Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk


New articles - 30 December[edit]

24 December

25 December

26 December

27 December

28 December

29 December

30 December

Salavat (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 6 January[edit]

27 December

28 December

31 December

1 January

2 January

3 January

4 January

5 January

6 January

Salavat (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

FFVII possible FA push[edit]

Hi there. I'm wondering as, given that a huge new article has appeared on Polygon and it's the titles twentieth anniversary, there might be a collaborative effort between editors to bring this title to to FA standard, then return it to its rightful place. I must say here and now that starting from around mid-January I'll have very pressing real-world concerns that will bar me from extensive work on any part of Wikipedia until the beginning of February at the latest (not wikibreak strictly, just not much time to do long bouts of editing). I would be more than happy to take on the Synopsis (which needs trimming I think), Development and Release sections, and others can take on elements such as Gameplay and Reception. It's not a project for the immediate future, but at some point in the next month or two. Opinions? --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the reasons it was delisted and other reviews since, I'm guessing the big things are the rather large Synopsis section, and the use of a number of unreliable/questionable sources for the rest of the article, which should be aided by the Polygon piece. Is there anything major that i'm missing? (Obviously anything new from the Polygon article should be added). --MASEM (t) 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: Yep, those appear to be the main reasons. I'll take great pleasure cutting the Synopsis down to size. As to dev sources, if there is anything missing that can be reliably sourced, I'll find it. Other VII-related articles (the whole project is at GA-status aside from Characters and Remake now) can also be mined for suitable references where applicable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd be interested in helping out as long as other editors are interested. Would be nice to see an article be worked on as a collective here in the project. Don't remember the last time that happened. GamerPro64 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@GamerPro64: That's the whole idea.
I'd be willing to rewrite the lead and cleanup the infobox and images. TarkusAB 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: That would be a great contribution. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, and Tintor2: Thank you all, a much better response than I was expecting. If you could all chip in when I'm properly free again (which as I said would be beginning of February at the latest), then this article would be FA-ready before the year is out. I think, when the time comes, the article's talk page will make a good base for which to discuss things like what citation format we're using and such, or to request help from each other for minor points within the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm in. I'll write the reception section as it looks like it needs expanding and paraphrasing, as long as others are dedicated in bringing this to FA too. It would be good to have a collaboration. Will we all be co-noms in the FAC? JAGUAR  11:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jaguar: That would be great. I'm not sure whether we'll be co-noms, but considering how this would turn out, I think it would be best. It would avoid the wrong people being called in as reviewers and show that it was a collaborative effort. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
That's good, I was just making sure as I already have another FAC running at the moment and will have another one soon. I'll re-write the reception section and will give it a lot more depth so that it meets the FA criteria, at least. I also wouldn't mind helping with anything else but I'm not a Final Fantasy expert! JAGUAR  12:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been maintaining it ever since around the Remake was announced, and will be around to continually do so. I don't get too into all the GA/FA stuff, but I'll be around to tweak parts and take part in discussions like usual. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've started with a minor re-write of the lead, and will later add a bit more to the music subsection (and the dedicated article for it). I'll also keep a lookout for any new images that would be relevant to the article, which the article could use a bit more of. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Added new content to the music article, and will make a new summary section for the main FF7 article soon. May also revamp the music article; it's definitely showcasing the change in my article writing ability since 2008. --PresN 15:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting creating the expanded/tidied development/release sections in my sandbox for later application to the main article. I'll incorporate the Music article's tidying into it. Am I still handling the story section tidying? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Rewrote the Music section. --PresN 21:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, and Sergecross73: I've generally expanded and sourced the development section. Copyedits welcome. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Nice work. The only thing that bothers me is that the setting section has comparisons between areas from the game and real life places which count as WP:OR.Tintor2 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: It's pretty much sorted now. I've rewritten the setting section, redone the characters section, and severely trimmed the plot section. It's now a concise four-paragraph read rather than an eye-crossing four-paragraph read. Makes you realize how radical the plot was for the 1990s. I mean, it dealt with trauma-induced psychotic amnesia. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake:, lol and Square still revisited a decade later with Crisis Core. Still, I don't have much to say. You really nailed it. Also, I'll be on a wikibreak starting tomorrow due to holidays and I won't use my tablet due to the reverts you know I accidentally made. I think I may be back on February. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to work on the lead this weekend. Given the variety of topics covered on the page, there is a lot to summarize but may need a good four paragraphs. I may also do some work on the gameplay section, seems no one has touched it yet.TarkusAB 04:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Jaguar, and Sergecross73: I've finished what I intended to do with the article when I first proposed this collaborative effort: I've expanded and rewritten the Development and Release sections, and rewritten and trimmed the Synopsis section. This only really leaves the gameplay, reception and legacy. If anyone needs help with things like sources, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page, and I'll do my best to help. When the time comes for the FA nomination, I'll do my best to be there to help address reviewer issues. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I will do gameplay either this weekend or next. TarkusAB 19:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Word of caution regarding the Nintendo Switch[edit]

Tonight in about 13 hrs from my typing of this, Nintendo will be live-streaming its major Switch reveal (pricing, specs, etc.) followed by a Treehouse for games to be released. The usual cautions about rushing to create articles solely on a single announcement point should apply. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Need to keep an eye on List of Nintendo Switch games as well as the main article. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll be keeping an eye on both. The games list is protected through the 17th because people kept on re-adding hoaxes or the unconfirmed tech demos in, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Another set of articles to watch for is Eighth generation of video game consoles and potentially Ninth generation of video game consoles. Note that the media have yet to classify the Switch, but we have IPs and others trying to do so already. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Along with most of the video game console articles like home video game console and the (currently redirect) hybrid video game console. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI the ninth gen page page was admin-level salted due to it being repeatedly recreated there and at some other name variations throughout 2016. It's still good to be on the lookout though, as people always try to start up pages at different variations of wording to get around the protection. (Like History of video game consoles (ninth generation), Ninth generation of video gaming etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
To get a heads up on rumor control, we have a 4chan-claimed list of the EU titles confirmed for the Switch. There are some ones on there that look odd (Persona 5), so keep mind nothing has been officially stated yet. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, seems unlikely, considering the Atlus Community Manager said there was no Switch version last week. But I guess we'll see soon enough. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Masem - Did you mean Disgaea 5? (Which would be equally bizarre I suppose.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Er, yeah. Getting my "5" sequels confused. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Identifying Game of the Year nom/winners for the YYYY in video gaming pages[edit]

While adding the DICE award noms that came out today, and recalling what pages like 2016 in video gaming looked like, I would like to suggest that like the film page do (see 2016 in film for example) that we include a short table that lists the games that were nominated and won for Game of the Year from the major awards, specifically the GDC, the AIAS DICE, the BAFTA Game Awards, the Japan Game Awards(*) and the Spike Video Game Awards/The Game Awards. I would strictly limit it to the GotY winner and nominations as there is a far gap of categories otherwise, whereas something like the film awards have a number of common categories. This gives an at-a-glance the top games, which works in association with the metacritic table that I see the 2016 year page has.

(*) While most of these other awards work on the calendar year, the Japan Game Awards works from April to March. But as the bulk of that is in the prior year, I would assign those to the previous year - eg the upcoming 2017 ceremony would be have the games included in the 2016 year page. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: I threw something together for 2015 in video gaming (sans the Japan Game Awards), but I'm not sure if it's too convoluted or complicated. Game awards are definitely less straightforward than film awards. Perhaps, as you suggest, simply including Game of the Year winners and nominees is a better choice. I figured I'd share what I created though, just for discussion. Let me know. – Rhain 11:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I quite like this table, Rhain! I'd be somewhat worried about what award ceremonies are the "major" ceremonies, because listing four awards this prominently would strongly establish them as "the four biggest and most important awards in the industry." I don't know well enough what alternatives there are, though, and as far as I know, this looks good! ~Mable (chat) 13:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I do think this works, the categories actually do overlap better than I expected. And it does capture that year in gaming better than just the GotY ones. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
One thing on a second look: I would not definitely not colspan like you do for Ori; it should be listed separately even if all four awards named the game in that category. The rowspan only makes sense when you have a split row like for the Mobile/Handheld and one or more awards do not split that. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: 2016 in film also uses colspan for similar purposes, which is where I borrowed it from, but I understand your concern. – Rhain 22:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

TWINE disambiguation[edit]

Revisiting the decision to split The World is Not Enough (video game) into different Nintendo 64 and PlayStation articles, how should the remaining incoming links be disambiguated? There are several voice actors with credits for it, and IMDb only has one entry for all versions of the game. Is anyone familiar enough with both games to identify which actors worked on which version? What should be done in situations where links apply to both games? Add two credits? Nick Number (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think both games share the same actors and I wouldn't trust IMDb because it works like a Wiki and anyone can edit it. I'll try to disambiguate the above links by checking the end credits of both games when I have some time today or tomorrow. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, they share the same actors, as per these two videos: N64 @ 2:15 and PS1 @ 0:58. So I would add two credits in every voice actor article. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've disambiguated the remaining links. Nick Number (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, nice work. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 13 January[edit]

5 January

7 January

8 January

9 January

10 January

11 January

12 January

13 January

Salavat (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Tron 2.0 and Alien Hominid keep getting vandalized![edit]

I have a problem. It seems that the Tron 2.0 and Alien Hominid articles keep getting vandalized by IP editors! They keep removing almost all the reviewers and the "na = true" bit from Reception charts, and they keep creating the macOS redirects in the Tron 2.0 article! I keep trying to fix the articles by undoing their vandalisms, but these editors keep undoing my fixes and claiming I "butchered" the Reception charts! Here are the links for both articles. Can you please tell the IP editors to stop butchering both articles and protect them from vandalism by IP editors? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone listening to my plea? I truly hate IP editors like and, who always undo my fixes and claim that I keep "butchering" the Reception charts when I do not! And they always recreate redirects to pages and sabatoge my good fixes! Can somebody do something? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried any talk page discussions with them? They've reverted you only twice on Alien Hominid, which isn't enough to warrant page protection yet. I'm not even entirely sure it's vandalism - they appear to have some issue with the formatting or size of the reception section or something? Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I tried blanking the Reception charts in hopes that the IP editors would see that the sizing issues with the Reception chart would disappear, but they STILL undid my hiding the Reception charts and sabatoging my good fixes, ALWAYS removing "na = true" from multi-platform Reception charts and recreating redirects to macOS in the Tron 2.0 article! What gives?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I stumbled across that. I found it very confusing. You both seem to be arguing over a variation of a review box, and then you put the "hidden comment" formatting around the whole thing? That doesn't really make any sense. If you're capable of starting a new discussion here, then you should have no problem talking it over with the actual IP. At least at Alien Hominid, their edits don't appear to be vandalism. Quite frankly,both versions of the review box look pretty ugly and flawed if you ask me. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
"Is anyone listening to my plea?" Why do you always do this? Being dramatic doesn't make things happen faster. GamerPro64 22:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • These revisions ([1] [2]) have like 40 scores in the review table. That's too many. We don't need to cite every review in existence to write a well rounded reception section. Start by a writing a reception section first, then put the scores of the reviews you use in the table. Also having a giant table with many empty cells looks messy and unprofessional. The multiplatform table should just be scrapped imo, it's never looked good. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wipeout covers[edit]

See: User talk:Mika1h#Wipeout covers. User:Jaguar wants to change the cover arts of Wipeout (video game) and Wipeout 2097 from PS1 ones to Saturn ones, because in his opinion they are "more presentable" and they "improve readability". First, "more presentable" is entirely subjective. Second, Saturn covers "improve readability" only because they are super high resolution which goes against the non-free use rationale. Third, there is guideline for not changing the cover art if a one already exists: WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. See images here: File:Wipeout cover.jpg & File:Wipeout 2097 cover.jpg. Original covers uploaded in 2008 were deleted for being orphaned. --Mika1h (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I requested File:Wipeout Coverart.png to be undeleted at WP:REFUND. I don't think this is a suitable venue. I thought whether FFD is needed probably due to edit warring. Meanwhile, I thought about pushing the Saturn image into the body for temporary use until the matter is settled. George Ho (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC); consensus speaks for itself. 20:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Same for File:WipEout2097Cover.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The covers should be reverted to the Playstation versions. Not only were those covers uploaded first, Wipeout is more closely tied to the playstation platform anyway. Jaguar's reasoning is entirely subjective, and the change in cover is a waste of time. - hahnchen 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with @Hahnchen, they should be changed back, since both Wipeout and Wipeout 2097 were originally released for PS1 before they were ported to the Saturn. – Hounder4 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Believe me, my reasons weren't subjective in any way. I just have trouble understanding why people think retaining inferior cover artwork are a prima facie reason to keep them. JAGUAR 
At the same time, it seems hard to believe that the average, everyday reader would recognize the Saturn version over the PlayStation version... Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The PlayStation versions were the initial release, were in English regions, and the pictures were there first. They should be kept unless there can be a valid objective argument that these Saturn covers are more significant and a better representation of these games. Also high resolution cover art is against policy. Since it's non-free, per WP:IMAGERES it should be under 100,000 px (that is, the width times the height must be less than 100,000). TarkusAB 20:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: I reinserted both covers per established consensus. Jaguar, can you relent to the establishment and allow me to add {{db-g7}} to both Saturn images please? --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As the original concern was image clarity, I have uploaded new versions of both files for the PlayStation platform, with enhanced visual clarity. Lordtobi () 21:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If another concern is excess, what shall the maximal size be if 325px is not suitable? George Ho (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's fine. I'm in the process of making the Wipeout series a featured topic, and the two Wipeout articles in question here are in pretty poor shape as it is due to them being among my first GAs. I'll get around to rewriting them in a couple of weeks or so. I could have had all of them submitted at GAN after Christmas had it not been for RL matters. The PlayStation covers do need enhancing somewhat, which was another reason why I initially picked the Saturn ones. JAGUAR  22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Current res is too large. If there is concern about image clarity, replace the images with PNG versions. Those tend to have less artifacts than JPGs, but game covers are non-free copyrighted images and therefore should be low resolution. <0.1 megapixel is normally suitable unless consensus suggests otherwise. For a CD size graphic, around 300x300 is pretty good. By default the image is only 220px wide on the page so it's not like you're losing clarity. See WP:IMAGERES for more info. TarkusAB 22:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I started the request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Wipeout video game covers. Go there if you may. --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Old "Video game release new" redirects should be deleted, requesting aid[edit]

Hello, as seen in the merge effort discussion by Ferret above, we have deprecated the use of "Video game release new" and merged its syntax with that of the original "Video game release" template. The three redirects for the former are listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Template:Video game release new and #Template:Vgreleasenew. If you find the time, please leave a comment requesting their deletion in the respective sections. Thank you! P.S.: Unrelated to the above, but also to be deleted for the same reason, are Template:Vgrelease tbl and Template:Vgrtbl-nolink, if you feel like it, please also consider requesting their deletion. Thank you! Lordtobi () 10:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


Looking for more opinions at Talk:Nintendo#Logo. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles about generations of video game consoles and decades of video gaming[edit]

Aside from politics over images (which I have been [or had been before a short break] known for [quoting Serge] "making a mountain out of a molehill"), my bigger concern than images is the quality of general/broad pages about generations of consoles and separate decades of video gaming. I wanted to list a lot of links, but there are too many. "Template:History of video games" provides a lot of links, like First generation of video game consoles, Seventh generation of video game consoles (currently Good Article since 2008), 1970s in video gaming, etc. Some of the pages, like the 1st gen page and the 1970s page, may need substantial improvements. I don't know why the 1980s and 1990s pages are not considered GAs yet. I hope people here can put a lot of effort to make the pages GAs somehow, but I won't pressure you all to do it soon. Take time as you please and all that. To be honest, I did see discussions about NeoGeo and Philips CD-I, but I didn't care much for failed consoles. In fact, in terms of video gaming, I'm more interested in general topics, like the 1980s, 1990s, gens, and other general VG topics. George Ho (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion: Category:Visual novels by year and its subcategories[edit]

For those who wish to partake in the discussion, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Category:Visual novels by year.--IDVtalk 11:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017[edit]

Someone needs to describe the CAMERA. Nowhere can I find the specs or data concerning the MB etc pixels, I am not talking about the screenshots , the item I am speaking of is the IR Camera. (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not sure what article you're talking about, neither this page nor the announcement template have anything to do with cameras. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Title of games addition.[edit]

Since some Video games such as DreamWorks Super Star Kartz have the company branding in it, could we retitle Kung Fu Panda, Kung Fu Panda 2, Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors, and Kung Fu Panda: Showdown of Legendary Legends to have DreamWorks in the title on its respective wikipage? Obviously video game news articles such as IGN, Metacritic,, GameFAQs and others, they list them with the DreamWorks name on the box art. So what's everyone's thoughts on the matter? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. I see the use in Super Star Kartz as to clearly identify the title as Dreamworks characters, in the same manner as PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale to identify the brand. The individual games like Kung Fu Panda have the key branding element right there in the title, which is associated already with DW, so the leading "Dreamworks" doesn't seem to be part of the title. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that DreamWorks Super Star Karts is the exception and not the rule we should follow, so no. By the way, you removed this comment somehow, so be careful next time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, honestly, I'm surprised "Dreamworks" is even part of the "Super Star Karts" name, but as Masem says, it was probably to help with identification - Super Star Karts is an extremely generic name without it. Not the case with a name like Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The real issue here is whether or not reliable sources regularly consider DreamWorks to be part of the games' tile. If they do we should use that even if films such as Kung Fu Panda are not referred to as such.-- (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A quick google search shows that if you search on "Super Star Kartz", it is universally preceded by the word "Dreamworks". While it's a bit more difficult to pull that for the other titles (Because of movie hits), that doesn't seem to be the case for the other titles, they are simply presented without the Dreamworks clarification. I'll also add that Amazon and other stores that come up during searching also follow this pattern. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Lists of video games by system and genre[edit]

I've noticed articles on lists of video games by system and genre being proposed for deletion (e.g., List of Super Famicom and Super NES puzzle games or List of Super Famicom and Super NES role-playing games). Was there any discussion or consensus that these were inappropriate? Despite what is stated in the prod rationales, I don't see any reason these articles would fail the guidelines for lists. They seem to have well defined topics that are neither too broad nor too narrow, as called for by WP:SALAT, and they seem to be useful both for information and navigational tools as called for by WP:LISTPURP. I also don't think we have any other lists that fully cover the information in these lists. List of Super Famicom games and List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games exist, but they lack some information presented in these lists (the Super Famicom one doesn't have genre, for instance). Is there any reason why lists by system and genre are considered inappropriate and need to be deleted? Calathan (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't need. One list per platform is enough. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I do think one list is probably enough, but for Super Nintendo and Super Famicom games, we currently have three lists, one of which is divided into sub-lists. We have List of Super Famicom games, List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games, and List of Super Famicom and Super NES games by genre, with the longer sections of the list by genre split out into separate pages (presumably because having them on one page would be too long). I think having separate lists of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games is a poor way to organize the information, because games that were released both in Japan and outside of Japan are redundantly listed on both lists. I think the combined list by genre is actually the better list (though a combined alphabetical list might be even better than that). I also think that whatever list we keep should at least list genre as a column (if the whole list isn't organized by genre). The Super Famicom list currently doesn't have that. Even if we don't want to keep the list by genre, I think someone should at least add the genre information onto the Super Famicom list. So my preference for how to handle these articles would be to either (A) Keep the list by genre and redirect the separate Super Famicom and Super Nintendo lists to it or (B) merge the separate Super Nintendo and Super Famicom information into one alphabetical List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games, add the genre information for the Super Famicom games to that page, and redirect the genre list and sub-lists to that page, and then divide that page into sub-pages if it ends up too long. Calathan (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess I should have checked through the page archives, as that is exactly what I was trying to find. Calathan (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the prod tags from the lists with tags on them (someone else had already removed them from three of them), and also asked that a couple of the sub-lists of the genre list that were already deleted be restored. I think Martin IIIa just missed that there are separate Super Nintendo and Super Famicom lists, that genre information isn't included in the Super Famicom list, and that neither of those lists individually indicates which games were released in Japan versus in the US and Europe. I think being able to see something like what RPGs were released for the Super Famicom but not for the Super Nintendo is useful, so I'm in agreement with SnowFire from that previous discussion. While I think all of the lists could probably be worked into something better than any of them, I think the genre list (including its sub-lists) provides the most useful information right now, and is the one to keep if any one of them are going to be kept. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I realized all those things, but I prefer to deal with one problem at a time. We don't need to salvage all the "List of Super Famicom and Super NES ..." articles just for the genre and regional release information, as that information is poorly sourced in those articles, probably largely inaccurate in the case of the Japan-only games, and would need to be reformatted anyway. As The1337gamer pointed out, we only need one list for each platform, and that list doesn't need to include every name the platform was branded under. That's why we have List of Sega Genesis games, not List of Sega Mega Drive, Sega Genesis, CDX, Multi-Mega, Sega Nomad, Sega TeraDrive, Mega-LD Pack, JVC Wondermega, and JVC X'Eye games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel like you've missing my point, since I'm also asking for one list, and what that list is named is really besides the point. I just don't think it is a good idea to throw out a lot of potentially useful information instead of merging it. If you feel that all that other information is too poorly sourced to use, that would be a reasonable argument to make for getting rid of it (I don't think I agree, since I think those lists are a good starting point for seeing what information we should be trying to source, but it is still a reasonable argument). However, you didn't make that argument in the previous discussion or in your prod rationales, and instead made arguments for deletion that simply weren't correct. Regardless, I think having those articles redirect to any list we end up with is better than deleting them, since anyone looking for those lists will probably want the new list. Also, I want to point out that the genre list is one list, not several lists . . . it is merely divided into multiple pages for length. If we can fit all the games onto one page without it being unmanageable, that would be preferable, but if there are so many SNES/Super Famicom games that they can't reasonably be listed on one page, then we'll need to split them up somehow. That doesn't mean we'll be ending up with multiple lists though, just that we'll have one list divided into multiple pages. Calathan (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Calathan: You can usually request at WP:REFUND for a page deleted under notability reasoning to be moved to your sandbox. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Calathan - I don't follow why you would think I'm missing your point, since what you say is your point was directly addressed in my post. Your claim that I need to anticipate any possible counter-arguments in all of my discussion posts and even in prod rationales (which are supposed to be brief and to-the-point) is even more baffling. Most baffling of all, though, is your continued referring to the practice of listing all games for a platform in a single article as if this was some daring new format that we need to work out the details of, rather than a system that has been in place without problems almost since WP was founded. Take a look at a few of the articles in.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Three listed GAs for reassessment[edit]

Here are three GAs that I have reviewed but which were not reviewed correctly:

Gamingforfun365 00:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Maximum: The Video Game Magazine[edit]

This is, according to WP:JCW, one of the most cited sources on Wikipedia that doesn't have a corresponding article. I'd figure I'd mention it here in case someone wanted to fix that. It's used as a source at least 248 times in 178 articles. WP:MWG offers some advice on how to write articles for magazines, but you can look to other articles for guidance too (Category:Video_game_magazines_by_country). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, other articles have been created, and this one is now the top-cited missing publication according to the compilation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This is actually totally my fault. Whereas most WP editors do their research by starting from a subject and looking up the sources, I start with a source and look up the subjects it covers. Because of this, some time ago I systematically went through all seven issues of Maximum and added every piece of notable info I could scrape up to the relevant articles. At the time I had no idea this would put Maximum on a "top-cited" list, and I'm doubtful that we can put together a good WP article on the magazine given its very short run. That said, if you're resolved to do it, Thibbs mentioned during the discussion on using Maximum as a source that Retro Gamer #25 has an article on Maximum, so there's one source you can use.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd caution that just because a source was frequently used, does not construe that it was notable. A source can be reliable without being notable in and of itself. (The opposite being also true, a notable publication is not inherently reliable) -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a perfect example of a source that is reliable and commonly used, but not notable. I think what you did was really good, Martin! ~Mable (chat) 14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It could certainly be a case that it's not a notable source, but at lot of readers will be wanting to learn about it. A redirect to its publisher, or to its writers with some detail about Maximum would also work here. But the blog post / RetroGamer stuff does lead me to think an article can be written here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

GA exchange[edit]

Hi, everyone here. If someone will please contribute to the reassessment of Mystery of the Emblem, then I'll take up any of their nominated GAs. I worked long and hard on that article, and while I can understand the nominee's reasons for nominating, I'd appreciate a swift response so I don't have to go through the whole process again. If anyone has any questions about the sources, I'll be happy to tell where I found them and why I used them. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 20 January[edit]

11 January

13 January

14 January

15 January

16 January

17 January

18 January

19 January

20 January

Salavat (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Salavat: I don't agree that a non-video game actor who has 1 minor voice credit in a video game should fall under the project's scope. Thousands of non-video game actors have minor and cameo roles in video games, but we don't automatically include them within the project scope based on that. If video game acting/voice acting isn't a significant part of their profession then they should be excluded. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Salavat (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As a result, I have excluded my article from the scope until enough voice actors are available. *Xyaena~* (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you're talking about here. Your article is about a game and is clearly in scope for the project. -- ferret (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on Golden Era of Spanish Software[edit]

Discovered this article today. This "era" seems a little dubious. What are your thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This should be brought up for deletion. None of the sources are in English, and the topic seems to have been made up as this is not a common term used by anyone in the game industry, outside of Spain at least. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Neither of those are valid rationales- sources don't need to be in English, and if it's a valid "era" used in Spain, then it's perfectly fine for an article, as long as it makes it clear that its a Spanish thing. This is the Wikipedia in English, not the Wikipedia of things from English-speaking countries. That said, by not using in-line citations, I can't tell if it's just someone's personal essay, but it seems to be largely based on the first source, "«Años 1984/1991. La época dorada del soft español», en Historia del software español de entretenimiento", and possibly a translation of the Spanish version of the article. Based on the about us page, it may be an RS. The Spanish article has several more sources, though they may be about individual facts rather than the concept. --PresN 13:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I know they don't have to be, but if you can't find a single English source about it, then why should it belong here instead of the Spanish Wiki? This isn't something objective like a president of El Salvador either, where tons of Spanish sources would be fine, this is an article whose basic existence and notability is in doubt. The entire article seems to just be based around one citation (the one you linked), with the rest just being a wordpress blog (unreliable) and bare URLs to other websites (not a valid citation). Even the Spanish version of the page has many of the same issues. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Because we have policy which allows us to use foreign sources. --15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Which I already said I know about, but since the entire article is based around one actual citation (which may just be unreliable), it should be deleted just from that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"None of the sources are in English"; "why should it belong here instead of the Spanish Wiki" I'm sorry, but that is a terrible argument for deletion. English Wikipedia is awfully (though not deliberately) biased in its global content because of predominantly English-language sources. Why aren't English readers allowed to learn of topics from non-English sources? Isn't the point of encyclopaedia to aggregate exactly this sort of material? The more non-English sources we can include for topics where English sources do not provide full coverage (to cite WP:NONENG: they are not "of equal quality and relevance"), the better. Video game related articles are especially bad, since most local game markets have little to no coverage in English sources. Just compare something like Video gaming in Russia, which is in reality a huge market with lots of game, console and home computer history stretching from Soviet era. And there are many contemporary sources (like this) that would provide extensive information. We should absolutely include these. I can agree that the article is badly written and badly cited, but this is cause for improvement, not deletion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
99% sure that our article is a translation from; theirs was created in 2006 with major expansion in May 2010; ours starts in 2011. Unfortunately, without knowing Spanish, I've no idea if the article has been evaluated there (keeping in mind each language wiki has its own set of notability requirements). --MASEM (t) 15:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I would absolutely love it if this was a real thing, but it seems like the article needs to be trimmed and moved to Video gaming in Spain, as well as expanded and generalized... But I'm going try to look for some sources later tonight. ~Mable (chat) 16:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
From what I can at least skim, there is justifyably a claim that Spain's software market was second only to the UK during the 80s-90s, but it's hard to find proof of that as a "golden age", but that's also a language barrier. I agree that merging into Video gaming in Spain makes logical sense at this point. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with repurposing into Video gaming in Spain. I don't doubt that the term has currency in Spain, but look to the sources to see how much currency. The sourcing is almost exclusively unreliable. Spanish/non-English sources are fine, as outlined above, but they still need to be from reliable publications. The Encyclopedia of Video Games covers the topic within its "Spain" article, not as independently notable. We can always split it out if warranted by the sourcing. But as of now, the sourcing for a separate "Edad de oro" from the history of Spanish games is weak. czar 19:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I added several sources to the talk page of the article here. ~Mable (chat) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on what people have said, I'd say the best soution for now is to fold the article into a more general Video gaming in Spain, with info on the Golden Age being a subsection. Like the Disney Renaissance in the Walt Disney Animation Studios#History article.-Coin945 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This really seems to be a misunderstanding of the references available, due to a lack of knowledge of the language by the above editors. It's really easy to find reliable sources in Spanish talking about the Golden age of Spanish video games. I'm adding the ones I've found with a quick search; the most important is a published book, subject of at least two reviews at mainstream media (IGN Spain and El Mundo), and quoted by this issue of the oldest computing magazine in Spain, which also lists several other sources in its references section. Diego (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Defining "generations"[edit]

Most of you are probably aware of the issue we're facing with the Switch (and to a lesser extent, the PS4 Pro and "Scorpio"), which is that we can no longer reliably define console generations. In the past this wasn't a problem, because manufacturers released all their systems roughly within the same timeframe, kept that platform around for several years, then released successors all at the same time. This meant generations practically defined themselves, the entire media would unanimously say "this is the nth generation," and we'd report it here. With the Switch, though, there's no agreement as to whether or not it's 8th or 9th gen, and very likely never will be. This means that, unless we change something, we're never going to be able to assign it to a generation or even write a 9th gen article. We're also facing the very real possibility that the entire modern concept of video game "generations" was popularized by Wikipedia, if not outright invented by editors here, which is obviously...not great.

I think we need to start the discussion now regarding how we move forward. To me, it seems like we're forced into a situation where we're just going to have to drop generational articles. That's not ideal but I honestly don't know how we'd justify our definitions of generations going forward. My only other thought is that we could potentially agree on a single authoritative source to define generations for us. I'm not quite sure who we'd choose for this, or how we'd ever come to an agreement, but I would note that the NPD Group frequently refers to console generations in their reports, and they are a very well-respected group. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That is the problem though, no one can agree on the specifics. First off, you'd have the difficult task of getting a consensus to change it at all. Then you'd have the impossible task of getting a consensus on where the lines should be drawn on the years. Some are going to say 1995 is an endpoint. Others will say 96 or 97. Some will say every 5 years. Others 10 years. Others say every 5 years except for in the 2000s. It's much like WP:AFD reform - everyone's got their own idea for change, but no one can round up a consensus in their favor... Sergecross73 msg me 04:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
We can keep the past as it is – categorized as "console generations" – but move on with a more sensible article scheme. All we need to do is try not to define history as it is happening for a year or two... ~Mable (chat) 10:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I still don't see what the big rush is. People have been trying to do "solve" this since Switch was announced. I fail to understand what the issue is with at least waiting till Switch and Scorpio are actually released and reliable sources start reviewing and commenting on the actual products. And in the end, there's nothing that says the Switch MUST be assigned to a generation. -- ferret (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The one thing to keep in mind with generations, when it comes to the broad sourcing, is that ultimately it is about how the media compares consoles within a generation: eg the Wii was always compared alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360, the Wii U against the PS4 and XBox One. Very very preliminary analysis of the switch has them comparing it with the PS4 and Xbox One -- but in no way should be taken to mean the Switch is assuredly 8th gen. It is probably going not until E3 , if rumors are true that MS will showcase the Scorpio, that we might have a reasonable approch as to go forward. I will state that I have also seen people saying we might be in a "half-generation" here between the PS4 Pro, the Scorpio, and the Switch - not significant hardware advances over the previous systems to make for a new generation but it is a new set of consoles to compare against, but again, far too early to say this for sure. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: The problem here is that will never happen. There will never ever ever be anything close unanimous agreement as to what generation the Switch belongs to, and I doubt there will be with the Scorpio. We are not rushing. We are accepting that this question will never actually be answered. And ignoring the problem isn't a solution, come on man. You can't acknowledge the inherent flaws in this system and try to "fix" it by excluding consoles that aren't easy to categorize. That's the worst possible outcome of this, now we're deciding which systems do and don't belong in generations - and isn't that the EXACT problem we're facing?
@The1337gamer: I like this idea a lot. There is some overlap between timelines that would have to be dealt with but I don't think that's insurmountable. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just wait a couple of years. No hurry. Keep this information in the currently latest generation article until then. Keep the generation listing or categorization as "undefined". See where we're at in a year or two. If we're lucky, this was the "last" console generation and we can move on to discussing console gaming by five years or something like that. ~Mable (chat) 18:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • To repeat what was said in the last thread on this (see the talk page archives), (1) we only report the secondary sources, so if no one declares the Switch to be in a "generation", we need not as well. By this token, there's "no rush" to do that original research ourselves. (2) We have a rough consensus that we screwed up by creating neat, numbered, Americentric console generations, and that the task of reorganizing the content is monstrous. My personal recommendation to this end is to improve History of video games and spin out its sections summary style as needed. We don't cite sources that define "a generation" in most of our generation articles. At most, a source will say that certain consoles are in "a generation" together (dubious how much of this is citogenesis) or that a console belongs to a specific generation. (I don't see a sourcing-based reason for 19XX–19XX splits right now.) Without sources that define what the generation has in common, the generation articles will be retreads of the dedicated console articles, which is to say that anything about the "generation" can be handled in its parent article, either in the major history article or a specific "console war" article, etc. In any event, I don't think we need another thread on the Switch's generation status. czar 20:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What do you people think you will accomplish by waiting? How does that solve this problem? Wicka wicka (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If "this problem" is Switch not having a generation, we don't agree that it's a problem. (Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth.) If it's that generation articles shouldn't exist in the first place, I proposed a solution. P.S. You will win few sympathizers by referring to any group as "you people". czar 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not create the news, we document it. The industry has not classified Switch yet, so neither can we. So we wait. If you don't understand this, you still don't understand the premise of Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Like others have said, let's just wait until they are released. At best, the PS4 Pro has been described as a mid-generation upgrade as opposed to being described as a next-gen console. When the Switch and Scorpio release, we will see what they are described as, then we can figure out what to do from there. We do not have to figure this out right now, otherwise, we'd basically be getting into OR territory. --JDC808 11:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

None of you are listening. I'm saying that, clearly, the industry will not unanimously agree on how to classify the Switch - they've already failed to do so, and there's no indication whatsoever that this will magically change overnight. Thus, our current system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Waiting accomplishes literally nothing. If you don't want to take action, that's fine, just move along. I'm here to figure out how we can improve Wikipedia, not just sit on our hands. @Sergecross73: Watch your tone. I know exactly how this works. Please listen to the point I am making and understand that waiting is not a real solution. @Czar: Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm getting at, the suggestion that generation articles probably should exist - again, please listen to what I am actually saying instead of leaping to conclusions. It's not a good look. What is your proposed solution? Wicka wicka (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course no one's listening. You're restarting a recurring discussion (what generation is the Switch) last held a month ago, indicating that you're not familiar with what people have already said on the topic, and combining it with another recurring discussion (should we get rid of "generations" altogether) that you also seem to have not read the discussions about before. And while that's not such a terrible sin (new people bring new ideas, after all), when people tell you that previous discussions haven't reached a conclusion then your tone gets antagonistic and demand that we have to rewrite all of the "history of" articles to a lesser or greater extent right away to correct this "problem", not waiting to see what sources call the Switch, but not actually proposing a solution of your own.
So, and let me be clear that I'm speaking as the writer of early history of video games and therefore one of the few people to have actually done work of the type you're halfway proposing: you're stating a problem; refusing to listen to people questioning its validity; proposing no concrete change but implying that enough needs to get rewritten that it would be, I assure you, an incredibly massive amount of work; and demonstrating no plan, ability, experience, or likelihood that you will be doing a lot of the work you're proposing. It's not a surprise that dozens of editors aren't jumping over themselves to do tons of work just so that the Switch gets a consistent numbering/naming scheme. --PresN 12:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
First off - stop worrying about the Switch. It's true that the Switch may be the reason this problem came to light, but this isn't specific to that system. I don't care about giving the Switch a consistent numbering scheme, and suggesting that as my motivation is a blatant lie. I just care about making Wikipedia better. Doing nothing doesn't fit that category. So, let me be clear that I'm speaking as a person who is trying to start a conversation that actually gets somewhere and is willing to help do the work that makes it get there: doing nothing is not a solution. And don't accuse me of being the person who starts the antagonistic tone when my initial question was immediately brushed off by a bunch of folks who apparently think hiding your dirty clothes in the closet is the same thing as cleaning.
So I will ask this question again, and if you don't have an answer, just don't reply, don't inexplicably reply saying you think a lack of an answer is somehow a solution. It's clear that console generations are no longer being reliably defined. How do we move forward? Wicka wicka (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem is your incorrect assumption that "waiting equals doing nothing" and "we'll never have the sourcing to solve this". Neither are true. People had all the same complaints you did back when the Nintendo 3DS was first announced in 2010. Everyone was rushing to start up an 8th gen article and label various upcoming systems as such, people lamented that there weren't sources to declare new concepts as part of a generation, (like the Ouya) etc etc. Then we moved into 2011 and 2012, more systems were released, and all of a sudden, sources were consistently stating that consoles were and were not part of a certain generation. You're just in too much of a rush to define a future concept. Wait and see what happens. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe I've been fairly clear on what I think we should do as well: keep the eight generations we have intact and see if we can move on to describe the history of console gaming in a more logical way from now on. This is why I say we should wait. I can imagine ways to get rid of the whole console generation situation in general, but I don't believe that it is worth it. ~Mable (chat) 12:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. This is what I'm looking for. This is a genuinely helpful suggestion that describes a plan we could actively implement. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
What comes next made be a "post-generational" phrase. It's not up to Wikipedia to define this. We wait on the sources. If there's never a 9th generation, then that's that. There is no rush to categorize the Switch, and in fact, no requirement that we ever categorize it. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. It is very uncomfortable to be writing down history as it is happening, as we don't have a grasp on the full picture yet. I wouldn't mind at all if a 9th generation article would eventually form, but we can't write it before the generation has even started. Unlike the Switch or the Scorpio, there's no "official" "release" for the "9th generation". It's a cultural period that doesn't get "properly" defined until a while after it has started. ~Mable (chat) 13:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Going back to something said in the initial post: "In the past this wasn't a problem, because manufacturers released all their systems roughly within the same timeframe, kept that platform around for several years, then released successors all at the same time." This actually is wrong on all three points. It's a common misconception, the result of video game historians shoehorning every aspect of gaming history into neat generational categories, completely forgetting a number of key points, such as that the PlayStation came in a distant third in console sales behind the Sega Genesis and Super NES during the 1995 Christmas season, that by the time the N64 launched most 5th generation consoles had already bitten the dust, etc. If anything, past generations were harder to define, because of new console manufacturers constantly coming and going (whereas now we more-or-less have a stable lineup of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony), consoles other being released a year or more later in one country than they were in another (some say whether the TurboGrafx-16 is 3rd generation or 4th generation depends on where you live), the existence of add-on consoles, and many consoles lasting less than three years on the market (e.g. Vectrex, Jaguar, 3DO, 32X, Dreamcast). Look up the release and discontinuation dates from some older consoles and you'll quickly see that console manufacturers were anything but in sync.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365 apologizes for not listening[edit]

This is looking like a duplicate discussion to the past "apology" thread by this editor, and while one was acceptable, multiple is pushing it. Please stop posting grandiose public apologies. --PresN 12:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I apologize for what was going on. I did not like learning that I was not a major editor and did not like it when I received comments containing agitation or extreme feelings, which is why I said that I felt "stupid" and "irredeemable", but that is a normal thing for me to do: to say that I feel stupid or irredeemable to counter-fight what I perceived to be arising agitation. Usually, when one person tells me otherwise, I require another person for a confirmation, and being told that I am no major editor of one article by multiple editors made me be convinced that I was not. I did not want to listen to an earlier comment because I felt that it contained the commenter's feeling of agitation. I admit that I cannot handle comments of agitation because they make me feel disruptive. What can I do about the situation? Gamingforfun365 04:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop making discussions about yourself. Notice how no one else does that. Stop talking about it and just go do it. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Salavat (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Apologize directly to the people you mistreated and make sure you don't make the same mistakes next time. The majority of the people that read this page only know you from these messages... ~Mable (chat) 10:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.