Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105

10th Anniversary of Metal Arms: Glitch in the System

Apparently, the game Metal Arms: Glitch in the System recently celebrated it's 10th year anniversary. I know this because fans of the game have recently been making a big fuss about it in the Metal Arms: Glitch in the System article. Now I know that anniversaries and their celebrations are occasionally notable, such as the 25th anniversaries of Super Mario Bros and Legend of Zelda, but I don't know exactly what the criteria is. Is this notable enough to talk about on the article? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be the same criteria as always: coverage in reliable, secondary sources. If IGN or whatever posts an article on the anniversary, it may be worth including a sentence or two, but the article certainly didn't need an unsourced paragraph, so I removed it czar ♔ 06:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Those are the criteria for a new article, or for a detailed Analysis section discussing the impact of the anniversary. For a single sentence, a comment from the developers is enough. Diego (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't bother Larry, it's the same IP over and over again. I'm pretty sure it's also the same person that made the account User:Brad snake412, with the same edits like before. I've asked for a indef semi-protect again, maybe this time it'll work. --Soetermans. T / C 16:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I was tagged in this post ? and your saying im who now ??? im just new to wiki so i don't get why your getting me confused with someone elseBrad snake412 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Another quick note,Our page with Metal Arms fans has a lot of people on there and i do know of a lot that have been editing the wiki so dont make me responsible for their edits thank you Brad snake412 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, they just all happen to be from the Subiaco suburb of Perth. --Soetermans. T / C 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dude that really isn't me,Are you looking at Random IP's or something cause like i said there is a few fans that edit the page now stop blaming me for what they do ok Brad snake412 (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess I must be wrong then. Sorry about that. About the article though: please read the guidelines and maybe those on video games also. Just because a game is 10 years old doesn't mean it should be mentioned, unless it receives some attention from video game websites or magazines. --Soetermans. T / C 00:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is its 10th Anniversary every game no matter how popular or not should always be mentioned about its Anniversary Brad snake412 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? Every game has a 10th anniversary, they can't not. There's a few every week. Unless the developers do something to commemorate it, there's nothing special about it. --PresN 04:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me my message was not towards you i was just stating a game should always have it mentioned because every game i have seen seem to always mention it Brad snake412 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I'm reading here, it looks like the necessary condition is that the developers celebrate it somehow. Nintendo celebrated the 25th anniversary of Super Mario Bros by releasing commemorative software and music CDs. The developers of Metal Arms celebrated the 10th by posting a quick note on their Facebook page. Now that it's gotten the equally quick mention it needs, it seems like this discussion should be done, unless the developers decide to do more. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd contend that it's not even worth the one-sentence mention if no secondary source cared to cover it. Not that I care to pursue that route, since it's not like the article is in a great state otherwise czar ♔ 10:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Their company was bought out so they have not got lots of money to do anything else also Czar it is good to mention it i know all of yous don't really care at all.So please just leave the anniversary edit on there thanks.Its kinda of annoying as it just sounds like your treating it like crap which it is not ^_^ Brad snake412 (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Czar. It has almost nothing to do with reception anyway. -Thibbs (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It shows that the video game is still being talked about and has a followers base ten years later. (Shouldn't this conversation be held at the article's talk page)? If that's not "reception", the section can be renamed "legacy" or "influence" or something like that. Diego (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Legacy or influence fits better in my view. But yeah this is a content discussion. The article talk page would be best. -Thibbs (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The reason I brought it up here was I wanted a general case answer. Unless I'm mistaken, that answer is that the developers have to acknowledge the anniversary somehow, and that our mention should about match that acknowledgement. In this specific case, I think that's met as it currently stands, as soon as I move it to "Legacy". Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified cosplay

I've created commons:Category:Unidentified cosplay. I'd suggest that we move all pictures from commons:Category:Cosplay there (I've already identified all that I could). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to post this note over at WT:FCHAR. -Thibbs (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Title of Fire Emblem (video game)

I don't like the way this article is titled. Shall I propose right now, or leave it alone? --George Ho (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific of the issue? Is it that Fire Emblem is one game and Fire Emblem (video game) is another? That is messy, I'm not sure what the best approach would be though. Яehevkor ✉ 11:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The titling seems to be consistent with most articles where the series name is the same as the first name in the series. Final Fantasy and Devil May Cry, for instance. — Mr. V (t – c) 11:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I misread Fire Emblem, I thought it was for a specific game rather than the series. I can't see any problems then, hopefully George Ho can clarify. Яehevkor ✉ 12:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue is that Fire Emblem (video game) is not the first game in the series (it's the 7th, at least), and it was not originally released under the title Fire Emblem (it was localized months after the original Fire Emblem: Rekka no Ken release). For previous games in the series, the article is titled under the Japenese name (romanized as needed) because they were never released outside Japan, and this was the first game to be localized in English; it is sufficiently commonly known as Fire Emblem to be titled as it is now. I'm not sure it would be better for the game to be at the non-disambiguated title and the series article appended with (series), especially considering the precedent of other series. I don't like it either, but I cannot think of a better solution. (On another note: why is it only C-class!? *gasps*) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Extra precision perhaps, i.e. add "2003"? Or propose the natural disambiguation? George Ho (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I would be fine with (2003 video game). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's C-class because improving articles with names like Fire Emblem are hard. :P - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Current title is fine. There are no other games titled "Fire Emblem" so it doesn't need extra disambiguation. I agree that this is an unusual case in video games but we don't add extra disambiguation to self-titled music albums even if they are not the debut album. For example: Metallica (album) vs Metallica (1991 album). --Mika1h (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Fire Emblem (1990) is the first game, and Metallica comparison isn't helping much. I'm seeing one-one here, and both points aren't strong enough to prevent me from proposing. We can't go for a secret vote or consensus. I'm gonna request it anyway. George Ho (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not yet requesting. I've already created Fire Emblem (1990 video game) as a redirect to Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi, the very first game. George Ho (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The move request at Talk:Fire Emblem (video game) has been relisted. Please join in discussion there to comment. George Ho (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Using ingame books as citations

I'm creating Setting of The Elder Scrolls in my userspace, and for it to become an article proper, I need citations for my content. There's an archive of in-game books at Imperial Library, and UESP keeps a list of books as well. Would these be appropriate to use in an article? GHBishop (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, they would be great sources, as other then plot from conversations with NPCs, the books tell a great deal of lore. However, for notability purposes, reliable third party sources would also be nice to establish why an article about Elder Scrolls lore is a thing. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Went ahead and ripped content from the Morrowind article, and threw in a reception source I found! :) Feel free to rewrite, and flesh out with content from the ingame books, as relevant. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In-game content can be cited using the {{Cite video game}} template. It is acceptable as a Self-published source of information about itself. So like Blake said, it's ideal for expanding plot details. Since it doesn't represent third-party material, however, it cannot be used to establish notability - a de facto requirement for articles to avoid deletion. -Thibbs (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me -- one of my clients, Jason Dickson (an antique books dealer) had written an article for Kotaku on the subject of books inside the Elder Scrolls universe, from a real world perspective. That would certainly be helpful! Lemme see if I can find the article again. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo DS storage devices

Repeating the concerns of a previous talk page message, is this article in any way notable? It, to me, appears to be a hive for advertising that could have at the very least 80% of the content stripped from it. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is indeed a mess. Cleaning it up would be quite an undertaking, it possibly needs to be written from scratch. Individual sections for different flash carts should probably be discarded.. what little of the article is sourced, it's to either primary or unreliable/questionable sources. Яehevkor ✉ 22:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now due to sounding like it should be something that's notable and the strong opposition to merging on the talk page. I'm dubious though, especially considering most of that opposition was from unregistered IPs. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Video game release

That template seems to display dates twice for some reason. There aren't any changes to the template page so I don't know where the problem is. --Mika1h (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Try a different browser? I'm not seeing anything. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Try bypassing your browser cache. I reverted what I think the problem is. [1] « Ryūkotsusei » 22:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, the usage of a sortkey for dates in this template is uncommon and does not match the norm where these templates are always first in the table cell (not prefixed with a language code). This is weird. I will sleep on it, and decide what to do with this, either make the selector less specific at the risk of breaking other layouts, adapt the core template to accept a prefix, or to split of this weird side case for the usage of date sorting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sales figures

Sourcing video game sales numbers reliably appears to be a perennial issue around these parts. Do we have the strategies for sourcing this stuff documented somewhere? It would be helpful. What are the usual avenues? What's the deal with using NPD data? What about data for older consoles/games when figures weren't posted online?

Also they aren't mentioned in the WPVG guidelines. Are figures required for GA or FA status? czar ♔ 03:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't use VG Chartz. Use NPD Group, or statements straight from quarterly/yearly reports from the companies who made the game. (Or there's a few more charts if we're talking JP sales.) That's about it. Sadly, it can be hard to come across official data for many games... Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, sales figures are not required for GA/FA, as they're generally difficult to find at all. That said, many AAA games (and some indies) will get a joystiq/gamasutra post about them if they make it into the top 10 for a month or have particularly high first-week sales, and if you can find any RS mention of sales, they should be in the article, no question. --PresN 06:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Eyes at Thesurvivor2299.com

There's a website floating about apparently related to Fallout 4, there has been some coverage but not that I would consider significant. It now has an article, Thesurvivor2299.com. Is this notable? Even if it turns out to be a hoax (likely) or not should this article exist? Яehevkor ✉ 15:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need its own article, currently it is entirely based speculation and unreliable sources. If it does turn out to be a legitimate website that Bethesda registered for teasing a game, then the necessary info can be merged into a Fallout 4 article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The1337gamer (talk • contribs)
Besides failing obvious WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, the site is basically a WP:PROMO piece for (probably) FO4. Even if so, it should be merged to FO4 development in a couple of sentences. The current content is just fancruft at its max. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd second everything that's been said up until this point, for the policies cited. Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Taken it to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thesurvivor2299.com. Яehevkor ✉ 09:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Interest in overhauling Saints Row article

I'm interested in completely overhauling the Saints Row article, setting a goal to attain GA-status. I'd like to know if there's anybody else willing to lend a hand. I'm just starting work by adding a Development section, given that GameSpy ran a series of great developer diaries with key team members, going into great depth about designing the game. I've gone through Diary #1, and I'm going through Diary #2 but it uses a lot of technical lingo I'm not confident I can rewrite articulately into the article.

Some other handy sources:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]

Saints Row has potential to be a great article. CR4ZE (t) 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're still on this project around the holidays, let me know and I'll have more time to join in czar ♔ 05:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Magnavox Odyssey image at FPC

There is a Featured Picture candidate up for an image of the Magnavox Odyssey. The nomination can be found here and will be closed on December 9th. GamerPro64 18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Coming up on December 2nd we have List of X-Men video games being on the front page. Will we expect outcry from the masses for this being another video game related article on the main page? Or will it finally be accepted as part of society? GamerPro64 04:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The last few TFA's did not get a lot of negative attention so hopefully it's a sign that most people have moved on.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
What sort of outcry has there been in the past? Samwalton9 (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Basically its that we should be covering more important articles than video games and in some case that they should not be covered because they are stupid. There also have been attempts to keep video games off the main page. One example of this is Talk:Main Page/Archive 152#Another stupid video game making featured article status?. There have been several other complaints over the years. The good news is ideas like this have never gotten of the ground --174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I kind of find it funny that people are taking my little comment seriously as I was sort of referencing the X-Men themselves as, in the comments, are outcasts who aren't accepted by society. Which is like how VG articles are on the main page, but I wasn't really serious on the issue. GamerPro64 23:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you've evoked some emotion from the video game community, GamerPro. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I my case its not so much emotion but a history lesson. The only reason that I mentioned the games as being stupid remark was it the was the from the first significant discussion I could find.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Proteus (video game) Peer Review

Hi guys, I've started a Peer Review for the recently GA Proteus in an effort to address how far from FA it is. Would be great to have some comments :) Samwalton9 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Peer review/Proteus (video game)/archive1 czar ♔ 22:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
A link to the peer review is an excellent idea. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Flow invitation to kick-the-tires

Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.

The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.

What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:

  1. If there are any bugs (you can report them here);
  2. What changes or features you'd need added, to be personally comfortable with deploying it on your WikiProject (which you can explain here)

On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.

Thanks! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It would be great if more editors would test out the current setup, and give feedback (there, here, anywhere!). The devs and designers need to know what you're thinking, and what you're missing/wanting (and what you're appreciating!).
Also, you might like to glance through these 2 test pages that I created on that server: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hampshire and Talk:River_source which I copied across a few weeks/days ago. I copied them across diff-by-diff by going through the history, and used a variety of accounts (randomly in the first, and more rigorously in the second), so hopefully that's a fairly accurate representation of how it might look (except for the clustered times).
Thanks again, –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll try and look sometime after the holidays. Thanks for the heads-up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

two categories for discussion

Please weigh in on these two discussions of relevance to this project:

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories and OR?

Usually I don't care about category listings (Alan Wake and "dams in fiction"? C'mon!), but I stumbled upon Anti-war video games. "This is a listing of video games that depict war negatively." Isn't this subjective and arbitrary? --Soetermans. T / C 12:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This "X in bullshit" stuff is retarded, but the subject of anti-war games was covered in media (espcially after Spec Ops The Line). Also, most categories everywhere are added subjectively. --Niemti (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow all of that, but I do agree that, with the exception of the most obvious, objective categories (2013 video games, Sega video games, etc) much of it is rather subjective and arbitrary. It really does seem to run pretty strongly against the rest of the projects basis of backing everything with reliable sources, since categories are rarely sourced. I guess all you can do is find consensus on talk pages if there's questionable ones, presenting sources there if possible in those discussions... Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's too indiscriminate, because a game about war can carry the message on being anti-war, and that could be something of a subjective measure (Spec Ops seems a great example here). "Games considered to carry anti-war messages", where we use sourcing for that, would be more appropriate. Also, category additions are not supposed to be subjective. They are meant as objective classifications, and if you have to think for a moment to consider whether something belongs in a category or not, that's a bad category. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a whole category of Category:Anti-war works, so I think it's established that something can be patently anti-war. What we need, however, is RS that call a given game an "anti-war" game. Several I looked at didn't seem to fit, so a purge may be in order. Note: Just because the point of the game is to prevent a war, I don't think that makes the game anti-war.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Assistance w/ filling articles w/ 'best of' sources

I've recently been making a point of adding various sources to a number of articles (so far only a list for Castlevania games, a part of GI's top 100 list, and part of an NES games list); it's a bit of a time sink, so I was hoping that someone could help distribute these sources to the proper articles. Any takers? FYI, I do plan to do a rather large number of notable lists, so I can use all of the help I can get. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that when adding sources that say "Game X was ranked Y on a list of Z", it should also state a rationale, stating why it was so notable to gain a spot on the list. A number alone is not notable, however the commentary is! Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Gamecruft?

Guys, is this gamecruft or not? Huge list of secondary characters, a listing of stages... I would say yes, Ryulong (talk · contribs) says no. --Soetermans. T / C 18:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Even if nothing else the excessive nature of it all makes it total cruft. --Teancum (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You nuked the entire list of characters, including playable characters (something found on all fighting game pages), in addition to the lists of NPCs and stages. NPCs are simply listed by name and voice actor, which will become more relevant as the anime adaptation rolls out its next season, and the stages were part of the game's promotion (seen in the following Famitsu articles [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]), as they are based on iconic scenes from the manga. The inclusion of these items normally considered "gamecruft" are minimal at best and are included on the article due to its nature as an anniversary commemoration.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
If the voices are same as the anime, then point to the list of characters for the franchise, but they don't go in the article about the game. A brief list of the playable characters is usually okay. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Most of the voice cast debuts in the game, though (as only two parts of the manga have been animated [ignoring the 15 year old miniseries and the panned movie]). And the bulk of the content that was removed by Soetermans was the playable character list and its footnotes.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You can still toss the voice credits at the franchise list of characters. As for the lists, it still is cruft. Consider this: Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds; they just list out the characters, no details on movies or the like. Links are provided to read more about the characters elsewhere. This can be done here. Yes, the primary characters should be included, but the details in the footnotes are too much. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The footnotes serve to explain why there are three characters who share the same name, as well as labeling DLC and any supporting characters that appear during play. I don't see how they do not help the reader who has no prior knowledge of the subject.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Those are reasonable footnotes, but I saw others in those removed that were too detailed; so yes, the list can include footnotes. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Age of Mythology's FAR

I have nominated Age of Mythology 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. GamerPro64 17:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter Interest

Due to the newsletter having an average of three people writing it up every quarter, it makes it kind of hard to not get warn down by it. So I'm writing this to see if anyone's interested in contributing to the paper to help with progression. GamerPro64 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe in the new year, quite busy at the moment but I'd be interested. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Auto-collapsing VG Reviews template

I've noticed that most of the VG review boxes auto-collapse, why is that? was that an editorial decision? i can't find a single discussion on it in the template article.

I think we should revert it. its more of a nuisance, and I've already seen it to be something that would affect GA reviews.Lucia Black (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

They should not autocollapse. Collapse should only be used for content that is not considered essential as when WP pages are printed, they do not auto-expand such boxes. And I would consider reviews to be essential. If the table is long, that's a reason to remove reviews (the idea of the table is to capture a snapshot of scores to accompany the text, not include every possible review score). --MASEM (t) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
unfortunately, i can't find out whats making them auto-collapse.Lucia Black (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you seeing them all auto-collapse or just some? Samwalton9 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Most of them, but there is an inconsistency. Revelations: Persona autocollaps but Persona 2 does not.Lucia Black (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
They're showing the same for me fyi. I had the same suspicion that the cause was the state field but I can't see any reason for it to collapse... Samwalton9 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Having said that, the documentation page says "If set to blank, the table will always start be set to autocollapse state." Perhaps the table gets stuck in autocollapse if it has had a blank state parameter, even when removed? Samwalton9 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But it never did that before. plus it seems odd to collapse after removing the blank parameter. other templates don't do that.Lucia Black (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I should really wait and collect my thoughts before posting. I've figured out why this is happening now; not having a state field, or having a blank one, default the table to autocollapse which means "The table will start out collapsed if there are two or more tables on the same page that use other collapsible tables. Otherwise, the table will be expanded." which appears to be the case. Revelations: Persona has multiple other tables, whereas Persona 2 doesn't. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
seems kind of glitchy. i'm considering this as a new issue, we didn't have this problem before. So maybe someone should update the template so it doesn't do that.Lucia Black (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The template recently incorporated Template:Video game multiple platforms reviews and switched to a Lua implementation. Now when "state" is blank, it defaults to auto-collapse, which may have been carried over from Template:Video game multiple platforms reviews, I'm not sure as the documentation has been deleted. Just remove the state field altogether. - hahnchen 01:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed this- if state was not set to 'plain' or 'off', it would add the autocollapse class. You now have to explicitly add 'state=autocollapse' to get that, not just not set the state flag. --PresN 23:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • This discussion was done improperly. I was left out of the loop. WikiProject is not the place for consensus of template changes. Go the the article or template that is needed to be reviewed.—CKY2250 ταικ 01:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Discussions about Wikiproject templates, particularly one that influences the bulk of our articles, needs to be discussed or at minimum highlighted here, since most editors aren't watching the actual templates. --MASEM (t) 01:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Not to mention there was no need to notify you personally, since you "retired", and don't own the template regardless. --PresN 07:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm inactive, not retired. Either way if you see edits recently in there contribs you should notify the person about changes, since they are they are the one who created and designed it.—CKY2250 ταικ 14:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
          • It's generally assumed that unless we're talking deletion or other similar action on a template (or other page), that the user that created it or has had major input into it has the template on their watchpage and thus normal changes don't need to notify that person in any other special manner. (Also, this way lies down that of WP:OWN) --MASEM (t) 14:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    Regardless whether you were left out of the loop, the collapsibility is plainly incorrect according to the manual of style, and a local template or WikiProject-based consensus cannot override the manual of style. In other words, that we have a state field at all seems to fly in the face of the MOS... (this is also true of our infobox, apparently!). --Izno (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

GameCube vs Nintendo GameCube

After seeing this edit changing instances of Nintendo GameCube to simply GameCube, I came to question whether that was the correct thing to do. Looking at random articles in Category:Nintendo GameCube-only games, the results seem to be varied on which way it is done. So what do you say about it?(Funfact: the more you look at the word GameCube, the more it sounds like an unofficial third party console!) Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's funny, your "fun fact" is actually the reason why I usually prefer Nintendo in front of it - "GameCube" can sound so generic if you think about it. Or to a non-video gamer/general audience type. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be best to say "Nintendo GameCube" in the first sentence of prose, but elsewhere it should be fine, as long as we have elaborate previously that it is a Nintendo system. The tricky part about this however, is the fact we would not say "Microsoft Xbox" or "Sony PlayStation", however, you would not similarly drop the Nintendo in 3DS or 64, because alone those sound ambiguous. So it really is a case-by-case bias it seems, which is why it is so important that this gets discussed. :) Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Your example is wrong. Nintendo 3DS and Nintendo 64 are their official name and therefore the name "Nintendo" should never be dropped. Meanwhile, Xbox and Playstation are their official name and therefore should be referred as such. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
For a while the article title was "Nintendo GameCube" but it was moved to "GameCube". Common name and stuff. Concerning writing articles, I'm with Blake. To me it is the same like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, of course that it the full and true title, but throughout the article you'd just write Skyrim. --Soetermans. T / C 10:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree with Blake too. I guess the difference with this and Xbox/PlayStation is that the GameCube was just a single console whereas Xbox and Playstation have been 3 consoles each and so have become a more generally recognised name. That they're names still used regularly today helps too I guess. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It also brings up the question of "what is its name, really?". In official Nintendo sources[13][14], it seems to be that the Gameboy and Wii lines are the only consoles to omit Nintendo in their name, as opposed to NES, SNES, Nintendo 64, Nintendo GameCube, and Nintendo DS/Nintendo 3DS. As such, I think it would be proper to use the full name in at least the first mention in an article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"List of locations" as fancruft

I see that list of locations in games removed in articles as fancruft. But then why do people put the categories of video game settings in article, especially in driving game. For example in Gran Turismo 6:

[[Category:Video games set in Australia]] [[Category:Video games set in Belgium]] [[Category:Video games set in California]] [[Category:Video games set in England]] [[Category:Video games set in Florida]] [[Category:Video games set in France]] [[Category:Video games set in Germany]] [[Category:Video games set in Indianapolis, Indiana]] [[Category:Video games set in Italy]] [[Category:Video games set in Japan]] [[Category:Video games set in London]] [[Category:Video games set on the Moon]] [[Category:Video games set in Spain]] [[Category:Video games set in Tokyo]]

(Note, the category set on the Moon is NOT vandal - there is a special event, based on the Apollo 15 mission, that is actually set on the moon.)


This is essentially another form of list of game locations, IMO. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

When you speak of locations being fancruft, do you mean in-universe settings or real-life settings such as London? KonveyorBelt 04:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
A racing game that just happened to have tracks in those countries are not set in those countries. On the other hand, a game like Uncharted or CO where there's story levels that occur in those countries would qualify for this. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand with Masem's sentiment, but in the past I've argued for these categories to be retained for racing games set in different locales (as opposed to sports games). Racing tracks set in specific locales often bear distinctive resemblance to the real locations they're set it and/or feature landmarks prominently (as opposed to, say, many different stadiums with minor visual differences between cities). Whether it's CoD:MW3's plot happening partly in Paris, or some racing game featuring a track where cars circle the Eiffel Tower, there's little difference in my eyes when it comes to categorizing at Category:Video games set in Paris. AFAIK, the category doesn't hold a requirement that the game be set in full or in majority in the relevant location. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand you, User:SYSS Mouse. I'm guessing you're referring to this edit; is that right? And generally you want to know why categories aren't considered cruft while lists in the body of the article are, right? I think it ultimately boils down to neutrality actually. That's perhaps a strange argument, but I think the main difference between an article-body list and a collection of categories at the bottom is primarily aesthetic. I's true that the same information is presented, but they are presented in different forms and one takes up a large percentage of the article's total body while the other is a small skim of detail at the end of the article. By devoting a large chunk of article space to a list the concern is that we are giving it undue weight given its actual prominence relative to the topic as a whole. I think this same rationale underlies the WP:VG:MoS' suggestion at "Inappropriate content" item #6 that "a concise summary" may be a possible solution.
    Regarding whether or not we should have large numbers of "video games set in" categories like that at the end, I guess I lean slightly toward keeping them mostly because I don't see any harm in them. Although I'm not sure how much benefit a reader would get out of them, as an editor I can imagine using such a category to help me locate RS coverage of the game from the places depicted. Could go either way... -Thibbs (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we can and should make the distinction between different kinds of games and what "video games set in..." actually means. For instance, The Last of Us takes place in the United States. More specifically, playing the game the player will visit Texas, Boston, Pittsburgh, Wyoming and Salt Lake City. I wouldn't say that the game is set in one of these locations, but the overarching U.S. Genre and gameplay wise, in a typical racing game the player can choose different tracks. The ability to have a choice in the matter and not being "forced" to visit the Moon for instance makes it hard for me to think that Gran Turismo is "set" in all those locations. --Soetermans. T / C 10:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it could be applied here as well. The fact that you'd have 25% of the article-space taken up by an in-body list of locations that may be completely incidental to the topic implies by its very length that it represents about 25% of the relevant information on the topic. By giving them so much room it suggests to the reader that the locations represent a particularly noteworthy aspect of the topic and of course noteworthiness is determined by third parties and usually involved viewpoints. -Thibbs (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't consider any racing game, sports game, even various games with multiple levels to bet "set" in any location. This seems to be missing the central point and diluting the categories with lots of games that merely have a level or track in some place. A central location -- sure, may be even 2 or 3 places if it is a really big game with themes central to those locales. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, a game with a single level or brief period in one country to me doesn't qualify as "set in" that country - that's like a cameo. My mind is completely forgetting the details of the Uncharted games, but given their structure similar to the Indy Jones movies, there are two-three major locations that the story spends a significant amount of time in, and those are cases I would call "set in" appropriate. Or a less apt example would be Half-Life, where we would say (if these were real places) the game was set in Black Mesa RF and in Xen. (they are fictional ,but the idea about how much of the plot revolves around those two points is the important facet) --MASEM (t) 16:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As for category vs list. I prefers list, regardless of what the guideline says because even as a list it is still part of the article, while strictly speaking, categories at the bottom is NOT part of the article text. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Music sections on Arkham

Hi guys,

What do you think, should music sections go below the reception section? I'm saying yes, music is part of the game, and articles often have some information about the composing process. The other day I moved the section up in Batman: Arkham Origins, but Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) disagrees. Could you explain your motivation, Darkwarriorblake? I don't want to paraphrase your words and saying the wrong things. --Soetermans. T / C 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Usually the Reception section is the last section in a video game article before the list of references. As such, when there's a section dedicated to the music, its over top of the Reception section. An example is God of War III. GamerPro64 19:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I could see "Music" being a sub-header under "Development", unless the music specifically received exceptional coverage. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it generally goes above reception, I thought. Being part of development/release doesn't sound bad either. However the only thing that should go below reception is legacy. So unless the soundtrack is somehow considered part of the game's legacy, I don't think it belongs there. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Music sections are pretty much always a subsection of Development, and when they're not, they're a full section just after Development. The Music (sub)section should contain information on the compositional process, music styles used, and any albums released as a result. If you don't have more than a paragraph of information, you can just leave it in Development without a subsection. Reception on the music should go in the Reception section, just like the reception on the gameplay goes there, not in the Gameplay section. Reception on any soundtrack albums is generally out of the scope of a video game article, but would go in a dedicated "Music of" article, but if you wanted to include it in the video game's article it's up to the editor whether to put it in the Music section or the Reception section- it's a rare enough thing that there's no set way. (Source- I write a lot of VG music articles, and music sections inside of FAs.) --PresN 20:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Before discussing goes any further, is there a rule enforcing the positioning of Music? If not, we can end it right here and not waste our time. Arkham City passed FA with game-related people involved and its music section the last part of any directly related game content. Arkham Origins follows this pattern for obvious reasons in terms of series related articles, Arkham Asylum does not because there isn't enough content to warrant it. The reception section does not contain any reception relating to the music, the Music sections can and do exist independently of pretty much anything else in the article and so interrupting the flow of content directly referring to the game and not ambient music is distracting and unwarranted. In Arkham City, before the content was stripped out to another article it was a huge deviation from the game right smack in the middle of the plot/development/gameplay and the actual reception content relating to said plot/development/gameplay. There is no harm at all in Music coming after these things, and if there is no argument to say how having the sections at the bottom is detrimental to the article, then there is no reasoning to change what is existing without harm. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Why should there be a specific "rule"? For some reason you seem to think that music should below reception, while even in this little discussion it's made clear that it shouldn't be. You talk about the flow of the article, and that music somehow breaks that flow up. Maybe music isn't important for you personally, but it is part of the game and its development. I really appreciate all your hard work on the Arkham articles Darkwarriorblake, but this is sounding like article ownership to me. --Soetermans. T / C 20:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion has said that "usually" that is where it goes, not that it HAS to go there, no argument is given against it and in your unexplained edits on the article, your edits on my talk page, and now your edits here, you've given no reason why the placement of Music on those articles (which has not been an issue at GA, FA, or in general since then for anyone but yourself) is incorrect, invalid, inappropriate, or anything else. It has nothing to do with OWN, which a LOT of editors are eager to trot out the second they face any resistance to what they want, I've given REASONING why it is where it is, you've given nothing and then accuse me of OWN, when you made unexplained edits and I explained why I undid them. You undermine yourself by accusing me of such things without anything to support your claim. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Calm down a bit mate, we're just talking about the placement of a section in an encyclopedia article here. The reason that it doesn't make sense to stick the music section below the reception is that there's nothing that makes the music of a video game separate from the rest of the game any more than the graphics are separate or the level design is separate. It's not disrupting the flow of the article wherever you stick it. The bottom of any game article is about the real-world impact the game had- the reception among critics, the awards it won, the sequels it had. The music is a part of a game, not a real-world consequence of it, so it doesn't make sense to stick it where Reception/Legacy goes. Does it have to be a sub-section of Development? No. It can be it's own section there, it can be up with Gameplay (though I wouldn't), it can be small or large or non-existent. But the general flow of a video game article is "what the game is" -> "what story it tells" -> "what are the parts that went into it and how were they put together" -> "what was the real-world impact of the game". Given that flow, it makes sense to me (and to many other people in this thread) that a music section would be part of the "what are the parts that went into it and how were they put together" region, since music is one of the many parts that makes up a game, and not a wholly-separate entity that goes in the legacy of the game.
As to actual guidelines- have you read our guidelines? They don't even mention a Development section, and that's been a pseudo-requirement for GA+ articles for years. Of course they don't say what to do with a Music section that only a small minority of game articles can support. --PresN 22:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
He accused me of OWN for no reason PresN, I'm not overreacting, especially because the specific article he is complaining about has other major contributors besides myself, but my specific reasoning for ONE section constitutes OWN. As you say, and my whole point, there is no guideline or rule and so no justification for moving it beyond a personal preference. In cases of personal preference, if a change is disputed then the existing version is to remain. As for equating music to graphics? Please, the two are not remotely comparable, a game cannot exist without one of them, whether the graphics be simple text on a black screen. Music is an optional item and unless the game is built around the music there is no excuse for it being in development. In the case of the Arkham games, especially Arkham City where the music is designed as a separate sellable entity, it's no different than a comic book, action figures or a T-shirt, it is product, and does not belong in the middle of content speaking directly to the notable content of the game. It isn't Dance Dance Revolution, the music is not a notable part of the franchise, there are no awards, reviews don't speak specifically to it, it doesn't belong in the middle in this case. And it being at the bottom does not make it part of a Legacy/Sequel section either. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Separate sellable entity"? Oh please. Turn off the music next time you play a game and tell me that the music is not an intrinsic part of the game experience. It sets the mood, it sets the tone, it impacts your emotions as much or more than the dialogue. The fact that they sold an album of music from the game does not suddenly turn the music itself into a comic book based on the game- comic books, t-shirts, and action figures are not a part of the experience whenever you play the game itself. (And there are awards for video game music from multiple outlets, and a lot of game reviews will talk about the music if its/they're any good.) It's also not just personal preference- 5 different experienced editors in this discussion disagree with you. It's your article and you can do whatever you want with it—unlike most editors, I don't much care either way about WP:OWN as long as the editor in question is open to suggestions, since GA+ is usually a single-person effort—but it does not change the fact that your logic is suspect and your conclusions odd. --PresN 23:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I already said, the editors responded to Soeterman without hearing the other side and their response was that it was "usually" the case. I've given my reasoning for why it is where it is, noone has said anything to refute them. You can argue for how intrinsic you think the music is to a game, but remove the music and the game keeps on playing, and since nothing above nor below it references the music, it can go literally anywhere. To that end it was placed at the bottom in Arkham Origins and it was placed at the bottom in Arkham City before the Sequel section, and none of the different experienced editors took issue with it when it was a GA, an FAC, an FA or now. So I ask, what again is the issue that in this particular case, for this particular series, that this is the solution that has been created? If no guideline exists the article is not beholden to any "usual" way of doing anything per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect, that's kind of rubbish. I would strongly disagree with that argument - that one could play many games without the music. If the music is worth discussing, it needs to be discussed before the reception. The reception is the section where readers read about how people reacted to the game - and the game is gameplay, music, development, graphics, what have you. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
And on these games. You notice music reviews in the reception? Commentary on the music? No? Because it is not important to THESE games.They aren't Brutal Legend, and you cannot apply a non existent blanket rule to all articles regardless of the level of music involvement. It is more important to some than others. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
And I find strong reception for Castlevania's Vampire Killer theme and plan to include it in its article. Any article - especially one of the biggest releases in 2013 - can justify a music section and reception for music. People simply do not cover it. If Arkham Origins didn't have discussion of its music, I would eat my hat. If there's even the smallest bit of discussion on the music, it makes no sense to put it after the reception - the inference is that if anyone is reading the reception, they're going to read the article in order. What value is there to featuring it after reception? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I am going to agree with New Age Retro Hippie and PresN; music makes or breaks games and comparing it to Brutal Legend is a bit of a farce. Now, the section should either be given its own section, above reception, or if it cannot be covered in enough detail, incorporated within reception. Two or three lines would be "not enough detail", but a good paragraph or more is deserving of its own section and logical placement in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs), was "incorporated within reception" supposed to be "incorporated within development"?
I didn't accuse you of ownership right away, Darkwarriorblake, I said it was sounding like ownership. A small yet important difference. You say that "no arguments" were given, which I already gave, also on your talk page: music is part of a game and its development and you disagree for some reason. I brought it up here to get some other opinions on the matter and you still can't change your point of view. You ask for rules about music sections, and you come to the conclusion because there are no rules there is no reason to put a music section elsewhere. By that logic we could also conclude that music sections don't necessarily have to be on the bottom, even when in an FA review nobody said anything about it. It can't "literally go anywhere", articles have a logical arrangement of subjects. From the Super Mario Bros. theme to "Aerith's Theme", from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time soundtrack to Skyrim's epic soundtrack, music has always played a huge role in video games. Origins is no exception, with the information in the music section. --Soetermans. T / C 11:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Music is a minor component of a game, you can all strawman it as you wish but without music a game is still operable. You've cherry picked a few very old games with arguably iconic music and claim this is exemplifying of any and all games, that's going to need a citation. I'm sure there is some indie game out there built entirely around silence for artsy purposes. If the music on ANY game where notable enough to have a critical reception, it would be included WITH the music section, to claim that it would go in the reception for the game is ridiculous UNLESS the game is built around music, which the Arkham games are not. You are all applying a blanket opinion regardless of the situation or context. And Soeterman the point completely escapes you, Music CAN go literally anywhere because it exists independently of everything else in the article in 99% of cases. We wouldn't put it as the first section, but we COULD because it would not in any way diminish understanding of anything else in the article which is where your argument completely falls apart. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Well no, Darkwarriorblake. That's patently untrue and anyone would tell you that. Why is music different from gameplay with respect to reception? Why shouldn't all reception be split to its relevant sections? It seems like a double standard that you justify simply by saying "this is the way I like it." I also find it rather ridiculous that you suggest that music is a separate part of the game-making process. For your argument to work, Origins' soundtrack must have been the very last part of production - AKA, it was 100% complete soundtrack aside. I very much doubt that is the case. You also argue that the music section could be the first section; this is true. The only necessary thing here is that music not go last because any game in history to have a soundtrack has "a soundtrack as part of its base design." Reception is there to cover the game and all that it entails. It shouldn't cover something readers haven't even experienced yet. I also see that you claimed that Skyrim was very old. Do you legitimately define 2011 as "old"?
Food for thought: you are the only person who feels this way. Seven other people have disagreed with you. As much as you have tried to dismiss and downplay their arguments, everyone here has made well-reasoned arguments against yours. Perhaps you should consider whether you or "everyone but you" is wrong. Because the way you're acting, it DOES seem like you're trying to control the article on your own. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Even when you don't consider video game music to be an important factor, it still is part of the game itself and part of the development, so it doesn't "exists independently of everything else" at all. PresN made it perfectly clear, "what the game is" -> "what story it tells" -> "what are the parts that went into it and how were they put together" -> "what was the real-world impact of the game", so it is illogical to bring up the music section after the reception section. You may disagree with me whatever you want, saying "your argument falls apart" doesn't mean you're right. I (and the rest here) have given plenty of arguably sound arguments on why it doesn't belong there. You're just saying "I don't like it" because you don't seem to consider video game music important, and that's why I think you're trying to own the articles. You've been doing a great job on the Arkham series, Darkwarriorblake, but you have to be able to receive some feedback here. This is about having the best articles possible, not a personal attack. --Soetermans. T / C 12:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Darkwarriorblake said: Before discussing goes any further, is there a rule enforcing the positioning of Music? If not, we can end it right here and not waste our time. I do think it might be a good idea to mention soundtracks in WP:VG/MoS. I think there are obvious parallels between VG soundtracks and film soundtracks (which are also integral to films and which are sold separately as soundtrack albums), so we should model our section of the MoS on MOS:FILM#Soundtrack (where coverage of soundtracks is recommended in a subsection of the article's "Production" section). This should put an end to it. -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
When I suggest anything from FILM I get shot down because we aren't FILM here. Unless it suits you of course.
  • I'd just like to say thanks to every last one of you, who couldn't be bothered to involve yourself in the FAC nomination process for either of these articles, not ONE of you to support or oppose it, but over this minor non-issue to enforce a non-rule with no grounds and no backing for any of the bull you were spouting about critical reception in spite of any reasoning I gave? Here you all are. Priorities? Clearly in order. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Glad to know we're graciously allowed to express opinions different than yours over how the majority of the 30,000 articles we support should be structured even if we didn't spend an hour each first reviewing your specific FACs. --PresN 19:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess I should really bow out of this conversation, having been bested by your blatant accusations of bad faith against literally everyone who disagreed with you. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • DWB, take it easy. This is all a hobby you know. This isn't a job or a career, it's not like we're shirking on our duties. We're all volunteers, with no real obligations. Also, you must realize this is a much smaller time commitment than reviewing FA stuff, right? Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm really sorry you feel that way, DWB. Why are you getting so worked up over this? I would say that it is anything but a non-issue to you. It's just a section, moved up a bit. You can disagree all you want, but we've given plenty of solid arguments why it shouldn't belong on the bottom of the page. You bring in old FAs and ask for rules, as if consensus suddenly apply when you don't agree. You don't have to be so stringent, you know. This all wasn't a personal attack either. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means that you will run into people with different opinions. We're trying to improve the articles for subject we care about, not make them worse or to annoy you in the process. --Soetermans. T / C 06:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

So apparently Collaboration of the month has been marked historical. I'm not sure there was any discussion on that but then again I don't know how active the process was when it went from weekly to monthly. So should we let this be marked historical or just have an actual discussion about the thing as a whole? GamerPro64 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Attempted discussion was recently met with deafening silence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I say scrap it. It hasn't shown to be an effective rallying tool, and we have tons of other stuff to work on. czar ♔ 04:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. CotM hasn't been a great tool for a really long time. One problem I see is that CotM covers games that should be given attention in the first place; what we need to do is focus on stubs that are notable enough to be on Wikipedia but not notable enough to get adequate attention and care. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Part of the problem with CotM is that its not really designed to be wikiproject friendly but rather made for those interested in a specific collaboration. If it had A) advertisement to all wikiprojects so that B) templates can be made so that when wikiproject decides on a specific collaboration, the collaboration template would be shown on the wikiproject front page while the front page of CotM emulating all thoose who added the wikiproject template (basically the same mechanics of how GAN works) C) more bots to keep track of all the collaborations and D) customizable newsletter to allow editors to get news on a specific range of CotMs that their interested in.Lucia Black (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to retire CotM, then we should probably tell User:AnomieBOT to stop updating the collaboration template. GamerPro64 17:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Handhelds count

Nintendo 3DS and PS Vita are both part of the eigth generation of video games, following their predecessors Nintendo DS and Playstation Portable, which were both in the 7th generation. The 8th generation of video games did not start in 2012 with the WiiU, it started in 2011 with the Playstation Vita and Nintendo 3DS. Handhelds are portable consoles, they still count. The page should be fixed to either "eigth generation home consoles 2011-present" or "eigth generation of video game consoles 2011-present". Dont discriminate against handhelds just because they are small, they are still consoles and their purpose is for video games. If you dont agree, you are not a gamer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningalex1 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, do you really expect people to take your argument seriously when you reference ridiculous arguments like "handheld discrimination" or "if you don't agree with my opinion you're not a real gamer"? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? History of video game consoles (eighth generation) has a massive section on handheld consoles, including the vita and 3ds, and says that "For video game handhelds, the generation began in February 2011 with the release of the Nintendo 3DS". If that wasn't the article you were talking about, well, then you probably should have linked what you were talking about somewhere in your rant. --PresN 03:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect games?

I been reviewing alot of th games in Phantasy Star series and noticed the ones that lack the most (other than upcoming titles) are the spin-offs such as Phantasy Star Gaiden, Phantasy Star Adventure and Phantasy Star II Text Adventures. I would like to boldly redirect them back to the main page since they already seem to be covered there andtheres not much info out there and had difficulty in the past sourcing them.

But i would like some form of consensus here first.Lucia Black (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I would support the redirect. My search brought only a few pieces of reception. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't object either. There's a series page for what little is there, and people can always just undo it down the line if/when anyone decides to seriously work on it enough that it warrants its own article. (It's probably possible, its a popular, long-running series, but finding reliable sources for Japan-only games from the early 90's can be a pretty tall order.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
done.Lucia Black (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Discussion as to whether to merge Tropes vs. Women in Video Games into Anita Sarkeesian. - hahnchen 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Insane review tables

So I've been browsing through some articles recently, and I've come across several reception sections with, shall we say, rather thorough review tables; The Godfather: The Game, 007: From Russia with Love, James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing, Scarface: The World Is Yours and Superman Returns being some examples. The thing of it is, I noticed its the same user adding this vast amount of data to each article. I think someone from the project should have a quick word with her about it as she's only wasting her own time in the long run. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, you're right. Those tables certainly seem excessive to me too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Angeldeb82—may want to talk out your logic before continuing. {{Video game reviews}}'s documentation and "things to remember" would apply here czar ♔ 05:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The thing is, I was trying to fix obsolete links and add Reception charts for multiple consoles and scores for many of the video game publications listed on Metacritic and GameRankings and MobyGames. The most common scorers are IGN, GameSpot, Game Informer, and 1UP.com, among many others. If it bothers you in any way, then I'm very sorry, okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest looking for overall trends in the scores - for examples all the scores for a PSP version were lower than than the PC scores... and then find some quotes in the reviews to further explain why that might be.--Coin945 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm doing this. Thank you for the advice. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Some of these tables are insane. Instead of using the multiple columns format for some of these, try using the standard single column format, but have scores for different formats on different lines - you see that done on a lot of aggregate scores. For many of the sources in the table, you have one review/score across all columns, so a lot of space could be saved by using a one column format.
These tables are also very long. Generally, its best to give the Metacritic, and then to list the reviews that have been cited in the text. Plus maybe some of the big names. Taking Scarface for example, I would drop over half of that table. (Do you actually have access to all these print reviews, or are you just going off Metacritic?) On the other hand, I would have added Entertainment Weekly and The A.V. Club - and removed those from the prose. You don't want your text to read, "site A gave it 50%, site B gave it 60%...", it's why we have the box.
Specifically in the case of James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing, the GBA scores should not be part of the table. The GBA game is significantly different from the other versions that it should be covered in its own section (or even article) in order to be comprehensive. - hahnchen 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of cover images for digital-only titles.

I feel there needs to be a discussion for the use of cover images on articles about digital-only video games. The problem I see is that in a lot of cases, digital titles aren't identified super strongly by their covers. For example, DSiWare and WiiWare games often use very small cover images that have so little value that they can hardly qualify. I expect that most digital titles are more easily identifiable by their gameplay than their covers and as such, the cover should either be removed or strengthened to justify itself. For example, the cover art for Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies is good because it gives readers a clear understanding of the characters and art work, while Crashmo's cover (which has recently been removed) does not because the gameplay is very similar to the cover (in addition to the aforementioned problem of the cover lacking exposure). Thoughts? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What is usually done is either app icon, logo, or promotional art. Now we argue promotional art doesn't always sell properly, just look at Mega Man 10 but overall maybe avoid cover art in general. If digital only just use logo if multiplatform or app icon if a smartphone game.
does this sound good?Lucia Black (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I was arguing more that for the most part, most games don't need an image like that because it doesn't contribute much to the article. Mega Man 10 would probably because it was pretty noteworthy for its cover (as well as Mega Man 9). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Totally disagree. Take a look at, say an XBLA game. It's identified in the dashboard via it's cover art. It's the same with how people see their icons on Android or iOS. It's the image people associate with the game. --Teancum (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the problem either. Is it such an issue if has a little coverart thingy? --Soetermans. T / C 13:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Same here. The small online store images still serve the same purpose as cover art on a physical copy; its there to catch the buyer's attention and give a flavour of the game. Its no different to a physical cover. - X201 (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a call to remove digital game cover images all willy-nilly. However, I think it should be acknowledged that digital products more so than physical products are more likely to be identified adequately by a screenshot. I don't think anyone can disagree that a retail game's cover has a lot more exposure than a digital game's cover and as such has a stronger rationale for it to be used. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'd totally disagree with that. Branding is no less visible for digital titles. It's in press art kits, splattered across related sites, and on distribution sites such as Steam. Not sure if you were implying or not, but just because a game is of smaller scale doesn't mean its box art is any less recognizable. Some digital games I know only by their box art. --Teancum (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Another chronological template up for deletion

Hi guys,

I've just nominated {{Medal of Honor chronology}} for deletion. Drop by, if you will. --Soetermans. T / C 14:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Characters article in progress

Please, could someone help me with this? The thing that's giving me the headache is the quote references. And the fact that I have been doing a large amount of work on other articles and want to take it easy for a while. I've done the really hard bit with the creation of characters section, and the reception section should be a doddle. It's the quotes that are the problem. The user who suggested the article originally, Lucia Black, is busy. So, any volunteers to help create an article for the characters of an Action RPG series that's not entered the mainstream like Final Fantasy or its like? --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

G-Zay edit filter?

With the recent harassment on PresN's talk page by an IP belonging to G-Zay and disruptive editing on Yoshinori Kitase by a sockpuppet belonging to G-Zay, I think something needs to be done. Even though he's banned, his edits have been really bothersome. Seeing as he never changes his screeds, I am going to boldly propose an WP:EDITFILTER to hamper this individual's edits. Before I take this matter to the request board, I would like some thoughts on this from individual video game project members. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A few details for people not in the know- User:G-Zay was banned back in April for, basically, wholesale making up facts and sources as part of a self-admitted campaign to raise the prominence of some game directors at Square Enix at the expense of others- he made up fake credits, interviews, the whole works. After being banned, and after a lengthy and extensive cleanup on articles he had edited, he has pretty much continuously come back as an IP-hopping sockpuppet; while occasionally he has made fake accounts (like User:ArchadianJudge), in general the pattern is that an ip pops up, edits a couple pages to promote his agenda with perfect syntax, and then, after a few reverts where they swear they are "not this G-Zay person", the pages get locked and the IP disappears. A couple weeks later, a new, slightly-different IP appears on a different, related article, and the cycle continues. His latest tactic, which he's done twice, is to make a grandiose statement about how he's done, as he's accomplished what he intended to, so there's no need for us to harass these innocent ip editors by claiming they are him. The ip editors, of course, continue to act in the exact same method as always.
This has been going on, literally every 2-3 weeks, since April. I don't know much about editfilters, but any solution shy of banning all of England from editing would be helpful. --PresN 06:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm with you, I don't know much about edit filters, but I support anything that will cut down on the garbage and drama he keeps adding to around here. I'll gladly protect the pages he's bothering if you let me know which ones require it... Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know jack about edit filters; SPP of the involved pages and whack-a-molin' IP blocks whenever he pops up seems like an acceptable solution for the time being. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Since some of these people in the discussion don't know about edit filters, but support some ideas about cutting down G-Zay's garbage, I've filed an edit filter request for further opinions. I think G-Zay's edits should be permanently prevented, as I am concerned that he will cause more problems in the future. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

This article has been restructured, affecting its FA status. I've not put it under FA Review yet, but it might have major issues that I've not known yet. --George Ho (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What specifically do you find issues with?Lucia Black (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Information changes everyday this year for this article. Its stability may not hold well. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That's completely not true. You are misinformed, or reading the articles history inaccurately. This comparison shows that the restructuring was undone. Be sure to note the dates, and you can see the information in the article has barely changed. Your worries were addressed before you even brought them up.--SexyKick 20:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anything else major then? --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Nothing I can think of. I have a feeling you had just read the things on the SNES talk page a couple months after they happened.--SexyKick 00:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Computer Magazine Archives at the Internet Archive

I'm currently moving my video game magazine archive from local hard disk to cloud storage, and at the same time updating our under-utilised Reference library. Searching for more online magazine sources, I happened upon The Computer Magazine Archives. The quality and coverage are patchy, but there's a wide range of material that Wikipedia could definitely make use of. I don't usually link to magazine scans, because they're typically copyright violations, but the Internet Archive surely has all the necessary permissions and waivers. - hahnchen 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support this idea of expanding the Reference Library. Kudos to hahnchen for his recent expansion work! -Thibbs (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! I definitely think I can expand some of the work on the reference library of my own, I'll try to get to that soonerish. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys seriously didn't know about it yet? --Niemti (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the others but I knew about it, Niemti. I think the main point here is that nobody has bothered to update the WP:VG Reference Library with this material yet. And it's a helpful thing to do. Are you interested in helping out with this project? -Thibbs (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I've never needed the Internet Archive for magazines, so I'd never come across them (or dismissed it if I did). I've never been able to previously link to scans because ...errr. But there is A LOT more on the Internet Archive than I originally thought.
I only found out now that the Internet Archive is hosting the entire TOSEC archive, which it has been doing since April 2013. Previously, this stuff was only available on torrents and usenet - but the TOSEC Pix archive is even larger than their Computer Magazines archive. In their Sega archive, they have copies of DC-UK, Dreamcast Magazine, Dreamcast Monthly, Official Dreamcast Magazine, Sega Visions, Supergame, Select Round, Sega Saturn Plus, Saturn Power & Sega Saturn Magazine. That's not even the bulk of it, which are scans of the manuals. There is no way that we're making enough use of this resource. - hahnchen 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The main TOSEC Pix archive is at https://archive.org/details/tosecpix - hahnchen 02:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thrill Drive 3

Hello guys! Well, what do you know this game? It is a drivng game right? Or somethings rarey about. Well, this game is made by KONAMI and has some issues through the game. First of all, the game speed. Even though the speed is on 30 Frames per second, it's too jitery, very slow and has multiple issues onto the game itself... Second is, the vehicles, along with them, there are new and having some traffic control outputs to drive along the way. And third is, the gameplay, within the 3 countries: Japan, Europe and USA. And has several weather conditions... So, give feedback ahead if they want... :)

--Tambok0599 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be of interest to others that this article is currently up for deletion.--十八 07:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and instead to be a formative deletion of that article. Maybe the Japanese gamers and from around the world would see this game alone. And it's an arcade game, from the PS2 or PlayStation 2 console that it was having a coded-BIOS system within the custom 3D GFX engine as I know, since I played it in S.M Philippines or Shoe-Mart in the arcades and it's very enjoying and lots of people there are just entertaining much more than ever. Well, this was the comment from me. --The Game Expert 05:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tambok0599 (talk • contribs)

Polish names in The Witcher articles

Hey guys,

There is a whole section on Japanese names in articles, but what about the Polish ones in The Witcher articles? Because I thought that the game is named (and marketed) in English. --Soetermans. T / C 14:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Usually we only list other names if the game was originally released in the county that used those (that is the reason that several articles use Japanese names), or different names are used in other English language releases. I don't see Polish names as being necessary for the Witcher articles unless the series was from a Polish developer and released in Poland first.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think there are sufficient Polish connections to the The Witcher series (based on a Polish book, uses Polish developer, Polish with English subtitle option, etc.) that it might be a good idea to introduce some Polish into the articles, but it really depends on the context. What were you thinking of adding? -Thibbs (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Books, not book. --Niemti (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply! It is released internationally, but developed in Poland and based on a Polish franchise. I guess having the name can't hurt. --Soetermans. T / C 11:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cart Life Gameplay section request

Hi everyone, if anyone has played Cart Life (a PC indie game) and feels up to writing some or all of the Gameplay section for the current draft, feel free! I haven't played it yet and so don't feel like I could write something as well as someone who has; if not, I'll probably be getting it in a week or two and will do it then. Feel free to also do whatever to the rest of the article, I moved it to Draft space so that it could be drafted collaboratively! Samwalton9 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Game guide

Move request ongoing still; comment there while it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

MGS template layout

Guys, what are we going to do with {{Metal Gear}}? I've seen numerous edits and reverts and I think it's time we need to come to a general consensus.

  • Should we drop the abbreviations MGS and numbers? Metal Gear Solid, 2: Sons of Liberty, 3: Snake Eater, 4: Guns of the Patriots, but then we have part five (V and not 5) and its two entries: Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain. One "experience" consisting of two separate entries.
  • Do we need to make the distinction between handheld games? Because Portable Ops and Peace Walker are canon, but Acid isn't. So...
  • List "canonical games" and "other games"?
  • Is it necessary to mention GameCube remake The Twin Snakes in the template? The HD lifts aren't listed (and I'm not saying they should), but neither is Snake Eater 3D for the 3DS.
  • Is Metal Gear Arcade, which didn't see a release outside of Japan, a "main game"? Or is Online, the multiplayer element of Guns of the Patriots, necessary to mention as one?
  • Arrange the games by Kojima-directed games?

These are just some of the issues I can come up with the template. Feel free to add more feedback of course. I'll name-drop Phailin1 (talk · contribs), Th1rt3en (talk · contribs), Tintor2 (talk · contribs), Axem Titanium (talk · contribs), Flax5 (talk · contribs), Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) as they are established editors I noticed editing the template. --Soetermans. T / C 09:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Should we drop the abbreviations MGS and numbers? Metal Gear Solid, 2: Sons of Liberty, 3: Snake Eater, 4: Guns of the Patriots, but then we have part five (V and not 5) and its two entries: Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain. One "experience" consisting of two separate entries.
This is probably the most important issue at hand. Yes, we should drop the number labels. The series progression has already complicated things with MGS2. The Solid designation in the PS1 game had originally referred to a third title, but that idea has since been defenestrated. Now we have a situation where we not only see the transition from Arabic to Roman numerals (4 to V), but also two titles that are labelled as the fifth main entry (GZ and TPP, both referred to as MGSV). From all this, we can clearly surmise that Kojima Productions doesn't put a lot of integrity in its series branding. On the other hand, most marketing for both the subtitles Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain have been unequivocally clear. The games rely on their subtitles, not the Metal Gear brand, in my opinion. Futhermore, we already use the subtitles for the chronology template. I should hope this decision is easy for everyone. --Phailin (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we need to distinguish between portable and console titles, only between canon and non-canon. Also, we need to remember that Revengeance is a canon spin-off rather than a separate continuity like Snake's Revenge. As to the numbers/numerals, yes I feel they should be dropped if only because it makes the template look weird when you're reading. Yes, I think Twin Snakes and Online deserve mentions (Twin Snakes' audio was used for flashbacks in Guns of the Patriots), but I don't think Arcade should be included in the main series. Don't have an opinion on the Kojima point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, if Revengeance is a canonical spin-off, should it be a "main game" or "other game"? Or should we have separate "main games"? If would say that dropping the MGS everytime is a good idea, but I would keep the numbers, because 1) not all entries have one and 2) V consists of two entries. So it would be something like 2: Sons of Liberty, Peace Walker, V: Ground Zeroes and V: The Phantom Pain, like that. I'm also for dropping Arcade and Online in the "main games". --Soetermans. T / C 13:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I have listed above why including even the numbers is a bad idea. To begin with, every game has a subtitle yet not every game has a number. It's easier categorically that way as well. --Phailin (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this conversation take place on the template's talk page? (If so, I'd collapse it here, copy/paste there for context, and leave a note here to continue there.) czar ♔ 05:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, some of these large templates have a lot of arguing/edit warring over classification type stuff like this, but very little discussion on the talk page. Just a lot of passerby edit-and-run type stuff - everyone wants to arrange things their way, but few stick around to explain their rationale. So this may have just been an effort to garner some more discussion to counter that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, that was my thought as well. The template has a lot of articles listed and vice versa, the template is used on a lot of articles. Coming to a general consensus (not just MGS articles editors) is the way to go, IMPO. @Phailin1: to me that is the reason to include them, and that the number is part of the individual title :) There must've been some reason not to number Peace Walker or to go from Arabic numerals - 1, 2, 3, 4, to the Roman style V (V for Victory? To keep in line with The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim or GTA V? V as the peace sign?). But I could also very well do without the numbers :) --Soetermans. T / C 18:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It's just a point of order that template-related discussions happen on their talk pages, and if anything, the WTVG page is for notices to see those talk pages. But okay czar ♔ 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't have too much time to edit these days but these are my thoughts/opinions/general editing philosophy as it applies to this template: 1) avoid unexplained abbreviations; new readers have no idea what MGSV means; 2) avoid labeling things as "canonical" in a template; canonicity is rarely a defining feature important enough to call out ever, much less in a template, and it invites constant edit warring over interpretation; 3) list every game; the purpose of a navbox is navigation and if you fail to provide that, you have failed the reader; there's no reason they should have to load more than one page to get to where they think they want to go. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

For those interested, continuing discussion here --Soetermans. T / C 12:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking for magazine

Was wondering if anyone had Super Game Player Ultra Game Players issue 93 january 1997. I "think" that's the final reliable english review for Ghost in the Shell (video game).Lucia Black (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Super Game Player" is a magazine that exists, Google has very little. Are you looking for Ultra Game Players? There's a review at NowGamer which most likely came from Play (UK magazine). There were loads of Playstation magazines in the late 90s, I'm sure there are more reviews. - hahnchen 16:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I had a long night. Anyways, yes. I meant "Ultra Game Players".Lucia Black (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
SO does anyone have that particular magazine?Lucia Black (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Virtual Boy games at FLRC

I have nominated List of Virtual Boy games for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. I hate to have to bring it up, but there are some pretty significant issues that must be addressed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we ready to Flow here? News and a request for confirmation

Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.

They'd like us to confirm that we're all ready and willing to try it out right here, so that we can find out what works well, what needs more changes, and what additional features are mostly prominently desired or dreamed of over the next few months. The trial would start during the week of January 6th (specific day to be set closer to launch) and will last for as long as your WikiProject is interested in using the software (more details on ending the trial below).

Here's a synopsis of what's been added recently (which you can test at mw:Talk:Sandbox):

  • mw:Special:Contributions now works properly again.
  • 3 viewing options: normal, collapsed, and small for a Table of contents-like view of the page
  • Attribution of moderated content (see mockup image)

Here's a list of items that they're working on this month as top-priority, which will be added to the live software as soon as possible (some likely before the WikiProject trial period).

Next two weeks:

  • A more condensed "small view" (see mockup image)
  • Attribution of edited content (see mockup image)
  • Replacing the roll-over links (e.g. "Reply") with static links, and moving the permalink/moderation tools into an "action menu" (see mockup image)

Next four weeks:

  • Better automated edit-summaries (see notes)
  • Abuse-filter integration (see analysis)
  • A "thank" button (that works like the current thank feature)
  • A system to "Close and summarize" an entire topic (equivalent to {{hat}} etc)

Beyond that, there's a long list of brainstormed features, at mw:Flow Portal/Release planning#Feature buckets - your feedback and suggestions would, as ever, be most appreciated.

The transition: The current talkpage will be archived in-full in the regular way. The page will be Flow-enabled, and the WikiProject header templates added. After that, we hope that normal WikiProject discussions will resume as usual, and that any Flow-related discussions will take place at Wikipedia talk:Flow.

The "opt-out" mechanism: If there's WikiProject consensus to back out of the trial once it is underway, that will take about 24 hours from once you've decided. The Flow team will then convert the Flow Board into a wikitext page, add default signature+timestamps, and place that here. However, they do of course strongly hope that you'll weather through any small problems (of which some are inevitable), and continue to give ongoing suggestions!

The more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'm ready to trial
  • Yes, I think I'm willing to try this out. I will definitely report back wherever I need to with feedback. ProtoDrake (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Saying "I don't want to trial" without explaining exactly why is an exercise in futility. Explaining why you don't think it is ready, and what would make you think it is ready, so that work can be done on improving Flow to that point. In reply to Red Phoenix -- users will be able to opt-out of Flow being used on their talk pages, and Flow comments fully support wikitext as the current editor does, so I'm not sure what exactly you currently do that you'd be unable to do with Flow? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This project alone isn't going to "stop the implementation" of Flow. It's in our best interests to be involved and to help test and trial it, because when it goes live whether this particular project likes it or not, we'll have to deal with the issues arising from our non-involvement. The only straw poll options should be to Trial Now, Trial With Conditions, or Not Trial. Discussion on the suitability of Flow as a whole doesn't really belong here, as it's a wider effort than WPVG. Trial on, I say. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's completely fair to have a trial period, as long as if we feel that it is hopefully broken or making workflow extremely difficult that we can request an early end to the trial. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I feel comfortable for a trial period. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to give it a shot now. --PresN 19:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm almost ready to trial, but would like to see x changed/added first.
  • Using a 1920x1200 monitor I dislike only having 50% of my screen taken up by the current fixed width format. I've seen this raised a fair few times on the prototype page but no real reason as to why it's kept as is, without even an option to change between fixed & full width. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand the difficulties in making such coding possible, but before Flow is really implemented I'd really like to see an individual user "opt-out" function, much like the Visual Editor, and with proper corresponding wikitext formatting. That way, users could have their choice of whether or not to use the new system, and can get used to it at their own pace if they choose. I do use Visual Editor periodically for things like prose edits and copyediting, but use the traditional text for references, coding, and reworking whole sections. I'd like to use Flow in very much the same way, being able to organize my discussions using Flow if I choose, or not if I choose not, without having to deal with "tough, this is the way it is so you're just going to have to go with it". Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    @Red Phoenix: With your (and everyone's) ongoing feedback/suggestions/concerns, the aim is to build a discussion&collaboration system that we all want to use, everywhere. Flow can only become that ideal piece of software, if a lot of editors help it along with feedback and ideas. (Note: wikitext is currently the only way to use Flow. Using VisualEditor will become an option at some point in the future, for those who want to use it, but it's currently disabled in Flow.) The Flow team wants to build something elegant and efficient and vastly better than what we have now, in partnership with the community. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): I think that RP is talking about how there is no easy option to edit the page as straight wikitext once a page adopts Flow. We have a choice to edit article wikitext directly or use VE, but no similar choices with Flow. czar ♔ 23:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
That's sort of along the lines I went with, czar. I made a point of emphasis with Visual Editor because an opt-in option was added to that, where individual users could choose whether or not to go with that format. I would have much preferred opt-out myself, where it's enabled by default but users can turn it off at their own will—I happen to have mine turned on because I use it periodically for prose copyediting. I would very much like to see the same with Flow and a corresponding formatting for a standard page that results as well so users can "opt-out" individually instead of page-by-page as projects. Personally I've seen the prototypes and I'm not a fan of Flow's aesthetics or how it looks basically like a giant internet forum with comments for every post—that makes me feel like the weight of later comments are taken out. I get why we're going that way, to bring more users in, but it just doesn't seem or feel right for a system of serious discussion. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is not possible to do a per-user opt-in or opt-out to use Flow on pages that are Flow-enabled. Once a page is Flow-enabled, it is Flow-enabled for everyone.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I had thought not, but that is my concern with the Flow trial. Immediately with the trial period in itself, my concern is if it will interfere with project discussions and be a disturbance to the project's operations. Long-term, though, it's a worrying prospect for the concerns I raised above, and to what I feel may essentially become "forcing" Flow on everyone who edits in a certain space. I recognize that it's not possible to do a per-user in or out because of the way it's done by changing the properties of a page rather than through user editing options, but I still feel that the best way to continue to bring editors to Wikipedia and retain those who are here already as well is to offer the best options and enable the easiest to master right away, but allow users to customize as endlessly as they want to have the Wikipedia experience they desire. I'm not looking to block Flow's implementation on this talk page; I'm merely expressing my concerns and having surveyed Flow talk pages, I'm not terribly comfortable with the format used. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Red Phoenix, RE: "I've seen the prototypes and I'm not a fan of Flow's aesthetics or how it looks basically like a giant internet forum with comments for every post... it just doesn't seem or feel right for a system of serious discussion" – that's precisely why we need your help. We're in the process of creating something different from most online discussion systems out there; the only way we can do that is with testing and feedback from real Wikipedia users having real Wikipedia discussions. If there are particular aspects of the visual design or user experience that aren't working to facilitate the kinds of discussion you have here, we'll change them long before Flow is released more widely. That's the whole point of this limited first trial :)
But it sounds like what you're concerned about is that, generally speaking, no structured discussion system will work for serious discussion, and that freeform wiki pages are the only way that discussion can happen on Wikipedia. Is that really how you (and others) feel? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What I worry about is a system which is unprofessional and lends weight to unproductive discussion. Looking at Flow makes me feel like it's a page of YouTube comments. I'm not saying I believe free form Wikipedia pages are the only way, but it has an advantage in that it lends to a sort of "round table" discussion where every comment, every opinion and remark, has equal weight without losing important remarks in the shuffle. Counter proposals and key statements can be indented out to stand out, without getting lost in the shuffle. Multilevel prioritization is an important part of discussion pages. So too is the aesthetic; it's good to have ease of use, but comment-style formatting will lead to comment-style editing. I'm glad to see I'm being taken seriously enough to be answered by three Foundation employees, and by all means don't let me be the one to block a trial, but please keep in mind my concerns as you develop Flow. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not willing to have a trial
  • I feel I'm not quite ready for Lukeno94's stance as I believe with enough work Flow could potentially be decent. But not at the moment. I don't want to write several essays worth of feedback, so let's just say I tried it out and this is not what I'm looking for. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Likewise. (Also I feel similarly to Red Phoenix, and am curious how this very discussion section with bulleting and all would work under Flow.) czar ♔ 16:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    @Czar: Standard wikitext all works fine (test it at mw:Talk:Sandbox), with a handful of small bugs that are being worked on right now (eg. external links don't display the icon properly). We could even have a straw-poll section like this, just by creating top-level posts to tangent off - however, they definitely do plan to develop a well-designed [polling/!voting/RfC] component over the next few months, and that's the benefit of being part of the trial: getting to help drive the prioritization of features, and to heavily influence the look and behaviour of everything. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Flow should never be implemented.

Would like some second opinions on a potential WP:FT or WP:GT run in the future

Hello fellow project members. I could use a hand evaluating a topic for completeness. I'm aiming to do a Sega Genesis featured (or good) topic and I'd say I've made pretty good progress toward one. In terms of completeness, though, it's hard to gauge what needs to be included in that in order for it to be a complete topic At its very broadest, it could theoretically be a topic of over 1000 articles when you count every game for the system and both of its add-ons. Here's what I have so far, in a short list:

My question is, am I missing anything? Would articles such as Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game), Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Videogame Rating Council, Menacer, or others need to be completed as well? I would really like to hear from GamerPro64 on this, but would be glad to take all feedback from all members of this project on what they think. Thank you, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Now before I begin, it would probably be good to take this to Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions to get some other opinions. Now what you have right now is certainly interesting. Since there's never been a topic made for a video game topic exclusively, it may be difficult to figure out what needs to be in with this topic. I do know that no video games need to be with the topic since the topic will also include the lists of games from all the consoles. The add-ons need to be part of it, obviously. The Nomad should be part since it plays Genesis games. The Meganet and Sega Channel should be added since they also involve games for the Genesis. I don't think Sega v. Accolade should be added since, while it appears to be a landmark case, I just don't know if its part of the scope. That's just me. I made a topic box of how it looks like with all the examples you gave out on the top. Here's what it looks like:
edit | discuss
Sega Genesis
10 articles
Sega CD
Sega 32X
Sega Nomad
List of Sega Genesis games
List of Sega CD games
List of Sega 32X games
Sega Meganet
Sega Channel
Sega v. Accolade

So hopefully what I said helped out in any way. But again, more opinions should be sought after. GamerPro64 03:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GamerPro; I think the articles/lists you mentioned are the right ones, minus Sega v. Accolade. Although I do not envy you finding sources for the list of games one bit- finding RSs for the last obscure 5% will take you twice as long as the rest of the list combined. On the plus side, you'll be able to pseudo-read Japanese by the end of it, if you can't already. --PresN 05:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. PresN, the work I have to do is far worse than that. Japanese is okay thanks to Sega's master lists, but the Genesis has Brazilian exclusives and a slew of unlicensed titles out of Taiwan and later homebrew releases... Yikes! Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Does featured topic not mean the whole category?--SexyKick 01:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't mean either of the sub categories in there. Just the articles listed under the category, like the Sega Menacer.--SexyKick 10:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
No, topics don't have to correspond with categories. You just have to have a lead article, and a coherent scope for what is and is not included in the topic- "the Sega Genesis, its extensions and services, and the games developed for them" is what the scope seems to be here. --PresN 17:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
That's good to hear! I think the Sega MegaModem and Menacer article should either be part of the topic, or merged into other relevant articles.--SexyKick 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't even realized the Mega Modem still had an article, so I redirected it to Sega Meganet. Menacer will be the one that kills me if it's not merged; I did redirect it a few months ago but was reverted by Dream Focus almost immediately afterward. The worry here is that the Menacer doesn't have enough coverage to warrant an article, especially since it wasn't really popular or a cultural phenomenon like the Super Scope. I tend to define my threshold for that as to whether or not an article could potentially have enough coverage to reach good article status if the article is treated properly. I've been wrong to redirect before, and there are others who would tell me I'm wrong, but I just don't see enough coverage ever happening in this case. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I see DreamFocus posted a source search in the articles talk page. I think it'd be worth a shot to *try* and use it for a GA review. If the review fails then lets try for a redirect under the idea that there's not enough coverage to reach GA.--SexyKick 16:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I picked through the search and I'm of the mind that Menacer should be merged. This discussion can be continued on the article's talk page. czar ♔ 16:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion: Talk:Sega Genesis#Menacer merge czar ♔ 06:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Video game console templates

Hey guys,

A little while ago there was a discussion about video game templates, these ones to be more precise: {{Dreamcast}}, {{Super Nintendo Entertainment System}}, {{Nintendo Entertainment System}} and {{Nintendo 64}}. These were all in wonderful, bright colors (and the Dreamcast one still is), but I can't decide if they are notable and worth keeping. Is there a way to see if and where they are actually used? --Soetermans. T / C 14:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and happy holidays everyone!

For your last question, yes, just do Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Nintendo_64 for each. "What links here" is in the WP sidebar. Happy holidays czar ♔ 14:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd keep them; they're helpful in finding lesser-known hardware and console versions for the systems, they link to the list of games, their scope is manageable; I'm not convinced about the visual aspect of the Dreamcast one, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable either, really. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Console Living Room

Just discovered that the Internet Archive just started up The Console Living Room, which allows free download of certain video games. This includes the Atari 2600, ColecoVision, and the Astrocade. This could be something interesting for some articles External Link or something. GamerPro64 23:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Should be completely fair EL for us to include. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
First noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games/Archive 101#Archive.org Historical Software Collection, where Masem noted that the landing pages seem to possibly pull from Wikipedia, so they might not be useful as references, only ELs. --PresN 03:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. I'm wishing this WikiProject a very happy one. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

List of action-adventure games article request

There's a request for a List of action-adventure games article. Is this worth doing, in line with the other video game genre lists or shall I remove it? I'm undecided on this one, action-adventure is a pretty broad category and there is already a category for them. Samwalton9 (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review subpages

We decided back in May to start A-Class assessment subpages. I cooked up a draft here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/A-Class review (WP:VG/AC) but haven't received any feedback. Any thoughts? I also have a few questions on the talk page, if you can drop by. czar ♔ 17:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I've hosted an A-Class RfC over a year ago also; we keep having discussions and people insist that we should continue using A-Class assessments but nothing ever comes out of it and nobody works on it. It's a perpetual lost cause IMO and we'd be better off investing our efforts into making more FAs than always coming back and back and back to these goddamned A-Class assessments! </rant> ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I also have to wonder what the benefit is of an A-Class assessment. It's a neat concept, but it more or less seems like something to warm up for while preparing for an FA candidacy. Unless we can find a clear ground to say an article is better than GA but not ready to be an FA, such as a clear set of criteria, then what's the point of the classification? I know some projects have a fixed ACR (A-Class review) system, and I'd be all for it and wouldn't mind contributing with A-Class reviews, but it's hard to say what the point is unless we have that spot. Personally I tend to make GAs, then expand and improve further and then take them to FA candidacies, skipping the A-class altogether. Smoking gun question: is there really a place where we can say an article is better than WP:WIAGA but not up to WP:WIAFA? That's what we need to evaluate. That aside, if we can, I'd be glad to help out with setting up an ACR system here. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The only A-Class I was involved with is Dr. Mario; it flew through GA (although it's on the weak end), and I pushed it through A-Class; however, the only "requirement" to promote to A-Class is the agreement of two editors; no detailed review or anything of the sort. It's pointless; A-Class is basically a GA that has been approved by a few editors (instead of a single reviewer). If it fails A-Class it should be sent to GAR. Dr. Mario meets GA criteria but fails FA criteria, but since A-Class currently doesn't really have a review process, I'm not sure how relevant its current assessment is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
        • That's why I'm wondering if we need to establish an A-Class criteria for the project, or if it's a waste of our time. As video game experts and with ACR being a project-based system, I might recommend that A-Class reviews take a focus on topic completeness and sourcing, in addition to meeting the GA criteria. When it comes to topic completeness, no one would know better about articles in the project than project members. That might be a way that we as a project help articles to ascend to FA status by using A-Class as an intermediary stage as such. Thoughts? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want to scrap it, no harm, no foul. The WPVG A-Class criteria already exist—this was more about adopting Milhist's subpage style for easier A-Class reviewing, and possibly a referendum on making A-Class reviews back into a group activity. I see A-Class as FA-standard with lower stakes, such that the project (optionally) vets its own articles so FACs have at least two supports external to the nominator even before entering the pit. I would think that current, infrequent A-Class reviewers review by this standard as much as possible. Anyway, let me know if I should fold the page, or whether you have feedback on its talk page, please. (Pinging those who voted in favor of creation: Sjones23, GamerPro64, Judgesurreal777, Masem, Darkwarriorblake.) czar ♔ 03:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Except that in comparison to the FA and GA criteria, A-Class still seems ill-defined and its criteria doesn't really, in my opinion, prove conducive to making a distinctive middle-ground between FA and GA standard, which lends weight to content editors (such as myself) bypassing the A-Class stage to go straight for FAs. Now, having worked with several articles in that upper echelon, I can see room for a distinction, especially in that GA reviews don't often take into account topics such as depth of coverage, plagiarism and spot-checking, and other matters such as formatting and WP:ACCESS. I think you've got a great idea going on here, czar, and still think it should be a two-reviewer process, but perhaps we as a project should adopt a more formalized criteria to help reviewers establish what is an A-Class article, and as a WikiProject I suggest we focus on what the Video games project can help with best that the GA criteria stop short with on an article's pathway of improvement. I'd be willing to help draw these up, if necessary. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • IMO, for an ACA, the context and sources aspect should same professional as an FA, (WIAFA criteria 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a and 3) but the prose and style aspect (MOS etc.) just need to reach the GA or BCA level. While style-releated criteria checking is really relaxed for reviews, (wasting time for editors fixing, though) check context and sources may need professors or will cost reviews several hours. If an article really met WIAACA, promote it to FA should be easy – an layman copy-editor can; if the one just met GA exactly, a huge gap to ACA is there. The fact is, we are interested in FAC and GAN, but not a project-wide ACA. To be honest, if a FAC (usually is a GA) failed because prose and format reason, but none of major context and source problem, (like this one) then assess its A-class is well :-) --Game Over is good (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bloons TD Improve

I hope this is the right place to ask: Would anybody be interested in helping me improve the Bloons TD article? It's always more fun editing collaboratively.

Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, I used to spend waste far too much time playing this game. Was just sitting here looking for an article to start on too so I might start seeing what I can do now! Samwalton9 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! Also, I've seen you at the Teahouse before; thanks for answering one of my questions! Bananasoldier (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013's Today's Featured Article

For the last Video Game-related article to be on the front page for TFA for the year 2013, we have Mario Power Tennis. Nothing much to say besides a Mario sports game. GamerPro64 15:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Its stil an improvement since the last few have not have these types of complaints and it appears that the user is not getting any backup.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It's also that user's first and only edit. The troll is strong with this one. --SubSeven (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Final score on the discussion here. GamerPro64 03:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

XPuyoPuyo nominated for deletion

I'd like to inform the project members that I nominated this article for deletion per WP:N, as there are few outside sources to provide sufficient detail on this game. (Much of the gameplay is already covered in Puyo Puyo (series).) Feel free to comment on the nomination or contribute to the article. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

FACs and FLCs need review

Hey, project members, we have two articles currently awaiting FAC comments and two awaiting FLC comments. Some of these are in danger of being archived if more comments and supports/opposes aren't brought to them. Would anyone care to comment on these and help our project to achieve more featured content? The candidates are all listed in the to do box at the top of this page. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Video game drafts list on WP:VG?

I'm quite liking being able to write draft articles in the new Draft namespace as I like the collaboration it encourages. The only thing missing for me at the moment is somewhere to publicise that I'm writing a particular draft article and am happy for people to join in, for which I thought Wikiprojects might be a good venue. We already have lists of articles needing attention and new articles, and I think having some kind of list or category for draft video game articles would be a nice addition. Unfortunately I'm not sure what the best way is or how to do it, though I assume the easiest way is to have a category that Draft namespace articles are added to when they have the WP:VG banner on their talk page (if such a category doesn't already exist). Thoughts? Samwalton9 (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of automatic classification as Draft-class via the WPVG banner. I linked the template talk to this discussion. I think a project classification for drafts would be fine, but we wouldn't want to start using a category on the draft article page, as they're not supposed to use cats until published. czar ♔ 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we should ideally use the VG banner with automatic classification. I haven't checked it out, but I assume banner meta template will roll this out to everyone to opt-in. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we could just do it ourselves. Like the banner auto-detects files, templates based on namespace number, we could make it detect Draftspace; we just need to edit the banner to add the proper category, and the assessment table to have the proper row for it. Although I dunno if the bot doing the updates would also need an upgrade or if we can basically "make" any assessment class we want and it'll work with it... I patched things up when we started assessing redirects but that was an existing category in some other WikiProjects. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do we need to reinvent a wheel if the parent template can do all this? Surely we aren't the only WikiProject that would like this. Template:WPBannerMeta needs to support Draft in their extended list and it will work the same way as it does on templates or categories or project pages. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yea, if the overhead of the banner template can be upgraded to take Draftspace into account then we'd just need to update the local usage as I did with Redirects a few months back. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:WPBannerMeta#Draftspace_detection_and_auto-classificaion czar ♔ 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done As much as I think we could. Our banner supports it (and should auto-detect it); the assessment table does not yet (they should up as "other"). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I know they are only loosely related, but I have put about a dozen articles related to tabletop RPGs into draft space. David Morgan-Mar has not worked on VGs, but he did some work with programming languages. Geoffrey C. Grabowski teaches computer science classes. Jess Heinig was apparently a programmer on the original Fallout. S. John Ross owns Cumberland Games and Diversions, a web-based electronic publishing company. Scott Leaton was a writer for Saint's Row. The rest of them don't mention anything even computer-related, so these are as close as I have to anything VG-related. If anyone wants to help me find sources for any of them, that would be greatly appreciated. BOZ (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Stub clearing

I've been working on trying to elevate notable stubs to at least start class or deleting non-notable articles. I was wondering if anyone would be interested in applying sources to certain articles as I collect them; so far I've collected what I feel may be adequate sources for 0-D Beat Drop and 100 Bullets. If anyone is interested, please send me a message on my talk page. If we get enough people, we could hit meet our goal this month! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Exclusive categories

There are these categories that list games that are only available for one platform. In some of the categories (Category:PlayStation 2-only games, Category:Xbox One-only games) there is a line that reads: "The only exception to this rule is when a game has been ported from the arcade directly to the [name of the platform] and no other system."

I removed this line from the category pages since it didn't make sense to me but I was later reverted. As I read the talk page of the user who reverted (User_talk:Beem2#Category:Dreamcast-only games) I learned there is supposed to be consensus for this. So first, making only arcade games the exception doesn't make sense if the point was to include console exclusives since then PC platforms should be included. Second, I think there should be no exceptions. Only games that are available to one platform should be included in these categories. Arcade and Windows are platforms like any other so it's not "PS2-only" if it's available elsewhere. --Mika1h (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel that there should be no exceptions. For example, a Virtual Console game should have the categories for the NES and the Wii, and not NES-only. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm for a different take on it. Old titles are constantly going to be re-released on newer platforms, eventually games will be categorised as being released on numerous platforms. We need to re-think the category system. We need two distinct branches; we need an "Available on" category branch to cover the re-releases and we need a "Games exclusive to X during generation Y" type category. The notion of a console exclusive actually being exclusive for ever, and never appearing on another console ever again is virtually non-existent. If the game doesn't appear on a rival console, it will, at the very least, be released as a retro-classic on the company's next generation console. This category problem has been the elephant in the room for too long. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Until those categories are created, can I get more input on the arcade exception line in the current categories? Edit the line to include non-console platforms or remove it altogether (which I support). --Mika1h (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding Merger

Received merger request: Merge Phil Fish (video game developer) into Fez (video game) (open since August). >>>Discuss Here<<<. Your comments welcome to close this one way or the other. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

After the first received no responses, I've opened up another peer review for Proteus (video game) in the hope that I can get some advice on getting the article to FA. Any comments would be appreciated. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Generations discussion

Hi. There is a discussion going on at Talk:Sonic Generations#Sonic Colors regarding the expansion of plot section of the article and the connection to Sonic Colors. I intend to get this article up to GA status. Input from project members should be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliably citing really obscure video game releases

Hey project members, I could use a hand from editors well-versed in reliable sources. I'm working on List of Sega Genesis games, and unlike its related lists which have been somewhat easy to bring up (one to FL, another at FLC right now), this one's proving very tricky. Why? It's not the length. It's because the Genesis had a number of obscure games beyond Japan, North America, and Europe (all of which I'm good on). There are a few Brazil exclusives, as well as Taiwanese unlicensed pirate games, etc. Where might I be able to find some reliable sources about some of these launches? IGN's had a couple, but Allgame's been a complete dud here. Anywhere else I might be able to try for reliable game database information? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need "Taiwanese unlicensed pirate games". --Niemti (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, are unlicensed/unofficial games like this typically listed? I personally wouldn't, unless there's some sort of long running precedent or something... Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, here's part of the issue - you could then make the same argument for Ishido: The Way of Stones, Star Control, Turrican... basically all of the games Accolade published before becoming a Sega licensee. We've also got articles for several unlicensed later releases explicitly mentioned in Sega Genesis in a subsection, such as Pier Solar and the Great Architects. The question becomes, where do we draw the line for completeness? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd say draw the line of only including Accolade ones (since they're a legit company, and that whole Accolade vs Sega article shows they're a noteworthy publisher, not some random pirate) or any that may have their own article (like Pier Solar). Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Basically, whatever I can find reliable sources for, then. I wouldn't mind doing that, but that still draws the issue of Brazilian releases, published by Tectoy, Sega's distribution partner there. Some of those might still be tricky. Essentially, I want to ensure after a lot of work that this list could pass an FLC. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you tried the Portuguese WPVG? czar ♔ 22:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There's very little there; fortunately I was able to navigate around a little bit given that I speak some Spanish and they're fairly similar. Most of what they have is unreferenced, and instead of using a list they use just a category. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I just meant that they might be able to help with sources, even if they aren't currently used in their article. If you had at least titles to go off of, we could try acquiring them. (I'm thinking of those big print magazines that compiled every release for a platform.) czar ♔ 22:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a number of Brazilian mags I could search through. Do you have any specific titles in mind? -Thibbs (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I do. Some that I'm really looking at are Show do Milhão and Show do Milhão vol.2, as well as Férias Frustradas do Pica-Pau. However, what I'd really like is just anything that exists. Essentially, in order for this list to meet FLC standards, it has to be complete up to the moment, as titles for the Genesis are still being made by third-party unlicensed developers (see: Beggar Prince and Pier Solar and the Great Architects. The system still runs (to an extent) in Brazil, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's more than just these three games that are Brazil exclusives. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything for the Show do Milhão games, and Férias Frustradas do Pica-Pau only showed up as a brief mention in a 1997 interview I have in Super Game Pro with Sega no Brazil (Issue #42). But then again my Brazilian sources emphasize Nintendo systems so it's not an exhaustive search by any means. On the topic of Férias Frustradas do Pica-Pau, though, I do have access to a review of it in Velikij Drakon if that would help. -Thibbs (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
@Red Phoenix: - Did you need the review from Velikij Drakon? -Thibbs (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Got it covered from another source, thanks Thibbs. There are more I could use, however. I've redone the entire table at List of Sega Genesis games, and if you sort the list by the "Exclusive Region" column, anything with an exclusive region listed (aka not released in Japan, North America, or PAL but released elsewhere) that doesn't have a reference next to the title is one I need. I think there's a couple Brazilian ones still there. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned the TOSEC archive at the Internet Archive above. The Sega Pix archive has issues of the Brazilian Supergame magazine. Their Mega Drive ROMs archive isn't a reliable source, and it may not be complete, but it can be a good checklist to start with. Search for "(TW)" and you can find the Taiwanese exclusive games. - hahnchen 02:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The main TOSEC archive is at https://archive.org/details/tosec I'm having an issue downloading the Mega Drive ROMs individually, but you can still read the index or download the entire thing. - hahnchen 02:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
hahnchen: I just got to see this tonight. That is absolutely amazing. Though it's not a reliable source, it's certainly a good starting point. There's a lot to go through here, but at least it's a start. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

is this disruptive?

Hatting this in light of the most recent WP:IBAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A certain editor (Chrisgualtieri) had reverted clearly non-notable series Phantasy Star Adventure, Phantasy Star Gaiden and Phantasy Star II Text Adventures despite getting a fair consensus to redirect them anyways in the past. he wants me to put on an AfD simply because he disagrees with the redirects. A generic revert wouldn't mean so much, but considering the past and how he dislikes how i "delete" articles. It can easily be viewed as a campaign against my edits or rather my "deletes". either way, i'm simply not going to make an AfD for each of these articles until i'm assured that there's clear reasoning behind it. And i don't think there is.Lucia Black (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"despite getting a fair consensus to redirect them anyways in the past"...where are these discussions? I looked, but couldn't find any of them. - Aoidh (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&diff=585709836&oldid=585709608 here is one revision. it seemed it was in agreement. again isay "fair" as in "not that strong". but either way, it was a consensus that allowed it in the first place.Lucia Black (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The D in AfD is for deletion and per its rules, all articles brought to AfD must be brought with deletion rationales, not just for general discussion. Through BRD, it's time for a fuller discussion. I'd recommend a centralized discussion on the Phantasy Star series page where you can discuss all three at once, and leave notices on each of the discussed pages for all those inclined to participate. czar ♔ 06:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that these reverts were justified. although editing the article, the user has not added much of any sources. And i feel he's just reverting my dits for the sake of reverting "my" edits. but bad faith aside. i will see it through, just to end this behavior.Lucia Black (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I also disagree with their characterization of the redirects as WP:BLAR, but that's likely a misunderstanding since you at least attempted to have a discussion about notability here at WTVG.) I wouldn't take it personally—this stuff escalates quickly and no revert is worth losing your cool. czar ♔ 07:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well to answer your question, "is this disruptive?" I don't think so. When you redirected the articles, you only left an edit summary saying "redirecting" as opposed to including a link to any sort of discussion, and there was no discussion on that page or the main page that I could find. Given that I was under the impression they were discussed and still couldn't find a discussion, it's not unreasonable to assume that Chris didn't know there was any type of discussion about it since no indication of that was given nor was there any indication of that on the article talk pages. The thing to do now is discuss it somewhere now that it's known that there's a disagreement on the matter. If there's a consensus to redirect and that discussion didn't take place on the article's talk page, it's a good idea to provide a link to that discussion in the edit summary so it's known why you redirected it to avoid any possible future confusion. - Aoidh (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
And i explained why. even if i didn't give a direct link. Also, its pretty cut-clear. just look at the articles. and try finding sources for it. and i know this editor enough, that he is willing to undo an edit out of spite if he can find enough basis for it.Lucia Black (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You asked a question, the answer is no. The best thing you can do now is get a consensus and then go from there, but responding with incivility towards another editor is less than helpful. - Aoidh (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Not an appropriate place but, just trust me this "incivility" is happening within less than a day. And i have the proof and the justification to think so using history.Lucia Black (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not see that there was a previous discussion and I am not a regular here at VG, anime and manga is my area of scholarly expertise. So I apologize for not seeing the discussion which was neither on the talk page or on the main page, I tried due diligence in the fact that I was improving the page when it was again redirected on me - hence the call on WP:BLAR which states that blanking and redirecting should not be done repeatedly. The proper venue is AFD and Gaiden is probably the easiest to update since the gameplay is traditional. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
if you want to play this game, then fine. we'll humor you. i'll AFD them regardless if anyone here finds it inapropriate just for your sake. but be prepared for the outcome.Lucia Black (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Now, there's no need to make it so combative. Chris, let me assure you that I personally went to great lengths to find sources to show notability for these articles. Not to toot my own horn here, but I pride myself on my ability to find sources for the most obscure title. For those three games, I found virtually nothing. As for AfD, we shouldn't have to go to those lengths. It's more encouraged that we have a discussion on the article's talk page than for us to pile the discussion into an already over-crowded section of the website. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
She already nominated all three for AFD, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Just giving my two cents on the matter of when an article should absolutely go to AfD. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, and its sound advice. I was just notifying you that she had already made a decision on it. (And it seemed like you are familiar with the articles, so I thought you may want to know on an !voting level.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Links to the three relevant AfDs:

czar ♔ 20:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • @New Age Retro Hippie: Phantasy Star Gaiden is the target of most of my searches and it seems to be the most prominent of the three. Though I've found some good details for Phantasy Star Adventure. Part of the problem is that following the end of the game, no credits roll, which means I doubt viewing Niconico videos will be helpful here. I'd like to get the information up, but it is hard when you are under the gun and these more obscure games are put through a gauntlet. I personally believe that they should be kept and expanded as information appears, but I do not have access to the old Animage and other publications which would contain some details. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @ChrisGualtieri: you would really have to use other forms of sources other than the video game itself to find sources. Either way, it would be better for you to have these in an incubator, so you can have all the time in the world to prove it and without having lacking articles here.Lucia Black (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bombing Run

Bombing Run's not doing too hot, if anyone wants to give it a look or propose a merger on its talk. czar ♔ 03:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Penny Arcade Report offlined

Happy New Year! See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Penny_Arcade_Report_now_defunct.2C_links_dead. Penny Arcade Report has closed and as of the new year, all of its links are dead. Now would be a good time to archive any last links or retrieve and archive anything you want to use in the future. Discussion at above link. czar ♔ 16:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

List of affected pages here and here. It looks like the site was well covered by the Internet Archive, but there are still lots of broken links to update. - hahnchen 02:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of lead image changes

I think there should be a discussion relating to changing an article's lead image. This typically refers to character articles in particular. Often, an image is changed simply to be "up-to-date" with a character's respective series. However, very often the up-to-date image will contain only non-trivial changes - usually a different pose than the last. As such, its biggest effect is that it creates disputes and can often hurt the article; for example, Cammy's article features an image of her with her back facing the camera, which arguably does a disservice to readers as a back view tends to give a lot less information than a front view would. I don't think - and my apologies to the uploader if I'm wrong - that the image was used for any other reason than recentism. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to make a small adaptation to WP:STOPCHANGINGIT? It would seem to follow. czar ♔ 06:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think so. (you don't know how happy it makes me to see someone else use that redirect!) --PresN 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As big a fan as I am of STOPCHANGINGIT principle for box art and article names - character depictions change over time. I don't think the current image gives you any less of an representation of the character than the previous one did. Although I do think if you're going to upload a new Street Fighter IV image of the character, you should upload a new file, rather than just overwrite File:Ssf2-cammy.png, so there are no misleading filenames. - hahnchen 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Uploading a new version into the existing file when it is going to be used for the same purposes means that 1) you don't have do any extra deletion and 2) the rataional shouldn't have to change save for source links and description (but the reason to use will still be the same). --MASEM (t) 02:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying it isn't quicker, it if were just named Cammy.png that'd have been fine. - hahnchen 02:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the file to the more neutral File:Cammy (Street Fighter character).png.--十八 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem I have is that the new Cammy image is used not because it is better or because there's discussion of this particular image of Cammy in reliable sources, but because it was 'up-to-date'. The Cammy image from Street Fighter II works perfectly well without any of the potentially confusing flair. Encouraging people to not change the lead image for a character article unless there's a compelling reason should be a top-priority situation. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Win quote

So I'm combing through articles due in part to the Stubcheck campaign and then I found this article. Should we get the to AfD or something? I have no faith in its notability. GamerPro64 21:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. At first I was going to say definitely AfD, but a quick WP:VG sources search brings up a mention a few times. Not enough to show notability though so I think I would still vote delete at AfD. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I've mentioned this way before the idea of a Glossary of video game terms , as to collect such things that are barely notable on their own along with notable terms that break off via {{main}} links. This is the perfect place for such. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hm that is a nice idea. I'd definitely be up for helping create such a page. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively and in the meantime, I'd suggest a merge to an existing page about the genre of fighting games. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of the stubcheck, I was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping with some menial labour; I've found at least a dozen and a half redirects that were still given stub-class assessments, driving up the % from 98.8% to 98.9%, and I'm only in the B's. Maybe someone could attack this problem from the Z's and we could work our way to the middle. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any suggested tips or tools for the sort? I was tabbing it out in the Ss and it was taking forever. Are you tagging for other stuff as you go too? czar ♔ 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, it's a bit of a drag. I was hoping someone else had some advice. :P In the beginning I was actually cataloging every single article and doing a source review, to see which articles have reliable sources available and which do not. Needless to say that becomes a huge drag, though I've found some interesting things out about interesting games like 100 Rogues (which despite being a sentence-long article has a log of good sources). The other thing I look out for is whether a stub-class article is big or "complete" enough to be elevated to start-class. Mind I've only found a few actual cases where this is true, but it's definitely helped. If you want to keep a good pace, I suggest opening a set number of articles - ie, open 20 articles, or if you're in the "Sp" section of the articles, open them up until you hit the "Sq" articles. At which point, go through and go from the talk page to the main space without stopping to examine each article. When you have navigated from the talk page to the main space for all articles, then go through and look for two things: 1. Was I redirected? 2. Is the article long enough that it may be worthwhile to examine whether or not it's mis-classified? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
All I do is pull up the toolserver link, open 20 or so articles in their own tabs, then flick through them, closing anything that's obviously a stub. I go back to the ones that are left and deliberate for a few seconds on each one if it's really a start/redirect or not. I'm usually left with one or two per block, and then I change their ratings. I don't bother spending time on fixing the articles in any way, just making sure they're classified correctly. --PresN 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That's what I began to do after I got into the B's, ignoring the idea of making articles better. Still, it's best to look for articles that may be interesting to Wikipedian editors to not only reduce stub-class articles but also make more possible good articles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a million for mentioning the toolserver link; it cuts my time doing this in more than half. Hopefully the whole stub-class category will be done before not too long. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Aw, what the hell—I made it: Glossary of video game terms. Torchiest mentioned something similar in the newsletter a while back and I haven't heard any arguments against. If you stub it, they will come... czar ♔ 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's how I normally work too. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
So what are the odds of making this a featured list with the proper amount of effort put into finding all of the articles about video game terms? :P - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that there's a category along the lines of this called Video game terminology. GamerPro64 00:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I just redirected/merged Win quote into the glossary article as is/was. --PresN 00:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

On the subject, what would everyone think of a Magic point merge to an article that discusses role-playing game gameplay? From what I can see, almost all of the examples focus on RPGs. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No opinion, but I ran across magic (gaming) recently, which would seem to be a candidate. czar ♔ 03:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Transitioning Phase

So I was thinking about this now that we have a Glossary for terms in gaming. Since there's a page for it now, does that mean we should be redirecting some pages to the list, like ones that lack the notability to sustain an article of itself? I mean the article that started all this got merged into it so I'm assuming more to follow. GamerPro64 03:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That does sound like a good idea for terms that likey won't work as full articles. The process can also be reversed if someone at a later point belives that they can create a proper article.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am in support of this. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Video gaming operating systems

Category:Video gaming operating systems, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

G-Zay evidence page

Hello all. As many of us have known, G-Zay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been banned for misrepresenting sources in BLPs and also Square Enix and Final Fantasy related articles. In an effort to file an edit filter request or a long-term abuse report, I am compiling an evidence page at User:Sjones23/G-Zay for further evidence. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tiny and Big: Grandpa's Leftovers deleted

Tiny & Big was deleted for not passing the "notability" guidelines. I've restored it now, but if anyone wishes to add more to the article, especially stuff from third parties (such as independent coverage / reviews), that would be great and help stop it being deleting again. —Pengo 03:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it is very odd it was deleted without any AFD/PROD/CSD tagging. Irregardless, it has 30 reviews via MC so I've populared links to the notable ones. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Minecraft Task Force

Hey everyone-- I'm considering making a Minecraft task force that would be a part of this WikiProject. We would work on all Minecraft-related articles! Anyone interested?

Thanks! --Newyorkadam (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Are there that many Minecraft articles? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm grossly underestimating the scope, this might be an awesome collaborative project for a Featured Topic! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
We definitively don't need a taskforce for this. There is 1 game, 1 company, 2 key people, 1 convention, a themed toy set and an unaffiliated documentary. Task forces are for dozens, hundreds of pages. This is a at best a portal-sized topic. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, theres not many articles relating to minecraft to consider a taskforce.Lucia Black (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That being said, there wouldn't be an issue with a collaboration project as suggested above. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. From just quickly thinking and scanning the Minecraft article:
  1. Minecraft
  2. Markus Persson
  3. Jens Bergensten
  4. Mojang
  5. MineCon
  6. Lego Minecraft
I'm sure there are more. Thoughts? Newyorkadam (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Again, if you're interested in collaborative editing, you're best off making an announcement and working with the editors who already monitor those articles. Reasonably, there isn't going to be more than a few people who want to to this, and a separate task force page isn't necessary for coordinating the group's actions—it's only needless bureaucracy. tl;dr: don't worry about the task force and just go for the articles czar ♔ 05:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nintendo DS line

Is it okay to affiliate the 3DS with this terminology? Should an article like this even exist yet? Relevant discussion started here: Talk:Nintendo DS line#Impending removal.

A brief search gives mix results: CNET, Kotaku, washingtonpost, but engadget, ibtimes, pcmag says otherwise. Articles like this (made at the time of its announcement) seem to indicate this stem from media confusion. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

An update on Flow

Hi all. This is a very brief note, to let you know the current plans. Based on your feedback in the Straw poll last month, the Flow team is going to postpone the deployment on this page until you feel you've reached internal consensus on whether to be part of the Flow beta trial. They are planning to release it on January 23 (Thursday, afternoon PST) at WP:WikiProject Breakfast and at WP:WikiProject Hampshire, as well as at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ, so you'll be able to watch the other WikiProjects and discuss-Flow-whilst-using-Flow at the project pages. As always, the more (quantity and quality) of insightful feedback you provide, the better Flow will become, and they'll be happy to enable it on your project if/when you're ready. Thanks again, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The straw poll mentioned updates to Flow which should be coming online now. Are these on track? How about the mobile interface? - hahnchen 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Hahnchen: The "small view", and the icon to indicate edited-content (which links to diff), have both been added, and are visible at mw:Talk:Flow. The work to replace roll-over links with static links (and to condense some of them into an "action menu") is still ongoing. AbuseFilter has been integrated. Better automated edit-summaries are being worked on. The "thank" button and "summarize&close" system haven't been started yet (delayed for the bug-fix sprint). The mobile interface has low-priority, until the desktop version is more fully-developed. HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Milestone ideas

We are getting pretty close to having half our articles being Start-class or higher as shown here:

(31600/41763)

So I think we might as well think of a new one to take its place once its meet. Any ideas? GamerPro64 16:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

i think the obvious choice is move it up to 75%.Lucia Black (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Back when we set the 50% start+ goal Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 99#New goal, May 2013, the other options mentioned were 20% C+ or 10% B+ - the goal before this one was 10% C+. I think 75% Start+ is good, though. --PresN 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I vote that we implement a goal of improving articles from Start- to C-class -and- a goal to improve 75% of stub-class articles to start-class. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tables of retail editions

What are thoughts on implementing a guideline against these tables as seen at Watch_Dogs#Release. At a bare minimum they're ugly, but it seems to operate exclusively as a shoppers guide, instructing what retail editions contain which of the assorted pre-order or limited edition junk, but this content is not notable, it doesn't require a glaring table, and any significant items can be easily covered in prose without referring to these packs. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I dislike those, particularly if this encourages store-specific incentives to be documented as well. Its appropriate in prose to describe that bundled editions in include various features, but a full table like this is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed that one myself, and wanted to remove it, but wasn't sure what consensus was, as most of the game articles I work on don't have so many differing releases like that. It seems like it would fall into the same category as any of the types of charts we don't use due to WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to help a new user?

I've done video game articles in the past, but I'm not entirely a whiz at them. In any case, I came across the article Crypt of the Necrodancer by way of a series of speedy delete templates (I found the one on the talk page) and began to research it based upon the editor's claims of notability. I admit that the whole reason I initially refunded the page was because the game wasn't an online game, which meant it didn't qualify for any of the speedies. In any case, the editor in question is User:Luveluen and while the page was a little shaky, Luveluen showed a pretty good knowledge of the policies and basic editing structure for Wikipedia- better than I knew when I first started. I was wondering if one of you could take him or her under your wing. I'm optimistic that they could do very, very well on Wikipedia. I'll watch out for them as well, but I thought that since they seem to have a specific interest in video games, that one of you could mentor them for a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)



Good day, that new user would be me.
I have been practicing some formatting in similar editors to the wikipedia one before I dared to make an edit here. So I am relatively confident in this aspect, since Wikipedia is not using a very complicated layout.
However, I still have a lot to learn about rules and customs on wikipedia.
While I am currently so happy that Tokyogirl79 helped me out that I want to hug her, I am also willing to embrace every other help I can get to learn how I can be of use here.

I view Wikipedia as one of the greatest projects ever undertaken by mankind and I am looking forward to becoming a part of it if I can be of use to everyone this way.

Luveluen (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, the only custom you violated is that when you stopped editing the article for a while, you only had 7 sentences in the article. I mean, there were some details that people have changed for you, but that was the bit that got the article flagged. Whenever you start a new article, especially on an unreleased game, it's best to have a few paragraphs written before you stop for a while- if it's going to take a while to get to that point, you can write it in a user page (like User:Luveluen/sandbox) or as a draft article Draft:Crypt of the Necrodancer - neither one should get deleted before you can move it to the mainspace, and the draft has the added bonus that other editors can find it easily to add on to it. Good job on having references in the article though- that's a big leg up on most new users. Welcome to Wikipedia! --PresN 20:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your tips and the warm welcome, PresN.
I will remember the sandbox and the draft pages together with the userspace advice I got from Tokyogirl79.
Luveluen (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Giving away copies of XCOM: EU for improvements to video game articles

Hello there. I have two copies of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, which I will be giving away to whomever improves the articles on any of my favorite video games. The details can be found at User:Sven Manguard/XCOM 2. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Civ 4 is already at a GAN. That count? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that. I saw the request for a second opinion, but it's been several years and a computer ago since I played Civ IV, so I didn't step in. As to your question: the way I see it, this is a more continuation of the 2013 competition than a new competition, and Civ IV was on that list, so it counts. The nominator still needs to improve a second article from the list to GA to get the game though, as it's one to FA or two to GA. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
(Wow, Orly's Draw-A-Story!) czar ♔ 05:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, mon. It was a biiiiig influence on my childhood mon. (If you're not reading that in a Jamaican accent, you're doing it wrong). Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to participate, but I'm more keen to take indie games to FA. Indie games need more love :) — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 06:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but this is my way of getting my favorite games improved (something that I don't feel that I am skilled enough to do properly at this point). The only indie game that I'd put on that list, Bastion, is already an FA. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

God of War III FAC

The article has 3 supports and no opposes, however, the administrator said the FAC may be closed without promotion because there's not enough "helpful" reviews. It would be appreciated if a couple people could give some feedback so this isn't closed a second time for lack of feedback. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 11:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the main issue brought up was that it was seen that with one exceptions reviews were seen are shallow and unhelpful (the words to the person suggesting that it won`t be promoted not mine) so if anyone does plan to support it can they make sure that their review clearly covers the reasons they believe it passes the criteria since the statement implies that supports that simply say I agree or I think it passes will be discounted.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft space pages

Draft:Jess Heinig, Draft:Risto Hieta, and Draft:Scott Leaton are draft space pages related to this WikiProject. If you have any independent reliable sources to add to any of these articles, we may be able to get them moved into article space.

If you are interested in helping out with more drafts, please see my list of draft space pages, and help me reach my goal of eventually getting them all to article space! BOZ (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The draft process seems to have been pushed out without much thought - can you stick these draft articles into a video game subcategory of Category:Wikipedia drafts? Further down the line, we could get bot updates as to when new drafts are created. - hahnchen 00:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for this and there is discussion as to doing this automatically here and here. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The best place to ask more general questions and make comments on the process would be at Wikipedia talk:Drafts. BOZ (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Category:Draft-Class video game articles exists and using the banner with class=Draft works; if no class parameter is specified, it should still classify the article as Draft-class (as it does with files and templates). The assessment table doesn't yet have a "Draft" row, and for the moment these fall under "Other" because in the WM-Labs backend the class hasn't been created (it's technically reported as "NotA-Class"). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Importance assessments of lists

Earlier today I changed the importance of Talk:Glossary of video game terms from top importance to low importance since it was a list and in general all list class or FL class pages in the project are assessed as low importance looking at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics and the text describing low importance at WP:VG/A#Importance scale. Later on, User:Czar changed it to mid importance citing that the table in that section is referring to "other topics or lists" as potentially being mid importance. Could someone give clarification on what the correct way to deal with the importance of lists is? FunPika 19:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the "importance scale" is guidance, and where common sense applies that we can vere from it. Yes, most video game lists (like lists of games for a given system or the like) is low importance, but here we have a list that is somewhat critical to talking about video games to the average reader, so it should be higher than "low" importance since its part of our "language". --MASEM (t) 19:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Not all lists have equal importance. In this case, the list/glossary is applicable across a wide range of games and genres and as Masem states, is useful in explaining general video game jargon to non-specialists. Mid importance seems reasonable to me. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I had, a few months ago, changed our list of video game consoles to High-importance (as that seems a pretty important aspect of video gaming), but was reverted and noticed all other lists were assessed as Low-importance. However, I cannot think of a more important list than this Glossary, and I thus assessed it as Top. I think it's time for WPVG to explore whether we want to assess Lists instead of auto-rating them as Low-importance.
  • I propose we start assessing lists like we'd assess any other type of article. In broad terms, in my very basic opinion (which leave a lot of space for refining, this is just a quick, unworked proposition to see if there's interest): List of characters from X franchise would be low, List of video games on X console would be mid, List of consoles would be high, and the Glossary list would be top. Whaddy'all think? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Why is it that lists are currently automatically low? Samwalton9 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Probably some age-old consensus that happened years ago... haven't seen it discussed in the past two years anyways. Probably reasons similar to why we used to not assess redirects. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I also think this list should be higher importance, high at least, possibly top. It's something that would be linked to and referred to all over the place in probably the majority of WP:VG articles. —Torchiest talkedits 02:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I support Salvadrim!'s proposed list importance system. --PresN 23:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Halo Xbox One

I have come across this article concerning the upcoming, untitled next-gen Halo game, and am feeling that it's too soon for such a thing. Either that or it needs to be reworked. Opinions and possible action requested. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The article itself says the game's promotional material wasn't even an official announcement. This is crystal ball territory. Redirect to Reclaimer Saga until more reliable sources are available. czar ♔ 09:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
From my talk page:

Hi Czar,

I think this game definitely warrants its own article; it is untitled but so are the new Star Wars films. When any new information is released, it will be added to the article by myself (or anyone who beats me to it), but for now the article is fully referenced, reliable material. The only problem you seem to have with it is that the game is yet to be titled.

Let me know what you think, but to have someone delete an article that you spent time working on is demoralising.

Regards,
Sam.

Samcooke343 (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a very clear precedent (WP:CRYSTALBALL#5) of incubating product announcements within existing articles when there has been little to no information released about the product. (My issue is not the title.) Halo (series)#Reclaimer Saga covers everything the current article has. Also, per BRD, when you boldly remove a redirect to make an article and someone reverts you, the proper action is to bring it to discussion before boldly ignoring it. czar ♔ 16:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Czar, I didn't remove a redirect to make an article, there was already an article called "Halo 5", which was erroneous and speculative so I moved it to "Halo Xbox One" before adding reliable sources and references.
ProtoDrake, I feel this game definitely warrants an article, as it has been announced, just not titled. Aside firm the title argument, User:Czar is suggesting the article should be redirected to the Reclaimer Saga section of the Halo (series article. I have a problem with this, too, as it's highly likely the game will be Halo 2 Anniversary, so therefore would not be part of the Reclaimer Saga at all. Samcooke343 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
If you'll check the page history, you'll see the redirect that existed before the version you found, and that consensus is to redirect the article until more information is released. Shouldn't keep you from working on it at the series page. As for the H2A claims, let's see the reliable, secondary coverage, and why it can't be incorporated into the series article and always expanded out summary style. czar ♔ 17:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Track listing

Hi guys,

I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for a while, trying to focus on my studies (to no avail...), and I just noticed that the collapsed option in {{tracklist}} (see discussion). With long lists of in-game soundtracks, I'm quite against removing the option, 'cause now we've got stuff like Skyrim#Audio or Assassin's Creed III#Music. How do you guys feel about this decision? --Soetermans. T / C 14:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you disagree with their reading of WP:COLLAPSE? czar ♔ 15:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that: by that decision of COLLAPSE in the first place, we got all these long lists, which I don't find very handy or informative. Should we encourage to make those lists into prose, like BioShock Infinite#Audio? --Soetermans. T / C 10:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sega CD FAC

Hello, fellow video game editors. Sorry to bug everyone, but I could really use some feedback at the FAC for Sega CD. It's been at FAC for over a month and has had only one review, with no supports, opposition, etc. At this rate it'll likely be archived in a week or two if no additional feedback/support/comments to work on comes up. Might a couple of editors be willing to take a look and throw in their two cents? Thanks to everyone in advance. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If we're mentioning stuff that need to be reviewed or need feedback, I would like to mention some others here as well:

Don't want to distract from getting the Sega CD looked over but these also need to be checked too. GamerPro64 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed—I've previously commented on God of War III and List of AO-rated video games already and both Sega CD and List of Sega Genesis games are mine. I'm sure I can find some time to try and threw some more comments elsewhere to help. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Update - GoW III failed its FAC and Secret of Mana is currently at GAN. GamerPro64 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sega CD was archived as well for lack of comments. What a shame; it's over. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Common names and abbreviations in lead

A little while ago I suggested adding two things to article guidelines. One was a small note that "modified" or something similar doesn't have to be mentioned in the engine field in the VG infobox. The other one was about having a clear guideline that common names and abbreviations should be mentioned. I copy-pasted the discussion here, trying to get some consensus.

The original discussion (edited so it's only about common names and abbreviations)

For the lead, a small note that common abbreviations or common names shouldn't be mentioned. Often I encounter articles that start with Actual title (also known as Internet slang). For instance, Toontown Online (Toontown), Age of Mythology (AoM) and just now DayZ (DayZ Standalone).

  1. Or Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (War3 or WC3 or RoC). --Soetermans. T / C 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Soetermans: Your first suggestion would seem to contradict the manual of style. --Izno (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Izno, thanks for your reply. Maybe 'common' here isn't the right word. If a RS would call a game something else, then that would be a common name to me. But the examples I brought up aren't 'common' enough. --Soetermans. T / C 11:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The MoS uses the word "common" without qualification or note on sourcing. Besides that, I would call all of AoM, WC3, and RoC common (in fact, AoM was originally redirected to Age of Mythology, in 2005!, and WC3 shows up with Warcraft 3 results...). War3 is a little less common, but I've seen it before... In all though, I stand by my original statement; the notion "that common abbreviations or names shouldn't be mentioned" plainly contradicts the MoS. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
On the first point, we definitely should include the slang if it is common enough that we'd likely have a redirect or a disamb page with the slang pointing to the main article. The restatement in the lead first sentence assdures the reader they know they hit the right page. For example to not mention "WoW" for World of Warcraft would not be helpful. But the slang should have very common use, and not just simpfication for that reason. P2 frequently implies Portal 2 when talking about Valve games but doesn't make much sense out of that context. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That the term 'common' is very subjective makes it hard to discuss this. Throughout my life I would always call the current Mario game I was playing "Mario" and I've seen RSes call Call of Duty: Black Ops Codblops, but I have never come across DayZ Standalone (then again, I'm a die-hard PlayStation gamer). Sure, to my friends and online I can say 'Ocarina' or 'FF7' and they'll know what I mean. Are those popular names common enough and notable to mention them specifically? Can't we just go by the subtle way of introducing it in prose? For instance, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is just called Skyrim throughout the article (which might even be confusing for those not familiar with the game, as it also set in Skyrim, a fictional location). --Soetermans. T / C 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Using something like WoW in the context of World of Warcraft might work, but something like WC3 in the context of Warcraft 3 isn't particularly elegant in prose. Abbreviations, and in particular acronyms, aren't always suitable for plain prose. But that aside, you still need to introduce the synonymy to the reader, and the lead is the best place (and the place provided for in the MoS) to do so. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@User:Izno I noticed you re-added AoM to Age of Mythology. How do you decide it is common enough? The examples given at WP:BOLDSYN are actually common, everyday stuff. We're talking video games here, are they even considered "common"? If this would be a clear guideline I would have no problem with it, but it is very ambiguous. In the article on Age of Mythology, only the bit by PC Gamer specifically calls the game AoM. @User:Masem, isn't the redirect already intended for that? And I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't fly, but a lot of common names and abbreviations do redirect to articles without mentioning that common name or abbreviation. ffx -> Final Fantasy X, loz oot -> The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and TLOU -> The Last of Us. Maybe having this discussion works better at WT:VG, so we can have more input. --Soetermans. T / C 13:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We can use infinite redirects to apply even uncommon "common" names for games, but the idea for including a common alternate name in the lead is that if the reader is coming from one of these common redirects, they'll see the common alternate name in bold and realize that they did arrive at the right place. But I stress that this only should be for "common" names. "TF2" for Team Fortress 2, "DOTA" for Defense of the Ancients. Internet forum slang/shortcuts that don't get adopted in mainstream press, like the Ocarina of Time one you give, should have redirects but should not be included in the lead. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Would a RS requirement be okay for inclusion? PC Gamer did use AoM for instance. If we (or you?) could add a small note here that a RS is a criteria to add a common name to articles, that'd be great, because then there is at least something I can refer to when I take out TPP in The Phantom Pain. --Soetermans. T / C 15:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say that if the inclusion of an alternate name in the lead is in question, the discussion should be on the talk page and yes, bringing in RSs to show how the term is used. Ideally we would be talking about the term appearing in articles that are not directly about the game, to show how it is a common word used in the larger discussions of video games and not in the narrow sliver of that game itself. But yes, RSes using the term would help to justify it if it is questioned. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't agree on not listing common acronyms (WoW, DOTA) and some abbreviations, some are in wide use and by sources. Of course, not redundant or uncommon ones if there are better ones (War3). However, agree on not listing just a generic obvious shorter title of the same title (Toontown, Black Ops, Skyrim) or technical names (.. Standalone). Obviously, more than a couple is almost always unnecessary. A good measure would be -- will the non-obvious alternate title be used in prose later? If not, then it might not need inclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Continuing here

I agree with Hellknowz. All these so-called common names are terms used by the gaming industry and gaming community. Wikipedia is made for a large audience, what would the general public get from knowing acronyms or common names? Is that noteworthy at all? --Soetermans. T / C 10:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other articles that were linked but I added 'DayZ Standalone' to that article (since removed without argument from me). The game was called DayZ Standalone about as many times as it was called DayZ in sources, and even the lead developer has referred to it as DayZ Standalone. Hellknowz makes a good point about whether the non-obvious title would be used in prose, and in the opening sentence it's clarified that the article is about the standalone game, so I'm happy to concede that it wasn't necessary. That said, with so many sources (& the lead dev) calling it DayZ Standalone, does it warrant a mention somewhere? I'm not sure either way. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I also like to point out that this hidden note is in the Grand Theft Auto V lead: "Please don't add the abbreviation "GTA V" here as it isn't used throughout the article and therefore isn't needed". --Soetermans. T / C 14:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Going on a Wikibreak; have a bunch of sources for articles if anyone is interested in doing the work.

I don't know when I'll be getting back from whatever I'm doing on my Wikibreak, but in the meantime if anyone is interested in filling in sources for a number of specific articles, it'd be pretty helpful. Here are the articles for which I've gathered sources:

I also have an incomplete list of sources for Namco High, Kraid, Andross, King of All Cosmos, and Etna (Disgaea). Though I'm on my Wikibreak, I'll be able to offer help with respect to finding reliable sources for articles; I just can't devote time to putting the sources into prose right now. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Toss me Etna. --Niemti (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That'll be a bit, since I have to get a complete list of references from the reliable sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
[15] - Here are the Etna sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I could possible use the Ness sources, and I'm really curious to see your Wario Land sources. And if you put your source dump on a user subpage, it'll be around for anyone to use—a thought. Enjoy your wikibreak! czar ♔ 02:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

[16] - For Ness. Mind that I already shared the URL with User:Gabriel Yuji, so it'd probably be best to divvy up the sources so that the two of you can fit them in more quickly. Disregard the Nintendo Life sources also. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I created User:New Age Retro Hippie/Pastebin. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Generation milestone games

I brought this up in the talk page for History of video game consoles (eighth generation) as there already seems to be a short list after such a short time. While I mention that page, I bring up the same question to previous generation articles: what constitutes as a milestone? I can understand examples such as sales record breaking, best reviewed that cycle or a generally considered innovation yet currently many seem subjective. For example in the History of video game consoles (seventh generation), some examples like BioShock and Portal are praised even long after release and featured in lists while one could argue Call of Duty 4 and Wii Sports were major releases that generation. However, while those could still be argued, others seem to have less descriptive reason (like the 8th gen article) simply stating a positive reception, not the most positive reception or the best in sales such as "second best that year" or "got a 10 from IGN". The there are the sequels that may fit the critiera (as it stands) better than its predecessor. Most of all though, many simply do not have adequate referencing to back up such bold claims. In short what is a "milestone", is it better to write them up once a generation is close to conclusion are are they needed at all? Stabby Joe (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:History of video game consoles (eighth generation)#What_is_a_.22milestone.22.3F czar ♔ 16:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I brought it up here as the issue seems applicable to previous generations. As for the 8th, I would remove the current list for the time being. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Automatic bot editing of "list of videogames..." articles

Hi. Does anyone have any knowledge of Hbot on the Italian Wikipedia (contribs)? Is there anything similar here? If not, would it be worthwhile filing a request? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does it do? This doesn't seem too different from what we'd see in categories other than including year/genre/platforms and I'm not sure how useful that is. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The developer, publisher, year and genre are presented within the tables. This allows easy sorting, and provides more functionality than categories alone. As far as being of use to readers, such lists within Main space would have to demonstrate notability for the group as a whole (although that wouldn't be very difficult for most platforms, and we already have such lists). Within Project space, such lists could possibly be extended to summarise class/importance too, which could be useful for editors seeking to identify potential target articles to contribute to. Additionally, I gather that new articles are automatically added to lists by the bot, reducing the editor maintenance overhead for new (and possibly deleted) articles. I might try to find out a bit more myself, but I don't know Italian so that might not lead too far. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014's TFA

A new year comes with new things so as such there will be new Featured Articles on the horizon. Until then let's get ready for the project's first article coming onto TFA on the 23rd: Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars. GamerPro64 17:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New you say? « Ryūkotsusei » 15:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Graphic content filter

This article must be written well. Current version is too short as is. --George Ho (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why can't this be part of Parental controls? I see no reason for a separate article on this? --MASEM (t) 22:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed czar ♔ 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: Not sure I agree; I can turn on/off the swearing-filter regardless of whether I'm a parent, and in fact have chosen to do so before…. Not saying there isn't significant overlap, but to presume that graphic content filters are put in place only for parental control seems odd to me. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, arguably there's a broad article than just graphic content filter to cover one mechanism of user-enable content control. Just focusing on "graphic content" is too narrow when there is usually associated directly or work alongside language content control. And this of course runs through all modern digital media systems. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

50% Start-class or better milestone

(15017/30030)

Congrats, all! czar ♔ 04:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_102&oldid=1089925541"