Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 144

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140←Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145Archive 146→Archive 150

Overemphasis on sex/sex appeal-related content in reception sections of female characters' articles

I feel that some female character articles have too strong an emphasis on sexuality. Not that instances of the character's sexuality/sex appeal should be ignored because of what they are, but it feels that some things either go into too great of detail, or are downright vulgar in how the information is presented. Certainly guilty of that myself. I was wondering if anyone would be interested in going over some of these articles and trying to help tweak them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, this has been a common complaint of mine as well. There’s way too much of this empty, pointless “X was ranked #8 on Complex’s ‘Hottest Girls of 2009’ because ‘she’s hawt and has long legs’”. But there may be some pushback, as 1) some people still don’t understand the problem with this and 2) for some of these character articles, that’s the only “reception” they could scrounge up. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that it should necessarily be removed as much as condensed. ie, use these sources for a statement on, say, "[character X] has been praised as a video game sex icon by multiple outlets due to [characteristic X]." - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED - reception is reception and as long as the comments are made by RS, I see no policy-backed rationale to alter this. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
That’s not what I’m saying, though I can’t say I’m surprised to see it misunderstood that way. My point is more along the lines of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Yes, if a reliable source says something, it can be elligible for inclusion, but just because there’s a source doesn’t mean it has to be included either. To create a less touchy analogy, I’d find it equally pointless to include that GamePro ranked Sonic the Hedgehog as #8 best mammal in a video game in 1994” as well. Sergecross73 msg me 11:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Only 8th? Sonic got robbed. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, human characters are mammals too... :P Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps my tone in my above comment came across as a bit aggressive - soz :) My reply was more in response to the "some things either go into too great of detail, or are downright vulgar in how the information is presented" comment, which I feel definitely falls afoul of NOTCENSORED. As for your Sonic example - I would agree with you that such a source probably won't contribute to notability and help poor Sonic survive a hypothetical AfD, though I wouldn't really have an issue including it in an article either. A closer analogy here would be "#8th best mammal in video games of all time", plus a few sentences explaining why. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, it’s fine, in fact, I hadn’t even initially seen the comment on vulgarity. Yeah, that’s not so much my concern, it’s definitely the short top 10 sentences that get added into the article that have little value/importance. As you say, the ones that show a more important scope (“of all time”) or can be expanded a few sentences to show a little more detail/importance, I have less of a problem with. And as NARH says too, sometimes it’s a matter of condensing like comments into a single sentence too, or just trimming some out when there’s example bloat. I’m not talking complete eradication of the commentary or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Vulgarity is more a thing of, as Serge mentioned, instances where people write ‘she’s hawt and has long legs’”. We should give a more encyclopedic summation, rather than quoting stuff like that. So like, "Wario was ranked the fifth hottest male character because of his weight" rather than "Wario was ranked the fifth hottest male character because he is "thicc af."" - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
It actually reminds me of the Poison (Final Fight) talk page, where there was a debate over whether the 'trap' slur should be used when a non-slur version of the term could be used instead. If there's a way to depict the intent of the message in a way that is more appropriate. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
We should be on the same page then. Re your Wario example, it was my understanding that most articles are already being written with phrasing more like the former than the latter - looking at the "Sex symbol" subsection for Ivy Valentine, for example, I'd say it's formal and academic in tone considering the subject matter. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
While scanning character articles and making notations of articles that need improvement, I had just noticed a few articles that go beyond an encyclopedic tone, though I can't remember which ones they were. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
As Sergecross pointed out, most of these articles likely can be found to heavily use "listicles" , top 10 lists from not-quite-bad RSes that give maybe 50-100 words about each of the top 10 hottest VG characters, or the like. Yes, these lists did not always focus on sex appeal but their most common use was for articles on "sexy" female characters. Hence why we have steered as far as possible from accepting these articles if they are principally built on coverage from listicles. There are certainly VG characters w/ known sex appeal that is part of their reception (eg Lara Croft), and we're not censoring there, just that, we want "in depth" coverage, and listicles simply cannot provide that. This goes for any other VG character too. --Masem (t) 13:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You know what's more important than being PC? Updating the articles. For example of all the SNK characters I think only Mai and Nakoruru are entirely up to date regarding their appearances, and that's only I keep it this way. And the entire articles of, for another example, Warcraft characters (all of them) were just really badly written when I've checked them, and that awful writing extends to their reception sections (as tagged by me in Jaina Proudmoore 4 years ago) but really to everything. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No one's talking about being PC, and it's not a zero-sum game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Please stay on topic, Snake. If you’ve got unrelated concerns, make a new discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I was the guy who wrote those Warcraft character articles, lol. I've always wanted to improve them later on but never got round to doing so. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If the reception sections focus a lot on the sexual aspects of a character, I highly doubt it’s undue weight. The reality is that’s what the sources involve, and even now it’s rare that many characters in general, especially female ones, get much deep content on that front. Better writing should probably not be spending a lot of time quoting passages and reciting exact placements and rankings in lists or similar, but that’s an issue of clear and concise encyclopedic writing. Without better examples I don’t see how anything is broadly actionable, certainly as “vulgar”. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

But we need to take into account whether content is just repeating the same stuff over and over, with listicles about a character's sex appeal that doesn't go into such great depth that we need to go into excruciating detail on the subject. Also, while it's true that I can't provide specific examples in this instance, I think Serge agrees that the text of these articles often (or at least too often) quotes things that needn't be quoted. This is true for more than just this problem, but it's a problem that's a lot more consistent here. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Then that’s an issue with WP:INDISCRIMINATE or stylistic concerns. Same as any other part of the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as NARH notes, some of my concerns here are about the pointlessness of the direct quotes. To tie it in to Sonic articles again, as to not confuse the situation with other social/sexual issues, people would write Reception like “Tails was ranked 10th best sidekick of 2011, calling him “cute” but “fierce”. IGN notes that he was “the sort of guy who would support you.” Its correctly sourced...but it says little of importance. Sub in female characters names and mundane observations about their physical appearance and you’ve got what I’m talking about here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would advise to think of the reception as a formal letter. Try focusing one section on the character, personality, or another certain traits appeals to others (gameplay moves, relationships, etc). The sex appeal might fit well in one paragraph unless there is a notable division between positive and negative notes (maybe a character is oversexualized, or maybe the character's sexuality is not appealing).Tintor2 (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"Is regarded as oversexualized" by this or another particular person/institution, not "is oversexualized". As I've recently seen with the still very one-sided (showing only POV of Americans and especially sex-negative feminists, with nothing about how a Japanese character was received in Japan, I put some rather cosmetic edits to alleviate it while inserting a photo) article Quiet (Metal Gear) - there are and never been no global nor timeless standards for "oversexualization", and for example in some Islamic countries just merely showing hair is outright illegal and so the government in for example Iran is not only banning games but also doing things like specifically banning most of female characters from local LoL tournaments. I've already mentioned Nakoruru in this very thread, so now I'll point out to how I didn't neglect the Japanese perspective while writing Nakoruru#Reception and cultural impact. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, I don't know that you know what exactly a sex-negative feminist is. More a pSWERF as opposed to someone who criticizes a design for being oversexualized. Also Quiet is silly. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
A sex-negative feminist is an opposite of a sex-positive feminist (a well-known example of a very sex-negative one: A. Sarkeesian who hates displays of female sexuality in media and has also vocally opposed slut walks, habitually calls sex workers "prostituted women", and so forth as for female sexuality in the real world). Quiet is "silly" powerful and literally awesome (that is: inspiring awe), but that's just my POV. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I legit laughed out loud when you mentioned Anita Sarkeesian. Not that I disagree with your assessment since she's kind of SWERFy, but it's not because she criticizes sexuality (and indeed never expresses "hatred" for sexuality, rather criticizing its overemphasis... hey, it's coming full circle!), but because, intentionally or not, this conversation gave me so many GamerGate vibes. I'm not calling you a member of GamerGate, but those were the initial vibes I got. Coupled with talking about "political correctness," and I'm legitimately curious what your intent and viewpoint is. That said, on the subject of Quiet, it's not merely an issue of character design and more an issue of framing. The outfit can work, but not with the camera framing. Quiet is routinely objectified, needlessly doing sexy poses with the intent of titillating the player. Also, Quiet represents another in-universe excuse for sexy women that is used in lieu of the creator being honest and saying that they wanted the character to be sexy. Cortana, Quiet, lawl. Give me more Sorceress and Bayonetta *chefkiss* - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
You're completely wrong, Kojima said always honest and completely open about how and why exactly he wanted the characters to be sexy: with for example Raiden (who goes much less dressed, that is is completely naked at one point) being a bishonen to appeal to teenage Japanese girls who hated the "stupid old men" from MGS (replaced a shitty EW article calling the reader to be "outraged" by this with the direct-ish source), and Quiet to appeal to cosplayers and sell figures (which I don't think is even mentioned in neither article). "Objectification" is just a (feminist) theory, if you don't believe in it no one ever is "objectified" (at least in a sexual and mass media sense - because for example prisoners of Japanese WWII human experimentation facilities camps actually were objectified when they were extremely dehumanized by being refered to as not even as something like guinea pigs but as "logs", that is pieces of wood). And yes, I've been a GG "member" (flashing a GG-gang sign). As for Cortana, it's only ironic Quiet's article cites criticism of her/Kojima coming from a co-designer of Halo games. Bayonetta: she's actually doing "needlessly doing sexy poses with the intent of titillating the player" all the time, and Sarkeesian's own review found the only perceived positive thing about her being allegedly "a single mother" (which was false first of all, but I also fail to see its "positive" aspects expect if one is hating fatherhood as institution). If you want to continue this, come to my talk page. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, believing that Sarkeesian is a net negative on the gaming community or even being a GamerGater (or a Sarkeesian fan, or whatever) doesn't discount you from editing Wikipedia as long as you follow our (non-political) rules. Not saying that anyone here is or isn't one, but whatever - tbh I can't see anything productive coming out of this line of discussion so I humbly suggest to stop this now. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"And yes, I've been a GG "member" (flashing a GG-gang sign)." OOF. I'm not gonna continue this specific conversation, but oof. Imagine someone willingly admitting that. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to be ashamed of, unless someone actually believes in the fictional narrative (any version, many of them) in which case it's still not my problem. Also I was joking about being a member as there simply were never any "members" (nor leaders - purposely so, and perhaps it was a mistake), unless to mean the membership in League For Gamers (Mark Kern's project which never went anywhere). Also I'm going correct my boasting about nakoruru being up to date - actually she wasn't, I've left her for few months and she was missing several games already. She's up to date now (roughly), but in short future it will be outdated again. And also on a related note, Samurai Shodown 2019 is coming soon while List of Samurai Shodown characters is still deleted. For 4 years now, having been deleted repeatedly: [1] --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I 1000% agree with Snake that our reception sections are overwhelmingly America-centric. I guess much of this can't be helped since most of us can't speak Japanese (or any other language), but I definitely would love more Japanese (or non-English, really) commentary in our reception sections, WP:GLOBALIZE and what not. I'm sure everyone else here would say the same. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, there seems to be two separate issues being discussed here:
1) That sexuality/sex appeal character reception in articles is inappropriate/vulgar/politically incorrect - broad consensus seems to be that removing these would be improper as per WP:NOTCENSORED;
2) That "top 10" listicles, sexuality-related or otherwise, don't contribute much of substance towards the article - this is a topic that has been debated ad nauseam on this WikiProject, both on this page and in deletion discussions, so the line between what is acceptable and what isn't shouldn't be too unclear now. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be improper? It's not censorship to determine whether or not specifically quoting certain text is good for the article. Just as Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that can apply to unnecessary quotations. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm still confused as to what your viewpoint is? Above you say that "I don't think that it should necessarily be removed as much as condensed" and we should use something like "Wario was ranked the fifth hottest male character because of his weight" as opposed to "Wario was ranked the fifth hottest male character because he is "thicc af."" That would put is in mutual agreement. But now you're advocating we outright remove the content? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I've never advocated for its removal, I advocated for removing nonsense quotes. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
We're both on the same page then. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it'd be worthwhile to form a task force to condense and cleanup content. Would anyone be interested in participating in such a thing? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well right now a lot of the character articles are, admittedly, kind of a mess but I would definitely say treat everything case by case. I think what's conflating this is how a lot of articles overly rely on lists where there's actually no input beyond "they're hot!" or something tongue in cheek. If there's some actual meat that can be quoted, it should count as reception as long as it's clearly a statement on the character. I know there's still a massive disdain for lists, especially with their rampant overuse, however even those sources have seemingly dried up a lot (namely sites like GamesRadar that stopped utterly) and in some cases it's the only place to get any sort of reception for characters, so wholesale throwing them out isn't the answer either.
I don't know if a task force is really going to be the solution in light of that. You can't apply the same strict guidelines to Wario as you can Mai Shiranui because there are very different discussions going on with both of those characters. I think if anything a good place to start would be to examine which character articles are higher priority to get to at least GA, because if anything the vast majority of them have been deadlocked for literally years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I really, really believe that for example at last un-deleting List of Samurai Shodown characters (which, again, has been repeatedly deleted by a single user over the course of multiple years) is just SO much more important than making Nakoruru alone a GA. Also, still there, getting the SS own Haohmaru out from the "Start" state (I honestly don't care about him personally, but the work is there, awaiting for also years). And to note how ironic that years-long insistence on destroying the SS roster was: List of The Last Blade characters from the so much obscure series (2 games, no series article), with its total of 0 refs, has been allowed to remain all along ([2]) as that one certain user has some some rather strange priorities. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with either Wario or Mai Shiranui's reception sections. Mai's reception section is actually pretty damn commendable for its diversity of non-American and non-English sources (or at the very least has more of them than most). And it's not like this is even an issue that's stopping articles from reaching GA status - off the top of my head, Ivy Valentine, Jill Valentine, Ayane (Dead or Alive) and Lara Croft are all GA and they all have considerable paragraphs on their sex appeal. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I never claimed that sex appeal discussion should be removed. Jill, Lara, etc. are not evidence that other non-GA articles don't have an issue. I'd have to look into some of these further to see if those specific instances are needlessly gratuitous.
Also Snake, why do you keep bringing up what's more or less important? What's most important for an editor to do is what they feel like doing. It's probably more important to create articles for, say, notable Game Boy Advance games that don't have articles than improving Virtual Boy games, but I find the former less interesting than the latter. If you wish to get people interested in undoing an unjust deletion, please use a different section to talk about it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Snake, if you want something done, and there’s no consensus keeping you from doing it, do it yourself. As I’ve already mentioned, people here generally aren’t looking for ideas of projects to take on, and definitely don’t respond well to negativity and berating. You’re just wasting your own time when you spend time with these lengthy complaints of editors not working on things you personally want them to work on. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
What "do yourself" if that certain user will just redirect it again as he did repeatedly? In fact I just saw that same user deleted List of characters in The Witcher series - without a doubt one of the biggest RPG series of all time, and that's only an addition to the also very popular original novels and other media (like an upcoming new TV series). Such complete absurd. I posted The Witcher#Can someone explain to me why still no List of The Witcher characters yet? expecting to see a red link, turned out there was a list once, and OF COURSE it was this one certain user at work again. (And btw, also wasn't surprised to see that Geralt of Rivia is a shitty article about such an absolutely huge character. It's REALLY like if everything is shit unless I do personally it, yes. Guess I'm going to give him a sort of treatment I gave the Evil Queen (Disney). But not right now, I'm still inserting various photos elsewhere and then working on all these articles where even italics are not used for titled and it's all so bad it's really triggering all my OCD.) --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

So, there seems to be general agreement that it’s something worth looking into, though with varying degrees of what’s acceptable - which is fine, perhaps the varying viewpoints will keep either side from getting too heavy-handed. So let’s move into a plan for moving forward. How should we do it? I don’t outwardly object to a task force, but it seems like a lot of those fizzle out pretty quickly, and may not be worth the effort to set it up. It might be best to just create a user talk sub-page or something and just go at it. I don’t plan on spearheading the effort, but I’ll be here to help. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Why can’t these discussions happen on the talk pages of the character pages where it’s a problem? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Unless everyone is hunting everyone else’s contribs, I imagine it’d be a lot of discussions with 1 participant. I don’t know what NARH or others had in mind, so I’ll let them speak on it. Outside of moving us past those endless looping argument above, I’m really just hear for the ride and assisting a little. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I opened a few merge discussions on some character pages in light of this (I-No, Baby Bonnie Hood, Hsien-Ko) that are primarily quoteless lists for the entirety of their Reception sections, I think that may be a good start. Clear out the ankle biters, then tighten up the rest so we can bring them up to B or GA at least. Starting with just the female video game characters category should be best, as they're a much smaller pool and easier to manage. What do you guys thinks?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
And those went about as well as I expected them to.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
You expected the right thing then. I've reverted all the tagging - procedurally at the very least you need to create a section on the talkpage so it's even possible to start a merger discussion. Although (and how should I put this delicately)... you know what, I'm just going to say it outright. No offence, but your edit history since March has pretty much just been feuding with Snake and suggesting deletions or mergers. It feels a bit petty to me. I think this is what Snake is trying to get at with his "less/more important" comments - there's better things to do, like, creating articles and expanding articles or something. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 22:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I just got done expanding King Hippo, I created Cadence of Hyrule, and I see the value in addressing whether Wikipedia articles merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I also created Guilty Gear Judgment, an article that Snake failed to create for themselves. I also don't buy that they're exclusively concerned about merging, since even the topic of improving an issue with these articles was deemed unimportant by Snake. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
At work now I so will respond to everything else later, but I wasn't talking about you @New Age Retro Hippie:. Just wanted to clear that up first. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 23:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I was more making the point that a person who is concerned with merging articles isn't inherently not concerned with keeping and improving others at the same time. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don’t think they were in bad faith, but I do agree that a discussion/rationale should be given on the talk page for each one at least. Otherwise the discussion isn’t likely to develop much. Sergecross73 msg me 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
There's no pettiness at all: some articles can be improved and others are better off merged into character lists. What you're describing as a "feud" with Snake is unavoidable because he's essentially claimed ownership of a vast majority of the character articles, with a stance that he and he alone can fix them. That's not assuming bad faith here, that's clearly presentable by his response above. Article creation is good, but fixing up existing articles and improving them to be at least GA status is also a viable goal, and it's difficult when you have an editor that steadfastly will not let any other editor fix up "their" articles. That's not to say Snake isn't great at researching or finding information, but he needs to let his deathgrip and ownership go so these can improve. And shouting "what the hell are you doing?" for suggesting a merge on a character article is definitely not the way to go about it.
Re: not leaving a discussion, I've been out of the loop for some time but I was understanding leaving a notice on the page was an open invite for discussion regarding it, especially since a lot of times these articles don't get discussion from previous experience and the end result is to be bold and just merge it. Sorry if that was coming across as hostile in any way.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
It’s fine, I’m not sure creating a discussion is a “hard rule” as much as it’s a “best practice” type thing. Honestly, it’s probably in your best interest to start the discussion in the right direction and your intentions/rationale understood. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's really confusing to me since I thought KFM and me are friends, and now I see him telling people I made him quit Wikipedia and that I'm accusing him of being sexist, which was never my intention, and I don't want him to quit and I'm sorry if he felt this way. Officially speaking.

Also since there's a confusion regarding "ownership" of article let me set it straight: I-No is really User: Gabriel Yuji's ([3] - my entire input was to literally only add 2 categories[4]), the work on all Darkstalkers characters has been shared between me and User:Beemer69 in various portions (she's also the author of the list article that we've been then splitting from), and it was only the (unmentioned above, award-winning and so forth but soon largely forgotten as it was just 1 PC game in 1999 - I also made Morte from the same game, same deal) Annah-of-the-Shadows that I can only actually consider "mine" out of all the articles that got singled out. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the point of WP:OWN is that no one owns any articles. As for the main topic of this discussion, I'm aligned with NARH and Sergecross. Certainly reception sections of character articles could use cleaning up. I think the INDISCRIMINATE rationale is the most convincing for reducing the undue proliferation of low-quality, dubiously reliable listicles that are drowning out actual critique and critical reception. I don't think any concerted effort of merging is warranted here. Probably better is judicious use of the red editor's pen to excise what needs to be excised as you come across it. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

EGO Games

- My apoligies, and can erase this if it doesn't belong. Is this the correct place to give awareness to a page with broken external reference links? :) Or if someone could check it out and post a writing about it in a correct place for me as i am new to this but wanted it to be known. The 2 external links at the bottom on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/EGO_Game is not directing to the correct place. I also have not found any evidence yet through searching online that Ego still exists. I did not to an extensive search though :P Hope this helps! ;) -Magenet 11:04pm CST 5/11/2019

I moved this discussion into a separate section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Where would you think these external links should send too? the company doesn't need to still exist to have a link to it's website. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with sources for the Electric Brain article

I'm looking for help with sources for the defunct UK video game magazine Electric Brain (1989–1993). Any help or pointers appreciated! Mattsephton (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with the Danny Lange 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 Danny Lange, John Riccitiello, and Unity (game engine) talk pages. I've submitted a request at Talk:Danny Lange for editors to review my improved draft about the computer scientist and current Unity employee, which I've saved at User:Matthewpruitt/Danny Lange. An editor assisted with the Riccitiello article, but unfortunately no one has responded to my Lange request yet. Can a WikiProject Video games member please take a look? The current article is poorly written. Also, most of the text is unsourced, and there are lists of speeches, presentations, and publications. Thank you! Matthewpruitt (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The current article was written by blatant COI paid editors Suli123 (talk · contribs), 131.107.0.73 (talk · contribs) (a Microsoft IP), Leicesterdemontfort (talk · contribs). No one cares, so just copy your article across. It's not worse. - hahnchen 10:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Draft has been overtaken. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 14:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

New 2DS XL Photo

Could someone please update the New Nintendo 2DS XL photo in its article? The current one looks terrible, and it has a glare on the screen. I have found better pictures online, but they may not be allowed to be on Wikipedia.LBDCOM12 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@LBDCOM12: the one who makes the quality images is User:Evan-Amos. you could ask him if he can provide a better image for 2DS XL.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Independent game project Subverse passed $2 million in crowdfunding, still has no article

Stub created, wikified, and a few reliable sources thrown in, which is a sufficient start per WP:PUTEFFORT. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/990500595/subverse SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is this important? If there is plenty of RSs that say this is important, then it's ok, I suppose. But I don't really see how it's particularly notable. There's an argument for WP:1E against this being notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Where's the reliable secondary sourcing to show WP:GNG? At least give people something to work with if you're going to complain. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

>What is google

https://www.google.com/search?q=subverse+game&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Make it then. I encourage you to do so as it is an interesting subject. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Is to arrive this month. It's important because it's currently around #14 ever according to List of video game crowdfunding projects (where it's not). Can't do literally everything on Wikipedia just myself. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to spend more time complaining about articles not existing than you do writing them is all. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I was told to "participate in collaborative projects", also no. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Request board is over here, feel free to follow the instructions. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess I would say that this instance isn't so bad, but your history of bringing up how X article doesn't exist in discussions about Y article is highly disruptive, and I'd ask you to cease doing that in the future. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Participation is great. Constant complaining and being rude is not. I’m sure whoever asked you to participate would similarly ask you to stop complaining and being rude while participating. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I would go so far as to say your constant negging about perceived gaps in Wikipedia's coverage does not actually constitute "participating in collaborative projects". Axem Titanium (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Just because something gains a huge kickstarter success doesn't mean that it gets a lot of coverage. For example, one of the top-succeeding board game KS Kingdom Death: Monster still is extremely thin in sourcing overall. --Masem (t) 16:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Just because something gets a lot of coverage (https://www.google.com/search?q=subverse+game&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X) does mean it gets a lot of coverage. Like seriously I even posted this very link already. Generally few people care about board games that are not wargames and not Warhammer namely, but I checked and there are literally hundreds of sources (https://www.google.com/search?q="Kingdom+Death:+Monster"&tbm=nws&source=lnms&sa=X) so if this is "extremely thin" I don't know what is just "moderately thin" not to mention even just average. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel it's simply easier to create a stub for an article like this, than to post and say it doesn't exist. If you already knew it was notable, just be WP:BOLD and create it. It's not on me to look up sources for an article that isn't something I'm interested in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!, if you think it's notable enough to have an article, then make it, even if it's a stub. It's that simple. You said you were told to "participate in collaborative projects". Making a post telling us that something does not have an article and only posting a link is not participating in collaborative projects. That's just basically telling other people to do the work (not all of us are interested or care about this subject, but you seem to be and seem to know a decent bit about this). Participating in collaborative projects is actually contributing to the development and editing of an article(s). If you do not feel comfortable with creating articles or are unsure of it's notability, what you should have done is made a post to discuss whether or not this subject is notable enough to have an article (with your input included) and if it's decided it should, then discuss on how to create/structure the article. That would be "participating in collaborative projects". --JDC808 ♫ 06:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

So I did and I hope this project will now help expand it in all directions, also the developer StudioFOW needs to be rewritten and updated (I'm copy editing right now but only that). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2019 (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.

I actually did the StudioFOW rewrite/update. (Not that it can't use more work, but so can everything.) SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to note here I recently reviewed this as part of WP:NPP. I just saw the closed discussion about notability and I have no issues with this article as I feel it passes WP:GNG. In the future if any editor is unsure about notability or something else I would recommend creating future articles first in draftspace then submitting it for review via the WP:Articles for creation process. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources discussion

Please check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#System_16, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Video_Games_Chronicle, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Frontline_Gaming_Japan, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#NinDB, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Subsim and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Armchair_General for the discussions about the reliablity of multiple websites as sources for video games. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI, a lot of the regulars around here also have WT:VG/S watchlisted as well, so you don't necessarily need to alert people to it here. But no harm in doing it from time to time either, if participation is particularly slow or something. I know people occasionally do that with WP:VG/D too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I did exactly because it was slow participation wise to try to get some attention (will add my thoughts for some tommorrow)! No idea that AfDs get a shoutout here (though like you say, regulars probably have that watchlisted too). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC: WP:VG/PLOT guideline changes

Your feedback is requested for a few changes to our MOS guidelines on plot sections, concerning our (lack of) guidance for DLC and episodic games. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any magazines that may have worthwhile content relating to Game & Watch games like Mario's Cement Factory?

I've been diddling with Game & Watch articles a bit for fun, and I was wondering if anyone knew of any print content I could use. Any guidance would be appreciated. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Mario's Cement Factory and 1983 to help anyone pondering the above. - X201 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I'm a pretty big Nintendo fan, and I've never even heard of that one, let alone have any sources for you. Sorry... Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Minecraft is ten years old

Just thought I'd let WP:VG know. Hail to the 🐐 JOEBRO64 01:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

SourceForts

Hello, I am credited in the game SourceForts and have been attempting to update the wikipedia page with modern information, most of the sites that used to publicize the game have died, and I maintain the only archive for the game. I want to help preserve the game and almost dragged myself into a edit war over this and have been told that you guys will be able to help me with getting the page modernized.

I will spend as much time as needed to provide whatever type of information or proof is required to ensure that my past edits are kept and that we can make sure that there is no COI or issues involved.

The game is now Free, the last person other than myself to edit the page has not checked the game out and has been quoting decade old sources and removing description information that was factual.

Please help me with my game.. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick12506 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 18 May 2019 Nick12506 (UTC)

SourceForts - courtesy link - X201 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

List article naming

As per WP:NCVG#Lists, which says "Lists should be named "List of..." (e.g., "List of Final Fantasy titles").", Shrek video games should be called List of Shrek video games, however the latter is a redirect to the former and as such I am unable to move it to its proper name. Thanks in advance. --Einstein95 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Non-white characters in video games has been nominated for discussion

Category:Non-white characters in video games has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Screen Rant on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Screen Rant on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Screen Rant. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Help over at Roguelike

We have an IP editor that wants to introduced a naunced very of modern roguelikes (aka the "roguelite") in that these games "co-opted" the roguelike name, among other pointy things. The IP is not wholly wrong in that I know this is how a portion of the roguelike community see these games, but its not reflected in RSes to that degree. Unfortunately they're in a slow edit war to retain this POV. Need help convincing them that WP:V is key here , and without sources to back up their position, we can't really change to reflect what they want. --Masem (t) 14:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be blocked via 3RR. Wikilinking Roguelike and Talk:Roguelike to make it easier to get to. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Traitors Gate GAN

This is a request for assistance regarding the Traitors Gate GAN, which has been inappropriately started (seemingly as a sandbox test) by a now-inactive user under the name Meeply. The WPVG template shows that a review is underway for the article, but you can see here that that isn't the case. I don't have the ability to delete this test page myself, so I'd be very grateful to anyone who could handle this. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. --PresN 18:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel there's some type of off-site brigading aimed to remove Epic Games and/or Fortnite from various articles, given the amount of content removals over the last few days on those and related pages. (I am guessing it is stemming from community frustration on the Epic Games Store and the connection of EPic to Tencent and to China from that) Nothing that's not out of control, but if you have pages in your watchlist just be aware of this. --Masem (t) 14:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Just curious, do you have any examples of a couple of occurrence of this? Just curious as to what sorts of things they're being removed from. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
At Tim Sweeney and E3 2017 (mind you this was by the same editor but similar IP edits were seen before). --Masem (t) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks. I just wondered if it was a case of it maybe being a good-faith thing, like trimming example bloat or WP:UNDUE issues, but that's obviously not the case here, where their omission creates an actual issue of incompleteness. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. In this case, it's a clear-cut vandalism-only account, but I'm sure it will become more sophisticated/less obvious over time. Constant vigilance! Axem Titanium (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Wars series

Given the first five games of the Sakura Wars series have attained GA status and now Sakura Wars is up for FA status, I think it's probably time for a good or featured topic regarding the main Sakura Wars series. Using the Final Fantasy FT and the List of Final Fantasy video games as models, I'm possibly going to create a List of Sakura Wars video games article before I take it to GT/FT. Any thoughts or ideas before we proceed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:GT's need articles within to be GA or above, I believe. I'm not sure you'd need a list of Sakura Wars video games article, as they are quite well explained in Sakura Wars. There's also only 6 games. I believe you could do something like the below:
edit | discuss
Sakura Wars
5 articles
Sakura Wars
Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die
Sakura Wars 3: Is Paris Burning?
Sakura Wars 4: Fall in Love, Maidens
Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love
Project Sakura Wars
So, you'd really only have to get the main article and the new release to pass the GA threshold Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair deal. The new release won't be until winter 2019, so I think that we may need to work on the main Sakura Wars page and get that up to GA/FA at the very least. Also, if the first game passes the FA threshold, would that count towards a featured topic? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sjones23 and Lee Vilenski: Principle sounds great, but better focus on getting the main article to GA and handle the sixth game's article when the time comes. Small update; there's also going to be a "Music of the Sakura Wars series" article at some point in the near future. I'm working on it in my sandbox. That's not really relevant to a GT for the series, but it's still something that will appear and result in some new additions in the near future. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe there's quite a few non-video game articles, such as the one on the movie. I'd suggest working on the main article (it's clearly not too far away from GA) and it could be potentially nominated. If it were to be an FT, you'd still need 50% of the articles (so, 4 of them) to be FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: I am also working on my own draft, which is located at User:Sjones23/Music of the Sakura Wars series and like I said, I plan to merge both drafts at some point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You can also nominate Project Sakura Wars for Peer Review and that can be good enough to have the topic be nominated. GamerPro64 14:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I'm sure the Sega task force might be able to help here. I'll go ask around. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
My random input:
  • It seems like generally editors are against promoting unreleased games to GA status, so I think my thinking is similar to ProtoDrake's - for now, focus on getting the series article up to GA status, and Project Sakura Wars up to B level (if its not already) which is realistically probably the best it could be pre-release, and then worry about getting Project up to GA once it releases.
  • If there's only six titles, then it may not need a "list of games" spinout, but if its like Final Fantasy, Tales of, etc, and has a bunch of non-notable or semi-notable entries like mobile spinoffs, fan-discs, low budget obscure spinoffs, etc, then it could be worth creating, both from an informational standpoint, and a redirect target for non-notable entries. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
My input as well:
  • There's historical precedent for having topics that are just "the games in the series" as well as "all the articles related to the series". If "all the articles" is just 1 or 2 more than the games then GT reviewers frown on skipping them, but in this case there's a bunch of non-game media articles so I think the 6 games alone is fine.
  • Final Fantasy has a list of games because it has 100+ games, as well as a media list because of all the non-game media. Sakura Wars appears to be able to support a "List of SK media" list due to all the shows and printed material around it (example: List of Mass Effect media). It is not required to be created, and even if created it is not required to be in the topic- you need a single lead article/list, which can be either the series article or a media list. The series article seems to be covering things well and in detail, so I'd say you can skip the list.
  • Historical precedent at GT/FT is that if a piece of media is unreleased, you can just get it PRd and include it without having it be GA+, as it's not really possible in almost all cases to get an unreleased game to pass GAN. That said, once the game is released, you have 3 months to get it to GA without the topic being demoted, so be aware you're signing up for that.
  • So, yeah, focus on getting the series article to GA, I think. --PresN 16:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Section break

Unfortunately, the Did you know nomination for Project Sakura Wars has been declined, so when the time comes to bring it up to GA after the game's release or so, we can nominate it for WP:DYK again. Anyway, I agree the best bet is to focus on getting the main series article up for GA/FA. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo Gateway System

Could someone look at the above article and wikify whatever is salvagable in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Splatoon articles

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping expand Splatoon articles. I feel that a series article could be justified, and an article about the music in the series (or individual games) could be really valuable. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a lot of coverage of the music to justify those separate articles? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't there just 2 entries, and 0 spinoffs/animes/etc? The general consensus is that we don't need a series article until there's at least 3 entries, with an occassional exception if its some massive multimedia thing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't this done before and deleted due to the same reasoning? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it was redirected in the past, though technically, it looks like it was created and redirected after Splatoon 2's announcement but prior to its release. But yes, we've had a number of conversations here and at AFD about the topic in general - usually we wait until at least 3 titles are released. The most recent example I can think of, since I was involved, was Xenoblade (series), where discussions prevented its creation after 2 titles, but allowed for it after the third entry was out. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The music is one of the most discussed aspects of the game. A Music of Splatoon / Music of the Splatoon series article would absolutely be justified. They have an entire virtual concert series! With multiple bands and acts! Axem Titanium (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair point on the series topic, but I would agree that a music article has a good basis - I just don't really have the chops to make a good one, so I was hoping someone with experience and knowledge could give it a try if they had interest. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Having an article about the music from the series without having the base series article itself seems odd. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why that is the case. For instance, in theory, a single game could have enough music, performances of the music, and coverage of the music to justify an article, correct? After all, multiple Final Fantasy games have music pages all their own, so it's not unprecedented to get an article about a series' music. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I also think that there's no connection between lack of series article and discouraging a music article. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree too. I've neither done the research nor done much in video game music articles, so I can't verify specifically about Splatoon, but if the sourcing and content is there for a music article, I'm fine with going for it without a series article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
If there really is enough content to justify a series or music article, you should prove it by adding reliably sourced content to each of the articles and then split that content out if/when the two articles get too big. Color me skeptical that such actually does exist with the need to be its own article. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
We seem to have strayed from Bryn's top post, which was to gauge interest among editors in just such an endeavor. I don't personally have the bandwidth to help but I did indicate that I believed it's worth doing. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
My answer still applies: WP:JUSTDOIT with the articles we have presently and if it feels like we're running afoul of WP:BIG or WP:NPOV or some other policy or guideline, WP:SPLIT the content. --Izno (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Listen man, I don't know about you but I'm as wikidragon as they come. My first and only instinct is to just do it. The premise of this thread is explicitly to solicit a collaborator to work together on a thing. Saying JUSTDOIT isn't really a productive response to that, and neither is quoting obvious guidelines like RS and SPLIT at an editor who has been around the project longer than both of us. Feels of-a-kind to WP:DTTR. Let's keep in mind that we all have the same goal here, shall we? :) Axem Titanium (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Axem that you guys have sort of gone off topic. Abyrn was asking if anyone was interested in helping her improve and/or create Splatoon-related articles. Stuff like Music of Splatoon absolutely seems like a worthwhile topic to pursue, and TBH I wouldn't oppose a series article since it seems like a major Nintendo IP at this point (the two games, the expansion pack for Splatoon 2, amiibo, Smash, manga, merchandise, etc). JOEBRO64 20:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
But we explicitly don't have the same goal besides that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The thread started with a solution ("let's have an article on music or the series or both") when the problem otherwise unstated ("we should have more coverage of these things") does not by necessity lead to new articles. That is why I cited our basic policies and guidelines :). Add the content and sourcing first to the existing articles, and then split the article if and only if it is necessary at that time, not before.
I don't assume anyone's experience, especially with faces I've somehow missed even though they've got 2 years more on me :). Everyone makes mistakes, forgets, never somehow learns in the first place, and more-normally, disagrees with interpretation or basic policy and guideline rationale. I've been in the bad position of another senior editor not citing the actual policy/guideline direction (i.e. without helping blue links whether caps-locked or not) from which they've been arguing--it's not fun. Better to explicitly cite the PAGs of interest and if someone disagrees, then we can have a discussion from a shared point of view rooted in what Wikipedia finds important. --Izno (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
But I mean... I was just asking if anyone wanted to collab lol - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
My answer still applies: The most charitable reading of your response is that it is wholly unproductive to the explicit task at hand, namely finding a collaborator. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Just as an aside - I've never played the games, but if the music is notable, not having a series article shouldn't be a stopped. If a game on its own had music that was notable in of itself - say music of Undertale (for instance), we shouldn't also need a series for this.I'm not suggesting the above article mind Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hiroki Higashi

By any chance does somebody know about critic Hiroki Higashi? I found that he made some analysis in regards to fiction but I guess he is not notable because I can't find an article. I found an analysis about him in the Italian Wikipedia but the source might not be notable.Tintor2 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsuko Nishida

Hi all. I was one of the facilitators at this event: Wikipedia:Meetup/Irvine/Gender equity 2019. A newbie created this article, User:BrunoMLB1/sandbox on Atsuko Nishida. Can someone please review the article and confirm if it meets notability standards within the guidelines of your WikiProject? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel that it does, one of the major issues is that while it has sources, at least some of the sources have to be primarily about the subject rather than mentioning the subject. If the person is simply mentioned in the context of the Pikachu character, then that is information that belongs in Pikachu instead. If you can find more sources that are about Atsuko Nishida's life and/or work then it would pass notability standards, otherwise any pertinent info should be merged into Pikachu.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Character's name

See the discussion Talk:Joker (Persona)#Akira Kurusu. I would discuss but I don't have too much knowledge about Persona 5.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I was thinking of setting up a proper RfC to settle this, with the three following options:
  1. List Ren Amamiya only (the previous way)
  2. List Ren Amamiya but mention Akira Kurusu in a note (the current compromise as of the time of typing this)
  3. List both Ren Amamiya and Akira Kurusu

For anybody who isn't familiar with the character, he does not have a canon given name in the game (players can freely name him, but voicelines refer to him by his codename Joker). Ren Amamiya comes from the game's anime adaptation, and was later officially adapted by Atlus (the original game's developer) in a few recent spinoff games, as well as in a separate spinoff manga series. He is only known as Akira Kurusu in the game's manga adaptation, which is where the weight argument of listing both/only one name is coming from. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sanity check for cover art

I'm uploading cover art and adding it into the infobox of the relevant article but wanted to double check that the images I'm uploading conform to all guidelines including using correct fair use statements and licensing. I want to avoid them being removed if I've misunderstood anything or prevent double work to fix them. Would someone be able to check the cover art file on Cyclone (video game) please, and let me know if everything looks OK? Nealbo (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Categorization by ethnicity

Now that my poorly thought-out category was deleted, I think it's valuable to talk about a better solution to the problem. Much like we have a category for fictional black people in general (for instance), I think we could justify a category for fictional black video game characters. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Casual game

I just rewrote all sections of the Casual game article to bring it from a ~2007 perspective to ~2019, if anybody's interested in reviewing the update. I also created 8 redirects for terms now used in the article.

"Casual game" is a term that has changed since the mid-2000s so it's now wanting material on how "casual" is part of a continuum from "casual" (or, I guess, "hypercasual" now) to "hardcore", which is briefly mentioned in the Gamer article. I'll get to this someday if nobody beats me to it. On Sober Reflection (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Vgy and Gy templates nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_30#Template:Vgy and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_30#Template:Gy TarkusABtalk 12:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Importance

After working on some Fate/stay night I wonder if the characters Shirou Emiya and Saber (Fate/stay night) could have mid importance. Saber is also quite the mascot from the series. Both have a big popularity section while Shirou has been studied by some scholars which seems really surprising based on my experience with character articles. The Italian Wikipedia has more analysis of Shirou but I don't know if they are notable although they mention the character has a big impact similar to the first Gundam main character Amuro Ray in regards to how the player can or not be immersed in their stories due to their personalities. Any idea? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to have mid importance for Video Games in general? I don't see it. Never found the mid importance to be particularly helpful mind, so it could be biased. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Mid importance to me is a little nebulous indeed. I don't think it's useless, but I think it depends on the impact. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
These characters are probably mid-importance in anime spheres, but the visual novels aren't nearly as big and influential in the video game world. Either way, though: it really doesn't matter at all. You could have sneakily changed these to mid-importance and I don't think anyone would have bothered to change it back. I don't think you should do it, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. I'll leave them in low status. I wondered about asking here due to the many analysis the visual novel got.Tintor2 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
IMO they should be low importance in the VG Project but possibly Mid in the Anime project. They are not so much well known because they are in a game, as they are due to the franchise as a whole, including manga and anime adaptations.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Belated, but you shouldn't spend any time whatsoever worrying about the "importance" field, which is of itself of no importance. In fact, I'd argue that it should be entirely removed from the template. WP:MILHIST doesn't include importance tags and they've lost nothing.

(For those curious, the original goal behind the importance field is moot - picking which articles appeared on a "Wikipedia CD" intended for computers without Internet, but with access to a CD drive (very rare). The entirety of Wikipedia can easily be transported on a thumb drive these days and Internet penetration is very deep, so this doesn't matter, and to the extent it does matter it's not driven by importance ratings anymore.) SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You know, that's a good point. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Need some more eyes at Quiet (Metal Gear)

After an extremely lengthy discussion on the topic, I had thought the consensus settled, but User:SNAAAAKE!! readded puffy ameliorative adjectives like "alleged" as part of a larger edit. After being reverted a number of times, he has settled on "perceived", which has substantively the same effect. Can we please quickly reaffirm that we should follow MOS:VAGUE here? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's really inappropriate that he is engaging in this behavior. When multiple users don't agree on the change he made, discussion needs to be had. @SNAAAAKE!!: - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Especially considering violates his unblock condition of following 1RR. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Oof - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well that's interesting. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Which SNAAAAKE!! thread # is this? Feels like there's been a lot. JOEBRO64 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, and I’m pretty sure the worst era was before you were even editing, sadly enough. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

He’s blocked for a week, but regardless, please keep contributing to the talk page discussion on it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Boulder Dash

I am mass-verifying List of Electronic Arts games, and I look at one of the entries that Electronic Arts is said to have developed or published: Boulder Dash. First of all, according to issue 53 of Retro Gamer on page 35, Electronic Arts did publish (later) versions of the first two games in the series.

Secondly but the reason I am here, the Boulder Dash Wikipedia article is a joke. To name one of the problems, it seems as if its topic is awkwardly alternating from the original video game to the series and then back to the first game. And speaking of series, I am programming a navbox pertaining to the Boulder Dash series for Wikipedia articles about games in the series, but that is where I run into trouble. My experimental navbox contains 9 games that I am positive based on my brief research are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but only 3 of them are actual links to articles; the rest are either redirects to Boulder Dash or nonexistent articles. A navigational box containing 3 entries is not likely to exist for long, but it is more convincing if there are 9 of them.

If I am right that all the subjects of the given entries in my navbox are notable, a navbox creation seems inevitable, which theoretically means that I could just create the navbox as it is and then create or let others create the articles the entries are red-hyperlinked to. I am hesitant to create the template and add it to its respective articles, and before I obsess about Boulder Dash and lose interest in List of Electronic Arts games (as I did with SkiFree in favor of that list, though I am still improving it for GA), I need some advice on whether it is appropriate to create navigational boxes containing articles that do not exist but whose subjects are notable enough for inclusion, as well as articles that do exist but alone are not enough for navbox creation. Any advice is appreciated one way or the other. Gamingforfun365 03:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Boulder Dash is of that generation of games like Burgertime, Qix, etc. that got ported, remade, versioned, for so many consoles, cabinets, appliances and electronics that it becomes hard to try and cover the topic with exactitude and extensive throughness. I played Burgertime in arcades, on the ColecoVision, Atari 2600, a PDA in 2002, Videoway, as a flash game, on a 5¼ diskette on Win95. Same for Boulder Dash in many ways. No the NavBox with redlinks or only one game article. But if at least ~3-4 games are notable independently (and I'm pretty sure a few of them are, at least the 30th anniv), but overall I think the "original game" and the franchise itself should continue being covered in a single article at the base title. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Avoid navboxes without true articles. The rough rule of thumb is 5 articles. --Izno (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle Cats inportance reassesment

The battle cats article was fixed alot and should be resubmited for importance and quality ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BattleCatsBro (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Reassessed. No change. Still a start class, will always be low importance. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

gaming platforms

Today, it was announced that Cuphead was being ported to the Tesla car OS to be run on various models. While this is certainly interesting info for the body, I would not consider the Tesla as a "gaming platform" as for inclusion in the infobox at this point, though some IPs have tried to do so. I think we should be clear that while the OS (like iOS for Apple TV) can be considered a platform, these non-traditional gaming devices should not be included in the infobox. Tesla, the TI-80 calculator, etc. --Masem (t) 19:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I had to google what you said here to see if it was actually true because that sentence doesn't sound real. Secondly, I think it should be mentioned, but I also don't think it should be mentioned. If it only runs one game, it's definitely not a gaming platform, but that's just me. QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel like frankly given Tesla's current leadership and news it might be simple to just wait for the thing to actually ship before worrying about sticking it in the infobox. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Game Machine archive

FYI: Some early issues (1974-80) of the Japanese coin-op magazine Game Machine have been scanned and are now available here. TarkusABtalk 17:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@TarkusAB:I've checked it out already and it's a pretty neat magazine from the '70s that lasted until 2005 surprisingly! There's more video games talked about in their following issues... Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Rumble in ClayFighter 63 1/3

The July 1997 issue of GamePro reports that Interplay announced ClayFighter 63 1/3 would be the first third-party game to support the Rumble Pak. I went to add the source to the article, only to find there's no mention of the Rumble Pak there. Can anyone familiar with the game confirm whether it in fact uses the Rumble Pak or this feature was dropped by the time of release?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

E3 2019

So we had consensus last year to move all the E3 articles to their common name of E3 YEAR instead of their full official name, but it seems like nobody ever got around to doing it. I'm just bringing this back up in efforts of hopefully getting them all moved before E3 2019 starts, as doing it during the event would just cause a lot of issues. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that E3, like KFC and other “brands”, no longer actually stands for anything as an initialism. E3 is the “full official name”. The move sounds uncontroversial. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This means it should only apply to the post 2008 shows (eg after the "media summit" days). Early days was still Elec. Entertainment Expo, only more recently has E3 been the name. --Masem (t) 17:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't commonly called "E3 1996" back when the event was ongoing, but it is when people discuss it in contemporary times. Due to that and the inconsistency issues, I still say we should move them all to the same format of E3 YEAR. But at the very least yes, post-2008 articles should definitely be moved. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I believe it was commonly called "E3 1996" back when the event was ongoing, since all the contemporary sources I've seen refer to it that way.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I'v gone ahead and changed all the individual year articles. I am not sure if we should change the main E3 article or the History of E3. (Actually, I would prefer to see those merged...let me look at that...) --Masem (t) 17:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks. The last discussion we had said to keep the general E3 article at Electronic Entertainment Expo, which I'm fine with. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

New article on Frank Cirocco

I have created an article on Frank Cirocco, a comics artist and video game designer. Within the comics industry, he is best know as the co-creator of the Alien Legion series for Epic Comics. Cirocco has worked in the video game business for several decades but I have no proper reference sources for his extensive contributions in this field. Anyone who has reliable sources pertaining to him is welcome to expand the new article. Your assistance is greatly appreciated! Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Heads up: iPadOS is now a thing

Apple's WDDC is today and they've announced they are splitting the OS for iPad from the normal iOS to its own iPadOS. Obviously far too early for any games unique to it but we should start thinking if this is a platform to list or not. --Masem (t) 18:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

*massive eyeroll* So back to iPhone vs iPad days. -- ferret (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I switched when to Android when they decided to change their cable port arbitrarily to some other version of Firewire. You deserve no sympathy for how Apple treats you. :) --Izno (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There was never a version of Firewire for iOS... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking of the transition to Lightning. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Video game franchises

Notification: there is a discussion at Category talk:Video game franchises on when best to use it, particularly when it co-exists with one of its yearly subcategories in articles. Gamingforfun365 09:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted magazines:

Just a heads up that print magazines and books are copyrighted materials, and only the rights holder has the right to distribute these magazines. It will take decades for these magazines to enter the public domain. That means that these scanned magazines cannot be linked to, either in references or external links, on Wikipedia. WP:COPYVIOEL is pretty clear on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a specific problem with people linking to copyrighted scans that prompted this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
While I’m not aware of any specifics, I’ve found quite a few in articles I’ve reworked. Might be a good message to send that links to scans of copyrighted material should be removed as we clean up and work on articles. Red Phoenix talk 20:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
You can't link to material that violates copyright. The emphasis is the material is violating copyright. That is, some website hosting scans with no permission and no applicable exceptions, like fair use. This is not the same as something like Internet Archive that acts as a library and is in fact not (usually) violating copyright even while hosting scanned material. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe he wonders about Googlebooks?Tintor2 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If you use Special:LinkSearch, you can find hundreds of pages, including quite a few GA rated pages. The internet is pretty loose with copyright, and in practice things are taken down only when someone complains but Wikipedia adheres much closer to the letter of the law. Just look at the hoops you have to go through just to upload game cover art. You could justify a very short quote of copyrighted material, but not linking to an entire scan. Also, Archive.org operates like Youtube in that anyone can upload anything, and it's only taken down if someone complains. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind there are also valid uses of archive.org (notable, for citation backup). Weneed more specificity. --Masem (t) 00:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Well just now I cleaned up Lone Soldier, and a few days ago I cleaned up Lucienne's Quest. A lot of GA articles on older games rely on print sources, and link to full scans. Going through all these is on my to-do list. If you use linksearch and search for urls of any of the big mag scan project sites (like ninretro, retrocdn, etc) you can find a lot of pages. I don't mind cleaning these up myself, but it will take me some time.
I do encourage people to use print sources, since they're higher quality than websites. I am not going to ask questions why a bunch of English speakers suddenly have access to German, French, Spanish, and Japanese gaming magazines from 25 years ago. But talk of scans, and linking to scans should be kept off of Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC on VG character guidelines

There's an RFC regarding a possible implementation of character guidelines here. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Metacritic review numbers

Should we be including the number of reviews Metacritic is using to cite their score in the article, even footnoted as shown by the Team Sonic Racing article? Personally, I think it doesn't make a difference if a game had 40 reviews or 45; anybody curious enough can simply click the Metacritic link and check for themselves. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not much between 40 and 45, but 10 and 45 may give further context without being disruptive to the flow/quality of the article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, but then we'd have to make guidelines to only mention it if the number is sub-20 or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
As much as it needs to be updated, does it matter if the amount is there? Seems like completeness. After a game release, reviews come in pretty soon after. I'd be against simply removing the amount of reviews, as if nothing else, the score needs to be updated at the same time a new review comes in anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
As a statistician, I have very strong feelings about always including the number of reviews that the number summarizes. An average (which is not what a metascore is, but that's a separate discussion) without knowing what you're averaging over is throwing away more than half the information value. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Without the number of trials, the score is just a number. I thought for a while that metacritic should have some sort of range/standard deviation metric. I didn't know you were a statistician Axem Titanium! As a poor-mans statistician (maths graduate), that makes me happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Statistician by training, not my primary occupation these days. I've proposed standard deviation before as a routine WP:CALC and I still think it's a good idea. Range would also help. Anything to provide more context to a bare number. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's generally of interest. When its a really small sample (5 reviews), it places less important on the score, and conversely, when something has a 97% based off of 70+ reviews, then you now how consistently it is praised. I think its good context. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I would honestly have huge reservations even listing the score if it's only based on 5 reviews. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
My issue with that is that Metacritic deems four reviews to be an acceptable amount of reviews to justify providing an aggregate score. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Metacritic has a vested financial interest in displaying a minimally 'viable' score, even if it does not make statistical sense to do so, because that's how they drive traffic to their site. I understand that we go by what reliable sources say, but in this particular edge case, I don't trust the reliability of the source to provide honest information, even if it is 'reliable' in a broader context. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought we had a guideline saying that 5 was acceptable, but I could be wrong. I don't really add MC score much, usually drive-by editors add and maintain them in the articles I create. I don't think I usually add them unless its a really obscure JRPG and I think it may help dissuade people from questioning its notability. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:VG/REC states: "do not include aggregate scores when there are fewer than four reliable outlets used in the aggregate" TarkusABtalk 19:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Axem and Serge. It helps the reader understand how Metacritic is determining the score. JOEBRO64 19:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well it seems like there is consensus for it to be included, but I still think that it should be footnoted (like in Team Sonic Racing) just for template readability. Anybody disagree? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve simply listed it in the prose summary of the review aggregators but I have no problem with footnoting it if that’s what you prefer. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Ditto.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added it to MOS:VG. JOEBRO64 21:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup help of an IPv6 range needed

I'm slowly working through this IP range's contributions. I could use some assistance if anyone needs something to do :) The edits generally pertain to changing platforms around, removing Xbox/PC/Microsoft and replacing with Wii/Wii U, adding categories for various "cancelled platform game" (i.e. saying a game never announced for Wii is a cancelled wii game), etc. I've spotted and blocked this user several times over the years I believe, but this range was active for a while and I haven't had time to fully go through it. There seem to be a tiny handful of good (at least not disruptive) edits mixed in, but there's a lot of unsourced stuff, clearly incorrect stuff, removing sources to replace pro-Nintendo stuff, etc (I've seen multiple cases of removing Xbox as a platform entirely, or replacing it with Wii, in direct contradiction to sources) -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there no bot-assisted revert process? I don't think any minimally non-disruptive edits from an otherwise vandalism-only account are worth saving in terms of effort to benefit ratio. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost certain there's a way for admins to mass revert vandalism from accounts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass rollback doesn't work if newer edits have happened. If there's another script or tool, I'm not personally aware. I've reviewed and reverted if appropriate the newest 50 contribs so far. But I'm busy RL with something I have to finish by next week. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The Undo button usually works except in cases of heavily changed text in the relevant spots. Specifically, is there a bot that will push the Undo button for all edits and throw up an error for all pages that it didn't work on? Anything to decrease the amount of manual hunt and peck work would be a help. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi, I've been preparing reception/creation sources for existing and potential video game articles. If you are looking for a project or think there might be something you're working on that might be here, you can give it a look. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

To note, some of the sources aren't on WP:VG/RS (either ones I gathered a long time ago or ones I found that seemed to pass the smell test but I'm not sure). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Stadia as a platform (infobox fun times)

So with the larger Stadia reveal today, it is clear that it is a unique platform - its not a streaming subscription service, you are going to have to buy games to play on it (you also pay for the higher-quality stream capabilities). There are at least two Stadia exclusive games.

This begs the quesiton if Stadia (and only Stadia) should be considered a platform for infobox/category purposes. I have a feeling that unlike Onlive or other services (like with Sony's or MS's offerings) that Stadia is unique enough to require it. --Masem (t) 17:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • It's still just a distribution service like Steam or Epic Games Store, in my opinion. I say for now, that we do not add this as a platform and wait to see where the service ends up in a few months. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Stadia is platform agnostic. The service is available across different form factors, including traditional PC platforms, but also on TVs and mobile devices. If we don't acknowledge Stadia as its own platform, does that mean that we should add all platforms Stadia can be used with to the infoboxes of Stadia games? I think the best and easiest option is to recognise Stadia as an independent platform, just like Nintendo's, Sony's and Microsoft's operating systems. Stadia is a console without a box in my opinion. TheLegendaryN (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • deep breath What if we added a service field? Not really advocating for, just pondering. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • How would this work exactly? Do we even have enough of other similar non-emulated services to warrant such a thing? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm with Dissident on this one. I don't think it's warranted to rethink the entire way we do platforms just because Google said "jump". For Stadia "exclusive" games (if indeed those remain exclusive for a noteworthy period of time), I'm open to being convinced that Stadia should be listed under platform. For all the rest, it's a PC game distribution service just like Steam or GoG or itch, which we don't list. It runs on a PC, just not your PC. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • It's different from Steam/Origin/Uplay/Epic GS as you play directly on the platform, unbound from the actual platform beneath it. This would, technically, warrant inclusion for this, but then we would have to allow OnLive again, which opens another can of beans. Otherwise, we can still list Linux as the platform . Lordtobi (✉) 21:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • It's the same as Steam/Origin/Uplay/Onlive in that you exchange money for the opportunity to play a video game on a device that is not expressly built to play video games. That you don't "own" the game is immaterial---we already don't own the software, merely limited licenses to use code that has been downloaded to our computers. This is just removing the download part; the end-user experience is the same: you play a thing for money. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
What about this prose? -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Borderline ok with this, but would prefer a category or something. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m for adding Stadia as a platform. Anything else is going to be one of those “large time-sink for minimal benefit” maintenance things I generally advocate WikiProjects to avoid. It’s way more effort than it’s worth to keep it out. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Isn't not-adding-Stadia an even less effort? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Let's take one of the Stadia known exclusives, Gylt. We're going to have to call out its platform as "Stadia" in the infobox - we have no idea if the base version of the game is closer to a PC or a console (which is something we CAN say when we were talking OnLive or with Sony/MS's streaming options). People will see that and will say "Oh, Stadia's a platform" and will fill out the 20+ some other games already confirmed with Stadia as a platform. It's already being done by IPs on Borderlands 3.
      • Another take here is that you have to buy games to play on Stadia. You are buying the Stadia version, not the PC one, not the Xbox One, etc. Whereas with Online or those other services, you don't buy the game, you subscribe to the service and happen to get access to that game. So Google and many sites are treating Stadia as a platform. It would be easier to "give in" and use Stadia for these games (and being strick that this same thought doesn't apply to Online or other streaming services) than to keep fighting IPs adding it. --Masem (t) 22:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) If Wikipedia was edited 100% by WP:VG regulars? Sure. The rest of humanity making passerby edits all the time? Absolutely not. I mean, you maintain articles...you must know what I’m talking about here...? Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I misread your statement; I thought you meant the opposite, which is to manually add it to articles. I agree that it will be nigh impossible to stop drive-bys from adding it, for now, but long-term as it becomes a more Steam-like platform (or else implodes in a few years, like so many other Google products), I anticipate that the zeal to do so will decline. In other words, there's no point trying to make an effort to stem the tide now, but I believe it's worth establishing that we as a project do not agree that it fits in the console field of the infobox, as we have for Steam and GoG and OnLive and Origin and etc. etc. before it. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • So at this point, it sounds like Stadia should not be considered a platform for purposes of infoboxes, unless the game is exclusive to it (ala Gylt). Stadia can otherwise be used in the body. This can be subject to change once Stadia is out and we have a better sense of how much attention it draws. If a flash in the pan, then we did right; if it greatly expands, that might be reason to reconsider. --Masem (t) 14:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would even disagree with that. I don't want to police dozens, potentially hundreds, of articles to remove Stadia from platforms every week or so. You know less veteran editors will be constantly adding it. A better route would be to look at what mainstream media is calling it. For instance, Kotaku called it a "Streaming platform". Still sort of grey with only one example, but perhaps it would have some merit to look at what the precedence is in media, especially as that's what most of the world is going to use as their personal take. --Teancum (talk)
  • I'm also unfortunately leaning towards a "why bother approach" My watchlist this morning was already flooded with at least 15 new articles getting Stadia added, both as category and infobox, including by some long standing editors. Mostly unsourced too. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If we want to take a "Why bother" approach (which I can agree with too, for those reasons) we should establish why Stadia is fine but things like Onlive, PSNow, the MS version, etc. do not. Which to me at least starts that those others are subscription services to the library of games, whereas Stadia is only a cloud-enabled solution that you still must buy games for to play on. --Masem (t) 15:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't read all the details, but doesn't Stadia still offer a monthly subscription feature? Seems like the only difference between it and other similar services is that it also offers a per-game purchase feature. Or am I completely wrong here? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Base service is free but comes with no games and limits on the quality of the streaming. The subscription Pro tier gives you higher stream quality, a potential library of free games (But Google's suggested this is a small library) and pre-orders get Destiny 2, but otherwise you still have to buy the games. Online, PS Now, etc. all give you unlimited access to their libraries with the subscription. --Masem (t) 15:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry but that still doesn't exclude OnLive, which allowed you to purchase games on a per-game basis. I'm broadly in support for a why-bother approach, with the understanding that we will revisit it in time when the dust settles. If/when Stadia has 3000 games on it with another 300 coming every month, I doubt driveby IPs will be as thirsty to add it to every single article. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Just as a further point, Stadia is known to be based on open-source software with a Linux backbone. That's a potential option to say "linux" instead of "Stadia" but that might be too confusing or will be fought over (back to the "why bother" approach). --Masem (t) 20:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That is sort of why I’m in favor of mentioning Stadia in infoboxes. Steam releases are still represented in the infobox in the form of listing “Windows” at least. With PS Now, there’s still PS3/PS4 representation. With Stadia, there’s nothing. And that’s why there’s going to be endless attempts to add it. (Though I agree adding Linux is confusing and not a good idea.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It will be available on the Google Chrome web browser. Should we use Google Chrome instead of Stadia?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not exclusively the Chrome browser - it will also be available on Chromecast, on Pixel phones, and more devices in the future. And so it would be wrong to present it as a browser game. --Masem (t) 23:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Too radical?

How about for infoboxes, we mention "multiplatform", and only list a platform when the game is exclusive to it? Actual release platforms can be in the lede or in the "Release" subsection. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • This has been proposed before, and I actually don't dislike this idea. We already have the release section mentioning each platform anyway, so it's not like we're really loosing any information by doing this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't this defeat the purpose of platform field entirely? The only way this does not say "Multiplatform" is when it just released on one platform, and every PC game released on Windows and macOS/Linux is suddenly 'multiplatform'. Lordtobi (✉) 21:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I do dislike this idea. The infobox has a very specific purpose, which is to provide "at-a-glance" information. Our duty as editors (in the editors of a publication sense, not the editors of Wikipedia sense) is to make value judgments for what type of info should be there and cull info that shouldn't, in order to preserve the at-a-glance-ness of what remains. Replacing the actual platforms with the word "multiplatform" in the infobox forces the reader to hunt through the prose to find information they expect at-a-glance in the infobox, which I strongly disagree with. There exists a tiny minority of games released on dozens of platforms which makes listing them all in the infobox burdensome, but I do not think these exceptions warrant eliminating the rule. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, here's my thoughts: if there's one type of service like this - there will be more. It's highly likely that the market will come up with its own naming convention regarding these types of services. Changing our practices seems silly if there is a good name for these "multiplatform" games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I’m strongly against this. Platforms are the definition of the type of thing that infoboxes are meant to capture at a glance. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also strongly oppose this. What platform(s) a game appeared on, in my opinion, is one of, if not the most critical piece of information in the infobox. JOEBRO64 23:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also in the "strong oppose" camp here. Platforms are among the most essential pieces of information about any video game. Phediuk (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • You guys do realize that they still are listed in the release field, right? I think the thing we could at least discuss is how to eliminate them being mentioned twice somehow. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The release field is completely separate from the platforms field. The release field tells the reader when the game was released, while the platforms field tells them what it was released on. Also, the majority of games nowadays are released on all platforms on the same day, so listing the platforms in the release field is often unnecessary. JOEBRO64 17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (ec) Not every release date field lists out the platforms, especially those that simply list the one multiplatform release. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
        • That's true, but I still think that having them repeated twice is redundant, so this is still a problem that could use a fix if anybody has a better solution. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional citations needed for verifiability

I recently created a new article Lone Soldier (video game) with 6 (now 7) supporting sources. I received an alert that the "This article needs additional citations for verification." template has been added to the top of the article. My goal is obviously to put together good quality articles, so my question is, what exactly is a sufficient amount of sources? Looking at the verifiability page it all seems very vague... For a relatively short article I feel like 7 citations are sufficient and that there is nothing "contestable" that does not have an associated source. Also as far as I can tell there are no other good sources of information other than what I've added already so I feel like I'm at a bit of a dead end with this. Nealbo (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've untagged it. Of course more sources and content would be great, but nearly every statement has a source at the end of the sentence or paragraph, so exactly what is the tag trying to accomplish... -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, good to get a second opinion on it, I was going around in circles trying to understand what more I could add! And thanks for removing the template, didn't feel comfortable removing it myself seeing as I'd created the article.Nealbo (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Avoid linking to copyrighted magazines, and use the cite magazine template. Also, get some more re-views. This lists 3 French magazine review scores. Moby games and other sites will list more. There's other sites for german mag review scores. Famitsu likely reviewed it too. The page is also formatted like a game guide right now. Game guides are great sources, but the WP pages shouldn't be formatted like them. There shouldn't be a blow by blow account of the levels and the enemies in them. Look at how some GA articles are formatted, like Shinrei Jusatsushi Tarōmaru. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The copyrighted magazines for Lone Soldier (video game) linked to scans from the internet archive, which as far as I understand it, and from previous discussion in the archive discussion here, archive.org acts as library so is not violating copyright by hosting these scans, so is an acceptable source to cite. With that in mind, I can't understand the benefit of replacing a reference to scans on archive.org that can be instantly verified by clicking a link, with some reference to a 20 year old physical magazine that 99% of people viewing or reviewing the article will not have access to. Nealbo (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


In fact, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library - the reference library for this Wiki Project it actually recommends archive.org for scans of magazines. Nealbo (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)



It's not much, but I did a quick search.

List

Abryn (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Internet archive operates the same way as youtube (see WP:YOUTUBE literally the same approach applies to IA) or a file hosting site, in that anyone, anywhere can upload anything, and it's only taken down if someone complains. Nintendo Power was on there until Nintendo complained and took it down. If IA is somehow excempt from Copyright law, then Nintendo would have had no case, and it would have stayed up. The stuff that stays up on there is stuff that no one has cared enough to take down, but that doesn't make it legal. Most of the internet operates on a pretty laid back and loose approach to copyright, but Wikipedia adheres to the letter of the law. See WP:COPYVIOEL
The only person who has the right to distribute these are the copyright holder. These works were scanned and uploaded to the internet Archive by "some guy". "Some guy" is not the copyright holder. This is pretty straight forward, and copyright doesn't magically vanish on IA. Until these magazines enter the public domian, or the rights holder makes them available, these can't be linked to. Short quoations and small images can be justified for educational purposes, but not full scale linking to copyrighted works.
IA also doesn't operate like a library. Libraries get special permission and an agreement to lend out books. IA does no such thing. As I said, anyone can upload anything to IA, and they have it freely available for anyone to download. I can take books out from my local library, but they don't host those books on their site for everyone to download. The Tokyo National Diet Library that has an archive of every single Japanese print gaming magazine ever. They don't scan these and make every single one of these for download because actual libraries don't do that.
There's also no exception for convenience. WP policy says that everything has to be cited and verifiable, not that it has to be instantly verifiable. If Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I wouldn't count it to say that Nintendo was necessarily in the right to do what they did. For instance, there is no legal cause for companies to remove let's plays from YouTube. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Who owns Nintendo Power? Nintendo. There Nintendo was 100% in the right, as they own that magazine, and they can control what is done with that magazine.
Actual copyright law is very strict, it's just rarely enforced and that means that people online have adopted a very loose understanding of copyright. Tomorrow if Square wanted to, they could take down every single video that uses audio or video from their games if they wanted to and they 100% would legally be in the right. It's more hassle than its worth though so they don't bother. Again, because someone isn't taken down, doesn't mean it's legal. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I took a look at your link and agree that it does say that linking to copyrighted material is not allowed unless there is a case for fair use. This is very disappointing to me as I find it extremely limiting and harmful towards being able to verify statements in an article, and impedes readers themselves from being able to get more detailed information from the sources directly. I feel as though we're enforcing a loose "law" Contributory_copyright_infringement to the detriment of articles. But if this is the policy I'll begrudgingly accept that magazine scans cannot be used as references. Nealbo (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely no legal precedence on such a thing as Square Enix DMCAing all audio and video from their games. Anyway, my point was that Web Archive complying with Nintendo does not mean that Web Archive had a legal obligation to do so. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
IA is a library. The Wikipedia article for it describes it as such, and it's even a member of the American Library Association. Linking to defunct publications from IA isn't violating copyright. JOEBRO64 19:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
IA operates more like a file sharing site or Youtube than a standard library. They let anyone submit anything. I just checked and they have the entire Cowboy Bebop, and Magic Knight Rayearth series on there. Is this not copyright violation? They sure aren't public domain. At no point are the rights holders contacted in any way about material uploaded, and when any of them complain material is always taken down. A real library has agreements to hold and lend out material. They don't let anyone download it from their site. Thinking that IA is a magic place where copyright just magically vanishes would create a loophole to get around the rather strict WP rules about linking to copyrighted materials. I upload a book to media fire, that's "copyright violation" but if I were to upload that same book to IA, and link it, it's somehow not? Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note - Just because an article can add more citations, that's not the usage of {{refimprove}}. That tag is generally used to note articles that have only a few citations, or if large parts are unsourced. Sure, the article could have been improved, but not just to tag all articles that are missing possible citations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Is a company notable if a lot of its games are?

Data Design Interactive has a list of 15 games that link to their own articles. A musician is notable for their notable songs, an actor for their notable acting roles, a writer for their notable books, etc. Shouldn't any entertainment company be notable for what it has created? Dream Focus 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The games look like shovelware. At least a couple of those games aren't notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED. That some notability guidelines say otherwise is not something we need to allow here. If the company is notable, it will have sources dedicated to it. --Izno (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

List of First generation consoles.

Greetings, when I was editing the List of home video game consoles page, I encountered a problem when listing the platforms for the First generation, as I knew there were a lot of consoles, but I had no idea about the scale of this task. I wasn't entirely sure on how to list them, so I asked for help, and someone told me it would be near impossible to list them all.

So I tried, and there are MORE THAN 600 I made a prototype page on my sandbox; User:Talkkaris/sandbox

Now, my problem is this;

1- It's Wikipedia so I need reliable sources.

2- Literally almost no one cares about the first generation of consoles, half the consoles on the list I got from blogs and eBay/sales sites.

3- A picture of the darn thing is good proof that it exists, it's harder to ignore it, but only around 80 have a picture, the rest is blank

4- Searching their names online they show up with pictures (some are harder than others), but on Wikipedia there's nothing

So without pictures, how can I source their existence? I think I can't simply link to whatever blog has one, or a YouTube video, or an eBay listing, so I'm a bit stuck. How can I complete this page before creating it? If any of you can help with his it would be very much appreciated. Talkkaris (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, if they lack good sources then they most likely lack notability as well, meaning they don't really belong on Wikipedia anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Lists don't require notability of all items necessarily though, just WP:V, unless there's consensus for a tighter inclusion criteria. -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
      • That's true, I was just speaking from a general logic perspective. But even then, for the ones that can only be verified via a blogpost, eBay, or photo, then they should fail WP:V and thus be omitted from such a list. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of E3

Writeups are going on its page from now on. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd sooner believe Grand Wheelie :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Also does anyone find it a bit suspicious that Microsoft is telling Xbox fans to watch the Nintendo conference? Don't want to jump to conclusions but if it's Banjo I'm actually going to pee my pants. JOEBRO64 03:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Master Chief lands from orbit. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Dream: a new Rare game on Xbox and Switch. Plausible: new Smash character, potentially Minecraft Steve or Banjo. Probable: some news about Xbox Live on Switch. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
My expectation is that we might see Banjo and Kazooie in Smash and Rare Replay on Switch. A new multiplat Banjo game though would be more than welcome. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd a new Rare original, not necessarily Banjo ;) If Microsoft and Nintendo are collaborating mightn't we even see a Rare-made DK spinoff/3D sequel Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Oversexualization of women in video games article

I'm working on this article here and there, but it's a tall order, so I was wondering if anyone was interested in helping with setting up a draft on this. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Oversexualization is a very subjective term. I would more go for Sexualization of women in video games. There's already info on it in Portrayal of women in video games.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't really agree with that, as we're discussing the perception of characters as oversexualized. It's subjective, but it's not our subjective classification. A lot of characters I would not agree for instance are oversexualized where others might. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. The topic of "Sexualization of women in video games", with the article presenting both opinions about oversexualization and dissenting views. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I reckon I'm not opposed to that idea. My main point on oversexualization is that it is a specific topic, one discussed and debated, so it exists as a concept. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Sex and nudity in video games, Gender representation in video games, Video game controversies, and possibly more. And I don't think anyone's personal opinions about who and what is either "oversexualized", "undersexualized", or "just fine sexualized" is important to make a separate article about it. There's no Oversexualization of women in literature or Oversexualization of women in film or any other corresponding article, too. In fact, there's no article oversexualization at all. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC) --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sal: There's no Sexualization of women in literature, Sexualization of women in film, etc. as well. And the "culture and media" section of Sexualization (which is overall concerning human beings, especially children, not fictional characters) links to Pornographication as the main article (and which seems to be feminist theory nonsense mentioning "patriarchy" in the lead, and speaking of Clown World Wikipedia a short glance I saw it contains such complete absurdness as "In famous horror films such as Friday the 13th, women are portrayed as weak" while in our reality the survivor who kills Jason Pamela in the film is a woman, Alice). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't advocating the legitimacy of an article on the topic being created, I was just pointing out why if there was one it wouldn't be called "oversexualization". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a WP:POVFORK. We already have multiple articles discussing this topic. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't really see what it could add to what already exists in well sourced and researched form on the topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Review thread 42: The Summer of 2019

Its that time again boys and girls. We got articles for review. Here they are now:

FAC
GAN
FAR/GAR/FTR

And, as always, we still have the Requests Board with a huge backlog that needs assistance. Got three requests left for 2016. We can knock those off before years end if we get some volunteers. GamerPro64 23:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Classic

I wrote a new article for World of Warcraft Classic. It's a video game and all the other WoW-related articles are under this WikiProject, so perhaps it should be too. I have no knowledge of this WikiProject and frankly am too lazy to figure out the due process, so please tag the article to be part of the project appropriately. Thanks. —turdastalk - contribs 09:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-make, Re-title part2: This time it's not Earthbound

Hey all, for the past 24 years, Seiken Densetsu 3 has been a unique entity- a relatively well known, underground hit, champion of the SNES RPG era, with no non-Japanese name (it's never "Mana 3") and no official non-Japanese release, but instead just a well-regarded fansub. Until yesterday, that is, when the pre-existing JP-only Seiken Densetsu Collection for Switch was abruptly released in NA as Mana Collection, complete with the renamed Trials of Mana, corresponding with the announcement that a full 3D remake under that title was coming worldwide in early 2020. You'll notice which title I linked- because of course someone has already moved it. Rather than revert, I'm bringing it up to a wider audience: what title should it be under? I personally think that 24 years of articles and discussion in English beats a single one-day-old collection release (though the remake, as it's likely to get its own article, should take "Trials"), which is exactly the decision we made last year that Mother trumped the johnny-come-lately "EarthBound Beginnings", but I acknowledge the added wrinkle this time that the "English" name of the game has been... in Japanese. What are y'all's opinions? --PresN 20:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • We should prefer an English title to a Japanese one whenever possible, as we are the English Wikipedia. I'll cite Valkyria Chronicles III -- this title has never been used officially, there is not an English release, and yet we title the article in the English-language way the subject is referenced instead of a Japanese-language one, despite officiality or seniority or etc. Another of the reasons is consistency with other titles in the franchise; for both Valkyria Chronicles and the Mana series, all other game articles use the English-language franchise-related name. SK3 should obviously redirect, be prominent in the lead, and can be used to refer to reception/development/etc. that predates the English-language port. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
As long as that's an official engine title. For example, Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan remains at its JP title even though we have a reasonably straightforward English translation. In the case of the Mana games, I would say we have official English titles so they should be named as such. --Masem (t) 20:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Also I agree about the case of VC 3 - we know the official translation for the fourth game, so it is easy to extrapolate the general series title to the others. --Masem (t) 20:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
In this case, go with the official English name. As it's being released as both a straight port and a remake under the title Trials of Mana, I'd go with that title. It's not like we're effacing the Japanese title, as that's distinct and important enough to be included in the lead outside of a footnote. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I also support with using the official English names. It'll also be less confusing because this has also been known as "Secret of Mana 2" by some fans. Using the official name makes things simpler and easier to follow the series naming conventions for the English side.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:NAMECHANGES seems to apply. While it isn't a change of name, per se, I think it would be reasonable to treat it in the same way. If English language reliable sources start using the new official title from now on, then we should be giving that extra weight. Lowercaserho (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Using colons in titles.

I don't believe I'm probably in the right place to discuss this in detail.

But I want to see if we could start improving game titles. Most of the titles use a colon symbol after a series' name or game. But not every page uses them. I find it very, inaccurate not using them. It just feels wrong and incomplete with these type of lists. Like how Mario Kart uses them, or the whole Super Mario franchise. So, could we use them? It doesn't seem right not to. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume we defer to MOS:TITLEPUNCT with regard to the use of colons in titles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no consistency to be had here, so forcing consistency is incorrect. Games, novels, movies, etc. legitimately all use different ways to set off a series prefix, anything from no punctuation but a space, a dash, a colon, suggestive capitalization, whatever. Maybe it "feels wrong" but it's accurate. SnowFire (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Colon or dash or whatever is used is based on what RSes go by, which will lead to disparate styles throughout different game series. --Masem (t) 15:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Right. If the majority of RSes don't use one, we shouldn't either per WP:COMMONNAME ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I don’t really see the point. It doesn’t really matter due to redirects. Whether someone searches for “Fire Emblem: Awakening” or “Fire Emblem Awakening”, it leads the reader to the same article, and neither name is different in meaning or recognizability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

last second reminder about e3

Remember that if they announce a new game and have NO Details about it (development specifically), try to find a redirect target rather than making a new article (I'm going to try to be on top of that here...) An article that just says the game was announced is not helpful and may be deleted. --Masem (t) 19:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't all the games announced there have people writing about them in the game review media? I see most of them have articles already. Any that don't will have enough information tossed out there soon enough I'm sure. Dream Focus 20:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but just writeups of a game with nothing else known about it besides a title and maybe a general release window is not enough to warrant a separate article. See Elden Ring. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
IMO, Elden Ring has enough references now to merit an article. [5] [6] There are a lot more details than simply the title and release window.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
After the interviews, possibly. But even then it would most likely be just a stub for months. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is enough about it. Look at this significant coverage I found after taking a moment to check. [7] It passes WP:GNG so make an article if you want to. I already made one for Minecraft Dungeons days ago. Dream Focus 03:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

So i've been uploading hundreds of pictures from various events to Wikimedia Commons and they need: 1) categorization 2) usage in articles

Closing this. There’s nothing more to be said. People can see this closed discussion and see decide whether or not they’d like to work on this or just let them sit there unused like Snake is apparently doing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

I'm not finished yet, but there is a lot already so I thought I would let you know.

They can be found 2 ways:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=500&user=SNAAAAKE%21%21&ilshowall=1 (and following pages)

2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_trade_shows

There's a WHOLE LOT more to come so check it on a later date if you want, too. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like something you can well do yourself. Why do you always pretend like it is on others to do your work? 89.204.153.106 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it's not my work. I'm not being paid. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I was actually writing up a defense of this specific post, but you just kind of sank the defense with this post. Again, this talk page is for collaboration less than imposition. No one is being paid, this is no one's job (unless they're astroturfing), they're just doing what they like and/or doing what they think will make Wikipedia a better place. Your attitude is really unhelpful and honestly only discourages people who might otherwise be interested in collaboration. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
No one here is getting paid, yet you marshall us that we must now categorize your images just because you did not do so when you uploaded them. Meanwhile, you are not even indenting your messages per Wikipedia:INDENT. 89.204.154.218 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation employees are being paid, by clueless people who still donate. "My attitude" is nothing compared to people being always assholes just to me. Even where I've been uploading thousands of images you can use to illustrate YOUR OWN articles, but no, it's my job to illustrate even YOUR OWN articles. Okay, it was the last time I ever came here. Also fuck that, since now I'm uploading only the images I'm personally going to use. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not our job to categorize your images either... like, awesome that you uploaded a batch of images like you did, but thrusting it upon people the way you do is a terrible way of getting people interested in collaborating with you. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:09, 14 June 2019 (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.
I know this is closed, but I need to stress that better care on image use from trade shows for VGs is needed. [8] is NOT a free image, even if it was licensed freely by the photographer - its a clear derivative work of Nintendo, for example. We can use small portions of copyrighted elements in a de minimus defense as free images, eg [9] this is probably okay since the copyrighted elements are too small and the focus is the general display itself. That onus on copyright is on the uploader. --Masem (t) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a literal Wikia watermark on this one! Niemti for the love of God you are abusing the image system here. GamerPro64 16:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It's CCBYSA2.0, just needs to uplaod a version cropping out the watermark (and maybe other enhancements reducing the flash glare if possible). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Salvidrim!, there are hundereds of watermarked files, that'd be quite an effort (unless we have a bot to do the job). Lordtobi (✉) 22:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed the onus should be on the uploader to clean-up their uploads *shrugs* Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a Commons Admin should be contacted or something? Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to. Not sure who to ask. GamerPro64 04:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Started to have a look ; to be honest it’s not very inviting: beyond the copyright issues (derivative works), I’m also not convinced many of them are in scope ; and I have some concerns regarding Photographs of identifiable people (I let SNAAAAKE know as much on his commons talk page). It’s not quite enough to simply Special:Nuke all of them, but well… Jean-Fred (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I told myself not to post here anymore but he's been pestering me on Wikimedia Commons: Wikia (Fandom) is literally a part of Wikimedia. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!, Fandom is owned by a private company called Wikia, Inc., not the Wikimedia Foundation, though both use the open-source software MediaWiki. I'm also not quite sure how this connects to why we should keep watermarks intact on free imagery. Lordtobi (✉) 12:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Snake, you've been here for years. Haphazardly uploading copyright violations is your problem, not other people's, and you should know this. You're brushing up against basic WP:COMPETENCE issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's still free so I just don't understand the problem, that it's an advertisement for them? Wikipedia itself is a money-maker for The Foundation, and of course is privately-owned too, so I don't really see a difference. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, you want to crop just the images that are to be used here, right? That much can be done. Also, anyone could just do it instead of complaining, no I don't care about the integrity of their watermarks. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Watermarked images = against Commons guidelines (#2). Lordtobi (✉) 16:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
SNAAAAKE!!, there are hundreds of images to sort through and fix, people do not have the time or interest to deal with your issue. You can, and should, be the one to fix these if you want to have them on Wikipedia. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You've uploaded more images without careful overview and have again added images that we cannot take as free, SNAKE. You need to stop. This is a blockable offense. --Masem (t) 13:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've warned Snake on their talk page, after seeing a clearly copyrighted image that they had put to commons used on mainspace here. Several of their last contributions on en.wiki involve using these images , even though through this they know there's copyright problems with some of them. This is clearly at a point a block may be needed. --Masem (t) 16:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't even explain to me what is the problem. OK, I'm not uploading any galleries anymore. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you not read anything that has been told to you? Because there has been multiple explanations from multiple people about the multiple problems your multiple images you uploaded have accumulated. GamerPro64 17:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced video game articles

Hi all! While slowly working through the massive backlog at Category:All articles lacking sources, I've run into a number of video games related articles that lack references. Some are probably good candidates for merging or redirects, while others might just need a moment's TLC. If someone with a bit more video game know-how than me could take a look, that would be super. A handful are listed below:

There's about a zillion more for anyone interested, though I'll leave it here for now to avoid being obnoxious. Feel free to edit this post or strike-through entries if you get to them. Thanks in advance! Any help is much appreciated. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Collected some sources for Midway Arcade Treasures 3. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

List
  • I am pretty surprised right now, but the only proper WP:SIGCOV Turn 10 Studios coverage is this [10]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I've turned at least 3 articles(this past week including Midway Arcade Treasures 3 as mentioned above) from no sources to least one. If there is coverage for Turn 10 Studios besides that source I will find it. I'm mostly going off Press Releases From Yahoo Finance and there is a lot of them to go through.Timur9008 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks all for your work on this!!! Struck through the ones you've added refs too. If anyone is interested in a particular system, game genre, or era let me know and I'm happy to do some searches and dump the results on your talk page. Thanks again and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yakuza Kiwami

I have been meaning to expand the sections from Yakuza Kiwami but I can't find anything about its making. The article's development information just puts creation information from third party sources. Any idea of an url which I could use? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I can check when I get home. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. For some reason not even Siliconera has an interview with the developers. Weird considering the original game from the PS2 got a lot of coverage by 1UP.com while Kiwami 2 and 6 appear to have more coverage from what I've searched.Tintor2 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
A quick search brings up this. Unfortunately, I have no idea what is being said, but it does identify multiple videos as being interviews. [11] - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I see. I can't understand neither so I guess we can't use. Still thanks. I did find an English vid where one of the staff members talk about the PC port.Tintor2 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You might be able to ask on different WikiProjects for help from people who are fluent in Japanese. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tintor2: In case you didn't catch it on my talk page reply, here's the interviews I found; one with series producer and writer Masayoshi Yokoyama and Kiwami director Koji Yoshida on PlayStation Blog.jp, and a different one with Yokoyama from Inside Games. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll if somebody can translate them.Tintor2 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I made a major expansion to the article based on the creation and reception sections. Something that bugs me is that there are some paragraphs about the story section even though the game is a remake of this one I once tried expanding . You think I should trim it? EDIT: I forgot that this game also had some PC reviews. I still need to expand the reception a bit more.Tintor2 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for source translation help

Hi all. I've been working on a series of older graphic adventure game articles over the last year or two—resulting in a string of GAs (Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans, Traitors Gate (video game), The Space Bar) and near-GAs (The Crystal Key, Safecracker (video game), Dracula: Resurrection). Lately, I've been putting a lot of hours into Runaway: A Road Adventure, mostly on the development/release side of things, and I'm hoping to write a solid Development section for it soon.

However, this is where I need help. The largest source for Runaway's development is a 25-minute making-of video that ran on French television in the 2000s, which can be seen in the Internet Archive and on YouTube. (There was also apparently a German dub of this segment, but I haven't found a clean video of it.) While I have no problem dealing with foreign Romance languages in written form, there's no way I'll be able to understand spoken French well enough to transcribe the video—and YouTube's autotranslator gets scrambled on the key parts where Spanish and French voices overlap. I realize that this is a big ask, but if there's anyone in WPVG with a working knowledge of French and a willingness to transcribe 25 minutes of audio into text, I'd be willing to help with whatever article you're working on. I specialize in source-finding for games from the '90s through the mid-'00s, or, if you're working outside that range, in copyediting. Both of these skills have helped to bring articles successfully to FA in the past. Depending on the subject, I might be able to help in other capacities as well. Anyway, thanks for reading, and here's hoping someone out there is interested! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Jimmy, since noone's responded I'll throw my hat into the ring. While I've never used audio-to-text software before, you could give it a go. Check out https://www.maketecheasier.com/convert-audio-to-text/ for some options. :)--22:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey! Thank you. I'll see if this helps, since it's not looking like there are any French-speakers in WPVG at the moment. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: ^ --Izno (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean, transcribing a 25 minutes video then translating it is one hell of an undertaking hahaha :p if there's any specific point in the video where Youtube's autotranslator gets scrambled I'll be happy to help untangle these sentences. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Thanks very much! I'll see what I can do with the autotranslator and hit you up on the problem spots. Without a French speaker to double-check anything, I just wasn't confident using it as a source. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra input requested at Hyrule Warriors

If anyone could provide some input here regarding the WP:LEAD at Hyrule Warriors, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Organization of Persona 3's protagonist

There is currently a discussion in Talk:Protagonist (Persona 3)#Seconded change to Makoto Yuki (Persona) in regards to moving an the article. It might need better opinions than me. I said about organizing it like the main character from Mass Effect but more opinions might be more helpful. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible MoS proposal on fictional characters

There's a discussion regarding a potential WP:MOS on all fictional characters. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Manual of Style for fictional characters?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Using in game content or developer approved guides as a reliable source?

I've seen at least one case where a cited source is a "cut-scene" from a game. Last time I asked about this, it wasn't clear if actual game play can be used as a reliable source. One issue brought up the last time I asked about this mentioned cases where obtaining the game and/or platform required to play the game was difficult due to the game and/or platform no longer being made or sold. In some cases, media based games with certain types of media based copy protection can't be played on Windows 10 (without some type of hack), because Windows 10 prevents the installation of the device drivers used to verify media. Rcgldr (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Some games don't include any manual, such as the last 3 Tomb Raider games. They don't even include install instructions since they're downloaded by Steam. How to move the main character in the game is only revealed during game play, usually something like an introduction level. The characters and storyline in the game are only revealed during game play, and the actors involved with the game are only shown in the credits. When purchasing these particular Tomb Raider games, there's a bundle option that includes a game guide in addition to the game, but the newer guides try to explain how to progress through the game, while trying to minimize giving away the actual storyline. Need For Speed games are similar, except the newer ones are downloaded from Origin. In some cases, special editions of a game include video based media, that includes how the game was developed. Some games may post trailers or developer created media on youtube. In other cases, the only external source for a game is a youtube video showing actual game play by a player or reviewer. Rcgldr (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In-game stuff is usually only okay for sourcing plot/story info. Not gameplay. Generally previews/reviews cover this sufficiently enough for an encyclopedia. (We don’t get too detail with that stuff per WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTGUIDE.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not always 100% true, but if you find yourself trying to source a bit of gameplay in the article that literally no review, preview, or discussion article mentioned... then is it really that important? Sometimes, what bits are covered by sources showcase what bits are actually notable or important. --PresN 19:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
In the case of older games (pre-youtube), the issue is that web-sites that hosted reviews, or forum sites that developers directly contributed are shut down and internet archives didn't go deep enough into those sites in order to preserve the information. For more recent games, most of the reviews are youtube videos, and last time I asked about those, I got conflicting responses. Which reviewers could be considered as a reliable source, for example, gamespot, ign, ... . There's also the issue of "official" game guides, published by third parties, but sometimes bundled with the game itself by the developers, which I also got conflicting responses for. In my opinion, basic gameplay aspects should be included in Wiki articles, such as character movement, if vehicles are used, if weapons are used, ... . Rcgldr (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Official game guides are probably fine for citing gameplay mechanics and the like, and sometimes I've used them for plot details. They obviously don't show notability and shouldn't be heavily relied on in other contexts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The trouble with relying entirely on reviews and previews for gameplay info is that by their very nature, they focus strictly on selling points, and that often (not a majority of the time, but often) means completely omitting the most fundamental aspects of the game. It's certainly not a good idea, as PresN suggests, to use reviews and previews as the measuring stick for whether or not a piece of info is important; I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that staples of reviews/previews such as the exact numbers of worlds and bonus levels, the portion of the screen that the typical boss takes up, and a full list of the locations you visit in the game are pure trivia.
In fact, I think it comes out more natural when the gameplay section is written by someone who's played the game, and supporting sources are added afterward. I'm always at a loss when trying to add gameplay sources for a game which I haven't played and doesn't already have a substantial gameplay section. When there's an unsourced gameplay section, all I have to do is match up the info in my sources with the info in the article. At the least, official guides and instruction manuals should be fine for verification (though not establishing notability, as Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs already noted).--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
In general (and this isn't even something game guides can always help with) there's a problem with a lot of games where fundamental elements of it are just assumed to be understood, which is totally reasonable for a gaming audience but not for our general encyclopedia audience. Explaining what a first-person shooter is to newbies or how the controls work is going to be impossible on most FPS articles because it's presumed understood by everyone; while in some cases that makes it common enough knowledge you can argue it doesn't need a cite, with more game-specific elements it's troublesome to deal with. I would agree writing the section and then sourcing is probably a great way of writing an engaging section, but you might not find the sources you need to support it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd

Just to ask, what is the policy on acknowledging a game's presence on the series? Not to say "this is what the character thought of it" as much as "this game appeared on this show." - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

People like AVGN, Jim Sterling, Zero Punctuation, etc. - their attention to a given game or series should not be included in the game's article unless third-party sources have taken note. (For example, I know there's a few sources that explain how Plumbers Don't Wear Ties got recognized after AVGN featured it.) Or something like this Polygon article to show how AVGN teamed up with Maculay Culkin to rant about the Home Alone games. --Masem (t) 00:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant, that so long as his acknowledgment of the game is given attention from reliable secondary sources, it should be good then right? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
For me, yes. --Masem (t) 02:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Masem’s reading here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Tekken 6

After a rest from Yakuza, I decided to expand Tekken 6 since I feel the article lacked more coverage on its making and reception. I expanded those section and referenced some parts from gameplay and plot. Still, besides cleaning up the grammar, do you think the reception section needs more rearranging? I'm not used to making these big reception sections since we have to separate subject and I think the only one I tried as big as possible is Devil May Cry 4. Any advice? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sega FAC needs additional feedback

Hi all. Sega, a Top-importance article as rated by the project, is currently at FAC. More feedback is currently needed, as the FAC has been open for a while and could be archived due to a lack of feedback on the article. Editors willing to provide feedback and comments are asked to do so at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega/archive1. Thank you. Red Phoenix talk 00:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Super Robot Wars articles

So while checking the Super Robot Wars series, I have found a lot of these have questionable notability to meet WP:GNG, like 2nd Super Robot Wars, 3rd Super Robot Wars, 4th Super Robot Wars, Super Robot Wars 64, and especially Super Robot Wars Gaiden: Masō Kishin – The Lord Of Elemental. Looking into their Japanese articles, I am not able to find convincing sourcing (though they are much, much better content wise). I have thought about WP:BOLD redirecting it to a great article List of Super Robot Wars video games. But I found it too WP:BOLD without consulting with someone else (in this case people in the WikiProject). Hoping to get some feedback and thoughts on this, thanks in advance. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not too bold at all; editors boldly redirect articles all the time. If anyone objects, it's as easy to revert as any edit. Since you've already asked, though, I agree that they would be better as redirects to List of Super Robot Wars video games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Closing this. If you wait for the WebArchive page to load and filter on reviews, a trivial paging through the results shows links from 2010-2014, when the website shut down. They're all still there. WebArchive lists the page you mentioned at https://web.archive.org/web/2014*/http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=14287, but the link is busted, which means wait a day or two. There is no need for panic or alarm. --PresN 21:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Something's terribly wrong! I was looking for an AllGame review on Magic Pengel: The Quest for Color, to look for the Agetec link, when all of a sudden the AllGame link on Shadow Tower had vanished! I looked for another way through the AllGame link on Armored Core: Project Phantasma when that too vanished! It seems that all of the days we've tried so hard to save the AllGame review links for all the games are for nothing, as all of the archived game reviews have vanished without a trace forever, replaced by redirects or simply disappeared! Now what? Since there are no more AllGame link reviews, I suppose you will have to remove "AllGame" from the Template:Video game reviews chart then, huh? I'm so depressed right now. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Slight over exaggeration as it appears there are still plenty of of reviews from AllGame on Wayback (add "review" to the filter"). About 6000 to be exact. I can't say what happened to the exact ones you mentioned but I don't think we should be getting depressed just yet. CrimsonFox talk 19:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
There are "no matching URLs found". It's as if the AllGame review links have vanished from the face of the earth. But how do I "add 'review' to the filter"? I'm so confused. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there reason to believe this is different from the last ten times you freaked out about some dead links, only to see that they were automatically fixed in a few days? Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
You need wait for the results to load, ignore the "No matching URLs found" at the bottom and wait for a minute or two. Once they're loaded, the filter box is just above the results to the right. Type "review" in there and it'll cut down the results only to ones that have the word "review" in. CrimsonFox talk 08:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip. It seems that about 6,000 reviews from AllGame are from 2010, meaning that all the rest of them we saved in 2014 had been erased somehow. And it doesn't matter anyway, as AllGame is done for. Somebody may need to remove "AllGame" from the "Video game reviews" template like I said, huh? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Why would we remove it from the template? That would immediately break every page listing an AllGame review. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Angel, you need to stop being so reactionary. Calling for Allgame to be removed from the Video game reviews template is really pushing it and it as counterproductive as your threads claiming website links are down but aren't. Just stop. GamerPro64 20:49, 24 June 2019 (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.

Interest in Mercury?

Does anyone here have any interest in Archer Maclean's Mercury and Mercury Meltdown? I've improved both articles to C-class and they have a good chance of becoming GA soon. Unfortunately, I burned myself out pretty quickly and need a short break for a couple days. I don't want the momentum to be lost, so I'm asking if anyone wants to assist me with these two articles. I would appreciate any help on this. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Some images will need from NFC fixes and readded to appropriate articles

I've had discussions with an admin Yamla that, after Minecraftgamerpc69 was blocked, when through and deleted several images that Minecraftgamerpc69 had touched on claiming they were NFCC violations. I've talked to them about hastily doing this (There's a proper process for this, instant deletion was not appropriate), and they said they will restore the images but if they aren't then fixed for NFCC, will renominate them for deletion. The images in questions are those deleted in a block around 21:20 on June 25 from this list [12].

Because the images were uploaded with the Upload Wizard, they will likely be lacking NFCC#1 and #2 rataionals (that is, will have n.a. for those fields). These will be need to filled out. The #2 is easy as these images aren't coming from commercial press sources, so something like "Not a commercial press image" is sufficient to explain. #1 is about no free equivalent, so most of these will be "Cover art, no free cover art equivalent is possible).

Also, they've been deleted long enough to have been removed off their articles by a bot, so they will have to be restored.

There's only about 15 of these but still would need help to complete it efficiently. --Masem (t) 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

One more translation help request

Hey all. Salvidrim very kindly helped me out with the French translation I needed recently for Runaway: A Road Adventure, but now I've got another problem on a related article I'm working on, Hollywood Monsters (video game). Like before, it's an audio recording with no subtitles beyond YouTube's automatic speech-to-text function, only this time it's in Spanish. I've already transcribed the entire recording, but there are a few passages that came out too scrambled to use reliably as sources. If there are any Spanish speakers in WPVG who'd be willing to transcribe these sections into Spanish (I can use Google Translate to handle the English translation once they're in text form), I'd really appreciate it! I've timestamped the passages below alongside my attempts to transcribe them. There's also an Internet Archive upload of the audio if that's more useful for some reason.

The first one starts at this timestamp and ends at 20:58:

Extended content
como surgio la idea de que "La Union" mision a la musica fuisteis vosotros e ellos Dinamic o se

Hizo por el Dinamic fueron los que realmente llegaron con la idea de escoger un grupo y bueno. al principio no se tenia claro que el grupo -- en que grupo pensar para hacer la musica pero, pero bueno se penso luego en "La Union" y que bueno que podrian hacer un buen trabajo ademas el estilo

entonces contactaron con la casa discografica y todo fue muy bien y nos entendimos muy bien

muy bien. pues nada vamos con el juego que ya que lleva a ir dos se que llevais mucho tiempre desarrollandolo pero podeis hacernos un breve resumen de lo que ha pasado en todo este tiempo todo el proceso desde que partes de una pequena idea hasta el juego acabado que ya esta en la calle?

Si, bueno. El proceso empezo ahora proximamente dos anos y medio bueno habiamos acabado nuestro primer juego que se llama Igor: Objetivo Uikokahonia. Y empezamos a pensar en ideas tuvimos la idea asi por encima de que queriamos hacer un juego sobre los monstruos clasicos un poco ambientado en la epoca dorada de hollywood los anos 40 50. Y tambien tuvimos la idea de darle un poco la vuelta a todo lo que las ideas que se tenian preconcebidas sobre, sobre estos monstruos entonces nos desarrollamos un guion tuvimos entre 3 y 6 meses cerrando el guion pensando dialogos, puzzles, que habia que hacer objetos en cada pantalla.

Y una vez cerrado eso empezamos a lo que es el primero estuve buscando tanto grafistas como gente para fondos. Y tal buscar un estilo de fondo es algo que nos convenciera. Y cuando lo encontramos, fue empezar la produccion de pantallas de bueno. Primero tuvimos tambien que mejorar el engine que utilizamos en Igor estuvo bastante tiempo. Y luego ya pues un proceso de produccion que ha sido muy largo porque era un juego muy grande

The second one starts at this timestamp and ends at 27:37:

Extended content
Con el guion estuvimos de 3 a 6 meses despues hubo un periodo y estuvimos los tres totalmente involucrados en esa tarea no hicimos nada aparte de eso. Despues estuvimos pues unos cuantos meses tambien haremos exactamente desarrollando lo que seria link del juego, y bueno dejar un poco central se salvase. Hubo una parte tambien de diseno de escenarios -- de diseno de cada pantalla los objetos que obligatoriamente tenia que venir a la pantalla, todo eso tambien segun tiempo. Y luego ya se paso a la produccion de pantallas que ha llevado en torno a un ano aproximadamente. En cualquier caso si hubieramos contado con mas gente podia haber hecho mucho menos tiempo, pero el problema es que no era impossible contar con la --

La ventaja de que al hacerlo en grupo está muy claro de la idea que cuales y de un poco --

Si

No, no, nosotros siempre tratamos de llegar a un acuerdo en todo, sabes, los tres tenemos la misma poder de decision por decirlo asi. Y como tenemos los gustos bastante paracidos pues solemos encontrar bastante rapido la que buscamos vamos.

Bien. A nivel de como lo habeis desarrollado abrir partidos las de el juego anterior o si--?

Si, partimos de ella, aunque esta re escrita totalmente. De hecho digo lo hicimos en pascal. Y bueno la historia lo hemos pasado todo hace ese registro totalmente y -- estamos bastante contentos con la forma que hemos conseguido trabajar.

De hecho el engine este fue el original, aunque a lo largo de toda la produccion [something] como dos veces totalmente engine, porque no acaba de comer

Thanks again if there's anyone who can help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: I can help you with this. Will try to get it done by tomorrow. --Niwi3 (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Major thanks! I'll be looking forward to it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Johnny Mnemonic (video game)

I created this article after seeing it on the Request Board and I do think it has a chance on being a higher quality article. However, I have never played the game before so I have no clue what the plot of the game is. Has anyone here played the game and can help fill in the section? I believe beyond that and expanding the Gameplay section that this would be able to at least become a Good Article. GamerPro64 14:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Go Vacation FAC

Hello! A few days ago I nominated Go Vacation as a FAC, and I would appreciate any comments y'all could give. Thanks, TheAwesomeHwyh 19:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the FAC. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Have you thought about reviewing other VG FACs that are older than yours? That could help draw others nominating to look at yours. GamerPro64 00:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I think I avoided doing that because I felt like I wasn't knowledgeable in Wikipedia policies, but honestly, if I was able to bring a article to GA status, I'm probably more than capable to do some FAC reviews. Thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Referencing the back of a game's box

I was wondering what is the correct way to reference information found on the back of a game's box - plot or high level features of the game mainly. Should I be using the cite video game template or is there a more accepted way of doing this? Nealbo (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

For CD/DVD covers (and liner notes) there's {{Cite AV media}}, which looks like it would work for this case too- "|at=Back box cover", etc. --PresN 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant thanks, I'll take a look! Nealbo (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the correct template is more reasonably {{cite AV media notes}} rather than cite AV media. --Izno (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I think you're right, that does seem more appropriate. Thanks for your help, both! Nealbo (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks Izno. --PresN 20:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bingo Morihashi and Devil May Cry 5

Hi there. I was meaning to expand the plot development section of Devil May Cry 5 but it appears that writer Bingo Morihashi hasn't commented in English sources. I tried searching him in Japanese but I always end with the prologue light novel he wrote for the game. By the way, I created Bingo Morihashi thanks to an artbook from the Devil May Cry series but according to his Japanese Wikipedia article and his twitter, he is also known for writing multiple types of light novels so that article might need an expansion too. I searched for the DMC5 artbook but I found nothing about Morihashi. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I managed to expand more the development and reception sections from DMC5. Besides asking for a copyedit, do you have any advice about the arranging of the critical response? At first I was just divided by gameplay and plot, but then noted reviewers also focused a lot in how DMC5 has three characters with different moves so I made a paragraph about them in the section.Tintor2 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Bit of help on Super Mario All-Stars

Hey everyone! I've currently got Super Mario All-Stars up at FAC (see here). However, I'm going to be gone for the next week and will not have internet access, so I won't be able to respond to any comments until the 30th. If someone could keep an eye on the article and the FAC page for me, that'd be great. You'll have my eternal gratitude and I'll be willing to do a favor for you in the future. JOEBRO64 15:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm back, so this can just be discarded. JOEBRO64 18:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Suncom Technologies

This needs major cleanup and possibly should be nominated for deletion. It appears to have been written by the founder of the company and has a tone completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's tone. It also sprinkles external links into the prose, which should each be removed or turned into citations. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Retro, the name of the user writing the article clearly gives away that it is the founder listed. You can put the article up for AfD but if the user wishes to create a Wikipedia-compliant article about their company (it's not good, but certainly possible), move it to draftspace and have them go through AfC. Lordtobi (✉) 12:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: I think draftication would be the preferrable outcome at this time. I moved the page, but I'm not sure about the AfC draft scaffolding. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Retro, neither am I, as many COI users share the same NPOV problem. That is no reason not to give them a chance, though. If the AfC is abandoned, it is deleted automatically, if it becomes apparent that the user refuses to write neutrally, MfD is always there for you. Lordtobi (✉) 12:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

'Listicles', and an argument for closer examination

So hey, long time editor here even though I'm more in and out of things, but I kinda wanted to discuss something that's been on my mind too: the growing disdain of 'lists' in character articles for reception. There seems to be a growing mindset that somehow lists like the ones GamesRadar used to do where they would discuss so and so items related to a topic and give their feedback are inherently bad for wikipedia. I think a huge culprit here are incidents where an entire character's article has been propped up on them but nothing's actually said in any of the lists: the character or game is simply given a 'rank' and just put there. But I think there's a huge gap between that and lists where actual reception is given towards a subject as to why it's there and their thoughts on it, and the latter should be a valid point for notability. I would argue too that if a subject appears on enough lists of a certain type and of a decent scope that can also count towards notability, though more to augment existing discussion going on regarding the character. My main point is that I really think this subject should be handled a lot smarter and as a case by case basis instead of a wholesale litmus test as some seem to regard it. If there's reception we should be using it to make these articles better, and condemning all lists feels like it'll remove a valuable resource to editors here within reason.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know what you think is a good "listicle" (which I agree could exist and would be valid) vs a "bad" one. --Masem (t) 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I think really anything that says something tangible about the character vs. just being a number on the list. If it's a statement of the sort you'd site from a review or other sort of article, the list format shoudln't change that. Something like this where there's at least a few choice bits to quote from vs this from Sheva Alomar's article where it's literally just a notch on the list. I think it's the overuse of the latter too that's definitely caused some of this mass disdain.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree the Tifa list entry is just at the edge of being fine to use since it actually gives some dev info and some non-sexualizing opinion about the character. Its the listicles that offer one-two sentences or those that focus on ...less "intellectual" pursuits (like sexiest babes, biggest explosions, etc.) that tend to be undesirable. --Masem (t) 20:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a decider should be if the opinion is sexalized or not either, just if there's something tangible. Lists alone shouldn't carry an article but they should be fine as an augment even if that opinion is based on how attractive the character is as long as something quotable is being said. We use similar quotes about gameplay or graphics for example, they're not much different.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean, at least for the purpose of a list. I am 100% sure some RS can write a well discussed "Top 10 most attractive female characters" and go into discussions that are are along the lines of "Lara Croft is witty and resourceful, and known for her attractiveness", which would be fine. However , most listicles around sexualized elements or following less-intellectual aspects do not give that type of coverage, and instead focus on Lara's chest, for example. as long as a more nuanced discussion is there in the listicle, then that should be fine. --Masem (t) 21:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm of a mind that some listicles are pretty poor, but for the most part I don't agree that listicles are inherently bad. As KFM says, as long as there's something substantive being said, it's worthwhile.
As an aside, I'd question afterellen as a reliable source given concerns over accusations of having an anti-trans agender. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh my gosh did I call it the anti-trans agender. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you give examples of this trend that you're observing, KFM? I haven't seen a concerted effort to excise listicles from Wikipedia so I assumed we were going case-by-case already. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd have to dig to find past discussions on it but I've seen it come up on a few character talk pages, and namely here from time to time with Niemti who, while I know it's in good faith, is really the biggest example of someone using any mention on a list to bulk up articles and in part where I think a good part of this disdain for them built up from.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, our (WP:VG’s) stance on listicles and notability are about on par with how the music WikiProjects value them as well. Albums/songs often fall into the same sort of top best/worst lists. Usable, but not counting much towards notably unless it’s an exceptionally long/detailed entry. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
In regards to my experience, when I write reception sections I just add those "best characters" stuff as small as possible in a single paragraph unless some discuss a completely different information. When it comes to fighting game characters first I try using a first paragraph about the reception in general to a character, reception to movelists, reception to a relationship and reception to other stuff (I think I tried to doing that to Kyo Kusanagi since he tends to get a lot of attention by the media when it comes to his roles in KOF games). I tried something similar with Kazuya Mishima too.Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I brought up the use of listicles today in a discussion with Kung Fu Man on the talk page of Ivy Valentine, specifically with regard to the Reception section of that article. I'm not a priori opposed to any use of list articles, but I think they often fall on the side of clickbait, and so going over them in detail may not serve the reader well. My preference in this case would be to do something like Tintor2 mentioned and compress the content into a paragraph or so, rather than having 1-2 sentences for each list. Colin M (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit at a loss really how you consider it clickbait though. Clickbait implies it's a nonsense headline meant to pull the reader in to a non article. Here we're doing the same that would be done with reviews of a game, podcasts discussing such or any similar format: searching for third party discussion on the subject. Granted listing every article isn't going to often tell the reader much with some exception, if you can at least quote something from them it's no different than doing the same with the aforementioned other formats. Reception is the key thing, not the means of delivery.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't know if it helps, but when I use the top 10 or whatever, I actually avoid saying "He was listed as the" to "The website said that this character". I mean, if we were to use all top 10 article, Cloud from Final Fantasy's reception would be neverending. (I actually tried trimming Cloud's reception once though but I have no idea what to do with certain sources considering his common coverage by media involves VII and Advent Children).Tintor2 (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean if you have an article called "Top 50 Hottest Game Babes" accompanied by a fan-service-y image of a buxom, scantily clad character like Ivy, then yeah, I'd call that clickbait (though maybe not in the strictest sense of the term, since it lacks the element of deceptiveness). The reason I'd be more suspicious of the reliability of content coming from those articles is that the author's primary goal is to drive clicks above all else, so it's less likely that the text accompanying the list will be substantial, well-researched, and fact-checked. And indeed, I think the quotes taken from such lists which are used in the article currently are pretty low on substance, e.g.:
  • "a pain in the ass, but she's got a tight one, so she's okay by us"
  • "However much she instills fear in our hearts, we revel in the opportunity to stare at her from the safety of our television sets."
  • "What can you say about a chick that carries a whip? If you're talking about Ivy from the Soul Calibur series, you could say she's pretty intimidating." Colin M (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what researching and fact checking on the parts of the quoted parties has to do with character reception though. I'll admit the quotes there are on the weaker side (granted a lot of that was also written about 5-10 years ago), but the key thing is to at least cultivate thought and reactions from third party reliable sources. It feels like you're trying to hold them to a higher standard than the section for a character article should call for however in my experience.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it’s really more “vapid pandering”, and “saying nothing of substance” than “clickbait”, but whatever you call it, if that’s largely what the article amounts to, then it seems like most of us would already agree it doesn’t have much to offer to an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 02:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources for the requests page

I gathered sources for a number of requested articles, but I'm a little burned out right now with writing articles, so if anyone would like to help, that would be more than appreciated. User:Abryn/Game reception

The games in question are:

There's also Ever, Jane, but I actually am really interested in writing that article myself. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin mind closing the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#RFC?

Topic. Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Having a bit of a problem at Women and video games

We seem to be reaching an impasse at Women and video games. The argument that is being made is that the article is overly "gynocentric". Third parties, other participants, and extra eyes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just skimming through it has me thinking that Niemti (SNAAAAKE!!) should be topic-banned from these types of articles. He does not appear to be contributing to these topics and instead tries to start conflicts. GamerPro64 21:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree. It's fairly clear that it is next to impossible for him to approach editing in this topic in a civil manner that respects NPOV and NPA. I encourage him to stick to topics that don't get him so heated. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I think a topic ban would be highly appropriate. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree he needs to be topic banned. I've tried talking to him about this issue in the past and he just will not respect anyone else's point of view on the matter. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Staying away from this as per my declaration when he was unblocked, but this was the root cause of all his prior blocks and topic bans (GA area and anything related to Anita Serkeesian)- he doesn't actually seem to respect anyone else's point of view on any issue, it just isn't too bad as long as he stays away from controversial areas. --PresN 09:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: Niemti is now going as SNAAAAKE!!, something I had not realized and was confused about who this thread was talking about. --Masem (t) 15:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't he banned completely, though? His old account, HanzoHattori (talk · contribs), is perma-banned. 89.204.154.120 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I don't understand how anyone thought things would be different if his block was lifted this time, but let's not get too side-tracked and just focus on the current issue. That being said personally I'd vote for a complete block as PresN is right, he doesn't actually respect anyone's view on anything, but I can live with a topic ban. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't even mind him going off and doing the thing that he wants everyone else to do for him under duress. He can clearly write and contribute constructively when he gets his own way, and some of his contributions are actually excellent. His bias and pov pushing however is clearly problematic however on multiple fronts. Koncorde (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I’d fully support a topic ban as well, but they generally need to be enacted at AN/ANI, and that could be a messy time-sink of a discussion. If you’ve got the time and energy, there’s probably a good case to be made. Otherwise, it may be quicker to just voice your opinion at the talk page in question, so at least his hands are tied by consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 12:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
+1 JOEBRO64 13:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
A topic ban request for AN is currently being worked on. Watch this space. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme and Alex Shih: You may need to be aware of this, though it sounds like it will be moving to AN. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!! is finished presenting his argument - he is working on other things now. Right, Snaaaake!!?? Atsme Talk 📧 15:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban requests at AN are live. All comments are welcome. See here. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that, as a result of the discussion, SNAAAAKE!! has been indefinitely community banned. Also, for our American editors, Happy Fourth! JOEBRO64 13:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The alteregos of Vergil

There is something I've been wondering about the article Vergil (Devil May Cry). In the latest game, the character appeared but had two alteregos who were basically split parts until they both disappeared and Vergil returned. Should them be covered in Vergil's article or they would instead be their own separate sections in the character list. I'm confused about this.Tintor2 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think if there's significant reception I'd say cover them separately, though it might be harder. Especially in the case of V where he's distinctly a different character in a lot of ways.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

FreeSpace 2 Source Code Project

I scanned this article briefly, and I must say that I am shocked by its quality. There are numerous problems that need to be dealt with. Copyright is just one of them (good grief, there even is a gallery of copyrighted screenshots). My main concern is whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I only need to say that I was not able to find very many sources about the subject on Google or Archive.org, so I think it is only a fork of FreeSpace 2. Gamingforfun365 02:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It could probably be reduced to a single paragraph and merged to the main article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I am uncertain as to the topic's future. Calling it a fork looks like a disservice to me--the game (engine?) was open-sourced by the studio. Most of the recent articles recently covering the topic cover it explicitly as a topic of interest and most seem to imply strongly that the game is still popular solely because of the engine work. PCGamer, RPS, Eurogamer and several others (see the CSE).
On the point of the articles, FreeSpace 2 needs a freshening. It was listed as a GA in 2007, and accordingly I'm seeing less-than-stellar prose, and those articles above are from after (the article now does not list them).
As for the images, if the engine is open-source, does that mean the models as-displayed in those images are open or otherwise? --Izno (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The license is non-free. The article should not have an image gallery. Reach Out to the Truth 16:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if the engine were free, that does not change the fact that the game's assets are still copyrighted. Gamingforfun365 03:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll poke the guys at Hard-Light and see if I can get something done. But that article is failing RS's notability, and the bit in the Freespace 2 article is probably enough. Article for Redirect is probably where it goes from here. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Discord

I wanted to take a minute and remind anyone new or freshly returned to the project that we have a channel in the unofficial Wikimedia WP:Discord server. A lot of familiar faces have been around over time, and if you're already on Discord as a gamer, please stop by. -- ferret (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Mammoth Gamers on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Mammoth Gamers (mammothgamers.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Are articles from Mammoth Gamers considered a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Music of the Shadow Hearts series

Hi. I've recently been doing work on articles within the Shadow Hearts series, including the above music article I created a short time ago. The things missing now are track lists for the three main albums (I've created track lists for the other three). I'd appreciate some help putting them in. Either that, or perhaps remove them if track lists aren't needed, but I feel like including them for thoroughness. I'm planning to nominate the article for GA in the future once it's all settled. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ignore above. Sorry, silly request. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with this

So, I'm planning to start expanding the MySims Agents article, and I don't really know how to proceed. Basicly, the Wii version and DS version are completely different games, difrent gameplay, plot, and even review scores. I think it's probably best to split it into two articles, one for Wii and the other for DS, but I'm not sure so I wanted to check here just in case. I think all the other MySims games are like this, where they share the same name but are completely different games, but I'm only really familiar with MySims Agents. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There’s no problem with having two separate articles if there truly is separate sourcing and content to support it. The problem is when the content is largely 90% the same. If they’re truly different, then just treat it as if they were two titles with two different names. (Only speaking conceptually here, I’ve never played either game.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'm going to start working on the articles in my sandbox. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Assuming they are individually notable, they could be titled MySims Agents (Nintendo DS video game) and MySims Agents (Wii video game) while making the original title into a disambiguation page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yep, thats what I'm planning on doing. Thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh 17:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A little update: I was able to find plenty of sources for the Wii version (which I am working on in my sandbox over here), but I can't really find anything besides a single IGN review for the DS version (which I am working on right here). So... how do I deal with this? The DS version is a completely difrent game, so it doesn't really make much sense to include it into the article on the Wii version, but if we don't have a article on the DS version, how should I mention it in the article for the Wii one? TheAwesomeHwyh 20:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If there are not enough RS's to make a separate article for the DS version, I would just create a section at the bottom of the Wii version's article (or a subsection under "Release") and title it "Nintendo DS version". In that section, you can explain the differences, as well as any reception it received. MySims Agents (Nintendo DS video game) could just redirect to this section. --JDC808 ♫ 21:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup, this is how I’d handle it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Metacritic says there are reviews in Nintendo Gamer and Games Master UK for the DS version, which are both reliable sources per WP:VG/RS. The NDS version is separately notable. I recommend moving the current article to MySims Agents (Wii video game) to preserve history, then making MySims Agents (Nintendo DS video game) and turning the current title into a disambiguation page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I assume these are print sources or you would have linked them? I mean, if someone gets access to those sources and some prose is written from them, maybe, but their existence aloneis only enough to prevent deletion, not merging. An article written entirely around an IGN review isn’t going to survive a merger discussion realistically. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm not really a fan of tacking on a section. I feel that the information should be incorporated into the main body of article as much as is possible or split it out. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Efforts to split out ports/remakes/sequels from the main article

I feel that it would be a good idea to try and split these out whenever possible, especially in cases where these ports, remakes, and sequels feel tacked on. Of course, not all games will work for that, but if anyone would like to accompany in my effort to deal with this, I think it'd make the main article that much better for it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

We have an essay on the point that seems reasonable. --Izno (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate that certain games just don't cut it article-wise, though I don't think that's always true, even in the case of a remake. Even so, I question whether the way they are covered in the article is good for the article itself. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Any interest in particular? I thought you were working on the Mega Man remakes. For example, Persona 3 and Persona 4 could be splitted in Portable and Golden considering how popular they are which might indicate a lot of coverage by creators and third party sources.Tintor2 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For me splitting remasters/remakes from the main article depends on if there are notable/significant differences and a development process and reception section that can't be integrated in the main article. For instance, I've always wondered why we have a separate article for The Last of Us Remastered—the only real differences in gameplay are DualShock 4 compatibility, the photo mode, and the audio commentary, while the development and reception sections could easily be condensed and integrated in the main article. JOEBRO64 11:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it should be on the order of the Resident Evil 2 remake, which completely changed how the game was presented and played but without changing the general nature of the game. (Same with the FF7 remake). We do generally allow remake/remastered collections to have separate articles if it is generally impossible to get the individual games in a remastered form, as well. --Masem (t) 14:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • +1 to merging that back into the main article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Like others have said, I'd say that if a port/remake is significantly different compared to the original game, and has a large amount of material that cannot be integrated into the main page, it could be deserving of its own article. Example would be Pac-Man and Pac-Man (Atari 2600) - the latter is notable enough to warrant an article of its own, due to its large amount of sources and info regarding its development and reception, and is even marked as a Good Article. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also in the camp of 'do not split unless there is an extraordinary reason to do so', but perhaps for different (non-notability) reasons. For me, the development section just reads better if the remake/remaster dev info (there is new dev info, right? If not, please reconsider coverage) comes right after the old dev info. Same for reception so it's easy to compare them at a glance. I don't prefer the alternate way to cover remakes within the same article, which is to make a new section at the end and shove gameplay changes, dev, and reception all into it. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Axem; having remake/remaster information follow the corresponding info on the original within the same article has always seemed to me the most natural and easy-to-read way of presenting the content.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • To me the question is always one of sourcing. There's a million ports of Myst and I've been trying to clean up that section, but there's next to no really useful information on much about the later releases or development to merit a standalone article. Meanwhile Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary had a much larger amount of development and reception info to draw from. Generally I'll always support one better article than two individually-weaker ones as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_144&oldid=1137359487"