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
  Search engine
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


Category:Comedy video games[edit]

What is the inclusion criteria for this category? Games that have at least one joke? I've never seen this used as an actual defining trait of a game, and even if a reviewer called a game "comedic", the distinction isn't a thematic genre of games as it is for film, television, etc. Thoughts? czar 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems like the pages in it are included if they have any humor, and not necessarily as a defining characteristic. This sounds like very vague criteria that would include many games that are not centrally funny. Pretty much every adventure game with some quirky lines that a reviewer remarks as "funny" would then be included. As to tightening the criteria, "comedy" is not a widely used genre or theme as applied to video games or we would have comedy game. Without the main topic, a category is almost always going to be WP:OVERCAT WP:OR. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Though I think "comedy video game" could definitely be an academic thing and video games like Goat Simulator could easily fit a kind of video game-unique literary genre. But there is very little discussion on this topic, and everything mentioned above is entirely correct. I'm fine with the category being deleted per a lack of clear inclusion criteria. I think the average 1990s LucasArts game is definitely a comedy in the literary sense, but literary genres aren't consistently applied to video games because these are rarely the focus of the experience. Over- or undercategorization is a major problem. ~Mable (chat) 20:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

UK release date in infobox[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Nintendo eShop[edit]

Are the subcategories beneath this one useful? It's similar to listing every game on a distribution platform, like every game on Steam, no? czar 00:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that consoles are generally more closed than PC, and moreso for Nintendo, there is some element of discrimination here that does seem fine to have. It would be more comparable to the Steam issue if there were multiple digital stores for Nintendo software where now the eShop just becomes one of several storefronts. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think they should be upmerged to their respective platform categories. Aren't most (if not all) games released on Nintendo platforms now also released on the eShop? That means there's a large overlap. Also, I just don't think they meet Wikipedia:Defining. Being distributed on eShop seems pretty insignificant to me. Not something I consider to be defining characteristic of a game or worth mention in the lead of an article (WP:NONDEF). It's like having Category:Xbox Games Store games or Category:PlayStation Store games. The latter of which I have just realised actually exists... --The1337gamer (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer and Masem, are there any others? These categories seem to be about games that were distributed on a digital platform, which I don't think is a defining feature. We also don't categorize when a game is distributed only in brick-and-mortar retail (by disc). What about Category:Xbox 360 Live Arcade games? czar 17:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I think you're right this category doesn't make sense. The Virtual Console stuff is fine, but the eShop is just a storefront and even if unique to Nintendo, is not much more than that. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Could the word "exclusive" add value to these categories? ~Mable (chat) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't consider the distribution or the way you obtain a game to be a defining feature of a game itself whether its download-only, retail-only, or only available through a specific store. Using the word "exclusive" might cause some confusion for categories like this. e.g. Game releases on PS4 and Nintendo Switch. Nintendo Switch version only available through eShop. So it gets placed in Category:PlayStation 4 games and Category:Nintendo Switch eShop exclusive games. But some people may interpret the latter to mean the game is only available on Nintendo Switch. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Category:Virtual Console games has a similar issue too—is being distributed on a digital emulation platform a defining trait? The category is also partially subcategorized into VC for Wii U but not for other platforms. czar 01:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In the VC case, I would think the category is reasonable; it is basically an idea of forwards compatibility which can suggest how important a game is if the necessary steps are made by Nintendo, MS, or Sony to bring that forward. We should have the same for List of Xbox 360 games compatible with Xbox One. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      Does that mean breaking out VC for Wii separate than for Wii U or 3DS? Or breaking out the original Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360? Neo Geo games released on the Switch? Is an official, emulated release a defining trait? Cats for VC, Xbox Originals, etc. appear to be no different in function from cats for digital distribution platforms. Even our lists of those are just us compiling what is available in a specific marketplace, and especially with emulation, more indicative of licensing agreements than of port development labor or distributor discretion (i.e., digital release on a specific marketplace is not a defining trait). czar 08:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      My understanding, though, is that the Virtual Console category does more than just identify distribution marketplace; it distinguishes between which games were developed for a certain platform and which games are simply emulated on it. To me, the difference between a contemporary release and an emulated retro release is a defining characteristic.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • We definitely want to avoid tracking just a list of products at a digital storefront per NOT#CATALOG, but games that gain official emulation on later system are a different matter, even if the only way to get those games is via a digital storefront. As long as the companies involved are being selective (eg at least for the initial PS3 models, I would not call the PS1/PS2 emulation it supported something we'd catalog), then there's reasonable refinement here. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa and Masem, but we don't use categories to track when games are emulated for release on contemporary platforms: Nintendo, Sega, Atari, etc. Are those not official emulations? If it's a matter of the games being released individually and not in compilation, why is VC release a defining trait but not when released via a similarly selective, emulated distribution service (e.g., Game Room)? The solution of removing eShop cats but not VC does not appear to be consistent. czar 17:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Only because I have started digging into the topic of video game preservation, the nature of official emulation (either as standalone games as on VC, backwards compat, or part of a compilation) is actually a subject of interest in that field. As such, we should track games that have been "blessed" with official emulation from its publisher or similar deal (such as VC Neo-Geo games) through categories. Yes, for VC games, this is going to mirror its eShop listing but that's merely the nature of how VC works.
This actually may means we need two sets of categories to do this properly: "(Platform) games available through emulation", and "Emulated video games available on (platform)" (not set on the naming but to get the point across). Note that in both cases, this requires the emulation to be an official, legal thing, so just because I have a MAME emulator doesn't mean those arcade games should be classified as such. Now, for Virtual Console games, I don't know enough if something like Category:Virtual Console games for Wii U would be subcat of this hypothetic "Emulated video games available on Wii U" though it would make sense. Similarly, a category "Xbox One-backwards compatable Xbox 360 games" would be a subset of "Emulated video games on Xbox One".
Having these categories helps to alleviate some of the platform kudzo that is happening in this. I just checked Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) and that's a platform mess by our infobox standards: the only two unique platforms that should be listed are the Genesis and the GBA game (as it is more than just emulation, it adds features). All other platforms are emulations with some features of the emulation system wrapped into them, which shouldn't listed, nor should they be classified in the top level of "(Platform) games" (though if we have "Emulated games on (platform)", that would be a whole subcat.) --MASEM (t) 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Good day lovely people,

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

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

After closer inspection of the document - and checking Koei Tecmo Holding's business site, it seems that, yes, Koei turned into Koei Tecmo Games Co., Ltd. (or the legal document - It's using the Emperor Date System, so, 昭和53年)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've made things a little easier by providing the successor sections myself for both Koei and Tecmo. It's an easy indicator to identify that a former company was only dissolved to be succeeded by a new corporate brand. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It still seems a little bit strange to not display them (Enix and Koei) as defunct though. I think it's an unnecessary technicality; Having two pages for Koei Tecmo Games (forming from Koei) and Koei Tecmo Holdings seems redundant as well.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  14:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Need opinion on a topic name[edit]

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

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

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

New articles - 10 March[edit]

2 March

3 March

4 March

5 March

6 March

7 March

8 March

9 March

10 March

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

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

New table at ESRB[edit]

I just created this table in the Wikipedia article on the ESRB: If anyone has sources on the rating system's legal status in Canadian Provinces other than Manitoba and Ontario (and Quebec, which uses PEGI rather than ESRB) or in Mexico, feel free to edit corrections into this. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop smoking crack and come back to reality, Quebec doesn't use PEGI. Game published in North America use ESRB. The only difference is that games sold in Canada use bilingual packaging.  · Salvidrim! ·  00:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have never smoked crack. More importantly, the Article on PEGI says that Quebec uses it. I didn't make that up. Read through that Article and its sources. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
... The PEGI article says that Quebec uses it in 3 places: in the infobox, in a table at the bottom, and in a single sentence: "PEGI labels can be found across the globe alongside other rating systems as a result of import for linguistic reasons (e.g.: English versions in South Africa, Spanish or Portuguese versions in Latin America, French versions in Quebec)". Not only are all of these unsourced (and no, to correct your apparent misconception, "the article's sources" in general don't count as a source, it needs a cite specific to the claim), but the table mention was added by you. Even if we take that one sentence at face value, it doesn't say that Quebec uses PEGI- it says that people in French-speaking Quebec sometimes import games from France, which uses PEGI. If that counts as "uses PEGI", you might as well delete the table and say "worldwide", because anyone anywhere in the world can import a game from France, which by that logic means that whatever country they were in "uses PEGI". --PresN 11:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • One other difference that several games released in Quebec in several cases have French tranlations in the game, No idea where the PEGI claim came from.-- (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
      • As a Quebec gamer, I don't even think games have "French versions" anymore -- most games have built-in multilingual support across the entire North American version. Perhaps the confusion stems from games imported from France being rated by PEGI.  · Salvidrim! ·  04:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Characters of the Yakuza series[edit]

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

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

Updated Find video game sources search template[edit]

I've updated {{Find video game sources}} to use the centralized syntax from {{Find sources}}, which used Module:Find sources, which now has the Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources video games version and utilizes both Module:Find sources/links/vgrs (for WP:VG/RS) and the new Module:Find sources/links/vgrl (for WP:VG/RL):

Find video game sources: "Sonic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "Sonic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This template should be useful in AfD discussion and similar, such as [1]. I don't think there are any tools that replace the default one automatically, so currently it's a manual change. This should lead to easier search access.

Are there any other search location we should consider? Should the display details be adjusted? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The new template is missing the search in WPVG Talk. This is one reason why the old template was added to our 'Sources' project page. SharkD  Talk  13:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the elaboration, I've never used this one outside AfD and the talk page search wasn't all that useful. I added the WP:VG/T prefix search to the template via the module's syntax. We might consider two separate templates for AfD and project use, though personally I think one is fine. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It's missing the LinkSearch and LinkTo links as well. You might want to check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to see how the template is being used. Creating two separate templates might be a good idea. SharkD  Talk  14:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Re-added the |linksearch= from the old template syntax. I don't think {{Find sources}} supports this kind of extra parameter stuff, but we can just append the code to the template directly (for now anyway, unless we go with two versions). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI, there is also a mini-fied version of the template used in the colored tables, here. Just so you know. SharkD  Talk  16:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... I probably won't touch that. I don't think there is any code logic in the module for alternative layouts or labels. I still haven't figured if I can even add any custom documentation to the template. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've messaged Enterprisey about automating the addition of the sources template within the Delsort script (when someone adds the AfD to the video game delsort). That should be the easiest way to do it. czar 17:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thinking about it, it would be a sensible addition to User:AAlertBot, since it has to visit all the AfD pages anyway and it knows which ones are part of the video games project. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

New page Rifleman (arcade game) (1967 electro-mechanical shooter)[edit]

In case there's anyone else interested in the old electro-mechanical Sega games, I started a stub for Rifleman (arcade game) but it could use expansion, particularly in including the Japanese title, and any Japanese-language sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh. First off, cool! Second off, I'm not entirely convinced the VG project should be covering electro-mechanical games. We cover early computer-based games (see early history of video games), but this involves neither a computing device nor a video screen, so it's not really a "video game" in any sense except that it superficially resembles the more modern arcade video games that started in 1971 and a few years after began to completely dominate the industry. We do appear to have tagged early non-video game pinball games (Baffle Ball, Humpty Dumpty (pinball)), but again I think this is both in error and an artifact of how these games were precursors to actual pinball video games. If we cover 1960s/earlier electro-mechanical arcade/pinball games, then what's the line between that and any electronic game? --PresN 17:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really know how this arcade game functions, but I agree with PresN that we should be careful in what we "allow" when it comes to things like this. If Rifleman is considered part of our WikiProject, does that mean a large number of other arcade games that are currently not tagged as such should be tagged for our WikiProject as well? Rifleman is produced by Sega, but does it have other relations to video games? I did notice that there doesn't seem to be a WikiProject for arcade machines like these. Maybe all such arcade machines (that aren't WP:WikiProject Pinball machines) should be added to our scope? ~Mable (chat) 20:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Early non-video games are fully this project's responsibility. They laid the ground work for the video arcade to evolve into. WikiProject computing have fully embraced the fact that things like the Analytical Engine, Colossus and UNIVAC I are within their scope. They've even got an "Early Computing" task force, which is something we should have. These arcade machines are our responsibility, we should adopt them. - X201 (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that's fair, but I'd like to know what other arcade games would fall in the same category as Rifleman. The age of it is fairly irrelevant to me (though its relation to Sega definitely makes it relevant to our project) ~Mable (chat) 13:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong feeling on this issue either way, but I feel I should point out that the Analytical Engine, Colossus, and UNIVAC I are actually computers, so of course they fall under the computing wikiproject. Mechanical and Electro-mechanical coin-operated amusements are not video games, and the history of that industry predates the advent of commercial video games by roughly one hundred years. There are some connections one can make between the two industries, but its not so easy as saying Sega made video games so we should maintain all Sega game articles. What about Caille Brothers, Mills Novelty Company, Exhibit Supply, J.H. Keeney Company, or International Mutoscope? These are companies that released dozens of important and popular arcade games, but none of them were still manufacturing product in the video era. Where do you draw the line while still ostensibly serving as a video game project? Indrian (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Are any of these electric arcade games notable? I still haven't seen any articles on arcade games that may fall under the same scope, and I have a hard time judging whether something should fall under our WikiProject if we only have one example. I'd also like to know if this is a field that is underdeveloped. ~Mable (chat) 18:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Many of them are in the context of arcade history. Are many of them notable in video game history? Probably not other than that the early arcade video games adopted many of the genres and conventions of the EM games in the 1970s. The video game industry and the coin-operated amusement industry are really two different entities that happen to intersect for a time. The earliest coin-operated amusements date to the early 1870s, while the earliest arcades appeared in the 1890s. To declare the first 100 years of arcade history a mere prologue to video games does a disservice to an industry that still today relies on far more than just video to make ends meet. Again, I have no strong preference on whether or not this project takes all that on, but I do want to raise awareness of what a large body of non-video-game work that would represent. Indrian (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
"I'd also like to know if this is a field that is underdeveloped" - regardless of their relation to this wikiproject, the answer to this question is yes- Arcade game focuses almost exclusively on arcade video games, and the "history" section gives a short paragraph about games of a few types existing, then has a few paragraphs about "Electro-mechanical games" that starts with the 1966 Periscope (arcade game) and ignores anything before it. As Indrian says above, at that point arcade games had been around for over 70 years, and electro-mechanical ones since at least the 30s- you wouldn't know it from that article, but the Pinball article is a bit better and talks about pinball games moving from purely mechanical to electro-mechanical with the 1933 Contact. There's a lot of non-video arcade game history not being covered. --PresN 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd like to extend what Indrian is saying about the scope of the issue- due to it being underdeveloped, there's not a lot of articles on pre-video game electro-mechanical games. Maybe a dozen articles on electro-mechancial pinball games, and probably around that for electro-mechanical arcade games. And, as Indrian says, what about regular-mechanical arcade games? Clearly precursors to video games in the same way as their electric brethren (terminology and game concepts being borrowed), though I have no idea how many articles we actually have on those. But, at what point do we cut it off? Depending on how you're willing to stretch the definition, the first "video game" was in 1950, or 1958, or 1962. Regardless, the first commercial arcade video game was in 1971. Do we cut off electro-mechanical games there? What about ones released during the 70s? What about ones released in the 90s, arcade or handlheld, with no video screen but with electronic circuits? What about Redemption games, that have far more electronics than a 1960s arcade game but no video screen? I'm not taking a hard stance on this either, and I don't know how many articles today this would actually cover, but I think trying to absorb pre-video game arcade games means that we need to take in pretty much any article on a game that involves electronics, and that seems a bit off for a "video game" project. (Also, to X201: I'd be down for an "early video games" project, though you'd have to define the scope pretty wide to get more than me and maybe Indrian involved- I did the 1971 and earlier games, and Indrian knows a ton, but there's not a lot of people working in that space right now). --PresN 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in seeing these kinds of articles improved upon than discussion regarding whether they do or do not belong within our scope. That being said, if there are only a dozen articles under discussion here, I would see absolutely no issue with adding them all to our scope. To what point we want to stretch these definitions is tough indeed. Redemption game is already covered by our WikiProject, as is Periscope. They also have nowhere else to go. I would err on the inclusionistic side here, while leaving electronic pinball and non-electronic games out of our scope entirely. Would that be fair? ~Mable (chat) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Vgrelease Lua Module conversion[edit]

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

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

New articles - 16 March[edit]

2 March

10 March

11 March

12 March

13 March

14 March

15 March

16 March

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

Multiplayer, single-player infobox order[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Missing magazine article names[edit]

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

ToonTown Online and Independent vs. Primary Sources[edit]

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

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

CD Projekt and CD Projekt RED[edit]

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

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

CD Projekt S.A. is a capital group. Sure, it's involved in video game development and distribution but it's made through its subsidiaries - not directly as suggested. The article states as if CD Projekt S.A. is a video game developer when in reality CD Projekt RED does just that. Same for video game distribution -[2] Having this in mind I feel this article should be rewritten and split into two - CD Projekt and CD Projekt RED.

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

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

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

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