Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

viewtalkeditchanges

Should Category:Virtual reality games be non-diffusing?[edit]

Should Category:Virtual reality games be marked as a non-diffusing subcategory? Games were previously categorized to both this category and any VR platform underneath it (HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, etc.) I see the benefit of restoring its categorization in both because being an HTC Vive game does not preclude its dual status as a "virtual reality" game for purposes of lookup, but I'm not enough of a category buff to have an analogue in mind. Open to opinions. czar 19:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I'm not very familiar with the category guidelines either, but I think diffusing subcategories help address concerns of overcategorization. I'm not sure why a "Virtual reality games" category even exists to be honest. We have a category for first-person shooters, but we don't have one for first-person video games. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
But we do have a category on Category:Shooter video games, as we should. These categories are, at the very least, useful for categorizing subcategories. Whether the virtual reality games category should be non-diffusing... I'm leaning to yes, because it's a particularly vital aspect of a game, to the level where it might define what kind of thing it is. However, I am not too savy in categorizing either, and I'd rather keep this decision for the people who actually work with categories. ~Mable (chat) 11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Bumping thread. Any other feedback before we move on this? czar 16:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • On what manner do you want to move on this? ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata and genre tables[edit]

Is wikidata at a good enough development stage to be used to generate list articles from it yet? We have genre lists with game title, developer, publisher, release date, etc. fields that so far cannot be replaced with category intersections. I wonder if wikidata may be able to fill that role now? SharkD  Talk  22:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Izno may have a better answer, but it sounds like you want to essentially run a query, i.e. find items where genre is x. Wikidata, to my knowledge, will not work in that manner from enwiki (Access from Enwiki is built upon requesting specific entities). Over at Wikidata itself, there may be some tools like that though. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@SharkD: There is no 'official' support using Wikidata methods yet (though the team is working on it), but ListeriaBot can provide a bot-automated list. I don't know the specifics, but you can poke your head in and see. --Izno (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if you can tell this bot to only search before or after a specific date. Because the RPG lists in particular are divided into multiple pages based on the release dates. SharkD  Talk  00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@SharkD: Details to ask the bot op. I'm fairly certain it works via SPARQL, so dates are trivial to handle. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

How does Wikidata handle citations? Can one be added to each datum? Will citations screw up the search routines? SharkD  Talk  18:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@SharkD: Yes, one can be added to each claim. No, the search routines are unaffected by the citations, unless you deliberate query for data with/without citations... and etc. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

ESRB?[edit]

Out of curiosity, do we have a guideline about whether or not to put an ESRB or other type of rating in video game articles? Gestrid (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't include age ratings anymore. The only time it should be mentioned is if there is significant coverage surrounding the topic. e.g. censorship or something like ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Another example would be Manhunt 2 which was originally rated as AO and was then later edited to get a M rating since the vast majority of retailers and speciality game stores will not sell AO rated games.--69.157.252.60 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
ESRB rating property on Wikidata. I've got code to import the ESRB database into it, but simply can't understand how Wikidata should have it structured. Multiple certificates (references) for the same rating on different platforms, if a game been retroactively re-rated (GTA:SA) how should that be indicated. Is Minecraft's platform Java or Window/Mac/Linux/Whatever. — Dispenser 03:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dispenser: property P852 claim <Q#> qualifier P580 (start date) <date> optional qualifier P582 (end date) <date> optional qualifier P400 (platform) <Q#> (and in the case of Minecraft, personal computer) source (and from there I'll point you to d:Help:Sources). --Izno (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dispenser: That said, most contributors are leery of database copyright. Before beginning any sort of import, verify that you are acting in accord with the law of the U.S. w.r.t. database law. --Izno (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Seabeard[edit]

I've just found this orphan article while doing an AWB run. I know nothing about it, I was going to prod it, but wondered if someone fancied the challenge of breathing a bit of life into it. - X201 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's another Pop! The Balloon Dog Puzzle Game - X201 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like Seabeard has enough sourcing in the article itself to probably survive deletion, but Pop seems much less likely, calling itself "an indie game from 1996"... Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Handheld consoles with TV-out are "hybrid" game consoles?[edit]

The Nintendo Switch is notable for being a hybrid console. However, handheld consoles like the Genesis Nomad and the PSP (PSP-2000/3000) has a native TV output. Are they also considered hybrid consoles? – // Hounder4 // 16:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No; I think the key aspect of the Switch to consider is that to play it on a TV, you have to use it in a different manner than the handheld version (eg docking the screen, using the joy con's separately from it), rather than just a cable port that supports a mini-HDMI port or the like. The latter is a convinence options but doesn't make it hybrid. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed- I can plug in an hdmi cable and a keyboard/mouse combo into my laptop and set it on a desk to use; that doesn't make it a desktop/laptop hybrid. --PresN 03:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed as well. There's probably lots of possible concocted scenarios, but it's best to stick to what sources commonly say, which is unlikely to be those other scenarios. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. What about Shield Portable? I bet it's a handheld console as well, and sources in the article doesn't say that Shield is a hybrid game console. – // Hounder4 // 16:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Is "hybrid console" actually a thing or is that just a term people use to describe the Switch? You all realize we don't have to create this categorization. I feel like we're ahead of the sources again. I'd rather see other examples of "hybrid console" being used in sources first... ~Mable (chat) 16:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It has definitely been applied by RSes to describe the Switch. [1] for example. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean besides the Switch. Hybrid video game console only has sources talking about the Switch and only talks about the Switch. Is "hybrid video game console" actually a thing or is it just a popular description for the Switch? ~Mable (chat) 18:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be just for the Switch (for now), but there are always firsts and in 10-15 years this could be what every game device will be. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Should I bring up Crystal Ball? I am worried about citogenesis occurring if we have an article or category for this term already. I'd rather wait a year or two to see what other console manufacturers do and how journalists respond to those before we start "making this a thing." ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, but most reliable sources on the topic are already calling it this, so the problem lies with them, doesn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I just redirected Hybrid video game console to Nintendo Switch. Until you have reliable sources discussing hybrid consoles as their own independent subject, and not just passing mentions of the concept in relation to the Switch, you do not have the sources for an article. - hahnchen 21:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging NOTNOTABLE to this discussion, as they just reverted you. Gestrid (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I think instead the article should note that the only hybrid console so far is the Switch. However, "Hybrid Video Game Console" is much more general than "Nintendo Switch" and I don't think they're close enough to be nothing but a redirect. NOTNOTABLE (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Notnotable, do you know any other hybrid consoles? ~Mable (chat) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, that's not my point at all. NOTNOTABLE (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If "Hybrid console" has only been applied to one single system (the Switch), a separate article is inappropriate. On the other hand, and I haven't been able to check for sure, but if the concept of a hybrid console has been discussed prior to the Switch's announcements (or even separate from the NX) - thus being more about the theorizing of how hybrid consoles would function - then that might be appropriate for an article. I just don't think there had been any serious discussion of such a console concept to justify an article. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this. If anything, Hybrid video game console should be merged into video game console. I'm fine with the first line of Nintendo Switch referring to the device as a hybrid console, and I'm fine with describing the concept in one or two sentences in the video game console article, but I don't believe it deserves its own article already, if it's just a description for the Switch. ~Mable (chat) 12:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Then someone just delete it. Yes, hybrid video game console could mean more than the Switch, but it currently doesn't and there are no sources discussing the concept. I redirected it because the article should not exist. - hahnchen 21:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 25 November[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

19 November

  • Completely rewritten, unlikely to be deleted now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

20 November

21 November

22 November

23 November

24 November

25 November

Salavat (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviews of early access games[edit]

I've never dealt with this issue before, and I didn't see anything in MOS:VG about it, so I ask: should we add reviews of early access games? For example, RPS posted early impressions of Empyrion - Galactic Survival. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to cite this as a review, though I've used it to describe the gameplay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, but mention that it's a review of an early access version--IDVtalk 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as early access games can be notable on their own, this seems like an obvious 'yes'. You can also divide the reception section into "pre-release" reception and "post-release" reception, if that works. ~Mable (chat) 12:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, though it might be a good idea to consider whether that information goes into the reception or the development sections. I would try to avoid describing gameplay using pre-release reviews and instead document that content as development, since the gameplay may change prior to release (and it's good to document those changes anyway). --Izno (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I like integrating them into the History or Development section. I would reserve the Reception section for final reviews. Assuming the game does not get canceled. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It would probably be most applicable in the development section, because the developers will likely change things in the game based on early access feedback, so it would flow better. I suppose depending on the game and length of article it could also work in the Reception section, but in that case extra care needs to be taken not to mislead the reader into thinking they are final reviews. They would need to be under a "pre-release" sub-section or something like that. TarkusAB 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Final Fantasy series template[edit]

Can someone help out with a dispute at Template:Final Fantasy series? HÊÚL. is insisting that the "main series" row, which contains Final Fantasies 1-15, should also have Final Fantasy Type-0, because "The HD version of Type-0 had a worldwide release and is multi-platform (Playstation 4, Xbox One and Windows). It has companion games too (Agito and Online). Every game on Fabula Nova Crystallis subseries is part of the main series.". Frankly, I would disagree that any "subseries" belongs on the main line, which is currently reserved for just the main, numbered games out of the ~100 Final Fantasy games, but I also don't want to get into an edit war about it, so if anyone else has an opinion that would be helpful. --PresN 21:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

First of all it is not a "subseries". I disagree that any subseries belongs on the main line too, but it is not the case here. Just because Type-0 is not a numbered game do not mean that it is not a main title in the series. Like I said before take the Resident Evil series as an example: Code: Veronica and Revelations are not numbered games and are still part of the main series. HÊÚL. (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@HÊÚL.: What may apply to Resident Evil does not apply to Final Fantasy. Or Dragon Quest. The main series is only for the very first Final Fantasy title and all entries marked with a Roman numeral. All other entries are considered spin-offs or sequels, and are not included in the main list. They have their own lists separate from the main infobox, such as Final Fantasy IV, or even their own infoboxes such as Final Fantasy X or Fabula Nova Crystallis. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand this but Type-0 is not like Crystal Chronicles, Dissidia, Tactics. It is not a sequel or a spin-off. It is part of the main series even if it do not carry a roman numeral. HÊÚL. (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous. It's clearly a spinoff. It's not a numbered entry, and conceptually plays out differently than any numbered entries. Also, on Wikipedia, we go by what sources say, and they call it a spinoff:
  1. http://www.gamesradar.com/best-final-fantasy-spin-offs/
  2. http://www.gamezone.com/originals/best-games-of-2015-final-fantasy-type-0-hd-
  3. http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/final-fantasy-type-0-hd (Level Up excerpt)
  4. https://www.google.com/amp/www.usgamer.net/amp/final-fantasy-type-0-hd-review-for-old-times-sake?client=safari
  5. https://www.destructoid.com/final-fantasy-type-0-s-ace-joins-dissidia-final-fantasy-383025.phtml
  6. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/games/news/bgr-plays-final-fantasy-type-0-hd-52-001515169.html?client=safari Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course it was considered a spin-off. It was made as a spin-off of Final Fantasy XIII. Even Final Fantasy XV was created as a spin-off from FF13 at first. HÊÚL. (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is your argument then? That slapping on a quick HD gloss on a handheld spinoff somehow makes a mainline entry? I'd also like to point out that most of my sources refer to the HD version. On that note - do you have any sources calling any version a mainline entry? Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
True, but 15 was eventually repackaged and redeveloped as the next in the main series, so that's moot to bring up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the fact that FF XV was originally meant to be a spinoff before being repacked as a main series entry has noting to do with type 0 which was never repackaged in such a matter unless we are somehow arguing that the repackaging of that one game automatically makes all spinoffs as part of the main series.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no valid argument here to list as a main entry. I don't know of any source that says Type-0 is a main entry. Even if there was, there is an overwhelming majority of sources stating that it's indeed a spin-off. Simple as that. TarkusAB 16:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, looking back, I warned this same editor earlier in the year for making a similarly bizarre/unfounded claim that Etrian Odyssey series was a spinoff of the Megami Tensei series due to the existence of crossover game Persona Q. So, he appears to have a habit of taking some creative liberties with this sort of thing... Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Update Template:Vg welcome?[edit]

I've copied Template:Welcomeg, which is currently being "subst:" into Template:Vg welcome, into Template:Vg welcome/sandbox. If we did this in the template, I believe it would allow us to customize the template more than just tacking on a "Suggested WikiProjects" section at the end. What do you think of this change? Should we do it? I should note that such a drastic change may require an update to Twinkle, which currently can add {{welcome-videogames}}, a redirect to {{vg welcome}}. Gestrid (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems quite attractive. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: At this point, Template:Vg welcome (which still uses {{subst:welcomeg}}) looks exactly the same as Template:Vg welcome/sandbox (which doesn't subst Template:welcomeg anymore). Gestrid (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think all of those links do new/old users much good. Here's the template I use to welcome editors who edit productively: {{subst:User:Czar/template/vgwelcome}} (link). Feel free to add variations at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Templates#User_talk_templates czar 03:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I think Czar's template is better simply because I actually managed to read the whole thing in a reasonable timespan. ~Mable (chat) 06:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I like it, too, but I think we should include at least the standard links in our template. Gestrid (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I dunno, the Welcomeg certainly looks overwhelming; but I distinctly remember when I got the simple Welcome template at my talk page, and how those five links helped me make sense of all that "Wikipedia:" space, which I yet didn't understand after a year or so of editing Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Czar's template is a big improvement on the ones we currently use. Whatever variations might be suggested for Czar's template, I suggest we should make it the default welcome template suggestion at the top of the main WP:VG page (i.e. here). -Thibbs (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Will {{Current event}} be put on The Game Awards 2016 while the awards show is going on? Gestrid (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it would automatically. It's a maintenance template like any other, feel free to do so. -- ferret (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I know it wouldn't be put on automatically. I was just wondering if it would be applicable during the show. Gestrid (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Not sure on how other award shows are done, but I don't see the harm in it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
To me, it would make sense. Since The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Hideo Kojima (after his rough break-up with Konami) will be there, I imagine a lot of people will be looking up info about The Game Awards. Not to mention, it'll almost literally be streaming everywhere. And I imagine some of us will be updating the article as the awards are announced. I'll probably be updating the prose (ex. future tense to past tense, making the form match last year's article, etc.) a little bit before the event actually starts. Gestrid (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I've always thought that semiprotecting articles during the day of the event like this would better in the longrun, but you could make the case that it's discriminating against users who wouldn't have the rights to edit a semiprot article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention, admins aren't supposed to preemptively protect articles. Gestrid (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yup, this is correct. I forget the exact link to it, but I always remember it, because it was something I didn't learn until my RFA was ongoing, and I almost answered wrong. You can't pre-preemptively protect under current rules. That being said, I'm personally fine with protecting rather quickly after the first instance of vandalism in cases like this, where trouble is likely, so feel free to contact me as soon as you see it start to happen. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: The link is WP:PROT#Guidance for administrators. Personally, I would go for PC1, except for the fact that it'll be a current event. As someone who has attempted to review articles undergoing constant editing, I can say it's pretty hard to keep up. Current event articles are likely even worse. Gestrid (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
As a point of note, I've never encountered an article on an awards show that was ongoing that needed that type of immediate edit protection. There will be a lot of conflicting edits, but not vandalizing or problematic ones, so I would not worry about preemptive protection. Adding Current Event though is fine. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the issue is more the traffic of volume from IPs causing constant edit conflicts, which can be annoying (but there is no time deadline on articles, so it's not that big of a deal). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

To add Steam releases or not to add Steam releases...[edit]

That is the question. Is it all right or even recommended to mention (with reliable sources of course) that a video game (such as this) has been released in let us say 1999 and eventually on a website—specifically Steam or GOG.com—in let us say 2013? (Sorry if my language is verbose). Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing this as a transition from a physical store release to its first digital release, it seems completely fine to include. If it were a digital distribution title they initially sold themselves and later transferred the store to Steam, that's less helpful as that's just highlighting a specific storefront. Note that if they do both Steam and GOG (for example), it might be better to normalize out as "digital storefronts" so as to not give excessive weight to the storefront(s) specifically. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
If we're talking about inclusion in the infobox, it may be best just to say that no matter what, Masem. Gestrid (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
A "release" section is perfect for describing the release history of a game, if covered by reliable sources. Seeing as digital releases may be (re)reviewed, this information is particularly important as context when expanding the reception section. ~Mable (chat) 20:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Mable. For most modern PC games, it's not a big deal that a game is out on Steam - that's where almost all PC games are sold nowadays - but older games' digital re-releases often get some amount of coverage.--IDVtalk 20:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It's all about 'dem coverage ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 20:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We had a thread a bit ago about our "popular pages" report being down, so a public service announcement that the service is up for discussion as a community upkeep proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Categories/WikiProjects#Fix_and_improve_Mr.Z-bot.27s_popular_pages_report czar 01:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Does this article need to exist? Three years ago it was split off into two separate articles Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure, both of which are longer articles and seem to cover all the information in it. It made sense having CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series before the split but now it seems kind of redundant when its scope is covered in two other articles. Also I know its is GA, but bare in mind it was assessed like 8 years. --The1337gamer (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: If you believe it needs to be re-assessed, the procedure is given at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Gestrid (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not particularly the issue, since the GA process is unrelated to things like notability and mergers. Technically, I find the article to be acceptable since it meets our requirement of a series having 3 titles and sources discussing it collectively, though personally I'd be fine with it if someone integrated all the content to the individual articles. Sergecross73 msg me 04:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Other than the lead, the rest of the article is already integrated in the other two. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I too found it odd that this article was kept around after Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon's creation, which I assumed was based on the conclusion that most sources discuss those games separately from Zelda's Adventure. After all, aside from platform and series there's nothing to link the other two games to Zelda's Adventure; they were developed separately, were released in different years, use significantly different gameplay, and even have completely different graphical styles. We don't have articles titled "NES games from The Legend of Zelda series" or "Nintendo DS games from The Legend of Zelda series". I favor redirecting it to Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon, or possibly turning it into a disambiguation page.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the original split was made by Lucia Black and RetroNewAgeHippie a few years ago. I remember I was quite opposed to the split because I find that the games are rarely if ever discussed in isolation from one another and because I find the topic of the CDi games to be much more closely analogous to the LCD games (all of which were separately developed and feature radically different gameplay but are most commonly discussed in relation to each other) and the Satellaview games (which were also developed separately and feature different gameplay) both of which are treated as a single topic. The reliable sources (not counting the copious quotations used for the plot sections) used for our two articles on FoE/WoG and ZA have close to a 70-80% overlap, and as someone who has spent a fair bit of time looking for individual sources for the individual games I can report that they are quite few and far between. Even the RetroGamer article which really makes efforts to examine the games separately does so by comparing FoE/WoG against ZA in the same article. So I still think the split was unhelpful, and I agree that there is little need for all three articles that we currently have, but I would prefer merging the individual articles into a the original common article. -Thibbs (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We've got more than enough sourced content in the development and reception sections to keep them as separate articles, and likely there's more to come (I'm surprised they don't have the Electronic Gaming Monthly and GamePro reviews yet, so I may dig those up). Even supposing the sources are the same (and just at a glance I'm seeing a lot more which are unique to each article) the content that they're sourcing is different, so merging FoE/WoG and ZA wouldn't allow us to delete much. The articles on the LCD and Satellaview games make a better case for separate articles than they do for a merger, as they're essentially individual articles on each of the games which simply share the same page. Aside from the leads stating that the games all came out for the same platform, there's no discussion of the games as a whole. The pre-split CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series was much the same: essentially separate articles on each of the games sharing rent in the same name space. In such cases I think the obvious thing to do is to put those games which meet notability requirements into their own articles and delete those which don't.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Short Start, C, and B article examples[edit]

I was wondering if someone could find and add to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment some very short examples of Start, C, and B class articles. I noticed the example for Start is unusually lengthy, and I think a short example would be best to make clear the most salient aspects of the different classes. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Very short Start-Class (some are redirect pages, though), C-Class and B-Class articles. --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 06:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Is that just a generated list? I was looking more for short articles which have been verified to be properly assessed. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Xbox One now PR[edit]

I have just nominated the article for the FA-status. I advise editors to participate in the discussion and contribute constructively to the article. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh I know what you're getting at here, but it kind of sounds like you're lecturing the WikiProject on a whole when you say things like you want to "advise editors" to "contribute constructively"... Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
s/advise/humbly request --Odie5533 (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked the edit stats. Top editors are ViperSnake151, you, GrandDrake, Zero Serenity, GoneIn60, Ferret, ThePowerofX, etc. I'm not familiar with FAC, but has/should he contact the other primary editors, namely yourself and ViperSnake? Sorry if my question comes across as rude; as I say, I am not familiar with FAC. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt, but I don't believe it's a requirement, as a number of editors have taken a bunch of my B-class article rewrites/creations to GA without saying a word to me. In this case, it's fine I was contacted all by the same - I've monitored the article since its inception, but it's mostly just been vandalism cleanup and consensus maintaining, I've actually written very little of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
At a quick glance, I'll say that it'll fail in its current state. Article has bare URLS, inconsistent reference format, prose isn't up to standard. I see at least one unreliable source, one unsourced statement and a bunch of deadlinks sources. At the very least you should fix the easy and obvious stuff before nominating. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with this. The FA standards are incredible high, and honestly both this and PS4 feel like they're probably on the lower end of what's acceptable for a GA really... Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Edits like this should be done long before going to FAC. FAC is not to get advice on how to improve the article. Do a peer review if you want that. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
My problem with peer reviews is that it does not motivate editors (other than the peer review-requesters) to improve articles as much as FAC pages, and it is absolutely true in my opinion. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Should I instead do GARs for both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 articles? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you're kind of missing the point. The purpose of FAC isn't to motivate editors to improve an article. You don't nominate an article with obvious issues for FA status on a whim and expect other editors to fix them all for you. The purpose of the PR process is to identify theses issues and get feedback. Then you fix those issues and prepare the article before the nomination. If you need assistance, it would be better to directly contact editors that have contributed to the article before. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I strongly recommend you withdraw the FAC as it's quite a way off from meeting the criteria in its current state. The best way is to offer quid pro quo kind of things if you want people to participate in a peer review. JAGUAR  17:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gamingforfun365: Please can you undo the page move you just did? The FAC bot is now going to register that redirect as a legitimate FAC, whereas it now leads to a GA reassessment. You should have waited until the FAC coordinators closed it themselves. JAGUAR  17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Initiating GAR. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Make up your mind as to what you want, Gamingforfun. God sakes one shouldn't see an article go through an FAC, GAR, and PR in 24 hours. GamerPro64 15:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand the processes you should be asking someone for guidance, IMO. I advised you to do a PR, not a GAR, before you opened the GAR. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I wish that I had listened to you, @Ferret:. I am sorry for not listening to your advice. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 2 December[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

23 November

25 November

26 November

27 November

28 November

29 November

30 November

1 December

2 December

Salavat (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Clash of Clans Troop articles[edit]

A user just made 19 Clash of Clans troops articles Category:Clash_of_Clans_troops. Not sure if they should all be deleted, or merged into a List, but that seems like a lot of articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't have articles on all of these, and I doubt even a list. This is absolutely gamecruft and is suitable for a clash of clans wiki, not Wikipedia. Pinging the article creator SeniorStar. Sam Walton (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirecting them all to Clash of Clans and deleting the category seems like a pretty uncontroversial move imo.--IDVtalk 23:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In addition to Samwalton9's ping, I've left a message on the user's talk page to comment here. Gestrid (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You guys can't do so. I have seen several other articles of video game characters. For eg. Giant (Dungeons & Dragons) It is also video game character. Also, those articles are notable and real.(look at the official website for more info) Kind regardsSeniorStar (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi SeniorStar, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that your Clash of Clan troop articles don't meet WP:GNG, which is a guideline on article notability. They must be at least backed up by numerous and reliable sources, which in this case they're not. JAGUAR  00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
These troops are listed in the official website of clash of clans. So it can be taken as reliable source.→SeniorStar (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It may be a reliable source, but it's not independent. In other words it's a primary source, which isn't usable in this case. Gestrid (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
How can I get secondary sources for video game characters ? Currently available sources from official website are most needed for this article.→SeniorStar (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You don't "get secondary sources". Either they exist, or they do not.  · Salvidrim! ·  00:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources are provided in the article(from official site) and thats all needed. Now I think its time to stop this discussion. RegardsSeniorStar (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You don't get it. There are no reliable secondary sources for your articles, so therefore they cannot be created. JAGUAR  00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh you guys mean my articles should be deleted as it does't cite secondary sources but what about articles like Gopal Bansa which does't cite any sources neither primary nor secondary?→SeniorStar (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That does have a reference. It's just not cited correctly. Gestrid (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The short version is that finding other articles with faults doesn't excuse the faults of the article you're trying to defend - its at best "irrelevant", and at worst, just shows that both/all should be deleted. I too support deletion. I don't see any evidence of them meeting the WP:GNG. (The GNG cannot be met through first party sources.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Basically, for an article to exist on Wikipedia, the subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (WP:GNG). The official website doesn't count for this because it's not independent of the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • AFD these. They won't even make useful redirects. Happy to discuss the issues here but no use bothering if the creator isn't interested. Wikia may be a better outlet for this writing, if that's what you want to do (see what WP is not--not a place for articles on every fictional character in existence) czar 04:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that these articles should be deleted as they have not been proven to be notable. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • AFD started. Although it primarily lists one, it shall constitute an opinion covering all articles that appear in the category. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay I agree that these articles are not needed but can I create a single article called List of Clash of Clans characters and include every troops details there ? →SeniorStar (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
No, because it fails WP:LISTN. Clash of Clans characters are not a notable group. It's also still WP:GAMECRUFT material. Just summarise the information appropriately in the Clash of Clans article with reliable sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Team Fortress 3[edit]

The redirect Team Fortress 3, which currently points to Overwatch, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 4#Team Fortress 3. The discussion would benefit from input from those with knowledge of the Team Fortress and Overwatch games (and any related articles). Please leave your comments as part of the linked discussion, any left here are unlikely to be seen. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

ToeJam & Earl at FAR[edit]

I have nominated ToeJam & Earl for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JAGUAR  12:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Issue with title of article[edit]

I recently noticed Thr article Spawn (handheld game) and believe that it should be moved to Spawn (1999 video game). If someone agrees with this can these please move it since I can't.--76.69.215.204 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done, and also provided some general guideline edits. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Potential article - Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of results for this game in the WP:VG/S search but the vast majority are for one of two works: Wargamer and RPS. Is there notability here? From what I saw, there's also a number of articles for Decisive Campaigns, so it looks like there's a series there. --Izno (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • In addition to the multiple articles that both RPS and Wargamer have published, Softpedia published a review and PCGamesN ran an article. I would say the game is notable enough for an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for advice- BVE / openBVE article[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BVE_Trainsim

Hopefully this is ending up in the right place......

First off, a disclaimer- I'm the primary developer for the currently 'active' fork of openBVE http://openbve-project.net

At present, I've made a few small cleanups to the article, and removed a pile of junk from the end (openBVE 'Update 4' as far as anyone in the community is aware is a very bad case of vapourware, and the deleted stuff was nowhere close to guidelines....)

What I need now is advice on exactly where to go from here. The talk page is rather a mess, was last used in 2010, and refers to '00s of deleted revisions.

Some thoughts:

  • openGL / openAL - I can quite happily link to source files on github if you want these cited, but other than that, I've got no idea how to cite correctly.
  • Forks- At present, I think I'm the only person other than Michelle (original developer of openBVE) to do any meaningful work on the sim. However, there are several sites claiming to be more or less official (And Michelle's site has long gone), hence I don't exactly want to position myself as the true, verbatim source, hence the adding of the 'forks' subheading.
  • Features- The talk page puts many of these as unverifiable. Happy to provide code demos etc, but how on earth should I 'verify' these?
  • Authenticity- Again, we've got a problem with proving a lot of stuff to Wikipedia standards if you don't want to accept forums/ personal sites. Neither BVE or openBVE have ever been commercialized, hence they're rather niche in forums, and AFAIK have never really had mainstream media coverage....
  • Cross-platform- Another 'proof' problem! I can provide links to builds which will run on anything which has Mono and OpenGL 1.0, and Windows, Mac and Linux builds are posted on my site. (We're also in the Debian repos, although rather out of date at the minute; I suppose Debian is a source)
  • History- The BVE Trainsim history seriously needs merging and slimming a little, advice?

Overall, I can provide a perspective of someone who has been with the BVE/ openBVE community since it's inception, but exactly how much of this translates into an encyclopaedia I don't know.....

Advice welcome! Leezer3 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Leezer3: The biggest problem I'm seeing is that the article may not display the notability of the topic. I see a source at Wired, and there's the RPS source in there for openBVE (and possibly others), and I suspect there may have been something at 1UP, lost to time. --Izno (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an issue I'm not sure how to handle. Train-sims are a niche topic to start with, and as neither BVE or openBVE have been commercialised, the sort of sources you seem to want in that front (e.g. large editorially independent publications) simply don't exist :)

Clearly though, the article doesn't belong as part of a larger overview of train-sims... Leezer3 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

simply don't exist :) Yes, that is usually a problem with niche games. This case is an edge case given that there does exist sourcing for the set of topics related to BVE. Usually when there is not another topic (as you hint at re. larger overview of train-sims) with which to merge a topic which may not be notable, the article is deleted. Do you know if train simulators are covered in train-related magazines? --Izno (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Essentially not, at least in the U.K. Train Simulator (The commercial one by Dovetail Games) gets some coverage for its yearly release, but that's about it. On the flip side there are 'e-magazines' & dedicated sites e.g.UKTrainsim / train-sim.com on train simulations, but they don't seem to meet your criteria... Leezer3 (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:TimeSplitters (series)[edit]

I invite you to an ongoing RM discussion to improve consensu. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Video games in the news.[edit]

I always enjoy when a video game-related article makes the In The News frontpage module (safe for Recent Deaths, of course ^_^;). Pokémon Go got an "ongoing" this year because of its enormous impact, and The International 2016 got a blurb primarily because of its enormous prize pool. Recently, the League of Legends World Championship didn't make it because the article wasn't of high enough quality at the time. I just nominated the Capcom Cup, the biggest fighting game tournament of the year, after putting a lot of work in the article throughout the season. Besides wanting to bring some attention to the nomination, I wanted to bring some attention to the whole concept of video games in the news. I am also wondering if I forgot any past ITN blurbs. ~Mable (chat) 20:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of any off the top of my head. And slightly off topic, but the Pokemon Go article was apparently averaging around 10 views per day in June, which then exploded to nearly a million per day at its peak the next month. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Pokémon Go was insane. You didn't have to follow the Top 25 report to know that it was getting that many views, with every newspaper in the world writing multiple articles a week on it. I doubt we'll get something that big "in the news" again any time soon. I'm happy with the article's quality, though :3 ~Mable (chat) 08:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mable: - There were a few ITN items that we covered very briefly in the 3rd Quarter 2013 Newsletter. They were from earlier quarters, though. -Thibbs (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, the current events portal. I always feel like nobody ever looks at those pages... I doubt these actually appeared on the mainpage, but they are interesting regardless. ~Mable (chat) 21:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't swear to it, but I thought the North Korea item did appear on the mainpage. I only noticed the other item afterward. -Thibbs (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mable: - Ah ok, I take that last comment back. I will swear to it: Expand the Feb. 22, 2013 collapse. -Thibbs (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm... Or not... Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. -Thibbs (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, Mable, I've got one now: GTA V covered in In The News 2013 September 23. You've got me curious now about how many other ITN stories there are. -Thibbs (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That one is really cool! Thanks for sharing :3 ~Mable (chat) 10:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I heard the video game Final Fantasy XV will receive new additions online. Does the article need something to make it to the news?Tintor2 (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wind Waker 2 redirects[edit]

Given this interview, I think we need to discuss where Wind Waker 2, The Wind Waker 2, and related redirects should actually redirect. The two redirects I've mentioned below have a history of switching between Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass. So which article should they redirect to? Gestrid (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

They should be redlinked, as either proposed target is misleading, and "Wind Waker 2" is not something that exists. Otherwise retarget to TP as it is mentioned there as a working name for the game and not mentioned at all in PH.  · Salvidrim! ·  01:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Both can be deleted uncontroversially at RfD, I think, and I would list them there except for the fact that that interview now exists. People will likely be searching for it. Gestrid (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
From the interview it appears Wind Waker 2 was just an idea of a sequel, a fleeting thought. There is no such game. If there's some more sources and information about it, the redirect can point to Wind Waker legacy section and it can be mentioned there, but honestly it should be deleted. TarkusAB 03:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, tough crowd. A developer mentioned that they started on a Wind Waker 2 by that name, but it was shelved in favor of Twilight Princess, a tidbit that should definitely be mentioned in the Wind Waker article. Phantom Hourglass was a direct sequel to Wind Waker and shared the same art style and other attributes. This seems like a viable redirect for either target - I'm surprised people are arguing for neither. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither game has ever been referred to as "Wind Waker 2" by any reliable sources. That's what redirects are all about. To minimize confusion and allow people to find the page they are looking for. ~Mable (chat) 14:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I've been desensitized by bad redirects and I don't know what's acceptable anymore. Donkey Kong Country 4. Bubsy 3. Super Mario 4. Banjo Threeie. Tales of Symphonia 2 all exist, for example. I find them so frequently I assumed they're acceptable. (I usually subscribe to the WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP mindset as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hrm, I can understand where you're coming from in this angle (though I expected Bubsy 3 to redirect Bubsy 3D at first, so that might need a hatnote). If these all survived a similar discussion, then I can understand the reasoning. The direction is difficult and possibly misleading, though. ~Mable (chat) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I doubt some have even been seen before, let alone discussed. Anyways, I'm not defending these ones, do as you please with them. I was just trying to show how common they are. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

By name, "Wind Waker 2" more naturally works at TP, so I think using that as the redirect target, and then have a hat not, "For the sequel to Wind Waker, see PH" at the topic, is the most common sense approach here. While PH was likely never called "Wind Waker 2" by N or other sources, it naturally follows that it would imply a sequel to WW, so this should be at least pointed out as a hat note. --MASEM (t)

I disagree, as it seems like a very unlikely search query for any of these three articles, though I don't mind it too much and would love to see more imput. ~Mable (chat) 14:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, we have sources that affirm TP was developed as "Wind Waker 2" at the start, so its clear it fits that. As pointed out above, there is nothing sourcable that PH was ever called "Wind Waker 2", but the fact that it is a sequel to WW gives a reason to connect it too. That said: in that the LoZ series has eschewed traditional numbering for just subtitles means that a person likely searching on "Wind Waker 2" is aware of that becoming TP, rather than looking for PH. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't the best solution be a disambiguation page that reads: "For the sequel to Wind Waker, see Phantom Hourglass. For the game that was codenamed "The Wind Waker 2" during development, see Twilight Princess." TarkusAB 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I like this disambiguation page idea, honestly, because it's just the clearest solution that doesn't confuse or mislead our general readers like a hatnote would. ~Mable (chat) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
That works too, with "The Wind Waker 2" redir to the disambiguation page. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You should treat it as a WP:TWODABS situation. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is this discussion happening here instead of WP:RFD? --Izno (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Because I think there is already some consensus to make this a disambiguation page rather than outright deleting it, though someone could still nominate it for deletion if they want to. ~Mable (chat) 17:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
RFD is "Redirects for discussion". --Izno (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I sometimes don't know my Wikipedia initialisms as well as I should ^_^; I'm fine with the discussion being moved – there are still multiple options we can go with. ~Mable (chat) 18:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Its not you. They really weren't well named - if they're not the same thing (deletion vs discussion) they really shouldn't have followed the same shortened naming structure like this (AFD vs RFD). Its misleading. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Still, I'd personally expect more meaningful discussion here, from the "video game regulars" than the "redirect regulars", since this discussion is closer to a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion than a pure "Redirect Policy" type discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I brought the discussion here because this discussion is less likely to be centered on deletion than a discussion at RfD, the little brother of AfD. AfD, as I'm sure we all know is far more likely to delete something than actually fix the article that's up for deletion. Gestrid (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wind Waker 2 Options[edit]

Seeing as people like to keep this discussion here, I figured I'd add two subsections and get this thing going. For Wind Waker 2, the following possibilities were mentioned:

  • (Del) Delete the redirect
  • (WW) Redirect to a section on The Wind Waker with a hatnote that it may also refer to two other titles.
  • (TP) Redirect to Twilight Princes with a hatnote that it may also refer to Phantom Hourglass
  • (PH) Redirect to Phantom Hourglass with a hatnote that it may also refer to Twilight Princess
  • (Disamb) Turn into a disambiguation

Feel free to discuss which of these seem the best. I personally would go with either deletion or turning it into a disambiguation page, as it would be original research to apply the redirect to PH and would be misleading to put the redirect at TP. I don't think WW applies because WW2 is not used to refer to the original game. Other opinions? Feel free to format it as a !vote. ~Mable (chat) 20:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • (WW) - specifically, I think 'The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker#Legacy sums it all up pretty well. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (TP) - given the interview I mentioned above. TP was originally going to be a sequel to Wind Waker. Gestrid (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (WW) - The term "Wind Waker 2" was the title of a console-based sequel to WW that carried the same story and style as the original. TP took bits and pieces from WW2 but TP took on a life of its own. WW2 is well described in the Legacy section of WW. Both PH and TP are mentioned there. TarkusAB 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (WW) – After reading the article again, I think the Wind Waker article's "Legacy" section does explain the whole situation really well. ~Mable (chat) 11:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Other redirects to discuss[edit]

Sergecross listed the following five redirects: Donkey Kong Country 4; Bubsy 3; Super Mario 4; Banjo Threeie; Tales of Symphonia 2. Some of these may be appropriate, while others may not be. Many of these names do not appear in the article proper. I'd like to hear opinions on these, if you have any :) ~Mable (chat) 20:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Bubsy 3 - in my comment in the section above, I pointed out how the redirect had like 1 view over the course of the last month, so its pretty clearly not serving any purpose. (Not to mention its hard to tell if it should be targeted at the similarly named Bubsy 3D or the actual third game in the series, Bubsy in Fractured Furry Tales.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with deleting the Bubsy 3 redirect, for the same reasons. ~Mable (chat) 11:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Japanese box art for Mario World actually had Super Mario Bros 4 on it and it mentioned In the article so I see a case for the Super Mario 4 redirect.--64.229.166.23 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I chose that example specifically because it lacked the Bros part of the JP name, but I agree, it's probably the most legit of the list above. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Bubsy 3 - I agree with the reasons stated above. In addition, though I'd have to look back to be sure, I've gone through all the pre-release announcements of Bubsy in Fractured Furry Tales that appeared in GamePro and EGM, and I don't recall it ever being referred to as "Bubsy 3".
  • Delete Banjo Threeie - This one actually lost an AfD by a landslide way back in 2006. Reviewing the AfD and the article's pre-redirect content, it seems that this is just a presumed title for a third game in the series; while a third Banjo-Kazooie game was eventually released, it was not even in development at the time the article was created, and as far as I can tell it was never announced under the title Banjo Threeie.
  • Keep Super Mario 4 - Technically inaccurate, but still a likely search term for those looking for Mario World.
  • Donkey Kong Country 4 is a tough one. The title seems to be purely fictitious, but the redirects gets strikingly regular views for an article which isn't linked anywhere. However, isn't Donkey Kong 64 a more suitable redirect target?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

List of downloadable only Playstation 4 Games[edit]

I don't really know what to do with this page. While the list was created with a good intention, there is just way too much misinformation here. Several games are listed here that actually do have disc released (EX Shovel Knight, Minecraft, Brothers: A Tale of Two Souls, Geometry Wars 3, just to name a few) and often times it seems like games are listed here when editors expect that the game would not have a disc release. The problem is that more and more indie and limited budget games are being released in physical form and you just can't "feel" your way around this anymore. Furthermore the list is about the absence of something and you can't really provide reliable sources for that. --Deathawk (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Splitting List of PlayStation 3 games into List of download-only PlayStation 3 games, List of PlayStation 3 disc games released for download and List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc was stupid. Same goes for List of PlayStation 4 games into List of download-only PlayStation 4 games and List of PlayStation 4 games released on disc. Whether a game released on disc or by download really isn't that important. It requires more sourcing work because now you have to find reliable sources that say how the game was distributed before you figure out what list it should appear on. It's dumb, should just keep it as simple platform list. The PS3 ones should be merged into List of PlayStation 3 games and the PS4 ones merged into List of PlayStation 4 games, then split them by alphabet because they're too long. I don't usually touch these giant list articles because they are an unsourced, unmaintainable mess. They take forever load as well, there's a significant lagg while editing them on my PC. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I literally can't edit them on my pc. We have to do something to make these lists more workable and readable, right? Could we intersplice it with section headers? ~Mable (chat) 08:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Transclusion, making separate lists by, say, portions of the alphabet (A-M, N-Z) or some other easy sort factor. Then the main page becomes a transclusion of other pages, so the size is much more editable. This is how the Rock Band DLC lists are handled. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I too fully support the trimming back of some of these unnecessary lists. The number of items at List of PS3 games is ridiculous, and was even worse earlier in the year. Some of these things don't need to be tracked at all, while others could be implemented into other lists, or their parent articles as a subsection (like PlayStation Move support). Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

GoldenEye: Source Infobox release dates[edit]

In short, I removed the numerous Alpha, Beta and Version dates from the infobox of GoldenEye: Source - As per WP:VGSCOPE item 10; to bring it into line with the project's formatting of all other articles i.e No version histories in the infobox. An IP user and @Valoem: disagree and reverted the changes (Valoem citing WP:NOTPAPER. So I'm bringing it here to get a project wide view on it. - X201 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Also in WP:NOTPAPER, it says "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done...this policy is not a free pass for inclusion." And in this case, the guidelines of WP:VGSCOPE and Template:Infobox video game make it very clear. The former states "a list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate" and the latter states "use only general public release dates of full games, not mod, festival, preview, or early access dates." The dates should be removed with only one official full release date being kept. TarkusAB 11:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
This release date are included in the top infobox without over details. When you edited the article you gave the impression that the game was released in 2010. That is incorrect the game was released in 2005 in fact, the game was more popular then than it is now. Valoem talk contrib 16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
We use the first full release date. That's why I picked the 2010 date, it was the earliest non-Alpa/Beta date I could see in the article. - X201 (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the lede should mention the first version and the full version... as for the infobox, it's less simple. Maybe a "Developped : 2005-2010" or something might be thinkable for such topics? Kinda like MMOs, there a closed alpha, closed beta, open beta, "official release" and then years of patching. So perhaps the "release date" should be the "official release" (say, November 2007) but there could be a field for "Published over" or "Developped over" (say, 2005-2014). Or is that already implied in the existing "years active" field?  · Salvidrim! ·  17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled about the actual release date. The article states "After years in beta the first official version was released on December 11, 2010." Yet @Valoem: says that is wrong, and @Salvidrim!: suggests 2007. Bearing in mind that the infobox should be a brief overview, I've created an example simplified infobox.

Goldeneye: Source
Release date(s) Development Versions:
December 26, 2005 to February 19, 2010

Official Releases:
December 11, 2010 to Present

The full list of Alpha/Beta/Official dates could be placed in a table to accompany the prose in the Development section. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are the full release dates, also 4.2.4 was a major version, which is why this can be confusing. Valoem talk contrib 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
X201 the dates in my post were just examples.  · Salvidrim! ·  13:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Any opinions on the Infobox? - X201 (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox release dates and VR versions[edit]

Superhot's VR version came out yesterday/today, while the original game was released back in Feb. This VR version is not just the process of slapping a VR interface onto the game (in contrast to something like Obduction (video game) where the VR is essentially the same game), but includes gameplay changes and content designs (new levels) to enhance the VR experience, but otherwise remaining true to the original game. As such, a separate article doesn't make any sense.

But that does bring me to the question about release dates, and this goes to our long-standing debate on release dates in the infobox. Obviously the VR version's release can go in the body and lede, but because the VR version is more than just adapting the game to work on that platform but adding new content, I think it does deserve a callout in the infobox.

To me, this is also consistent with the idea that remastered versions of games (if not part of a new bundle like the BioShock remasters) where significant effort has been made to upscale textures, add new content, or add features not in the original game, should be listed in the infobx, whereas ports, backwards compatibility, or other less-extensive modifications (like striping GFWL for Steam support but no other features ala Red Factor Guerrila)

But that said, we also recently discussed to not include VR units as platforms in the infobox, so I'm a bit concerned about this interaction within the infobox , and looking to get input. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the VR re-release in the infobox because the Oculus Rift is not a platform. We don't include game patches either, even if they add new content to the base game. In my opinion, the simpler the release date field is, the better. We already have too many release dates due to platform and regional differences. As a reference, the 3D re-release of Jurassic Park is not included in the infobox. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I mean, I support putting it in the infobox, but I support that for all VR titles, so... Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't you find having a hidden drop-down in the infobox with tons of release dates excessive? --Odie5533 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If a game already had 3 release dates listed for "PS4, Xbox One, and Windows", and then a Nintendo Switch version was announced, I wouldn't find it excessive to add to the list, so I don't understand why I would for a PSVR release date... Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This is already done for special versions, so why would this not be allowed? Personally, I'd try to keep the infobox as concise as possible (as is the intention), but if we don't allow for this then we're just being inconsistent. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox shouldn't have more than the original release date, like every other infobox. The other dates belong in prose in the appropriate section. The majority of my watchlist consists of garbage, unsourced infobox edits--a waste of time all around. The lede and VR category should be enough to distinguish that the game had a VR release and if there were any significant new features in it. czar 00:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Czar and Niwi3. The infobox should remain as concise as possible. These extra dates are mostly extraneous information. Readers are going to have to check the prose anyways because they have no idea what's in the VR release. I do think it might be worth having a Platform or Hardware entry in the infobox to inform readers if a title is VR or not. In the platform it could be e.g. "PlayStation 4 / VR" if VR is optional or PlayStation VR if it's only VR. Someone else might think of a better way of conveying it. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • My position is slowly evolving to "Infobox should have only the first release date" and have prose or a small release table to handle the rest. It's a simple and easy to follow, without all the arcane rules we wrap around the field currently. -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we have two different articles for TWINE?[edit]

Should we have two different articles for The World Is Not Enough? One for the N64 version and another for the PS version? In my opinion, although both games were released in late 2000 and are based on the same James Bond film, they are completely different (and notable) games: they have different gameplay (one even has a multiplayer mode while the other doesn't), different developers/development, different game engines, and different reception. It would also simplify the infobox a lot.

The GBC version, which was released a year later, can easily be merged into the series article because it is not notable. Also, should the name of these games be changed to 007: The World Is Not Enough? Many reputable sources, including GameSpot, IGN, Metacritic, and Nintendo Power, use that title. What do you think? --Niwi3 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, my stance is, if you've got the sources and content to warrant two separate articles, and the motivation to do the writing, then go for it. I'm not familiar really with either particular game though, so I can't confirm or deny the specific situation here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Standard procedure is to write the article and if there is enough independent sourcing to justify a separate article, split the content summary style. Otherwise you'll just have two incomplete articles. czar 01:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I am interested in improving the article in the future. In fact, that's why I want to have some feedback before making substantial changes. I think I should be able to expand the N64 article to GA status with a 3-paragraph development section and a 3-paragraph reception section. In the process, I plan to create a decent article for the PS version. At the very least, I think it should not be too difficult to have 1 paragraph of development/release and 2 of reception (in addition to the gameplay section of course). The sources are there. @Czar: In my opinion, summary style cannot be used because they are different games. Sure, you can have a "PlayStation version" section at the end of the article and then add a Template:Main article if necessary, but what about the infobox of the parent article? It's going to be messy and confusing with all the PlayStation data. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We can't give any definitive feedback until the content is visualized. If all you have on the PS1 dev is that it was ported, and at best a paragraph of PS1-specific commentary in how it differs from the N64 version, then we have our answer. But if you have more, summary style is still the way to go (show that there is content that warrants mention and then split it out). This project gets a bit too split-happy sometimes—I'm skeptical that there will be a need for a separate PS1 article that doesn't near completely duplicate the "main" article. But I'm open to being wrong. Either way, the route is still to write the best possible main article first and split as necessary. czar 17:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I know I usually start up WP:DRAFTs on article ideas that I'm not quite sure about their feasibility, or how to go about structuring it, so there's always that as well. That way, you don't have to worry about 1) Doing it all at once, 2) It looking sloppy/awkward at times and 3) people rushing in and nominating it for deletion before you're done expanding it entirely. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I prefer to plan the whole article first before actually improving it. I like to set a goal and build to it, rather than improve and then decide what to do with the article. I can't write a proper article if I don't know the "overall picture" of it. I'm an immediatist. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, whatever you do in the mainspace can be done all the same in the draft space, but that way most people won't make a judgement call until its complete, rather than jumping to conclusions when they come across the half-finished work visible to the general public. But you're free to do it however you please, you don't have to use the draft space. I don't see any hard consensus again you attempting to split it out, so you're free to go for it as you please. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There's many sources for both, so I do think they should have separate articles. Here's two PS1 sources: [2] [3]. Also the August 2000 issue of game informer has a feature on the game, and the April 2000 and August 2000 issues of Official UK PSX mag have features on it. There's probably loads more sources in the Ref Library as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple things I noted: first, the amount of dev information for either version is rather low (as generally expected for movie adaptations), and with a otherwise mostly common plot and gameplay section (as both are FPS), the only real difference is reception. Further, we've also got this far different GBC version too to consider, which got some notice too. My inclination here is to keep them all at the same article, but break the article up by platform, after a brief section to explain the ties to the actual film. So in each section would be gameplay, dev info, and reception. Separate articles are a valid option as GNG is met, but I think one single article is a better approach than three weaker articles. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a List of The World Is Not Enough video games at this point :p ~Mable (chat) 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I would not treat it as a list though writing the lede would be different than a typical game article. "The World Is Not Enough are three video games developed separately for the N64, PS, and GBC as tie-in to the film of the same name. ...", and then just having four main sections - the common elements (the plot tied to film), and then a section per game. No tables, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Not a fan of listicles. Also, I never said the GBC version should have its own article. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • My point is if you split the other two versions, where does the GBC version go? It's still a released game with some reception, so technically prime for a separate article.

The Last of Us Part II[edit]

Please feel free to contribute to this discussion regarding the split of The Last of Us Part II into a separate article. – Rhain 00:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Character appearance charts[edit]

  • Is this thing, as a concept, appropriate? I already reverted it due to worries about the lack of sources and the OR in classifying certain appearances as "guest appearances", but disregarding that stuff, is this kind of appearance chart in its most perfect, fully sourced form really appropriate for this sort of article?--IDVtalk 06:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It doesn't work for most video games. In television series it makes sense since it tracking real-world actors and characters they portray, but in video games, there's not that same connection. So the table is definitely inappropriate for WP. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • For video games like Batman: Arkham or Uncharted, it's not totally inappropriate, but I'm not sure that the same can be said about Ace Attorney. – Rhain 06:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
        • @Rhain: I know very little about those franchises - could you explain what makes it (possibly) fitting for those two?--IDVtalk 07:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
          • @IDV: Uncharted is a character-driven franchise, often known for its actors and performances, and Batman: Arkham is known for reusing several actors and actresses from the earlier Animated Series. – Rhain 08:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Oh, so it's mostly about voice performances? Yeah, that's not relevant at all for Ace Attorney - outside of the anime and some brief animated cutscenes in the 3DS games, the only voice acting is those little "objection!" etc clips.--IDVtalk 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether that content belongs there or not, it looks terrible. The table doesn't even within the page boundaries and you have to scroll to the right to view it all (on my display at least), so it makes the article looks a unprofessional. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, same here. That's a problem I often see with this kind of tables, where a new column is added whenever a new game or film or whatever comes out - unless the franchise is already over, it'll just get too big eventually.--IDVtalk 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Video games Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 18:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 30: Holiday 2016 Edition[edit]

We're seriously at #30 of these things? What have I brought in creating this concept? But enough self-reflection, here are some articles that people can review.

FAC
GAN
Peer Reviews
FARs, GARs, etc

Peer Reviews are basically dead right now so I have no clue what is to be done with them. Community GARs as well. Also, if anyone is interested in making a new article, the Request board is still a go-to place. 2012 requests are almost through so if you're interested, it would be much appreciated. GamerPro64 23:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Begging thread[edit]

I'll trade anything (FAC, GAN, PR etc) for a source review Burning Rangers' FAC. It shouldn't take long given the number of sources it has, and I hope to get this FAC over and done with much quicker than the last. JAGUAR  13:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Is a source review a formal thing for FAC? The nomination has two supporters. Have they not reviewed the sources? --Odie5533 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also a bit new to FAC, but can I make a source/image review as well as comments that could lead into a support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Odie5533: Yeah, in addition to regular reviews FACs need an image review and a source review; they can be part of the regular review but usually aren't. A source review is explicitly just looking at the references- are they formatted correctly, are all of the sources reliable, and (especially if it's the first nomination by that editor) spotchecks of a random sample of the references to make sure that the information is in the source and is being used accurately. --PresN 15:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, @Judgesurreal777:, I'll review Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix if you can provide feedback to Tidus' FAC. What do you think?Tintor2 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great! @Tintor2: Ill take a look this evening and leave a review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)