Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 141

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143→Archive 145

1993 congressional hearings

If someone is looking for a project...an article should be created which covers the 1993 US congressional hearings that led to the creation of the ESRB. There is no main article, but coverage of the event is dispersed across Wikipedia:

The event deserves its own main article with these sections trimmed down and linked to it. I don't care enough to work on it but am bringing it up here if someone wants to take it on. TarkusABtalk 23:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That does sound like a fascinating idea to make a page on those hearings. Might be possible if it was a group effort. GamerPro64 03:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
And especially after the hearing earlier this year, there was a bit of renewed focus on that. See [1] [2]. --Masem (t) 06:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This feels like 100% something that should exist. Perhaps it's worth contacting WP:LAW, who may have more of an insight on how to source, and write such a piece. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure I suggested it a while back. Hope someone can run with it this time. It could do with a world view in it for contrast e.g while US was in meltdown over adult games that will deprave and corrupt the youth, it was rated as 15 in the UK without any fanfare, save for a couple of rent-a-quote politicians trying to make hay on the back of the US congressional meltdown. - X201 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This would be something I'm willing to pitch in to if the community wants to work on this, although probably not outright start and run with due to time constraints and other focuses. I did a lot of the research for the Sega-related articles on this and still mostly have my source materials for them. Red Phoenix talk 23:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, Over here, PEGI ratings are similar to ESRB, but doesn't have the AO ratings or the Mature ratings. With some games that were supposedly too bad to release in the US are considered to be quite normal to not make any waves. I know Australia has a lot of issues with this sort of thing. I'm not sure it particularly ties into this particular case though. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Complete video record of the hearings is here. Phediuk (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Square Enix video game franchises#Hat Trick Hero series

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Square Enix video game franchises#Hat Trick Hero series . An edit dispute has arisen which has resulted in the page becoming fully protected. An IP editor believes Hat Trick Hero S should be listed as the Latest release for the Hat Trick Hero franchise as it is not a 100% port of Hat Trick Hero 95. Namcokid47 feels that the Latest release should remain as Hat Trick Hero 95 unless the IP can can provide reliable sources to change it. Please head over to the talk page and help with the discussion I started there as the full-protection for this FA-list expires on 13:16, October 13, 2018. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Bolsomito 2k18

Should we have an article about Bolsomito 2k18? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The subject seems to be in the news right now. Looks like it is notable, so if someone wants to write an article about it, they can go ahead and do it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I have started. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Mario Universe games has been nominated for discussion

Category:Mario Universe games, which you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JOEBRO64 23:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I always found this category perplexing... Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The name is highly bleh but it's meant to be the encompassing top cat for all Mario and Mario-spinoff categories and franchises Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
But the problem is WP:OR. There are probably 50 game franchises you could argue are part of the "Mario universe", including non-Nintendo series like Banjo-Kazooie, Metal Gear, and Sonic the Hedgehog. JOEBRO64 00:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Who's arguing that Banjo and MGS and Sonic are Mario spinoffs? We're talking about Mario platformers, sports games, party games, racing games, RPG games, Wario games, Yoshi games, Donkey Kong games (arguably), Luigi games, etc. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, and that’s why I didn’t rush in and yell delete. I did want to see what others had to say. I’m not quite sure if it should be deleted, or repurposed/renamed. (Though then again, if we rename and change the scope, is it the same as deletion? Or if we peel back all the bogus entries, will it just be completely redundant to a “Mario Games” category or something?) Sergecross73 msg me 00:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the nonimation I find the noninators’ argument to be highly questionable. I highly doubt that anyone would suggest that Perfect Dark is part of the Mario Universe simply because it happens to be in Rare Replay along with Banjo-Kazooie and the main character of that game appeared in Diddy Kong Racing. It may be me but it simply doesn’t sound plausible. Also, in case someone only saw this and not the nomination I was not trying to be facetious with the Pwrfect Dark comment that was actually argued by the nominator.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I don't know why he nominated to delete it instead of simply changing the name to Category:Mario video games, which would eliminate any ambiguity and follow the standard set by every other larger video game franchise. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression that category already existed... I've moved it. JOEBRO64 11:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope, and I still have no idea why, as this category was brought up some time ago for the same reasons you brought up (but nothing was obviously done with it). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Request from fr.wikipedia

An editor from the French version of WP:VG has contacted me asking me for help to obtain a source he needs to expand an article he is working on. He's found a copy of the source on ebay, but the shipping&handling from USA to France is prohibitively expensive. The magazine is VideoGames & Computer Entertainment and I don't collect that magazine, but I was wondering if anyone here who does collect VG&CE could help this editor. I sympathize as I've already spent far too much money in international fees purchasing source material from international markets for Wikipedia in years past. Anyway if anyone wants to see the basic request, see my talk page. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Neo Geo sources

Today, I've tried expanding the reception section of The King of Fighters '99 but I found no reception about the Neo Geo port (which is the first one). Any idea if there is a user who could pass me a review? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I tried looking in European magazines that would have reviewed Neo Geo imports and they all reviewed the Dreamcast version which released around the same time. TarkusABtalk 20:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: I see. So the Dreamcast port was released almost the time at the same time as Neo Geo one. By any chance is there any interview there? The article's development section is a bit small.Tintor2 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

OK scratch what I said earlier. I was getting confused with Dream Match 99 and the wasn't looking at issues within the right date range.
Video Games (Germany) did some coverage. This issue has a "work in progress" coverage of the Neo Geo version and This one has a Neo Geo review.
Neo Geo Freak would be the go-to source for development interviews and coverage but no scans from 1999 are available online. Also you need to check your release dates because I don't know if an "original version" ever came to Dreamcast. I think it was only "Evolution". TarkusABtalk 22:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I completely forgot that '98 had changed its title for the Dreamcast version. I have no idea if the previews are good for the review but I'll try using the review. Still, anybody knows where can I ask for a translation of the review?Tintor2 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I use a crop tool and send chunks through OCR to transcribe it, then run the transcription through Google Translate. Works out pretty well but you have to do some manual editing. TarkusABtalk 22:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

So I put the file and click any option. I mean, it takes some loading time right?Tintor2 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@TarkusAB:

@Tintor2: No no, don't dump the whole file, use an image cropping tool to take a cropped image of the passage you want to translate (in .png or .jpg format) and run it through, it will run very quick. Because of how it transcribes, it's best to go in chunks, like one text column then the next. Don't try to one a whole page at once, otherwise it will mix paragraphs together.
You can also download Google Translate to your phone and use the camera function and hold it up to the screen. If you download the DE dictionary, it will translate automatically like magic right before your eyes. That might work better. With this tool, I find it best to take an image then translate it, seems to do a better job then the live translation. TarkusABtalk 01:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Characters of Diablo, notable?

Hi everyone

Is characters of Diablo notable? There are thirteen references, mostly first-party like Blizzard's website and BlizzCon. Wouldn't a small section on Diablo (series) be a better idea than a huge unsourced trivial list of non notable characters? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I think merging is better. Since there aren't a substantial amount of third-party citations, no real info on character designs or reception, and nearly all of that article isn't cited at all, there's no need for the article's existence. This is Wikipedia, not a Wikia. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ProtoDrake:, if it's not a hassle, would you be willing to merge the article? I'd rather do it myself, but on mobile it's rather difficult to do (I messed up another AfD the other day already...) soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Soetermans:, it's done. I've redirected the page, and created a suitable section which can be sensibly expanded when needed. Someone else can take it further, ans I've little to no interest in Diablo. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, @ProtoDrake:, I appreciate it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Soetermans: It seems Fyrael disagrees. The page is restored. Others may even be able to fix the article, I don't know. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, this merger should probably be discussed on the talk page of the article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, some people get confused between BRD and disruptive editing. Start a topic on the talk page regarding notability, or redirect them here to this conversation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There's so few editors that have touched the Characters article that it would probably be best to just put a notification there and continue the actual discussion here. Putting something on the talk page prior to what in my mind amounted to deletion might have at least slowed my knee-jerk reaction, though I won't claim to not be biased, as the creator of the article. As I put on the talk page there long ago, I had meant the page to emulate Characters of StarCraft, which was in Good Article standing at the time, and to keep things strictly limited to major characters and other information that could reasonably have a source. Since then it's been expanded quite a bit, but no further sources have really materialized. If it's whittled down to only well-sourced, relevant info then it's probably small enough to get merged into the series article. Thanks for pinging me on this discussion. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The article seems potentially notable but is almost entirely plot summary. I have tagged it with the "Plot" tag, although I think it is harmless to leave it there and if someone wants to see it fixed they should WP:BEBOLD and source the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:KiKi KaiKai series#KiKi KaiKai VS Pocky & Rocky

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:KiKi KaiKai series#KiKi KaiKai VS Pocky & Rocky . An edit dispute has arisen since one editor believes KiKi KaiKai is the "actual name" for the series (changing everything in the template after 12 years) even with the franchise having an official english name anywhere in the world but Japan. Per WP:COMMONNAME it should not have been changed. Please head over to the talk page and help with the started discussion there. HÊÚL. (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheating

I have no access to primary sources so I was wondering if there was a reliable source that could be used in The King of Fighters '99 to explain the purpose of its scoring system. It lets the player face an extra character but I only found one source which I don't know if it might pass as reliable. Is there a guide or site that might be more appropiated?Tintor2 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Esports RFC

Please note that the RFC at MOS:VG regarding the spelling of "esports" has been closed. "Esports" (with lower case s) is the preferred spelling, while e-sports is also acceptable (and should not be converted to esports as a matter of course). The spelling "eSports" has been rejected and should be avoided/replaced. The main article has already been moved from eSports to Esports. -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You mean WikiProject eSPORTS? :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I recreated a console logo.

I've been a bit obsessed with this wiki page for the Palmtex Portable Videogame System, trying to make it complete and looking good. So every console page needs a logo to look the part, but there was no clean high resolution scans/recreations of the logo, so I decided to make one.

There were two logos for this console, each would have the name of the company on the left and the name of the console on the right, in total four components;

  • 1st- The Palmtex Logo and the PVS logo.
  • 2nd- The Home Computer Software logo and the Super Micro logo.

So I took the highest resolution image with the shape of the logo, and several photos of the box for the colors, and after an hour on AutoCad, this is what came out!

I still need to make the other 3, but those are a lot harder, not sure I can recreate them faithfully.

Now I want to upload it for use on the page, but since it's not my original design, even though I could not find any copyright/patents, I'm unsure as to what the copyright status of this thing is.

I have the PNG and SVG of the logo.Talkkaris (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that Palmtext was American I assume that this would apply as a PD text logo (non-copyrightable). Lordtobi (✉) 07:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I too think it falls under PD text logo, and you having created the image yourself probably helps as well. I think you can upload this on Commons. Beautiful work, by the way! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
So I started making the logo for HomeComputer Software Inc. and I was able to find the exact font they used, theirs is a bit stylized so it didn't look exactly the same. It's also the same one used in After Burner.Talkkaris (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I’ll try to make the other logo before uploading, the spacing still doesn’t look quite right and I forgot to add a curve in some spots.Talkkaris (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata websites

I find annoying that Wikidata adds dead website links to the infobox of defunct game studios without going through Internet Archive. They usually redirect to some unrelated safe site but sometimes you get some garbage site with popups and porn ads. I have been removing them from Wikidata but usually people add them back in. --Mika1h (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wrong for Wikidata to include this kind of outdated parameter, but it should somehow be able to indicate whether the website still exists on there as well. Perhaps a "former website" parameter would be more appropriate. Either way, does Wikidata automatically overwrite whatever we write on Wikipedia? I assume you can insert a custom URL on Wikipedia pages regardless of what Wikidata says, right? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Maplestrip, By default, Wikipedia overwrites Wikidata. I'd also like to point out that the Wikidata translation would presently fail MOS:COMPUTING styles (omitting the "www." part of a URL). Lordtobi (✉) 13:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a technical thing that should be fixed, right? Might it be possible to automatically omit the "www."? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
You need to add a qualifier to the URL statement. Please provide the page of interest and I can show you the edit you should make. Almost always the corrective action on Wikidata is to add, not subtract. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This is odd...

Hi,

While looking for an updated screenshot for Two Point Hospital, I came across this. It is apparently released under CC-BY 2. This cannot be the case, right? They are not the copyright holder. Or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You are seeing what is called "flickrwashing". The uploader on flickr has no right to license that screenshot as CC-BY since the game is copyrighted. Always check the uploader to make sure they are legit and likely ownership of the game to be able to upload images as CC-BY. --Masem (t) 02:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thought so. Just thought I'd check to make sure I'm not going mad :). Adam9007 (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also just come across this on Commons. Is there a policy or guideline about this here on Wikipedia? Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Would apply here as well. If you see a game screenshot that seems licensed in a manner that doesn't make sense, it's probably not usable. --Masem (t) 02:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

VG Cover Art Cleanup - Requesting Cover Arts

Hi all, as above, a few others and I are updating articles in the list for cover art using Evad's new tool. However, I've come across quite a few that I have had issues with for one reason or another - Mostly that I cannot find the particular image. I thought it would make sense to post here, so anyone who has better searching methods than me (or better sources) can find the particular images and upload (Or, simply link me). If you aren't interested in this, don't worry, just skip, I'll hide the below.

Feel free to add any articles that you are having difficulties finding the box art for. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

List of games requiring cover art

#

A

Australian Rules Football (1989 video game) -- direct image link source Lowercaserho (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, also need a cover for Asylum (1981 video game)! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, working my way through the whole list... so far found 3-D Docking Mission, 3-Demon, 3D Construction Kit II, and 3D Dinosaur Adventure. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I finished with the article names that start with numbers: 4 Soccer Simulators, 4-D Warriors, 4D Sports Tennis, 005, 16 Tales, 20 em 1, 100 Sleeping Princes and the Kingdom of Dreams, 750cc Grand Prix, 1378 (km), 1893: A World's Fair Mystery so now I will move on to the "A" articles. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, in addition to the ones I listed above, I added a bunch of "A" articles as well - I won't list them here, but you will see them in my contribs. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note I removed 100 Sleeping Princes and the Kingdom of Dreams, as it's not a video game article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I doesn't use VG style infoboxes but as "a Japanese puzzle and role-playing smartphone game", surely it falls under the project's scope? Regards SoWhy 15:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
See also #100 Sleeping Princes and the Kingdom of Dreams. Notability as a video game is questionable. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
While technically 100 Sleeping Princes and the Kingdom of Dreams its more notable for the anime than it is for the mobile game. If it was just the mobile game it would fail WP:NVG however because of its anime spin-off it has some nobility where the anime is licensed by American company Sentai Filmworks and is being simulcast on HIDIVE. This puts this article in a unique situation and primarily under the scope of WP:ANIME despite the anime being a spin-off of the mobile game. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I added a bunch more today – there are quite a few to go through, and I plan to take a significant break after the letter A is done, because this is very time consuming.  :) One thing I am finding as I go is that a number of articles have title screens or screenshots in the infobox in place of a cover image. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You'll find this is simply because a lot of these article subjects don't have official cover art. Things like Arcade games and some softwares should only have the title screen, as this is by far the most identifiable image of the game. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Images for Ants!!! can be found here. Don't know if any of them are useful. The article does need a screenshot though. Adam9007 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Managed to find the box art for Air Traffic Controller (1978 video game). Amusingly, it's literally one of the print ads (with the text and suggested price) slapped onto a Creative Computing Software Box. --tronvillain (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, sorry if I went overboard last week on adding A articles, I hope I did not stall your efforts! There were a lot more articles than I initially thought there would be. :o Anyway, I got all the way through A. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not my efforts, it's efforts for all. The ideal is for all VG articles to have cover art. You can add as many as you like to the queue. However, I would be reasonable, in this. If it's an Arcade game, it's unlikely to have an official cover art (Some do, but it's rare). The same is true for some early software, so in these cases, it's fine to use a screenshot, or photo of the specific arcade booth. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

16 October Update

I've updated the list above for cover arts we are looking for for early entries. Feel free to update any cover arts, but these are ones I've been unable to find. I've also noticed a lot of these have notability concerns. Please feel free to remove any that should be deleted instead. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I fully support this project and I hope this goal will be met, but as someone who is not taking part in this, I am a bit bothered by seeing this talk page come up on my watchlist so often. I generally expect that most edits on this talk page are related to a discussion. Could the list above be placed on a different discussion page, or perhaps transcluded as a template? I would personally very much appreciate this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That might make sense to have a separate page, but I think discussion pages are often overlooked, so not sure. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not getting a whole lot of traffic here. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

New Articles list

The new list hasn't been posted here since October 4, is it not functioning properly? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The WP 1.0 bot hasn't successfully built quality logs since October 8 (it keeps stopping somewhere in the Bs), and its output is the main source that my script uses. (It also makes the assessment tables for wikiprojects, which is working intermittently.) I've been monitoring the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's talk page, and it looks like they're essentially washing their hands of it as they're in the middle of rewriting the bot altogether. If the bot comes up I can run the script over as many days as we need; if it's going to be a long time then I'll look into basing my script on the wikipedia changelogs directly, though I'd expect that to be a lot of work. --PresN 04:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh wow, thanks for keeping up with that. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Halo Wars 2 FAC

I don't really like to plug or bother people about GA or FA nominations but Halo Wars 2 has been a FAC for 2 weeks and has no votes at all and just 1 set of comments that I think has been addressed. I'm not asking for supports here. Just wondering if anyone fancies reviewing it or offering some feedback? I'd actually prefer it if it failed due to opposes rather than a complete lack of activity because then at least I have something to work with. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Chinese comics

I have been expanding The King of Fighters but I can't seem to find information about its Chinese comics. There are a lot of them released in China but I've never seen a website that marks them. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a policy or template that can be put in place to remind editors to only include items on a list that have their own Wikipedia articles, or have legit sources to back up their existence (and therefore legitimize the creation of its own article)?

Right now, List of Linux games is completely toast. It's about 90% redlink games with redlink developers, mostly being put in place by random IPs.

Wikinium (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to create an inclusion criteria via consensus on the article's talk page. Once one if defined, you can remove entries that don't match the criteria. Either way, any unsourced entry can be removed, per WP:V policy. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I really think we need to standardize that for all of our "List of (platform) games" that the only games that should be on the lists are those with blue-linked, standalone articles about the game or series, or red-linked but with clearly RS, secondary sources about the game (this means no selfpromotion websites, Twitter/Facebook links, or simply store listings). --Masem (t) 16:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
100% agree. This has also been discussed at the list of Nintendo Switch games page, for anybody who isn't aware. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
100% disagree as likely to limit our coverage for pre-2000s games. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
To somewhat echo my comment below, for pre-2000s games, complete lists are probably appropriate for consoles. For Linux, PC, and Mac? Perhaps not so much. --tronvillain (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The issue is basically the indie side of things. On any platform or console where there's minimal oversight of what gets digitally published (so this includes PCs as well as Xbox 360/One, PS3/4, and Switch), we need this limitation. Older consoles, where publication was a significant barrier, that's less a problem. --Masem (t) 22:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Which is completely reasonable. The suggestion of it being being applied to "all of our 'List of (platform) games'" was just a bit worrying.--tronvillain (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The obvious guideline is probably WP:CSC, with the types "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" and "Short [less than 32K], complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." For many console systems, complete lists are probably reasonable, but for operating systems like Linux the first is more obvious. --tronvillain (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should be including non-notable releases on these "list of X games" articles. They are generally navigational articles, not supposed to be a full list of games, as that would be a pretty blatant failure of Wikipedia not being an indefinite collection of information.
WP:REDLINK should come into play with these types of articles. It should be pretty clear what games are notable like this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent AfD mistake

Hey all. I just noticed that the page for the Codie award, which was also the redirect for the Software Publishers Association, was deleted per a recent AfD. I wasn't aware of the nomination or I would have said something before now, but the users in the debate clearly were not WPVG members or up to speed on the history here. The SPA was among the most important bodies in the game industry during the '80s and early '90s, and the Codie awards were, at one time, a black-tie event attended by every major player in the industry. The claim that it was non-notable is disproven by even a cursory search with the correct terms—as seen here, here, here and so on. It's also possibly the oldest award in the industry, as it's still presented by the Software & Information Industry Association (the SPA's current name). Now that the Codie award page has been deleted, there isn't even a redirect page for the Software Publishers Association. The result is a gaping hole in WPVG's coverage. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable set of sources to take the item first to the deleting admin and if unresponsive or responsive in the negative, WP:DRV. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
JimmyBlackwing - talk to Michig, as the closing admin. It should be noted that a few factors are at play. Firstly, it doesn't matter if people in the AfD are in this WikiProject at all, we all have the same voice. Second, as there are what seems like enough to prove notability above, even after an AfD the Wikipedia:Deletion policy is still active. See WP:UDP for information on this. Thirdly, if this is recreated, I'd suggest the artile be moved to Software Publishers Association, as that seems to be the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, and what is actually notable (As the award rightly isn't notable on it's own.). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Video Poker

Are these "games" really part of our project such as Anything's Wild? I understand they are technically games, and appear on a video console of some sort, but these don't seem to satisfy a lot of our policies. Do we need to reach a consensus for these types of gambling games? I'm mostly confused how some of these fit, but say Slot Machines do not. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A video poker machine seems as much a video game as a computer or console version of poker, but the lack of coverage in reliable sources seems likely to be an issue. That example hasn't had any sources since 2010. How does it still exist? --tronvillain (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. It’s not a traditional console or mobile game is that sense, but it still fits into the definition of video game. Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
There was a recent AfD with these types of articles that had next to zero comments... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Requesting cover arts - update

Thanks again to User:Lee Vilenski for starting the thread for cover art a few weeks ago to reduce the backlog at Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art. A lot of progress has been made so far, but the old thread has gone stale, so here is the list from where that thread left off:

#

A

As per Maplestrip I think we should move these discussions elsewhere. I suggest any items that people struggle with in particular should be updated on Category talk:Video game articles requesting identifying art. I will post an update here to encourage people to upload new arts and diminish the backlog here on a weekly or so basis. I'd suggest that's better than say, updating a list with no information as to why they can't be found. Would that be a good solution for everyone? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Seems reasonable! Interested parties can watchlist the category page. :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Renaming

Is this the correct identifier for these games:

Usually, we'd do a disambig with the game's release year, which strictly speaking is different (Activision released first in 1986, whereas Software studios released in 1987); however, certain releases of the Activision game was released in 1987, and it doesn't seem particularly unambiguous. Any ideas? Should these simply be:

Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally think the titles Aliens: The Computer Game (Software Studios video game) and Aliens: The Computer Game (Activision video game) are better in this instance because of the mentioned ambiguity. When it comes to video games released nearly simultaneously, I would think using the year to disambiguate is not the right choice, though I can imagine others feel differently. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this as the years are far too close with games of the same franchise, particularly with the fractured releases of the latter game. Otherwise, if years are used, make sure the the hatnotes or disambiguation pages are very clear which is which. --Masem (t) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Year-based DABs seem to be appropriate per WP:NCVG. I don't think there's a substantial reason to break the rule here, since the first release years are different. I think hatnotes are sufficient for any ambiguity. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd probably just move to year. The hat notes and article ledes clear up any ambiguity. --tronvillain (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
My biggest issue, is that if this were a person, we'd go as far as to disambiguate all the way down to date of birth. So, both of these being released in different years is enough. I don't see how the developer is the identifier, over the similar publisher, or any other disambig Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Soundtrack listings

Hi all, can we re-address the 2013/4 policy about not using infoboxes and listing soundtracks from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_106#Soundtrack_listings and not using soundtrack artwork? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_100#Use_of_soundtrack_cover_art

Including art and tracklists for best-selling (e,g., Billboard-charting) soundtracks (e.g., Undertale, Stardew Valley) provides appropriate attribution for notable releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianWolff (talk • contribs)

...Which charts did the Undertale or SV OSTs chart on...? Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Multiple game soundtracks have appeared in Billboard charts, iTunes soundtrack charts, Bandcamp charts. Even for OSTs with limited notability but music that experienced independent traction, does a tracklist+music sub section seem reasonable? SebastianWolff (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
They require sourced commentary regardless; what we're trying to avoid is sections of track lists without prose to accompany them. Regardless, this part of the discussion strays into territory more correct for WT:VGMOS as there is an item at WP:VGSCOPE about the topic of discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Art is just about a strict no per WP:NFCC. I'm personally not a fan of the tracklists, but I don't remove them on sight. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. What would exempt a thorough articles like Music of the Final Fantasy VII series? SebastianWolff (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
When we have discussion of the music in the video game article, we already have an image which identifies the article (the cover art or main screen of the game). In cases where that same art is used for the soundtrack, that's a clear violation of multiple NFCC. Where the art is different for the soundtrack(s), we need to defend that use of the art per WP:NFCC#8: there needs to be sourced commentary about the art itself; and WP:NFCC#3, use of non-free art is minimized. Almost never is that the case, so it's correct not to include it. The reason separate articles mostly get a pass is for the "identifying" criterion in the NFCC. @Lee Vilenski: I believe that answers your question? --Izno (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
In a more real sense, however, even the "music of" articles have historically been restricted to a single image (usually of the OST cover). Over time (years), people add in additional covers, then an NFCC cop comes by and removes them, and repeat. Tracklists are allowed because the article is about the music/albums itself and frequently discusses individual tracks, which is generally not true of music sections within articles about games. --PresN 14:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the policies regarding soundtracks, but why are they more strict than say a video game release? Surely we already have the information to upload these types of images? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not the information, it is that vg soundtrack covers are generally duplicative of the game's artwork already shown in the game's cover, so a second image that shows basically the same thing is unnecessary by NFCC#3. --Masem (t) 13:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Going back to the tracklistings, but I think we should never have these on the game's main article. If a soundtrack is so notable, then surely it could stand on its own? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Renderware

IP 75.84.148.185 has added Renderware as an engine to numerous articles, all of them without any citations. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Renderware's more a middleware solution than a true game engine. Mind you, any game using Renderware is going to say it in the credits of the game, so that technically doesn't need a citation, but I dont know how important it is to list it (it's like listing DirectX as an engine... yes, it's an engine, but not really) --Masem (t) 02:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
In other words, it could be listed in the dev section, but not in the infobox as a game engine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally would say that Renderware should only be listed in the infobox if it's discussed to some extent in the development section. I think Sonic Heroes is a good example, as Sonic Team's partnership with Criterion to use it is a pretty big chunk of the development section. JOEBRO64 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Expert advice please

I was reviewing Gbksoft, the company that developed Defend Ukraine, a mobile game. I'm not seeing where either article meets notability requirements but before I do anything further, will someone familiar with this topic take a look at Defend Ukraine? Atsme✍🏻📧 01:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Atsme:,
I went over Defend Ukraine and trimmed it a bit. For its notability, I get no results on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. Metacritic hasn't got a single review. Other politically motivated games (Pakistan Army Retribution, Under Ash, Bolsomito 2K18) often are mentioned in reliable sources, here I haven't been able to find any. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the game is notable. A couple Ukranian press releases are ok, but doesn't scream notability. If it went to AfD, I'd nominate Delete.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you - I thought the same but thought it best to ask the experts. I very much appreciate your input. The user also created a standalone for the company which was a CSD, and I’ve posed a few questions on the creator’s TP. Happy editing! Atsme✍🏻📧 12:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that Sulfurboy who is a fantastic AfC reviewer accepted this article originally. It's a bit of an odd one, as it does look on first scan that it's a fine article. It takes someone who's familiar with articles such as these to see that a lot of these sources don't really add much as they are mostly WP:ROUTINE, or WP:PRIMARY. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

PlayStation Classic topic box

I like to make these, so just sharing. TarkusABtalk 02:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

edit | discuss
PlayStation Classic
2 articles
Shared across regions
Battle Arena Toshinden
Final Fantasy VII
Intelligent Qube
Metal Gear Solid
Tekken 3
Jumping Flash!
Mr. Driller
R4: Ridge Racer Type 4
Resident Evil: Director's Cut
Revelations: Persona
Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo
Wild Arms
Western exclusives
Cool Boarders 2
Destruction Derby
Grand Theft Auto
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee
Rayman
Syphon Filter
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six
Twisted Metal
Japanese exclusives
Arc the Lad
Arc the Lad II
Armored Core
G-Darius
Gradius Gaiden
Parasite Eve
Devil Dice
SaGa Frontier

I do plan on tackling Rayman someday, as part of my personal project here on Wikipedia in regards of expanding and reworking games that were released or ported to the Atari Jaguar and other things related to that particular system so, if anybody wants to help me in regards to titles for the Jaguar such as Fight for Life then let me know, as that game has A LOT of history behind it! Roberth Martinez (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Game mods listing

Hearts of Iron IV includes a section on game mods, all sourced to steamcommunity.com where they are hosted. Some of these seem rather unknown but have enough ardent fans to make sure they stay in the article. Are there any good guidelines on when a game mod should or should not be listed? My thought was that it needs to be sourced from a reliable source and that needs to be independent from the developer. There's a small discussion on the talk page, but beyond myself and the initial questioner, nothing else. Thoughts and assistance would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

SIGCOV in RSes is the usual benchmark for inclusion in the parent article, with a higher level required for a standlone list or article. I don't think independence from the dev matters, as long as there is sigcov in RSes. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I ripped out anything without an obvious independent source last night per WP:WEIGHT, which included chunks in other parts of the article. Obviously no objection to reintroduction of various material should the sources exist. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Game mods should only really exist like this if they are commented on by publications, no? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course, or else they fail WP:N like anything else. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Image necessary?

I expanded a bit more The King of Fighters '99 and learned the English versions removed a move in which a character is holding a fireweapon. Would the shot of the original version be necessary? Still, I haven't found an actual image of the Japanese game that has the gun so I don't have the source for that. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If there is a RS discussing the removal, then a fair-use screengrab from the surely-existing LPs of the JP version can probably be justified. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, you explained the situation pretty well with text just now, so it doesn’t really seem like we need an image to illustrate the idea for the reader... Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

New CD-ROM2 / TurboGrafx-CD page needed.

In my Wikipedia browsing, I've come across many pages about consoles, and in a separate page we can see the add-ons, but when it comes to the TurboGrafx-16 / PC-Engine, it's a complete mess. It's confusing and everything is meshed together, makes it hard to understand at least for me. I was surprised to find that the first CD console is the only one without a proper dedicated page.

In fact, every other console is properly divided;

Heck, even the TurboGrafx-16 has a page on the TurboDuo, but the add-on itself doesn't exist.

The Japanese Wikipedia has a dedicated page though, and it looks as an English one should.

In my opinion this new page is needed. Talkkaris (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It is dependent on how sources discuss the equipment. If there is enough discussion about the CD games and systems independent of the core platform, then sure, but I feel the Hucard systems and games, along with the CD systems and games, are generally discussed as one PC Engine platform and game library. Personally I'd rather see TurboDuo get merged into TuboGrafx 16. TarkusABtalk 20:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have the same opinion as Tarkus but with the Atari Jaguar and the Jaguar CD, as consider them as one platform. Roberth Martinez (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The TurboDuo makes sense, because it's just a hardware revision, but merging the Atari Jaguar with the Jaguar CD doesn't. It's not the same hardware, it's a different media format, and when talking about the games, you don't say it's a Jaguar Game, it's a Jaguar CD game, because the add-on is needed, saying Sonic CD is a Genesis game is incorrect because you're missing the half of the console that makes it work. Same with all of the console add-ons where games made for it can't be played on just the base unit.Talkkaris (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Just because a system accepts a different media format does not make it notable enough for its own page. Rather, there must be enough sources that discuss the device independently of the core console to justify. From a brief glance at the sources in the Jaguar CD article, it looks like only three sources are dedicated articles about the system. That seems to me like it would serve better as a subsection on the main Jaguar article. Now if more sources can be found, then perhaps the page can be kept separate, but I don't have a dog in the fight. If you can find enough sources to support a standalone PC Engine CD article, go for it. TarkusABtalk 20:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Completely agree with Tarkus. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Camping (gaming)

I am currently working on a total excision and revision of the article Camping (gaming): you can view what I have at User:Henstepl. I would be happy to place my revised article at that location with your endorsement, feedback, and contributions.

Particular grievances about the article as it is:

  • too much unsourced information and original research
  • too many terms named in quotation marks as if defin
  • existing terms defined too specifically, and too definitively.

I think that I have addressed these while trying to preserve much of the original text. Online RPGs and strategy games are not my forte, so I have left those sections alone; I don't play battle royale either so feedback on that small portion is welcome. Henstepl (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

At a brief glance, looks like it still needs better sourcing. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I added a couple of additional references there. The one may be useful for sourcing other spots. --tronvillain (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Still waaaaay too much unsourced material that reads like a wikia article. Even with sources, it doesn’t read like an encyclopedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for input and any modifications on my userpage. I have tried not to add information but rather to move around the information that is already there; still, I have removed much unsourced information and several quotationed terms, yet I do not believe I have a worldly enough knowledge of camping to remove too much. (I added a Template:Examples or two, though.) I primarily gravitate towards HL2DM these days!
I welcome any more modifications to the draft of the page! Stephen Lafleur (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

GAN second opinion

I've requested a second opinion at Talk:Azur Lane/GA1. (The summary box above is not capable of showing this.) TarkusABtalk 12:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Start of draft of 1993 congressional hearings

This was suggested earlier this month (see the archives), so I've started a draft for User:Masem/drafts/1993 Congressional hearings on video games, including the links suggested where existing sourcing may be found. Anyone wanting to help here, please go ahead and add. --Masem (t) 15:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Exciting. I was just thinking about this article yesterday. Will try to help out with this. GamerPro64 17:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Moved the title per WP:MOSCAPS. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Only to comment as working on this: there is potential for a "console wars" article discussing the sega v nintendo rivally. (There is a book by that same name out there that gets into details). --Masem (t) 19:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually was thinking of making a console wars article a little while ago. I'll try to start a draft when I finish rewriting Deadpool (video game). JOEBRO64 19:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
FYI, you guys know this used to exist, right? Red Phoenix talk 16:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
After some digging the state of that page was this, which I agree from the AFD that a TNT and redirect was appropriate. I know enough in research the congressional hearings that a fair amount can be written about the Sega v Nintendo console war (again, we have a whole book now on this topic), including lead-up and fall-out, more than just looking at sales numbers. --Masem (t) 16:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Runescape discussion is needed

Hello, please head over to Talk:RuneScape to discuss about the removal of a section. Thanks. Hayholt (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Fairchild Channel F meaning.

What does the F in Channel F mean? An option could be Fairchild, but in this commercial for JCPenny from 1976, the F might stand for Fun.

To quote the video; Channel F For Fun!

Now, I'm not sure if this interpretation is correct, or if it counts as original research, and I haven't found any sources referencing what the commercial says. I'm also not sure if using this video as a reference is acceptable. What should be done?Talkkaris (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A history of the console by FastCompany says Shortly before launch of its console, Fairchild changed the name of the console from the Video Entertainment System (VES) to the Channel F–short for "Channel Fun." I noticed it mentioned in the External Links at Fairchild Channel F, but that would make a great source for expanding the article itself. Or just citing claims in the "The console" (history) section, which is mostly unreferenced. Woodroar (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That makes more sense since if the F stood for Fairchild then the console would have been called Fairchild Channel Fairchild.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! That link helps a lot.Talkkaris (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Superman move discussion

Just thought I'd let the project know. Discussion is here. JOEBRO64 20:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In need of a Japanese translator

As most of you know, I have been trying to expand most The King of Fighters articles. Since 2000 already has some sources for reception, I wonder if I could expand the creation section. However, the apparent information in regards to development about the game as seen here is all in Japanese. There is a lot of information there, but there is no need to fully translate everything. Just a summary about each part would be enough. Thanks for aiding me as usual.Tintor2 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to attempt to get as far as possible simply copy-pasting a text into Google Translate and asking for help for specific sentences that I can't parse. Of course, Japanese is a pretty difficult language to automatically translate, but it is something you can attempt regardless. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. I tried adding the ones I understood the most so I managed to a proper paragraph. However, are the reviews enough or I should get more? Some reviews were made only in compilation games so there is no material to have Metacritic or GameRanking scores. Where can I ask for reviews?Tintor2 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Late 90s NPD top 10 software per system

Reliability of GamingBits

Hi everyone. Can I get some feedback on the reliability of the now defunct website GamingBits.com? I've seen this added to a GA article and it isn't currently listed at our sources page. Any feedback would be helpful. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Video games and MOS:SURNAME

I've taken multiple video game articles to GA and two to FAC. Multiple reviewers have told me during these nominations to adhere to MOS:SURNAME, i.e., after the initial mention of a character's full name to only refer to them by their surname. No one has ever told me otherwise, until today. I'm now in a dispute with SNAAAAKE!!, who informs me that everyone of these reviewers of 'his' articles was "clueless" and now he wants to change all surnames back to first names. Specifically Chris Redfield and Sheva Alomar (on the grounds their first names are more commonly used, which to be fair they are) at the articles Resident Evil 5, Sheva Alomar and anywhere else they appear.

Personally I'm not very fussed either way, it just disturbs me he's insisting on making all these changes even though I patiently explained that I changed them in the first place at the request of multiple reviewers. Before I get accused of canvassing I just want to clarify I don't care if you agree with what he wants, I just think a consensus should be reached if there's a dispute, whereas he's made it clear he's not interested in obtaining a consensus first. Can I please get some more opinions on whether video game articles should adhere to MOS:SURNAME, or whether this guideline should be ignored if the character's first name is more popular? Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Not just "more popular" (but also - and overwhelmingly without even any comparison, and in all kinds of sources too) but also as intended by the creators to be used (and in the way they use when talking about their creations) and in how they are called in the works themselves. There's literally nothing to deliberate about, because it's just so obvious. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"Characters are being incorrectly referred to in some Wikipedia articles by their surnames, used instead of their first names (as intended by creators and commonly sued everywhere else, including in most of Wikipedia). As in User_talk:Damien_Linnane#It's_Sheva,_not_Alomar where I was told to come here so I did. John A related thing is that (for few years now) the characters categories being default-sorted by surnames too (and so anyone searching for let's say "Sonya from Mortal Kombat" will only find her under B as "Blade, Sonya" even as literally no one will think "Blade from Mortal Kombat"), which I find extremely awkward and think should be abolished. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@SNAAAAKE!!: I hope you agree there's no reason to have the same discussion twice. I agree, it's silly to refer to fictional characters using their surname. Luigi Mario, anyone? Categorizing might be a different issue though. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I also want to say that calling people "clueless", just because they don't have the same opinion as you, borders WP:UNCIVIL behavior. Apparently it's not obvious, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
MOS:SURNAME doesn't seem to include any information regarding how to refer to fictional characters. In my experience, it is primarily about common use and using given names for fictional characters is typically more common. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
As it currently stands, MOS:SURNAME applies to real humans, not fictional entities. So SURNAME should not be cited in GANs or FACs as applying to video game characters. I believe requiring this is a mistake (or at least over-interpretation of guidelines) by the reviewers. Firstly, we should use whatever the sources use. If they don't or are unclear, then whatever the work itself uses. If even that is not clear, then just something unambiguous and consistent. First names for video game characters is generally what sources use. There aren't any biographical ethical norms to consider here as with SURNAME. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I've seen a discussion on the topic recently but can't remember where it was. It was not a global page, so if anyone is arguing that surnames should be some way or another for characters, they're wrong to enforce that (especially as it's not part of the GA criteria anyway). --Izno (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing is basically the same issue. It should be only in special cases like of "Wesker, Albert" where it's correct and nobody will ever look look for any "Albert" character thinking of Wesker (or "Westker" as he is called by one supposed "high quality source" of everything-is-racist being used by Wikipedia - thank you DiGRA, only typical of you). Same for example John Rambo should be at R for Rambo, but Freddy Krueger at F for Freddy Krueger, becuase it's not just games. Or Morgan le Fay should be (and is, as just checked) at the M for Morgan, out of top of my head. It's all very obvious. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, cheers for the feedback everyone. Also thanks for agreeing that the issue is not obvious and that SNAAAKE!'s behaviour is not very civil. I consider this resolved now. Also I've made a proposed addition to MOS:SURNAME that will hopefully clear up any further confusion for years to come. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I gave it a couple of small tweaks, mostly for consistency with the language in the rest of the section. --tronvillain (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

This article is listed as a "2019 video game", but it's going to release in 2018. Pierson D (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pierson D: You appear to be talking about a specific article, but have instead a) posted on the video game project's talk page instead of the article's and b) did not mention what article that was. --PresN 02:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right! I'm so sorry!Pierson D (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A quick skim of articles with (2019 video game) in the title which aren't redirects: Resident Evil 2 (2019 video game), MediEvil (2019 video game), World War Z (2019 video game) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If you are wondering, it was Super Smash Bros. Ultimate for Nintendo switch. Thank you!Pierson D (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we’re discussing it over at Ultimate’s talk page, though we’re equally confused over there. The years seem correct on the article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m placing this one both articles to be safe. I figured out what the problem is but not the solution. If you go to Wikipedia.org and type the games name in the large search bar at the bottom text in the drop down menu calls it a 2019 video game. Obviously there is s error somehere csuding this menu to be inaccurate.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)#
Unless it's been changed since Pierson D, the article in question is listed as being released in December this year. Where did you see the 2019? Could you also be sure to always be logged in when posting, as it can get quite confusing talking to an IP and a registered user. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I actually don’t have an account. Also, on the Smash Bros Ultimate page the cause was discovered to be Wikidata vanadalism which had since been fixed.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --Izno (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldgamemags.ukprintarchive down ?

Hello

I can't access anymore to http://oldgamemags.ukprintarchive.com/ . Does someone else has this problem too ? --Archimëa (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that link isn't working for me either if that answers your question. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, this is a part of the answer. Regards. --Archimëa (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

GamesTM may disappear

The last issue of GamesTM magazine was released this month. In addition to the magazine, they also run a website with lots of excellent content. I have heard Future Publishing has a history of making websites vanish (like CVG) so I suggest archiving all GamesTM links if not already archived. TarkusABtalk 17:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

GamesMaster is also going under, but I don't think they have a website. TarkusABtalk 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
TarkusAB can thus be done by IAMBot/fix dead links? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that bot so I don't know. TarkusABtalk 19:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A quick spotcheck does show pages are captured at Wayback machine. --Masem (t) 19:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Leave a comment at Cyberpower's talk page and he can initiate a bot job to capture our current uses into IA. --Izno (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Future have got rid of loads of websites in the past. Edge, Official PlayStation Mag, Official Nintendo Mag, Official Xbox Mag UK, Official Xbox Mag US. So it's likely GamesTM will go as well. It will probably get redirected to GamesRadar like Future's other sites. If anyone needs magazine scans, I have most GamesTM issues from #143 onwards. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Could you scan them over at the Wayback Machine? GamerPro64 00:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to have Wayback Machine cover 100% of a website? There may be some gaps in their coverage. I wonder if we can contact them directly and tell them the site might go down? Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have already left the necessary notification (see my above comment) for the Internet Archive's infrastructure to handle. --Izno (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

On accolades for a game

With several gaming awards offering a category related to best esports team and/or player, should these accolades be considered as part of the accolade for the game itself? I feel they shouldn't. Wgereas if we are talking about a best esports event/moment, reflecting one of the game's official tournaments, that should be an accolade for the game? --Masem (t) 16:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a "bad" example? I'm not sure I get what you're asking and an article to look at would help. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Masem is asking if it's fine or not to include something like "Best Esports Moment - Overwatch League Grand Finals" in the Overwatch awards table. Personally, I also disgree, see my post below. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This specific example seems way too niche to have any presence in the article, honestly. If we had an annual (and perhaps Notable) esports award going on with a clear "best esports game", then sure, that seems perfectly reasonable. However, something like "Best esports tournament - Overwatch League Grand Finals" already seems too unconnected and minor for the game's article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
On second though, I do agree that an award to an event like the OWL Finals should not be on the game's page. If the event has an article, then it should be on that (as we have with OWL League). If there is no event article, there's bound to be a "Game in esports" section that that fit into. "Best esports game" on the other hand is appropriate on the game's page. --Masem (t) 21:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
We should only include awards for the game itself. Awards related to the game by way of esports should only belong in one of those esport-specific articles like StarCraft II in esports, or in the event/team's article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

RetroGames task force?

Would there be any interest in a Retro gaming task force? There's already a Nintendo and Sega Task forces, but those tend to be more about the consoles and the first party games. There's a Sony Task force, but it's been dead for some time. Having a game fall under two task forces isn't the end of the world, and a Retro Games task force would compliment the above ones, not replace them.

The benefit to a RG Task force

  • It could cover all games roughly pre-2000, while existing TF cover only a small amount
  • RG TF could give different importance ratings than the overal WP VG
  • Give more attention to RG (modern games get enough attention and don't really need a TF)

The counter:

  • Might potentially be way too big, as it might cover tens of thousands of games

Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone pops up to ask this question on a regular basis. Maybe it is you. Brief comment is that we've had this task force, then it has gone dormant, then someone pops up and tries to restart it, and then it goes dormant again. Suggestion: Just work on the articles and bring any questions or requests for collaboration you have here. --Izno (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I do believe retro gaming is too strongly tied to the rest of this project. One could suggest that at least half of all games are "retro games" at this point. There's no real reason to split it off from this project. What are the differences in importance ratings you imagine anyway? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Generally with task forces, you would only really need to find enough people interested to back it. If you are suggesting that pre-2000 is retro, that seems way to late. Final Fantasy IX is a retro game? I'd suggest something like the first 4 generations of console + arcade or similar. Even so, I'm not sure how many people would be interested in this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that all games from before 2008 or so are retro, actually :p – The scope of such a task force would, by necessity, be arbitrary. I don't think that's really the issue with this idea, though. Getting enough people together who all want a space of their own, separate from this page, is certainly important. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Indie, with a similarly large scope, is equally dormant. Both retro games and indie games are large parts of the VG industry, so they should just be a core compontents of WPVG instead of specific-but-dormant task forces. Lordtobi (✉) 10:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue something like an Arcade or retro meaning 1995 or earlier could be sustainable... But only if enough people were interested in this. I'd argue that the ideas above are similar to creating a "new game" task force, for games that have come out in the last 2 years. It would be equaly as huge. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
A space specifically intended to discuss new releases (as in, anything that came out in the past three months or will come out soon) might actually be a decent idea, huh... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Maplestrip - I thought it was a good idea. We informally already have this, because new releases that are popular get a lot of visability anyway, but it might be good to have somewhere like this for us to post about. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

- Even if it wasn't a task force, maybe a simple talk page offshoot regarding any new sourcing for new releases, or articles posted WP:TOOSOON. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I like the idea of giving a high or top importance article to a small task force like this, as well. Have you got any articles in mind for this? I can't think that a game being "important" for retro games, wouldn't also be "important" for video games in general. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Task forces don't assess articles, they just use the parent project's assessment. And a task force covering a "high" importance article doesn't mean that the parent project doesn't cover it as well. --PresN 17:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Some task forces do, but ours do not. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That's simply what the proposal in the original space was suggesting. I'm conscious that I can't see a need for a disparity like this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I hate to dog-pile, but I don’t think it’s necessary either. WP:VG is a rarity - most Wikiprojects are far less populated, let alone things like task forces. Much like the proposed “edutainment” one months back, it’ll likely just end up being you and another person doing all the dedicated work. You’d probably be off off just posting here semi-regularly about retro game happenings/projects/efforts. Like the weekly report of newly created articles, or the guys who are always begging for GA reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

GAN backlog

Speaking of GAN (above), the WP:GAN#VG section is again pretty backlogged with noms from August still waiting for review. As an early Xmas present to those waiting for their articles to be reviewed, it would be great if experienced and interested editors could help tackle this backlog. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll do one next week when I can dedicate a little time. It should be mentioned that the GA nominators should also review articles themselves. I know quite a few do (This list proves it), but if not, it's how it should work. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Free use images from Double Fine

I thought I posted about this... but perhaps not! I'm in touch with an employee of Double Fine who is interested in providing free use illustrations from the company's games. Instead of defaulting to a plain release of press kit assets for basic illustration in the game articles, I'm thinking about requesting screenshots/footage from specific scenarios to make for the best possible encyclopedic illustrations. Depending on what assets they have readily available, it might be possible for us to capture the clips/shots we would like to use and then request free use releases. So please do share if you have any recommendations for specific scenes/settings/sections to screenshot or record. Open to ideas too! For example, if there are other gameplay concepts or related articles that could use a specific Double Fine illustration, now would be a good time to take stock. Planning to make the request in the next few weeks. czar 13:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That's awesome! Thanks for tracking this down (is it Spaff you're talking to? I bet it's Spaff). How much free reign are we talking about here? Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It really is amazing, but I have difficulty thinking of anything specific I want. I think the obvious things to ask for is images of as many different games as possible (it would be unimaginably amazing if we can have a good illustration or two of every game Tim Schafer has ever worked on), and I have to notice that the "Game design" section in our article on adventure games is completely devoid of images. I haven't played any Double Fine games, so I don't know any specific scenes or objects that would be useful to have images for, but I am sure there are a lot. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium, yes! He's finishing a project so I'd like to have a list ready for him when he's ready in a week or two. I'll start with press kits but he said specific requests are possible. Open to your best suggestions and worst they can do is decline. I'll note that we're looking at games that DF owns, so not the LucasArts games (now owned by Disney), even if remastered, or games owned by other publishers. How about I compile my list in User:Czar/DF and anyone else should feel free to add/suggest. Courtesy ping @Masem per [4] czar 12:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we can even try for clips from the 2 Player documentary? Haven't watched it all, if anyone has recommendations czar 13:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I watched it but far too long ago to recall specific clips I'd want. Off the top of my head, I'd love an animated gif of the stacking mechanic in Stacking with the verbs visible (can pull double duty to illustrate the evolution of verbs in adventure game). Kinect Party/Happy Action Theater also craves an animation of what cool stuff the camera can do. I'm missing a lot of gameplay screenshots across DF games so it's probably a good idea to start there. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
What a cool opportunity! Something that comes to mind is a video demonstrating some aspects of speedruning from this video. Theres currently static images and one in-game video in the article, which I think could benefit from a human using the controller to manipulate the game, with commentary on what he's doing and reactions from the devs on his essentially utilising their glitches.--Coin945 (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm probably thinking too wishfully here... but maybe even that entire video? Seeing as its an entire speedrun with developer commentary; and the fact that the speedrun page doesn't have any videos of a full length speedrun, only a short one minute video of a single level. But i'm not so sure how practical it would be to license the entire video (probably not very). TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I just realised you were probably referring to the entire video as well... whoops! Oh well. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

TFM for Template:Infobox video game character

This WikiProject may be interested in the templates for merge discussion for Template:Infobox video game character. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A big change in a GAN

@Harizotoh9: made quite a big change to the article The King of Fighters '99 which bugs me a bit considering somethings like sales being moved to another section. I don't wanna make a revert or anything considering it is a current GA so I wonder if I could get advice here before being bold. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It’s good to discuss disputes...but did you open a Wikiproject-level discussion at zero reverts and no talk page discussions...? Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, we discussed it but I wanted another opinion since I'm not too skilled with game articles.Tintor2 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I found Tintor2's comments on the background of this issue a little vague, so for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread: Prior to starting this thread, Tintor2 discussed the matter on Harizotoh9's talk page.
Anyway, here's my two cents. In the rare cases where I find sales information somewhere other than the reception section, I move it into the reception section. As a reader, the heading "release" to me suggests the circumstances surrounding the game's release, whereas sales take place only after release. (Unless one classifies preorders as sales, but even then, preorders are largely a recent phenomenon.) Also, a game's sales are far more likely to be linked to its contemporary reviews (which are also usually sorted into the reception section) than to the circumstances of its release, so having sales covered under the reception section often helps with the flow of the prose.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Sales info generally goes in reception, not release. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page title for Moero TwinBee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the page title of Moero TwinBee: Cinnamon-hakase o Sukue! be Stinger (NES game) (or something like that)? This was the official release title in English. Of course there are many many Japanese games localized in English, and we use the english title, right? Staecker (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Moero TwinBee: Cinnamon-hakase o Sukue!#Requested move 19 November 2018
 –
Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment table

If anyone uses the 1.0 bot assessment table for any purpose, you'll have noticed that it hasn't been updating for a few weeks, after the 1.0 bot broke and was blocked. As there's no communication on when/if it's going to be fixed or replaced, I've stolen a temporary replacement from MILHIST and adjusted it for our project, as seen below. It's missing the intersections with the importance categories, and won't do historical data, just live, but it's at least something. Going to look into reworking the new articles report this weekend to not be dependent on the 1.0 bot any more as well. --PresN 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics/table

Fundraising tables

Desert Bus for Hope and Games Done Quick both list the fundraising totals from each year's events. Is there a precedent for listing this granularity of detail? Otherwise appears as indiscriminate factoids to me, especially when sourced almost entirely to primary sources. czar 13:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

About GQD, I originally added the table a few years back, because there was no documentation in the article detailing the dates and locations of the events (adding the amounts was an incidental but not the main point). Telethons have the yearly amounts in a table (The Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon, etc.) and yearly sporting/cultural events have their dates & locations listed (List of Grammy Award ceremony locations, Evolution Championship Series which is admittedly an even bigger table abuser, any sporting event has ten times the number of tables). All that leads me to conclude GDQ's table is not unusual or exceptional for the category of article, it is informative to readers. If there was, let's say, an off-wiki page that listed all the same information in one location, I would not oppose it being migrated to an EL or ref. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I would think the amount of funds raised would be one of the primary points of interest in any article about a fundraiser. I would view this along the same lines as the number of votes cast in an election, or the number of Oscars won by each movie at a given Oscars ceremony. Furthermore, looking around the category a bit, listing the amounts seems to be common among similar articles. Yes, the table uses a primary source, but so what? That doesn't make it any less important to the subject. Voting keep here, should it come to that. Phediuk (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
As long as the funds raised are routinely documented by third-party sources, a table does not hurt. I recall numerous coverage of Desert Bus + GDQ get coverage during and post event that these seem justified. (I still want to make an article on video games and charity efforts, these would certainly be a part of it.) --Masem (t) 21:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes I neglected to mention that but coverage of GDQ highlights and results is common fare on Kotaku, RPS, Polygon, etc. I do think the article relies way too much on primary sources, though, so at least on that point I can agree. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
My metric woudl be if I can third-party source all but a few years of an event like this and would only need primary sources to do the missing years, that's fine. What is not appropriate is if only one or two years of the event was documented by a third-party and we were pooling primary sources for the rest. --Masem (t) 21:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Per Phediuk, the fundraiser aspect is a pretty significant quality of the event here, so I wouldn't say they qualify as "indiscriminate factoids". Primary source aren't really that huge a concern here either when they're going through a reputable source like PayPal as well as the recipient charity and highly unlikely to be faked / inflated. What I would be in favor of changing, but suspect it would be pointless to attempt, would be to use considerably more aggressive rounding - I managed to knock off the cents level from the GDQ table, despite various anonymous editors disagreeing, but it should probably be rounded even farther. There isn't a real difference between $2.1 million and $2,127,365.12. Unfortunately, there will always be somebody who wants to "help" by adding the misleading precision back, so not sure it's worth the effort to attempt to enforce, say, to-the-thousands rounding, but it'd be preferable IMO. SnowFire (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

However, if a more specific figure exists, what would be the advantage of rounding? It's less informative (slightly) and I can't think of a single advantage. Removing the cents saves spaces and minimized potential ambiguity in reading the number, but replacing a few digits with zeroes doesn't seem to be an improvement. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
If the amount raised is over a million, you can round by going "2.1 million" rather than "2,100,000". (This doesn't really work well for thousands, however). it's a few extra characters but much more readible. --Masem (t) 00:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Salvidrim: The current "precise" amount adds information that doesn't matter which obscures information that does matter. Unless you are a tax accountant, the amount down to dollar precision is noise. Readers learn useful information about the size and fervor of a donor base comparing a 200,000, a 2 million, and a 20 million dollar charity marathon, but nobody would get a different impression about $2.2 million vs. $2,186,889 (the actual amount of the most recent GDQ), not even the people at Doctors Without Borders or whatever charity was getting the donations for whom the difference is a rounding error. Oh, by the way, that wasn't the actual amount, it was really 2,168,898. Or am I lying again? Does it matter?
A good way to think about such things is "what if one piece of information was wrong." The precise-down-to-the-dollar US Defense Department yearly budget estimate probably changes weekly; somebody deciding some project should really be paid out of DHS's budget can easily shift millions of dollars around at the stroke of a pen, so it's hard to say much better than "686 billion" for an accurate figure. For these charity marathons, what if one big donor did chargebacks after the fact and withdrew their donation? What if one donor donated directly and wasn't tracked with the rest? Either of those, a missing donation or a donation wrongly marked as received that wasn't, could single-handedly switch around a few hundred dollars. So the "real" precision is more like in the thousands, even ignoring issues of "will people even care". SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Cover art backlog update

Hi all, we are just over a month removed from the Cover art backlog being addressed, and we have had over 300 articles fitted with suitible cover art.

However, with new articles being tagged, our original backlog of 2,700+ articles, is now at just under 2,550. I would like to get this figure below 2,100 before the new year, with enough people on board. Feel free to add one, or many cover arts; as an average of 10 or more uploads per day will put us below this figure.

If you appreciated this update, let me know. If you wish for me to put a sock in it; also let me know, and I'll keep out ;). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Great job all and remember, WP:COVERY exists to make the process pretty much automatic, it uploads the file, resizes it, tags it as needed and adds it to the article. Using this script, uploading 10 images a day takes 10 minutes! Regards SoWhy 15:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate it greatly! Thanks for all your hard work. :) BOZ (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue it's even quicker. Finding the particular image is the only real slow part; but most games show up on a simple google image search. I've done about 8-10 a day on weekdays for a while, but it would be great to get a community together to help out. - You are welcome BOZ. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been ill sadly, so I haven't been able to upload. The backlog has actually increased in the last week... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

VNDB template

Hi everyone,

I can't figure out how to edit {{vndb}}. It's used on Sol Press, but it renders some stuff incorrectly. {{vndb|7033|producer}} becomes "Sol Press". The Visual Novel Database.

For Sol Press, a publisher, it shouldn't the name in apostrophes (i.e., "Sol Press"). It doesn't say "Sol Press on the Visual Novel Database", while "the Visual Novel Database" shouldn't be in italics and it shouldn't have a period after Sol Press or after the Visual Novel Database. Anyone can help out? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The former is in quotation marks because it is the name of the lesser work, namely the title of the webpage "Sol Press". The VNDB should be italicized because it is the name of the greater work, namely the title of the website Visual Novel Database. I don't see an issue here. --Izno (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Izno, that is not a citation so citation formatting shouldn't apply. External links usually look like This Article at Some Other Website, and the website only italiciszed if it applies to italic rules, which the VNDB, as a database, does not. Cf. {{MobyGames}}, {{DMOZ}}, {{IMDb}}. Lordtobi (✉) 19:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it probably should per the MOS--yours is an WP:OSE argument. --Izno (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Izno, again, this is not how external links should be rendered. WP:ELT cites {{AllMusic}} as prime example, which uses said rendering above. OSE only applies when you point to a specific example that does it wrong and use it as an excuse for your own purpose. Lordtobi (✉) 19:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
OSE only applies when you point to a specific example that does it wrong and use it as an excuse for your own purpose. Nope. OSE is "if you are comparing to something else, and that something else isn't the set of PAG on Wikipedia, your argument may not be as secure as you think it is". In this case, you have yet to point to the page of interest, which is either MOSITALIC or MOSTITLE. Repeating what you said earlier is a tactic that might scare off a newbie, but I am not one. So please, do yourself a favor and do the research/homework necessary to back up a point you might have. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Soetermans:, I've altered the template in question, please see if it fixes your mentioned issues. Lordtobi (✉) 19:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Please don't edit templates under active discussion. A) It's rude and B) it tends toward an edit war type situation. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Izno, it generally shouldn't be a problem to edit a template when the change is correct. The format would also conform MOS:LAYOUTEL and previously mentioned WP:ELT. I reverted the template to its original state, so I'd be greatful if you could point to the specific guideline that says external links should be handeled exactly like citations. Lordtobi (✉) 19:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lordtobi:, thanks for your help. @Izno:, Sol Press isn't the "title of a webpage", it's a publisher. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I thought we'd use italics for websites that are also magazines, like Game Informer, and not MobyGames. And to make an OSE argument, {{IMDb}} does not italicize IMDb. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Pokemon revival

Hey boys, i saw the wiki portal pokemon and I was very keen on helping out, I have done some research and saw it is quite inactive, since I'm not an expert and still learning I was wondering if someone would be down to work on the project with me so it can get the recognition it deserves and maybe try and drag more enthusiasts into it? I'm clueless on what to do or how to handle the issue but I'm ready to help in any way I can. Spaicol (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Pokemon is pretty well covered. What kind of improvements are you looking to make? TarkusABtalk 18:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping to make an article for Incineroar as he is going to be featured in super smash bros ultimate, as well as continuing the pokedex project, as in *ideally* make a page for all the species (merging the evolutions as it doesent make any sense to have a page for charizard/charmander, its much better to merge them and add charmeleon to make it more complete) something similar to what they have in the Catalan wikipedia https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%ADnia_evolutiva_de_Charmander#Charizard Spaicol (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

You may want want to read up on WP:Pokémon test. The general consensus on the English Wikipedia is that most Pokémon don’t have independent notability, and as such, should not have their own Wikipedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to make an article regarding Pokemon that are highly notable due to their participation in crossovers like Super smash bros? like Pichu, Ivysaur, Greninja (very notable in the anime too), incineroar and so on? Thanks for sharing the information regarding the pokedex thing, i was not aware! Spaicol (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective, so the characters need to carry real world notability as opposed to in-universe notability. Indicators of this notability would be articles written by reliable sources that discuss the character's design, creation, use in promotion, merchandise, and critical reception. Such articles should also discuss the Pokemon as an independent notable subject, not just listicle articles with brief mentions of the Pokemon. If you can find such sources for a Pokemon, then you can attempt to create an article for them. TarkusABtalk 14:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Saying that coverage is good for a topic isn't exactly a reason against a Project. Pokemon covers so many different genre's of media, that there are plenty of articles that could come under this topic. The biggest issue is that these articles are almost always super popular; so they wouldn't require a big team to go and improve them. Articles on specific characters are usually non-notable, however. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Video game articles not linked from dab pages

Some help is needed here. There are about 80 video game articles that aren't listed on the relevant disambiguation page, for example the article is "Foo (video game)" but the disambiguation page at "Foo" doesn't have an entry for it. All that needs to be done in most cases is to simply add the missing entry to the dab page. Sometimes, however, the fact that an article isn't linked from there might indicate that it hasn't received enough attention: it might not be notable, or it might be undercurated. If you take care of any of these, please strike it through from the list below (or add {{done}}).

List of articles

Thanks in advance. – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Speaking as a professional DABfixer, all those articles should most certainly be linked from the relevant DAB pages. Problems caused by missing entries in DAB pages can be real timewasters. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Dragon Ball Z: Ultimate Battle 22 links to the DAB page Official PlayStation Magazine. Can any expert here help solve this problem? Narky Blert (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Based on when it was released, it's almost certainly Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine. I changed it. Considering the unsourced mess there, I'm sure it'll eventually sort itself out either way through removal. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ferret: Many thanks. It looked the sort of case where someone who knew the timeline would be able to come up with a high-probability guess; and the exact citation doesn't look central to the article. Narky Blert (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

LGD Gaming AfD

Requesting comments on the AfD for a recreated LGD Gaming article, which has been an issue with a number of editors for months. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (November 18 to November 24)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by hand from [5] --PresN 06:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

November 18

November 19

November 20

November 21

November 22

November 23

November 24

Behold: The dread and triumphant return of the weekly new VG articles report. The 1.0 bot is still down, but it seems like the database of changes it uses is still being populated? And is accessible at least sometimes every few days? I built this week's report manually, but I should be able to rewrite the script fairly easily to use this source, so hopefully next week things will be back to normal. --PresN 06:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Any chance we can get a list of the articles that were missed over the past few weeks? I like to spot check for deletion candidates in newly created VG articles. Can often filter out a lot of rubbish quickly in these New Article lists. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, doing it by hand is a pain, so once it's scripted again I'll run it on the missing month. --PresN 19:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for continuing to keep this alive. Hopefully it'll be back to more automated status soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move of Template:Infobox eSports player

Your consideration is requested for a move request at Template talk:Infobox eSports player#Requested move 28 November 2018. Cheers. --Izno (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

The article says the PlayStation Classic has received "polarizing" reviews. This is a strange choice of word, suggesting it has been reviewed negatively by some critics, and very positively by other critics. However, all of the reviews I have read of the PlayStation Classic have been universally mediocre, or negative. Please select a more appropriate word. 2A00:23C4:CC5:C400:5145:9A32:AF2B:73C0 (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. The article you might be looking for is PlayStation Classic. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this a non-controversial edit? There's only one sourced review in the article, so we're hardly in a position to make generalizations about the sort of reviews the subject has received.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, this isn't the place to post this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I know that, but it sounds like we're letting ourselves get tied up in formalities here. If someone had requested this edit in an ordinary post on my personal talk page, I'd have performed it without a second thought.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with the John Riccitiello article

Hello, I'm here as a representative of Unity Technologies on Wikipedia. I've declared my conflict of interest on the company article's talk page, as well as the John Riccitiello article's talk page. I've submitted a request at Talk:John_Riccitiello#Updated_draft for editors to review part of my improved draft about the CEO, which I've saved at User:Matthewpruitt/John Riccitiello, but no one has responded yet. Can a WikiProject Video games member please take a look? My first request focuses on the early life and education section, but ultimately I hope editors will review the entire draft. Thank you! Matthewpruitt (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

I have contacted the Larry Huffman (the voice used in the game) and he said he is surprised that after so many years people still contact him about Rock Roll Racing. He also said the never saw the finished game. I would like to add this information in the wiki. Zortrax rf (talk) 16:49, 4 December 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! ✉ 16:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Zortrax rf: You might be looking for the page Rock n' Roll Racing, which isn't protected. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That said, Zortrax rf, remember that information added has to be verifiable using reliable sources. So whatever Mr Huffmann told you cannot be integrated if others cannot verify it. Regards SoWhy 19:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with the John Riccitiello article

Hello, I'm here as a representative of Unity Technologies on Wikipedia. I've declared my conflict of interest on the company article's talk page, as well as the John Riccitiello article's talk page. I've submitted a request at Talk:John_Riccitiello#Updated_draft for editors to review part of my improved draft about the CEO, which I've saved at User:Matthewpruitt/John Riccitiello, but no one has responded yet. Can a WikiProject Video games member please take a look? My first request focuses on the early life and education section, but ultimately I hope editors will review the entire draft. Thank you! Matthewpruitt (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

I have contacted the Larry Huffman (the voice used in the game) and he said he is surprised that after so many years people still contact him about Rock Roll Racing. He also said the never saw the finished game. I would like to add this information in the wiki. Zortrax rf (talk) 16:49, 4 December 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! ✉ 16:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Zortrax rf: You might be looking for the page Rock n' Roll Racing, which isn't protected. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That said, Zortrax rf, remember that information added has to be verifiable using reliable sources. So whatever Mr Huffmann told you cannot be integrated if others cannot verify it. Regards SoWhy 19:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Steam Spy

Hi everyone. A little help please. So I'm looking at the profile for Resident Evil 5 on Steam Spy: [6]. For the information on 'Owners' it states "1,000,000 .. 2,000,000". Can anyone tell me what that means? Does it mean it's between 1 million and 2 million? Does it means it hit the 1 million milestone, and then reached 2 million later? The fact there are two figures is confusing me; I'm just wanting to update the sales data at the wiki article. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Damien Linnane:, be cautious with Steam Spy, it's considered a "situational source". Better not use Steam Spy if they're guessing RE5 sold between 1 million and 2 million copies. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
SteamSpy should probably be moved to outright unreliable now. When it was deemed "situational", they had much more precise estimates. Valve shut the door on profile access though (defaulting to private), and now the estimates are much larger broad ranges. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, that makes sense. I went through archived versions of the game's profile and it had specific figures consistently up until April 11, 2018: [7], though by April 20 they had switched to the extremely broad (and somewhat unhelpful) range we see today. I've modified the reference at the RE5 article to quote the archived version, with a disclaimer that subsequent figures are no longer accurate. I'd vote to make Steam Spy considered unreliable for sales figures today (I don't see why we can't use archived versions though). Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Steam Spy is fine only for the broad analysis of the sales; should not be used for anything close to exact sales unless third-parties RSes re-iterate that info, but when they talk about effect of Steam sales or the like, that's reasonably good. (The guy that runs it has actually been with Epic Games over the last few years to help establish their newly revealed Epic Games Store, using info he's gleaned from Steam Spy). --Masem (t) 14:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't use Steamspy for sales data. It's not needed. Capcom publishes their own sales data, and it's updated periodically. According to that, it's sold 7.4 million copies over several versions. "DL", includes Steam and PC and it's lumped into the console versions. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And now that Valve is lifting sales data confidentiality, hopefully the devs will start posting more of these. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (November 25 to December 1)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by hand from [8] --PresN 06:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

November 25

November 26

November 27

November 28

November 29

November 30

December 1

Ugh, done by hand again. I rewrote the script on the weekend, but then the database page was down... for a week. It's up tonight, so I've done this and saved a local copy, but I don't have the time to finish the script updates tonight, so not doing the missing November articles yet. --PresN 04:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued work on this. It is appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. How many other Wikiprojects do this sort of thing? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Probably none. Most WikiProjects are inactive and useless though. Video games is one of the most active non-maintenance WikiProjects, only behind Women in Red, Military history, Football and Medicine. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, while a few individual editors may monitor their projects' changelog, we're the only one to have semi-automated posts like this. --PresN 03:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
To say that most wikiprojects are inactive is a bit unfair; a lot just have less activity. It's a bit of a shame that there isn't a standardized new articles list per wikiproject, as it's really a nice way of doing maintenance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
According to the WikiProject Directory, there are 2728 WikiProjects. 1916 of them (that's over 70%) have 0 active participants. 2629 of them (that's over 96%) have less than 10 active participants. So ye, most WikiProjects are inactive and useless. My comment is very accurate. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Should Skyrim mods exist?

Its only a few sentences long and after that has feature reading that don't seem to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Or at least I think they don't.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, definetly not notable. Mods are big for Skyrim but not outside of Skyrim. Consider merging the content. Lordtobi (✉) 14:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I decided to merge it back to the main page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The sheer amount of references (Even though they are listed as "further reading"), make the subject notable... But it's not notable on it's own. It could be made into a really good section however. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
There already is a section in the main article for mods. but the further reading is just recommendations of mods to get.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The further reading is a dump of reliable sources discussing the topic, which simply have not yet been integrated into the article. In short, this was done to show it could survive an AFD. @Czar. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure this article can be notable on its own. Plenty of sources. As long as it isn't expanded, there's no point in having a separate article for it, though. Just merge it until someone decides to greatly expand our coverage on the topic. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "not notable"—the cavalcade of listed sources would contest that, representing far more than the parent section's carrying capacity. But fine to treat within that main section and split summary style based on expansion, if you prefer. Until then, all of those sources will be hidden. czar 15:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
We should drop the discussion about whether Skyrim mods are notable and focus on more if there's enough information to have a page of its own. I think mods are notable, but the further reading were mostly recommendations for specific mods. There isn't a whole lot about how much mods made an impact or how mods changed the elder scrolls community or gaming overall. Practically unusable to just passing mentions that there have been recommendations and top lists.
I do believe mods are notable a subject too eventually if people look for the right content. The community has influenced Bethesda to create Creation Club and able to have mods for console in the form of DLC and there is a long history of mods with Skyrim too. Skyrim mods have definitely left an impact, we just need enough content to have an article of its own and sources talking about that impact. In my opinion. I don't think there's a specific criteria for pages talking about mods. if there is, I'd love to read it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I added one of the references from the mod page that wasn't simply a list of mods from to the section. I'd say just attempt to expand the section and split again eventually if it becomes necessary. The "started with a punch to the face" and sex mod articles are also more than just recommended lists. And there's an entire relatively well sourced The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project article. --tronvillain (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of The Game Awards for "In the News"

Cheers folks! Your input will be appreciated here, as it's very related to the WikiProjekt video games:

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#The_Game_Awards_2018 --Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Metal Gear Nav Box discussion

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Metal Gear#David Hayter. A third opinion might be needed.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Series articles MOS

Hi all,

I recently looked at the article for Danganronpa, which I wanted to do some work on. However, the article uses the title "premise" rather than plot, which we use for games. However, as this is a series, this could be considered as good a word. We don't seem to have a MOS for how series articles should be layed out in the same way we do for games, so should this be consistent? I looked at Final Fantasy (Which is my go too), which uses "plot and themes". Does anyone have an opinion on how we should deal with these? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I quite prefer "Premise" over "Plot" in most situations, as the entirety of something's plot is often not useful to a general audience anyway. This probably goes extra for series articles like these, where the plot is particularly long, segmented, potentially inconsistent (what is the plot of all Final Fantasy games?), and already described in the individual articles. That all being said, there doesn't always need to be a manual of style for these sorts of things. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The MOS only lists Plot for these sort of sections because that's what the majority of articles use. There can be variances in the section titles if they are more helpful for readers. Perhaps we could list alternative titles in the MOS to deal with this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that's what I was looking for. I understand anything suitible is ok as series are generally quite different between games; however, preferred topic headers would be appreciated. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless the section really is describing the plot throughout the entire series, I think "premise" is more appropriate (and I think that is the most appropriate way of dealing with most series articles).--Alexandra IDVtalk 21:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (December 2 to December 8)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v2.0 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 05:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow that's a lot of deleted cats! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm guessing there was a mass-CfD for "video games based on films by director" catagories last week. --PresN 17:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 8

Behold our glorious robot overlord-produced content! Today it autogenerates a list of new content, perhaps tomorrow it generates the substubs itself! --PresN 05:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, to those who were wanting to see them, the magic of technology has let me generate the new articles from the weeks that the new articles report was dormant- that is, October 5—November 17. See them, along with the rest of their calenderial friends, at the October 2018 and November 2018 archives. --PresN 06:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Autogenerated script overlords. Nice work PresN Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, PresN, which dates were those again? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
October 5—November 17, if I read that correctly.  :) 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those. --PresN 17:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback request: The Marriage

Hi all,

I've been doing a bit of work to an article I started a few years ago on The Marriage by Rod Humble. I'm considering getting it ready for GAN, and I'd like to get some feedback from people with more experience writing about video games than I have. It's an unusual game and has received some atypical coverage. As such the structure and content of the page don't seem to quite match any existing video game GAs as far as I can tell. A general sense of how close it seems to GA at this point would be useful, as well as concrete feedback about any clear issues that should be resolved prior to heading that way. Thanks! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • From a high-level structural point of view, seems reasonable. The name dropping of the analysts is maybe unnecessary. Did you feel uncomfortable without the inline attribution? The lead is too short for a GA. --Izno (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd go the other way- name-dropping the analysts feels odd because it doesn't tell me who they are. "Jane Ex says blah" doesn't mean much, "Jane X in Journal of Stuffs says X" tells me why I would care about their opinion (without having to hover over the cites). --PresN 02:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Izno, PresN, and Czar: I'd like to focus on the issue of quotes/attribution (expanding the lead, which is indeed something that needs to be done, is more straightforward). I have mixed feelings about this. Specifically, I'd like to talk about summarizing and removing attribution (adding additional context via the author's role or the publication is easy enough). As a matter of general principle, yes, I agree that paraphrasing is nearly always preferable, without necessitating attribution. Many of the sources attributed here, however, are academics studying the game, using language that's difficult to summarize without removing what's important and without separating it from the reason for including those sources. For example, Ian Bogost is a notable games scholar and has several notions related "procedurality" that he talks about. That it's a notable critic/academic is itself useful (and his take on the game is in turn covered in several of the other sources), but there's also the matter of, say, how he calls this a "proceduralist game." It's meaningful given his work on procedurality, but needs attribution because "proceduralist game" is not like saying "it's a roguelike" in Wikipedia's voice, as though that concept should exist without attribution to Bogost. A few of the sources use this game as a case study to develop a concept, whether simulation vs. metaphor or the gaming equivalent of high art vs. low art. Again, talking about it in the context of high art vs. low art isn't something I would expect to read in Wikipedia's voice, but is something I would be glad to read in the article. TL;DR - could someone offer examples of authors cited that could have their names omitted (and/or accompanying quotes that could be paraphrased)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Just from a quick flick through, if I were reviewing this; the lede needs extending, and would the reception section not come last? I did look for contemporary review articles, which as you stated, don't exist, although there is a brief mention in kotaku. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Since it looks like my comment may have been misinterpreted: I don't think that attribution should be removed. I'm pro putting the author's name next to quotes or paraphrases, for both reviews and academic sources. My comment was more that I (read: the reader) don't know who Ian Bogost is. And yes, for that case I can check their article, but most of the academics you cite don't have one; in either case, the reader has no way to know just by reading the article itself to know why they should care about Ian Bogost's opinion. Attribution, therefore, should not be removed, it should be expanded- say what site/journal they were writing in. If there's not a journal, say what the form was. So, "Ian Bogost, in Journal of Vidya, said blah", or at least "Ian Bogost, in a thesis on video game metaphors, said blah". --PresN 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and erred on the side of elaboration for now, adding a bit more information to conextualize those the content is attributed to. Along the lines of the above, I'm certainly not married (ahem) to that approach, though. I think it would be helpful to see examples of specific revisions folks may have in mind for what could be better presented without attribution. Perhaps a GAN would come down more to the preferences of the reviewer. Acknowledging that it could still use a bit of work, and willing to do that work, I'm going to go ahead and get it into the queue. If my past few experiences at GAN are any indication, there's still a few months to talk it through. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Test Drive games with change of titles

Some of the articles in the Test Drive games have been renamed by Luigitehplumber because "the games were developed in the UK". Is this the case or is there something more than that? Neverrainy (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Where there is clearly not a preference for a common English name for a game, the name should be based on the country of first (legitimate) publication, regardless of the developer's home. More often, that title is something set by the publisher, so we should use the one they first select if we don't have a clear better-known name. --Masem (t) 01:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
According to an Admin, they say that for WikiProject Video Games, you have to use the name that the country uses if the developer is located there, for example for TD Overdrive, that name would be used instead of Test Drive as the developer, Pitbull Syndicate is based in the United Kingdom and over there, the game was released under the TD Overdrive name. Luigitehplumber (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If both titles are somewhat equally likely to be used in English, they should probably both be listed in the series article, at least, regardless of which title we pick for the individual articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

LTPHarry - Just for reference, an admins thoughts on policy doesn't hold more weight than any other members. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who told you that, but we don't have any such guideline that says "Use the country the developer is located in". WP:NCVG makes no mention of such. WP:COMMONNAME should be followed. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I did find that strange from whoever told me that, considering some games are developed outside English speaking countries. Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The "country of developer" is generally applied to things like date formats and spelling (part of the strong national ties thing). --Masem (t) 16:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
(And in VG cases we generally don't view that as a default national tie.... See long discussion at MOS:VG from this week) -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer review at The Binding of Issac: Rebirth

I have started a peer review for The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth. All comments at the review page are greatly appreciated. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Video game companies of Poland is missing Destructive Creations.

This category is missing the company Destructive Creations. A page hasn't been created for them yet; however, they should still be added to the list. I just don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmizerski2000 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The way categories are programmed, only existing Wikipedia pages can be part of categories. You can't add a subject to a category if that subject doesn't have a page on Wikipedia. Technically, you could add the redirect titled "Destructive Creations" to a category, though I am not sure if this is generally accepted. Doing a quick Google Search, I think Destructive Creations fits the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article, so the optimal solution would probably be if someone wrote a good article on the subject. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Computer Space

Got a couple requests at WP:FFU related to this game. Looks like it was based on Spacewar!, which seems to have been especially released into the public domain by the owners. But I'm not entirely sure that Computer Space is an exact copy or if it is a derivative work. If it's derivative, then it would likely have it's own copyright protection. But if it is an exact copy on a different piece of hardware, then it wouldn't.

Figured I'd solicit some input and see if anybody was familiar with the subject. GMGtalk 15:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. There's two things here:
  • I can say for sure that Computer Space is inspired, but not derived directly from Space War! (different computer architectures at the time). And while the gameplay is derivative, at least in US copyright law, that's not a copyrightable element. Thus, assuming all other parts are free, then a free screenshot or video of Computer Space would not be a non-free work due to its inspiration from Space War! (eg: FreeCiv is a open-sourced version of the Civilization games, so we have plenty of shots of that).
  • However, the second element is the actual gameplay of Computer Space. There is a potential for the graphics to be copyrightable (regardless if they registered or not). The cabinet is a functionary thing with no art, so that would not be copyrightable. But back to gameplay, now the question becomes , does this possible meet the threshold of originality? Unfortunately, I think it's just across the line particular these being video shots to show the game's animation too. I'm not 100% sure on this, but this does need to be asked. If the TOO is not met, then these videos should be fine as free images. --Masem (t) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
non-free work due to its inspiration from Space War! No, that's got it backward. Space War! was released into PD, but I don't see that Computer Space has been. So if it were a near exact copy of Space War!, then that would be an argument in favor of it being free, and not the other way round.
As far as TOO and game play, haven't the faintest. I don't believe I've ever seen a related court case or a similar file defended anywhere here or on Commons based on TOO grounds. GMGtalk 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh hey, I wrote both of those articles. The PD status of Spacewar! has nothing to do with Computer Space, sadly- while the latter may have been inspired by the former, the dev process made it an entirely different game. Spacewar! is a 2-player dogfighting game around a gravity well on a stellar background; Computer Space is a 1-player target shooting game where you move a ship and shoot UFOs on rails. I'd love to have a screenshot in the article either way, but it's definitely not PD or derivative of Spacewar!. --PresN 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. I mean...not "awesome", but at least it's closure. GMGtalk 17:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I have uploaded several images of early video game graphics under the guise of simple geometry constituting public domain. (see these examples: [9] [10] [11] [12]). This is always a balancing act and I sometimes removed some more intricate elements of a given image to make it more generic. When I look at the visuals of Computer Space, I don't believe this argument holds very well, especially if those stars were manually placed by a person. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nintendo Account

Just doing a few ratings for articles, and saw this article. Does anyone have opinion on the WP:FLAGCRUFT on this page? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The entire Availability section is unsourced. Should we even cover the subject like this? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Just about every discussion I’ve been involved with has lead to the removal of the flags. I’m honestly not sure what their legit use is at this point... Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, it's mostly only used for {{flagathlete}}, or similar, or on geographical articles. Anything with a list of countries (outside of list of countries in XXX) should probably not exist. This seems like a notable subject, but probably only a stub. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I just removed the entire section due to it being WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and unsourced). Is there not an official Nintendo site that we could instead point to for people wanting to know the exact availability of the service in parts of the world? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't really see how it's important to Wikipedia, tbh. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Relatively new Wikipedian Gold Luigi (talk · contribs) did so too on PlayStation Network. I think they're not yet familiar with the policy. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Not going to lie - I personally also hate the function style tables these articles gain - such as the PlayStation Network#Network chart. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
That looks like WP:CATALOG stuff to me. PlayStation's own websites can handle that stuff. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
It 100% is. I've just removed that entire section because of that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that you guys removed the flags on Nintendo Account and PlayStation Network. Why? (And yes, I came here because I got mentioned.) Gold Luigi (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

- see above conversation. It's not encyclopedic. It also breaks Wikipedia's guidelines regarding WP:FLAGCRUFT Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Zwei US date

Hello. Can anyone provide a source for the US release date of Panzer Dragoon II Zwei. I've got sources for the JP and EU dates, but the US date remains elusive. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Only sources I can find just mention it was in 96. Sorry Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

c:Category:Videos by Bandai Namco

Just an FYI, but apparently this company is in the business of uploading official videos to youtube under a creative commons license, meaning that there are currently 195 of them available on Commons, and not only can we use the videos in their entirety, but we can use any individual element of them for either video clips or for still images. GMGtalk 11:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I still wonder to what extent they're doing this legitimately. There are trailers for the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure PS3 and PS4 games on Commons, and although Bandai Namco is the publisher of those two games, they do not own the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure IP - that does, to my knowledge, belong to Hirohiko Araki's art studio and to Shueisha.--Alexandra IDVtalk 12:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not legitimate because they're not the copyright holders of most of the stuff they upload on their YouTube channel. Obviously some marketing intern who doesn't understand copyright and has no idea what they're doing. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Well apparently whatever internal agreement they have allows the publisher to release content for promotional purposes, since that's what they're doing, and have been for a while now. Moreover, they're doing it on an official corporate account with 0.5m subscribers, on YouTube, where there is a well established regime in place to have the content removed if it is violating.
We can always shoot them an email in the off chance that they respond, but barring that, we have no way of knowing their internal arrangements, and "bumbling intern" may be consistent with the evidence we have, but so is a company who figured that releasing content for free was the quickest way to have it as widely disseminated as possible. GMGtalk 13:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but if Bandai Namco does not own JoJo (they do not), they very probably do not have the right to release that trailer for free in the first place. The trailer even includes panels from the manga it's based on. Maybe it's different for original IP developed and published by Bandai Namco though.--Alexandra IDVtalk 14:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
We had a similar problem with some part of Ubisoft releasing gameplay stuff as CC or the like, but clearly it was not a universal decision by Ubisoft proper. Same thing here. If it were only games that were B-N creations only, like Pacman, Katamari Damacy, etc. and purposely exclude the anime games, it might pass that sniff test, but definitely not in this case. --Masem (t) 15:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Make sure to comment at the original discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 60#No free equivalent, but what is equivalent?, or people are going to jump on this. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion also at commons:Commons:AN#Licensing of Bandai videos probably invalid. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What to include in developers' game tables

Stemming from a recent argument which is not covered in our MOS — should DLC/expansions and editions of games be included in game tables on the articles of their respective developers? If so, what would be the inclusion criteria? For DLC, "it adds significant content" or "it is an expansion pack" would be too shallow, as Dovetail Games would then have 490 entries just for Train Simulator 2019. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine and Layers of Fear: Inheritance are examples of what I would say could be included.

Editions also vary; for example, Minecraft: [console name] Edition is a native C++ remake of the original Java game, the Windows 10 edition was remade in C# for UWP, and some handheld versions are made with yet another framework; I assume those could be included. On the other hand, Goat Simulator: GOATY Edition is just a bundle of the game and its DLC, which is not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordtobi (talk • contribs)

In my opinion nowdays because there is blurred line by developers what is called expansion and DLC we have to go by individual basis. If DLC/Expansion adds content to single player, by adding new campaign or extending main one, it should be included. Layer of Fear Inheritance adds new story to the game hence I would say worthy of includion. In the Train Simulator example you provided, I would not include any of them as they are graphical additions/skins of extra trains. Any such minor digital content, like extra multiplayer maps, new guns for example, new skins shouldn't count, but a piece of DLC that adds to the story in my opinion should. Thanks for creating the discussion, appreciate your efforts. Alakagom (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Alak
I think DLC/expansions/GOTY editions should only be included if they exist as a standalone article, which Blood and Wine does. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The only problem with that most games I am looking at are published by tiny developers. Their games sometimes don't even have articles of their own. And when they do, almost all expansions and DLC content are listed within the main game as a sub-heading, even though DLC/Expansion can be pretty substantial. Super big games from developers like Witcher always get lots of articles. Medium to small developers not really. Alakagom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
If they aren't notable, then they shouldn't be included. Only base games should be included without articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh nice, something I have a strong opinion on! I mainly work on developers who have enough games to have their own dedicated "list of games" article, such as Blizzard Entertainment, Epic Games, Firaxis Games, etc., and if you look at those lists you can see my opinion on the matter: each row should be a base game only, but each row should also include space for free text (such as bullet points) that mention any expansions, DLC, or remakes. In that Blizzard list, for example, there's World of Warcraft; even though all 7 of its expansions have their own articles they don't get their own rows in the table.
I find this solves the problem of non-notable DLC cluttering up the table, without excluding content that doesn't have an article like Dissident's solution does. It's also important to remember that you don't have to have a one-size-fits-all solution, especially for corner cases- if Train Simulator 20XX has a hundred minor DLCs, you don't have to list them. If Minecraft has a bunch of "editions" but the developer only made one other game, maybe you don't need a traditional "games table" but just prose describing what the different editions are. Tl;dr: move beyond a bare wikitable... Unless you have 50+ games like at List of 3D Realms games, in which case you need a more condensed table, so maybe footnotes can sort it out. --PresN 03:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Task force cleanup 2018

As the new year approaches, now might be a good time for another task force cleanup. The Blizzard, Indie, Rockstar, and Valve task forces do not appear to be in regular use. Is there any benefit to keeping their infrastructure or should we redirect them? I'm open to discussing the other remaining task forces too, but thought we'd start with objections to the most moribund. There's little use in maintaining pages that are not actively facilitating collaboration or contributing to the WikiProject's mission. czar 19:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue with redirecting them, though I don't see how it is a defensible argument to say they are moribund when their talk pages redirect here, thus preventing their talk pages from being used, making them moribund by default.... --Izno (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Ostensibly their main pages would be updated too if there was active collaboration in these areas. In retrospect, I should have recommended these for redirection in the last discussion. czar 20:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
No one's maintaining the main pages, so it might make sense to redirect. However, that means the banner task force link goes to a redirect. So I would keep the pages with a brief description and point to the main page. In other words, remove stuff that needs maintaining, like FA/GA lists. I'm mostly concerned about Indie one. I have no strong feelings about the others -- they are single developer specific, and that always struck me as... selective. Also, as Izno says, they redirect talk pages here, so we are already keeping it all central. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think your suggestion is the best approach. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Redirecting the task force would imply deprecating the WPVG banner's task force parameter/link as well. (There's no need to classify these articles if no one is doing anything with them.) czar 11:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I would want the banner task force to be preserved at least for Indie. I do keep track of article alert subpage, for example. It's also useful to see the WP1.0 breakdown table. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I support redirecting. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Gems Collection

There's currently a discussion on the talk page that could use a few more opinions. The discussion is here. JOEBRO64 20:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR or not WP:OR?

The developer of Everywhere (video game) announced its name in October on its own website and no one picked it up. There is also something to prove it is the developer. Question is, is it original research to cite both of these to add the information? Cognissonance (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Original research is you creating new information. The developer's website is a primary source that may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Regards SoWhy 14:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you are confused here. WP:PRIMARY sources aren't original research. It would be nearer WP:SYNTH if you try to make a second hand claim from multiple sources, but this is straight forward. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I think I made it work. Cognissonance (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Potential source for PS4 player data as of Nov 2018

This article documents a recent opportunity to determine sales player count figures for PS4 games. In brief, Sony divulged some trophy stats in a social media campaign that, when compared to freely available achievement data, let us calculate player figures to a few significant digits. The data is being compiled here. Per WP:CALC, "Routine calculations do not count as original research". In this case, we might cite the game-specific summary video ("123,456 players earned the 'Hello World' trophy") and the trophy page on Sony's website that says "11.2% of players earned the 'Hello World' trophy" and divide one by the other to arrive at an estimate of sales (or rather, players, which is arguably more relevant and important). I believe this qualifies as a routine calculation. In cases where we lack more official sales data only, I think this would be an acceptable source for gaps in our sales data coverage. Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Treat this like Steamspy - they are estimates. I would only use numbers as published by RSes (like the Polygon article) that have done the calculation to leave it out of our hands. --Masem (t) 01:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, I’d only support its inclusion with the proper context. Not just saying “As of November 2018, Persona 5 sold 3 million”, but fully identifying that the figures were extrapolated through this method from this event, what the figures represent, that they’re an estimate, etc. But even that’s if we must, if a consensus supports this at all. This veers awfully close to WP:OR for me, and is imprecise (it doesn’t account for people who play used copies, which would register on this, but not count as an actual sale for the game for the company, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this I agree that mention that these are estimates from this MyPS4Life program is necessary. -Masem (t) 02:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much the same thing we did with the Steam achievment leak last summer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I would only consider it if there are absolutely no other possible sources available. I probably shouldn't have specified "sales"---this is actually a much more important and much more difficult number to obtain: actual number of players. Except in a narrow range of cases, we as editors don't actually care too much about *sales* and rarely report a game's revenue unless it's independently noteworthy (like RDR2 being the most profitable media release yadda yadda). But I do believe this qualifies as WP:CALC, which is an official part of WP:OR. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't use it. It's based upon how many players received trophies. Players, not purchasers. Gamestat says there have been 51.7 million people who have played GTA V on PlayStation 4 alone. That dwarfs the recent sales numbers in the article. A possible explanation for this discrepancy I think is that everytime a player tries a game, the list of trophies is added to their account. For GTA V, 90.61% of players received the first trophy. Or, 9.39% of people started the game at least once, but didn't play untill the first trophy popped up. See my trophy list, scroll down to see a lot of 0% achieved trophy games. PlayStation Plus games I've tried once, games I borrowed from a friend, a rental game which turned out not for me. So no, I wouldn't consider this extrapolated data to be reliable for sales numbers. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm? The GTAV article says that they've shipped over 100M copies so 51M on PS4, the biggest selling console on the market today, isn't completely unreasonable. As I said above, I misspoke. This isn't sales data; it's player count data. Also, the percents listed on PSNProfiles are percents of registered accounts on the website who have the trophy, not the official numbers tracked by Sony on their website. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
What about second-hand sales and games loans? There's no way to determine in the data if the player is playing a brand new copy or one that has been used multiple times, or if it's one borrowed from a friend. It's pure guesswork worthy of the same treatment as VGChartz. - X201 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
And a single person having multiple accounts is completely plausible if they like to play games from other regions. There are multiple reasons not to put too much faith in these numbers. Reach Out to the Truth 16:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Only as a cautionary, Xbox seems to be doing a similar thing - I haven't seen numbers gained from it yet like PS4, but it seems to have potential. --Masem (t) 17:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • For anybody unaware, we have a list that includes some of the Steam achievement games here (List of most-played video games by player count). If this shouldn't be considered reliable, then those games shouldn't either due to the nearly identical circumstances for both. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Since we have an RS reporting on it, I think it can be used given the proper context (it's an estimate by Polygon, it's player count rather than amount of sales, it's based on trophies) assuming we have no reports on actual sales - but if we do have actual sales data or confirmed player counts, those are always preferable. I have the same opinion on the Steam thing.--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Question

Curious, where can I find the Newly redirected video game articles section like it is posted in New Articles posts here? If it is possible, of course. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Script-built. I don't think there is anywhere on Wikipedia which tracks those besides in PresN's script. --Izno (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jovanmilic97: Yeah, my script builds that section by taking all the articles that have an assessment change to either 'redirect' or 'untagged', then checking if the url still works (e.g. redirects you to another article). It then filters out page moves by checking the edit history for the redirect target for any edits in the target time period where the edit summary has a link to the old title and has either A) a 'mw-tag-mw-new-redirect' tag or B) the summary "moved page from blah" or C) if the redirect target was also listed that week as a 'new' article (there's usually overlaps, but not always). What's left is articles that got redirected to an existing article. What are you looking for redirected articles for? --PresN 13:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@PresN: Exactly because of these 2 articles Crash Bandicoot Nitro Kart 3D and Crash Bandicoot Nitro Kart 2, both which have undeniable notability on it's own yet were still redirected to a list of mobile games of the franchise (which makes sense in the case none of the 2 were notable, but they are). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Gamers' Choice Awards

Hi All,

Saw the article for Gamers' Choice Awards. Are these deemed as WP:USERGEN, as they are purely voted by users, or because it's broadcast, does that make it different? It looks relatively notable to me, but I'm not sure that the individual awards are. Any feedback? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Not if a major production arm like CBS got involved to help produce. Definitely notable even if the show was considered a failure. --Masem (t) 16:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. A big sponsored awards show with big company’s presenting the results are different from the user review section at Metacritic. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
And to add to the legitimacy of it being a notable topic, there's clearly some issues with how the show went down that make it notable on its own. [13] (Very odd that few of the routine gaming sites even covered it, making me wonder if there's even more behind the scenes problems with it). --Masem (t) 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

FA possibility for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

Hi,

I've been a major contributor to the editing of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered's article, and last year helped get it to Good Article status. Recently I've been wondering if and how it would be possible to go a step further and get it to Featured Article status. In my opinion, it's a very nice article, but I guess it might need some work to achieve this. I'm not familiar with the whole process and had a skim through WP:GVF, but I would appreciate the assistance of an admin who has a lot more knowledge on the subject and who could ascertain the number of requirements it would need to meet. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: I recommend starting a peer review to get others' thoughts on what you could do to improve the article (if you do I'll make some time to take a look), and possibly submit a request to have a Guild of Copy Editors member do some c/e. JOEBRO64 22:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_141&oldid=1249260865"