination of the first two, and would prefer not substituting the template (#2) so as to make future maintenance easier. – czar 15:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think #3 is fair too - or at least deprecating it. Unfortunately, because the template is linked in the screenshot license template, I can't easily tell how many instances of the template are not subst (as they were supposed to) to know how many to fix as to "freeze" this template before we consider deletion and switch over to recommending just using a standard NFC approach. (Though we should adjust guidelines to explain what to include in such rationals specific to video games). If this was a small task , like under a 100 images to fix this way, we could clean that up quickly and move to deletion. But right now I'd recommend deprecation until we have a better handle. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Can articles with in-game screen snaps be FA?[edit]

I was under the impression that articles can only go to FA if all the images in it are permissive. Halo has a number of screen snaps that are clearly marked Fair Use. Is there a special-case rider for these articles? Or is the article in question from before the permissive licensing became an issue? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The featured article criteria states that "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly". As long as the fair use rationale is completed fully and appropriately, I believe non-free media is allowed. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no requirement that a FA VG article has to only use free media. NFCC has to be met, meaning that typically only the game cover and one screenshot can get by as somewhat standard elements, any additional screens need to have clear context to be included. We'd like you to try to get free media particularly if it is a small indie studio in control of their own work, but there's no requirement for that. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. I've actually removed some images from FA entrants because I was told otherwise as part of the FAC. I'll wise up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
What FACs were those? I'd be curious to what the reasoning was. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a requirement for any image appearing on the main page to be free-for-use, which may be a/the point of confusion. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is that one. But when that's the only one you have... in the case of Halo, what would be the solution? No image at all? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture of a key develop or development team? In the case of Halo, pictures of people cosplaying as Master Chief? (Which we do have at commons, I know there's some guidance on where and when this is not a copyright issue). --MASEM (t) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There have been FAs with no image on the Main Page. Seorsumuscardinus was the most recent. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread 17: Er... we don't have anything applicable yet[edit]

I think we know the drill for now: listed below are all the unclaimed GANs, featured content reviews, and other objects such as peer reviews. As a matter of course, and hoping this continues to whittle the list down, users willing to reduce the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests are welcome.

FPC
GTC
GAN
Peer Reviews/Other
FAR

Begging thread[edit]

I'll begin this by saying that I'll leave comments on anyone's Peer Review for comments in the Peer Review for Persona. Still a little flaked from a bit of a recent GA marathon, so not feeling fit to take on reviewing GAs at the moment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I know it's only been up at GAN for a couple of days, but I'd love it if someone could take a look at Labyrinth for me. The article's pretty clean—it should be a fast review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not have much things to trade, but I have few articles sitting at the reassessment category. Would be great if someone can carry out a reassessment for them. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

IGN wiki and date reliability[edit]

I sometimes see IGN wiki landing pages (e.g., [2]) cited for release dates, and I usually see them removed. Where do these release dates come from? Are they reliable or are they coming from a user-submitted database? Are they coming from the same database that IGN uses in its own article review infoboxes? The same database that lists all games made by a dev/publisher? I don't recall seeing a discussion about the dates provenance and whether they should be cited as reliable. Was the site redesigned recently? I remember the dates appearing much more obvious as user-submitted, but I'm not that familiar with IGN's backend – czar 17:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know myself too, if anyone finds out. I've only used it typically when working on things like 90's video games, where it can be hard to track down release dates that don't trace back to Gamefaqs, and its varied from exactly right to "obviously wrong", so I've tried to use it sparingly... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they are "user-submitted" but it doesn't mean they should be taken as true without exception. I've seen "fudged" dates; such as games which were released, say, "Fall 1996" but we don't know when exactly, but for which IGN presents a specific date such as "September 1st, 1996". I don't trust this date specifically, but this mistrust is definitely OR, so unless we have better sources, Wikipedia policies probably say we should use and cite that date.  · Salvidrim! ·  17:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Psychonauts[edit]

Given a recent republished post-mortem for the game on Gamasutra, I've been able to fill out Psychonauts's development, and have done a whole bunch of other cleanup, so it should be rather close to GA. I'd like a tiny bit of help trying to flesh out the review and award sections (including if necessary trimming out non-notable/sourceable awards), but this should be pretty much it of any difficulty within the project's guidelines. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A thought: Using non-breaking spaces in console/platform names[edit]

AFter coming across an article where "Wii U" was line-wrapped at the space between those, I checked that the MOS does suggest that in some cases like this (their example is the Boeing 747) that we use the NBSP character to avoid this break. I would argue that this definitely applies to the Wii U, but would also apply to any console name where the second word is four letters or shorter, so Nintendo 3DS, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, Playstation 3, 4, or Vita for example. It should not apply to longer names like the Magnavox Odyssey. This might be something to stick into our guidelines to be consistent. (I'm sure that for FA and PR this is picked up but doing it from the start might help). This also should apply to game titles where the last word is short or often a number (ala Mass Effect 3). --MASEM (t) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't see why not. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Support, but could we make a template for that? {{NBSP|Wii U|Magnavox Odyssey}} -> Wii U, Magnavox Odyssey? --CAS222222221 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I could see doing this for the console/platform names via a single template, maybe {{pl|Wii U}} --MASEM (t) 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
How is this going to be different than {{Nowrap}}? --PresN 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Scope question[edit]

Does this page fall under the scope of Rockstar wikiproject? Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the article certainly falls under the scope of the WikiProject, but I'm not quite sure if it's suitable for Wikipedia yet. A lot of it reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedic article (particularly sentences like "Their effect ... varies from mod to mod. For example, a specific mod may replace the model of the player's character with a fire breathing cat, while some other will spawn unfriendly zombies"), and there's quite a few grammar mistakes. I also think that the "Favorite GTA mods" section is a bit unnecessary. However, the references are pretty impressive, and there's a considerable amount of coverage there, so I think the article might meet the notability guidelines. I think we might be able to determine its standing on this site after a basic copyedit. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. I'm pretty much wikipedia noob so I probably did do a lot of mistakes when it comes to copyediting. I'll be looking to fix it. For Favorite GTA mods, I added it to provide some sort of list for most media coveraged single mods, but it might be unneeded. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean when an article is bolded on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts‎[edit]

Some articles have their links bolded and others don't, why is this? Anarchyte 10:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think any new additions since the previous edit are bolded. Also any alerts that have their status changed (AfD closed, GAN promoted/failed, PROD deleted/deproded, etc.) since the previous edit are bolded. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Freedom Planet[edit]

Is anyone willing to help bring Freedom Planet up to date? I left a message on the talk page a couple of weeks ago expressing my concerns, and Tezero hasn't been around. I tried emailing him as well. I hate to bring it to WP:FAR based on what shouldn't be too much work, so I'm asking here before going there. --Laser brain (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take care of it. JAGUAR  12:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)