Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 126

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127Archive 128→Archive 130

Do gameplay and plot sections require references?

There is widespread agreement among editors that the description of the topic of an article do not require citations, because one would get that from [reading][the book], [watching][the film], [listening][to the song], etc.

So, is it the same for a game? Do we need a reference to describe the gameplay of, say, Star Raiders, when you can simply play the game and see for yourself?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Plot sections do not require references but if plot elements that are necessary are given in areas that a player may not see (eg such as having to find collectables , etc.), these should be sourced to the game if not to any third-party source that covers the plot. If you can readily source the plot from a third-party, one is encouraged to do so, but we recognize not all games have their plot broken down to that great a detail in sources.
Gameplay must be sourced, as gameplay will nearly always be described by a game's critical reception if not by materials prior to release. This also helps guide to what level of detail to cover a game's gameplay. Not every element of gameplay needs to be sourced for comprehensiveness (for example, reivews for newer Call of Duty games aren't going to spend a lot of time on mechanics because they replicate the mechanics of previous games, but a more in-depth discussion on our article may be necessary for comprehensiveness on the stand-alone page), but if one is going into minutiae not covered in sources, that's too much detail. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Gameplay definitely requires sources. Plot isn't totally required, though I usually try to, unless its brutally honest stuff (Mario takes off to save Peach.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Well then why do we need it for gameplay but not the plot? Either one is sourced by the topic itself, no? I'm trying to understand the logic here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Primarily because it is nearly always possible to squeeze and pull out from reviews for gameplay details, while full details of plots rarely are sourceable. Further there is language that is sometimes unstated about gameplay that is pulled from reviews and other external sources but not stated in game that can border on OR if we start making up terms (For example, the "cover system" language of Gears of War is as best I can remember something not mentioned in game but clearly sourced from CliffyB and reviews). --MASEM (t) 01:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that while the important events in the plot are verifiable by anyone playing the game, writing about the gameplay and the rules governing it requires interpretation, and thus would be original research if not backed up by a source. I can't really see this being an issue, though - if a game is deemed notable, it likely has been reviewed by several reliable sources, which most likely have described the gameplay in the review, so you'd just use those to write the gameplay section. For some games this information isn't available in such sources, in which case I have cited the game's manual.--IDVtalk 19:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with several commenters above that gameplay sections require sources, but I have two other minor points: First, Wikipedia's policy is that direct inline citations to reliable sources are required for "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". What this means in practical terms is that the decision not to use sourcing is an assumption that none of the text is likely to be challenged. For plot that's perhaps more often true than not, but the author must be aware that if any good faith challenge should be made to the text then it can be removed at any time. Secondly, video game manuals are ideal to cite for gameplay details and the game itself can be used as a source for plot details much of the time using the {{Cite video game}} template. I'm completely in agreement with Sergecross73's comment above. Sources may or may not be required in the plot section, but it's generally good form to provide sources for as much as possible. -Thibbs (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, one can easily verify the gameplay elements by playing the game as well - that's the definition after all. But as is always the case, basically, maximal citations. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I've personally always found (and I've brought it up multiple times), that optimally, you source all plot info to reliable sources. This is a good way to write up a synopsis rather than a full summary, anyway. But yeah, seeing as I don't usually write articles on video games themselves, I'm not sure how much value that has ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 13:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact that gameplay can be verified by playing the game only means that unsourced claims regarding gameplay are less likely to be challenged. But under WP:V they could still be removed if not cited properly. WP:V concerns reliable-source-based verification, not personal experimentation, because otherwise a radiochemist could publish a novel set of experiments on Wikipedia with the claim that one only has to replicate his experiments to verify the claims made in the article. So I would stick to using the manual or traditional RSes to make gameplay claims, and the game itself for plot claims. -Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

1UP archives

So as everyone here knows 1UP.com is notoriously link rotting and has a robots.txt on Archive.org. I believe the link rot is slowly increasing all around their website. So, I suggest that if anyone sees a live link of the website, immediately archive it with WebCite or the newly unblacklisted Archive.is. Don't want these pages to be gone forever. GamerPro64 16:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Which explains why the user archived one link in a featured article candidate with this edit. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: The article is now a GAN. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I had to use Google Cache to save that source. Otherwise it would have been wiped from existence. This is getting worse everyday. GamerPro64 22:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Google Cache isn't permanent—it'll be gone really soon czar 05:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware. I archived the Google Cache link. GamerPro64 14:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Series tag out of nowhere

On the Haunting Ground article, the infobox lists the series as "Clock Tower", however that is not typed anywhere in the source. The game is highly related to the Clock Tower series but isn't officially a Clock Tower game. I think it has something to do with the programming of the template at the bottom of the page, but I don't know how to change it so it doesn't auto-populate the infobox. Can anyone help me? Thanks TarkusAB 00:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is automatically taking the series entry from wikidata. Adding an empty series field to the infobox overrides it. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively (and better), remove the claim on Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Input sought on source

Looking for more input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#LGBTQ Video Game Archive. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

On Rockstar Japan (again)

It has almost been a month since I posted my discussion, which concerned Rockstar Japan's existence, and there really hasn't been any progress in the case. My attempts to contact either of the IGN editors involved in it, or even Rockstar themselves on the case, failed. Therefore, I wanted to conclude this: Should it be deleted or not? If yes, redirected or not? And I would appreciate if, in case we go for deletion, someone can help me getting rid of the article from all international Wikipedias, and the image off Wikimedia Commons. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 16:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:AFD it or boldly redirect to an appropriate target. Why does the image need to be taken off Wikimedia Commons? Also, I'm not sure you can globally delete an article from Wikipedia; I reckon you'd have to go through each deletion process for the other languages. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes to everything 1337gamer just said. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd say that it should be AfD'd here, and the articles on other languages will probably disappear eventually, though someone who speaks the language could carry out their AfD processes as well if they want. ~Mable (chat) 18:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What cover and screenshots to use when multiple versions of a game exist

So, Soul Hackers is a game that originally came out in Japan in 1997 for the Sega Saturn, and wasn't released in English until 2013 when a 3DS port was published. The article used to be illustrated with the cover art and a screenshot from the English 3DS version, until today when George Ho added the cover art and a screenshot from the Japanese Saturn version, moving the English 3DS images down to the release/localization section. What I'm wondering is:

  1. Should we always use screenshots/covers from the original version, even if it is Japanese-only and there are later, English releases?
  2. Is it really okay to have two sets of screenshots and covers like that?

I would think that the English cover art would be used in most cases, since it's used for identification purposes and English-speakers likely would be more familiar with the English release, unless the original cover is really famous. That recognizability factor also applies to screenshots, I believe, with the added benefit that there is not any Japanese text in the English screenshot, so the reader is more likely to fully understand everything on it. For instance, I can read "Nemissa" in the English screenshot and deduce that the boxes represent characters in the player's party, while someone who does not read Japanese would not have any idea what "ネミッサ" means. As for multiple sets of screenshots/covers: originally, the English cover was used for identification, and the screenshot for demonstration of the gameplay, but if we have two sets of images, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.--IDVtalk 11:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would probably be good to get a broader consensus on this. No offense to George Ho, but I think he's trying to establish precedent based more on special scenarios and discussions that didn't have very many participants. For example, we decided to use the SNES cover for Star Ocean (video game) rather than the English PSP cover from its first English release 12 years later...but in that case, I supported this because the SNES version had gained a reputation for being a "lost JRPG" on the system, was a big example of major fan translations, etc. In general, I would support the first English language release, for identification/readability reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I raised the issue recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Images of original and subsequent releases, but that was about rules. Some people voted to remove the DS covers of Dragon Quest V and Dragon Quest VI at FFD because I added the Super Famicom box arts in those articles; the result was keep SF ones and delete DS ones. Also, the Tales of Eternia situation is still under discussion at FFD partially because I added back the Japanese and NA box arts, but we should invite more people there. --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I also added back the original PlayStation cover at Persona 2: Innocent Sin. I've also been thinking how this would affect Innocent Sin and Japan-only GBA releases of Ace Attorney, including Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. George Ho (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Tales of Eternia discussion is another good example of how/why it needs to be discussed further in a different venue - that discussion has been on-going for over 4 months with no sign of resolution in sight really. Judging by the close of the Star Ocean discussion, FFD is not the correct venue. Someone should probably start up a fresh WP:RFC on it or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, Serge, FFD is the correct venue per the Dragon Quest V/VI discussion. But RFC is needed. More structured neutral and concise OP about a topic should be done. What shall our topic be? George Ho (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, let's wait for results of Tales of Eternia. I want to invite just a couple or few video game enthusiasts to improve consensus. George Ho (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Serge and IDV for changing my mind. George Ho (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I mean, it doesn't matter that me all much to me I don't upload any images, I just participate in the discussions for articles I've created or made large contributions to - but an area I do focus on is making sure that our content makes sense for general audiences. Most people in my life are non-gamers or casual gamers, so I'm frequently explaining things from scratch for them. I do feel that oftentimes, the "hardcore enthusiast/gamer/otaku crowd forget that we're writing general audiences without much prior knowledge on the subject, not other hardcore types. We overestimate their prior familiarity. I feel like these image issues kind of creep into that territory sometimes - I don't feel images from 1990's JP-only releases have much recognizability or significance when it comes to your average reader. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Serge, neither WP:NFCC nor WP:NFC#UUI emphasizes on recognition, but NFCC emphasizes on significance. However, "significance" is a broad, if not vague, term to interpret. I'm unsure how MOS:LEADIMAGE or WP:IUP#Adding images to articles helps the situation; both are very broad and not helpful to resolve this situation. George Ho (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't know much/anything about the situation with Tales of Eternia, but my thoughts above are about how to handle this generally - there are always exceptions, and maybe ToE is one. As for Ace Attorney, the Japanese GBA covers would be an obvious downgrade in terms of identification - on top of how the English DS releases sold really well and how the games were essentially unknown in English-speaking regions prior to the DS, the GBA covers are very plain, only featuring the Japanese logo.--IDVtalk 19:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
All right, let's make RFC soon if you want to. I would also like to point out that Snatcher (video game) used to have the English-language cover. The English-language cover was taken to FFD. The result was delete. George Ho (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) IDV - Definitely strongly agree with your stance on Ace Attorney. In regards to Tales of Eternia, its a very convoluted, confusing situation, so it probably shouldn't be considered any sort of precedent in these things regardless. Basically:
  • 2000 JP release = Tales of Eternia
  • 2000 NA release = Tales of Destiny II (even though its not a direct sequel to Tales of Destiny.)
  • 2000 EU release = never happened
  • 2005 EU release = PSP port uses Tales of Eternia again.
  • 2007 JP releases an entirely different game titled Tales of Destiny 2
Eternia is the overall WP:COMMONNAME, but Tales of Destiny 2 was still the only English release title for 5 years. Its extra confusing that Tales of Destiny II and Tales of Destiny 2 are entirely different games. Eternia should definitely be the article name, and be the infobox cover, but I felt the Destiny 2 cover warrant inclusion in the article per all the source commentary in the dev section about it (legal issues with name, marketing gimmicks, etc) - sourced commentary being a clause in WP:VGBOX for having extra images being used.Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What about Tales of Hearts? The original Wii NDS release was limited to only Japan. The PS3 Vita re-release was given to overseas territories six years later. George Ho (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC) (Amended) --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically, with the platforms you mentioned, what you're describing is actually Tales of Graces, but either Graces or Hearts are good examples of the situation though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
To be frank, I was referring to Hearts. Hearts is a better example of how complex the situation is, while Graces was re-released one year after the Wii release. I can tolerate the PS3 Graces cover as the infobox image. Hearts is another one of video games that received the probably late English-language release. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
To put another way, Hearts was released one VG generation later. The NDS was the 7th gen; Vita, 8th... and less popular handheld (overseas, not Japan, where it did well or decent there). Graces had two different releases in the same VG gen, so the PS3 image is acceptable at this point. George Ho (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
My point was that your original comment stated that Hearts came out on Wii and PS3. It didn't. Graces came out on those platforms. Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I made an error without notice. I amended my mistake there. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't a good rule of thumb be to use the for the main image, the release that is most discussed in the sources used to support the article? If the original (probably Japanese) release is notable enough to actually be mentioned more than the overseas version, then that can be used. That provides a starting point and then agreement can be made on case by case basis when deciding which the notable version is when things are more complex. Scribolt (talk) Scribolt (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • How about this: we use the earliest (i.e. oldest) boxart which features prominent English-language text on its cover, irrespective of what region it's from, as long as said text corresponds to the article's title. Example: this Japanese cover could be used in an infobox, because the English title is present and prominent, but something like this should ideally be avoided, unless it's a Japan-only title of course. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Will this affect Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and subsequent FF successors? The Japanese releases use the English-language titles. George Ho (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Not qualified to make a decision on that one, given that I don't know what the boxarts are like and the differences between them. Obviously exemptions can and will exist. What I proposed was more or less a rule of thumb. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Here are Final Fantasy VII, Super Mario Bros 3, Dragon Quest/Warrior IV, and Final Fantasy. George Ho (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think the identification function of the infobox image goes well beyond the title; otherwise we wouldn't use infobox images at all, since the article title and infobox title alone would more than suffice. The same reader who readily recognizes the 3DS cover for Soul Hackers may see the original Saturn cover and think they're looking at a completely different game. Not likely, given the unusual title, but how about something like Mass Destruction (video game)? Here's the North American cover versus the Japanese cover.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Well the Japanese cover places the English at the bottom and the Japanese more prominently at the centre, so it's a bad example. We serve all readers equally irrelevant of the country they're from, so whether some "readily recognizes" something is irrelevant. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia as a whole serves all readers equally, but Wikipedia is divided into separate sites by language and there's a reason for that. The English Wikipedia obviously caters to English-speaking people (hence why articles are located at the subjects' English language titles even when the subject is better known in countries where English is not a major language). As for recognition being "irrelevant", that just leads me to ask what you think the purpose of the infobox is if it's not identification.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Bannerless/ESRB rating-less covers

I was under the same impression. I would like to point out previous discussions from 2008, and 2010. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Age rating logos look terrible and ruin the covers. They're also region specific, ESRB isn't used outside NA. Clean art preferred.--The1337gamer (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

As the person who uploaded another version, I don't mind the removal of the ESRB rating. However, I am against removing the console banner if no sources prove that the official banner-less artwork exists. I found a line from MOS:IMAGE#Editing images: "Images should not be changed in ways that materially mislead the viewer." However, would readers recognize the 3DS artwork without image caption and the banner? George Ho (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Cropping a platform banner is not materially misleading. Removing platform information doesn't imply something else to the reader. Materially misleading would be something like changing a PlayStation banner to an Xbox banner on a game that wasn't released for Xbox. That would be materially misleading because it implies the game released on a platform it didn't. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
100% agree with this. Unsure what you even mean about "official banner-less artwork", George, and wondering in what way you think this could mislead readers.--IDVtalk 09:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Right now, I'm no longer unsure whether readers are confused by banner-less artwork. If readers can recognize a video game by the banner-less artwork without a banner or looking at or containing a caption, then I can trust the banner-less version's ability to help readers adequately. Otherwise, why else removing the banner other than balancing an appearance of a multiplatform video game and making an image pretty-looking? George Ho (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll rephrase the "official banner-less artwork" part: a company can publically release an official banner-less artwork at will. George Ho (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I am still unsure whether a reader can recognize a banner-less artwork, especially without captions. However, I found an example of how removing a banner or two can result in misleads. The Xbox 360 cover (other editions) of Star Ocean: The Last Hope is different from the all editions of the PS3 re-release. None of them are universal, IDV. Convinced? George Ho (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, what exactly would people be misled into believing?--IDVtalk 19:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, IDV, after researching every game release, I become more open-minded to banner-less images. If removing banners are encouraged, I must be certain that captions are not necessary. However, if the same artwork is used in most territories except one, a couple, or several countries, then a caption is needed, especially when banners are omitted. I recently added "Standard artwork" as caption for the first Halo game and explain the difference in Japanese releases. However, if the game has multiple different artworks, each one in a specific territory, like Star Ocean: The Last Hope, then banners and a caption may be necessary. If the cover image of the 360 NA release of The Last Hope omits banners, and caption is absent, readers would mistake the artwork as the standard artwork for all releases. George Ho (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Game Developer Region (Game Scenes)

I have been convenience that there are certain game developer region that have in influence the video game industry. I would like to purpose that people would help in make a article on game developer regions that are influential in the median. Some region I can name off the top of my head are Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Maryland, etc. I want a approval to do this and some editors to help me cited and critique the articles. I'm just re-posting this idea, because someone link me to here to submit my idea. If any one can response I can appreciate it. Picaxe01 (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2016

This sounds interesting, as I've never heard of these Developer Regions. I'd love to see what kind of sources write about it. If it has been documented by unaffiliated parties, it's likely worth having an article about :) ~Mable (chat) 18:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Well could you at least provide some articles that we could start with? If none exist, then an article shouldn't either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I just heard what you said and I have gather material to make the article. I really hard to find good article on the subject since this topic isn't popular to talk about.
  • Settle
http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/09/11/game-on-the-greater-seattle-gaming-cluster/
http://www.geekwire.com/2013/big-fish-coo-seattle-epicenter-gaming/
http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/2/11101040/indies-workshop-seattle
http://www.geekwire.com/2013/seattle-indies-video-game-meetup/
  • Stockholm
http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/5/20/11686508/the-game-industry-of-sweden
http://tech.eu/features/1300/stockholm-startup-ecosystem-review/
comment added by Picaxe01 (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2016

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello all,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016's TFA

This one snuck up on me. Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines is Today's Featured Article on the main page. On November 25th, Killer Instinct Gold will be that days TFA. Congrats to the editors for their accomplishments. GamerPro64 00:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

November 25th is a double-header, as List of Mass Effect media‎ will be the main page list that day. --PresN 04:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of an academic source re LGTB characters

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#LGBTQ Video Game Archive about an academic source for LGBTQueer characters in video games. Opinions are welcome regarding their reliability as a source for video game articles. Diego (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if we could get any further discussion on this one. Short version: It could be extremely helpful for the list article Diego mentions above, but, I wanted to get more input before we start leaning on it too heavily, because there were some slight concerns. I'm not necessarily pushing against its use, I'd just like more people giving an "Okay" on its use before we go forward. Any (rational) input would be great. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

New StoryBundle edition

Hi everyone,

The latest StoryBundle features video games once more. A lot is about the PICO 8 "fantasy console", but there is also the book about the making of FTL: Faster Than Light and a book about fighting game fundamentals. If someone is interested, drop me a line and I can send a book. Or all, if you like, they're not DRM protected. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans: There's a request on WP:VG/R for PICO-8. Would you be able to send me the books related to that and I'll be able to take a look at possibly creating the article. Also, if it's not too much trouble, the FTL book could also be useful for the FTL article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Anarchyte I've sent you an email. Reply and I can mail them to you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that all those sources in the Storybundle are reliable. Some are self-published by authors without a vetted track record, and I would treat as primary sources. For more on Pico-8, Edge 296 has coverage. - hahnchen 21:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The FTL book is at least by a recognized author (Craddock), who I used his Roguelike book for various articles. I'll probably get it just for that for the FTL article. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd treat it as a primary source still. His linkedin gives you his credentials. His books have been self-published, and not widely reviewed (the only reliable review I can find is of his Diablo book at VentureBeat). His work in games journalism has been patchy. - hahnchen 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Having used the Rogue book, most of his books are simply compilations and retellings of the origins of these games with interviews/email discussions with the original creators, with a bit of extra work to fill in obvious gaps. He's definitely not creating knowledge out of nothing, which would definitely be a fear for a SPS work. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Series" formatting

I've been asked about this, and it's one of those things where I've been doing it so long, I can't remember if/where it's stated in the guidelines, but my understanding is that:

  1. Preferred - Tales series
  2. Not preferred, but probably okay - Tales series
  3. Not okay - Tales series
  4. Not okay - Tales (series)

Is this correct? Is it documented anywhere, and if it isn't, should it be? Let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you've got it right. I use the first option as a rule, and I haven't been challenged on it so far. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel like we had a discussion years back that loosely was around idea that #1 was the historically preferred one, and someone proposed #2 as a better approach, but there wasn't a clear consensus to change. I could be remembering wrong though. I always do #1 and typically see it more often around the project than #2, but I don't think I'd usually switch it from #2 to #1 unless I was doing a full article rewrite and did it out of habit. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I prefer option No. 2. The "series" is part of the piped link, making clear that it is a link to an article about series a series, instead of a single entry. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I posted about this somewhere in the archives. The elephant in the room is sometimes the series' common name is just its name ("Mario") and sometimes it's its name + series ("Mother series"). I.e., sources refer to some series as X_series and others refer to it as just X. As with any linking, you want to link the relevant word/phrase, so I'd usually go with #2 depending on how it's used in the sentence. I think the solution here would be to drop "(series)" as a disambiguator in the article title and instead phrase the series as "X series" when it needs disambiguation from X. (It's a natural disambiguator to use the word "series".) But no, it's just grammatically incorrect to italicize "series" in a sentence as it isn't the title of a creative work (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works). czar 01:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I personally feel as though that the first option (Number 1) is the best option. People are aware that, if they were to click the link of the franchise (if the infobox says series) that they would be directed to the series page. Alongside that, some franchises just do not have a series page despite being a series in its own right so there's that to consider too. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The situation might be different in prose, where writing something like "this is often done in the Final Fantasy series" might be slightly less clear than "this is often done in the Final Fantasy series." After all, the former may be referring to 'the series of games following up Final Fantasy (video game)'. I personally almost always go for the latter option. I'm not sure what would be preferred in an infobox, though. ~Mable (chat) 11:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
In an infobox, "Series: Final Fantasy series" would be redundant so "Series: Final Fantasy" suffices czar 20:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fine with all this as a rule of thumb ^_^ I think the two 'not okay' ones are the most important to remember. ~Mable (chat) 21:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

GA exchange

I'd like to speed things up here. Anyone care to exchange a GA review from me for them reviewing either Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light or Genealogy of the Holy War? Or even two for two? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I'll review Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light in exchange for a review of Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Children.--IDVtalk 23:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Oh, didn't notice that "two for two" suggestion. Yeah, we can do both your Fire Emblem GANs in exchange for both Devil Children and Majin Tensei if you're fine with that.--IDVtalk 23:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, stretching it slightly, but alright. Since I've never had any experience with those series, I can review them impartially. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@IDV: Many thanks. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 4 November

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

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

26 October

28 October

29 October

30 October

31 October

1 November

2 November

3 November

4 November

Salavat (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 11 November

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

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

5 November

6 November

7 November

8 November

9 November

10 November

11 November

Salavat (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for posting these, Salavat. FYI, even if I don't comment/discuss, I still always review the list and check outsome of the articles every week. Its always interesting to look though. Thanks again. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yesss, same from me! Thanks Salavat :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 18 November

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

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

3 November

8 November

11 November

12 November

13 November

14 November

15 November

16 November

17 November

18 November

Salavat (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ESports gets mainstream media coverage in South Africa

This might be a useful article to someone in this project - Witnessing the birth of a sport. It could help establish notability, which seems to be quite an issue for this topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability hasn't really been an issue for this field for a year or two now ^_^ This might be useful to an article on Rage (convention) or a possible future article on esports in South Africa. Either way, this would be a pretty neat source for the regular esports article, if anyone is interested in working on that. Nothing we haven't seen before, though. Thanks for sharing either way~ ~Mable (chat) 16:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Luke fon Fabre

Recently, I nominated Luke fon Fabre to GA but fellow user User talk:czar insists it should be merged. Check the bottom of Talk:Luke fon Fabre#Notability for discussion. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Second opinions on Crispy Gamer

Heyo. Can I get some fresh eyes on Crispy Gamer? I'm planning on at least taking this to GAN but due to its complex but short history and lack of any real sources I want to know if this could actually stand a chance. Cheers. GamerPro64 02:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The website sought not to seek video game advertising. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Changed it. Is that all? GamerPro64 02:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the article to GAN now. Would never expect it to be anywhere higher than that so let's see what happens. GamerPro64 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Compulsion Games

Looks like an article on Compulsion Games (creator of Contrast/We Happy Few) was created, but it's not NPOV. Would someone care to take a stab? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

List of zombie video games

Recently I posted some concerns on the List of zombie video games talk page. I'm interested in cleaning up that list, any comments would be appreciated. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ultima and tactical RPGs

An anon keeps removing mention of Ultima 3 in Tactical role-playing game because he thinks it is 'irrelevant'. I've got sources that agree it is important or relevant to the genre, and I think it should be discussed in the article. Help please. SharkD  Talk  18:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There is now a topic on the talk page. SharkD  Talk  00:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War's FAR

I have nominated Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War 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 04:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Assessing Planet Coaster

Planet Coaster had been released about a week ago. The last time the page was assessed, it was a "Start" article. Over the year, I gradually included information and analysis regarding the game. What rating should this page have now? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: There's no formal review process, except for Good Articles and Featured Articles. For article assessment instructions for this WikiProject, see WP:VGAI. — Gestrid (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Seabeard

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

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

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

Handheld consoles with TV-out are "hybrid" game consoles?

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

No; I think the key aspect of the Switch to consider is that to play it on a TV, you have to use it in a different manner than the handheld version (eg docking the screen, using the joy con's separately from it), rather than just a cable port that supports a mini-HDMI port or the like. The latter is a convinence options but doesn't make it hybrid. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed- I can plug in an hdmi cable and a keyboard/mouse combo into my laptop and set it on a desk to use; that doesn't make it a desktop/laptop hybrid. --PresN 03:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed as well. There's probably lots of possible concocted scenarios, but it's best to stick to what sources commonly say, which is unlikely to be those other scenarios. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. What about Shield Portable? I bet it's a handheld console as well, and sources in the article doesn't say that Shield is a hybrid game console. – // Hounder4 // 16:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Is "hybrid console" actually a thing or is that just a term people use to describe the Switch? You all realize we don't have to create this categorization. I feel like we're ahead of the sources again. I'd rather see other examples of "hybrid console" being used in sources first... ~Mable (chat) 16:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It has definitely been applied by RSes to describe the Switch. [1] for example. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean besides the Switch. Hybrid video game console only has sources talking about the Switch and only talks about the Switch. Is "hybrid video game console" actually a thing or is it just a popular description for the Switch? ~Mable (chat) 18:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be just for the Switch (for now), but there are always firsts and in 10-15 years this could be what every game device will be. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Should I bring up Crystal Ball? I am worried about citogenesis occurring if we have an article or category for this term already. I'd rather wait a year or two to see what other console manufacturers do and how journalists respond to those before we start "making this a thing." ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, but most reliable sources on the topic are already calling it this, so the problem lies with them, doesn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If "Hybrid console" has only been applied to one single system (the Switch), a separate article is inappropriate. On the other hand, and I haven't been able to check for sure, but if the concept of a hybrid console has been discussed prior to the Switch's announcements (or even separate from the NX) - thus being more about the theorizing of how hybrid consoles would function - then that might be appropriate for an article. I just don't think there had been any serious discussion of such a console concept to justify an article. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this. If anything, Hybrid video game console should be merged into video game console. I'm fine with the first line of Nintendo Switch referring to the device as a hybrid console, and I'm fine with describing the concept in one or two sentences in the video game console article, but I don't believe it deserves its own article already, if it's just a description for the Switch. ~Mable (chat) 12:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Then someone just delete it. Yes, hybrid video game console could mean more than the Switch, but it currently doesn't and there are no sources discussing the concept. I redirected it because the article should not exist. - hahnchen 21:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviews of early access games

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

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

Edits to Final Fantasy series template

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

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

To add Steam releases or not to add Steam releases...

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

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

Question

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

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

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

Wikidata and genre tables

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

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

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

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

ESRB?

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

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

Team Fortress 3

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

ToeJam & Earl at FAR

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

Clash of Clans Troop articles

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

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

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

That does have a reference. It's just not cited correctly. — Gestrid (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The short version is that finding other articles with faults doesn't excuse the faults of the article you're trying to defend - its at best "irrelevant", and at worst, just shows that both/all should be deleted. I too support deletion. I don't see any evidence of them meeting the WP:GNG. (The GNG cannot be met through first party sources.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Basically, for an article to exist on Wikipedia, the subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (WP:GNG). The official website doesn't count for this because it's not independent of the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay I agree that these articles are not needed but can I create a single article called List of Clash of Clans characters and include every troops details there ? →SeniorStar (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
No, because it fails WP:LISTN. Clash of Clans characters are not a notable group. It's also still WP:GAMECRUFT material. Just summarise the information appropriately in the Clash of Clans article with reliable sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Issue with title of article

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

Potential article - Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa

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

Short Start, C, and B article examples

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

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

Request for advice- BVE / openBVE article

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=BVE_Trainsim

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of downloadable only Playstation 4 Games

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

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

The Last of Us Part II

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

Character appearance charts

  • Is this thing, as a concept, appropriate? I already reverted it due to worries about the lack of sources and the OR in classifying certain appearances as "guest appearances", but disregarding that stuff, is this kind of appearance chart in its most perfect, fully sourced form really appropriate for this sort of article?--IDVtalk 06:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It doesn't work for most video games. In television series it makes sense since it tracking real-world actors and characters they portray, but in video games, there's not that same connection. So the table is definitely inappropriate for WP. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether that content belongs there or not, it looks terrible. The table doesn't even within the page boundaries and you have to scroll to the right to view it all (on my display at least), so it makes the article looks a unprofessional. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, same here. That's a problem I often see with this kind of tables, where a new column is added whenever a new game or film or whatever comes out - unless the franchise is already over, it'll just get too big eventually.--IDVtalk 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Video games/Archive 126 Members!

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

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

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

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

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox release dates and VR versions

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

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

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

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

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

Video games in the news.

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

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

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

I believe it just needs to be nominated here. Whether video game news items would be considered by ITN editors to be important enough to warrant a front page mention is another question. -Thibbs (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:TimeSplitters (series)

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

Now the RM discussion has reopened. You may comment there. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Games for Windows titles

Almost all of the refs on this page are broken. Any ideas on how to handle it, or what would be useful here? czar 04:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

archive.org seems to have the microsoft.com URLs indexed: example. There's a bot that can automatically add archive.org links, InternetArchiveBot. I assume it can be told to work on a specific page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Just as a suggestion, that page may want to note, when sourcable, games that have been able to transition off GFWL to other services (like Steam), such as RF:G and Dark Souls. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Professional Smash and Smashboards

Please provide comment at Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition#Clean up and Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition#Merge request for Smashboards. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Xbox One now PR

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right. I think that the article is in a healthy shape. I think. Is it now a good time to renominate the article for the FA-status? (Also, I have two peer reviews that need to be answered—one peer review too many. What should I do about that?) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Check the thread below at #Review Thread No. 30: Holiday 2016 Edition. Typically, editors will be willing to do a PR for you in exchange for you helping with their PR or GAN. -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dreamfall: The Longest Journey (version 2) listed at Redirects for discussion

I've asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dreamfall: The Longest Journey (version 2) (and another). I'm wondering if we should retarget this (and another) to Dreamfall Chapters: The Longest Journey, which is mentioned as being the sequel (essentially, I don't know if that makes it "version 2"). Please add comments to the redirect discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor content discussion about Xander Mobus

Could I get some quick looks at the discussion at Talk:Xander Mobus? I'd like to get some opinions. ~Mable (chat) 13:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 30: Holiday 2016 Edition

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

FAC
GAN
Peer Reviews
FARs, GARs, etc

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

Begging thread

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

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

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

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

I have reviewed and promoted Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem to the GA-status. Is there any editor willing to take a look at the PR for Xbox One in return? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Updating Xbox Ones sales figures

Is it universally accepted that only primary sources are reliable? There is a discussion here regarding sales figure. I attempted to updated to 2016 sales figure based on a source from CNBC which has always been considered reliable. ferret reverted this figure stating that if Microsoft does not release figures the number can never be updated, which I find ridiculous. What are the issues using a source from CNBC. Have they released incorrect figures in the past regarding console sales? Valoem talk contrib 03:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If you had bothered to check the archive of the Xbox One talk page, you would see that this has been discussed repeatedly for over a year. -- ferret (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Not with the quality of the source I provided. Valoem talk contrib 03:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You're kind of missing the point. Yes, CNBC is a reliable source, but the concern is that no other source is reporting this figure as fact, and Microsoft has stated they don't plan on releasing said figures anymore. I've got this feeling that they may have taken analyst speculation and misrepresented it as fact - the info is awfully similar to estimates released by an analyst today - http://gamingbolt.com/ps4-will-finish-this-holiday-more-than-20-million-units-ahead-of-xbox-one-according-to-analyst Sergecross73 msg me 03:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't use the passing mention at CNBC, but analyst figures can be cited. I'd use - http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-12-06-holiday-sales-no-longer-make-or-break-dfc and be clear that it's from a third party research firm. - hahnchen 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as has been discussed over and over again on the article talk page, analyst estimates can certainly be used, but only in the prose where proper context can be given, not in the info box presented as fact... Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
There should be an FAQ list on the article's talk page for that. That, or there should be a to-do objective that tells editors that, as soon as Microsoft releases the sales statistics, the information should be updated. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
And speaking of "to-do", the to-do list on the article's talk page needs to be updated to reflect the current revision of the Xbox One article. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 25 November

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

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

19 November

20 November

21 November

22 November

23 November

24 November

25 November

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

Roblox in need of TNT

If you're looking for a weekend project, Roblox needs to be blown up. It's borderline unreadable at parts and either has no sourcing or primary sourcing. It can be pared down to its reliably sourced parts with a strong reminder to keep it encyclopedic in the future. czar 18:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Blowing up Roblox
Right. I am thinking about blowing up the article. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to delete ots of the poorly referenced sections, and so far, with over 10000b having been deleted, it still needs work. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

GoldenEye: Source Infobox release dates

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

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

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

Goldeneye: Source
ReleaseDevelopment Versions:
December 26, 2005 to February 19, 2010

Official Releases:
December 11, 2010 to Present

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

Those are the full release dates, also 4.2.4 was a major version, which is why this can be confusing. Valoem talk contrib 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
X201 the dates in my post were just examples. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Any opinions on the Infobox? - X201 (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox isn't designed to carry all these extra details. It's designed for easy access to "when was the game released?" and the answer is a single date: that of its first full release. Those who want more information should be prompted in the lede and expanded within the article's body. czar 17:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Update Template:Vg welcome?

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

Seems quite attractive. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: At this point, Template:Vg welcome (which still uses {{subst:welcomeg}}) looks exactly the same as Template:Vg welcome/sandbox (which doesn't subst Template:welcomeg anymore). — Gestrid (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Diego Moya, my understanding is that few people follow policy links, for better or worse, unless they're interested. I'm open to adding a sentence and link as a starting off point for editors who want to learn more about WP rules—any suggestion on a single link that introduces the five you found helpful? czar 17:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Czar's template is a big improvement on the ones we currently use. Whatever variations might be suggested for Czar's template, I suggest we should make it the default welcome template suggestion at the top of the main WP:VG page (i.e. here). -Thibbs (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Should Category:Virtual reality games be non-diffusing?

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

@Czar: I'm not very familiar with the category guidelines either, but I think diffusing subcategories help address concerns of overcategorization. I'm not sure why a "Virtual reality games" category even exists to be honest. We have a category for first-person shooters, but we don't have one for first-person video games. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
But we do have a category on Category:Shooter video games, as we should. These categories are, at the very least, useful for categorizing subcategories. Whether the virtual reality games category should be non-diffusing... I'm leaning to yes, because it's a particularly vital aspect of a game, to the level where it might define what kind of thing it is. However, I am not too savy in categorizing either, and I'd rather keep this decision for the people who actually work with categories. ~Mable (chat) 11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The idea was to treat the VR cat as non-diffusing, so the game is both a VR game and an Oculus Rift/HTC Vive game, cat as such, etc. Unless there are objections otherwise czar 17:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, I agree that this is the way to go :) ~Mable (chat) 18:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1#Tales of Eternia again

This discussion has gone on for nearly six months. I invite you to improve consensus. Those who already voted may still comment more there, but please do not double vote. --George Ho (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Xelzeta

Special:Contributions/Xelzeta is reverting my AfD tags and delsorts instead of participating in the discussion. Would appreciate another editor/admin on this so their talk page isn't just me. czar 17:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

And I've given him a last chance, final warning on personal attacks should his user-name block be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Chrono Cross character merger discussion

Another character list merger discussion. See here. Input is welcome. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Kinect Star Wars needing cleanup

For anyone who does not know what article to clean up, I can highlight Kinect Star Wars, as it needs a huge amount of cleanup. I am just bringing the issue up to this WikiProject both to see whether anyone is interested in improving the article and to get some help. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, may I receive a peer review on the Xbox One article in return for my reviewing three articles? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I gave it a once-over for just general improvement. The cleanup needed was actually not too difficult. Hopefully it looks better to everyone else as well. Also given the content and references I bumped it up to C class. --Teancum (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

May I receive a peer or good article review?

I have recently reviewed four GA nominees and managed to get them all promoted. May I receive a peer or good article review for let us say Xbox One or Star Wars: Jedi Arena in return? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series

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

@The1337gamer: If you believe it needs to be re-assessed, the procedure is given at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. — Gestrid (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not particularly the issue, since the GA process is unrelated to things like notability and mergers. Technically, I find the article to be acceptable since it meets our requirement of a series having 3 titles and sources discussing it collectively, though personally I'd be fine with it if someone integrated all the content to the individual articles. Sergecross73 msg me 04:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Other than the lead, the rest of the article is already integrated in the other two. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I too found it odd that this article was kept around after Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon's creation, which I assumed was based on the conclusion that most sources discuss those games separately from Zelda's Adventure. After all, aside from platform and series there's nothing to link the other two games to Zelda's Adventure; they were developed separately, were released in different years, use significantly different gameplay, and even have completely different graphical styles. We don't have articles titled "NES games from The Legend of Zelda series" or "Nintendo DS games from The Legend of Zelda series". I favor redirecting it to Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon, or possibly turning it into a disambiguation page.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the original split was made by Lucia Black and RetroNewAgeHippie a few years ago. I remember I was quite opposed to the split because I find that the games are rarely if ever discussed in isolation from one another and because I find the topic of the CDi games to be much more closely analogous to the LCD games (all of which were separately developed and feature radically different gameplay but are most commonly discussed in relation to each other) and the Satellaview games (which were also developed separately and feature different gameplay) both of which are treated as a single topic. The reliable sources (not counting the copious quotations used for the plot sections) used for our two articles on FoE/WoG and ZA have close to a 70-80% overlap, and as someone who has spent a fair bit of time looking for individual sources for the individual games I can report that they are quite few and far between. Even the RetroGamer article which really makes efforts to examine the games separately does so by comparing FoE/WoG against ZA in the same article. So I still think the split was unhelpful, and I agree that there is little need for all three articles that we currently have, but I would prefer merging the individual articles into a the original common article. -Thibbs (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We've got more than enough sourced content in the development and reception sections to keep them as separate articles, and likely there's more to come (I'm surprised they don't have the Electronic Gaming Monthly and GamePro reviews yet, so I may dig those up). Even supposing the sources are the same (and just at a glance I'm seeing a lot more which are unique to each article) the content that they're sourcing is different, so merging FoE/WoG and ZA wouldn't allow us to delete much. The articles on the LCD and Satellaview games make a better case for separate articles than they do for a merger, as they're essentially individual articles on each of the games which simply share the same page. Aside from the leads stating that the games all came out for the same platform, there's no discussion of the games as a whole. The pre-split CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series was much the same: essentially separate articles on each of the games sharing rent in the same name space. In such cases I think the obvious thing to do is to put those games which meet notability requirements into their own articles and delete those which don't.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm in favor of a consistent approach to all of the articles. I don't think there was any more reason to split the CDi article in 2013 than there would be to split the LCD or Satellaview articles today. As far as I'm concerned the 2013 split was done without consensus, and in keeping with the nature of all faits accomplis I think it would be difficult now to undo what has been done so we find ourselves with three articles where one was previously sufficient. Obviously improvements could be made to any three of the articles and if you know of a trove of good sources (EGM, GamePro, etc.) that cover the games individually rather than in context with the others then it would be an excellent idea to introduce them into the relevant articles. If instead we find ourselves with more articles covering all three games together or in series comparing them against each other then I think it makes the most sense to treat the topic as a single topic and simply edit it to provide a coherent encyclopedic treatment of the topic as a whole. The layout and style of an article can always be changed, but we should be guided by the treatment of the topic in reliable sources rather than by the current appearance of the article(s). -Thibbs (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As I indicated in my previous post, both the treatment of the topic in reliable sources and the appearance of the article support having ZA as a separate article, and moreover, the very nature of the games makes it unlikely that we'll ever be able to create an article on all three games without splitting off the majority of the content into separate articles-within-an-article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I see how the contemporary sources treat the three together as an oddity, so I understand the original grouping by that measure, but it does appear that the development and reception histories can be written separately and indeed someone has tried. (I can appreciate how the other grouped articles work, mainly because they are grouping Japanese games with little English-language coverage, which isn't the same for the CD-i games.) Can't delete the CD-i page, since it has to stick around for attribution, so I suggest redirecting it to the Faces/Wand article. But I look at some of the sources used in the ZA article and... not looking pretty. The MobyGames/GameFAQs/IGN wiki page stuff needs to be blown up, and not sure what is going on with http://cdii.blogspot.com/2007/03/zelda-voyeur-and-man-who-worked-on-both.html, but it looks unreliable from this end, despite large parts of the article depending on it. czar 17:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, last thoughts: the more I look at this, the more I see reason to keep all three together, and it's mostly because of Zelda's Adventure: its sourcing is atrocious. After it's cleaned up, with unreliable sources removed, we need to assess whether it can stand as its own article. If it can't, it's better off merged into a CD-i article (with the other awkward two-game article, which could stand on its own, but the question is what is the best solution considering all three...) So let's look at a cleaned up ZA article, and if there is no more sourcing, let's talk about whether it should remain split. If it needs to be merged then we're either looking at keeping a CD-i article or reverting back to some LoZ list, and the former sounds much better so far czar 17:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Haven't got time right this instant, but I'm certain I can dig up at least a couple more good sources for Zelda's Adventure over the next two or three days. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I forget.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin IIIa. I would recommend concentrating your search on contemporary (1993-1995) sources because I know from my own searches that there was some coverage in the 1990s in various magazines and because this material tends not to be included in the articles yet. I had added most if not all of the contemporary sources currently used in those articles back in 2011 when I was trying to work toward splitting the article into three individual articles on the games myself, but I hadn't found anything close to sufficient individual coverage in modern sources and certainly not enough of either at that time to warrant a split. Then again I also completely ceased looking for additional sources after 2013 after the split was forced through, so it's always possible that something reliable may have been published on one or the other of the individual games in the last 3 years that may still be missing from our coverage. If we can in fact discover a significant amount of RS coverage of the individual games rather than coverage of them together as a single topic then the argument to maintain the split is much stronger. -Thibbs (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm hitting unexpected difficulties. Firstly, I could have sworn I stumbled upon a review of the game in EGM some time ago, and didn't add it to the WP article because it was already there, but now I can't seem to find it anywhere in either my EGM collection or the article history. More crucially, I've been trying to nail down the game's North American release date so that I can narrow my search, and... Well, the article says June 5, 1994, but it looks like the only source for this is an "On this day in gaming history" blurb. Trying to confirm at least the year of release, I looked for shots of the packaging on Ebay and was startled to find that every listing of the game, whatever the seller's nationality, is of the PAL version. Moreover, GameFAQs and Mobygames both show only the PAL version packaging, and the only contemporary review either lists is from a German magazine. Is it possible that Zelda's Adventure is actually a Europe-only release?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wind Waker 2 redirects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wind Waker 2 Options

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

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

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

In case no one noticed, I redirected the pages in question to Wind Waker's legacy section per what seems to be the consensus. If anyone has any issue with this, feel free to bring them up now. ~Mable (chat) 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Other redirects to discuss

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

I agree with deleting the Bubsy 3 redirect, for the same reasons. ~Mable (chat) 11:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I chose that example specifically because it lacked the Bros part of the JP name, but I agree, it's probably the most legit of the list above. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Bubsy 3 - I agree with the reasons stated above. In addition, though I'd have to look back to be sure, I've gone through all the pre-release announcements of Bubsy in Fractured Furry Tales that appeared in GamePro and EGM, and I don't recall it ever being referred to as "Bubsy 3".
  • Delete Banjo Threeie - This one actually lost an AfD by a landslide way back in 2006. Reviewing the AfD and the article's pre-redirect content, it seems that this is just a presumed title for a third game in the series; while a third Banjo-Kazooie game was eventually released, it was not even in development at the time the article was created, and as far as I can tell it was never announced under the title Banjo Threeie.
    • Should definitely exist in some form, possibly as a redirect to the series article. In case you didn't know, Banjo-Threeie is mentioned in the ending to Banjo-Tooie as the title of the next game.--IDVtalk 19:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I knew there was some genuine aspect to this name. I think it's a likely search target for anyone who has played Banjo-Tooie and is looking for the next game in the series. As for the target, I do not know. The series article at least mentions the title... ~Mable (chat) 19:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, you're both right really - Threeie was an official name for a prospective sequel back in the day, but more in the way of a hypothetical direct sequel to "Tooie" than Nuts and Bolts, which came out like 8 years later and was completely different gameplay-wise from prior entries. Kind of a gray area - I have no idea what to do with these things when I find them... Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
        • It's definitely not as straightforward as "Earthbound 2", which was promised within Earthbound but was simply never released under that name. I think linking to the series article is fine in the Three-ie case: it gives the reader all the information they need. ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not know that about the ending to Banjo-Tooie. Striking out my vote to delete.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, while it rarely seems to be referred to as this, I did notice that typing it into Google give you many hits for the game's proper name. So basically, it looks like its a "redirect" of sorts in Google's logic at least... Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the Mario, Banjo, and Tales redirects should stay (or at the very least, there's no real reason to get rid of them). The Donkey Kong redirect is still unsure at the time of writing, but Bubsy 3 should probably be deleted. ~Mable (chat) 19:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Requests board

Hey everyone. 2016 is almost coming to an end. And one of the many outcomes from the year change will be a new year to be added to the requests board. Currently we have one request up for 2012 and when that's completed we will only be backed up from 2014. If anyone is interested in making new articles you can check the board for any inspirations. You can also remove article ideas that you believe are not notable enough to have their own page. Your work will be much appreciated. GamerPro64 19:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

We could probably just remove the 2012 entry - it appears to be about a failed Kickstarter? Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Loot Drop developed multiple notable casual/social games, such as Ghost Recon Commander, Pettington Park. The article should cover all their projects. - hahnchen 20:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Loot Drop was made by John Romero, right? I think its notable enough to have a page about them. Someone just has to make a page for them. GamerPro64 20:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't looked close enough - I though the slash had represented 2 different names for the same game. Didn't realize Loot Drop was the company name. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 2 December

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

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

23 November

25 November

26 November

27 November

28 November

29 November

30 November

1 December

2 December

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

Should we have two different articles for TWINE?

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

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

Personally, my stance is, if you've got the sources and content to warrant two separate articles, and the motivation to do the writing, then go for it. I'm not familiar really with either particular game though, so I can't confirm or deny the specific situation here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Standard procedure is to write the article and if there is enough independent sourcing to justify a separate article, split the content summary style. Otherwise you'll just have two incomplete articles. czar 01:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I am interested in improving the article in the future. In fact, that's why I want to have some feedback before making substantial changes. I think I should be able to expand the N64 article to GA status with a 3-paragraph development section and a 3-paragraph reception section. In the process, I plan to create a decent article for the PS version. At the very least, I think it should not be too difficult to have 1 paragraph of development/release and 2 of reception (in addition to the gameplay section of course). The sources are there. @Czar: In my opinion, summary style cannot be used because they are different games. Sure, you can have a "PlayStation version" section at the end of the article and then add a Template:Main article if necessary, but what about the infobox of the parent article? It's going to be messy and confusing with all the PlayStation data. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We can't give any definitive feedback until the content is visualized. If all you have on the PS1 dev is that it was ported, and at best a paragraph of PS1-specific commentary in how it differs from the N64 version, then we have our answer. But if you have more, summary style is still the way to go (show that there is content that warrants mention and then split it out). This project gets a bit too split-happy sometimes—I'm skeptical that there will be a need for a separate PS1 article that doesn't near completely duplicate the "main" article. But I'm open to being wrong. Either way, the route is still to write the best possible main article first and split as necessary. czar 17:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I know I usually start up WP:DRAFTs on article ideas that I'm not quite sure about their feasibility, or how to go about structuring it, so there's always that as well. That way, you don't have to worry about 1) Doing it all at once, 2) It looking sloppy/awkward at times and 3) people rushing in and nominating it for deletion before you're done expanding it entirely. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I prefer to plan the whole article first before actually improving it. I like to set a goal and build to it, rather than improve and then decide what to do with the article. I can't write a proper article if I don't know the "overall picture" of it. I'm an immediatist. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, whatever you do in the mainspace can be done all the same in the draft space, but that way most people won't make a judgement call until its complete, rather than jumping to conclusions when they come across the half-finished work visible to the general public. But you're free to do it however you please, you don't have to use the draft space. I don't see any hard consensus again you attempting to split it out, so you're free to go for it as you please. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't want to make controversial edits that will probably be reverted in the future--I'd rather work on an easier article. I also understand that it's not an easy article to deal with and that my opinion (2 different and notable games = 2 articles) might not be the best solution. I appreciate your feedback, but I need to think more about this... --Niwi3 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There's many sources for both, so I do think they should have separate articles. Here's two PS1 sources: [2] [3]. Also the August 2000 issue of game informer has a feature on the game, and the April 2000 and August 2000 issues of Official UK PSX mag have features on it. There's probably loads more sources in the Ref Library as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple things I noted: first, the amount of dev information for either version is rather low (as generally expected for movie adaptations), and with a otherwise mostly common plot and gameplay section (as both are FPS), the only real difference is reception. Further, we've also got this far different GBC version too to consider, which got some notice too. My inclination here is to keep them all at the same article, but break the article up by platform, after a brief section to explain the ties to the actual film. So in each section would be gameplay, dev info, and reception. Separate articles are a valid option as GNG is met, but I think one single article is a better approach than three weaker articles. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a List of The World Is Not Enough video games at this point :p ~Mable (chat) 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I would not treat it as a list though writing the lede would be different than a typical game article. "The World Is Not Enough are three video games developed separately for the N64, PS, and GBC as tie-in to the film of the same name. ...", and then just having four main sections - the common elements (the plot tied to film), and then a section per game. No tables, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Not a fan of listicles. Also, I never said the GBC version should have its own article. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • My point is if you split the other two versions, where does the GBC version go? It's still a released game with some reception, so technically prime for a separate article.
I suggested above that it should be merged into the series article because it's not notable. It only has one good source (Nintendo Power). --Niwi3 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Readers come to this page wanting to know about all three games by the same name. It makes little sense to direct them to three different locations unless the games are known for being drastically different. If so, then it's easy to break the articles apart and to explain in the lede how the three are different. More likely it's worth just having sections on each within the same article (some sections will be much shorter than the others). I know I've seen articles of media tie-in games structured this way but can't think of any offhand czar 17:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The three games are drastically different. In fact, the N64 version is more similar to GoldenEye 007 than to the PlayStation version. In my opinion, having one article misleads readers into thinking that they are similar games, when in fact they are not. I've been doing some research and I have found enough sources to write a 2-paragraph development section and a 3-paragraph reception section of exclusive info about the PlayStation version. Still not sure if I will work on the articles, though. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft

I ultimately decided to create a draft. Feel free to review it here. I should note that the article is easily notable and that all the references discuss the topic directly and in detail. If nobody has any objections, I will move it to the article mainspace and update the N64 and series articles soon. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

They're different games by different developers for different platforms. The current article, with everything merged together in one infobox and one reception box is completely misleading and makes it look like a port. Splitting it is by far the better option. - hahnchen 17:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a very fair point - the way we do infoboxes, I can see a reader thinking that one version is just a port to another just because of how the infobox is presented (I know the lede text explains more, but...) --MASEM (t) 17:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

GameSpot's been botted

This is a message to users of GameSpot. I've tried archiving a GameSpot url using Wayback, and it's throwing up a "robots.txt" message. I've tried with WebCite, and it hasn't archived properly there either for some reason. It is archiving on Archive.is, but unreliably as another GameSpot URL is refusing to archive. This means that a large portion of archived links from that site need to be reviewed and if possible replaced. This is probably part of the site's attempts to block crawler bots from pirating the site and using it for criminal activities. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. This is almost as bad as 1UP being hit with Robots.txt. Is it happening with Giant Bomb too? GamerPro64 18:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't know. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Saved a GiantBomb page on Wayback and it seems to work fine ([4]). Seems like all GameSpot Wayback URLs don't work now though. It's annoying but it's not a massive problem unless GameSpot shuts down and we can no longer access to their content. Most of their articles as far back as the 90s are still in tact and can be retrieved without archiving. I think the majority of deadlinks to GameSpot are due path changes, those articles should still exist though. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
If possible, I think a bot is in order to help with this task if possible, which I know for a fact will be offputtingly large and sporadic otherwise. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of bots, is it possible to get a bot made to archive all GameSpot links on Archive.is? Because I think we should probably have to use that for GameSpot links now. GamerPro64 19:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
There's over 18,000 links to GameSpot in mainspace. Way too time consuming to do manually that's for sure. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up. Going through "my" articles and replacing archive links now.--IDVtalk 19:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Horrible news. This happened once before, a few years ago, and some folks from WPVG talked to the tech people at GameSpot to get it fixed. But apparently management has changed since then! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • At least as a silver lining, I've not heard anything suggesting GS is going away, so we have a lot of time to deal with this. Also, keep in mind if Google cache works too (I tried a link IDV relocated to archive.is and found Google's cache still works, just prepend the link with "site:" to see if it is there.) --MASEM (t) 22:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we perhaps draft a letter to GameSpot to ask them to remove it, or at least allow Archive.org crawlers? --Odie5533 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I vote yea. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of this. I'd offer to compose it personally but my time for Wikipedia is unfortunately limited. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Definitely support such a resolution. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If we're gonna do this, can we write one to Ziff Davis about the 1UP's botting? GamerPro64 16:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Kotaku a Hungarian website?

An IP editor is saying that Kotaku is a Hungarian website (diff), which seems a bit strange to me. Could someone else take a look at this? I really don't know anything about Kotaku or its associated drama/history. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument. Thel33tgamer beat me to the revert. It's just the DNS record. The site is hosted in San Francisco. -- ferret (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, they have some different regional variants, like an Australian branch, but I don't think they have a Hungarian branch, and it's certainly not its primary or founding region... Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Two MMOs changing ownership

Just a quick note while I take a little time off from Wikipedia to say that ownership and operations for both The Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons & Dragons Online have changed from Turbine, Inc. to Standing Stone Games. WB Games no longer owns either game, and Daybreak Games will be the distributor. The existing articles need to be updated (In particular, the LOTRO article really needs work done.), and a new article may need to be created for the indie developer. (I haven't looked into if that last one meets our guidelines yet.) More details about the change can be found here, here, and here. As an avid player of LOTRO, I probably shouldn't be involved in updating the articles. — Gestrid (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As an avid player Well, if you think you'd have problems remaining neutral when updating it, sure, but I'm pretty sure most people here write about games they play. You're not prohibited from writing about subjects you're interested in.--IDVtalk 02:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. If you have some sort of financial stake in them, maybe don't edit it, but just as a fan? Just be mindful of it as you enter disputes. You can still edit though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I'm still taking a break from Wikipedia for a time. This is really the only page I've edited since I went on Christmas Break last Friday. — Gestrid (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Our "YYYY in video games" could use some TLC...

Doing my news review today, I found an article that estimated the size of the VG market in 2016 [5] which to me seems like critical information we should be documenting. (FWIW $91B in software sales). I was surprised that our "YYYY in video games" articles, like 2016 in video games, the most logical place to include this, do not include such overall year summaries. (I since have added to this one) I think we should try to fill this in where we can (certainly from 2000 onward), as well as include any other annual metrics. One example may be the yearly summaries the ESA puts out that describes the demographics of the VG community too. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Death Stranding PC version help needed

A user on the Death Stranding article claims that because a deleted Q&A that mentioned the possibility of a PC version of the game a while back, it shouldn't belong in the article at all. I disagree, stating that multiple third party reliable sources (PC Gamer, GameSpot, IGN) reported on the Q&A at the time, which means it should be included in the article as a part of the game's history, despite it most likely no longer coming to PC. Help from experienced WP:VG editors would be appreciated. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD of interest

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corvo Attano (Dishonored) that may be of interest to this project. All the best. TimothyJosephWood 01:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Prose in reception section

Are there specific guidelines for the reception section for what constitutes "positive reception" versus "critical acclaim" and so on? Asking because over at Shantae: Half-Genie Hero editors are saying the game has received "critical acclaim" or "very positive reviews" but the article only cites a handful of 8/10 review scores, so I changed it to "positive reception" which seemed more accurate to me, but my edit got reverted. Is there a concrete policy/guideline for this, or are editors just supposed to use common sense? CurlyWi (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when there is debate, we direct quote the phrase that Metacric uses to describe it. In this case, we'd say "generally favorable reviews". Sergecross73 msg me 05:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see where it says that now, thanks. For some reason the "generally favorable reviews" part doesn't actually appear when you look at the metacritic mobile site, that's why I was confused. CurlyWi (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Steam estimated sales revenue during 2016

Hi guys. On December 22, in his podcast KDIcast #167 (in Russian) Sergey Galyonkin shared some "closed" Steam Spy information about Steam sales during 2016.

The estimated sales revenue:

Hope, it will be useful for you. And maybe he'll publicize additional and improved data via twitter later. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 9 December

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

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

26 November

29 November

2 December

3 December

4 December

5 December

6 December

7 December

8 December

9 December

Salavat (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Ho ho ho czar 02:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We would like to wish everyone on the project a very happy holiday season! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Same to you, and everyone else! Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy holidays to all, and allow me to wish you all a good 2017 in advance ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 08:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy Christmas and New Year, and best wishes for everyone in 2017 and beyond! --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Ayup, same to y'all :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

All the current peer reviews – help

I am starting to fall asleep over here, guys. I have one peer review page for the Star Wars Battlefront article that has been made one month ago, and I have another for the Xbox One article, which should not have been made, given that the rule is one peer review per editor. Help. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't there a rule about not making Peer Reviews for articles with cleanup tags on them? GamerPro64 05:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is. I'm not sure why he hasn't bothered to fix the cleanup issues that are already tagged on Battlefront before opening a peer review. I made a bunch of comments on it anyway, the article is a mess and a lot of the issues could be identified without a peer review simply by reading through it once. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:PRG states Articles must be free of major cleanup banners. However, Gamingforfun365, I'll take up the peer review of Star Wars Battlefront or Xbox One in exchange for a source review on Burning Rangers' FAC, if you like? The last thing it needs is a fact checking checking review (going through all of the article's sources and making sure it accurately backs up what's mentioned in the article). It shouldn't take long considering how many sources there are! JAGUAR  11:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Games journalist pseudonyms

Several prominent vg mags, especially from the 90s, use pseudonyms for their contributors instead of their actual names. Is there some obscure MoS passage on how to handle citation authorship when their actual names are available but not mentioned in the physical article? We're not talking about Mark Twain synonyms, but "The Axe Grinder" and "Captain Squideo". (1) If first/last name author attributions are possible, should we use them? (2) Does anyone know whether the GamePro authors were eventually de-pseudonymed? czar 00:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I actually read the issue of GamePro when they dropped the pseudonyms but I forget which one that was. And the way I did it I would write "A writer for X". Makes it less awkward than adding what "GamerGirl" said. GamerPro64 00:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Citations exist to find the source statements and as such subsequently verify the text to which they are attached. While I would personally prefer to use first/last, if the source you are reading does not provide that, then you should use the name as provided in the source text (per the whole lot of WP:Citing sources). If you're using a manual citation style, a pseudonym is easy to account for: just plop it into your citation somewhere or another. If instead you're using CS1/2, you can provide an HTML comment to link the pseudonym to the author's real name, or if you really want, add it outside the template either before or after: something like Last, First writing as {{cite magazine |author=Pseudonym |magazine=Magazine |title=Title}} and so forth, rendering as Last, First writing as Pseudonym. "Title". Magazine. --Izno (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
But citations are both for identification and verification. It's not like the verification end will be hurt by using the real name (no one is looking these up by pseudonyms). And the identification would be more accurate, especially if the author has gone on to do subsequent work in the field without the pseudonym. Food for thought, czar 02:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
GamePro is especially annoying in regards to using pseudonyms. For what it's worth, "Major" Mike's real name is Mike Weigand, and the identities of some others are obtainable via a simple Google search. If you're using harvrefs I would personally use "GamePro staff" etc in the author field. JAGUAR  10:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
You haven't said anything contrary to my suggested method of dealing with this question and in fact you say precisely the same in your "But" as I do in my "Citations exist". But I wouldn't cite a copy of one of Twain's works as Twain himself if the copy I have isn't "by" Twain. Ever. Your job in a citation is to reproduce the information provided by the source document so that I can find the information you found in the same place you found it (and to make sure it's a good source). You'll get the same answer at e.g. WT:Citing sources or Help talk:CS1 or WT:FAC I expect. --Izno (talk) 11:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Article of concern

Pirates of the Caribbean Online has recently seen some odd editing and a listing at WP:ANI for edit warring I believe. It would be good to get some more eyes on the article, and especially to review the article history to see if all of the edits that have been made, should have been made. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding WP:NCVGDAB and mixed reality games

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)#What about mixed reality games like Ingress .28video game.29.3F. -- ferret (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

EarthBound split

Owen313 has recently proposed that some of the article for EarthBound should be splitted into a new article for Ness (character), which is a redirect to the former. See Talk:EarthBound#Split for discussion. – Hounder4 05:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Console games by genre

Does someone more familiar with cats know where to find the precedent for deleting Category:Nintendo 64 games by genre and Category:GameCube games by genre? They appear to be the last of their kind (three-way intersection of genre and console). czar 09:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a mixture of WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. Intersection of two unrelated characteristics. By convention the platform category and the genre category should already be on all video game articles because they are two of the most important set categories for games. Having an intersection category here just leads to overcategorisation, especially when considering that a game can release on multiple platforms and span multiple genres. Here's an example of why it is bad: Suppose we create these platform by genre categories for all platforms and genres. Take a game, let's say Borderlands 2. It's first-person shooter and an action role-playing game that released on 8 platforms. With the existing set categories and the intersection categories, it will by contained in Category:PlayStation 3 games, Category:PlayStation Vita games, Category:PlayStation 4 games, Category:Xbox 360 games, Category:Xbox One games, Category:Windows games, Category:OS X games, Category:Linux games, Category:First-person shooters, Category:Action role-playing video games, Category:PlayStation 3 first-person shooters, Category:PlayStation Vita first-person shooters, Category:PlayStation 4 first-person shooters, Category:Xbox 360 first-person shooters, Category:Xbox One first-person shooters, Category:Windows first-person shooters, Category:OS X first-person shooters, Category:Linux first-person shooters, Category:PlayStation 3 action role-playing video games, Category:PlayStation Vita action role-playing video games, Category:PlayStation 4 action role-playing video games, Category:Xbox One action role-playing video games, Category:Xbox 360 action role-playing video games, Category:Windows action role-playing video games, Category:OS X action role-playing video games, Category:Linux action role-playing video games. This means it gets categorised as a first-person shooter 9 times, an action role-playing game 9 times, and by each platform 3 times. Even if we removed the existing set categories and decided to diffuse the platform category by genre (which is a terrible idea), we'd still be categorising it as a first-person shooter 8 times, an action role-playing game 8 times, and by each platform twice. If there are no platform by genre intersection categories, then it is categorised by each genre once and each platform once and there is no overcategorisation. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
On a related subject, I've been thinking about starting an AfD for the many articles under Category:Video game lists by genre which begin with "List of Super Famicom and Super NES..." We've got:
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES adventure games
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES platform games
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES puzzle games
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES role-playing games
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES shooter games
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES simulation games
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES sports games
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES strategy games
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES traditional games (this one actually defines "traditional game" solely for the purpose of the article, as there is no parent "Traditional video game" article or even a "List of traditional games")
  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES vehicle simulation games

and just to give an extra touch of redundancy,

  • List of Super Famicom and Super NES games by genre
Apart from everything else, that's a lot of maintenance just to create an intersection of two unrelated characteristics. Any objections to my throwing those all into a single AfD?--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The idea of those lists seems fine to me? They certainly make more sense than some of the sillier list criteria out there, like the DLC vs. retail lists. It might be that some of them are terribly maintained and perhaps should be deleted for that, but they don't seem bad in theory. List of Super Famicom and Super NES role-playing games seems pretty handy, for example. SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm rather baffled as to how you might find any of these articles "handy". Their entire content (and then some) is already included on List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games, which is naturally always going to be a lot better maintained.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Pokémon - ready to finally move?

I think it has been over a year since @Cyclonebiskit: has started creating drafts to replace our current List of Pokémon. ("full list", example1, example2). For a long time, these lists have remained stagnant, even though I think most of them are ready to be moved into the mainspace (as they are an improvement over are current pages). I don't mean to criticize Cyclonebiskit for their pace, as Wikipedia has no deadline and they are free to edit in any way they want. I just really hope that we can move these pages to to mainspace in the near future.

Of course, I do realize that the list for generation 7 (Pokémon Sun and Moon) isn't ready yet. User:Cyclonebiskit/Alola doesn't even exist yet. I don't think that should be a reason to delay moving all of the other lists, though.

The main list also simply isn't ready yet, with the "Concept" section only being a rough draft. I think the current version of the userpage draft would already be an improvement over the mainspace article, so I'd be fine with moving it without adding too much content. I'd love to see all of this going on the mainspace soon, as Pokémon is more popular than ever this year. I'd love to try and help out a bit more with the Concept-section (though I'm not sure where to find sources), and I'd be very glad if some people could help, or even just judge if these lists are ready. ~Mable (chat) 19:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've put some more work into it and, honestly, all that needs to be done is to get the Sun and Moon list ready. Once that's complete, these can all be moved! ~Mable (chat) 10:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: I've actually had the Sun/Moon list in the works all year :P It's located at User:Cyclonebiskit/Gen7. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Why must you change the pattern XD But this is great! This means that the only thing that really needs to be done before all of this can be moved is for gen7 to be added to the full list. I'd love to help with that, and might go through with that tonight. Of course, a good development section for gen7 should also be made, but no hurry ^_^ I'm just really excited about the idea of moving all of this into the mainspace. ~Mable (chat) 18:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I made it before the name of the region was announced as a holding space (and because I was excited). I think four of the lists still need to have the coloring changed over to the WP:ACCESS compliant ones in addition to general expansion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Ahw, I thought I was finally done. I'm not really looking forward to changing the colors of a table... ~Mable (chat) 19:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Ran through with the search-and-replace and did the Johto and Hoenn lists for y'all; might hit the other two (Unova and Sinnoh) later. --PresN 17:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Did the other two as well. --PresN 21:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
That's great, PresN, thank you so much! I suppose this means the lists are finally ready to be moved. Is anyone interested in helping out with that, or does anyone have any lingering concerns? I am not used to moving so many articles at once, and am not sure of how to go about it. ~Mable (chat) 09:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it alright if I simply move these seven articles to the mainspace, turning the existing lists into redirects? It might be a bit of an awkward process, but I'll do my best. I just haven't heard any value judgments on these lists in a while and have no idea if people agree with it or not. If I don't get a reply, I'll just go ahead with it tomorrow ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 21:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I say go for it. Between this and the original discussion at the beginning of the year, I think we have a consensus that these are better than the current approach. --PresN 01:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Alright, that was all I needed to hear. I'll go ahead with it right away! ~Mable (chat) 12:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just gone through the most important changes (and it took me less than half an hour!), which are moving the eight drafts into the mainspace, redirecting various articles, and creating new talk pages. There's still stuff that needs to be done, like merging talk page discussions (I am not sure how to go about doing that), but I think everything is stable now :) Thanks @The1337gamer: for doing the template! ~Mable (chat) 12:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the "First appeared" column should be removed from all the Generation lists because for the most part, all the entries in this column are the same. For the exceptions (like the Mega Pokemon) which weren't introduced in those main games, a note can be placed covering that detail in the Design and Notes column instead. It's one less column to maintain. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • An IP editor added the Japanese names of Pokémon to one of the lists. I was wondering what people were thinking about this. I personally think that listing Japanese names is a good idea, and there would be plenty of room for it if we are going to remove the "First appeared" column. Thoughts? ~Mable (chat) 14:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If kept, I'd combine them into a single "Name" column, e.g. Blah<linebreak>(Japanese Blah). Also, not sure why some of the Japanese names are "Unknown", with a hover text of the actual Japanese name? --PresN 04:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that this is not something I "added", this is something I moved over from the mainspace List of Pokémon, which has listed this information since at least 2007. There has been a good deal of discussion over the years over how to present this information, but neither Cyclonebiskit nor anyone else have ever proposed that it should NOT be represented, so it should be fairly clear there is overwhelming consensus for having it in the list. As for why some names are listed as "Unknown", this is because the official, trademarked romanization is not known. Consensus is that all listed romanizations need to be referenced; see Talk:List of Pokémon and [6] for details. 85.167.27.57 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

On a similar note, can someone take a look at the List of Pokémon article? An editor keeps readding unsourced information with zero explanation, while ignoring any attempts at reaching out to him. 85.167.27.57 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 16 December

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

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

6 December

9 December

10 December

11 December

12 December

13 December

14 December

15 December

16 December

Salavat (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_126&oldid=1143717898"