Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN12:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
E3 edition! The bot was down for the last two days, but that still leaves us quite a lot up through the 14th. The other two days will make it onto next week's report (hopefully). --PresN12:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This project is really good at making articles for characters. I don't know what makes cahracters notable, but I have personal favorites coming from steins;gate. Not sure if they are notable. Specifically Suzuha Amane, Ruka Urushibara and MOeka Kuryu.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest looking into the Science Adventure series in general rather than just Steins;Gate. I don't know if these characters have a lot of coverage, though - I have searched for development and reception related sources a lot when working on the articles, and there's not a lot of stuff out there.--Alexandra IDVtalk21:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The only series I'm familiar with is Steins;Gate and Steins;Gate 0. I don't know if its a shared universe or if they're only related in themes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In recent years a lot of "list of [X] characters" have been deleted, often because they lack stand-alone notability. I'm not familiar with the series and perhaps they do have plenty of coverage, but there's nothing wrong with having a properly referenced section on a general article. My 2¢. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK01:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, when I saw this discussion earlier, my recommendation was to check with Alexandra IDV, who is the biggest S;G fan I've seen on Wikipedia. But she's already responded now. I'm personally a big fan, but I've written very little on it on Wikipedia, as editors like Alexandra have beat me to the punch usually. I will say though, in my experience, it's generally pretty difficult to meet the notability requirements for video game characters. If you do attempt it, I'd recommend starting with a starring character though. I've wanted to create character articles for a bunch of video games, and the few I've ever had any luck with finding sources for were main characters. They're the ones who generally get the needed coverage. Sergecross73msg me02:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok if its a shared universe, than i'm not qualified for it. I've never played the other games. If the characters never interact between series, would it still make sense to keep them separate?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
If you wee interested in, I'd check for sources before all else. It's not like characters AREN'T independently notable in general, as there are still a lot of these lists. The ones that get deleted are the ones that are either not sourced, or really poorly sourced. I know nothing of the series, but it might pass. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
GA notifications
One of Flowerpiep's works, Hinata Hyuga, became a GA yet the user received a message that the review failed. Could this be related to the article's history as it once failed the review? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably; given the lack of articlehistory template, and the presence of both a GA and GAfailed template, I bet the bot that posts to talk pages looks at the article talk page, checks for GAfailed, then checks for GA. --PresN20:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Rushed article?
A fellow user has just rebuilt Nero (Devil May Cry) but it lacks items fellow Devil May Cry articles lack. I'm pretty sure there is a lot of material about his creation (I remember that once his English actor said it was one of his favorite characters) but I don't think I can work on it that much. Any idea? I would be bold and merge but from my point of view the user is aware about the notability guidelines based on how he created the article. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's an obvious merge and delete (And if you were so inclined, you would have to take to AfD), but the character doesn't seem non-notable. The fact that other DMC articles are WP:GA or WP:FA doesn't mean that this article is bad; but it does suggest that work could be done. I'm not familiar with the series, so I can't help, but even if the reception section was expanded slightly, it would be a fine article (If close to the WP:GNG border.) Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)09:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I managed to add some more sources. I'm pretty sure the site Anime News Network also gave their opinion on Nero but I can't find the article even though it's supposed to be new.Tintor2 (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Managed to improve it to at least to two paragraph. The problem is that Nero's character only appeared in DMC4, the two novels (never translated) and the upcoming DMC5 so there's not much to expand. I'll see if I can find more creation info if the consensus is that the article can pass notability.Tintor2 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, I've recently been working my way through some of our Category:Video game cleanup articles, but there are a few Street Fighter articles that seem to be complete Game guide style articles in their gameplay sections. I'm not a fan of the series, so I don't know much about it.
And, looking at the series as a whole, the articles in general have an awful lot of information, but need serious cleanup. Would anyone with more knowledge of the subject (or even fighting games in general) take a look at them for me? Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Fighting games in general seem to have a lot of gamecruft, such as lists of character rosters. I've always considered it a grandfathered clause, but we probably should have a discussion about this. ~ Dissident93(talk)02:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am currently attempting to look at all games released for the Commodore 64 listed on Wikipedia. I have been fixing some dead/broken links as I go along, but there are many issues I am unsure about proper procedure. I have a few questions I would appreciate feedback on:
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment#Quality_scale, lists should be lists of LIVE links to Wikipedia articles. However, according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Essential_content, an article should have a minimum amount of information to warrant its own page. So my question is, what do I do when I find a dead link referring to a game that has mentions in sites like Moby Games, Lemon 64, or My Abandonware? If I find a link that refers to a game that I can't find anything about, I should presumably flag it somehow, but I am not sure how to do that either.
I don't have any idea if it's reliable or not, but it is a fascinating site. I know a lot about DC Comics but never knew they published Atari-themed titles. JOEBRO6421:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN20:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The second half of E3- an explosion of Drafts! Also, some tagging sprees for both articles and categories. Also, should Category:First-person video games even exist? If so, it probably should have more than 1 article and 1 subcat (FPSs)... --PresN20:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI. I (finally) was able to get in touch with Frank Cifaldi of the Video Game History Foundation. He is willing to take source requests from his magazine archive as needed. He's pretty busy and we don't know what the request volume could be, but we can at least try it out. So if you're looking for a scan, send me a message, and I can act as the middle man.
His library consists of:
#1 through December 1999
EGM
GamePro
Game Informer
Nintendo Power
#1 through December, 1997, 1998-1999 missing a few
@TarkusAB:Have you already checked archive.org? There's now every single issue of GameFan magazine available up until the very last issue (December 2000/Vol. 8, Issue 12). That's how i've managed to find missing Atari Jaguar reviews + reviews for other systems as well from the magazine. Type "GameFan Vol x" and there 'ya go!. Hope that helps. KGRAMR (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be great if he could connect with archive.org to get all those scanned or something. --Izno (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
ehhh we need to be careful with that. Cifaldi knows well enough about video game preservation, and for that we have the exceptions on the DMCA that allow use to emulate games that cannot work on available hardware (hence why archive.org can host all those old DOS games and other things). But magazines, these still have standard copyright. The one-off article someone made need is within fair use, but not full issue runs, at least, without permission of the publisher. --Masem (t) 03:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but beyond the copyright concerns, it takes time too, time he'd rather spend combing through preview carts from Game Informer's archives to make sure the ROMs are copied before they die. But yea, remember when there were a bunch of Nintendo Power magazines up there? Then they all disappeared one day? Since he's now a designated non-profit, perhaps he is more concerned about copyright too. TarkusABtalk11:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Blade Strangers cover art
Hello there! I've been working on overhauling and updating the recent Blade Strangers article after a banned user created it in a poor, unfinished state. I think I've nearly managed to update it to meet both notability guidelines and a minimum standard of quality, but one of the remaining tasks is to replace the current cover art, which is only a small portion of an outdated piece of box art, with the full final box design (either for Switch or PS4; both are functionally identical, save for the presence of the last playable character on the Switch cover). However, as I'm only an IP and choose not to make an account for personal reasons, I can't replace the image myself, and would appreciate it if someone here would be so kind as to do so. On the same topic, I'd also appreciate it if someone could give my work a quick evaluation to see if it can be moved any higher on the quality scale. I've also pulled some information for the article from this interview with the game's producer, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as an acceptable source. Can someone verify if this would be permissible to cite? Thank you very much -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind; I definitely intend to build a proper reception section once actual reviews start appearing when it's released in a few months. Any sources in particular I should try and replace in the meantime? I'm still on the hunt for a good source that covers the development information from the press release.
EDIT: Replaced the Shoryuken and Destructoid articles with IGN and Gematsu. I think all the sources are acceptable now, though I'd still like to find a source I can use in place of the official site and press release. Also, I'd still appreciate it if someone could replace the article's cover art as was my original request. (Thank you, Alexandra IDV!) -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Previously, I removed the list of cases from the above game series. The article suffers from this ridiculous list, which seems to be a list of in-game information, which isn't notable. The article doesn't follow the MOS at all, and I'm not sure it's notable (It's borderline).
I agree with the fictional "location" and "partner/character" fields, but if this was an episodic game, and the "release date" field isn't in-universe stuff but rather actual release dates of the episodes, then listing the names and release dates wouldn't be gamecruft. Sergecross73msg me12:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean, it seems in-depth, but I think that's just because there aren't many 100+ part episodic games? I mean, it doesn't matter to me, I don't have any plans to edit or maintain the article, so you can remove it whole-sale if you want. But if a dispute broke out over it, I'd argue in favor of inclusion of a name/release date column. Sergecross73msg me13:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone happen to know if there are any photos of Garry Newman (developer of Rust and Garry's Mod) floating around with Commons-allowable licenses? I tried searching for some but I came back empty handed. I'd like to add his photograph to the development section of Rust. Anarchyte (work | talk)12:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Since he is tech-savvy and pretty active on social media (https://twitter.com/garrynewman), maybe your best shot is simply asking him for a picture? After all, it might play to his ego to see his face on Wikipedia Regards SoWhy13:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hotel Mario, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JOEBRO6423:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Video Games Database
I have recently looked at several of the lists on Category:Video_game_lists_by_platform and discovered that the lists are wildly inconsistent on formatting as well as details about games themselves, such as release dates. It seems to me that a database of video games would be very useful for standardizing the information across all video game lists (not just by platform but also by genre, publisher). However I am pretty inexperienced at wikipedia and am not sure the best approach for this, or if it is even feasible. To start things off, I created a Google Sheet. I would appreciate any feedback or assistance. I apologize if this idea has already been broached: navigating the archives was a daunting task RampagingCarrot (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Rampagingcarrot I am not really active here on en.wp so would not know − my guess is that there are none in the main space. I would not be surprised if other Wikipedia would have such Wikidata-powered videogame lists, but I don’t know about them.
Increasing Wikidata coverage of video games based on Wikipedia lists is definitely worthwhile − I took another approach, by cross-linking with external databases.
As for using them in the main space: I have not followed what’s the current policy on English Wikipedia but I don’t think this is allowed. Other Wikiproject members may have more to say about the topic. Personally, I don’t think we have done enough work yet on Wikidata regarding video games for taking over Wikipedia lists anytime soon. :-)
There's a big warning on {{Wikidata list}} that it should not be used in mainspace. If I recall correctly, it's because it suborns wikipedia to wikidata- any list based on that template will overwrite any wikipedia edits to the list via bot, forcing editors to make changes at wikidata instead, and people disliked that. --PresN13:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
PresN That makes sense. I was just writing to Jean-Frédéric yesterday that the ability for anyone to edit Wikipedia is a core principle and that if Wikidata was going to be integrated it would need to be in a way that makes it as easy as possible for Wikipedia users to make changes: perhaps a user interface or bots that automatically track changes. Another (perhaps smaller) problem I just thought of is that single changes in a Wikidata item could effect multiple list articles, which may require changes to how wikipedia reports changes so articles can be quickly repaired in case of errors. RampagingCarrot (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Generated by v1.5 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN12:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I've recently seen a few of these articles for ESports, that have a "roster" section. Are these sections encylopedic (As none of the people themselves are notable), for articles such as EVOS Esports, or 1907 Fenerbahçe eSports? The information seems superfluous, especially when unsourced. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)09:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
These people will come and go--it would be marginally more encyclopedic for that to be prose in some more-general history section. --Izno (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
They would be like professional sports teams, so seem reasonable, but yes, needs better sourcing to show that the organization is notable. --Masem (t) 14:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Professional sporting teams usually just have the current roster, while a lot of eSport team pages include historical rosters (and with almost no sourcing). We should at least agree that historical rosters shouldn't be added, as that's a better fit for Liquidpedia. ~ Dissident93(talk)15:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Requirements to make a video game artist
I've been recently searching for items involving Bingo Morihashi, a writer for games as well as two novels. However, I can't find anything about his work before joining Capcom. I haven't created many real life people articles so I don't know how they should be. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos is currently rated as B-class (by 2006 standards since it contained few secondary sources) but I think an important game like that should be a GA (at least). I already made "some" changes but especially the development history eludes me since I cannot find much online. Does anyone have access to old magazines, in paper or databases, and can help out with the article? Regards SoWhy08:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been waiting for someone to mention this. Personally, I've always thought these articles are super unwealdly and crufty. Needs a trim. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe right now as presented it might be gamecruft, but I think this is somewhere in the vein of the songlists we've provided for other music rhythm games (such as Guitar Hero). Those seem like an analogous case. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
As a music game, I do think that the list of featured songs is relatively important, though in comparison to Guitar Hero/Rock Band, DDR games never got the same attention to their song lists since many of theme were custom tracks made specifically for the game. If there were more licensed, not-original-to-DDR songs that would have more blue-links than not, then I would lean keep. --Masem (t) 13:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
For the 1981Origins Awards, a game called Eastern Front won for best computer game for that year. However, no publisher is listed on that site, so I expect it would be Eastern Front (1941). The German version of that article seems to agree with me, but can anyone find a source to prove it before I add that award to the article? BOZ (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No source, but if you didn't know the Atari Program Exchange was a program whereby developers sent in games/programs for Atari home computers and Atari listed them in a catalog and sold them; it wasn't a traditional publishing arrangement as Atari fronted no money to the developer and I don't believe they bought the rights to the game itself, but instead just got a cut of sales through their catalog. I'm basing that off of other APX games that I recall when trying to cobble together list of Atari, Inc. games seeing being sold by their developers directly in addition to through APX, meaning APX was not the sole publisher for even Atari computers. Tl;dr it makes sense to me that Origins Awards wouldn't list a publisher for Eastern Front if it was only sold through APX. --PresN03:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it depends on what you call a "publisher". Like, being a publisher in 2018 means 2 things, usually- you assist the developer in getting the game ready for release (aka give money, or QA resources, or advice, or whatever) and you handle marketing/distribution of the game- getting it in stores and online platforms, making advertisements. And APX didn't do the first, they just handled part 2. But does that make them a distributor only? They handled "distribution", sure, but usually distributor just means a company that physically gets it into stores and doesn't handle marketing to customers in any way. I'm not sure there's a word for that "publisher-lite" relationship. --PresN03:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, so do you figure it would be safe to add the Origins Award to the Eastern Front article, or should I dig a little more? BOZ (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
So while the details aren't well established, it looks like Rollingstone.com has transferred all the Glixel content to Variety (as it looks like its being merged into Variety's VG coverage), breaking all links. Brian Crecente, one of the Glixel writers, says they will assure all the content gets there, but we may have to do a bunch of manual Glixel link fixes. --Masem (t) 04:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
As a side note, thanks for mentioning this, as it's indirectly cleared up some of my confusion. I was wondering how/why Variety's video game coverage seemed to be much more prominent lately, reporting on things that usually wouldn't get mainstream out-of-video-game-industry type coverage. This would explain it. Sergecross73msg me19:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Generated by v1.6 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Set article creator as first page editor when not found in bot-assisted list, e.g. recent tags of older articles, drafts, or rare cases that the bot didn't think it was a VG article but it got tagged as such (Note: original creator may be a redirect creator, not actual initial writer, which is why I don't do this for all articles)
Do not list articles that have already been deleted as of posting time
Gave new templates their own section
Fixed bug: Drafts that were assessed as non-draft were being linked as if they were in mainspace
Fixed bug: Page moves were not handled correctly when the article title had non-ASCII characters (aka diacritics, mdash, etc.) --PresN13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm fairly tempted to remove HDMI from our scope. It is nowhere near the pivotal technology status that would be needed to add our banner to it, and we get a single line of text in the article. --Izno (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree. Important to how video games work, but its not principally exclusive to video games, so we shouldn't have much say on it. --Masem (t) 14:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
On a separate note I was curious when I saw Tapper was metnioned in the section for deletion or redirection and when I looked into it I noticed that we have an aricle titled Tapper (arcade game) and was wondering if there was any reason why the title is not Tapper (video game)?--76.65.40.44 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, per convention it should be (video game) as there are no other video game articles with that title to require further disambiguation (and we'd move to (1983 video game) in that case besides). Moved. --PresN01:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Did we ever have a consensus on how to handle video game streamer/eSport player disambiguation? Seagull (gamer) sounds too overly casually, and "gamer" could mean something outside of video games to somebody who doesn't already have a basic idea on who they are. Something like Dendi (Dota player) explains that they are a player of Dota instead, so would that be preferred or not? It follows more along the standard of other game disambiguations, such as Evgeny Alekseev (chess player). ~ Dissident93(talk)17:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:NCVGDAB#11. I think "gamer" is a general enough term, and it's consistent with Gamer. For Dendi, perhaps natural disambiguation using real name is worth considering as an alternative but the usual practice would be to disambiguate with (gamer). Ben · Salvidrim!✉17:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
So "gamer" (and apparently "video game player") is prefer over "video gamer"? Also, should natural disambiguation overrule common name in the case of Dendi? I feel like that's a downgrade and wouldn't help article navigation. ~ Dissident93(talk)17:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I put forth the question if we should consider this data, even though we have the RS of Ars Tech reporting it. It wasn't an intentional leak, and so may not be accurate in the future. --Masem (t) 20:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I say no because it's still an estimate, making it no different than Steam Spy (just more accurate). If we do end up using this though, keep in mind that the list is not comprehensive. It should never be used to claim games are among the "best-selling" on Steam, because some of these are free-to-play (Team Fortress 2), while others that would be at the top don't have achievements to get numbers from and therefore aren't shown (Dota 2). ~ Dissident93(talk)01:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say firmly yes. It's definitely not an "estimate"; assuming that some kind of massive conspiracy isn't afoot to create plausible-seeming numbers, those are legit stats and very citable IMO. They just need to come with the proviso that they are measuring % of *players* on Steam of games that have achievements at all (which is not necessarily the same thing as sales, since people can buy games and never play nor install them), as well as that it is a snapshot of July 2018. SnowFire (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This is most DEFINITELY an estimate... It's a calculation based on comparing percentages between different achievements, for the limited games that temporarily provided that information. Are they likely accurate? Sure. They are still estimates though. I've already seen this article be abused to claim "such and such game has the most copies sold on Steam", despite the fact this data set doesn't include even half of all Steam games. -- ferret (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly what I feared would happen. Maybe if this list was actually comprehensive, but it's not and therefore it's wrong to say PUBG is the third best-selling game on Steam or whatever because we're obviously missing other big games like Dota 2, which lack achievements and therefore could not be included on the list. I also later realized that earning achievements in free weekend games (like the spring cleaning games a few months ago) would also bloat up numbers here, so even if we do end up using this list, we'd have to be careful and cite games as "most played" rather than "best-selling". ~ Dissident93(talk)10:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
See Alexandra IDV's comment. Citing the list for "positional" information is nonsense ("best-selling"), and "positional" information tends to be more magaziney anyway. Citing it for playerbase statistics, though, is perfectly fine, that's not an estimate - it is a figure that, again barring some revelation about spiked data, should be accurate based on the methodology they describe. SnowFire (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The numbers are still technically estimates though, as they aren't 100% confirmed and shouldn't be treated as such. This is still a potential long-time issue as people have and will mention a game's position on the list as absolute, at least among the top 10 or so. Games like these need to be watched, which may or may not be a problem. ~ Dissident93(talk)16:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not purchases, and it can't be used for most played rankings because there are some games that are not included in the list. I do think it can be used for things like "By July 2018, the game had an estimated 100,000 players on Steam."--Alexandra IDVtalk10:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that wording implies current players, and should be instead how many people have ever played it (through gaining an achievement) throughout its history. ~ Dissident93(talk)16:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93:: At risk of nitpicking, it's fine to say that these numbers are "user-compiled" or "unofficial release", but IMO "estimate" is misleading (and yes, I know the linked ArsTechnica article called it an "estimate"). Estimate usually means "uhhh it probably sold around 1 million copies" and it might be 800K or 1.3 mil, who knows. The method described derives a precise number down to the units digit, so we know that Portal had 9,971,481 players on July 1. If we wanted to be REALLY technical, it's a "lower bound" in that it's also possible, but incredibly incredibly unlikely, that since that particular number is divisible by 3, it's possible that it's also 29,914,443 players (or x9, but that gets really silly). A general sanity check suggests that this is unlikely, but even if you thought a-priori it was a coin flip between 10 million and 30 million, since Portal has 15 achievements (a low number!), that means ALL FIFTEEN need to have randomly been a multiple of 3 as well. So, assuming they checked the values for all the achievements, there's only a 1/14348907 chance that, if it really was 30 million users, all the achievement counts lined up to create a reducible fraction in every instance. In practice, I'm not sure they bothered checking all 15 achievements, as checking a mere 5-8 or so would already reduce odds to "all the Beatles getting struck by lightning on the same day" level probabilities. So... these numbers are pretty good, IMO, barring surprise revelation. SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against its accuracy, just its incompleteness and the high likelihood of people misusing it as a comprehensive list (I.E, claims of PUBG being the 3rd most played Steam game of all time). ~ Dissident93(talk)21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it's okay to use, but only with the strictest limitations laid out by Masem and Alexandra - spelling out the exact context as to hopefully avoid the potential pitfalls mentioned by Dissident. Sergecross73msg me19:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I've expanded both over the last year, mostly in a haphazard fashion. Also strictly speaking, I don't know much about them, and am figuring out their biographies as I go, meaning I'd like to get people more familiar with the subject matter to look at them. That would be to check for errors, omissions, or relative weight.
For Inafune, a big problem is there's too many sources. There's probably hundreds of interviews and news pieces locked away in print magazines and not online. And Online has just as many if not more. I could continually update and expand the page, and probably make like 5 pages worth of content. Likely a solution would be to trim the Comcept section and move it more to Level 5 Comcept, which is a little lacking in size. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Microsoft Windows or Windows 10
Has the consensus changed on listing platforms as Microsoft Windows? I saw these edits ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6])this morning and wanted to check before I revert. - X201 (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
No. Windows 10 is only meant to be mentioned in prose, if I remember right. Lead/infobox should just go with the overall OS. ~ Dissident93(talk)09:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I restored the article, as it was previously a redirect. I discuss on the talk page why I feel it's notable. Talk:Ben Judd (producer). My focus was to create a skeleton page as a start, rather than to create a fully fleshed out page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I've done a copy edit, as it wasn't written particularly well. I also moved the quote that you had, as it wasn't about the subject, simply a game he was involved with. I'm not sure it makes sense as a note, either... Perhaps inserted as one of the references Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, the entire project is his brainchild. He convinced Inafune to go ahead with it, and he did much of the planning in regards to the kickstarter. Then when the game is actually released, he went through reasons why the game had problems in development. The whole livestream was sort of the devs explaining why it was bad and apologizing for it. I've never seen devs do that. It's highly unusual. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Amy Rose, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JOEBRO6423:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
KSP genre
I have a question about Kerbal Space Program. Do you think this game's focus is more on construction and management, or more on vehicle simulation? I have only played a little bit - long enough to build a ship capable of escaping Kerbin's gravity, but that's all. Thanks. SharkD Talk 20:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not wanting to edit the article. The question was an idle one. But on the topic of the article, I looked at the first four references and they don't agree on a genre. In fact, I would bet that zero of the cited articles use the exact words, "space flight simulation game". And I'm fine with that. SharkD Talk 22:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all the citations right now. I just wanted to know for personal reasons. SharkD Talk 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
2064:Read Only Memories back to Read Only Memories
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎)01:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Devil May Cry: 3142
Hello. Does anybody has access to the guidebook Devil May Cry: 3142? It has a lot of information about the series' first four games as well as other related games. I'm from South America so I can't buy one. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Artbooks are some of the best sources for video games, as they are published, and often incldue interviews and notes by the creators of the game. Try to see if you can order it via amazon or something like that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It meets the Threshold of Originality even in the US. Those aren't standard characters for those icons, and the application of defects is not an element of the typeface (compare the P's in Paper). Would be non-free. --Masem (t) 13:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll upload a new version to enwiki with all the relevant tags. @Masem: That was my main concern. The fact the characters were modified (even if slightly) and the iconography of the rock, paper, and shotgun. Anarchyte (work | talk)10:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
k, cheers, not many games in that category, I added two Atari Lynx games to it know, surely there are a lot more games with mini games built in. Govvy (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That category should probably specify if it includes articles on games that have minigames or if it's just for articles on minigames. If the first, it's very underutilized; if the second, it would likely be empty. --PresN19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Ye, it doesn't exactly have an explanation with it, it just points to the Minigames article, because you do get these games with in games every so often so I was surprised the lack of category use. Are we establishing a mini game or a game within a game? Would a game from the 1980s, 1990s attached to a modern game be classed as a mini game? Govvy (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe this is a defining characteristic of Zork and Maniac Mansion, and I wouldn't describe them as minigames regardless (but rather as a rerelease within a different video game). The best thing that came to mind for this category is Gwent: The Witcher Card Game, but insanely popular minigames have a habit of turning into full titles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
In-game commentary as source
Hi. I'm planning an expansion/rewrite/clean-up of the article for Tomb Raider: Anniversary, with the future aim of making it a GA. The game itself contains developer commentary for each level and even areas within a level, done by the game's director Jason Botta and its cinematic designer/co-writer Toby Gard. Due to a variety of circumstances, this game is lacking in sources for its development. Would this in-game commentary be considered a suitable source for a GA-level article? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think definately- it would be totally fine if it was a video of the devs talking while playing the game, (I've used a source like that in an FA), so i don't see that changing the format would be a problem there as far as reliability goes. --PresN15:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured so (though I thought it was auto-played instead of triggered); physically writing the citation is going to be a pain but I'm still confident that it's acceptable. --PresN15:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
To the above end, (And provided this is something that would be used more than once), would it make sense to add a field to the Template:Cite video game? One that stated "commentary", or similarly that added a note to the reference explaining where the information was inserted from? Simply saying (From Directors Commentary) after the quote. In the likes of Portal, the commentary is different depending on the scene, so the rest of the identifiers would be right. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)07:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd love to see this template fixed up to be more useful, because it's only ever really been used for citing quotes from story heavy games in the past. ~ Dissident93(talk)09:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It should be more versatile and allow things like game personal (staff listing) to be properly cited, among other related stuff I can't recall at the moment. Doing so under the "scene" parameter is awkward. ~ Dissident93(talk)17:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've had to use that technique of citing credits for several articles I've worked on (Drakengard 2, several Fire Emblem titles). Usually there's no other way of citing which personnel worked in what capacity. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking for a script
Is there a script that will automatically reorder footnotes so that they appear in the correct numerical order. For example, fixing [22][20][21] so they are ordered as [20][21][22] Thanks TarkusABtalk19:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It used to. Enough people crying about it impacting their article caused the developers to turn it off for en.WP or remove it outright. Apparently some fields use citation order to indicate importance? --Izno (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
? Consensus at VP is quite a bit stronger than "enough people crying about it", a phrase that is also needlessly condescending.
Generated by v1.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Changelog: Split deletions and redirects into two sections. Events conspired to make last week's report so late that I just let it wrap around back to the right day, so it's 2 weeks' worth this time. --PresN04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I am totally confused, I put two categories on Zarlor Mercenary, the first being Category:Cellular automata in popular culture, well I didn't put that category in originally as User:David Eppstein did that who knows about cellular automata, as I mentioned Zarlor on Conway's Game of Life as a cheat code, so it made sense to be in that category, and as of above I also added Category:Minigames per suggestion, for a mini game being in a game. But User:SnowFire has removed both categories which I was sure was correct. Could I please get some clarification for those categories use on the article please. cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Zarlor Mercenary, but unless this easter egg is somehow incredibly pivotal, it seems super distant to qualify for the category. Think of it this way: many, many, many games have some sort of side gambling minigame where you play memory and match like cards, or roll dice, or play slots, or play poker, or bet on gladitorial combat. There's no way that means all Dragon Quest games qualify for Category:Slot machines, or Super Mario Bros. 3 for Category:Matching card games, or the like. In the same way, a game with a Conway's Game of Life easter egg doesn't qualify for the cellular automata category. And that's for much more famous games than an obscure PC game. As for category Minigames, that seems a category more about entire minigames itself. It's not "games that contain minigames", which would be a bad idea for a category anyway as it'd be incredibly subjective and certain people would "help" by adding it to every game imaginable. SnowFire (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
But the Cellular automata in popular culture category clearly says "This category lists novels, artworks, computer games, etc., in which cellular automata such as Conway's Game of Life feature prominently." And Conway's Game of Life is certainly a feature of Zarlor! Govvy (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Prominent is open to interpretation, does everyone who ever brought the game count as Prominent? This is a category which is rather obscure in it's self. What about the couple of million people that brought the Atari Lynx, maybe they are interested. Having Conway's Game of Life on the atari lynx cartridge as a bonus hidden game is pretty unique. How about we remove the word prominently from the category description!! Govvy (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow where you went with that. Prominent is certainly open to interpretation but it has nothing to do with who or how many bought a game. In this case though it's pretty clear it's not a defining characteristic of the game, simply a trivia easteregg. -- ferret (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, SnowFire removed the category saying "very very distant connection here." Which makes no sense to me, it's a perfectly clear connection of being a sub-game within a game. I don't understand why ppl are saying prominent, I bet more ppl know about Conway's game of life on the lynx on this game than some of the few entries on the category. Govvy (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source that discusses the importance of this version of the Game of Life (aka not [7], a text file written by an unknown person hosted at a random website), please feel free to stick it in the article, and I won't complain. For an example of what we're looking for, see Poole versus HAL 9000, which while a very minor part of the movie it is in, has reliable sources discussing it. For an example relevant to cellular automata, Permutation City's miniature "Game of Life" is a very important part of its plot that all readers will see, not a secret easter egg that many players won't know about. (Good book, too, you should read it.) SnowFire (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Dam, talk about over analysing a use of a category. You're applying a way over-extended use on WP:N on a category. Categories just need to be correct. I feel your argument is completely floored. An admin included the game in the category, I feel it should be restored into that category. Categories are there to show the collection of shared information, not to over-extended into Notability. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, we have a different stance on what deserves a place in these categories. Let's take a different topic: should Category:Coca-Cola in popular culture feature every movie / TV show where there's Coke in the background or somebody drinks a Coke? Or should it focus on media that is explicitly about Coke or has it as a key plot point? I say that the category is far more useful if it's curated and only hits the latter, not it-has-a-coke-somewhere. You haven't really sold that this easter egg isn't the equivalent of "people happen to be drinking Coke in the background of a shot." This wouldn't fly on TVTropes, let alone Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
And how about The Mutant Virus: Crisis in a Computer World, there is no source for the category inclusion, you have failed to remove the category from this game. How is the game any less of an impact as any of the other entries in the category? Each other item, game, book or person, how do you way up their inclusion over WP:N? There is a extreme lack of citations throughout, yet you choose to remove Zarlor Mercenary from the category without any due weight on the other topical entries? I am not a lawyer, but I way in that you have a biased point of view. Also, not actually pointed out in the game, but in fact Zarlor Mercenary uses a short timer of cellular automata dispersal code for enemy ships when blown up. There is multiple uses of this type of code among a lot of games, however I am drawn back to the fact that, Conway's Game of Life is available to play on the Atari Lynx in a very pure form. I would say that is prominent to the Atari Lynx, can you get the game on any other hand held games machine?
And a cheat code is to cheat in a game, loading up the sub game, via a coded set of button pressing? This is not an easter-egg either. The citation for Conway's Game of Life associated with Zarlor tells a reader how access this other program, and how the instructions on how to use the software. AtariAge.com is a very good source for Atari Information, yes it's community based, but generally I consider it a reliable source of information. Govvy (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
If it's a non-defining trait of other games, it should be removed from those articles too. czar04:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
andriasang.com
It's cited on many pages, they give summaries of Japanese language articles in English. WP:VG/S lists it as reliable. My question is: Wouldn't it just make more sense to cite the actual original Japanese article directly? andriasang isn't really reporting anything, just translating and summarizing, thus it isn't really a news source at all, but a translation service. They're also giving condensed summaries rather than direct ones. They also appear to only be using the online versions of the news sites, so these can be accessed by anyone.
So if we were to just replace andriasang reference with the original Japanese news article, nothing would be lost. It would contain the exact same information, and Famitsu, Game watch, etc are all high quality reliable sources. None of the in-article text would need to be changed.
The site can provide a valuable resource by giving summaries and news from Japanese sites, which are difficult to navigate and search for non-Japanese readers. So I feel the site should play a support role, rather than a direct one. So use the site to look for news articles and sources, and to give some understanding of what the original Japanese article stated, but don't cite the site directly, and instead use the original source.
The site is now dead, and appears to be a self-published blog. All the posts are listed under the "blog" section of the site, and it appears to be written by one person. I have a real wariness about using self-published blog type sites in general, and would prefer to avoid that. The original Japanese sites are very high quality, and I also feel that the original Japanese sites should be given more credit on Wikipedia for their reporting. And I feel that WP users should try to get more out of their "safe zone" and use more sources from different languages.
This may result in new users having more difficulty verifying the sources. Ease of verification is not a strict Wikipedia rule that I'm aware of per se. Any reliable source in any language can be used anywhere on any language Wikipedia. It just tends to be that the language of the sources tend to correspond to the language of the Wikipedia due to the user-base and ease of use. In any case, I don't think it presents an impossible barrier. There's tools like Google translate. Though it is imperfect, it can give you enough of an idea about an article and basic facts cited to ensure that it is not being mis-used. And since the WP user-base is big enough, there will be enough users who speak English and Japanese so that if there is a dispute over a translation of a news source, that user can then investigate.
So I propose that the links to andriasang.com should be replaced with links to the original Japanese language news articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Harizotoh9: The principle is sound, but there's an immediate problem. Several of the times I've used Andriasang, they have A: used print sources such as Famitsu and Dengeki which are now difficult to track down for proper citations, and B: given more concrete and accurately translated information than other sites reporting the same story from the same print source. I'm aware about the issue with self-published blogs as a source (had to negotiate that during my work on Titan Quest), and - I think this was discussed before - Andrisang was allowed because it was the work of a noted video game journalist rather than a different individual. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, how about reduce the reliance on the site unless needed? If no other source can be found keep it. I have nothing against the site itself, I just feel that the original source should be given priority over translations. I consider it more of a translation tool than a news site in itself.
I've noticed that there seems to be two types of articles on the site. One in which the author directly links to a news article on a Japanese language site, and then gives a summary, and another one where the author does not seem to site any source. For the first type, it makes sense to just link to the original article. For the second, it seems the author is relying upon print sources. It might make sense to keep the Andriasang site.
As an experiment, I checked a few pages to see how Andriasang is actually being used. I'm finding it's used often to cite rather readily available information that can be found elsewhere. Two examples.
The two examples above the citation can be swapped out for something else without any loss or changes to the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
As a matter of principle, I think it's good practice to include a reliable translation of any non-English language source, if available, within the citation, even if it's not strictly required. As for Andriasang in particular, it's not merely a "self-published blog" as you say. It was a well-respected source used within the industry and run by a well-regarded member of the industry (Anoop Gantayat) who has years of experience and credentials to show for it. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Correct, Anoop has a lot of experience writing for RS’s like IGN prior to branching off to start his own website, and was frequently cited by other sources in the industry. Im also very against removing all links. It’d be a lot if work to fix something that isn’t broken. There’s so many more productive things to be worked on... Sergecross73msg me20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The 30th anniversary of its release is on October 23, 2018. This would be an ideal time to run this on the front page as a FA. It's currently a GA article. With work it could be FA before October. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Lacking contemporary coverage. Seems there are only two reviews in the article, CVG and Mean Machines. Definitely need more than that, and the retrospective reviews should be separated from the contemporary ones. TarkusABtalk18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI - It's slated to be one of the game's that comes with the new Nintendo Switch Online service as well, so there's bound to be an influx of interest in the game soon too, in terms of both source coverage and readership of the Wikipedia article. Sergecross73msg me13:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2018
Change the line "Forsaken will have a large overhual on gameplay" in Release to "Forsaken will have a large overhaul on gameplay", please. 79.234.148.161 (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
If anyone from here could help resolve a 50/50 split in achieving a consensus over at Talk:Detroit: Become Human#Adam Williams would be much appreciated. I'm not advocating for any outcome in particular I would just like to see the content dispute be closed before anyone gets in trouble with excess reverting, etc. ♪♫Alucard16♫♪20:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Do we? I know we don't like using tables and lists, but I've seen this done in GA/FAs and just assumed that's the proper way we should handle it for VG articles. Either way, I think we should follow whatever the other MOS decide on, as there is no reason to have separate consensus here. ~ Dissident93(talk)15:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I think there may have been a general lean here at WT:VG to exclude but it has certainly crept into many game articles, including GA/FAs, and no one has really made an effort to do anything to remove. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I don’t have actors names in the plot summaries in a single one of the hundreds of articles I’ve created or maintained, and would generally uncontroversially revert if anyone would attempt to do it, so these sorts of responses are surprising to me. Sergecross73msg me
The only time we really include VAs is if the game includes people from outside the usual stable of VAs (eg Brutal Legend), 3rd party RSes draw attention to at least one or two (by then where the rest are included for completeness), or when we've got sourced content focused on a specific character so including the VA for that character is necessary for comprehension. As such, most of the time those names do not need to enter into the plot for any real reason. --Masem (t) 17:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it's necessary in any instance for it to be used in a plot summary. If it's important, it should be more highly mentioned in the gameplay and release sections. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)09:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
How is cast information relevant for gameplay, i.e. how the game is played? Personally, I think the way Brütal Legend does it with a characters sub-section before the plot section in a synopsis section makes the most sense. Regards SoWhy10:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, the point was to add your views at the MOS:FILM thread, since it may impact the matter cross-genre/cross-medium, rather than fork a new thread here. :-) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
snesmusic dot org
It's used as a citation on something like 200 pages, mostly for composer credits. First problem, is that it's a fan site. The bigger problem, is that it contains downloads of the game's soundtracks in SPC format, which is part of the rom. Thus, it violates copyright law, and can't be used as a citation on Wikipedia. It's a kind of romsite, one that's stripping the rom down to just the music. The information is likely correct, so it should remain, but the site should be purged from Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
That's just how it goes. There's just not enough of us to policy every non-RS usage on the site. Same problem with Gamefaqs and MobyGames. Both are uncontroversially unreliable sources by anyone who understands policy, but they're still used all over the in all sorts of obscure video game articles. You've got to make a choice on whether or not its important enough to take on the chore of removing them all, or just opting to remove them as you see them. Sergecross73msg me14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Funny you mention that since, I planned to phase out Mobygames and gamefaqs later on. Mobygames is really kind of a fan-wiki. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not contesting it, I fall more on the apathy side of things. I just meant that it did seem like there were a few opposed, but overall, it had support. Sergecross73msg me17:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
If you believe the information to be credible but simply lacking a better source, you can try using WP:AWB to replace the references with {{citation needed}}. I have done that before with an unreliable source. There are some gotchas where you have to be careful with the regex find/replace (notably, re-used references). --Izno (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
As a member of the VGM community, I'd say the credits actually being cited there are usually correct (as people have to play through the game to know where the musical tracks are, therefore confirming the credits if they play through it fully). However, it is user-generated and outdated with some errors, so it shouldn't be used as a source here. I'd instead use it to get a general idea who the composer should be, then find a better source confirming it. Also, I don't think the fact it hosts SPC sets (basically ROMs striped of everything but the music data) is relevant here, as you could use this same logic for any article that has copyrighted photos or videos. ~ Dissident93(talk)16:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
See WP:LINKVIO, the first two paragraphs address what you're talking about. The short version is that, no, we should be linking to websites that are illegally distributing content like music or roms. Sergecross73msg me17:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Remove 'em. It's clearly a fansite that doesn't have editorial policies or credible writers. If the information is accurate, remove it and either find a reliable source that verifies it or cite the game credits themselves. And speaking of ROM distribution, Nintendo just sued LoveROMs and LoveRetro! JOEBRO6417:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a database of SNES soundtrack dumps that articles are using to cite composer info, it has nothing to do with editorial writing. But yes, if the information is accurate (which it mostly is, see my post above), then it shouldn't be too hard to find reliable sources for the same info. Failing that, you could always just cite the game's OST or ending credits as a last resort. ~ Dissident93(talk)22:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
(Re)assessment request and GA nomination?
Quick question: Say if I expand a Start-class article and nominate it for GA, should I also request reassessment from the VG-WikiProject-template (since the Start-rating no longer applies) or should I wait for the GAN to be decided and then request reassessment if the GAN failed? Regards SoWhy10:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd leave it. I can't see why we'd want it reviewed twice. If someone reviewed a GA, but failed it, I'd like to think they would update the assessment to B or C, if it met those criteria. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
GA is GA. An article ought not be a GA and also be another lower rating for a particular project. If an article does pass GA, but fails say, B criteria for a project, then the GA was probably lax, and the article should be reassessed and the issues fixed or the article demoted. If the article fails GA initially, I would recommend WP:PR and then renomination. For article ratings below GA, IMO they're as often as not mostly arbitrary, and have as much or more to do with the rater as they do with the article. Whether the article meets GA, A or FA is really the only thing that should be the least bit concerning to most anybody. GMGtalk10:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I was told over a year ago that the reassessment tag is unnecessary for GANs because someone's going to review it either way. JOEBRO6418:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can reassess articles in the wikiproject tags without a second opinion. You shouldn't set it to GA/FA without it actually passing that process, but anything short of that is fine. Reassessment is specifically if you're unsure of what the rating should be; if you're pretty confident that it's a B-class (and if you're nominating it for GAN then I'd presume you are...) then you can just make it a B and move on. --PresN03:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Japanese sources:
I'd like to see users make more use of Japanese sources in their articles instead of relying only on English speaking sources. Here are a few readily available online sites:
- Has an online database of games since the magazine started. Good for basic information about the game (Japanese name, release date, company, genre, etc). Also many include the review score. Their archive goes back very far, so it's nice to get review scores for games from the 80's or 90's, that often have few magazine reviews in the article.
Famitsu is pretty heavily used in JRPG articles in my experience, though that’s generally just whatever English sources cover of it. I think it’s just a practicality thing. We should use sources of all languages. But most of us just understand and read English, so that’s what we add to articles. Also keep in mind that you can preach as much as you want on this talk page, but you’re really only reaching out to the most hardcore 15-20 video game editors active and monitoring this at the moment. There’s hundreds of casual mid-core editors that don’t read this or even know what a Wikiproject is. So requests like this are often hard to get anywhere with... Sergecross73msg me02:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I second Sergecross's suggestion to chill the f out with the broad sweeping policy edicts on WT:VG (this is your 3rd in 3 days). If you want to meticulously comb through and replace ain't-broke-don't-fix sources, be my guest, but you're not deputizing me and unlikely to galvanize anyone else without a Strong Policy Reason like copyvio or BLP. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I third that. You're welcome to incorporate reliable sources in other languages, but imploring others to do so is somewhat odd. Maybe by phrasing it differently ("I am going to add more Japanese sources, what do you think?" - "awesome, good idea!") might help. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK07:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia, so English sources will always be preferred over non-English ones. What even is your issue here? How does using 4gamer or Famitsu over any English RS that covers the same topic benefit anything? ~ Dissident93(talk)09:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no issue with using other reliable sources not written in English. But, I'm unsure of what the request is. If there is a source from a reliable source, add it. We shouldn't be removing reliable sources, simply to have these websites listed instead. There's an argument for SP:SODOIT here, if something is unsourced, and you can source it, do so. The exact same thing could be said for print sources, we should, potentially use more of these. However, practically, it's hard work to do this, which is the same with other language sources.
All these are reliable sources and are used in tons of articles, and are just as good as English sources. JOEBRO6412:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Question regarding Final Fantasy IV
I recently noticed that at Talk:Final Fantasy IV that the article is labeled as a Sports and recreation good article. Is there any reason that it is not listed as a video game one or is there something that I am overlooking?--76.65.40.44 (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I managed to do a bit of digging and found out how to change the listing for IV. If someone thinks it should in fact be listed as a sports and recreation good article rather than a video game one fell free to change it back. Otherwise this issue has been fixed.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Lee (Hey Lee, I see you in every random place I visit on the project lately!), I think you are free to be WP:BOLD on this one, IP 76. Snowlet's rap08:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Same, and likewise! Tonight, as I had a few hours to spare, decided to trawl through the WikiProject indexes looking for some work that needs doing. Seems like a habit of yours too. Snowlet's rap08:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I like to keep numbers down. Still relatively new to Wikipedia, as I haven't been editing a full year. Picking up new fun things to do everyday. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)09:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
1. 2012 Concert (Japan) – TVXQ Live Tour 2012 'TONE' Concert at Tokyo Dome sold out (165,000 tickets) within 5 seconds.[31]
CORRECT: 1. 2018 concert (South Korea) — EXO Planet #4 - The Elyxion dot at Gocheok Sky Dome maintain its won record again by selling all three day tickets (66,000 tickets) in .02 seconds.
2. 2008 Concert (Japan) – TVXQ 3rd Live Tour ~T~ Concert at Saitama Super Arena sold out (40,000 tickets) in 1 minute.[32]
CORRECT: 2. 2017 Concert (South Korea) — EXO Planet #3 - The Elyxion at Gocheok Sky Dome sold out (66,000) in 0.2 seconds. Beating EXO's own previous record of 0.4 seconds (67,040 tickets) from their second tour and being the fastest sold-out tour in the world.
[2]
3. 2013 Show (UK) – The return of Monty Python's Flying Circus at London's O2 Arena, sold out (14,500 tickets) in 43.5 seconds.[33]
CORRECT: 3. 2015 Concert (South Korea) — EXO Planet #2 The EXO'luxion sould out (67,7040 tickets) in .04 seconds, which was a record-breaking and at a time was the fastest sold-out concert in the world, though EXO breaks the world record again in 2017 with their new concert tour.
4. 2012 Concert (UK) – The Stone Roses at Manchester’s Heaton Park, sold out (220,000 tickets) in 68 minutes.[34]
CORRECT: 2014 Concert (South Korea) — EXO Planet #1 The Lost Planet at the Olympic Gymnastics Arena sold out (42,000 tickets) in 0.4 seconds.
5. 2018 Concerts (US, SK, UK) - BTS's Love Yourself Tour sold out at various arenas around the world, including Staples Center, London's O2 Arena and at Seoul Olympic Stadium, selling (500,000 tickets combined) within minutes.[35]
CORRECT: 5. 2012 Concert (Japan) — TVXQ Live Tour 2012 'TONE' Concert at Tokyo Dome sould out (165,000 tickets) within 5 seconds.
I have been putting links to out-of-print magazines scanned from archive.org and RetroCDN in reference footnotes, but someone recently pointed out to me that this is a violation of WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK. Is this true? While that argument makes sense, I also think it is dumb and want to ignore it. I think the links are an improvement to research efforts, to help people that would otherwise not know where to look. Most of these magazines can only be purchased through resellers on eBay. The Japanese magazines in particular are expensive and hard to find. No one except Nintendo (of course) is enforcing copyright infringement on their old magazines. TarkusABtalk13:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the preferred way. Although I think you could always the scanned image URL to the citation for ease of verifiability. I don't see who would oppose that. ~ Dissident93(talk)14:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
At first I wanted to mark them as "archived URL" (the scan is the "archive" of the print magazine), however you cannot add an archive-url if there is not already a URL so it really only works for websites. However as long as we're fine with linking to archive.org's older versions of a webpage (which is equivalent w/r/t copyright worth as an archive of a print version), I don't think there is anything to worry about, especially for older magazines. Ben · Salvidrim!✉20:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a fair analysis. I think the guideline is more in place to protect the commercial opportunities of current books on the marketplace than forgotten magazines from 20 years ago. TarkusABtalk02:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Generated by v1.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN02:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. WT:DYK regularly highlights old nominations in need of reviews to clear their backlog and I think something like this could be useful for GA nominations as well. Thoughts? Maybe a bot could highlight old nominations (say older than 6 weeks) by posting them here? For example, according to WP:GAN#VG, there are currently three nominations older than 6 weeks waiting for review, two of them older than 3 months even:
Alternatively, maybe @PresN you could add this to you RecentVGArticles script (although I know it's not strictly within scope)? Regards SoWhy07:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
TBF, these articles are already listed at the top of the page. However, I believe there aren't all that many people willing to do GA reviews. I do them from time to time, so hopefully I'll get round to one of these soon. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)07:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: (edit conflict) The WikiProject occasionally has threads like these where people agree to review each other's articles (like DYK's QPQ), instead of people choosing to review one just because they want to. A bot that does this might be nice, but it might also be overkill. Additionally, I'll plug that I'm willing to do GA QPQs for reviews of Andy Schatz, Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine (PR), and Rust (video game). Anarchyte (work | talk)07:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I wish I could help out with GA reviews but I'm just barely able to write some stuff and I don't think I'm qualified enough to judge others (that said, I plan to consider doing reviews once I have sufficient experience with writing GAs to be able to ascertain what to look for (I think 5 GAs should do it?)). Hopefully some members with more experience can take a look and release your articles from limbo Regards SoWhy09:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: The two GAs to your name have been pretty good. I will say however that the development section in both articles are a bit lacklustre. They're usually as long, if not longer, than the gameplay section (though it all depends on the popularity of the game and how much coverage it got before release). Here are a few development sections I've based stuff on in the past: Oxenfree, Witcher 3, Grand Theft Auto V, which has its own FA dedicated to it, and The Last of Us, which has its own GA. I've only got nine GAs to my name (+2 noms), but if you'd ever like my opinion, my talk page is always open . Anarchyte (work | talk)10:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure to check those out if I decide to write something else. But as I said, I think I need some more experience. You might only have 9 GAs but that FA clearly shows that you have superior writing skills because those are hard to come by. If I ever feel foolhardy enough to attempt one of those, I'll be sure to bother you for your help Regards SoWhy11:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I should mention; that anyone should be able to do a GA review (Provided they have a decent view of the process). It does say on WP:GA, that for every article you nominate for GA, you should review another article. I think it's probably the most fair. There are very few dedicated GA reviewers (Aircorn does a lot of GA reviews, from personal experiences, and does a great job), but it should be more of a community thing, really.Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You are not wrong but as a non-native speaker I have certain inhibitions telling native speakers that their article is not written well enough, so I'm a bit cautious. I'm optimistic though that this might well change if a sufficient number of people told me (in the form of GA reviews) that my editing is good enough. Regards SoWhy11:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
SoWhy - I can understand that. However, GA reviews aren't exactly all about how things are written. Spelling mistakes and rewordings happen after a GA. I always attempt to make the article sharper, but realistically, it's a second pair of eyes. Most GANs have been through a copy-edit, so that's something to look for. Personally, I like to look to see if something is missing. FA's are completely different, as it is analysed on all angles by multiple people. I think the article should be read through, as if you were a reader, and bring up anything that doesn't read well, or isn't explained well enough. That's what's important. As a reviewer, it isn't all up to you to make the changes to the article, it's to bring reasons why it should or shouldn't pass the test. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
There's an awful lot of digression with GA nominations, as people interpret the rules for GA level differently (Which is fine, btw). Some people believe certain sections should be of a nominal length, etc, however GA articles simply need to meet the criteria, which states the article should be broad. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Very much agree, though a GA should try to cover more than the basics of each aspect, including development (which is where I see the most issues. That and reception). Perhaps my standards for WP:GAR#3a are higher than some. Anarchyte (work | talk)11:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you may just be lucky that there’s been a few active, experienced editors working on Sonic articles this last year or so. Years past, that hasn’t always been the case. That’s just how it goes. Same thing happened with the Tales (video game series). There was a period where I was the only person regularly editing the articles, and there were years where there were people getting Tales GAs all over the place. Generally and historically, there’s usually been lots of people complaining no ones reviewing their GA though. Sergecross73msg me00:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Apparently Anarchye's article of Mr Schatz is less interesting than one about a blue hedgehog. Regards SoWhy10:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Incremental, competitive, stats-raising gameplay
Is there anywhere we're covering the concept of gaming in which the primary activity is incrementally raising a large number of complicatedly-interacting stats against those of other players doing likewise to remain competitive? This is a common feature of many MMORPGs (especially "freemium" ones intended for player addiction and the buying of "optional" upgrades), and is also a feature of some solo games like most of The Elder Scrolls series, where one is competing with AI enemy stats increasing on a curve based on player level (e.g. TES IV: Oblivion is unusually difficult to do well at if you do not carefully study the stats system and manage player-character stats with near-religious devotion, including "efficient leveling", and avoiding the counterintuitive negative effects of picking and focusing on starting stats that best match those of the character class). I've encountered this called "isometric gameplay", but the term seems rarely used because of the ambiguity with isometric computer graphics (e.g. isometric RPG and isometric platformer refer to the latter concept). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Another helpful term would be micromanagement, but that's just close management of any game element and doesn't apply to exclusively stats or competitive games. I think the concept you are describing is so broad and viable between genres that there is no word. What you are saying could also describe 4X games like Civilization, or tower defense games, or nearly every RPG. TarkusABtalk11:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I've heard the term "MinMaxing" used to refer to video games that require a superfluous amount of grinding for this purpose. FF8 is a great example of level scaling (And, is actually significantly harder on level 100, than on level 1, as stat gains are only slightly done by level, and more by the amount of magic the player has drawn. A game like Diablo would be a good example of "Stat farming", as the original question, or the Disgaea series (Which relies very heavily on grinding towards the end of the game.) That grinding article is pretty poor, and in need of updating! Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That's all good stuff, and it seems we are covering the concept, just in a very scatter-shot manner. That's probably resolvable by better cross-referencing between these articles.
Relatedly, I see that Efficient leveling and Efficient levelling are redlinks, which is probably not desirable. Not even listed at Glossary of video game terms#Min-Maxing. I'm mostly familiar with it from the Elder Scrolls gaming community but have encountered it elsewhere. It applies to any game in which levelling up of your character depends on multiple stats that aren't easy to control, and in which game difficulty goes up notably with level increases. I.e., if you are careless, you can end up unable to complete the game because everything kills you due to your player char. being too weak for your level, a common problem with TES IV: Oblivion by around level 10–15 even with difficulty left at medium; or if you're a hard-core min-maxing grinder, you can wreck the game balance and end up one-shotting even the boss monsters, a common problem in TES III: Morrowind by around level 20-something, even with difficulty set to max). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Would be interested too to learn more about "isometric gameplay", as this is the first I've heard of it. There should be at least one RS, IMO. SharkD ☎ 02:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Spelling of esports on Wikipedia's eSports page
Hi everyone,
I am just writing to inform you of some feedback from the team at the British Esports Association, that the correct industry-wide and accepted spelling of esports is with a lower-case ‘s’, not an upper case ‘S’ as presented on the Wikipedia page here: ESports
I’ve been told industry advocates have been meeting resistance with Wikipedia volunteers/mods, who are just ignoring the Associated Press’ recognition of the correct spelling. I understand you have your own style guide, however we're at the point now where every major esports publication spells it this way.
As the British Esports Association, we are the national body in the UK and have UK Government representative on our Board (Ed Vaizey, Vice-Chair) and that in the UK it is spelt esports - there is a newly formed All Party Parliamentary Group on the way too.
We report in to this Minister of Digital (Margot James MP) and we can get confirmation from her office that it should be spelt esports if you like. Also at the recent IOC esports forum it was spelt this way. The main stakeholders in the industry (Twitch, Activision Blizzard etc) all spell it this way. Spelling it as eSports makes Wikipedia look a little out of date.
One of the most recent comments made on one of the past Wikipedia discussions was "until the majority use esports, it won't be changed here", and that comment was made about a year ago. I think it's fair to say the majority now does use 'esports', it's the industry-accepted spelling and the industry does frown upon the use of 'eSports' now.
Thanks for reading.
Dominic Sacco,
British Esports comms
Sacco26 - Thank you for your contribution. I'm sure this will spark up some conversation regarding whether this should be changed full sale. However, one article in ESPN and stating that associations use a different spelling is unlikely to be enough. Have you got any links, or places we can check out to confirm that this is the WP:COMMONNAME for the sport? Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)09:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Sacco26 might be correct. I took a quick sample of the term in 2018 reliable sources and found:
Well, the OP said the last discussion was in 2017 and as we all know, consensus can change. I don't have a particular preference but if indeed the majority of reliable sources change their spelling, shouldn't we? Regards SoWhy10:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Czar's previous wording should be repeated here: "When this does inevitably come back up in the future, it should be a very public RfC." The issues are as SMcCandlish state; the official titles used by organizations don't mean that it would also be true in an encylopedia. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem Lee. I would argue it's not one article on the matter, it's a well regarded body's style book which is used by many major publications. There are several articles/publications that wrote about the name change. It was also added to Dictionary.com in that spelling too. https://www.pcgamer.com/esports-is-now-officially-in-the-dictionary/
If we're going to discuss this, it can't be here. An RfC will have to take place on Talk:ESports. The last time the page got moved was (by me) in January 2016. Since then, two more RMs have opened and were closed without moving. Anarchyte (work | talk)11:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:RM will do. But better arguments, that anticipate objections, will have to presented. I'll lay out some rationales in detail:
The style has WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE emphasis) problems: In any list of sports, competitions, or other activities, eSports is going to stand out as especially highlighted by over-capitalization.
MOS:CAPS (and WP:NCCAPS, a summary of MOS:CAPS as applied to some title-specific concerns) would not have us apply a capital letter to anything unless is it the overwhelmingly dominant style applied in reliable sources, across all media/genres, not just specialized ones, to the exact case in question. And it's just not true of the case of esports:
News sources clearly prefer esports, if you look at mid-sentence uses (not Title Case Headlines). Hyphenated e-sports also occurs (including in prominent publications like Forbes that are independent of the gaming scene [13]), along with eSports and even the weird e-Sports and E-sports. Google News searches put newer results first, so we are seeing contemporary usage. News usage has actually changed recently, in response to the change in the AP Stylebook, which is followed by about 95% of American news publishers, and strongly influence other news style outside the US.
Books show a similar pattern of chaos, but more often favor e-sports than news does, and more of them do use eSports than in news publishing. However, the search results also go back much further, to at least 2009 and unsorted, so they do not reflect the recent usage shift.
The same pattern for books is shown in journal results: every possible style is used, and both the hyphenated and camelCase forms are more common in journals than in news, since the journal results go back to the 2000s.
Sport governing bodies prefer esports; see, e.g., International Olympic Committee and Global Association of International Sports Federations usage [14], [15].
In short: Since reliable sources do not consistently favor anything that diverges from MOS:CAPS, there is no WP:IAR argument to make against MOS:CAPS applying. And WP:COMMONAME simply is not a style policy, though eSports no longer appears to be the common name anyway – not even among the gaming community in which is still appears but does not dominate [16].
WP is not written in news style, so what the AP Stylebook says is usually irrelevant to Wikipedia. However, there is one sector in which it is not: fast-moving issues that are "new" from the perspective of the publishers of other style guides; in that case, pretty much everything MoS says and WP does on such a matter comes from news style (or, rather, from an editorial consensus that is strongly influenced by news style, for lack of anything else to turn to, as it intersects with our own pre-existing MoS material). A good example of this is how to write about transgender people; that simply did not appear in most style guides when WP was created and MoS created shortly thereafter. Esports clearly also qualifies; pretty much no other style guide in the world is going to address it yet.
English does not use camelcase in mid-word for non-trademarks (except in unit symbols and a few other symbolic cases that are not words). The eSports spelling is a specialized-style fallacy, and violates the principle of least astonishment. MOS:TONE and WP:NOT#BLOG are relevant here: Wikipedia is not written like a personal YouTube channel or a forum post.
Sensibly, for easier reader parsing, it should be e-sports, just like e-goverment, e-paper, e-commerce, and every other such term, other than that e-mail has drifted toward email out of laziness (especially on the part of news journalists, who try to eliminate every single character they can get away with to save column space). But I know I won't win on this. I'll be happier to see it done as esports than eSports, which is a trademark/logo stylization (it is the most common style inside a trademarked logo that incorporates the word, because marketing loves capital letters), and not a style we use in running English for a non-trademarked term. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I see no problem starting an RFC on VPP to get wider input, with the implications that it is both effectively an RM discussion for the eSports page and a MOS:VG issue. I agree that "esports" seems to be the predominate terms by organizations involved in developing in, for example the IOC, Blizzard, Riot Games, in addition to the commonality in news sources. --Masem (t) 15:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Careful about Wikipedia's role
If after so many decades the worldwide community still has not substantially settled between e-mail and email, I can only imagine we are nowhere close to a standardization of the shorthand for "electronic sports". I think we should be especially mindful in this day and age of the role Wikipedia could play, as our visibility will undoubtedly skew the general public in favor of whatever option we choose, which runs contrary to our core mission as a tertiary source. Past editorial decisions of this WikiProject have led to the capharnaüm that are "video game console generations" in this modern era, and we should strive to reflect the world as it is, not influence its course through content decisions. Ben · Salvidrim!✉14:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Imho, being mindful of our role means using the term that is widely accepted and point out other spelling variants in the article, as the current eSports article does. Regards SoWhy14:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussions aren't based on amount of votes, but the discussion. Technically, if one person has a good enough argument, they could overturn a big majority. The argument you've had is regarding a lack of sources at Platform_game#Isometric_platform_game, which has no bearing over a move of this particular article. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It technically ran its bare minimum week of a week, though personally, I would have "relisted" or let it go longer to get a bit better of a consensus. It doesn't help that the closer didn't explain their close at all either, which you should definitely do in close calls where a consensus isn't readily apparent. Sergecross73msg me12:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
We're being told [ed. I think] to start a new RM, which I guess would be okay as long as the article were returned to its original title prior to the beginning of the new RM. SharkD ☎ 19:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
50k+ characters on what is GAMECRUFT material, that's crazy. Unnecessary fluff in infobox as well. I agree, Tisquesusa, you seem like a good and constructive editor, but this is inappropriate material and inappropriate behavior. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Including pictures and diet of each respective animal too? Ark is a fictional video game and not a educational product about prehistoric animals and thus should follow MOS:VG. This may well be some of the most fancruft ever put onto a video game article here (and if not, I'd like to see what was). ~ Dissident93(talk)14:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a well established consensus on it. It's not wanted in articles is the blunt answer. - X201 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Update: After their 3RR/EW warning, the editor decided to revert a 4th time, without even attempting to discuss, so they've been blocked for 2 days. You can alert me on my talk page if they continue to edit war after the block expires. Sergecross73msg me15:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Could the user's account be compromised? I find it highly unusual for a long-term editor who makes many good, constructive edits to topics completely unrelated to video games suddenly add a massive, Wikia-level, 50k character list of dinosaurs to a video game article. It makes absolutely no sense. JOEBRO6418:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea, I don't recall interacting with this editor in the past, so I don't know if they were acting/writing different than before or not. Their block log was clean prior to this, and they started a little over 2 years ago in 2016 - experienced, but not super-long term or anything. I guess we'll see if/when they actually ever address any the content dispute or 3RR comments left to them... Sergecross73msg me19:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought the exact same thing. I can't see that a user who does generally good contributions, would suddenly add this much fancruft, and ignore 3RR, even after a warning. It smells fishy! Which is ironic, as I'm anosmicLee Vilenski(talk • contribs)07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea. Their comments related to this were pretty combative, and they never came to me with questions or requests for explanation, so I hadn’t communicated with them any further. They tend to work in more science-ish content areas. Perhaps they just don’t know the video guidelines or something? Who knows. Sergecross73msg me22:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Nintendo/LoveROMs lawsuit
So in case you guys didn't hear, Nintendo recently sued Jacob Mathias and Mathias Designs LLC, the owners of LoveROMs and LoveRetro, two big ROM image distribution websites. ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]). The suit could reach in the billions, if PCGamesN is correct. My question about this is if this is notable enough for its own page. I considered making one myself, but am worried it might present a WP:TOOSOON/WP:NOTNEWS problem. Thoughts? JOEBRO6423:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It would be NOTNEWS territory if the news item is a petty incident lacking long-term notoriety, e.g. a drug bust or those crime items on the news. But since this involves a multi-million-dollar case filed by a video game firm against those trafficking ROM images and given the coverage and subsequent (negative) reception towards Nintendo, I don't think that an article about it would hurt. Is there a file of the case in legal archives or something? Blake Gripling (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Right now, I would not make a separate page for it. However, I would encourage a "legality" section to be added to ROM image to discuss this specific suit and any other legal actions to shut down ROM sites in the past. Should the case become large enough - which to me would a case that defines if ROM redistribution is a legal allowance under DCMA/ Fair Use - then we can split off that article, but right now, it's a "small" lawsuit even if the penalties are large. --Masem (t) 00:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The answer looks like neither, since it looks like the two sections are covering the exact same content? The content needs merging (with some summary style pointer in one or the other) and then we can fix the redirects. --Izno (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't this merger discussed before? Unless I'm thinking of something else. Anyway, the section in Degree of difficulty is basically only about different type of names for the modes and not explaining what it's even about, so I've gone ahead and just deleted that section and changed the redirect to Game balance#Difficulty level. ~ Dissident93(talk)20:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it? It's mainly just a bunch of random names for what some games call their difficulty levels that only used first-party sources. Maybe a sentence or two can be kept? ~ Dissident93(talk)14:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Well it should be properly cited then, the section previously just cited back to the official website, which doesn't help at all. ~ Dissident93(talk)15:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Are any of these snapshots working for you guys? I can't get any of them to bring up an actual page. I know about this too, but I don't see the DQ9 interview anywhere. SharkD ☎ 03:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the citation: "Dragon Quest 9: Sentinels of the Starry Skies". Iwata Asks. Square-Enix. Iwata Asks Dragon Quest IX Video 4, As a Turn-based RPG. Retrieved 2010-12-05. SharkD ☎ 03:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Do you know who he is talking to? I need to know whether a citation covers just a sentence in an article, or a whole paragraph. This depends on who is being interviewed. SharkD ☎ 22:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
At the beginning he introduces them as Horii-san and Ichimura-san, by looking at the Dragon Quest IX credits, we can deduce they are Yuji Horii in the black suit and Ryutaro Ichimura in the gray. Note: the interview is split into 9 videos, make sure to scroll through them all. TarkusABtalk23:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Before I prematurely XfD it, what do you think of {{Tvtropes}}? I just removed it from Ninja Gaiden, see its TV Tropes entry. After a almost Wiki like entry on the games, the many featured tropes are listed. Apparently, Ninja Gaiden features the trope "Action Girl":
Although this series falls for the Faux Action Girl a little bit too often, Ayane, Momiji and Rachel in Sigma 2 definitely play the role straight.
Irene should count: those times when she isn't already captured or dead she can definitely hold her own. She even pulls her own Big Damn Heroes in The Ancient Ship of Doom when she rescues Ryu from death with the help of a submachinegun.
I don't think a template, or one link for that matter, is appropriate. TV Tropes is hardly informational, is filled with original and biased "research" and has no editorial oversight. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
TvTropes is amazing and funny, but 1000% unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. It's basically just randos dissecting recurring elements in games, films and series. Ben · Salvidrim!✉14:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason why we need a TVT link in general. It's a user wiki, and generally not maintained as well as wikias like Wookiepedia. Delete. --Masem (t) 14:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
In addition to its unreliability, I don't even see the point of having such a template here anywhere. What use does it have only having a single link back to the main article? ~ Dissident93(talk)15:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I have been thinking of creating an article for Devil May Cry 3: Special Edition based on all the reception it had. However, I only managed to find this interview about the making of the version. Anybody has suggestions about where I could get more sources? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure that a separate article is necessary, @Tintor2:? Most often remasters do not have a separate article. I'm not familiar with the game, let alone the special edition version, but I imagine it will have to be necessary to explain how it differs from the original, by repeating a lot of the content in the original article, right? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK19:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Not really but I wondered if it was possible since reviewers have commented on the two separate versions. There is both creation and reception information I managed to find so I thought it would count as fork similar to the Street Fighter games who have articles with each update once they have enough content.Tintor2 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Still, changing to similar topic. Should the manga and novel articles of Devil May Cry be merged? I can't find a single review of the novelsTintor2 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC).
It's just an updated version of the same game. Then just put it into one article. Split reception into Dante's Awakening and SE. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking for specific sources to improve Warcraft III article
I wanted to split the reception score box between the different systems, what format is best for that? Is there a good example on another article someone can point me too? Govvy (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The general vibe in recent years has been that the multi-platform format of the template is ugly and takes up too much space. Just use the template in normal fashion and denote scores by system with line breaks, like GR/MC are done. -- ferret (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Uses a lot of extra space, one table with (Lynx) or Lynx: in front of the lynx-specific scores would be better. -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
heh, I changed it back to one table, I just decided to put the platform next to the score. Maybe that's better. Cheers for the advice guys. Govvy (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
TRST
I was a bit surprised to find that we don't have an article/redirect for the TRST (Toy Retail Survey Tracking system). Is information on the TRST covered anywhere on Wikipedia? I just found a short article on the TRST and would like to add that sourcing somewhere.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Tanglewood
There has long been a Tanglewood (video game) article for a 1987 computer game, however there is a new unrelated Tanglewood game coming out this year. I just created Tanglewood (2018 video game) and moved the article on the 1987 game to Tanglewood (1987 video game)...that's all hunky dory, but what do I do with Tanglewood (video game)? Should it just be deleted, be a disambiguation page, or redirect. I don't know what a good precedent would be. Thank you. TarkusABtalk22:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I recently did a GA review of The International 2017, which became rather difficult due to esports not having any information in our Manual of Style. I would argue, that as a competition, these articles should have a more stylistic approach to Sports, as they feature a lot of similar themes (Such as rosters, tournament brackets, and prize money.) I am a member of both the Football and Snooker WikiProjects, who have quite similar approaches towards sport articles, and I would expect an article on any sport to be similarly layed out (Each sport has differences, of course, you wouldn't see a highest break or number of centuries on a football article.)
I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like this has been argued at length in the past, without a real consensus. I could be wrong though. Just an FYI. You could be walking into a minefield here...(like with all the endless arguing over how to spell esports stuff.) Sergecross73msg me12:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The spelling of esports should hit the MOS too, so we can stop re-explaining it and just point there. -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
An argument over how it should be treated shouldn't mean we shouldn't have anything in place. Perhaps if we have enough people, we could create two basic MOS versions, and have an RfC. A lot of issues we find are because we don't have anything in place at all. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying we shouldn't come to an agreement, I'm just saying that we couldn't come to a consensus in the past. I felt like someone who aspiring to solve a major issue like this would want to know such a thing. Sergecross73msg me13:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This is because nobody has even bothered to put together a set of draft guidelines to even have evaluated. I, along with a few others, could come up with some that we can use as a starting point for WP:VG members here who don't follow/edit eSport articles. Pinging @DarthBotto: who mentioned doing this very thing recently. ~ Dissident93(talk)16:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What exactly needs to be codified about eSports articles? As with any other topic area, the standard is to model based on existing articles unless there is some general rule that warrants codification/elucidation. I haven't seen any general truths extracted from eSports article style besides not going overkill on the brackets/stats. czar10:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Esports should absolutely follow a Sports MOS rather than a VG MOS, same with their notability requirements. If you are covering an event like The International, there should be a subpage analagous to 2018 FIFA World Cup squads, just linking to the team pages is unhelpful as squads change. Wikipedia's sports coverage is heavily influenced by sports almanacs - which is valid as per WP:ENC, our esports articles should strive for a similar level of coverage. - hahnchen10:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that squads article is anything we should be aspiring to. That's not encyclopedic at all. As Czar noted, keeping that junk out is just about the only consensus we've gotten on this so far. Sergecross73msg me13:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Squads are encyclopedic. There are squad articles for every world cup, same for olympic team sports, some squad lists are featured. As per WP:ENC, Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs, this is a convention clearly long-established. - hahnchen14:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The squad example I gave above was not just a "current squad" for a team, but lineups for major competitions. These are static, they do not change. I agree that current rosters should be listed in esports team articles. - hahnchen16:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise and agree with Serge and Maple. They are not encyclopedic de facto because they tend to produce garbage articles that will never see an update ever again that most reliable sources will never write about from a historical point of view (at most, footnotes in individual players's histories). The proper way to write the articles is really to write one about the history of the organization (history of Cloud9 Gaming is waiting, if you really think there are reliable sources to sustain a separate historical article). Nothing of any real significance is written about most squads, and where they are, we don't need the yearly versions of current seasons or even quarterly/monthly you might expect from esports. (Excepting highlights like Team Liquid at The International VII, maybe.) --Izno (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, MOBAs often have three table-like sections: one listing the themes that participated in the tournament ("Direct invitation" and "Regional qualifier winners" in The International here), a single table for the group stage, and an in-depth tournament bracket for the main event. Personally, I've always felt that this was too much and would prefer more prose, but it might make for a fairly balanced standard for Leage and Dota. I only write articles on fighting game tournaments myself, and as you can see in the article on Evo 2016 for example, I did almost everything in prose and only listed the final results in a table. Fighting game tournaments are nothing alike MOBAs or shooters, however. I don't know anything about sports standards. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Having a tournament bracket for results is fairly well established as being normal for Sports articles. I'd like to see more text regarding the brackets being written in prose, to go with these articles. something like how the 2018 World Snooker Championship is done would make sense, with a tournament summary, and then the brackets below that. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Maplestrip Prose is nice, but the Evo articles should really display the competition as it played out such as we see at The_International_2017#Results. The Evo articles do not make it clear what format the competition takes, round robin, single elimination, double elimination? - hahnchen21:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hahnchen Fighting game tournaments are typically held in a double-elimination format. I thought I had this listed in all of their infoboxes, but I guess not. Adding that information at least. I do not have the knowledge to create competition brackets: even if I had the technical knowledge, I simply cannot understand them for some reason. They always seem overly complex to me. I think they wouldn't fit with Evo in particular, because Evo features multiple tournaments. For other smaller tournaments, such brackets would take over the article in size. I can imagine them being useful for the Capcom Cup, I suppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
And just to add to the confusion, we now have the Overwatch League, which is more like regular season play for major sports, which (when I started) formatted after baseball seasons. I don't think there is a direct need for an esports specific MOS, but elements of that that can be outlined into the VG MOS related to a few common things (such as the casing for "esports", how to refer to players (last name or handle) etc.) --Masem (t) 15:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I think if we don't draw up some sort of guideline for Esports, we will get different articles based on different sports. That would become rather awkward. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Which is why we need to set general standards that would apply to all of them. Firstly, I don't think we need a historical list of roster members that many eSport team articles seem to include, and secondly, we need to vet a proper list of reliable eSport sources, because we pretty much have none currently at WP:VG/RS. Lastly, we should ideally settle the eSports/esports name debate in the MOS too. ~ Dissident93(talk)16:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with some of the other people in that while I don't think an MOS:eSports (or esports or Esports) is needed just yet (maybe in the future, but not now), I think having guidelines for how we write about esports, their tournaments, referring to the players (by their 'handle/usernmae' or last name?) in order to keep some continuity, maybe added into the MOS:VIDEO GAMES or something. I definitely think that even some guidelines would be helpful QueerFilmNerdtalk18:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
With the future aspect in mind, why not write it as an essay to start with? Does anyone write those any more? - X201 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking to take this article to FA so I've started a peer review for it. All comments are appreciated; thanks! JOEBRO6414:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Lynx User Magazine
I was wondering about this short lived magazine, I think it would be classed as a fanzine, but there is a scan on archive.org and wanted to know if it's okay to use as a citation or not. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Generated by v1.9 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN03:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
One day, I'll actually post these on time. Changelog:
Fixed bug where in some cases an article moved out of draft space into mainspace was treated as if it had been deleted and recreated
Fixed bug with cross-namespace moved articles being treated as if they were still the original namespace. --PresN03:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned by Neverrainy's actions some of which are missed above-probably just missing the wikiproject template. I'm fairly certain the majority of those articles were redirected by a group consensus here. --Izno (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Army Men, Army Men: World War, and Army Men 3D all have GR/MC scores based on a fair number of reliable reviews ([26][27][28][29]). I did not find any merge discussions about those articles and am convinced they meet the GNG. Some of the ones not listed here have a ton of RS coverage too. JOEBRO6412:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was going to say too. His creations are...a bit short and rough...but those games were pretty popular in the early 2000s, and likely pretty easily got the coverage to meet the WP:GNG... Sergecross73msg me13:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
ACE Magazine reviews
I've been looking through some ACE Magazines on archive.org and they are scoring games out of a 1000 I think, with scores like 835 or 573, etc. When coping these scores over to wikipedia should I copy the exact score of out of 1000, or adapt it? Govvy (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
We usually take the original score as-is, and only omit decimal digits for GameRankings (because WP:VGAGG, even if I disagree with that). Lordtobi (✉) 16:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Denoting a score as XXX/1000 seems perfectly fine to me. Not sure why we'd need to make a footnote for it. Hardly any different from using 5 stars, or out of 10s. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there are so many different scoring systems (not just for video games but every medium) that clarifying them all with footnotes in every article they appear in would be a massive undertaking. And I think even a general reader easily understands that critics are not legally obligated to use one universal scoring system.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Generated by v1.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN01:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
More of this? There is no reason why this should be seperate from the main article. Gameplay is the same and therefore doesn't need to be explained again, the plot, development, and reception sections consist of just a paragraph and could easily be merged back. I really don't like this recent trend of creating spinoff articles for minor expansions. ~ Dissident93(talk)01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The article creator consulted with me prior to publishing his draft, and after he made some tweaks, I approved if it. The game has gotten plenty of dedicated coverage since it’s announcement, and it’s being treated more as a full-fledged stand-alone prequel than just some minor add-on DLC. It’s getting it’s own physical release and is playable on its own without the base game. There’s enough to warrant a separate article at this point. (And it’ll only get larger as reviews start coming in soon.) Sergecross73msg me02:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the gameplay is not the same at all. This game now allows players to switch between Blades and Drivers in battle, which is something that isn't possible in XC2. The game also introduces a new feature called the Campsite. I recommend watching the Treehouse demo from a couple months ago if you haven't seen it. --MomoQca (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Changelog:
Articles moved from Redirect-class to anything else now treated as article creations instead of reassessments (aka ignored)
Deleted Draft-class articles now correctly given "Draft:" prefix
Draft-class creations get "draft" icon instead of "unassessed" icon.
video game review template code
Is there a good example of the rev code on an article somewhere I can look at to get an idea how it works, cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
So I'm currently reviewing one of our video game GANs, Gearheads (video game) (see here), and there's a small problem. The article currently states that the game was released for only Mac OS and Windows. However, reviews from GamePro and EGM indicate that there is also an SNES version of the game. The nominator (@Adam9007) is unsure if it was ever released because there's no hard evidence (no gameplay footage, ROMs, and it's not listed on official pages from developer R/GA or publisher Philips). I'm personally not sure which way we should go, so I'm posting here for input. JOEBRO6421:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
We can assume that SNES review copies were distributed but the game never saw a release. This wasn't completely unheard of. The reception should include the coverage but it should be separate and include the unreleased disclaimer, maybe cited to a list of all SNES games. TarkusABtalk23:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Parasite Eve 2 beta discs.jpgPreview discs of Parasite Eve IIAnd just for clarity...Back in the day, publishers would send preview copies to magazines ahead of the game's release so they could write about it. These would not be retail cartridges/discs with finished labels and everything, but either flashed EPROM carts or CD-Rs with makeshift handwritten labels. So reviews in magazines are not always proof of release. I have a couple Parasite Eve II preview discs which are pretty cool. TarkusABtalk01:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that list refers to official releases of snes games in America only. I haven't found a similar list for Europe. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to put it in as soon as I can reliably source that it wasn't released in either North America or in Europe (By the way, what about Japan? Is that necessary?). Adam9007 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
It's gonna be hard to find a source saying something didn't occur, I think you can stretch the rules a little there. And who knows if the game was planned for Japan...probably not... TarkusABtalk01:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I've coincidentally been going through issues of EGM, GamePro, and Next Generation from the months following Gearheads' scheduled release for SNES, and I've seen no mention of it being cancelled, but that's hardly surprising. Sometimes in magazine letters sections you'll see something like "Reader: This game was supposed to be out by now. Where is it? Editor: We talked to a spokesperson for the company and they say it's been cancelled." and sometimes, if it's a really high profile release (SNES Gearheads wasn't) they'll even run a short article on its cancellation. But most of the time the gaming press focuses on what's coming out rather than what isn't coming out.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Obviously you can never be sure, but you can state that the release was expected then either way. I just find this interesting considering that the news were printed four months after the PC release. Lordtobi (✉) 08:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Anybody interested in creating a Sengoku Basara character article.
I've seen this mention of how Masamune Date was created and wondered if anybody knows where else we can find creation information about him. I'm pretty sure I can create a reception section considering the character of Masamune Date has not only appeared in the games but also three television series, one film and one upcoming tv series. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Update. I managed to create the article Date Masamune (Sengoku Basara). However, I can't seem find information about one of the English actors, Robert McCollum. I did find these video here and here but my listening for English is not very good. Could somebody lend me help with it? It might help to expand the creation section furthermore. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I can find some sources for game reviews, but this is the same topic about one game on multiple platforms. However each version is made and developed by different companies. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been finding information from certain Capcom characters here. However, for some reason, while this is called magazine, the website calls it book and gave me an ISBN. When I put the ISBN, the citation format told me that it doesn't work so I am confused about whether or not the site is correct. Any idea? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not an ISBN. It's a JAN (Japanese Article Number). Basically a barcode number for the magazine. Pretty sure magazines don't have ISBNs anyway, they have ISSNs. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The Overwatch League and its constituent team articles present the teams as if they are based in their respective cities like actual sports teams. In general, these teams have no connection to the cities they are are named for. London Spitfire has no UK presence. It is an American team of South Korean all-stars, the London connection it is corporate fiction for marketing purposes. Wikipedia should not be presenting kayfabe as truth. - hahnchen12:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea about Overwatch at all but where do you get your information from that this is a marketing stunt? The sources in the article claim it's a "London-based" team. Regards SoWhy12:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
London Spitfire may be the oddity as the other teams generally have owners that belong to the city the team is behind (players don't have to be, just like in professional sports). Blizzard has stated that their vision is to ultimately have these teams with home "fields" as one would have in typical sports, so that city is also establishing where that would be created when that point happens in some years. --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It is a bit weird, though - if a London soccer team signed on an Italian player, that player would physically move to London and practice at a field in the London area. While I get that players are often not from the area they play for, as are owners, and that Blizzard is restricting teams to not overlap geographically... I'm unclear on if these players are actually physically in London. (or Boston, or Houston, etc.). Like, do they have a house/training area in London, or are they all still living in South Korea and just playing for a team that has London in the name? Is the whole city thing just putting a facade in hopes of sparking actual regional team loyalty? --PresN01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Right now, because there's only one arena, players are required to be able to travel and live in LA (there was some visa problems at the pre-season series) during the season. When the League expands, everything I've read suggests that players will need to be able to travel to their team's home city. And while I am not disagreeing that Blizzard had stated that they want cities to come rally behind teams (there was a big thing about the London Spitfire returning to London to show off the trophy and the team), but I don't think we can read in far too much more to say its a facade. Certainly no RSes treat it as such. --Masem (t) 01:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this image okay?
Today, I created Sanada Yukimura (Sengoku Basara) but I'm worried about the infobox image. It barely shows the character's face due to the focus of his weaponry. Should I replace it with another one that shows him more? I found the images in the Wikia here. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
— Mayamaya7
— Mayamaya7
Template:Rocket Science Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
— BOZ
Regards SoWhy 13:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
— 192.19.195.27
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Regards SoWhy 09:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 129#Associated Press's MOS - "esports" not "eSports"
. Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
