Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 147

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140←Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150

Diablo release date

This is a discussion I've been considering for over a year, but have put off until now because of the headache it's likely going to be for everyone involved. I'll kick it off with a summary: Diablo's famous December 31, 1996, release date is almost certainly wrong. Wikipedia has listed this date for a very long time, and helped spread it into countless reliable sources via WP:CITOGENESIS, but contemporaneous sources almost unanimously agree that Diablo was released in January 1997. This includes Blizzard itself.

First, some background. Diablo's incorrect release date is actually part of a widespread problem across WPVG's '90s game articles. Almost all of our release dates from this period, mostly for computer game articles but even for some video games, are wrong. I summarized it like this in a recent conversation with TheBuddy92:

To the best of my knowledge, the error derives from a mistake GameSpot made in the late '90s or early 2000s, when it converted its release date listings from month-year format to month-day-year. The release months had been [largely] correct before, but in adding the day, something strange happened: the release date was automatically rolled to the last day of its release month or, often, the last day of the previous month. You can see the comparison here and here. Per Online Gaming Review, the game's actual release date was November 11. Wikipedians, including myself, simply copied GameSpot's dates verbatim and spread the error here.

Using newly-unearthed contemporaneous sources from publications like PC Gamer US, CNET Gamecenter and GameSpot, Buddy has recently undertaken the project of fixing these dates (example) across a vast number of articles in WPVG's scope. However, the level of notoriety that Diablo has as a 1996 game, particularly as a rare New Year's Eve release, means that a drive-by fix simply won't work. Plus, GameSpot is for once not the origin of the December 31 date, as the technical error caused the game to be bumped down to the completely-impossible November 30. The December 31 date can't be explained away as a simple error on GameSpot's part. Because of these factors, we're going to need to argue about it.

For starters, I'll lay out the case for why Diablo was almost certainly released in January 1997. Then I'll try to address some potential counter-arguments. Bear with me.

Blizzard sources for the January 1997 date

  • "Blizzard Entertainment this week shipped Diablo, the much anticipated role-playing game in which players enter a sinister underworld filled with supernatural forces and demonic creatures."
  • "Blizzard Entertainment announced today that 13 million games of Diablo have been played over Battle.net since the game’s release in January."
  • "Released January 1997, Diablo debuted at number one in the United States and was named Game of the Year."

Supporting evidence for the January 1997 date

  • Diablo went gold on December 27, 1996, at which time it was announced for a January 6 release date. We know this primarily because of Online Gaming Review, which gives an exact publication date to a nearly-identical PC Gamer US news item from the week of December 23. Given a gold date of December 27, it would be pretty much impossible for the game to have shipped December 31. Going gold means that the game has been shipped to the manufacturer for duplication, which, especially back in the '90s, took a while. This is why Blizzard projected a release date of January 6.
  • CNET Gamecenter, a very reliable source from the '90s, first reported Diablo's availability on January 6.
  • On January 2, 1997, Online Gaming Review reported that Diablo's street date was being broken by certain retailers. The text reads, "You heard it here first, Diablo has begun appearing in a few stores around the country." OGR, for the record, was by far the fastest computer game news outlet at the time. It often reported retailers breaking street dates before anyone else. If it reported this news on January 2, the likelihood that Diablo had been available before then is very slim.
  • On January 17, 1997, Next Generation reported that Diablo had been released "just over two weeks ago". That would put its release date in the first few days of January, echoing the January 3 Blizzard press release and January 2 OGR report.
  • On January 24, 1997, Gamecenter reported that Diablo had been released "more than two weeks ago". It seems astonishingly unlikely that Gamecenter would be using this language to refer to a December 1996 release date, especially when combined with its own January 6 report mentioned above.
  • Finally, PC Data did not list Diablo on its sales charts until January 1997. It was noticeably absent from the December 1996 top 20, even on the slightly-edited version published by Gamecenter, which omitted several games. Given Diablo's incredible hype, and reported 450,000+ pre-orders by December 18 (whether by consumers or retailers is unstated in the source), it seems impossible that the game wouldn't at least appear in PC Data's top 20. Even given the limits of day-one sales, Diablo was, based on what I've read, too large not to appear.

Addressing the evidence against the January 1997 date

  • The first piece of evidence is GameSpot. Before the technical error changed Diablo's date to November 1996, GameSpot listed its release as "12/96". I believe this can be dismissed as a mistake for two reasons. The first is the overwhelming evidence from Blizzard and other contemporaneous publications listed above. The second is that GameSpot's dates, even before the technical error, were not always correct. One example is the game Civil War Generals 2, which GameSpot listed as "11/97". This is impossible, however, as Sierra itself reported that the game had released on October 20.
  • The second piece of evidence comes from Blizzard. In Blizzard's 2001 "10th Anniversary Feature", it's stated that "Diablo shipped on December 27". This seems to directly contradict the evidence from Blizzard above. However, I believe it can be explained through a simple interpretation of the wording. The first point to make is that December 27 is the exact date listed by Online Gaming Review and, by extension, PC Gamer as the gold date for Diablo. I propose that Blizzard, in this article, is using "shipped" to mean "shipped to the manufacturer"—i.e. going gold. This interpretation is strengthened by the "Blizzard Timeline" section of the same source. Here, it's stated again that Diablo "shipped" in 1996, but note that 1997 is listed as the year of Diablo's actual release. As a result, I believe that this Blizzard source is not only not evidence against the January 1997 release date, but actually boosts the case for it by confirming many of the details mentioned in earlier sources.
  • The third piece of evidence is that many, many publications placed Diablo in their "Best of 1996" awards. These include GameSpot, Computer Gaming World and Computer Games Strategy Plus, among others. I believe this can be explained away as a matter of pragmatic editorial decision-making. Diablo was the biggest game of the period and publications otherwise would've had to wait until 1998 to honor it with an award. This made no sense either for the magazines (whose readers were clamoring to know about Diablo) or for Blizzard/Cendant, which needed the coverage to market its game. Given that Cendant owned half the American computer game industry and helped to keep magazines in business by placing ads in them, it would have been a huge mistake from a business standpoint to make Diablo wait a year before it could be considered for an award. For the record, though, that's exactly what Gamecenter did, when it named Diablo 1997's best RPG and reconfirmed its 1997 release date once again.
  • The fourth piece of evidence is more general. It's what I consider evidence of mistakes and WP:CITOGENESIS that have spread throughout otherwise-reliable sources for years. For example, Blizzard itself repeated the December 31 date this year, and even celebrated the game's 20th anniversary in December 2018. Later sources like these pose a challenge, but I submit that they are not as reliable as the contemporaneous sources listed above, especially the ones from Blizzard in the '90s. Many of the people at Blizzard today, including the people who wrote and planned that stuff, were not at the company when Diablo launched. By contrast, Blizzard in the '90s had intimate working knowledge of Diablo's release date, and consistently—without fail, from what I've seen—called Diablo a January 1997 release. This is backed up almost universally by contemporaneous reporting from third-party sources. Given that evidence, I think Blizzard's more recent statements (and other publications' more recent statements) can be written off as mistakes akin to the erroneous Fallout 1 release date published by Bethesda's vice president: later errors made by people influenced by citogenesis, forgetfulness or having gotten the information second- or third-hand.

That's my case. Given that Wikipedia has been dueling over Diablo's release date basically since the article was created in 2001, I don't expect this to be resolved quickly. But I think it should finally be resolved, especially as Buddy works to fix the rest of these mistaken dates across WPVG. If you made it this far, thanks for reading. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well-said. TheBuddy92 (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm convinced. Support changing the date, with a cited note in the article, and also include a comment to see more evidence linked in a message box on the Talk page. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
99% sure the Dec 31 date is being tied to Battle.net (that was when that was released) which was necessary to play Diablo at the time). Obviously, we didn't have digital distribution back then, so the game may have shipped to retailers on the 31st, but its widespread availability was likely a few days later. I'm going back to "ancient times" of USENET at comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg and get posts like this and this confirming going gold Dec 27 1996 and to be in stores Jan 6 1997, and this for Jan 6, but with some people reporting getting copies as early at Jan 3. So I agree that the date should be Jan 6 but have a footnote to explain that Dec 31, the release date of Battle.net, is often erronously used as the release of Diablo. --Masem (t) 15:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
As an additional note, unless we're changing our mind, the standard has been that the "release date" is the date that the game became officially publicly available for most people (in the region), for games "new" enough to have such things; shipping dates don't count, and neither do retailers breaking the street date. That said, Jan 6 or Jan 3? They anticipated Jan 6, but issued a press release on Jan 3 saying it was out... --PresN 18:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's hard to say regarding January 3 or 6. I'd personally lean toward 3 because of the press release—that could be perceived as Blizzard moving up the official release date.
@Masem: I haven't been able to find any contemporaneous press releases or third-party sources that explicitly state Battle.net's exact release date, so you could very well be correct there. I think Diablo shipped with Battle.net support, so presumably the service would've needed to launch prior to Diablo. That said, I think we'd need to confirm it with more sources before we included a mainspace statement about Dec. 31 being Battle.net's release date. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
That press release on the 3rd only says "the game shipped this week", putting more credence to the 6th as the proper date, the 3rd has little to do with it. --Masem (t) 18:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Just found another point that makes me think we use Jan 6: from this Ars Tech GDC summary on Diablo: GDC 2016's final panel saw Diablo lead programmer and concept creator David Brevik wax nostalgic on the game ahead of its 20th anniversary—which he swears is in 2016. "Some people say it came out in 1997, but if you were on the West coast, you could buy it on December 31," he insisted. As long as we are going by standard "wide release" during the period of time that everything was retail, this is definitely Jan 6, but the prose can explain that it came out earlier in some parts of the country. --Masem (t) 19:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think January 6 is a possibility. Blizzard's January 3 press release, though, literally states that Diablo is in stores as of that date. So I think it could go either way. As for Brevik's comment—even if we were using first-day-of-availability as our criterion, I still think Dec. 31 is doubtful given the weight of evidence from the time. Pretty much the entire game press was on the West Coast back then, and OGR took tips from around the country. Not to mention the difficulty, if not impossibility, of getting a game on shelves that soon after going gold. The final nail in the coffin is that Blizzard itself never claimed the Dec. 31 date until years later. I'm inclined to think that Brevik has simply gotten the days mixed up over the decades, like many other people. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think this depends a lot on whether we want to list the first date of public availability or the street date. Lordtobi (✉) 19:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there's much support for using first public availability, honestly. Broken street dates aren't release dates any more than pre-launch leaks are release dates. (And I'd strongly doubt Dec. 31 even then.) My personal take: we list the date as January 3, 1997, per Blizzard's press release entitled "Blizzard Entertainment's Diablo In Stores Now". There are no contemporaneous official announcements earlier than that. But I'm open to Jan. 6 as the date if consensus is that the Jan. 3 press release's wording is too vague. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm in favor of Jan 3, on the basis of that press release. --PresN 15:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Support. I have had this very same issue with Xevious where sources claim it was from December 1982 when in actuality it was released in January 1983. It's tiresome. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of this, I'm adding relevant sources in the body to explain the date confusions. --Masem (t) 19:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Joining this project?

Comrades, what do I need to do to join this project? Thank you for your help. --Moscowdreams (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing! There's nothing you need to do to "join" this WikiProject. Simply put, if you have any kind of interest in editing and improving video game-related articles, you can just go right ahead and do so. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, cool! :) --Moscowdreams (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Game Awards

Surprising number of announcements. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Project Scarlett has a name, Xbox Series X
  • With that, is Senua's Saga: Hellblade II

Pete Hines

We have an article on "Todd Howard", but we don't seem to have an article on "Pete Hines". Shouldn't we have an article about him? (We have articles on Australian rule footballer "Peter Hines" and American politician "Peter F. Hines".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

We probably should if there is signficant coverage of "Pete Hines" from reliable sources (WP:GNG)  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I have started the article. Please expand it as you see fit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Reason for the move?

For some reason a user moved Metal Gear Solid to Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game). The name of the franchise is Metal Gear, not "Metal Gear Solid" with the first game simply being called Metal Gear and the spinoffs being subtitled Acid, Rising and Survive. Is it possible to recover the old name?Tintor2 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why either as it doesn't follow Wikipedia naming conventions by any means. There's only one game called Metal Gear Solid so having it with "(1998 video game)" seems redundant. It's an inappropriate move that I fully support to reverse. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
You forgot about Metal Gear Solid (2000 video game). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment by WPVG editors at an FLC

A few weeks ago, List of accolades received by Undertale was split out from the main Undertale article, and subsequently sent to FLC. While it garnered discussion and support, it has recently gotten a strong oppose on the basis of being a content fork from the main article. As an FLC delegate, I'm inviting WPVG editors to chime in on the suitability of this list as a stand-alone list in regards to the VG sphere at the FLC. As a contextual note, while "accolade" lists are rare both in general and in regards to video games, we do have 3 VG accolade FLs: List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V, List of accolades received by The Last of Us, and List of accolades received by Red Dead Redemption 2. --PresN 03:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • These standalone accolade lists are bloated with editor opinion ("my GOTY" type of articles) or fan-voted lists. We should cull them and only feature awards/ceremonies that feature juries/panels, or are otherwise considered a notable achievement to win like we already do on main game articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • These really should only be broken out if the list is in the 100+ range (as the case for the three examples) - otherwise they should be kept with the game, and if there is still a SIZE issue, split out another section (Development usually is the next best choice, per WP:SS). Undertale's breakout is completely inappropriate if just to try to get a FLC under one's belt. --Masem (t) 04:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is something I completely overlooked when reviewing this FLC. I simply looked at the quality of the List and not if the content fork was justified. I think I am going to strike my !vote.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man/archive1 is a virtually identical case and I invite you all to comment there as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • "Virtually Identical" List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man contains 34 wins and 198 nominations. I do not see how it can be considered in the same category.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Virtually identical in that an editor uninvolved in the original promotion of the main article unilaterally decides to split out an accolades list with no prior discussion and no expressed need for it—a split that fails WP:SIZERULE—and rushes it to FLC just days later. But who's keeping track. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
        • You act as I have I put no effort into this List. The orignal accolades table on the article had around 100 entries whereas this List contains 232 entries. So please assume some good faith before accusing me of having these bad editing pratices.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
          • I am not accusing you of not putting in effort. I am reporting on the similarities between the two cases (virtually identical, in my view). You seem to think this is about number of nominations. It's not. It's about whether a split is useful or beneficial for a reader looking for information. Splits are generally made on technical grounds (the article is literally too long for the software to handle) or notability grounds (the thing is notable in itself). Splits should not be made lightly because they diminish the article's ability to convey information to the reader in a sensible manner. We can't control the order in which a reader reads an article, but we can encapsulate all the information in a comprehensible way within a single article by embedding it in the order that the article is displayed. Splitting destroys that order. Why should we force the reader to click to another page in order to find out an extremely relevant thing (what awards a game won) if there's no pressing need to split it off? Always remember to consider the reader in all your editing choices. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
            • However, this split is useful. Firstly, the reader can see an overview of the awards won by the game in prose on its respective article. Secondly, yes the readable prose on Spider-Man (2018 video game) is 43.8 kB. Thus is falls between 40 and 50 so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be split (it should be noted that this is a guideline so "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" and not a strict policy). However in this case with a large awards table the general consensus has been to split. For example: On Grand Theft Auto V the readable prose is 37kB and yet the accolades table (FL) has a readable prose of 2.9kB. So in theory it should be put on the same page per WP:SIZERULE. However, the reasons why these tables have been split is not to with the readable prose it is to do with the large visual size they take up on the page. In general is more benefical for readers to have a concise overview of the awarads on the respective page and then to have a large table of all their awards on a separate page. Some other examples of this include:
            • The Last of Us readable prose = 36kB; accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.5kB
            • Red Dead Redemption 2 readable prose = 44kB; Accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.8kB
            • Uncharted 4: A Thief's End readable prose = 25kB; Accolades table readable prose = 2.7kB
            • Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
              • Other stuff exists. We can interrogate the necessity of other articles in their own venues. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
              • I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. To summarize: All of those examples were to show that they may not strictly meet WP:SIZERULE but despite this they still deserve to be standalone lists. This is becuase of the large visual space accolade tables have and thus it is generally better to have them on a separate page including for this FLC. If the the readable prose were simply plaintext (or standard prose with no table) then it would not have made sense to split however the large visual size these tables have it makes sense for them to be split off.
              • Furthermore, Spider-Man (2018 video game) has a readable prose of 43.8kB. Thus it falls between 40kB and 50kB so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful per WP:SIZERULE. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be kept or split.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Kumatanchi

Hello. Something I wanted to make sure was out in the open. I've taken an interest in the products of Vanillaware, and even decided to try and make their company page a GA. I'm also toying with the idea of making Vanillaware and its games a GT. I've gotten the easiest one out of the way first, the JP-exclusive sim game Kumatanchi, with an expansion. But I really don't feel like taking it any further. I'm deeply uncomfortable working on this article as I find the entire premise repulsive. If no-one else takes it, I can get back to it and push it through if possible. But if someone else could take it on, I'd appreciate it as I seriously don't want to be involved with that article any more than I have to. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(feel bad for leaving this thread unresponded to after reading it) - I want to say that I also find that game gross, and would rather not work on that article, but that if you want any other help during your Vanillaware project I'd like to help out.--AlexandraIDV 12:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't really have any issue with subject matters, since we're writing an encyclopedia, but... I don't speak Japanese. I think that may be the main problem for most of the editors. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@IDV and Hellknowz: I realise this is an encyclopedia, and have dealt with video games not to my taste before in the name of a GT or standalone GA (Pandora's Tower, The 3rd Birthday, Fire Emblem Fates, Compilation of Final Fantasy VII). If no-one else can get to it, I will take it further. As to it being in Japanese, part of the reason I'm feeling so uncomfortable with it is because I really dived deep into it to get it filled out correctly. If further translation help is needed, then I can help.
Also, IDV, thanks for the offer. I'll keep that in mind. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: Oh yes, and if I can do anything in exchange, I can review a GAN for you as long as it's not too close to my personal interests, and hunt for sources for an article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: FYI I changed my username to "Alexandra IDV" like two years ago, so pinging "IDV" will not work anymore.--AlexandraIDV 13:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Alexandra IDV: Sorry. I tried using that, but it wasn't showing in the ping box I first used to reply to both of you. It seems to be working here. I'll remember next time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cameo characters

A user has been adding unplayable characters to the games from Tekken. I removed that because I found it as fancruft and left a message in his talkpage but he keeps reverting every edit. See Talk:Tekken 6#Cameos for the discussion I started. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely seems to be gamecruft. I reverted the edit and made a comment Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
And it was reverted again with the user talking only in his edit comment though.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Which games and game topics to list in WP:VITAL?

See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Board and card games for a related discussion. (Despite the name this topic discusses video games as well, and current consensus is that they are over-represented). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (December 8 to December 14)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 00:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

December 8

December 9

December 10

December 11

December 12

December 13

December 14

Ugh, Aya Brea got recreated, and it's still a reception section monologue of top 10 sexy video game characters listicles. --PresN 00:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I've redirected the page to the first Parasite Eve game article - the page has very little in the way of actual reception and almost entirely lies on generic "top ten hottest video game characters" lists, lacking really any kind of notability. I don't see why it was recreated as it has very little improvement in terms of both sourcing and writing. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
These articles are shameful. "Top 10 sexy video game character listicles" are not encyclopedic sources. At best, the refs can be combined into a single sentence rather than dragged out over multiple paragraphs. More reasonably, these sources would be thrown out wholesale at FAC. czar 19:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and we really need to start pushing against them being used in articles. They are lackluster at best and are borderline awful sources for articles, and most of them are really poorly written and made. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
While the article at present does have issues, it currently and clearly has notability outside of sexticles. Authors praising her for being a "breath of fresh air" for female characters, citing reasons aside from how sexy they are; an article calling her one of the best video game heroines and a standout PlayStation character; articles that do talk about her looks, but also use that topic to discuss how it made her relatable. Another source mentions her as gorgeous, but only alongside her strength, and how she informed her tastes and style. It is important to address quality issues, both in writing and in sourcing, but redirecting an article for being poorly written is one of the best ways to ensure that an editor fails to learn and improve. The issue with sexticles was not that they were featured, it is that they often lacked substance or were needlessly vulgar. The presence of sexticles by itself is not a reason to delete content, as long as there is valuable content to derive from it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The vulgarity of "sexticles" is a symptom but not the issue. I just read through the article's sourcing and I don't see any of the redemptive qualities implied in the last paragraph. The issue of "sexticles" is that they are presented and read like tabloid/gossip rags (not sources asserting the encyclopedic notability of the topic) and thus should be treated as such (akin to WP:Daily Mail, i.e., deprecated). We are a generalist encyclopedia. There is no reason for us to use such sources, nevertheless to use them as the basis of a topic's independent notability. czar 01:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
As it were, the article does otherwise demonstrate notability independently of the sexticles, which I think should be the name of such articles. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd argue that most (all?) of the reception for the character can simply be added into the Parasite Eve article rather than be split into another article. There's not a whole lot there, so I can't imagine that would be difficult to do? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
But the Reception is primarily about the character, not the game. There certainly was some reception that was just about her role in the game which has since been removed, but even beyond that, there's a great deal of concept and creation content that relates to more than just Parasite Eve. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Well duh, I get that. What I'm saying is that we could probably add those sources regarding the character to the reception area of the game, something along the lines of: "The character of Aya Brea was praised by several, with IGN saying blah blah blah and GameSpot finding blah blah blah." I think that would be better suited than to have an entire article about the character that can easily just be condensed into a few sentences. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 03:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian Rider Online

Okay, so has anyone heard of the online mobile game Russian Rider Online? It’s basically a mobile game that features a variety of Russian cars and you get to do stuff in 10 game modes and maps. I tried to make an article about it but it got declined because I only put a link to the game on the App Store, since I barely did any research. But yeah, anyone heard of or play the game? SgtMikhail (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)SgtMikhail

Never heard of it, and it seems to basically have no media coverage either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of We Got This Covered

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of We Got This Covered (wegotthiscovered.com). If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Omigosh, are Cheatsheet.com and WeGotThisCovered.com reliable?. — Newslinger talk 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Creating list of games of non-notable studios that don't have an article

Is there any guideline of whether that is, or isn't allowed? Per WP:LISTN, such list is "notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Asking mostly because of List of games by 2XL Games. It is also a great merge target to WP:PRESERVE 2XL Games' games, since most of these are either barely notable, or not notable at all. If such list isn't deemed to be notable for inclusion here, I will delete it myself per CSD G7. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I cannot comment on 2XL specifically because I don't know them and haven't done any research, but I can absolutely see a case of a developer's games being notable while the developer itself isn't.--AlexandraIDV 17:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have been somewhat concerned about this question since they've been going by on the regular PresN releases. I am somewhat doubtful that a group of games can be notable without at least their developer possessing notability. --Izno (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    This list should be able to technically meet WP:LISTN since the group of games is mentioned by CNET and Metacritic being reliable sources [1] [2]. But considering I realize that it could be a polarizing thing to decide on, I came here for opinions (and I also do not want an AfD if I am able to G7 it myself). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    Those are company profile pages a dime a dozen, not actual reliable sources of interest. --Izno (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    Just came here to mention this but Izno was faster. WP:VG/S specifically says that CNet product pages and the Metacritic database are unreliable. Literally anyone can publish some junk code and get listed at any of hundreds of similar directories. Woodroar (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty easy for a game to be notable and the the company not (since it's much rarer for some indie studio or whatever to get a feature on the studio itself, rather than their game or whatnot.) With that said, if the dev isn't notable, I'm not really sure the benefit of a list. You can link the articles with categories. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ninth generation of video game consoles

The pages Ninth generation of video game consoles and History of video game consoles (ninth generation) (to allow creation of a redirect) should be unsalted now. The move back to draft is not based on policy as reliable secondary sources have been added. At the time back in 2016 salting the page was correct as there was no official announcement for ninth generation consoles. However, things have changed with time as of December 12, 2019 official announcements from both Sony and Microsoft have been released announcing the release of Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5. There is now game play footage for the ninth generation. I've added six secondary reliable sources stating that these two upcoming consoles are ninth generation. As per precedence set in previous generations once an official announcement is made it will always be accompanied with reliable secondary sources, therefore passes WP:GNG and an article is allowed. @Ferret:, @Sergecross73:, @Graeme Bartlett:, @Masem:.

Given the current status of the next generation this need to be unsalted and Draft:Ninth generation of video game consoles restored. It is ready for mainspace. Valoem talk contrib 13:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Too early. Until we have firm technical specifications and a specific target release date for both systems - such that there are a number of articles discussing the systems as next generation - its still too speculative. I suspect that after E3 next year we'll have that, but not now. --Masem (t) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I do not think it is too early. Now that the Xbox Series X (wut) and PlayStation 5 have been 100% confirmed, it is time to actually have an article about the ninth gen. One could argue that it doesn't have sustained coverage yet, but WP:COMMONSENSE says that it's a given that it will.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
A problem is that we don't have hard specs for either system yet, and so I have not yet really seen anyone comparing the two consoles. And again, both companies have given a rough late 2020 release date, but that's not firm; there is a lot of stuff that can happen in between now and then. If both consoles nail down specs (as to give reason to compare them) and give a hard planned release date, then I think we can establish the article. Right now, we've not seen the hardware and only a few gameplay videos claiming to be running on either. Not enough to assure we will have these in our hands this time next year. --Masem (t) 16:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
We also need to see how sources react and if they start grouping the Switch forward. -- ferret (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I am unaware of a policy that states we need specs to be release before we can write an article on future generation consoles. As far as I can tell and please do correct me if I am wrong, all we need are secondary reliable sources stating ninth gen consoles have been officially announced. At this point we have gameplay footage from next gen games as well as announcements of future games for ninth gen such as BioShock [3]. As per WP:GNG this should allow for an article. I think the best option is to allow recreation and nominate for AfD, only official consensus can decide. Valoem talk contrib 16:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
A point: PS5 has not been formally announced. We know Cerny has talked about it, we know SIE has reported it in dev in investor meetings, and it was attached to Godfall at Game Awards, but we have not seen anything "official". But what I'm worried about here is WP:CRYSTAL. These consoles are still a year away from their rough release date, and knowing what happened at the start of Xbox One's announcement cycle, delays can happen, hardware can change, etc. Hence why I'd want to see a firm release date and physical units on display to verify the hardware is nearly "baked". Which I expect we should have no later than E3 2020 this year, if not sooner. As soon as that information is out, I would expect a large number of articles pitting the two systems against each other through published specs, etc., when then makes sense to say "that's a new generation". Just name dropping "ninth generation" is not helpful to notability right now, we need the coverage and that's coming from the comparisons of the systems. --Masem (t) 16:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes by RS, not "formal announcements". The RS, such as reliable publications like Wired Magazine, say that PS5 exists and they have gotten official confirmation, as well as contain basic details about it. It's certainly enough to make a basic article about ninth gen even if doesn't merit its own page yet.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on what i see in the draft, i dont think we're ready to have an official article about 9th gen consoles. I recommend we wait until E3 because thats when the big reveals come into place.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no question that hardware for PS5 or Series X exists, but its all internal to Sony/MS. Outside of dev kits, no one else has a version yet. Not that it is vaporware, but they just haven't publicly shown the hardware, nor fixed a date. And I will stress, we want to see RSes compare these systems to each other as to establish that the media takes this as next gen and not adding on to the eighth gen (as was the case of the Switch, ultimately). In time, I'm sure we'll have a ninth gen article, but in the meantime we can update Home video game console, the eighth gen article, and the Xbox and PlayStation pages to put all we know about them. --Masem (t) 17:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Just a day later and things are muddier, as the series x is now "just a model in a line" and we've ended up with a console article named Xbox (2020 console). -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I undid that move - until we have more clarity from MS about how this 2020 Xbox product line will flesh out, all we can easily confirm is that there will be a console called "Xbox Series X". Maybe when MS announces other consoles in the 2020 family we can see if merging those together makes sense if they aren't that different, but right now, this is the common name solution. This is why we should be really careful jumping to a ninth-generation article, the picture is already muddied from this naming thing. --Masem (t) 14:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
For that matter we don't know if or when Xbox One will be discontinued, or if it will merge into this new line retroactively and continue in some form with these just being higher end models. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
My uncle who works at Microsoft said they're replacing the Xbox One with the Xbox Series 69, and it will ship with a free copy of Lula 3D HD.
Real answer: I think the way we're handling it now is fine. JOEBRO64 18:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the new "Xbox" platform

A discussion on how to write about the new Xbox platform, including the Xbox Series X console, has been opeend up at Talk:Xbox Series X. Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter over there! Thanks! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 19:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

1000 Challenge complete

Technically it was done a long time ago, but I forgot to add my article creations to the list. Someone should probably wrap that up and/or do something about it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please check for duplicate entries first. I saw one by chance a few weeks ago. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Three years and its finally done with. Probably could have been taken care of sooner. GamerPro64 21:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2019

Moved to User talk:Lyndsayclose

--Izno (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Pokemon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire

Here's a Good Article from several years back that could use some eyes. I can easily tell this page fails the GA critera just by quickly skimming it, mainly due to the lack of a proper development section and the gameplay section having a big "Additional citations for verification needed" template on it (the gameplay is also entirely unsourced). There is also the usage of unreliable sources like GameFAQs and the reception being just a generic laundry list of "[X] said [Y], while [X] claimed [Y]", which isn't acceptable for GAs like this. I'd say a GAR should be made for this page. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (December 15 to December 26)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

December 15

December 16

December 17

  • (None)

December 18

December 19

December 20

  • (None)

December 21

December 22

  • (None)

December 23

December 24

December 25

December 26

Pretty late due to the holidays, but seems article creation was down for the same reason, so it's a wash. --PresN 17:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Bullet Bill a sock creation? --Izno (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I've already redirected it. Looks almost exactly like the deleted version. (Hey, deleted revs are cool. :) --Izno (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-issue resolved. JOEBRO64 18:23, 27 December 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 with all the archived Game Informer links from 2003 to 2009! When I try to go to an archived link, I always end up with a blank gray or blue page with no links or reviews! None! This happens to all of the archived Game Informer links! When will the issues be fixed? Here's the link to the one with the blank page: https://web.archive.org/web/20090705172656/http://gameinformer.com:80/Games/Review/200211/R03.0731.1221.13885.htm --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you able to scroll down and view the article? My page was grey as well but the article started a little over 1 page length down. I don't think I've ever noticed this before, but I also can't say I remember clicking on an archived GI link. If it's new, I'm guessing it's an issue on Archive.org's side. Woodroar (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
You should be able to see the page if you scroll down a bit. It just takes a moment for it to update, nothing to get so concerned about. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I see that now! Thanks for the advice. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:28, 27 December 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.

Lists of video games offered for limited time

Need your input at Talk:Epic_Games_Store#Draft:List_of_Epic_Games_Store_free_games AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Answered there but there was an AFD of a previous list, in that this list (and similar lists of "free" games for maintaining a membership, where games can be removed over time, or that the game is free only if you claim it in a limited period) is not appropriate. There is a subtle difference compared, say the Nintendo Switch Online catalog of NES/SNES games which only grows over time. --Masem (t) 06:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I have opened an AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games (2nd nomination) (I didn't want to do it before holiday) based on the EGS rationale, which if that is successful as "delete" or equivalent, I will go ahead and nominate the other "free games" lists. --Masem (t) 16:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, are newish users welcome in your endeavors?

I am just asking. I am kind of stupid, but I do know how to edit, just not in the right way sometimes. FunnyWick (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, anyone is welcome. We’ll help, as long as you’re open to learning how Wikipedia works. The rules/policies are not always considered intuitive to newbies, especially in this age of blogging and social media, where there are no rules and you can do whatever you want. Sergecross73 msg me 03:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I... don't know if I am good enough to stay on Wikipedia then, because I have low attentiveness and I get bored easily. I usually read the help articles in little segments and the instructions out of order. There are also lots of help articles to consider reading that I just don't feel that I have the time to read them all; I usually get up late and I like to spend most of my time keeping me entertained so that I don't get bored. So I may just leave after I add the articles I want to add, because when I get confused and try to understand something I can not understand then nothing good comes out of that. Remember to have fun. FunnyWick (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Uhhhh...well, I’m not sure what exactly you were hoping to get out of this WikiProject if you lack the attention-span/motivation to learn how we do things? Sergecross73 msg me 04:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't start Wikipedia by reading all of the help articles. I learned things, and still do, as they were/are pointed out to me by other editors (or if I'm completely unsure, then I'll try to search out the answer). So, just edit. If you make a mistake or something, an experienced editor will fix it and address why it was a mistake, and generally will cite the guideline. Although it's good to know the do's and don't's of Wikipedia, don't get bogged down by it. Just edit and learn as you go. --JDC808 ♫ 05:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
This; nobody started out making policy-perfect edits. Almost a decade in and I'm still learning about new guidelines. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

To Sergecross, I didn’t lack motivation until you mentioned I had to be open to learning how things worked, and it clicked then in my mind that I have always failed in that regard. I was also upset because of something that had occurred yesterday, which involved me being stupid, and I was afraid that I would not be able to do anything right if I did not read every help article there was. I am sorry to have misinterpreted your words, and I see that you were not saying that is what I had to do. To JDC808, thank you very much, that is encouraging and thoughtful. :) Thank you both for replying and I am sorry for being a downer. I have low self-esteem and confidence. I have always had trouble learning and I give up easily sometimes. I also have Aspergers. Have a good night and day. :) FunnyWick (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn’t mean for it to sound like you had to get all bogged down in all the rules and guidelines and bureaucracy. My point was more, we’re a great source of knowledge if you’ll listen to us. Some people come into Wikipedia with ideas that fundamentally don’t gel with how the website works. Like adding the phone number of every GameStop to the GameStop page, or writing a massive personal essay on a minor side character of an obscure game. If you understand how the website works, you’d know why these are bad ideas. If you discuss here first, it may save you a lot of time from working on something that would just be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
FunnyWick - provided you haven't been put off... Wikipedia is a massive place full of a ridiculous amount of content, but also policies and rules.
If you get bored easily, don't worry, the best thing about wikipedia is the sheer amount of different tasks that are needed to be done to keep it spinning.
Do small and simple things to begin and you will be fine.
I think the above is suggesting you may be best suited to not create articles (which is one of the hardest things to do), but there is a plethora of things you could do to help. Fix typos, add reliable sources, fix categories, fight vandalism, participate in discussions etc. Drop me a line on my talk page if you need any help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@FunnyWick: Y'ain't stupid just because you're new. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Kept you waiting, huh?

Hi everyone, I'm back! Happy New Year! Here in the Netherlands it's just a little past midnight. Hope you have fun tonight and a great 2020 ahead of you.

As was my challenge for 2019, I haven't edited Wikipedia for a year. Well, not true, I actually did some WP:DRUNK editing for Rage 2. In 2018, I haven't played a video game. Not editing Wiki has been much more of challenge strangely. I'm watching a boring episode of some show, I'm reading something on Wiki on my phone and then, a typo. A POV-ish phrasing. And so many WP:MOSLQ errors, unbelievable. Not hitting the edit button constantly was quite difficult! I'm anxious to start editing again, but I have to admit I haven't kept up with any recent discussions. Is there something really important I should know about? Changes in the MOS/VG? Or did anyone got admin'ed or banned?

soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If you're wondering, this year, in 2020, I'm not listening to any podcasts. And I'm such a die-hard fan of Comedy Bang Bang, I got a tattoo of the show.

welcome back! I'm assuming you didn't see theWP:FRAM/mass desysoping? Those were probably the biggest thing on wiki all year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The Fram incident is a hell of a read btw. Longer than A Game of Thrones IIRC. JOEBRO64 23:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
It's longer than the voiced lines in Skyrim... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Good to see you’re back from your self-imposed absence! Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious activity

I have been observing the edits of user Matthewkerr123 to various older years in video gaming pages for a while now and initially thought some edits were odd but was unsure of the nature of them, so I just decided to assume good faith. However, some recent additions/changes has led me to believe they are not in good faith and has me wondering the validity of any of their edits. At this point they’ve made so many individual edits, I think it is out of the grasp and scope for one user to solely deal with. And personally, I'm not into the idea of unilaterally undoing every edit of another's. Their is that narrow chance that some of them are actually good, but are they even worth going through one-by-one if they generally seem to be vandalism/acts of disinformation?

Here's some examples such as this where they added PS2 as a platform for LittleBigPlanet (LBP never came out for PS2), and this where they added a bunch of platforms to a game that I can't find any source saying it ever released for, and this where they added PS2 to Rock Band 3 (don't think RB3 ever released for PS2) and added Rock Band: Best Of to the list of games (I searched Google, and I can't find any sign it even exists).

Anyway, thoughts? redspartatalk 02:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve come across similar edits in the past, though I think they’ve usually been IPs. I generally have to block them because they’re non-responsive in any communication and it starts to be implausible that anyone one is making that many good faith mistakes. (As mentioned above, you believe that maybe someone thought in good faith that LBP was for PS2, but did that person really think that Mario Odyssey came out on Wii U and Sonic 06 a cancelled Dreamcast game and Tomb Raider had a Sega Genesis version? I mean, how would someone have that many misunderstandings on game platform?) Sergecross73 msg me 04:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
They've got quite a number of warnings on their talk page and they never use edit summaries to explain their edits/communicate with others, so it's likely just a troll trying to mislead people. I'd say a block should be in order, their edits come off as vandalism and disruptive more than anything. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow, yeah I hadn’t even checked their talk page. That is a lot of notices with absolutely no response. I suppose there’s little reason to believe they are here to be constructive. Has their activity already been posted to an Administrator noticeboard? I’m not sure where I should report it to. Also, what to do about their some-500 edits? redspartatalk 06:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Most of the warnings are not of the kind that need a response. If anyone here believes there are future-actionable diffs, they should provide an actual warning first for the actually-bad behavior, but a block now would certainly not be appropriate without even a warning of any sort. There is just a single notification that could reasonably be construed as requiring significant behavior modification on their talk page.
In the future, this kind of discussion should be at WP:AN or at WP:ANI. --Izno (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Generally, yes, though there is some merit in discussing here at WP:VG when video game knowledge is particularly helpful in determining whether its vandalism or good-faith mistakes. Otherwise, I always welcome people to bring up stuff like this at my talk page too, before they try to navigate the hell that is ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Under normal circumstances I probably would have left a message on their talk page about their behavior, however, the fact that they seem to have been doing this for over 2(?) years relatively unnoticed and the sheer amount of their edits that seem like vandalism coupled with wanting some additional opinions and eyes on it and what to do about it made me decide to bring it up here. I’ve honestly put off bringing it up anywhere for a couple weeks because I was still unsure if the edits were done in good faith or not and I wasn’t entirely sure where I should report this to bring it to the attention of someone with some authority over these matters. I figured posting it here was a reasonable choice since (1) the majority of their edits concern video gaming related topics and (2) I seem to see a lot of people in here with more knowledge on how to handle these matters and I figured bringing it to the communities attention was an acceptable first step even if maybe not optimal. If I didn’t post it here I probably would have just ignored it and I know that would not be the best course of action especially since their more recent edits seem to have gotten more egregiously false and knew something needed to be done about it at this point, so here we are. redspartatalk 09:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I’ve left them a stern warning about errors and not using sources. I’ll try to keep an eye on him, but please remind me if the issues keep happening and it looks like I’m not noticing. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, Serge. redspartatalk 03:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaku (video game) AfD Notice.

I tried to be patent with this article hoping sourcing would turn up. Prodded in April 2018, however no real improvement so have sent it to AfD. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy:Since i'm now almost kind of done with some Atari Jaguar and Toaplan-related stuff, it's about time for me to find sources in regards to Zaku... Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I have searched in various places, and I am not sure. The only solid thing I can say it's an OK source is this book [4] In my searches I found either interviews [5], passing mentions [6][7], republished content from websites of dubious reliability [8], or reviews from websites all with uncertain reliability: Atari Gamer [9], NextGam [10], The Next Level [11] and PVG24 (formerly Pockett Videogames) [12]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jovanmilic97:I've not seen that book! Good find man! There are sources with info about Zaku out there, it's just that there are much harder to find than for vintage Lynx titles... Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
KGRAMR Hoping you convince me to change my stance (hence I am not commenting on AfD but here), but I need to see more actual reliable things, since I am not sure that Atari Gamer/The Next Level/NextGam/Pockett are reliable at all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jovanmilic97:Give me some time and i'll find other sources in regards to Zaku... Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I did have a look before and wasn't happy with the sources I found, I never added them to the article as I never thought this game passed the criteria we have for what makes a game notable. Govvy (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Govvy:I've now added three sources into the reception section of Zaku's article. So yeah, there ARE sources for Zaku that apparently nobody looked upon before besides me and Jovanmilic97... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
....which almost all appear to be unreliable. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Namcokid47:Pockett Videogames is unreliable? It doesn't seem that way, as it is handled by french magazine publisher ACBM. Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Govvy:I've placed sources in regards to Zaku's development now. Even if the page gets deleted, i'll revive the article with sources talking about Zaku... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The article still does not meet the notability guidelines and I doubt it really ever will. Brief mentions of something don't make a subject notable to get its own Wikipedia page. This is for a very niche, very obscure game by a very obscure developer for a console that was discontinued 14 years before it was released. That doesn't make something automatically non-notable per say (Radirgy was released for Dreamcast five years after it was discontinued and is still notable, even being a GA), but Zaku doesn't. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
btw, I'd suggest taking some of the sources you think are reliable to WPVG:S to see if consensus supports using them or not. Lots of the sources in Zaku are rather questionable in nature. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Jezz, @KGRAMR: What you have done in two days is insane, I still felt half the sources used are not good enough, however I would lean towards weak keep on that note now. I've never withdrawn an AfD before, not sure how exactly, maybe I just leave it till someone comes along to close it. I don't think you need a picture of an Atari Lynx in every Atari Lynx game article know!! Govvy (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy:I placed the Atari Lynx picture in the development section because, as niche as the game might be, it's development cycle was quite interesting and I felt that putting the system's picture was due to the six-year effort the team took to make their vision a reality. That's just my opinion though. I hope everybody here is doing well... Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
KGRAMR really did a good job. --Duke of Chaos (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Czar:I know that. It's the reason why it is not present in Zaku's article (a.k.a. i didn't use it)... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q4 2019

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2019
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2019, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

Just a reminder that the WikiProject Newsletter is running back up again. Decided to post the newest issue here for anyone interested in reading who are not subscribed. You can subscribe to the newsletter to get a quarterly issue from the project. And if you are interested, you can join the team and help out. GamerPro64 16:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That's awesome. I was excited to see it on my talk page today. Always a blast to read. Red Phoenix talk 16:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Arcade system boards

These always seem to be a tough subject to research reliably; there's a lot of unreliable tech cruft out there but not a ton of reliable sources. Does anyone happen to know of a resource which would reliably cover at least some info about arcade system boards? I'm looking to completely refit List of Sega arcade system boards in the future but I have struggled to find sources that would meet our standards here. Red Phoenix talk 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've had a hard time finding stuff too. It seems that in my near-six years of editing the only site/publication I've found that actually documents arcade boards is The Killer List of Videogames; the rest seems to come from fan sites or other dubious sources like System-16. Honestly I feel a lot of these arcade board articles, particularly those from Sega and Namco, should probably be redirected or outright deleted since a lot of them were used for a couple of games and then quickly retired (a few I can see having articles; the Namco System 21 board is credited as the first "true" 3D arcade system and I've seen magazines that have documented it, so it might be able to assert some notability). Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I actually did that about 11 years ago with the Sega list, took 20 stubs and made it a list to get rid of 20 stubs. I'm really hoping just to have enough to make a table out of it and strip all the tech cruft away - maybe just go so far as to mention what CPU it has, a couple of notable titles on it, and maybe a short paragraph of its importance or history. A couple of arcade boards I've been able to get some history just from its relevant games, but I was really hoping for something more informative. I'd hate to consider deletion, but it might have to be a possibility if it can't be addressed. Red Phoenix talk 04:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Power Unlimited archives

Are there any to be found from 2001? I noticed on Moby it reviewed F1 Racing Championship which I intend to improve, but can't find anything. Their official site has several reviews of F1 games (mostly the Codemasters ones) but not this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Engine templates?

Hi everyone,

I have this feeling that I've brought this up before, but I'm a little rusty and can't find a previous discussion (or maybe, in Shyamalan-style twist there never was a discussion!), but are templates based upon the usage of a particular engine notable? See Category:Video game engine templates. Arguably, these are engines that are or weren't used a ton so it's a comprehensive navbox, but at the same time it would be insane to make a template based upon the usage of Unity (game engine) or Unreal Engine. Furthermore, there's a large overlap between templates based upon a particular series (or its developer) and engines. Compare Template:Wolfenstein 3D engine games and Template:Id Software or Template:Europa engine games and Template:Paradox development studio games for instance. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

For the most part, I feel like that this is better off as just a category. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
That category is messy and needs cleaning, ({{Video game engines}}, {{LucasArts game engines}} and {{Physics_engines}} are very different navboxes to the others in that category that just list games made with a certain engine. - X201 (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm of the view that a category is sufficient here, not a navbox. One does not typically want to browse from one engine's games to another of its games, without actually browsing from the engine article (which may have some sort of list anyway at the end of the day too). --Izno (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at FLC

Hi y'all, got another FLC that could use some comments from WPVG editors. List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters has garnered a few supports, as well as one very strong oppose on the basis that it is an oversized content fork that goes into too much plot detail. It would be helpful if we could come to (or just recall a previous) consensus on the appropriateness of the list composition in regards to VG character lists, beyond any other criteria. Thanks! --PresN 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Potential issue with List of Square Enix video game franchises

I noticed on the List of Square Enix video game franchises that ActRaiser is listed as a franchise and that Terranigma is listed as the last game in the franchise. I’m sceptical since while they do involve rebuild destroyed cities I’ve never heard Terranigma considered part of that franchise so I certainly have my doubts. I would have considered removing it though there is an archived Japanese link in that section and die to the fact I can’t reads it I can’t confirm if that actually does verify that they are in the same franchise. Can someone that knows Japanese look at the cite and see if it does in fact confirm this and if not please remove the entry?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Honestly that entire article is in need of a rewrite, and there should be sources that confirm that all of these are infact franchises and not just one-off titles. To answer your question, Terranigma is not part of the ActRaiser series and should not be listed as the last game in that series. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 05:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that list has been going downhill ever since I got it to FL in 2015. One-off titles are not included in the list (2+ video games minimum), but it also used to have a column for number of entries, which would make that clear (and one for sales numbers...). --PresN 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I think they were removed for being non-essential; other similar lists did not include them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

GDC and IGF award noms

Both the GDC and IGF noms have been announced.

Useful refs to populate appropriate articles:

  • GDC (you can link to 20th Game Developers Choice Awards: <ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/356378/Death_Stranding_leads_the_pack_of_2020_Game_Developers_Choice_Awards_nominees.php | title= Death Stranding leads the pack of 2020 Game Developers Choice Awards nominees | date =January 8, 2020 | accessdate = January 8, 2020 | work = [[Gamasutra]] }}</ref>
  • IGF <ref>{{cite web | url = https://gamasutra.com/view/news/356328/Here_are_your_finalists_for_the_2020_Independent_Games_Festival_Awards.php | title = Here are your finalists for the 2020 Independent Games Festival Awards! | date = January 7, 2020 | accessdate = January 7, 2020 | work = [[Gamasutra]] }}</ref>

--Masem (t) 17:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • DICE Awards too <ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-01-10-control-death-stranding-each-receive-eight-dice-2020-nominations-including-game-of-the-year | title = Control, Death Stranding each receive eight DICE 2020 nominations, including Game of the Year | first = Rebekah | last= Valentine | date = January 10, 2020 | accessdate = January 10, 2020 | work = [[GamesIndustry.biz]] }}</ref> --Masem (t) 20:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Masem. When do the final awards get announced? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Both take place on 18 March 2020.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

NeGcon

Hello. I'm thinking about trying to bring the article for the NeGcon game controller up to GA-status, as I've found a great development history behind it through The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers and some solid reception for it. The issue is that I'm pretty stumped on how I should properly write this, given that this is a video game controller and not like a game or console or something like that, and that as far as I can tell no other video game peripheral is at GA status for me to get some ideas on how to structure it. Any suggestions on how I should go about doing this? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

List of NBA video games

Can this list pass WP:LISTN? I noticed with NBA (video game) that there is not proper target to redirect to besides (half-usable) list of basketball video games. I thought about splitting the list to NBA and non-NBA ones, but not sure how could I pull off something like that, or whether should I even attempt it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The list, right now of all BBall games, I think is fine - a quick search starts me with listicles, but then I hit this that tells me that we can talk generally about "basketball video games" and a brief history at the head, general features, etc. etc. You can add a column to indicate any League-sponsored type game - NBA, NCAA, others? - leaving that blank for fictional ones. --Masem (t) 01:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will see what I can do about that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources discussion

A discussion about two foreign sources' reliability is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Meristation_and_4Players, needed for an ongoing AfD right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Dynasty Warriors spinoffs

So there's an issue over at Persona 5 Scramble regarding it and other similar licensed/spinoff games based on Warriors about them being a part of the series or not. More opinions welcome. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Input needed

An editor is asking for a "consensus team" on the Söldner Secret Wars article. I don't think it's neccesary in light of my explanation of my edits there, but regardless, any input would be appreciated. Eik Corell (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (December 27 to January 13)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

December 27

  • (None)

December 28

December 29

December 30

December 31

January 1

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

January 6

January 7

January 8

January 9

January 10

  • (None)

January 11

January 12

January 13

Finally caught up! I'm not sure how exactly you "disestablish" a video game franchise... --PresN 04:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Any way to make this pick up on expanded redirects to reasonable full articles? I had done that with Sayonara Wild Hearts on the 5th (it had been created as a redirect back last year). Not that I am looking for credit, just making sure we can make a complete list. Also this somehow missed Superliminal created on the 6th. --Masem (t) 17:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sayonara Wild Hearts is there on the 6th (the source has everything 1 day later, I'm going to start adjusting it to 1 day earlier if I remember). It was credited to Czar instead of you because I was so late on this report- if a redirect is undone within 7 days it automatically credits it to that editor, but earlier than that it just prints out a warning to me, but I ignored them this time (and by the time I ran the report your change was 8 days old). Superliminal didn't get a talk page tag (until just now)- technically this is a list of articles that are "new to WPVG", so without the tag they don't get picked up. So, it'll make next week's list as if it was "created" today. --PresN 22:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Because of this [13]. The talk page didn't have the Wikiproject tag until that moment, so this list counts as if it got created now. There is an alternate (and very useful) list that picks up articles by keywords at the moment of creation at User:AlexNewArtBot/VideogamesSearchResult. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

All Ghillied Up again?

I notice All Ghillied Up was recreated recently. I thought the name sounded familiar so I looked in the history and it turns out that I redirected it after an extensive discussion in 2018. Looking a the current "expanded" version of the recreated article, I see that only 6 new sources were added and all of them are used for basic descriptions of the level itself and don't actually establish notability (two of those are in fact citations to the game itself and its remaster). I don't feel that the article is in substantially better shape, GNG-wise, than it was last time it was redirected. Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: As the person who recreated the article I think that is has sufficently met WP:GNG. Although it may not have the same level of coverage of No Russian, its now 14 now 16 (found 2 more) independent, verifable and reliable sources provide enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, there is probably more coverage on "All Ghillied" up I have not been able to find yet.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
As the person who created the original article, I think it already passed GNG then and the expansion further reinforces that. My standards for article referencing are usually fairly high, so I made sure to check whether it had sufficient references, and it did. The "massive discussion" proved little beyond the fact that some people don't seem to like it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Around a dozen people told you that those articles were inappropriate, and you were the only one who really disagreed, so I think it's inaccurate to say it was just IDONTLIKEIT. JOEBRO64 00:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My GA Nominations

Does anyone want to volunteer to cover for my GANs? Namely Jet Set Radio and Lumines: Puzzle Fusion. I've been busy for a while and been trying to dedicate time for editing, but i haven't had much success. I'm going to be even more busy for the next few weeks and if these GA nominations require more extensive work, i wouldn't be able to do it immediately.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've got a new GAN I'm working on, but once that's done if these are still open I will take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I've decided to take on Jet Set Radio. I don't feel I should handle Lumines since I've very recently had substantial involvement in Mizuguchi's games (I also left sources for this article) and might be prejudice. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand. i was asking for someone to take over for me in terms of editing, more than reviewing. But maybe i'll be able to handle them soon. If they require something minuscule as copy-editing.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Titles in lead

So, my understanding of the current consensus is that if a game has notable alternate titles in English-speaking countries, we should mention them in the lead, and if it has notable alternate titles in non-English-speaking countries, we should mention them in a footnote following the article title. My question is, in short: What if a game has both?

The example which brought this question to mind is The Legend of Oasis, which was released as The Legend of Oasis in North America, Thor in Japan, and The Story of Thor 2 in Europe. Currently the article has both the Japanese and European titles in a footnote, which doesn't sit right with me - why should the existence or non-existence of a Japanese release with a different title determine whether the European title is acknowledged in bold type in the lead sentence or kept inconspicuously in a footnote? But if I edit the article so both The Legend of Oasis and The Story of Thor 2 are mentioned in the lead, where do I put the footnote with the Japanese title? I know this is a pretty trifling issue but I just don't feel comfortable proceeding without consensus on it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is, if it’s actually a notably different name, like your example, it’s okay to list them, though any of the translation stuff would go in an EFN footnote. (An example of a non-notable difference being something like “Sonic Colors/Sonic Colours”.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)For a game with so many titles, might I suggest how it's handled in 32X, which has four different names by region? They're all bolded in the lead and the Japanese one has a footnote with the characters. Red Phoenix talk 04:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s how we’ve handled it at Sega Genesis too, and both are FAs. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, if it is a title released in an English-language region, non-english titles should not be included unless there's some significant issue over the title. The only title that should be listed is alternate English titles in other regions (in your example, you'd include The Story of Thor 2, but not Thor). If it is a release in a non-English region, the original language title should be included after the English -language title if there is one. --Masem (t) 04:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined towards Sergecross73 and Red Phoenix's method, because in cases like this it seems less awkward and more transparent to readers who aren't veteran editors; if I had seen a game's Japanese title stuck in a footnote between its U.S. and European titles back in 2008, I wouldn't have known what to think. I'll try applying it in the example case, dropping a link to this discussion in my edit summary so that anyone who objects can revert and contribute to the discussion here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Famitsu's website has erased its score for Thrasher SK8

I have a problem. I was trying to find a Famitsu score for Thrasher SK8 in the Thrasher Presents Skate and Destroy article by looking up for the game in this link, but all I get is a 404 error in this link. I feel so out of luck! If you can find anything that has the score for Thrasher SK8 in either Search 1 or Search 2 of the Wayback Machine, I'd be so grateful. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I can't find it either, but I gotta ask, do you need the Famitsu review in particular for some reason? There are already several reviews cited in the article, so I don't know what Famitsu specifically would add.--AlexandraIDV 02:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought that Famitsu would give it at least 29 out of 40 or something, because I know that Thibbs would try to find a Famitsu score for Thrasher SK8 from one of his Famitsu magazines. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the reason for the Famitsu score even being listed, considering that it was never officially released in Japan and that there's already a good number of reviews for it in the page anyway. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 03:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, MobyGames and the Famitsu schedule link confirmed it otherwise that Thrasher Presents Skate and Destroy was ported for release as Thrasher SK8 on March 4, 2000. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
As to keep in mind: we do not typically worry or expect the Famitsu score to be present for games published in the West. (For games published in Japan first and foremost, oh yes, Famitsu better be there). If the Famitsu score is available, and you are thin in other reviews, its fine for Western games, but I would not add it just because you can find it. I don't think Famitsu is needed here. --Masem (t) 06:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Tense query on Halo 2

Hey everyone, I'm working on revamping Halo 2 with the new sources that have come out in the last few years. I have a query I could use some broad input on. Part of the big focus on a lot of sources for the game have dealt with how influential its matchmaking system was, and I was wondering how to talk about that in the article. Halo 2 doesn't have an online component, and hasn't for years now, and in any case while the principle of matchmaking is the same in The Master Chief Collection, I have no idea how similar they are under the hood—which is to say, should the tense for describing its multiplayer features be in past or present tense, as in Players choose the general type of game they want to play, and the game picks the map and game type, and matches players with opponents automatically. versus Players chose the general type of game they wanted to play, and the game picked the map and game type, and matched players with opponents automatically.? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought that unless it was either a game that was outright cancelled, or a feature that had been patched out, that gameplay should always be presented in present tense. Past tense would be for eliminated features, while ... I think its future perfect for cancelled games where we'd know about gameplay ("Players in Prey 2 would have taken the role of a human bounty hunter..."). Your case sounds like it should be present tense. --Masem (t) 23:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Depending on how you look at it, multiplayer where the online servers are offline and no longer operating kind of fits as effectively "patched out". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, if the game depended on official servers for multiplayer and thus for all purposes unplayable (that DMCA exception notwithstanding), past tense would make sense, but it should be clear that your are using past tense because the MP part is impossible to use. I would distinguish this from, say, an old well-out-of-print game for an old system but where there are possible options like emulation/etc. to be able to play it. --Masem (t) 02:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox character and WAF

I am reaching out to your project because your project may have an interest in this discussion: Template talk:Infobox character § Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. Izno (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Input needed

A discussion is taking place on the Heroes of Might and Magic III talk page regarding this edit, it would be very useful to have some more input because some maybe usable sources have come up but I'm still a bit skeptical. Eik Corell (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (January 13 to January 19)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 06:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

January 13

January 14

January 15

January 16

January 17

January 18

January 19

Eagle-eyed readers may note that January 13 was in the last week's post too- this is because I've adjusted the script to note articles as the date they got the talk page template added, not the date they were picked up by the 1.0 bot- which is the day after- so, Jan 13 is the overlapping day. --PresN 06:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Video game actor source

Website VG247 had a week-long run of articles concerning the experiences of actors and actresses in video games, both the voice/face performers and stunt people who do mocap for character models. I don't know how much of it may be relevant to any one article, but here's the general page with all links related to the series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (January 20 to January 26)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

January 20

January 21

  • (None)

January 22

January 23

January 24

January 25

January 26

National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers needs to be renamed to NAVGTR Awards

Lately, Dissident93 always changes "National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers Awards" to "NAVGTR Awards", always causing redirects to National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers, which I truly dislike and annoys me to no end. Somebody needs to rename the article ASAP. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Angeldeb82, you're free to rename the article, all you need to do is move it. Also, make sure to adequately adjust the lead to reflect that the article now focuses on the award itself rather than the organization behind it. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright, then, I'll do it. Thank you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of awards, I have repurpose a previous "List of video game awards" to Video game award (like Film award). This needs more content in some areas, but I hope the organization is obvious. Those, like Angeldeb82 here that I know does a lot of work in filling awards tables, if you can point me to any missing award stuff, or just add to this, that would help. --Masem (t) 01:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Would game of the year be merged into this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, but its not quite one-to-one.... but I can see that possibility. I would definitely collapse the tables but note that , where possible, the historical GOTYs are provided. --Masem (t) 01:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

More on awards

I spend some time today working on cleaning up the structure of Category:Video game awards to be closer to how Category:Film awards does it (the individual per-year award pages treated as ceremonies, where we have standalone pages for awards putting those into award categories, etc) One of the things that came up is how to tag specific video games for some awards. We have a few specific awards in this industry like the AIAS/D.I.C.E. Hall of Fame, and the inducties in that should be in their own category, which I have done. But when it comes to video games themselves, there is an issue of which specific awards to be made into categories. If a game wins a DICE award, it should be noted as a DICE award winner as a general category, but of which specific award areas should be made into categories? A game that might win 5-8 awards in a single ceremony may ended up flooded with "award winning" categories, and not every such aware feels like it needs a category. eg: the DICE Game of the Year certainly should be a category, but the DICE Best Action Game? There does seem to be a similar limit in film categorizes: only a handful of the various Oscar awards have specific winner categories. So it would be helped to figure a line here, if there is one, to know what specific awards do we feel important to make a category for?

Also, in terms of website awards (like IGN), I feel it doesn't make sense to call out any of those, expect perhaps a site's GOTY award. But then again, when you get a game that dominates a year like RDR2, that might bloat out the categories. I'm just looking for ideas at this point, this is definitely something that's been "broken" for a long time and no rush to fix. --Masem (t) 07:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think any game awards are "big" enough to warrant tagging articles with their categories. Books are not written about the inner workings of the Game Awards. The results of the DICE Awards do not affect the betting odds for the GDC Awards. Individual GOTY awards on their own do not massively influence game sales or make or break careers (an awards season as a whole may, but not individual awards). I don't think the industry is there yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough: I do think the broad categorization of award winning game like Category:Interactive_Achievement_Award_winners for the DICE awards, to cover all categories and years is still reasonable, and I wouldn't revoke the few specific award cats we do have in place (I think there's only like 3 or 4). But doesn't make sense to create any others for a specific singular award. --Masem (t) 22:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Using "first impressions" as reception

I've got a quick question regarding "first impressions" for games (apologies if it seems "noobish"). Right now I'm redoing an older article I did, Star Ixiom, in an attempt to get it to GA status or at least of good quality in general. While hunting for some more reviews on this I came across two first impressions articles from both IGN and GameSpot, both of whom like it for standing out among other similar games and liking its graphics. To cut to the chase, do first impressions actually count as any kind of reception or is acceptable for inclusion in the article? I've found a good number of reviews already so it's not a big loss if this isn't the case, but I'm interested to hear if they're actually usable (or at least can be incorporated into the article, possibly as part of its "development and release" section for what critics thought of the game when it was promoted). Thanks again. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

First impressions, particular if they are extending from trade show floor demos (like E3), or from early access periods (likely not this game) are fine, but the reviews should be distinguished as pre-release from the post-release reviews. I would only do this if 1) post-release reviews are thing and the pre-release can help bolster that, or 2) there is a clear different in how the game was seen before release and after so that just explaining the reviews should be obvious there was some significant shift. --Masem (t) 01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I generally think that pre-release reviews is generally not relevant for an article, with the exceptions being where it factors in and/or discussed. To wit, BioShock Infinite had a big positive showing at shows before release, but was being retooled in the background; Halo 1 had some notable negative showings before release; and Halo 2 had its famouse E3 showing that was well-received but ultimately smoke and mirrors. Either way, in all of those cases the pre-release stuff isn't treated like we style a classic reception section. 21:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It’s fair game for inclusion, though I generally trim it way back or out if it’s not markedly different from reviews once they happen. I don’t see any value in noting that Mario Odyssey impressions were sky high when it gets a 97 Metacritic score upon release. Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Dynasty Warriors Conundrum

Hello y'all.

So this ia a conversation that stems from Persona 5 Scramble and affects the template Template:Musou series, as well as further Omega Force projects such as Dragon Quest Heroes. The question is whether they're part of the Dynasty Warriors series. User:Dissident93 argues that "Dynasty Warriors series" refers to thestyle of the game, and not the franchise. I argue that it should refer to the franchise rather than the style of game? I wouldn't list Bloodborne as part of the Dark Souls franchise either, now would I? Although, there's been conversation around that too, iirc.

The creators of the franchise have said before that Dragon Quest Heroes isn't a Musou-game, nor part of the franchise, but an Action RPG.[1] And just recently in an Interview stated that Persona 5 Scamble started out as "Persona Musou", but during devleopment it was decided to turn it into an RPG as well that acts as a sequel to Persona 5.[2] And unlike titles such as Berserk and the Band of the Hawk, neither the Western nor the Japanese title - Musou - refer to the franchise. (Berserk Musou)

So the question is, whether Persona 5 Scramble should be listed as part of the Dynasty Warriors franchise or not. For more, see Talk:Persona 5 Scramble.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  12:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Dragon Quest Heroes Is Not Another Dynasty Warriors Clone".
  2. ^ "Persona 5 Scramble was originally Persona Warriors".
  • "Bloodborne isn't in the Dark Souls franchise" is probably not the most compelling argument you can use, a lot of people consider the "Soulsborne" franchise as a whole (Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and maybe even Sekiro) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t see why this matters on whether we call it “spinoff” or some sort of lengthy variant of “game that has traits of (x franchise) along with traits of Dynasty Warriors”. Either way there is going to be a mention, and either way it’s going to show up on the template, either with a “spinoff” or “related games” heading. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I still feel like you are overthinking this. Just because the game doesn't have "Warriors" in the title doesn't make it any less of a Musou collaboration/gameplay crossover than Hyrule/FE Warriors were. You argument should be directed at that, not the titling. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what's the problem, but maybe there's a confusion between the definitions of 'series' and 'franchise'? The article on Persona 5 Scramble describes it taking gameplay elements from Dynasty Warriors and being co-developed by Omega Force, so I would definitely consider it to be in the Dynasty Warriors franchise, similar to Hyrule Warriors. Not part of the Dynasty Warriors series, but part of the Dynasty Warriors larger franchise. Does that make sense? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of the infobox paramter, as it does suggest these issues. Only items that are directly obviously in the series aren't going to have people question it. We have to be a bit lax in my opinion as these items are clearly linked to the Dynasty Warriors series. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we should be as literal as possible. I don't consider Persona 5 Scramble because it's already being a direct sequel to Persona 5. To me, series and franchise mean the same thing. We can still keep PErsona 5 Scramble in the Navbox, it'll just be in the "related" section. Shenmue was originally intended to be part of Virtua Fighter but evolved from it.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie, but Scramble still has the same Musou hack and slash gameplay (just with additional RPG elements) while being co-developed by the same studio that makes the Musou games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought Koei Tecmo owned the copyright on that style of game? In other words, any game in Dynasty Warriors style pretty much has to have their involvement. Red Phoenix talk 22:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Red Phoenix: @Dissident93: I just trying to find what uses the least ammount of personal interpretation. Yes, we know the game is co-developed by the same people who make the Warriors games, and it has similar style that makes it iconic. But i don't know if we should say its officially part of that franchise. There's not alot of information on the franchise page to how Musou games are determined. And even if Koei Tecmo own the rights to make Musou-type gameplay, that is still not proof that every game they co-developed using Musou is officially part of the game.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie, nobody here AFAIK is supporting the view that it is officially apart of the franchise. This special type of gameplay crossover/collaboration is what people should be debating instead; I.E. should games like this be considered a part of the franchise as a spinoff? If Crypt of the NecroDancer had more collaborations like Cadence of Hyrule (it's the gameplay of Crypt, but visually/musically themed after the Zelda games), would people also not consider that a game in the Crypt series? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Depends how we determine what makes a spinoff. Even spinoffs have to be officially recognized as part of the series. Musou games may be recognized by their gameplay but it's upto Atlus and Omega Force to officially label it as one. This is why i say we need to be as literal as possible in these situations. One example is: Bloodstained Ritual of the Night is officially a spiritual successor, but it not a spin-off of the game (this is also not limited to spiritual successors).Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Milestone achieved

(2604/2091)

We did it, folks. Five percent of our articles are at least at Good Article status. Which, as of right now, amounts to 1,811 articles. Congrats all around. GamerPro64 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

So.... 10% next? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Might as well. Took a few years to even reach five percent. GamerPro64 20:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hooray! And yes, time to pick a new goal! We set this goal on July 30, 2014, when we had 1000 GAs, and needed 1518.6 to make it to 5%; 5.5 years later, we reached it at 1811 GAs. Our other current goals are 10% B-Class+: 75.3% complete, started at 51.62% on September 29, 2014; 20% C-Class+: 86.3% complete, started at 51.72% on January 29, 2014; and 75% Start-Class+: 84.2% complete, started at 66.76% on January 29, 2014. We're not going to reach any of them for a few years yet. Ideally, we should pick a new goal that won't take 5 years to reach- note that it doesn't have to be a "GA" goal, prior goals have included 250 FAs/FLs, and 750 GAs. --PresN 06:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Very nice. I am now curious about at what rate articles would need to promoted to GA/FA/FL to keep it at 5%.--AlexandraIDV 06:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Historically, about 53 a year (over the last 5 years); we've been doing about 148 per year over the same time period. --PresN 06:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
10% of GA+ overlaps with our second goal - 10% of B-Class or better. 7.5% (~2,700) or 2,500 GA+ articles? --Lopullinen (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
That sounds good to avoid collision. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
As a certain blue hedgehog I happen to be aquainted with would say, gotta go fast. JOEBRO64 02:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we should have a pow-wow on the lower quality side. Focus on our existing goals that are as-yet unachieved rather than making new ones at the top end. Perhaps keep a goal to maintain the % of the achieved goals. --Izno (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Well done everyone.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Issue with console generations.

The community has found a neat little way to categorize all the video-game consoles throughout history, with what we call the Generations. From 1st to 8th, and soon enough 9th, this system has helped put into place these consoles in order, to understand them within a historical context.

But while this mostly works flawlessly with the mainstays in each Generation, not all consoles were created equal, some came sooner, some came latter, some were not as powerful, or for the same market. And those are usually in a hard spot when it comes to choosing where they fall into, so I've seen something called the Other Generation. This "To sort eventually" pile of systems are hard to categorize for the reasons I listed above, with the added bonus of no one giving a damn about them and there being almost no one talking about it. If it's targeted at kids forget it, it ain't making it in.

The 2004 VTech V.Smile is the perfect example of the type of console that gets shafted, but it wasn't. Still can't find a number, but bet it sold like hotcakes, there were 5 revisions one having motion controls (Wii was popular) and several portable versions, many peripherals, more than 60 games (that was a headache to count and find the regions they were released in). It's really under-powered, more akin to a SNES than the more advanced GameCube, and yet it is listed as being in the 5th generation, but I assure you it would have been lumped into the "Other" pile it it didn't sell as many as it did. The XaviX was in other but has since been moved to 5th as well.

So the LeapTV came out in October 2014, In the middle of the current generation, it pales in comparison when it comes to hardware power, but it's in the gaming market and surely tried to persuade parents to get it rather than a PS4 or XBone with E-rated games. Again I can't find numbers, VTech bought Leapfrog and wiped the press releases from their page pre-2016, and the WaybackMachine only has one screenshot from 2007, but it doesn't seem to have sold that well, even if (I think?) it is still being sold, so there isn't much in the way of press with it. It should be in the 8th Generation, but no one I could find mentioned generations.

Another fun one is the Interactive DVD KID's from 2002, it's in the same league as VHS consoles, it came out in the 6th generation, used DVDs so it can't be from the 5th, but it's hard enough to find confirmation that this thing existed let alone a source saying "Yup it's 6th alright".

To me at least, it feels like "Other Generation" just means "Couldn't BOther Generation"

We need to look at market presence a bit more than technology on these cases.Talkkaris (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the "console generation" discussion comes up about once a year, let me summarize the takeaways of the prior discussion: generations are completely flawed for the reasons you state plus a bunch of others, they were invented by Wikipedia and then citogenesis'd into reliable sources afterwards, and if we could do it all over we'd do "something" else, possibly trying to organize it by "what competed with what" even if that means some consoles would show up in more than one article as the "generations" overlap. That said, the sheer amount of work that would take is enormous, we've never gotten a consensus on what we'd switch to even if we could, and it's probably never going to happen.
The result is that "other" generation doesn't mean "couldn't bOther" (though that too), it means "anything that's not from the major manufacturers or a direct competitor of them". Anything from VTech or Leapfrog is "Other", regardless of when it came out, because while I'm sure it competed with the consoles of the day it was on the same level as competing with the electronic toys the aisle over. Sources don't include them in generations, if they discuss them at all. So, since the only real definition of, say, 6th gen is "PS2/Gamecube/Xbox or a direct competitor to" rather than any objective tech measure, there's no way without a source to put Interactive DVD KID's in any generation at all, regardless of date or DVD. "Other" it is. --PresN 21:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Probably the way it should go would be early history of video games (good job, PresN), history of video games (1970s), and so on or similar, based on WP:SPLITting history of video games (good job, Indrian/Munmula recently, and others) in some reasonable but otherwise arbitrary fashion. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Which might be contrasted in list form as List of 1970s video game platforms or similar. --Izno (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
(Ninja'd by PresN) If "nobody gives a damn" about these consoles and "nobody is talking about them," then there won't be any Wikipedia:Reliable sources to cite on the topic, so Wikipedia shouldn't be covering the topic at all. The unstated subtext of every Wikipedia article is "Second generation of notable video game consoles", "Third generation of notable video game consoles", etc. If all we have are patchy sources that mostly just confirm their existence, then these consoles merit at most a mention in a list of microconsoles that came out in the right timeframe.
Also, popularity isn't the same thing as notability. I'm sure some of these were quite commercially successful, but that doesn't mean they were talked about. There's TV soap operas from the 1970s that attracted hordes of viewers, but simply were ignored by the culture at large aside from people who read TV Guide purchased from their supermarket. Meanwhile, comparatively unsuccessful TV shows might have attracted a small but fanatical audience who wrote books, journal articles, etc. about it. It's the same thing with video games and consoles. (Beyond Good & Evil (video game) bombed commercially, but has a lot of sources about it anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem historically has been that there has been a long term stalemate. People complain, but there’s never any consensus on how to change anything or move forward. It doesn’t help that many proposals or arguments are completely anecdotal synthesis and original research. If someone want to put together a proposal and have a wide scale discussion about changing it, then go for it. But in the meantime, all we can do is what we’ve been doing - citing WP:V and saying “just go by what sources say”. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    • If we were really serious about addressing the citogenesis problem, we would bold move the set of articles to "History of video game consoles (19XX-20XX)" right now and stop referring to them as numbered generations in the lead and elsewhere immediately. We'd have to understand that we're signing up for a period of edit warring until consensus year spans are reached. In my view, beginning years don't seem terribly challenging and ending years we can copy from Template:VG History for the interim until we can get something more reasonable than "last year of manufacturing" which is what it looks like right now. I'd like to think that we've all grown up quite a bit since the heady early days of this website and can discuss this like adults. The hang-up on these articles is a lack of will to work on these juggernauts. But if there's interest for it, I think a project-wide RFC to build a consensus on years would provide a strong bulwark against driveby IPs who have a bone to pick with the particular year range and create something we can point to for future discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm all for it, though don't minimize the amount of effort it's going to take if we do more than just rename them- right now, we're defining a generation's span as "the first year a console in that generation was produced until the last year a console in that generation was produced", and they overlap heavily. "1History of video game consoles (1972–1980)" and "History of video game consoles (1976–1992)" doesn't make a lot of sense due to the overlap, and even less so when you realize that none of the first-gen consoles produced between 1976 and 1980 are currently deeply mentioned in the 2nd-gen article. The 4th generation actually almost completely overlaps the 5th generation thanks to the Neo Geo lasting so long, and the 5th generation ends when the 7th starts due to the PS2 lasting so long. To truly move from a "generation" system to something more sane requires a major rewrite of the "generation" articles, in addition to hunting down all the references to "generations" in other articles, though that at least has gone out of fashion for more than the consoles themselves in the past decade. --PresN 21:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would actually prefer to see the generation articles strictly limited to the home non-portable consoles (well, outside of the switch's added portability) that were always compared against each other. eg the Eighth generation of video game consoles includes the DS, the Switch Lite, and the PS Vita, which I would argue should not be included because no one has really grouped handhelds with the main home consoles. I can't even readily think of "portable console" comparisons much, though if we were making other hardware by decades or 5-year stints, comparison tables would be helpful. The "Generation" term even when WP seemingly created it is always been about home consoles and nothing else.
  • Now that said, an interesting solution came to mind here: obviously we're going to keep the generation articles, but if we had a separate branch for "History of video game hardware systems" grouped by decade or 5-years blocks, there would be reasonable room to re-include the active home console hardware during that period, though I would significantly cut down on the details in such tables; where as the generation articles are supposed to be comparing the hardware in the same generation, these tables would just give a representative idea of what the consoles could do. In these new tables we can point users to the specific generation the home console was considered part of. And these "History of video game hardware systems" would also cover portables and notable other video game systems such as what the OP asked about. Note that this does mean a home console might appear in multiple of these "History of the video game hardware systems" articles, but that would be fine I think since we're saying "here's what was important hardware wise during this 5-yr/10-yr period", and to that reason, I'd say these should be in 5-year or shorter segments. (maybe 4? definitely not 1 or 2). --Masem (t) 22:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • RE: PresN. I don't mean to suggest that this isn't a large undertaking, merely that it's less insurmountable than we think. I agree that it doesn't really make sense to use last year of production as the end year. I'm not bothered by a little overlap but the current years in the template don't pass the sniff test. Here's an idea: first year = first console in generation released; last year = year that the last console of the next generation is released. So for the Saturn/N64/PS1 generation, it would be 1993-2001. The logic behind this is that the generation starts when the first manufacturer that RSes say release a "next gen" console and ends when every major manufacturer has released another console after that. This breaks down a bit for the early generations but we can do something closer to Early history of video games for them.
  • RE: Masem. I agree with making the editorial decision to omit handhelds. The home console competition has revolved around advances in hardware in a way handhelds always played second fiddle to. There's also never been historic multi-generational rivalries in handhelds in the same way as for home consoles.
  • I think the 5-year idea is interesting but you run the risk of breaking up the logical flow and 'narrative' of hardware/technology advancement. I don't really mind that consoles would appear in multiple articles, but I do mind if it interferes with telling the story of evolution from sprite graphics to 3D to HD, for example. It's not that 'generations' of video game home console hardware don't exist, it's the numbering of them that Wikipedia invented. Sources abound to describe the generations (and "next-gens") of hardware that were in direct competition with each other. Other than WiiU/Switch, there hasn't been widespread doubt about the consensus for which consoles "belong" together in a generation, based on sources. I'm going to push back against OP here and say that the History of Home Video Game Consoles is the story of the Big Three manufacturers (Nintendo, Sony, Sega, later Microsoft) and their consoles. Sorry Ouya, but this is well documented in the games press as well as multiple books on the topic at this point. It would be disingenuous to write the articles any differently since the Big Three are giants that dwarf the Other (Couldn't Bother) Consoles, if not in sales but in impact/influence but also probably in sales too. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand the handheld progression , but unless there's a clear "handheld generation" idea ( and I will stand by the fact that I don't think "home console generations" equate to "handheld generations" - they were different, then this seems like the best way to present them. This doesn't mean that we can't have a wholly separate "history of handheld consoles" article, but we don't want to create the citogeneis of a new generations system. It's hard, this is not easy. --Masem (t) 01:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I mean, being bold is great, but the community hasn’t been able to agree on how to handle this for at least a decade now, so I have no idea where this optimism that it won’t be challenged/reverted comes from. If it’s challenged, we have to return it to the status quo, that’s the most basic of policy. This feels very short-sighted...Are you counting on the challengers not knowing the rules here or what? Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
      • The last time this discussion came up I actually tried thinking of possible solutions to the whole "generation" naming scheme. The five-year naming scheme while nice, consistent and would be 100% citogenesis-proof would cause long time editors the most headaches in trying to maintain if it was adopted. For example some First Generation home consoles would be unfairly compared to the more advanced Second Generation consoles like the Fairchild Channel F. NES would be lumped into consoles from the Second Generation if we went by the first year of release while Master System (its main competitor) would be in a different article. These inconsistencies would only continue onward and would cause a whole bunch of potential edit wars and potentially require advanced protection like ECP and page move.
      • The only logical solution I could think of was to keep the existing pages intact but use a "floating timeline" to name them. Like First Generation would become History of video game consoles (1972–77) because Magnavox Odyssey was first released in 1972 while the Color TV-Game series (the last released console of that generation) was released in 1977. Likewise Second Generation would become History of video game consoles (1976–83) because Fairchild Channel F was released in 1976 and the last "other" console Compact Vision TV Boy was released in 1983.
      • I had an Excel spreadsheet I had started comparing the different naming schemes with all the various consoles and generations but never brought it over to Wiki because the discussion died down. If anyone is interested in the ideas I had at the time I re-created the spreedsheet in my sandbox here and updated it all the way to PS5 & Xbox Series X. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Sergecross73: Of course it will be challenged. That's a fact of life (on Wikipedia). But with a strong project-wide consensus here, it could stand as a document to point to to one-off editors/IPs who have a bone to pick with one year being a year off or something. It seems like there's energy in this thread right now so it seems a waste not to try. We can't let fear of discussion inhibit our ability to improve something we basically all agree is bad (i.e. the numbered generation system we've accidentally created). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Re a big move - at risk of pointing out the obvious, citogenesis is mostly an issue when it leads to "false" claims. Titles for known, pre-existing categories ("8-bit consoles" far predates Wikipedia) is comparatively harmless, no worse than other sources picking up on Wikipedia's scheme for dividing US History or the like. I'm a fan of years elsewhere, but since the years are overlapping here, it seems to be asking for trouble: drive-by editors will say "this console existed in this time period, why isn't it listed here?," and they'll have a point. These classifications aren't really about years, but more what competed against what, which is year-adjacent but not the same thing. SnowFire (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Years would work wonderfully if we split the home consoles and the handheld consoles apart and only focused on the major releases of both sets. The "other" consoles of both groups would have to be divided up appropriately based on the years of release. However if we try to keep home, handheld and "other" consoles together in their current form then years turns into an abomination. Using terms like "8-bit generation" is difficult because the Second and Third generations are technically both "8-bit" generations the difference is how the tech is used and the infamous Video game crash of 1983 which is in-between the two. Bits went by the wayside after the Fifth generation so anything from Sixth gen onward wouldn't have a name (that I can think of). Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess I just don't agree. Years won't work wonderfully, they'll be a worse problem than the humble one/two/three. And yes, I know about the problems with "8-bit consoles" and "16-bit consoles" and the like as well, I just mean that these really are pre-existing categories the media of the era used to classify groups of consoles before Wikipedia ever existed. So it's not the bad kind of citogenesis where a false fact is introduced; it just suggested a categorization & naming scheme for a pre-existing concept. This isn't always bad. (Hey, who ever used the word "disambiguation" before 2003?)
As a side comment, those articles never should have been subtopics of "History of video games" at all, so even if years were included in new titles, "History of video games" is an awful and misleading setup for it, especially since Wikipedia has since adopted the idea elsewhere that computer games are video games too, and none of these articles deal with the computer side at all. Or even really the games side, it's just consoles. SnowFire (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Keeping with above in the thread, the articles certainly need to be rescoped to include only home consoles, and probably only from the major manufacturers. I don't think there's any disagreement that home console "generations" are defined by the Big Three's competition with each other. It stands to reason that the Ouya isn't part of any console generation because it was never in a serious competition with anything else. At worst, we could call them some abomination like "History of video game home consoles (Xbox 360–PlayStation 3–Wii era)" but I don't think anyone would like that. I would love it if we could find some natural disambiguation for every generation like 8-bit or 16-bit but there just isn't one. Years are the next best thing. A strong project-wide consensus on year ranges could be robust to one-off editors' challenges. I think we're going to have to accept some degree of overlapping years. Alucard proposed a system here and I proposed another system above. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Based on what you said about focusing on major releases I added a new proposal to both the home and handheld sections. If we focus only on major releases this would eliminate overlap except for the end of the First Generation and the start of the Second Generation because of when the Color TV-Game series (1977) and the Fairchild Channel F (1976) was released. (See here) Similarly if we have a group of articles dedicated to only the major handheld consoles there is no overlap in the years (see here). Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 23:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
At its face, I like your proposal (rightmost column). What rule are you applying to come up with the year ranges? For the record, I don't think we need strictly non-overlapping year ranges (i.e. I think 1991-1996, 1996-2002 is fine). Axem Titanium (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: To establish the year ranges for both the major home console and major handheld console articles I looked at various things from generational characteristics, technical aspects and marketing. For me marketing was the biggest factor out of the three. This way things like Genesis vs SNES (the 16-bit era) can stay together. Technical was the second biggest aspect I looked at which came into play for the early history. It would be unfair and just downright silly to move Color TV-Game series away from similar consoles into an article that focused on 8-bit consoles that featured removable cartridges like the Fairchild Channel F especially since under the current system the First and Second generation articles just became GA articles in 2019. The ultimate goal is to cause the least amount of disruption as possible to these articles.
  • History of home video game consoles (1976–82) starts with 1976 because the Fairchild Channel F was released in North America in 1976.
  • History of home video game consoles (1972–77) ends with 1977 because the Color TV-Game series was first released in Japan in 1977.
With later articles when the field narrowed down to 3-4 major manufacturers (Nintendo, Sega, Sony and Microsoft) the end year is the 1 before the video game industry begins covering "next-gen" hardware.
  • History of home video game consoles (1998-2004) starts with the Dreamcast first released in 1998. While the last major console, Xbox, was released in 2001 this article ends with 2004 because the Xbox 360 was marketed as a "next-gen" system from Microsoft and was released in 2005.
That was my logic for determining the years. I didn't go based on when a console was "discontinued" because that causes significant overlap. Also with modern video game consoles the line of when a console is "discontinued" could be argued that it doesn't just mean when Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft stops manufacturing/repairing older hardware. Some could argue the Seventh Generation is still ongoing because Sony and Microsoft are still supporting the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 by maintaining their respective digital store-fronts and devs can still make games for these platforms that are sold digitally. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are still producing game discs for these consoles (i.e. Just Dance 2020 for Wii, Limited Run Games physical release of Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty! for the PS3 in May 2019 and Microsoft re-releasing backwards compatible 360 game discs in Xbox One cases with both system logos like Red Dead Redemption. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A reminder or caution that any solution we figure out for these, we also need to reflect it in the categories. Category:Eighth-generation_video_game_consoles is presently filled with inappropriate consoles that would be part of something like Category:History of video game consoles (2012-2019) or whatever that will be named. Actually, I would just have Category:Video game consoles released in XXXX as the categories for this. Keeping the generation categories would leave only the home consoles and only the ones sourced to be in competition with each other (eg 8th would be Wii U, PS4, Xbox One, and Switch). --Masem (t) 17:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I would move away from #-generation named console categories entirely. I think there's enough comments here to put together a big RFC on this topic. I'll work on it over the next few. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we can eliminate the console generations but only strictly bound them to the consoles that are consistently included as part of those generations. We want to focus anything related to vg hardware to be better sorted in this new set of articles so that we aren't ignoring things like the Ouya/etc. as notable releases within a time frame. What we don't want is to create the impression that there was serious competition between, say, the Ouya and the PS3/Xbox 360, for example, which the numbered generation pages (as the only current hardware timeline pages) tend to drive towards. --Masem (t) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you think the title "History of major video game home consoles (19XX-20XX)" is too aggressive? Or should we stick to "History of video game home consoles (19XX-20XX)"? Also which is better: "video game home console" or "home video game console"? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I was deliberate with my naming earlier: I don't think it makes sense to do a rename or re-org if the only target is going to be "video game consoles" or if it's only going to apply to what the generation articles should already be talking to (since that cat is already out of the bag). My direction was "we should work on video gaming history more generally, and not all of video gaming has been associated with "home video game consoles". --Izno (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's anyone arguing that console generations don't exist, merely that the numbering of them is arbitrary and not based on sources (and continues to be unsourced, except circularly). Xbox-PS2-GCN were clearly in competition with each other and there's a (hi)story to tell about it that is separate from computer games of that same time period. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
So I was figuring out the "video gaming" stuff above (our pages are sooo inconsistent), but it hit me when editing {{History of video games}} of a solution based on the year breakouts that were suggested, when generally align with the generations but not explicitly, which is fine. If we switch over from the generation to these year-range articles as our "History of video game hardware", then the generation articles become sub-servent to this, and only exist to provide the key comparisons. We can lead off the year-range articles with something like "The period from 2005 to 2012 in video game hardware saw the introduction of more connection game systems, etc. This period is often associated with the consoles of the seventh generation: the PS3, the Xbox 360, and the Wii." If there's a significant generation overlap, we can say "This period is associated with consoles from both the fourth and the fifth generation." Comparison tables of the level of detail should be at the Generation pages, these page should have a very simple table for comparison basically outlining fundament non-tech details for home consoles, portables, and other systems, to summarize MSRP at the time, sales numbers and other information that would be useful at a glance to know the predominate systems in that period. This can work with only a bit of minimum effort for arranging things. --Masem (t) 02:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm having trouble picturing it. Can you give another example? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's take the sixth generation of video game consoles which under Alucard's new scheme would be basically "History of video game consoles (1999-2004)". So I would lead this off with something like "The period from 1999 to 2004 in video game hardware saw the introduction of Internet-connected consoles that expanded online gameplay options for developers. The period saw the tail end of the fifth generation of video game consoles while introducing the sixth generation of hardware that took advantage of connectivity." Now, from there, "copying" the "sixth gen" article into this new a "history" article, I would strip out the comparison tables, though I would leave a table that listed all notable home consoles released from 1999 to 2004 (in the 6th gen that would include Nuon, Atari Flashback, etc) with brief description, release and discontinuation dates, pricing, and known lifetime sales. Same with the handheld stuff. And if there was any other hardward (like VR systems) that would get other tables. The Home and Handheld sections would have similarly brief paragraphs, like there is now, to summary the console units. The rest of the six gen article, particularly "Trends" and "Software" would stay.
Then, the original sixth gen article would be trimmed specifically to the summary and comparison table for the four major consoles that are considered in the sixth gen, and the discussion the general tech that is considered part of the sixth gen. That way, the "Sixth generation" is only including the four consoles normally associated with it, while we are fairly grouping all hardware releases in the History articles per Alucard's scheme. --Masem (t) 17:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
To add, this makes the generation scheme something that is a "retrospective" rather than the prospective approach we have taken to date. The History articles would be prospective - if a console was released in a certain date range, it falls into the appropriate article, but a console would only be added to a generation page if we can demonstrate from sources it belongs there. That gets over this problem that's persisted of "but this console was released in the same period as these others, it should be considered part of this generation!". The approach stresses that the generation scheme of consoles is not inclusive of every console and only refers to the major players. --Masem (t) 17:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I like this idea except I'd also nix the numbered generation terminology even in article text, e.g. "The period saw the tail end of the PlayStation, N64, and Saturn's life cycles while introducing the next generation of hardware that took advantage of connectivity." Axem Titanium (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we can ignore the current numbered generations - that's too much of a fixed industry term now to bury our head about. But that said: if the next generation of PS5 and Xbox 4th gen come about and there is almost no one using "ninth generation", we should not considered ourselfs hand-tied to force the title "ninth generation" on this next set of consoles. It creates a different problem but we don't have to worry about that now. But to not identify that the 1999-2004 period included consoles of the 5th and 6th gen would be massively overlooking expected information. --Masem (t) 06:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's an "industry" term yet and have not seen evidence of it being such (on forums, it's a different story, but those aren't RS). Anytime I see it come up in sources, it's always hedged with "if Wikipedia is to be believed", suggesting that we have an opportunity to correct it now, especially on the eve of a new console generation. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I always feel like I'm missing something whenever this discussion comes up. If the current system is a huge problem because naming generations, even by a trivial numbering system, is a flagrant case of citeogenesis, then why are we working towards a system which advances the idea (not supported in any reliable source I've ever seen) that console generations have definitive start dates and definitive end dates, and identifies those dates based on our own personal judgment?--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the difference is that history articles on Wikipedia often split things by year and it's fine because they don't invent a name for the period they're referring to. Masem's version uses the same years as Alucard's but softens the edges so they're just guide marks for what to include in one article. Ideally, without technical limitations, we could just write a single "History of video games" article that includes everything and not have to make any editorial decisions about year delineations. But we can't do that. Instead, we can base our year ranges on sources---which agree that consoles seem to come in generations, even if they can't agree on the exact years that the generations start and end---and write about the things that did happen in those years. I think that's worth doing. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
But then why base the division of the articles on console generations at all? That seems like concealing the perceived problem rather than solving or even reducing it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi all, I've been following this interesting conversation over the past few days and wanted to add my two cents. I think that these article are essentially a conflation of two different ideas:
    • In my mind, the term 'generations' were first used in the context of video games with "Next gen" (redirect) when marketing the latest greatest consoles. This would have retrospectively led people to think, okay if this is next gen then what was last gen. And the gen before that. And the whole 'next gen' thing is only really interesting when comparing the greatest video game console wars in each era. But I think this is separate from the other purpose of these articles, which is to outline a comprehensive history of video games. So this is my proposal:
    • Turn these articles into split articles for the History of video game consoles
    • Create an article called Video game console wars or something like that which would focus specifically on the competition of each 'generation', but without a claim to defining particular eras of history. Just a thought.-Coin945 (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • We need to be careful on the term "Console war", it is specifically related to very directed "battles" between consoles - eg Sega Genesis vs Nintendo NES, and not the general competition between all vendors at the current time. EG while one can say that MS and Sony have been console wars for their last 3 systems, Nintendo is not trying to participate in that fashion. --Masem (t) 15:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This proposal makes sense to me. A problem I've noticed with conflating generation with history is that it tends to blind people to the huge amount of overlap between generations. For instance, until I fixed it a few months ago, Nintendo Entertainment System said that that console died as soon as the Genesis and TurboGrafx-16 launched, when in actuality, it was beating both of those consoles in sales much of the time. The Genesis and Super NES in turn were outselling the PlayStation and Saturn until well into 1997, and the Dreamcast launched in 1998, so the fifth generation of consoles really only had about a year to itself.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Coin945: @Martin IIIa: Do you guys mind expanding on what you mean by this proposal? What model are you proposing for "Turn these articles into split articles for the History of video game consoles"? Also, following off of Masem's point, perhaps "Competition between video game consoles" is a more neutral term? The point Martin brings up about sales is very salient for me. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
To follow up from a point Axem made above: we should not be afraid or overly caution of using the "generation" terminology. Whatever WP did to create it, its well in place. A google news search of "eighth generation" "video games" gives 6000+ hits, and the numbers go up as you move backwards (though once you hit the 5th generation, you start to get more hits due to wireless 5G). It appears in academic papers that discuss the history of video games, including the IEEE. The generations are definitely not neologisms or slang terms. They have meaning in the industry, and we should be reflecting that. Which is why under what's been proposed, our articles on the "Xth generation of home video game consoles" should only include those that are listed in that generation by RSes and commonly compared and contrasted to the other consoles in the same generation, while the general overview of all hardware in a release period go to these by-year breakdown articles (I was going to scope out an example approach to this today). We just make it clear that in the generation articles, it is not meant to be a grouping of all consoles in that period, but the specific ones that were considered in close competition. That said: there is still wholly potential for a separate article on "console wars", identifying the specific conflicts that can be documented as such, of which I know of only really two, maybe three: Nintendo vs Sega around the 1980s, Sony vs Sega around the 1990s, and Sony vs Microsoft since the introduction of the Xbox. Some of these are console-specific, but there are tail effects to discuss as well. A singular article to cover the most notable ones make sense, particularly given that we are about to get dramatizations and a TV series based on the original Console Wars book on the Nintendo v Sega one. --Masem (t) 17:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you point to some academic sources that adopt our generation numbering? I'm still skeptical that our numbering has filtered into academic writing, even if it has pervaded forums (and some game news writing, out of expedience more than anything). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Examples found on Google Scholar through searching "video game console generation". [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (This is 2002 from IEEE , so this could have been a point of origin, or it could have used WP's scheme, we don't know). [19] (doesn't specifically give numbers but does speak to delineation along generation lines). There's more, and I haven't touched Google Books yet.
What is clear is that a lot of these sources talk about a cyclic nature of computer consoles where, at least for the first 5-6 generations, there is a clear point that delineates one console generation from the next. That we happened to create the primary numbering scheme seems immaterial to understanding that there is definitely "hardware generations" in the video game console industry, but they are generally limited to what consoles are of interest to that generation. Going back to Alucard's scheme, this still stresses that our primary way to divide VG hardware is on years that approximate the generations, but are not beholden to calling those periods "generations" so that we can include all the minor but WP-notable releases in the year range articles, while leaving the "nth generation" articles to specifically on the technology generation changes that are more difficult to conform to a specific year period. --Masem (t) 19:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I just did a bit of wiki-archaeology. Apparently, the first references to numbered console generations on en.wiki were from a single IP editor on August 17, 2004. The modern "History of video games (Xth generation)" naming scheme is the work of User:Diceman in Feb-March 2006. He also created the gen 1 and gen 2 articles to fill out this schema at this time. Thankfully, the paper by Gallagher and Park is from 2002; page 6 includes a table with their years and numberings for generations. Unfortunately, these numberings don't agree with the ones from Gretz (2010), who actually combines the first two gens into one and also has slightly different year ranges.
I don't think using Gallagher and Park's numberings is a bad idea. We can absolutely do that. BUT here's another idea: "Early history of video game consoles", which has a soft delineation between our current gen 1 and gen 2 consoles > Video game crash of 1983 > "History of video game consoles (19XX-20XX)" using some year range that we agree on, maybe Gallagher and Park's, maybe one that's already proposed above. It's clear that the Crash changed the landscape for consoles such that generations after the Crash couldn't support as many competitors as before. I think that's significant. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Just remember that the goal here is to create two timeline series. One that allows us to account for all notable (blue-linked) consoles in the year range and which should not be tech heavy, and the second timeline retaining the generation breakdowns and only covering the consoles considered to be in major competition in that generation. The generation series becomes less about a "timeline" and more about how the industry has since grouped these consoles historically and presently, and which we know frequently does not include the stuff like Ouya and microconsoles, etc. But we've now, with the main timeline approach, can discuss those appropriately.
And there's certainly no question that the main timeing that 1983 is going to be a end/start point. The crash + intro of the Famicom system is pretty much indication of a new cycle in the industry. We can reasonably combine the prior ten-some years as one segment from around 1973 to 1983, and then after which follows the mentioned schemes which happen to align with the start of each console generation. --Masem (t) 00:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Would they be named in parallel then? E.g. "History of video games (1973-1983)" for all games, including blue-linked consoles, and "History of video game consoles (1973-1983)" for the major consoles? Or do we keep the numbered generation naming per Gallagher and Park for the latter? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: I would be opposed to any proposal combining the first and second generation of video game console articles as both of them achieved GA status this year on their own with the current content. Except for the seventh generation the rest fall between C through B class. The seventh generation article achieved GA status in 2008 at a time when the standards were not as strict as they are now. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
we're getting two different time lines sets of articles here. For ease, I will them the "Timeline" and the "Generation" series. The Generation series will not merge the existing generation articles at all in my scheme, though some of the content beyond the console comparison tables would be moved to the appropriate Timeline article. The Generation articles would only discuss the consoles that were considered to be in competition in that generation and thus why we are comparing them spec to spec. The Timeline series would based on year ranges, generally with the first year in each aligning with a start of a console generation, though we are not strictly beholden to that. Here's where I would considering both the period from 1977-1983 roughly encompassing the years that the 1st and 2nd gen are currently considered and up through the crash. Whereas the Generation articles are only talking about competing home consoles, the Timeline articles would cover *all* notable consoles (including handhelds, microsystems, etc.) in the given period, but also at a very top level overview such that we would not use the Generation spec tables but just simple tables with release dates, price, lifetime sales, and discontinuation to compare equivalent classes of system. There is no requirement in this scheme that a Timeline article be paired with a Generation article, nor should we try to achieve that, we specifically don't want the Timeline articles to be beholden to the Generation schemes, since the whole goal here is to find a way to be able to fairly list the Ouyas and other minor systems on equal part with the PlayStations in an appropriate manner. Importantly, the Generation articles should not be seen as a historical timeline, but a set of 8 business cycles within the VG industry; the Timeline series is a more exactly discrete breakup of the history of hardware in the industry. --Masem (t) 04:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Soulcalibur spelling in article body

Hi everyone,

I stumbled upon Soulcalibur#Games. On the bottom of the section, copy-pasted here without two refs:

Wikipedia uses a standardized naming convention of Soulcalibur for all games in the series except for the original Soul Edge (also known as Soul Blade). However, most usages of Soulcalibur are officially written as SoulCalibur or Soul Calibur (abbreviated to SC), and even SOULCALIBUR in all capital letters as it is used in the games' documentation and official websites but not in logos and only since Soulcalibur III (including for Soulcalibur Legends, written as SOULCALIBUR Legends). Various western media outlets usually use either Soulcalibur or Soul Calibur.

Now, I'm not particularly familiar with Soulcalibur, but besides an almost 13 year old discussion and an almost 12 year old discussion, I see very little discussing, arguing or controversy around the title(s). Is mentioning Wikipedia's preferred style of writing "Soulcalibur" at all necessary in the actual article? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be removed unless, as you said, there is some notability to the way Wikipedia chose to name the series. CrimsonFox talk 15:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
What about marketing? Does it differ there?Tintor2 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1) We should certainly remove the self-reference to Wikipedia in article text. 2) What is going on with the actual titles? Are they inconsistently intercapped/spaced as the official title? I don't necessarily think Wikipedia should be imposing a consistent naming scheme on a series with bad internal consistency. Don't know how to feel yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I say delete it all. None of that is necessary to point out to the reader. I’ll never understand editors need to point out the obvious, as if someone is going to be like “Well, I know all about Soul Caliber, but what’s this SOUL CALIBER I keep on reading about?” Music-Wikipedia is especially bad about it too, often writing in right in the prose like “The song Thank You, Next (stylized thank you next, Thank You Next, and thank you. next, and commonly abbreviated as TYN, tyn, and Ty,n) is a song by Arianna Grande. Anyone with the ability to read has the connection to figure this out on their own. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    Late response, but this 100%. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and removed that entire paragraph. It's not necessary and there's no reason to even have it there unless it somehow is notable enough to be mentioned. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I figured as much. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Video gaming"/"gaming" vs "Video games"

Dalziel 86 (talk · contribs) has done a few edits that have mass changed the use of "gaming" to "video games" on some pages - not a lot. Some is appropriate, but like on Steam the wholesale changes don't help. This is not directly about their edits, as it brings up a good point:

"gaming" or "video gaming" are reasonable terms to talk about the action of playing a video game, so on an article like Steam, this is appropriate. But, when we get to articles like Video game industry, "gaming" may get slipped into use inappropriately. That is, there is no such thing as a "video gaming industry" (unless you call that esports), it is the "video game industry" which refers to the development, publishing of games, hardware for those games, and video gaming facets as well from the consumer side. It may be a subtle difference, but Dalziel 86 is right on this concern that there are places people may used "gaming" inappropriately.

So to that end, I recognize that our year summary articles are inappropriately named, eg 2019 in video gaming - the articles cover the industry, so really should be at 2019 in video games. Same with articles like Video gaming in China. (Whereas Violence and video games are fine. Also, this brings up the question of the disambiguation terms like on boss (video gaming) - since that can be a general concept about games, and not gaming so much, if that makes sense - this should probably be at boss (video games). And so forth.

I'd like to check to make sure this makes sense as this is more than just a handful of pages to be moved. Would also add this advice to the MOS:VG page to distinguish the terms. --Masem (t) 07:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Support proposed moves. - X201 (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Naturally I'd love to see this policy changed. The only reason I didn't go further with my edits is wanting to respect the current pattern, even if I'd like that pattern changed.Dalziel 86 (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Ideally I'd like to see distinctions made between the following:
  1. The activity of playing video games, currently being called "gaming".
  2. The object/product of a video game, a thing that is developed, sold and played, i.e. "video game software" rather than "gaming software".
  3. The cultures/communities around video games, already called video game culture on that article.
  4. The industry that develops, markets and sells video games, ideally with further distinction between the actual development/production of works in the medium and the marketing/selling of video games as product.
Dalziel 86 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I support Dalziel 86's changes and the proposed page moves. We should use the simplest, most neutral, most comprehensive terms. There is no need to use a jargonistic term that means "the activity of playing video games" when it's simpler to just talk about "games" or "playing video games".
Can anyone provide example sentences from Wikipedia in which "gaming" provides a useful degree of difference over "game"? Like, where "gaming" is just definitely better? Looking at this revert on the Steam page, not one sentence looks better to me as "gaming". It seems to me that The Steam platform is the largest digital distribution platform for PC games, for example, is perfectly clear, neutral and accurate, with no loss in precision. Popcornduff (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Once established that topic involves the playing of video games, "gaming" provides enough variety of language instead of just saying "video game" over and over and over again, but only where it is talking about the activity of playing video games. The example with Steam you give is not wrong, but it is also not wrong to say Steam as a "PC gaming platform" (since it support features needed in the playing of video games too). It's variety for language which is something we do want to consider in quality of writing for any article. (I do worry about straight-up replacement. One of the edits done turned "video gaming" into "video video games", so there does need to be a bit of care as well.) But we have gotten sloppy to allow "gaming" to talk about the much broader facet of video game development, publishing, marketing, etc. and that's 100% where we can't use the term. --Masem (t) 14:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I think this reasoning is flawed: Once established that topic involves the playing of video games, "gaming" provides enough variety of language instead of just saying "video game" over and over and over again. It shouldn't be our goal to discover synonyms to ease repetition in writing - repetition usually emerges from repeated information and bad sentence structure, not word choice. See my WP:ELEVAR essay for more thoughts about that. If you're writing "game" too much, you probably need to think about the information you're trying to convey, whether it needs saying, and how you're saying it, not switch to "gaming".
As for it is also not wrong to say Steam as a "PC gaming platform" (since it support features needed in the playing of video games too), yes, this occurred to me too. However, look at the sentence again: is the largest digital distribution platform for PC games. The sentence is saying here that the platform distributes games, not gaming, which doesn't make a lot of sense. You might argue that it instead distributes things (such as games plus other stuff like game soundtracks or something) in the service of gaming as an activity, but that's equally true as "in the service of games generally".
I just don't think it's a shade of meaning readers will be particularly sensitive to and meaningfully enriches information. Let's use the simplest term instead.
Oh, and of course when making changes ideally we catch typos and so on - 100% agreed there. Luckily those are trivial to fix and shouldn't be a reason to oppose changes generally. Popcornduff (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I am broadly in support of Dalziel and Masem's proposal to move "video gaming" to "video games" in most cases. I too struggle to find a case where gaming is unambiguously the more appropriate appellation. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I too am in support of this proposal, based on comments by other users. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
We want to avoid slang and neologisms, absolutely, and "gaming" borders on that. At least 75% of the usages caught in the edits mention are correct changes. However I would not dismiss "gaming" as a word to completely to avoid. It is a well-defined, non slang term in the video game field, but as noted specifically talking about playing games and nothing else. Context is very important. Maybe the Steam example isn't the best, but I can see an esport athlete, after establishing they play video games in the lede, having a early life that goes "So-and-so got into video gaming while in college..." (assuming we're talking an active player, not a developer). --Masem (t) 19:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I promise you I'm not being obstinate here, but I don't think that's a great example either. "got into" is an informal/idiomatic term I wouldn't use in an encyclopaedia. Instead I'd write something like "So-and-so began playing video games at college", or "began playing games seriously at college", etc.
I'm not proposing a blanket ban on the term "gaming", I just can't think of a situation where it's the simplest, most accurate word and it seems to have no upside. Popcornduff (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
"Gaming" is well-established as a term in the field, as represented in the names of a number of publications, i.e. Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, etc. I've no opposition to the use of the term "gaming" in principle. It's just not the simplest, most accurate word when "playing video games" will suffice. More critically, it's currently far too widely-used to refer to either a) the entire market for video games ("the PC gaming market"), b) the entire culture around video games ("gaming culture"), c) all video game software (implied in "non-gaming software"), and d) the entire industry of making and selling video games ("the gaming industry"). None of these uses are entirely accurate, let alone simple or non-jargon usage. The culture usage is the closest to appropriate, but even that is not exclusively around the playing of video games, as it also encompasses collecting, discussing, watching, etc. and is already contradicted in the title of Video game culture.—Dalziel 86 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I was thnking about this, and when you include the work "gamer" in the same problem zone area (eg we should not refer to "video game player" as "gamer" haphazardly, both "gaming" and "gamer" I feel are better used to describe the more fan-intesive areas of the video game area. The soccer mom playing Candy Crush while waiting for her kids is not gaming or a gamer in the sense of those words, while the person that has put 100s of hours into LoL is. To that point: we should never use "gaming" or "gamer" as a title word or lede prose (with obvious exceptions), and should not use it as the introductory terms in the body of an article. But, as the article goes on, and there's a need to say "playing video games" over and over again, and the article is related to the more entrenched players that love video games, "gaming" is a fine word to use once in a while to flavor the prose (part of good writing), as with "gamer". If one can find alternate phrase that avoids the term, great, but it does have a place for narrow usage. We've just been very sloppy about it until now. --Masem (t) 02:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Masem, it sounds like we're all in broad agreement here so I respond to this not to pick a fight but just because this is a particular field of interest of mine.
But, as the article goes on, and there's a need to say "playing video games" over and over again, and the article is related to the more entrenched players that love video games, "gaming" is a fine word to use once in a while to flavor the prose (part of good writing),
If you're having to write "playing video games" "over and over again" (with the implication that this is noticeably repetitive), then something is wrong with the sentences. I'd really like to see an example of what you're describing.
I really don't think encyclopaedias are the place for "flavored" writing. This is why I enjoy writing them so much - it reduces the business of putting sentences together to a clinical exercise, without having to worry about far more difficult things like theme, plot, metaphor, vividness of imagery, etc. Popcornduff (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I am pretty we're in close agreement outside a bit of a grey line. I just don't thnk "gaming" or "gamer" is a flavored term, in contrast to something like "newbie" over "new video game player". And yes, it's hard to find an example of where one is using "playing video games" over and over again as to necessitate a different term, it just might be there. If I were to add to the MOS, it would be "try to avoid the use of 'gaming' or 'gamer' in titles or prose, as they are less precise terms, and instead favor terms like 'playing video games' or 'a video game player', among other options." --Masem (t) 02:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that "gaming" and, to a much greater extent, "gamer" are not neutral terms, as the Gamer article discusses. At the very least they are definitely "flavoured" terms, if not outright terms with a lot of connotations and implications around them.--Dalziel 86 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, "gaming" is also used to refer to both game hunting and gambling so the parenthetical suffix "(gaming)" should be avoided in general. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Mobile/Mac/Linux "Gaming"

A large number of the references to, and articles on, platform-specific game stuff are primarily about video game software that exists on those platforms. This is especially the case with "mobile gaming": most of the references to "mobile gaming" I've seen are referring to sales/revenue of video games on mobile devices, i.e. the last decade or so of 'year in video games' articles. There are quite a few instances where it's used to refer to the playing of video games on mobile devices, but these do seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure what the best alternative wording is though. Any suggestions? --Dalziel 86 (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

We should still probably standardize on "mobile video games" and "Linux video games". The Mac one, I feel "Mac video games" is too simplified as it is implied video games on Apple computers, but with maxOS, iOS and a whole mess of other various OS, I feel a different wording is needed. --Masem (t) 06:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional points to resolve

So I'm trying to compile a list of pages that would have to be moved, and while I don't have that, I came across one example that we'll have to deal with on pages like Camping (gaming). First the title change is obvious (perhaps to "Camping (video game terminology)" or just "Camping (video games)", but note lede that starts "In video gaming..." I think we want to make sure those would go to like on Boss (video gaming) which starts "In video games..." --Masem (t) 20:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Masem, thanks for doing this work. If you want to coordinate on this let me know.
I think "In video games" sounds like the right approach for the camping article. Simple, clear, precise. Popcornduff (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
So the full list of games in the VG project but which using "gaming" in the title is this: User:Masem/gaming list. Some clear classes:
  • "XXXX in video gaming" should be moved to "XXXX in video games". Same with the categories.
  • "Video gaming in (nation)" should be moved to "Video games in (nation)". Same with the associated category.
  • All the video game terms that are disambiguated by "(gaming)" or "(video gaming)" should be moved to "(video games)" or "(video game terminology)" (the later is more precise but disambiguation prefers briefity. We need to figure that out). This should not be done automatically, the pages should be reviewed to make sure the term is specific to video games (perhaps with some other applications, but video games first and foremost). We don't want to move a generalized game term applying to both board and video games, for example.
  • There's a handful of "gaming console" and "gaming service" which should be moved to "video game console" or "video game service".
  • And then after that, maybe a dozen or so exceptional cases to consider.
I don't know if there's a way to mass move pages (AWB doesn't seem to have that) for the first two points, the others should all be done manual, assuming this change has consensus. --Masem (t) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for going through and finding these! Some minor issues: Some of these are redirects which can be removed. Some refer to gambling-as-gaming as I mentioned above like Server-based gaming. Some are weird outliers like Mac gaming which seems to be a valid use of the term "gaming" but the article is a mess; it should probably be renamed to something like "Video games on Mac computers" regardless. Do you mind if I start trimming the list? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this was just a dump. I did not check out all links, figuring that once we've agreed on moving the Years and Nations cases, the remaining some-100 articles can be handled more manually including eliminating those that should not change at all. --Masem (t) 20:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Most of the Mac gaming article actually seems to be talking about video game software on Macs, and developments to support the software, rather than about the activity of playing games on Macs.—Dalziel 86 (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
There's also Linux gaming and likely a few others. I'm not sure how to rename those. "Video games on Linux" or "Linux as a video game platform" would be possible there ,but with the Mac side, there's so many ways to word it. --Masem (t) 14:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
If no one has objections in the next ~24hr, I am going to BOLDly move the years in gaming and nation articles over tomorrow. I feel, based on the above, this is non controversial. The other cases I think we need more discussion (particularly was disambiguation term to use for the game terminology.) --Masem (t) 22:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Years and Countries (main/talk, cats/talk) have been moved. This leaves the terminology and about a dozen odds and ends. --Masem (t) 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I took out all the redirects I found on the list, leaving about 70 entries left. I am in support of "(video games)" for all game terminology that remains, which should eliminate another big chunk of the list. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m sure you’d notice before long anyway but 2015 in video gaming was missed. redspartatalk 03:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Got it, the not-quite-empty redirect blocked that from AWB --Masem (t) 03:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation for video game terminology

Hoping to get more of the regulars' attention on this, see above, and we need to decide whether video game terms should be disambiguate as "(video games)" or "(video game terminology)". Conciseness vs precision, basically. A quick straw poll will help here. I'm not in as much a rush to move these. --Masem (t) 01:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories

There are issues with the categories affected by this change in terminology; the category pages probably should not have simply been pagemoved, since that did not recategorize any of the categorized pages. Best practice is to run category changes such as this through the WP:CFDS process, which leads to a bot handling all of the necessary changes. Instead, there are now many, many categories appearing on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories, and many more appearing on Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories‎. Anyone now volunteer to help manually edit the affected pages to recategorize them? Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

These should all be moved across now to the new cats. Let me know if I've missed any. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This was my bad, I was not aware of what issues that might have caused. Thanks to Jevansen for cleaning that up. --Masem (t) 06:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a few left

Just a few entries left at User:Masem/gaming list. Which of these are legitimate uses of "gaming" and which should still be changed?

Axem Titanium (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

First, thanks for that. I have made updated too to MOS:VG and WP:NCVG to reflect.
That said, for Cloud/Mac/Linux gaming, this actually may be a valid use. When I was doing updates to Kinect, there is a big deal about its "non-gaming applications" to a point to use something like "non-video game applciations" would go against the sources. In writing that, it made me think that when we have "(technology) gaming" this is specifically discussing the use of that technology -which is known to have many other applications - for video game applications, and thus would be the limit case where "gaming" is the right term (Think about "mobile gaming" too). But, that said, there's nothing wrong with "Video games using cloud computer", "Video games on Apple computer platforms", "Video games on Linux platforms", etc... (with the understanding "Cloud gaming" still redirects there, and would be a lede sentence thing ("Video games that use cloud computing resources, sometimes considered cloud gaming, have...")
One thing I did for NCVG is that when you have the game term that applies equally to tabletop games as much as video games, leaving the disambiguation as "(games)" doesn't help, and that is the rare case I think you need to say "(game terminology)" for the disambiguation.
"Sexism in video gaming" should probably go to "Sexism and video games" to align with Violence and video games, Religion and video games, etc. --Masem (t) 23:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I made most of the rest of the moves. I nominated the categories for CFR here. The last one that probably need to be discussed is Category:Video gaming. What exactly is this category for and what do we want it to be for? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Review thread 45: February 2020 Edition

The name of the game is always needing people to review articles so here is what is on the itinerary:

FLC
GAN
GAR
FTRC

And once again I would to remind people of the Requests board. Since it is 2020 now, we have requests that are three years old. You can either create the article or assess whether the request can be notable enough to warrant a page. Either way, any help on there is much appreciated. GamerPro64 06:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_147&oldid=1111975679"