Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 151

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151Archive 152Archive 153→Archive 155

New Articles (July 13 to July 19)

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 03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

July 13

July 14

July 15

July 16

July 17

July 18

July 19

Looks like someone went through a bunch of technical computer graphics articles this week and tagged them for this project... --PresN 03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it. These are terms that I constantly see thrown around these days when discussing PC gaming and new consoles. A lot of people (me included) heard about or saw in the settings of games things like ambient occlusion, ray tracing, chromatic aberration, supersampling, with no idea of what they meant other than "fancy graphics". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the need to have a separate article on the unreleased HL games - the current series article is not suffering any size issues. Same with D2: Beyond Light (though if that ends up getting standalone reviews when it actually comes out, that'll be different). List of BR games can easily fit into the current BR genre article. We need to think a bit more comprehensively here, we don't require separate articles for every "concept". --Masem (t) 04:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Masem, another editor has already expressed concern about the HL page, so you could add to that discussion on the talk page at that article if you want. Popcornfud (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Masem: All of Destiny and Destiny 2's major expansions have received standalone reviews, this one should be no different, especially with the major changes it's bringing to the game (and actually, the two smaller ones for each game have also received reviews, so literally every release for the franchise has received standalone reviews). I should say, however, that the last couple need updated to include said reviews (although other editors could have added them, I personally have slacked off on maintaining them as my focus had shifted elsewhere, but I'm going to be doing some cleaning up to all of them hopefully soon). The annual major expansions for the Destiny franchise are also basically treated as if they were an actual game release. --JDC808 ♫ 07:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have a similar concern about List of League of Legends comics. --Izno (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Same. It's referenced by announcements, not actually about the comics. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Prisencolin doesn't seem to understand the difference between WP:V and WP:N. I'd also bring up Draft:League of Legends lore as something that isn't fit for Wikipedia, as it suffers from many of the same issues and would be considered WP:GAMECRUFT on its main article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft:League of Legends lore is a split/refactored version of Runeterra, which was closed as a redirect at AFD, and I believe he understands that situation. We've made quite a bit of progress in cleaning up and making some updates to the parent article since then, though there's more to be done. -- ferret (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

TerraGenesis

Hi everyone!!! I'm to ask you if I can Create the page about TerraGenesis, a videogame that is in Italian, Japanese and Dutch wikipedias. i don't know about Encyclopedicity in en.wiki. Can You help me? If you give me yes I start to Traslate this page it:Utente:Esc0fans/Sandbox0 (i put the sandbox because the italian page will probably cancelled, and I want to told you because you have an other Encyclopedicity policy. --Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 06:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't find a GamePro review for NFL Fever 2000

I have a problem. GameRankings's archived link claims that NFL Fever 2000 has a GamePro score of "4 out of 5", but when I got to the Reviews section of GamePro, "NFL Fever 2000" is not in the search box anywhere! The only way I can find the review for NFL Fever 2000 is through GameProWorld.com, but there's too many archived links in this archive search. Can you please help me find the archived link that has the GamePro review for the game? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a GamePro entry in the GR link? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's a review of NFL 2K in GamePro #122 (Sep 1999), so may be it's a mistake in the listing? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Uh, that's Issue #132, not #122, and that's a not a review but a preview! And you don't even see the part where it says "GamePro" in GameRankings? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, the link you posted here is different to the one in the article; I see it now. And yeah, it's 132 not 122; the file had a wrong title and I copy-pasted that. That's still September 1999 though and I don't see the game in the index. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to give up search yet, but so far looking at their library of reviews from the year 2000, NFL Fever 2000 isn't there although NFL Blitz and NFL GameDay '99 is mentioned. Also yes I know NFL Fever 2000 was released in 1999. Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Avoid ambiguation for the title?

Yesterday I created the article Ovan (.hack). Similar to Kite (.hack), I had to put Ovan with the hack sign as there was other places that have the word Ovan in their titles. However, unlike Kite which is a common name, there isn't a single person or character that also posseses the name Ovan. See here You guys think the article's title should stay in its current form or be moved to simply Ovan? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that Ovan was originally about the character but was merged in 2008, then much later repurposed as a 2DAB. -- ferret (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I see. When I was working in my sandbox, the link to Ovan took me there so I wasn't sure which action take in regards to the name.Tintor2 (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need the dab; there's Ovan Lake and the other link is a redirect to Avan. The .hack character can then be moved to Ovan, with a "for... hatnote" at the lake and at the character. That should be sufficient, right? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I do not think a dab is necessary either, a hatnote will be more than enough.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I tried but it's not allowed probably because that disambiguation page. Guess we need help from other editors.Tintor2 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Histmerge/moves/cleanup/etc completed. -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Spacetime Studios redirects / AfD?

Hi everyone,

I stumbled upon the article of developer Spacetime Studios, which is in pretty bad shape. Of the games developed or published, four have links, one of which is a redirect to the main article. Pocket Legends, Star Legends: The Blackstar Chronicles and Arcane Legends are the only three with articles. I was thinking of redirecting some or all, but I'm not entirely sure if Spacetime Studios itself actually meets GNG. In the good ol' WP:VG/RS search engine, I get very results (by the way, is there a way to copy-paste the results?)

  • When I look up "Spacetime Studios", first I see "About 169,000 results", but on page 6, the total results drops to 55.
  • Arcane Legends goes from "About 419,000 results" to "About 15 results" on page 2.
  • Star Legends: The Blackstar Chronicles goes from "About 9,850 results" to "About 39 results" on page 4.
  • Pocket Legends goes from "About 223,000 results" to "About 70 results" on page 7.

I haven't gone through these thoroughly yet, but there's a bunch of fluff, WP:CHURNALISM and mentions there. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you use Firefox (Chrome doesn't work for it), you can copy paste a query that uses &q and spaces after : https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq&q=Spacetime%20Studios . --Izno (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

rename Category talk:Xbox (4th generation) games

Category talk:Xbox (4th generation) games makes no sense now since we know the official name of the console, its Xbox Series X. Anyone have a reason not to change it? Can someone run a bot of some sort to do that? New exclusive games have been announced for it after all which won't work on previous Xboxes. Dream Focus 03:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This can be listed at WP:CFDS per WP:C2D. --Izno (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I was trying to figure out what the difference was when people were edit warring over the two on an article I created. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Current_requests Dream Focus 17:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The issue is that we're expecting another 4th gen Xbox console to be announce real soon (the Lockhart one), which is anticipated to be named "Xbox Series S". We don't know this for sure but it should not be a speedy request. --Masem (t) 17:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense. As I responded there: So we have Xbox Series X and List of Xbox Series X games but the category for these is named something else. Consistency is important. Also the official website for it calls it this already. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/consoles/xbox-series-x/ So does the news media covering it. This is the official name. As for these "rumors", since when does Wikipedia go on such things? Seems ridiculous they'd announce one thing and not the other if there was more than one thing. And why release two consoles at once? If its just two versions of the same console, which has happened before, then it will have the same name. Dream Focus 15:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is the key official statement that sets what we know that MS has multiple consoles planned beyond the Xbox Series X in their fourth generation of Xbox (not any rumor here) [1] - “The name we’re carrying forward to the next generation is simply Xbox,” said the Microsoft representative. “And at The Game Awards you saw that name come to life through the Xbox Series X.” In a separate quote, the representative told Business Insider: “Similar to what fans have seen with previous generations, the name ‘Xbox Series X’ allows room for additional consoles in the future.” Using "Xbox Series X" for the console and the games list for now is easy to change once we have a confirmation of a second console, but changing the category name is harder which is why it was set up as "Xbox (4th generation)". Now that MS is expected to announce this other console soon (august) is a rumor, but they have taken several steps that industry rumors from reliable sources all seem to indicate that they would have this console announced to come out later as the low-end version of the Xbox Series X (the S version comparible to the Xbox One S to the Xbox One X). --Masem (t) 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Xbox One X Enhanced titles

So, are they a platform? Do they mean that the Xbox One X needs listing as a separate platform in the infobox of existing titles? My own opinion is that they are not worthy of a platform. They're not a remake or remaster, they're basically just a texture pack patch and an upgrading of the sound files. Any opinions? - X201 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree it's a category at most; they're just patches. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
They should just be a category; not an infobox or a lede thing generally, but can be mentioned in body (and should actually for a sourcing point). The list of Xbox One games should not those as one of the features. This should be true for the PS4 Pro, as well as what we expect for the Xbox Series X (that's why there's the "Optimized for Series X" branding) and what most are expecting to be a PS5 Pro version. These are not new plaforms, just optimized versions on the platform --Masem (t) 14:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Input on major console article reorganization

As I've talked here before, I'm at a stage that I'm preparing to do a major reorganization of the articles around Video game console that that I've outlined at Talk:Video game console#Massive reorganization of several articles proposed and would like input there. --Masem (t) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ninth generation article

I believe there is still consensus not to start this article, correct? Rreagan007 started the article here, but I have since reverted back to the redirect. Please undo if that is incorrect, but I've felt it is still believed an article for the ninth generation is too soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If I recall, there was a discussion similar to this where the consensus was that it was too soon to be an article. Very few sources I've seen actually talk about the "ninth-generation" of game consoles, so making a page for this I feel is way too early. Let's wait for sources to cover this generation in detail. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It's also the wrong page title, as if/when this page exists it'll be at Ninth generation of video game consoles. But that is salted, so someone tried to go around it. -- ferret (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Thought I already salted every likely variant... Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

While we're on generations

I've been working to prep Video game console to merge in Home video game console (massive redundancy), and came across this paper from a professor at U. Pitt that talks about the issues around generations, [2] which interesting discussion our (wikipedia)'s involving in the mess around generation definition. I am not at all suggesting we change this, but I have made a note of this on the console page, and I would suggest that we should have a footnote on each relevant page (the generation pages) that explain that we are using this scheme, pointing back to the section on Video game console generation section, so that newer editors and readers will understand the scheme, its origins, etc. --Masem (t) 20:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been an issue for some time now, hasn't it? And it has always been WP:OR, as far as I can tell. The lazy way to fix this would be citing the Gallagher/Park one, which is both the oldest cited in the paper and conveniently similar to our listings. Either way, Wikipedia's involvement in the forming of these classifications should be mentioned. IceWelder [✉] 21:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we "fix" or change it, simply 1) acknowledge as this source says, there's zero consistency, 2) we (Wikipedia) have been part of the problem and 3) just to add a footnote to point to this common page to explain all that on the individual generation pages. I note this as there's a debate happening on Talk:List of home video game consoles that if we just said "Here's what we've decided and why" that closes these types of debates. Until we have clarity across academic and/or media sources as to a consistent system, we might as well keep something that is documented to be a system against other non-consistent systems. --Masem (t) 23:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
On page 11 of that paper, there's a figure (fig. 2) that we should just screen cap and insert into the history of consoles article under fair use. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It could probably be converted to a timeline/table/free image pretty easily. Something like this, perhaps?
I just went with the numbered generations, but it could be expanded fairly easily (with other sources too, including more recent ones). I think the main disadvantage is that it's missing the console names that the paper has; I tried to add lines for each console, but without the actual names, it was just messy and confusing. – Rhain ☔ 02:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
All that's needed is to point out the differences between attempts to catalog by generations. I know that paper then goes on to argue a new cataloging that is yet different so I would not include it yet. But this definite can go in the section I've got set up in Video game console about console generations. If we could document the concept of console generations more, a separate article could be warranted but at this point, it is better there. --Masem (t) 02:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Rhain: I got it in place in Video game console and also was able to add the console names (within the ability that EasyTimeline could handle it). --Masem (t) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not to go over it again, but while OR has crept into the articles' content, the generations themselves are certainly not "all OR", nor are they necessarily a "problem". You can argue that the titles were novel in ~2004 or so, with Wikipedia's arbitrary names inadvertently creating a new standard, but the titles are not the important thing; the concept is what's important. The gaming press of the 80s and 90s absolutely acknowledged the existence of generations, just with different terminology - NES vs. Sega Master System ("8-bit consoles"), SNES vs. Genesis vs. also-rans ("16-bit consoles"), PSX vs. N64 vs. Saturn, etc. SnowFire (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, the modern concept of generations exists and it's the numbering that's OR. Also the exact membership of the early generations varies from source to source. An alternate suggestion to having a "Ninth generation of video game consoles" article is to punt the issue down the road and simply call it "Current generation of video game consoles (2020-present)" or something to that effect. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yup, the point more of the article above is that when you get to the lesser-knowns, like the 5200 or the Turbogrphx, and not the dominate players of each generation, the conflicts in generation naming may place them differently between these. But, it is always the PlayStation competing against the N64, as you say. That's why, as the graph shows, there's certain things that clearly line up (those rivalries) but the edges are a bit harder to define. Also, I'm trying to add a media stance to this (in more than the media has followed Wikipedia if that is the case, I think), which keeps us justified to use what we have, even more going forward. If at some point, the Ultimate God of Video Games tells every to us a specific grouping and everyone goes okay, there's no reason for us to change at this point. But now we have a good reason to be clear that "Uh, yeah, we might have had a part..." --Masem (t) 19:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I was reacting a bit more to the journal article, which had some eye-rolly lines like "Sony PlayStation is considered as “fifth generation” by both Wikipedia and Corts and Lederman, but as "third generation" and "fourth generation" respectively in Gretz [30] and Gretz [36], and as “32-/64-bit generation” by both Chintagunta et al. and Dubé et al". Who cares what the number is. Corts could mean something totally different by their definition of fifth generation, while Gretz's list of 3rd/4th generation consoles (especially if omitting the Wikipedia "first generation", which I agree with the paper is very shaky to call a generation at all) might contain the exact same list of consoles Wikipedia's 5th generation article does. That's what's important - otherwise it's like saying "America has apples, Quebec has pommes, Mexico has manzanas, why can't they agree?" They're all the same thing! They already agree! SnowFire (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The name of the game Zombie Carnaval/Tsunami

Can anyone take a look at this tiny article and comment on whether Zombie Carnaval or Zombie Tsunami is the correct name? Pl wiki article uses the Tsunami name (and shows a fair use logo for the other title). The game had its name changed. Since all we have as sources are metacritic reviews, I wonder if they are not messed up, or perhaps the other game which apparently forced a trademark name change is notable instead (it is not linked right now)? Seems like a bit of a mess, up to and including interwiki problems. And the claim for the name change is unreferenced... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure if the current game is notable but I can attest that the other game of that supposedly caused the name change isn’t. The Zombie Carnaval made my Taito is a social sim and has had a metacritic entry with no critic or user reviews https://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/zombie-carnival whereas the entry for this Zombie Carnaval has multiple reviews, and why some of the sites are down, all the remaining reviews identify the game as an endless runner by Mobigame. Also, in the details and credits section for in Metacritic entries for both Zombie Carnaval and Zombie Tsunami contain a homepage link to to download Zombie Tsunami by Mobigame on the App Store. Based on that evidence Zombie Tsunami being Zombie Carnaval renamed is the logical conclusion.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Question on the Referencing Web-Based Video Game News Outlets

Hi, I'm currently writing an article about a video game website, but my submission was declined due to a lack of proper sources. I was wondering which of the following websites I could cite as a credible source, and how I can check if websites meet the notability guidelines. Here are the websites:

Eurogamer; CNET; Polygon; NME; Game Rant; Launcher, The Washington Post Video Game Outlet; BGR; Mashable; Gamesradar; Sick Critic; HappyGamer; Nintendo Wire;

Which of the above can be considered credible, if any? And how should I go about finding credible websites to cite (bearing in mind that this kind of thing isn't present on JSTOR or Google Scholar)?

The article I'm writing is: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Nookazon

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squid45 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Squid45: Hi! We have compiled a resource for reliable sources writing about video games, which you can find at WP:VG/RS. Note that sources not mentioned on the list aren't necessarily unreliable, it just means they have not yet been discussed. Signs of reliability include having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and having a dedicated and experienced editorial staff (ie not a fansite); you can read more about this on WP:SOURCES.--AlexandraIDV 12:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I can tell you that Eurogamer, Polygon and Games Radar are all on that list of RSes for us. NME, CNEt and WaPost are general good RSes for WP in general Also you should have plenty of sources - notability looks easily in the clear. One more I see just scanning: WaPost on data mining. --Masem (t) 14:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hey there everyone. I'd appreciate it if some of you could weigh in here, since being one vs one it's getting me nowhere. Additional input will be welcome. Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Since someone have already started this thread, I would also like to point out that additional comments would also welcomed in Talk:Paper Mario: The Origami King#Genre. The debate focuses on whether the newer Paper Mario games are RPG or action-adventure games. Caution advised: there are several walls of text... OceanHok (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (July 20 to July 27)

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 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

July 20

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

July 27

I'm not late, you're late... --PresN 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
2020 Nintendo data leak was also restored on July 25 despite the conversation here. I'm still of the mind that the leaked info should simply be added to the relevant articles instead of a standalone as I'm not sure how much impact the actual leak itself will have in the long run. --TorsodogTalk 04:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I personally agree we don't need a dedicated article on it yet, as long as we have a brief discussion of it at a Nintendo page, and any key relevant info that RSes catch on (like Luigi being playable in Mario64) can be added to the game articles. Speculation on any possible harm to Nintendo at this point... but if that does come to pass , then a separate article would make sense. --Masem (t) 06:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article violates WP:SUSTAINED as a "brief burst of news". There doesn't seem to be ongoing coverage on it, if that were the case I'd agree it merited an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Considering that we've seen RS'es literally call it "the biggest data leak in the history of the industry" I think a standalone article is pretty safe. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I believed the consensus last time shouldn't be overturned. The impacts of the leaks on the industry are mostly theoractical. If these theoractical impacts materialised, then it can have its own article. OceanHok (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward keeping the article now. The leak keeps coming back up, as evidenced by the fact that it's back in the news again after the previous discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Axem, despite the fact that the coverage is fast and brief, it's been on a lot of people's mind and has still stood for the past 4 months, so I think an article that at least collects a brief amount of information that isn't disclosing any confidential information, is good until we can make a more suitable article in the future that may breach the law. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
We can give it a week or so, but if there's not much more coverage after that, then redirection/merging would be appropriate (depending on the state). It's not that information from the leak is illegal - what sources like Polygon and IGN report on we can include without any concerns for the most part, its just trying to justify "biggest leak of all time" at this point. If anything the biggest thing so far is everyone changing their ring tone to a clear recording of "Do a Barrel Roll". --Masem (t) 15:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
As the original creator of the article, I think that there's even more of a case for keeping the article now. As Salvidrim! notes, a ton of articles are calling it the most significant leak in industry history, especially considering that there's a ton of stuff that was previously considered lost to time (like Luigi's Super Mario 64 model). It was also in the news again a few weeks ago after the 3DS OS was leaked. Nintendo is reportedly actively searching for who leaked this to exact revenge too. JOEBRO64 20:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
To me, the leak has produced interesting tidbits of trivia about various games and consoles, and I absolutely believe that info should be added to the relevant games' and consoles' articles. At this point though, it doesn't seem like we need an article that basically just lists the information that was leaked combined with a few articles calling it a big leak. The biggest leak of video game trivia of all time is still just a leak about video game trivia in the end. --TorsodogTalk 22:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
At worse, if we get rid of the article, we still want a redirect/section to point to (I had created Gigaleak and in Nintendo for that) that those brief tidbits can reference back, eg "In the 2020 Gigaleak, it was discovered that Luigo was to be a playable character for SM64." at that game. But let's give a bit of time and see if there's any further developers to warrant a need to keep. --Masem (t) 22:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Input on Genre

For anyone interested, there is a consensus being held at Talk:Paper Mario: The Origami King#Poll for genre to see if The Origami King is primarily a role-playing video game or it just has elements of a role-playing video game. More information is held at the talk page. Thanks for the input! Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo Data Leaks articles

I was recently thinking of making an article or two surrounding certain topics in the 2020 Nintendo data leak, specifically one for the "Super Donkey" prototype. I understand notability from reliable sources are a big reason for making articles on this website, but I would like to ask a different question. Is any of the information on the subjects in the leak too sensitive for Wikipedia, for example images? CaptainGalaxy 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, all of the leaks are the legal property of Nintendo. They are thus stolen content and are thus illegal. Doesn’t mean we can’t report on them or describe them, as far as I know, but hosting the images would probably be a big no-no. Toa Nidhiki05 17:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. CaptainGalaxy 17:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hosting the images en masse is a no-no of course but fair-use of copyrighted material is a long-standing practice whenever appropriate. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair use of copyrighted material is one thing, but fair use of stolen material is another. Toa Nidhiki05 21:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not sure about hosting the images, but I've noticed a lot of RSs do apparently think it's fine to host them, as a ton of the articles about the leak have of course featured screenshots, sprites, and the like. I may ask a help desk about this later. JOEBRO64 21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
We barely know anything about Super Donkey other than that it was a Donkey Kong game that became Yoshi's Island. I don't see any possible scenario in which it becomes a standalone article. And like Toa Nidhiki05 I'm also not too sure about hosting images since the material was stolen. For instance, during the Sonic X-treme FAC one user had a problem with the article using an emulator screenshot from a leaked prototype because of legal stuff. JOEBRO64 19:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Minecraft Task Force

I'm thinking about making a Minecraft Task Force as a subset of the Video Games Wikiproject. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or would like to participate if I did make this? Thanks, Squid45 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A while ago somebody proposed an entire WikiProject for Minecraft; the consensus was that it was nowhere near big enough of a scope to warrant one. I doubt a task force is needed either, Minecraft is one game and there are not many articles that make a task force necessary. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Minecraft has 4 games, but otherwise I agree. This is not a large enough topic area to warrant a dedicated project or task force. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Banjo-Kazooie Good Topic Potential

The Banjo-Kazooie series is very close to Good topic status, all of the games of the series are good articles, even some of the more loosely connected stuff like Rare Replay, Diddy Kong Racing, and Project Dream. The main series article is the only one left.(Oinkers42) (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The only question might be if Yooka-Laylee needs included as a clear spiritual successor. That would add two more articles that need GA, if so. Not sure they belong though. -- ferret (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
If it's not part of the franchise it should not be part of the topic. GamerPro64 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn’t belong.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
That's gonna be a "no". We wouldn't put every GTA clone in the "Grand Theft Auto" topic, for example.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Deeeep.io - Is Kotaku enough as reliable source?

Sorry if it isn't the right place to ask. Months ago I've created Draft:Deeeep.io but it got rejected due to lack of "notability or significant mentions in reliable sources". I've put in the references articles from Kotaku (reliable inclusion), Tom's Guide, Screen Rant, and TV Tropes. I've based it on other .io game articles like Hole.io, Eatme.io, and Jaws.io (which are less relevant, according to Google Trends). Any advice? --Dangelman (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles need to have significant coverage from multiple sources. Kotaku is considered reliable, but you can't make something notable by just filling the page with Kotaku articles. It's still being covered by only one source at the end of the day, no matter how many articles/announcements from them are used. TV Tropes is also not reliable, neither is Screen Rant, and I don't know about the status of Tom's Guide. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If there were several articles on the level of that Kotaku one then I'd definitely agree it passed GNG. But as it is now, the Kotaku one is the only source of note that would pass WP:SIGCOV.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If you need any help with what sources to use look here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. CaptainGalaxy 10:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Advice needed: Bayonetta

Hi. I took on the task of reviewing Bayonetta, but the nominator has done relatively little from the suggestions and points I raised, and left no replies or status updates. Many of the points I raised either haven't been dealt with or haven't been addressed well enough. Options? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless someone offers to take over the work in the next day or two, fail it. More than enough time has been given for the nom to at least reply with a casual "going to work on it". -- ferret (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (July 28 to August 4)

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 04:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

July 28

August 1

August 2

August 3

August 4

I've reverted the removal of the redirect to Riot Forge, doesn't meet standalone notability. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
And redirected List of Outlast Characters. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
ASCII Corporation is not a new article, it's been around for a long time now. Maybe it got tagged for some reason. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 05:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
yep. --PresN 05:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if Mobile gaming in South Korea needs to be separate from Video games in South Korea. No size issue, and we really need to better our coverage of mobile gaming even though our main sources tend to shy away frm it. --Masem (t) 06:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I haven't got the time to check for notability right now, but from a quick glance TruckersMP doesn't seem notable, right? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like it. I couldn't find a single significant or even insignificant source.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And now for my next trick-er project...

I'm still working on the improvements and changes around the Video game console articles, but in doing so, I've hit upon the start of a general problem at History of video games. Separately sitting at the talk page is a concern that Early history of video games should be merged back into that, and while I known the weight of the console generations needs to be pulled out of the History article (given what's at History of video game consoles) I'm not sure about that merge.

But ... that got me to thinking about what I've on the console side, and when I was working to make the timeline up from the example that Rhain had made above, I had come to this example Template:Timeline_History_of_Computing that gave me an idea for a top level template to use for History of video games. In this, I can see merging a brief version of the console generation timeline, key points of Timeline of arcade video game history (at least, identifying the Golden age), key points for PC gaming, other key industry points (crash of '77, crash of '83, release of NES in West to revitalize from that crash, Brown vs ESA SCOTUS case, etc.), release of fundamentally key genre-defining/best-selling games (Adventure, Pong, SMB, Tetris, Doom, Myst, Pokemon, FF7, GTA3, etc.), and others, including outside events (like for example, I would include COVID-19 here as an event to be aware of as a global changer), grouped in those categories.

I can't see this being a bad idea, but I am solicitating to see what would be key fundamental items to include, things that if you were trying to show a holistic picture of video games to someone, items you'd want to pick off. Ideally, events that we can source as being key but I don't need that sourcing now, just presume that you can point me to it or I can find it. --Masem (t) 18:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. If you wanted some input on the project, here's a few ideas:
Hope this helps! CaptainGalaxy 20:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
For a good look into important video games, look at World Video Game Hall of Fame. CaptainGalaxy 20:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Not seeing where the proposal to merge the Early History article into the main History article is, but I'd very much oppose that... As far as early history games/milestones go, Bertie the Brain is a minor game of interest with little impact. Tennis for Two, while having little impact either, gets a point for being the first "video" game made solely for entertainment. Spacewar! is the first real notable game, though, as it's the first recognizable "video game", and the first one that spread to multiple computers/locations. After that, maybe Computer Space as being the first commercial game/first arcade game, not just for being first but for setting up the way "arcade" games were treated/designed/marketed- that is, being computer versions of the mechanical arcade/pinball games that went through the existing pipeline for that, not a wholly new product. And the Magnavox Odyssey, for being the first console and creating the "idea" of a console attached to a television. Beyond that... read Early history of video games and Early mainframe games, I guess. Depends how detailed you want to be. --PresN 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The question of the merge was raised at Talk:Video game#Please add the section "Terminology"; also, discussion of merges and summary style. I'm not sure if it is needed, and as I said there, as Early history is your work PResn (and a GA) I'm a little hestitant to simply say "merge". The ultimate shape of History of video games is going to depend on a summary style approach to go to the console generations, to other advances, etc. that I see no reason why the early history has to be merged in, in favor of trimming back the coverage of early history in the current History of video games. (We have SO MUCH F REPETITION in our articles on our history of VGs, I'm finding, and I'm all for trying to figure out how to clean this up, putting detail where it needs to be.). --Masem (t) 22:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I left a longer comment there, and mainly it's replying to the other editor (I agree that the "summary" of the early history in the main History article should be chopped down to size), but to repeat its main point here: the early history article shouldn't be spared a merge because it's a GA. It should be spared a merge because the idea that we should only have a single parent article with no deep-dive child articles for the entire 70+ year history of the medium (except for consoles, which get their own article + 8 generation articles) is ludicrous. The parent History Of article should be clean and coherent, and I applaud your project wholeheartedly, but that does not mean that we shouldn't have articles dedicated to going more in-depth on "the pre-commercial era" or "the golden age of arcade games" or whatever, just like your History of video game consoles article project doesn't include merging all of the generations articles into one. --PresN 04:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Some more points:
CaptainGalaxy 09:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Just to give an idea where I'm going with this, User:Masem/sandbox/vgtimeline is my starting point, though note the visual layout can change - the timeline code seems super finicky to play with. --Masem (t) 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I, Robot (video game) could also be added. GamerPro64 19:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Work from home hits everyone a bit different. :D I am happy to give Masem carte blanche to make any severe/radical changes to these VG history articles to make a set with minimal redundancy. I've always felt that this history project would take one dedicated editor who can keep the entire mass of facts and articles in their head at once to produce a coherent whole. Unfortunately I doubt piecemeal collaboration across a dozen articles will get you to that coherent final product. If he wants to take on this challenge, more power to him. Masem, you can assume you have my support. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually speaking of projects that could use more work, and should not take much work but just need editors with knowledge of the best RSes and how to use Wikidata: it would be real helpful if we could make sure data on some of the console systems in Wikidata is 1) correct and 2) given a proper reference. Data I am specifically concerned on are sales numbers, release dates, and discontinuation dates. Part of this came from making the table I have right now at video game console#Market, which most is pulled from two sources and verified to our data, but I was thinking "Gee, it would be nice to pull that data from Wikidata", which is quite possible ( eg , I can dynamically pull the units sold of PS2 as {{wikidata|property|Q10680|P2664}} (160,000,000) and its reference {{wikidata|reference|Q10680|P2664}} ([1])), but right now most of this info seems sourced to the Russian WP. Having one source of data for these would be really helpful. --Masem (t) 03:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sophie McEvoy Staff Writer (27 November 2024). "PlayStation 2 has surpassed 160m lifetime sales". Retrieved 3 December 2024.

Does Pikmin 3 Deluxe need an article?

So yesterday I created the redirect Pikmin 3 Deluxe for Pikmin 3, however it has since been changed to a stub article. Do ports need a standalone article? As far as I'm aware no ports have ever had articles and are just merged into the original version's article such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. I'm putting this here to get some opinions before I make any rash decisions. CaptainGalaxy 12:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Captain Galaxy, it certainly doesn't need its own article right now, when all there is to say about it is that it's an enhanced port. If someday there's enough material about it that we need a separate article then we can make one then, though that's unlikely. Popcornfud (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
A section is the right treatment for now. Keep expanding it and see what happens. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
A section is definitely appropriate as it has new features, but as it seems like ~90% of the game is otherwise the same, not a separate article. --Masem (t) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Same here! Relegating the DX version of Pikmin 3 is a good suggestion... Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Works for me, we usually only have separate articles for full fledge remakes. There are a few edge cases like Super Mario 64 DS but that still has far more extra content than this will.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I think a port can justify itself if there is enough unique development information, unique reception (ie, positive or negative comments on how well it was ported), etc. Ultimately it will depend on what there is to say about the new content of Pikmin 3, whether there's much reception unique to it, and whether the development process is well-documented. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I feel doubtful about that. New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe has a lot of additional content compared to its Wii U predecessor, but it's just a short section in the New Super Mario Bros. U article and does not have its own article. We'll have to definitely wait and see. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Does it though? From my understanding, NSMBUDX is a smaller game than NSMBU and NSLU, with the new content being a power-up and a new character that replaces an old one, plus the removal of the Boost Mode. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Are we discussing the possibility of any port potentially needing an article, or the specific case of Pikmin 3 Deluxe? Right now I'd call it CRYSTALBALL for Pikmin. Sourcing for an independent article has not yet developed. -- ferret (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm mainly saying the standard for a port getting an article, and that we should only create P3DX once that standard is met. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Abryn, the standard for enhanced editions are sections on the original game's article unless it warrants an independent article due to size concerns. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reiterating what I've said. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

New peer review

Kyo Kusanagi is one of the first articles I edited so requested a peer review here in case any user finds a flaw that needs to be fixed. I'd appreciate any feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Panzer Dragoon Orta

Hi. For anyone who's interested in Panzer Dragoon Orta, I've been toying with doing some work on the article since it's in quite a state, but ultimately the series doesn't interest me enough. Instead, I've left all the sources I pulled together on the talk page; they include gameplay references, but are mostly interviews about the game's production. Anyone who wants to work on the article has all they need in the "refideas" bit on the talk page together with the review refs already present. I've left a similar resource for Crimson Dragon. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me see if I can also dig issues of Famitsu Xbox with information about Orta, since all of the issues have been preserved online... Roberth Martinez (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
As I recall, this came up also during stuff when I was researching Phantom Dust and other attempts Microsoft had done with Xbox in Japan, so keep that in mind in looking for sources. --Masem (t) 05:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Getting token failed?

Hi everyone,

I just AfD'ed Skotos, but something went wrong with processing it. I got a message saying that getting a token failed. Not sure what that means. See its history, there isn't a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skotos. It's also sort-of listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 10 (right above List of shopping malls in Egypt) and there's a message at the creators talk page (see User talk:69.107.93.70). Any tech-savvy admins know what to do now? Izno? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You can just create the AfD page manually yourself. There is a template you can use. The script seems to have done everything besides the actual page creation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I suspect a network issue (your authentication token could not be retrieved or validated for some undisclosed reason). Just create the missing AfD page manually and try again with Twinkle for a different page later. Also leave a message with Wikipedia talk:Twinkle; the developers should know what the fault was. IceWelder [✉] 12:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Zxcvbnm, that didn't come to mind. It's up and running now. I'll leave the Twinkle project a message too, thanks IceWelder. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobuyuki Kuroki and Yasuyuki Oda

I created two articles: Nobuyuki Kuroki and Yasuyuki Oda. While there is commentary about all their works at SNK, I failed to find Oda's at Dimps. I check the SNK wiki but I was super confused with Kuroki's works. It says that he worked in Sonic the Hedgehog games but I searched every article and there was no mention of Kuroki doing the series. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Spanish translation help request

Hey all. Since 2019, I've been slowly chipping away at my goal of getting every game by the Spanish company Pendulo Studios to GA status. GAs so far include Igor: Objective Uikokahonia, Hollywood Monsters (video game) and Runaway: A Road Adventure. Next up is The Next Big Thing (video game), which is currently around 75% complete. However, I've run into a roadblock related to my Spanish skills, namely my ability to understand spoken Spanish—it's fairly limited. There's a 7-minute video interview by HobbyConsolas that I need access to, but I just can't follow what's being said well enough and YouTube hasn't autocaptioned it. I realize this is a big ask, but if a Spanish-speaker on WPVG could transcribe this for me (I don't need an English translation, just the original Spanish), it would be a huge help. And your efforts won't be in vain: the assistance I received from WPVG in translating two sources for Hollywood Monsters and Runaway was instrumental in getting those into their current shape. This little project of mine may take me a while, but I'm in it for the long haul. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

One idea would be to reach out to editors on es-wiki to see if any multilingual editors interested in the topic can help you out. I have done that before, with some success. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that! I'll give it a shot if no one's up for this (which I would understand, given that transcribing a 7-minute video takes a decent chunk of time). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Review thread 48: Infinite

Time for another Review Thread, folks. And there are articles to review.

FLC
GAN
Peer reviews and Reassessments

And, of course, we have a huge backlog at the Request Board. Still have 2017 requests that need processing. GamerPro64 02:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Without getting into the nitty gritty (no desktop environment for the foreseeable future), Pac-Man and Galaga needs a copy-edit. Just in the lead alone I found 2 or 3 sentences with obvious grammatical errors. --Izno (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (August 5 to August 9)

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 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 5

August 6

August 7

August 8

August 9

Got pretty far off last week because of the gap in bot reporting, so only 5 days to reset this week to be Monday-Sunday. --PresN 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the pinball deletions we should also have a discussion for CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (pinball). Also, based on content I believe NFL Quarterback Club (series) should be titled either NFL Quarterback Club (disambiguation) or List of NLF Quarterback Club games unless significant expansion is planned.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Gaming chair seems ripe for merging to some article (perhaps history of the chair). I also don't see why Template:Titanfall was in-redirected. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Izno, I remade it because there's less overlap with Template:Respawn Entertainment; there's a Titanfall main article and from what I gather from the articles, developer Respawn was not directly involved in developing the games Titanfall: Frontline and Titanfall Online. Respawn has developed Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order and Medal of Honor: Above and Beyond is upcoming. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WESG

Hello everyone. The WESG article needed to be updated because WESG 2018, a tournament that happened 1,5 years ago was not included in the article. I added a table for results as well as a summary for the CSGO tournament. But I need someone who can add a summary for the Dota 2, Starcraft 2 and Hearthstone tournament, since I'm not familiar with the esport scene of these games. I've already asked this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Esports, without success. Is anyone able to help? Thanks! ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible suggestion on article

While putting together the timeline that I'd want to use for the history of video games I came onto an idea of an article of "List of video games considered influential", which would be based on lists like "The 50 most important PC games of all time" from PC Gamer, games that have had some significant impact recognized by RS going forward. However, this is one where I would absolutely require two or more RSes, and more than listicle listings (PC gamer goes into why each is on the list) to be included, as to avoid random single-source "This influential game..." This would include arcade, computer, console, and any other video game as well and can be for any reason, as long as we have multiple sources calling it influential , important, landmark, etc.

But I want to see if this is possibly going to be a bad idea before creating it, as I can see this drawing "my favorite game" with poor sourcing to it if not patrolled carefully. --Masem (t) 17:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I... don't really think this is a good idea. We've already got List of video games considered the best and List of video games notable for negative reception, and I feel like that list would be extremely hard to maintain because of people trying to add their favorite games to it. JOEBRO64 17:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree with it either. There's dozens upon dozens of games that are or can be considered influential; trying to list them all would be a pain. Mirroring Joebro, it would also lead to a lot of WP:OR and poor sourcing from other editors trying to get their favorite video game added. This seems like a bad idea. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The other articles mentioned by JoeBro are shaky to me, and so I'd caution against more articles like that. I think it's better to describe influence in a historical context, particularly for a game concept. (Minecraft having an influence on crafting systems, Guitar Hero having an influence on game peripherals, Unreal having an influence on graphics. Most influential games can at least be placed in the context of their genre, and the history of those.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Is this not basically a dupe of List of video games considered the best? Usually, the most influential games are also those that have the absolute best critical reception.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Not the way I see it. Influential means, in the way I'm seeing it, having a long-term impact - a genre-defining game, or something that changed how games are seen. For example, the PC Gamer list has two Ultima games on it IV and Underworld; IV for introducing the idea of a morality system rather than just "fight the bad guy", and Underworld as the basic elements of the immersive sim. Neither on the "Best of' lists anywhere, nor expected. There's clear overlaps obviously, Doom, WoW, Minecraft, Half-Life, etc. but there are influential titles that are not well-received, and I was simply considering a list as to giving those as why they are in one place. But as others point out, this would be a honeypot for favorites-pushing. --Masem (t) 14:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
With my experience creating articles like this (such as a list of video game soundtracks considered the best), I can say that I don't think these sorts of subjective lists are ever a good idea. If you can avoid it, I recommend not making this sort of list ^_^; ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks EA....

EA has just announced that is rebranding both EA Access and Origin as one EA Play.Yin-Poole, Wesley (August 14, 2020). "EA Origin and Access rebrand to EA Play". Eurogamer. Retrieved August 14, 2020.

I had just moved the EA Access to EA Play , but we have Origin (service) as well. I think we need to merge that into EA Play as well, and make that page about the service and subscription parts? ( particularly with the steam launch also soon, its less about the client at this point?) --Masem (t) 16:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, checking before I move, Origin the client may not change, just the "Origin access" stuff is only explicit. We'll know better next week, so I'm going to hold off on the merge at this point, but if this the case (Origin the client named to EA Play) the merge will still likely be needed. --Masem (t) 17:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON articles

Hi everyone! If I remember correctly, we avoid creating articles for video games which were just announced. I have redirected Everwild and Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League today because we still don't know what the heck Everwild is and the Suicide Squad game has not been officially revealed. @Dream Focus: reverted both of my edit, saying that they have " significant coverage in reliable sources". Bringing the articles to AfD doesen't sound like a good idea, because they are notable, the only issue is that both articles were created too soon. So I wonder, what would be the proper solution here? I also wonder if it would be better for us to have a guideline as to when an article should get created. For instance, film articles were incubated in drafts before they head into production. OceanHok (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for both are 100% correct. We need more that a simple announcment to have a standalone. --Masem (t) 17:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Everwild should probably be redirected since we know virtually nothing about it except that it's Rare's next project. I think the Suicide Squad one can probably stay; that DC FanDome thing is only in like a week, so we'll learn more about it quickly and a standalone article will be more than warranted once the event's done. JOEBRO64 17:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) These upcoming game articles always look the same. A bunch of reliable sources cover an announcement or trailer and the article is built around whatever the sources glimpsed from it. I do not consider this to pass GNG, since all sources are just using the same primary announcement/PR source. Yes, I would call it too TOOSOON. More often than not such an article would get deleted in an AfD after an explanation of how the otherwise reliable sources do not actually represent significant coverage. That said, it's very rare that these high profile games turn out to not be notable after release, so most of the time AfDing them is a waste of time. But it seems sensible to draftify them and I would support a proposal to keep games as drafts if their only coverage is based on announcements and trailers and no actual hands-on coverage. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Check how many views they get. A lot of people come to Wikipedia looking for information about them. If they pass the general notability guidelines, they deserve an article. You can't go deleting/redirecting without a valid reason. Dream Focus 17:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Views has nothing to do with GNG. Are you not reading the messages left by others? Reasons are very clearly being stated, with TOOSOON being the primary one along with the argument is that basic announcements do not represent significant in-depth SECONDARY coverage. -- ferret (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Lot of people go there, AND it passes the general notability guidelines. And did you click on the references to see if it was significant coverage or not? Too soon is just an essay, a personal opinion of someone, not a guideline or policy. Dream Focus 18:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Which is why I asked if you clicked on the references. I believe they are significant coverage, if you disagree send it to AFD and form a proper consensus. Dream Focus 18:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder what readers would get from these half-baked articles. Everwild gameplay section is WP:OR (that's what you see in a cinematic trailer, not indicative of how the game actually plays), and the Suicide Squad page is filled with wild speculations about how the game will play. I would rather have these articles axed, so that editors can start from scratch when we actually learn more. OceanHok (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It has a reference to a reliable source describing what they saw in the trailer. This is the same as a reliable source describing what they saw in a game they played. It is not original research if every statement made is in a reference to reliable source saying it. Dream Focus 18:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Putting what RS described in the cinematic trailer in the gameplay section is original research. It was you who draw this association between the actual gameplay and the cinematic trailer. OceanHok (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (ec)But they don't. We don't have significant coverage. We have name drops that they exist and are being developed, and in the case of Everwild, some first impressions on announce teasers, which may or may not represent final gameplay. We absolutely should document what we can at Rare (company) and make sure that a Redirect gets them to the right section as a search them, but a standalone makes no sense with as little as we know. And no, AFD is not the right place to argue that out, no one is asking for deletion. --Masem (t) 18:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I fully agreed with what Masem said here. Deletion/red links are not what we want here. This discussion here is a proper process that can establish a consensus. You don't need to abuse the AfD process just to get a consensus about something. Draftifying them, as mentioned by Hellknowz, is a good idea, but I think we need a clear guideline as to when these drafts can be moved to the mainspace. OceanHok (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
        • You don't want to use the proper AfD process because you know you couldn't get consensus to delete a perfectly valid article that meets the general notability guidelines. With thousands of people having visited the article for information, any information is better than none at all. Dream Focus 18:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
          • WP:PEREN#Rename AFD - AFD is not "Articles for discussion". We do not use it to discuss redirects or merges, those are worked out at talk pages, AFD is only used if the nominator wants to delete the topic (though if the !votes end up supporting a redirect or merge that is acceptable). These are perfectly fine as redirects and once more details are known, they can be expanded as articles so I care little about deletion, so no, I would not touch AFD for this. --Masem (t) 18:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
          • The information is not gone. What's in Everwild you can find it in Rare (company), presented in a more concise manner. Don't assume our readers can't read. OceanHok (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
            • It doesn't say anything about the game other than it was announced. So yes, the information is gone, not "presented in a more concise manner". There is nothing to read about it. Dream Focus 18:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
              • What other information is needed that we actually know and that is encyclopedically relevant? We know its an action-adventure game, and coming to Xbox platform, and set in a fantasy world, and it was announced in 2019. Everything else is speculation based on announcement teasers which everyone knows should be taken with several grains of salt. Further, WP is not required to be the last step that people go to for information, which is what you seem to be pleading for. We're a tertiary source, to give enough information that if people want to find more they know where to look, and that's what the redirect and content in Rare's article does. --Masem (t) 18:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Its completely valid to boldly redirect/merge short articles with little to no content. I can’t believe WP:BOLD has to be explained to an experienced editor. Or that page views have no importance on merging/redirecting/keeping articles. You’re free to your own editing preferences, in the same way anyone is allowed to prefer keeping it deleting articles, using “citation needed” tags versus deleting unsourced content, etc etc. But you’re objectively wrong in stating that boldly redirect/merge/whatever actions are not acceptable. They are. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree. AFD is for deletion and no one is arguing for deletion. This is the correct venue for the merge/rd discussion. WP:TIND. Readers will not revolt and never come back to Wikipedia if they don't find a large essay describing all the minutia of a newly announced video game's trailer. We as editors have to use our best judgment about source quality and significance to separate the hype from the facts. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I concur as well there is nothing wrong with the project being the place to discuss a merge/redirect proposal. Taking it to AFD might as well be forumshopping for the desired result, and if every merge/redirect discussion had to go to AFD, I can only imagine the backlog horror there would be. The advantage the project page has is at least there is a higher volume of interested editors here than AFD or the article talk page, and they’re still not WP:INVOLVED. Red Phoenix talk 20:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, boldly redirecting is completely fine and is not AfD. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Tomb Raider

Hi. This is a request for help. I've recently completed an overhaul of most of the article for the original Tomb Raider. All that's left to do now is the reception section, but I've really burnt myself out on the rest of it through source searching and the like. I'd be grateful if someone else could do a tidy-up and/or rewrite of the reception and sales. These really aren't my forte, but I want to get Tomb Raider up to GA status given its status within the project. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi ProtoDrake, I went of the reception section just now, it looks pretty good to me. I rewrote some bits and removed one claim about fans complaining, but that's it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick thoughts on a possible deletion candidate

Doing a navbox cleanup and came to List of video games in development. Its been at AFD before but in 2009. It feels like a list just to have list and will always keep changing, and thus not the type of thing appropriate to WP. Was going to send to AFD but want a quick check to see if there's any valid reasons here before doing so. --Masem (t) 22:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just send this to AfD. I really see no point in having an article like this, considering it is something that is and always will be changing. These kind of lists are not helpful and pointless. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Spin "List of vaporware" out and send the main list to AFD. The Vaporware list deserves its own discussion if we want to keep it. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This one rounds out the list of years articles and serves as a nice home for listing games that might otherwise have TOOSOON articles. It does change regularly but that isn't a deletion criterion. --Izno (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I see where that falls into play. Its an odd title but I see where it fits with like 2020 in video games and so on, the catchall for games without firm year release dates. I'd still take out that "vaporware" section though. --Masem (t) 01:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Not really sure about that, but list of vaporware#Video games also exists, so at a minimum there should be one list. (And ofc vaporware and development hell and I think maybe another list for the hell article?) I might be persuaded it should live in the vaporware list article, but there should be a pointer then from the development article. --Izno (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This page also serves as the framework for articles like 2021 in video gaming, 2022 and so on, so it has a very practical purpose as well. I am against deleting it. OceanHok (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that list at the bottom is "vaporware" as determined by WP editors, it appears, otherwise OR (the rest of the page is fine) The list of vaporware page is sourced examples, but we cannot just call a game vaporware just because no news is there after 4-5 years. --Masem (t) 05:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe just reframe the name then. "Unknown status" or similar. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I have renamed it, and reworked that section's intro to avoid the suggestion that we're calling them vaporware (but fair to say they could trend towards vaporware. And I bet some of those like Agent could be moved off to the list of Vaporware proper).
I am wondering if there's better way to make sure that page is linked to the other YYYY in video game pages, or at least into the section on those pages about game releases. The main navbox at the top is a generic one for any "topic by year" that's not very customizable, so I'm wondering if a separate navbox just at the game release table would help to provide a jump to this specific list page. (I note that there's a newish editor at the 2020 in video games that seems to think this are only video game release schedules which is not correct...) --Masem (t) 16:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The list already has a navbox and its location in the navbox is basically as expected...? Not sure what you're envisioning. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I meant the top navbox on pages like 2020 in video games. --Masem (t) 19:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I don't know why we're (red)linking to articles 5-10 years from now. We should limit this navigation to only the next calendar year and put "in development" following that. So going by that, it would have 2020, link to 2021, and then link to this article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
That's the problem with that top navbox template is that it's standard across multiple fields and works the same way. See for example 2020 in film, 2020 in baseball, etc. The standard template is doing that, not our project. --Masem (t) 22:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Seeing as how we typically redirect "YYYY in video games" to the relevant section in the "in development" article before it's spun out into its own year article, can we not just put that top navbox in the "in development" article as is?--AlexandraIDV 11:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Go Nagai

I created the article for Akira Fudo. While I think the reception is enough to pass notability I haven't found too much about creation. I happened to find this Go Nagai interview when googling and it seems he talks a lot about the manga, which might lead to more stuff about Akira. Sadly, it's all in Japanese even with captions on. Is there an editor with Japanese knowledge and might check the video? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know how this relates to video games, maybe ask the anime wikiproject? I know only very little Japanese and likely won't be able to translate it, so sadly I don't think I can provide much help. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet another history break-out forthcoming, but checking before doing so...

As part of the rather deep hole I got myself into in trying to reorg the console game history, I recently took the someone incomplete history that was in arcade game and expanded into History of arcade games (this all eventually to get to History of video games to be much cleaner and use summary style. Now before going on I want to ping @Indrian: for help on correcting a lot of inconsistencies and problems from what was there already and what sources were coming along with. This can use improvement particularly post 1983 , but the structure I think is there to make it obvious to help. One thing I'd like to see added is a more detailed market analysis if we can, but that's one of those things I've seen only bits and pieces of. However, that's neither here nor there.

What this was leading to was the next logical article we don't have "History of (computer) games" - (and also eventually "History of mobile games" but that's a far later project). But before I dig in on this, I'm seeing some problems to get out the way first. First, to establish details, we have Early mainframe games and also the current history section in PC game which leaves much to be desired.

  • This would be games on computers - not arcade, not console, not portable, not mobile, but on the PC and(?) mainframe based ones maybe?? It's the logical flowout when you look at the BASIC language as the key transfer step from mainframe to PC. It doesn't feel right to distinguish between what happened on PC and mainframe systems at least through the 1980s, but that's why I pose this question is to see there's any good reason to keep these separated. If there is, that makes the article title easy - "History of personal computer games" vs "History of mainframe games" or something like that, but if we are keeping them together, I'm worried that "History of computer games" may be taken as "video games" too
  • I have no plans to touch Early mainframe games since that seems to set the stage for more advanced game applications that would appear in the mid 1970s as computers became more ubiquitous (just as Early history of video games serves to lead into console and arcade games). But I'm making sure this makes sense.
  • And before I dig into more, does anyone know of any other possible history articles we may have specifically on computer game history that are poorly linked (eg not coming up in cats or linked to these)? --Masem (t) 01:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it makes sense to combine PC/mainframe games in the 80s- the "early mainframe games" article stops where it does for exactly that reason, the difference between a PC game running locally and a multiplayer game running on a central mainframe that your terminal is connected to is blurry, especially when both are written in the same languages. The switchover between the two is mostly around the actual availability of PCs with networking vs terminals, so you see a swap between timesharing systems like PLATO and DTSS to BBSs but without a sharp divide between the games themselves. If you do a history of computer games article, you'll see the same problem as you approach today where in a lot of genres there's not much difference beyond input schemas between computer games and console games, and certainly nothing like it was in the late 80s/early 90s. --PresN 16:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That's basically my logic there too. I'm trying to plot this out before jumping into it but my logic on this, but BASIC language is definitely where I think "computer games" start , if we use that definition. And yeah, what I have to figure out is the transition better from "shareware" to massive commercial successes in PC games in the 90s, the Epics and id's and other companies in that range. I already have actually sources on "confluence" of consoles and computers around the 6th generation (eg Xbox OG basically), at which point, the rest sorta becomes "easy". But that's why I'm looking at tackling this because all these histories are so tied together its hard to not write one and make sure the others are up to speed as well. --Masem (t) 17:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Also probably worthwhile to point out that all WP editors that are autoconfirmed (I Think) have access to the WP Library Card Platform, giving you free access to a number of great scholarly docs that have been helpful for me for this. [3]. May not help with any individual game, but for broader topics like this...--Masem (t) 17:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You'll need to be careful about the shareware thing; yeah, it was a successful sales strategy for a few companies, especially Epic/id, but there was a successful commercial publishing industry already there and most other shareware companies didn't last long. Epic in particular was successful less on numbers vs what "regular" commercial games sold and more on not losing most of the revenue to a publisher/retailer. Even id's numbers need to be in context, because Doom was a ridiculous success- Wolfenstein 3D was the highest-selling shareware game of 1992 with 200,000 copies, but that same year the regular-published Ultima Underworld sold 500,000, and even that was small compared to what the big console game successes were doing. Most shareware games did nowhere near even 100k.
  • What shareware did was allow for tiny operations that we might now call indie devs that previously made small games for free on BBSs or floppy-disk compilations with appeals for tips to have an actual self-publishing (or small-publisher like Apogee) channel. Commercial publishing was hard to break into without a reputation, while shareware allowed for the game('s part 1) to build a reputation. This got crucial around then as computer games got big enough to move into general retail stores like Walmart or whatever- unlike computer hobby stores, they only had so much shelf space available for games even though they sold much more copies, so there wasn't enough room on the shelves for a hundred small publishers with a handful of indie devs each, so the publishers consolidated into big companies with fewer, higher-quality titles and it became even harder for a small dev to get a regular publisher.
  • Shareware itself didn't last that long- as games got more complicated than a tiny dev team could make (as this was long before the rise of cheaper commercial-grade engines like Unity) it became untenable for indie shops to make a shareware game for cheap enough that people actually wanted to buy instead of going to Walmart. By the end of the 90s, all of the "indie" successes tended to be around 20 people instead of 3, and got published/funded by a major publisher even if they developed the game in a converted warehouse because that was the only way to make it work. It wasn't until the rise of cheap game engines and more importantly unlimited-option sales channels like Steam or dedicated indie digital sales platforms that solo-dev or small-team games were commercially viable again. --PresN 19:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Two more potential Good Topics

The Perfect Dark series, like the Banjo-Kazooie series, has all of it's games, alongside Rare Replay as either good articles or featured articles, leaving its series article and Joanna's article as the only ones missing. The Sonic games on the Sega Genesis might also qualify as well.(Oinkers42) (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Perfect Dark has also media list. --Mika1h (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

American Truck Simulator map

Hi everyone,

Map of currently released, and confirmed states

Quick question, who here thinks it is necessary to put a selfmade map that shows in which U.S. States the game American Truck Simulator is set? I certainly don't, but Fanx thinks differently. I don't have time to into a discussion, so I just asked it here. And I'm pretty sure that people will agree. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I read somewhere a while ago that the plans for that game is to eventually release DLC for all 48 lower states so that one can "drive" across the full US (albeit in these reduced maps). If that's how I remember it, I can see that map actually being useful to that end. --Masem (t) 06:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Masem, if that's the case, I think it would make even less sense of having a map if the goal is the entire continental United States. An image, just to show what the continental United States is? And what I said below, it's been over four years and they're up to eight states, with the ninth coming up. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
While your geographical knowledge of the US lower 48 may be beyond reproach Soetermans I doubt that's the case for everyone that may be interested. I also bothered to check on other ATS wikipages, and there's a wide variety of other info, including a similar (png) map on the Spanish page. Your heavy-handed use of such terms as "who here thinks" and "I'm pretty sure that people will agree" and claiming that I "Think differently" are nothing but base logical fallacies that have no place within Wikipedia. I'll take "Think differently" as the compliment I don't think you intended. Your usage of "selfmade" as though it was a slur is also telling. SVG is open source, and is widely used on all wiki projects, so try to keep your non-NPOV attitude in check. Also, I believe this is entirely the wrong talkpage for this discussion; could it be that you're trying to avoid scrutiny where it actually matters? The file is an SVG, so is easily edited ... I wonder if you actually bothered to examine the source code that allows anyone to update it as and when that may be necessary. FanRed XN | talk 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Cool your jets, Fanx. My edit was done in good faith, you reverted it and I started this discussion because I don't have the time to engage in a discussion on the talk page. Don't take it personal that I don't think an image you made isn't necessary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Soetermans. Really, what purpose is this supposed to serve? I can understand using a map for a game if sources/the text calls for one and it's necessary to understand the game, but a map of the United States for this random truck simulator game? No way. This map should not be included in the article because it does not provide any help for the reader (who I'm pretty sure knows what the U.S. looks like?) I'm also appalled by this user's attitude and attempts to police people here; don't just assume bad faith because somebody doesn't like your edit. Come on. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 14:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Also chiming in to agree with the above. I'd call this WP:GAMECRUFT unless it's something widely covered in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the map is not too bad, because it mentions the release dates of each update (is it presented in MM-YY?). If they really realize their vision (all US states), these release dates, if written in prose or presented as a table, would probably be a complete nightmare. Even if the release dates are excluded, it still gives me a rough idea about the game's content and scope. It can also be used to differentiate what's in the base game and what's added through post-launch updates to highlight how much the game has changed as well. OceanHok (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
That's kind of crystal balling it, OceanHok, if they realize their vision. They're up to eight out of 48 states. Nothing that can't be explained in text right now or in a neat collapsible table if somehow 20 states are added next week. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
As stated above, this map has obvious value in describing to the user when each state got added in a quick visual form. It would just be ugly to try and represent it all in prose, especially if they keep expanding it. On a sidenote, the article could also benefit from some more images other than just the boxart.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Again, if they keep adding it. The game was released in February 2016 and they're up to eight states, with number nine to be announced. California, Nevada and Arizona are in the base game, the rest is paid DLC. That is a visual presentation of WP:CATALOG and WP:GAMECRUFT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This doesn’t strike me as encyclopedic. Strikes me more as gameguide material you’d submit to Gamefaqs or something. I think it should be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This seems like an elaborate way to present a WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:CHANGELOG list of in-game "maps" with release dates, which is the sort of standard trivia we don't include. There is no need to list every US state the game has a "map" for, nor every release date for every such "map". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
A table would present this more clearly if the goal is to tell the user which states were released on which dates. For a US-familiar person, the map may be useful for a very simple snapshot of "These states are in the game." For conveying any further information, such as the order of release, the image fails to do this in a simple clear way. You can't sort it, you have to visually compare dates between states looking for the earlier date, and it does not wikilink to the states in question, which I would expect a table to do. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I will add another factor is how well these can be sourced. I know I read (probably Dtoid or RPS) about the game's plans and initial DLC years back but I don't know if third-parties are tracking it now or not. Unlike, say, the updates to No Man's Sky which get noted in nearly all major websites when they happen and thus brief documenting make sense, if these aren't then this is overkill, though a brief list of what states have been done would be fine. But if there has been third-party attention, then there may be something to that. --Masem (t) 15:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Soetermans, I will always assume good faith, until it is blatantly demonstrated otherwise, and if you "don't have time to engage" on the talk page yet seemly have no problem finding the same time to discuss here then that rationale isn't supportable. I'm not "taking it personal" that you removed the image, I'm taking offence in the way you did so - including what I clearly see as your bad faith comments here. SCS (the title's developer/publisher) has stated that the current global health crisis may delay their planned & announced release, that they have two further DLCs in production, and researched two year's worth of releases. (See CEO Pavel Šebor's comments during the Idaho release stream). There's no evidence beyond fans' wishful thinking and WP:Crystalballing, that the game will eventually cover the whole of the lower 48, so any argument based on what may or may not happen in ten or more years holds no merit.
How is it Namcokid47 that you're prepared to give Soetermans a free pass on his WP:Weaselling, yet when I point to this I'm somehow WP:Lawyering? And while I hopefully have your attention, how acceptable do you think your removing a file while it is under discussion is? Would you also claim I'm 'lawyering' if I were to suggest that that action may just be assumed as a bad faith edit? Again, I don't assume bad faith because I may not like an edit, it's the actions around that edit, and/or the naked attempts to justify those actions that I take issue with.
OceanHok & Megaman en m, I agree that the date format isn't ISO 8601 compliant, it's an ugly fix to get around 'overflowing' the borders of narrower Eastern States with text - it's quite fixable, I'm sure. Also agree that as the game develops (10th & 11th states have been all but named) prose versions would be unwieldy, and tabular versions seem to fill with extra material such as lists of locations and/or industries etc. ... and that more images in a rather sparse article would be a benefit.
Soetermans, the 9th state was announced in March this year, it's just a release date that is still "TBA". Currently there are two further (as yet unnamed) states that are slated for future release.
Hellknowz, this is exactly the sort of (non)"trivia" that is included in practically every game that uses a similar major DLC model, in many cases having a separate section for each DLC, or even an entire wiki article. Your claim that this "is the sort of standard trivia we don't include" is entirely without merit.
Ferret, this example would suggest that wikilinking is not an insurmountable issue.
Masem, I'm not sure what your point is in sourcing; all of SCS's release announcements are readily source-able on SCS controlled sites, in Steam, and on any number of third party sites, and can be referenced or footnoted or elaborated elsewhere as is standard practice. I don't see a difference in that respect between this title and No Man's Sky ... or any other game you choose to refer to. FanRed XN | talk 19:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Just as a side note, if you're gonna write a massive wall of paragraphs to vent about other users, you could at least ping them properly. I didn't get any kind of notification about this until I manually checked this page on my watchlist and found out myself. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Fixed pinging, thanks for the pointer. For clarification, just how is answering each point in this topic 'venting' - surely the whole point of a talk page is to actually address the matter in hand? Gaslighting, bad-faithing, trolling, abusing, lawyering, & whining, as well as 'venting' have no place here. Equally, I'm not sure why you think "a massive wall of paragraphs" is an issue - either I address the points raised, or I don't ... which is more in the wiki-spirit? FanRed XN | talk 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
When I say third-party, I mean on news sites like PC Gamer, Destructoid, Eurogamer, etc. SCS's own announcemnts don't count, and the Steam announcements are triggered by SCS's. --Masem (t) 00:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
To expound on this, WP:NOTCHANGELOG requires secondary coverage of patch notes and change logs. -- ferret (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Plenty of reliable sources have covered each expansion, including RPS, Eurogamer, PC Gamer. But, to be fair, none of those were in the article, so it doesn't exactly show off its notability up front. – Rhain ☔ 01:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
So at least to me, that tells me that it fair to have a text run down of each state DLC release with date using the third-party source. We're not talking Sims 4 expansions (oh god, I just stumbled onto that mess over there), and if/when that gets too long in prose this can be converted to even a simple column list (state - date w/ ref). --Masem (t) 15:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The Sims 4 mess is AFTER I removed a ton of it already... -- ferret (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've removed the map from the article, the third person to do so. Per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD, it shouldn't be added back until it's well sourced—and that means with reliable, third-party sources—and a consensus develops that it's an improvement to the article. Fanx, I'll politely note that you're not coming across well here. I suggest that you take a breath and read through everything again because you're not actually addressing the issues that others have with this map. Woodroar (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have addressed EVERY issue raised, and your obvious gaslighting claim is not supported by my clearly addressing of those issues above. Status Quo was with my edit, until & because someone decided a drive-by edit was appropriate, and failed to support that edit in the appropriate place. When someone is not prepared to defend or discuss their edit appropriate place how are we to discern that it's not just inappropriate vandalism? Once that editor has admitted their intention that should have been the end of it, and now this has devolved into an entirely different topic than was originally intended. Now that it's about an abuse of process, in that as admitted, the original editor has successfully circumvented discussion in the appropriate place in the hope of receiving a more sympathetic hearing here. Clearly that's worked, because all I've got here is abuse, disingenuous nonsense, transparent gaslighting, and semi co-ordinated edit-warring. Woodroar I'll politely note that you too are appearing to be complicit in this abuse of process, and that I'm not particularly amused by your gaslighting - or anyone else's for that matter. FYI, this comment from Soetermans that you so willingly overlook, "I don't have time to into a discussion, so I just asked it here" is a blatant abuse of standard procedure, because it shows intent to dodge any discussion in the appropriate place. Please deal with the points as they are instead joining in on the clubby clubbing of any point you don't care to address. And take this discussion to the appropriate place! You do realise that there actually is an appropriate place, don't you? BTW nowhere does it say that Wikipedia is a popularity contest so you may like to scale back on that sort of attack, and the fact that I've not taken you up on your suggestion to "take a breath" in no way invalidates a single point I've made. Apologies if my ability to adequately (if verbosely) express myself has left anyone else gasping for air. Did I forget to mention the appropriate place? FanRed XN | talk 23:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Calm down. No one is gaslighting you. Your misuse of the term dilutes its meaning, so stop. You’ve just got the venue wrong - this isn’t Wikipedia material. It’s not encyclopedic. Open up a Britanica. You won’t find crap like this. Sit down and calm down. Go submit this crap to Gamefaqs, not here. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
What the are you talking about, Fanx? "Status Quo was with my edit, until & because someone decided a drive-by edit was appropriate"? As you can see in its history, my first edit was on July 12, with another on August 3, so I've edited the article before. You added the map on August 15, I removed it later that day. So the "status quo" was with your approval of that version of the article? Don't try to make it sound as if the map was up there for months and that there was some tacit consensus. What does it matter where the discussion is held? I posted it here. We're discussing it here. WP:DROPTHESTICK about the "appropriate place". It's clear where most editors stand: there's no need for the map. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, Fanx, trying to argue the issue using fabricated procedural issues and baseless accusations of bad faith doesn't help your case. Moreover, it establishes a negative relationship with your fellow editors, which can make it difficult for you to get help with other matters down the line; I know I wouldn't be eager to help out an editor who tells baldfaced lies about an article's Status Quo in the apparent belief that everyone at Wikiproject Video Games is too gullible to check the article history.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, that sorted itself out. All because of... a map in American Truck Simulator. And WP:VG is a secret portal to 4chan, who knew? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
So a trivial map in an article lead to a massive discussion, personal attacks towards other editors, "there's a special place in my personal hell for you", and eventually somebody getting a 48 hour block. I'm at a loss for words. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Move along from the conduct issues if you (general) would. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to gloat. I really don't want stuff like this to go down with any editor, let alone an experienced editor like Fanx. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources for 'There Is No Game'

Do we think 'There Is No Game' has enough sources for an article? Here's what I can find:

Vetted reliable sources by WP:VG

Other promising articles

Non-notable sources for additional context

--Coin945 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The number of obviously unreliable or primary sources mixed in this is alarming. Ruwiki, really? Twitter? Wordpress sites? Newground? Press releases? I suspect the game is on the very edge of meeting GNG, but if I removed all the unusable sources above more than half would disappear. -- ferret (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The list was edited substantially after my comment. -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Gameguides and press releases generally don’t help towards notability either. Sergecross73 msg me 11:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Pocket Gamer and RockPaperShotgun are reliable per WP:VG/S and very detailed coverage. Both very good for notability. PCGamer is reliable/usable too, but the relevant part of it is pretty short. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
You missed JeuxVideo. Also a reliable source. Because of that fairly indepth review, I think this squeaks by notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I also want to chime in and say that both MeriStation and Vandal are reliable sources as well. I've used them for some articles and they're owned by other companies respectively. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (August 10 to August 16)

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 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

August 10

August 11

August 12

August 13

August 14

August 15

August 16

Champion (League of Legends) needs discussion, but I'm burned out on that particular spree of fancruft pushing. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
C'mon Ferret, it'll be a blast, discussing this. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how I feel about all those eSports templates. All of them have almost no actual links, so they're useless for readers wanting to find other articles. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
A lot of them are transcluded on a single article as well. Certainly we should subst and delete those at the very least. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The concept of Systemic game certainly has its value, but I'm not sure if it deserves its own article already. Shouldn't it be something like systemic game design? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have similar concerns to User:Soetermans. I vaguely remember going through a discussion around physics-based games a long time ago. Aren't there thousands of wildly different games that all make strong use of a physics engine? By the same token -- aren't all games built out of systems? This is a good candidate for a redirect. Maybe emergent gameplay. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a worthwhile redirect to emergent gameplay. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Upcoming Netflix series

There's a new Netflix 6-episode documentary called "High Score" that will hit in a few days. Going off what Ars Technica says about it [4] it will capture a lot of classic game development moments (arcade, console, and PC), but nothing that hasn't been done before and maybe not with the depth seen (if you have seen ArsTech War Stories series, that's in-depth, for comparison) That is, sight unseen here, it should be good to note games this docu covers, as points that we should have good coverage on already here, and if not, those are games that we should be able to focus on more by digging into sources that should exist beyond the documentary. --Masem (t) 11:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I know that Naoto Ohshima and Hirokazu Yasuhara will be talking about the creation of Sonic on it, so there may be some new wrinkles we've never heard. JOEBRO64 11:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

High Score (TV series) is notable enough for an article, and you guys should write one! I'd add it to the requests, but I'm certain enough that it's something VG or TV will get around to without adding to the list. - hahnchen 14:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There's at least three current "reviews" (ArsTech, GameSpot, and AV Club), and when the show goes live on the 19th, there should be more. I have not looked for any dev history, but yes, we should have some "project ownership" of it. I might start it in a bit here. --Masem (t) 14:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
And High Score (TV series) created. --Masem (t) 16:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm noting what's in this series as I go through, and for the most part, our pages have 90% of the info already captured in the series. But I've added a couple article requests of topics that we probably should have based on this series that I've checked that expansion is possible. --Masem (t) 20:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X-2 FAR

I have nominated Final Fantasy X-2 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 04:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mother Good Topic

Just noticed Mother series Good Topic doesn't include the character articles Ness (EarthBound) and Giygas. All other articles seem to be included. Apparently the topic was promoted in 2015 but Ness article was restored from a redirect in 2019. I think the topic should be renamed to "Mother titles" similar to Chrono titles topic. --Mika1h (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, probably- I don't think the FT project has a process for renames, though GamerPro64 would know. --PresN 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The Chrono Titles topic only covers the games while the Mother Topic covers things like the series' fandom. They are pretty different with their topics so I don't think the Mother series should be changed. GamerPro64 20:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
For future reference, what is the preferred process for FT/GT renames? For simple renames, is it Requested Move? What about for rescoping/refining the name without adding or removing any members of the FT? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
After all these years I have never been asked about renames. This might need to be discussed more at the actual Featured Topics talk pages. GamerPro64 03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of the Chrono topic, isn't it just one article away from being able to include everything Chrono-related? Would just need to bring the Characters article to GA, right? Although I do plan on making articles for Frog, Robo, Magus, and Crono... - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Necessary cats

In the spirit of things like

Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:Lists of number-one albums in Ireland

How about creating Category:Number-one video games in the UK or Category:Number-one video games in Japan?

All such games are readily sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.201.75 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Video games do not have any formal "number-one" type naming thing; yes, we know organizations track sales but they don't do things like certify them as top sellers or the like that Billboard does, so we can't do this. --Masem (t) 13:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, as someone who works in both areas, for whatever reason, the music industry values “number ones” more than other industries. It’s more of a noteworthy thing in that industry. Not sure we especially need it in video games. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
We definitely don't need it. Pretty much any new release of an anticipation game is going to hit number-one on some list. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be a focus from where I'm standing. Right now, the headline on one of the biggest newspapers in the UK is "EA Sports UFC 4 fights its way to UK number one - Games charts 15 August"[5] and in Japanese coverage you have "Animal Crossing: New Horizons moves an additional 214,070 copies."[6]. Same with European coverage.[7][8] same for USA/Canada.[9] In all five of these publications, the number one game is ALWAYS the headline. It's just the way this subject matter is covered every week.
It's actually very similar to movie box office articles, The Times Book bestseller lists etc. I'm just wondering why you want to treat games differently to all other consumer media. It would be interesting to know in which countries a game had been successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.201.75 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hei$t

So I have restored/expanded a formerly redirected article about a cancelled video game. Now, I wanted to discuss the title of the article itself because of the "$" sign. MOS:TMRULES says "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name". Almost all references cover and refer to the game with a special character as "Hei$t", rather than just "Heist", which means it could stay by that title then (also WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS from Heist). Any opinions on this? Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The closest equivalent would probably be Ke$ha, which has had consensus to stay at Kesha for the longest time. Same with Korn and their backwards R. I’m generally a big proponent of spelling words like...real words...so I’d favor “Heist” (and whatever dab would be necessary.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
+1 Sergecross, keep it vanilla in prose and titles. Popcornfud (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Done! Thanks Sergecross73 and Popcornfud! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting acronyms, stylings, cover art, VG/LEAD and footnotes

Hi everyone,

The other day Masem reinstated NOLF as an acronym for The Operative: No One Lives Forever, writing "NOLF as an abbreviation for this game is rather common in RSes". True, NOLF is used a lot. Before that, Rhain put ("stylized as ADR1FT) back in Adrift, saying "This is standard procedure per MOS:TMSTYLE". That's also true! (small Tenacious D reference right there.) And while I see the acronym THUG used for Tony Hawk's Underground in RS'es, a couple of days ago, I removed "(sometimes abbreviated as THUG). Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

I checked WP:VG/LEAD, but it isn't really clear how to handle this. It reads:

Avoid "commonly known as" and "stylized as", unless the point of abbreviation or stylization has been made by a preponderance of reliable, independent, secondary sources. Wikipedia maintains a formal tone and, like newspapers and magazines outside the gamer niche, uses brief phrases instead of abbreviations. E.g., Ocarina of Time, not OoT, and Global Offensive, not CS:GO.

Fun fact: Dissident93 added CS:GO to WP:VG/MOS, but Counter-Strike: Global Offensive mentions that in the lead! Thankfully, LoZ: OoT isn't in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time's article. I've come across some other instances, like Heroes of Newerth with HoN and League of Legends mentions LoL. Other established acronyms aren't used. GTA is a very common acronym, but that isn't mentioned in the article body Grand Theft Auto V (only as in "Rockstar offered a GTA$500,000 (in-game currency) stimulus..."). The references however do use it plenty, also in the articles' titles.

My suggestion for a solution for this discrepancy is that we start using footnotes for acronyms, cover art styles (as is already used in Red Dead Redemption 2!) and for "also known as". It did a great job with those long Japanese titles (like Dragon Quest VIII: "Known in Japan as Dragon Quest VIII Sora to Umi to Daichi to Norowareshi Himegimi (ドラゴンクエストVIII 空と海と大地と呪われし姫君)") and can make the lead just a tad cleaner, while still mentioning frequently used acronyms and the like. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm generally against the inclusion of stylisations and abbreviations etc in articles. It simply isn't helpful to tell readers that Grand Theft Auto is commonly referred to as GTA - it's information purely for the sake of information that gets in the way of readable, useful, plain-English prose. Popcornfud (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather not see CS:GO, HoN, etc., but if we should include it, isn't this a good solution? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Soetermans, apologies for not responding to your suggestion directly. I would still vote against including the information at all, but I think I'm viewed by something as a crazed extremist by other editors for that opinion, so I think footnotes would be a good compromise. Better tidied away in a footnote than cluttering up the lead sentence. Popcornfud (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This feels like a proposal to adjust the MOS minorly, so needs to move to the talk page of MOS:VG. Any change to MOS must be discussed there, the project doesn't "own" it as a subpage any longer. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The reason to include commonly used abbreviations (this being like NOLF, CS:GO, WoW, LoL, etc. that are clearly mirrored in RSes) is that these are searchable terms, so that a user that searches on the abbreviation and lands on the game page will know why they landed there, as well as for users doing their own research to know what alternate terms to look for in searching. So this would really be inappropriate to bury to the footnote as with the styling or kanji stuff, as the reader needs to see them at the top of the page. --Masem (t) 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
But when is something commonly used enough? Take for example TLoU, which redirects to The Last of Us. IGN: "TLOU 2 Advanced Combat Tips", Eurogamer: "In the US it's reportedly the third-best-selling game of 2020, with Animal Crossing: New Horizons and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare still outpacing TLOU 2's sales.", Eurogamer: "It took the graphics-heavy horsepower PS4 and PS4 Pro to deliver a TLOU experience that eliminated the game's performance limitations.", GamesRadar: "How to give Ellie the upper hand with TLOU 2 tips and keep her alive", NY Times: "Thanks for the chat, my fellow gamer. Now go get to replaying TLOU2 again! You know you want to." LoL redirects to League of Legends, but HoN doesn't redirect to Heroes of Newerth. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The relative overall guidance WP-wide here is MOS:LEADALT. "Common abbreviations" are considered alternative titles that should be included in the opening sentence, but I agree what we need is a very hard line as to what is a "common abbreviation" when it comes to video games and related terms (eg conoles, etc). "The Last of Us" example is one that falls below the line I'd consider common, but GTA, COD, WoW are ones above it. I don't know how to define that bright line but a quick Google News check shows that if take the series title (like "Grand theft auto" and get search total on that, then do that + the abbreviation ("grand theft auto" + GTA) and get counts, and I'm seeing that latter case account for more that a few % of the hits of the first case, that's common enough as a first pass; that's a quick distinguishing test that eliminate "The Last of Us" (<1%) as well as "Super Mario Bros." (<1%) while keeping GTA (5%), WoW (2%), COD (10%). I'd also say this should only be the case for series w >3 games to their name (as to mark long-established ones) or to living games/mmos/etc with >5 years on the market to avoid flash-in-the-pan/WP:NEO-style abbreviations. But's a quickly-drawn line that can be fine tuned. --Masem (t) 16:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m generally of the same mindset of Popcornfud. They’re not necessary. Who are the idiots who can’t figure out that SMB stands for “Super Mario Bros” when on the topic of “Super Mario Bros”? I know there’s many concepts that we all would likely grasp or understand faster than your average non-gamers. Basic abbreviations of the English language is not one of them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
So we shouldn't use them at all? That's not what WP:VG/LEAD says right now. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Count me on the side of them not being necessary. While there might be an exception that proves the rule, they usually don't come up anywhere else as relevant in the article body, so putting them in the lead seems spurious, and they often just feel like trivia or biasing the Wikipedia away from a general encyclopedia. The number of people who think the most vital part of Halo: Combat Evolved to note after its name is that it's been retroactively called "Halo 1" boggles the mind. In that vein I'm find with modifying our LEAD guideline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
What about cover art styles, like with Adrift / Adr1ft and Heist / Hei$t, discussed right below? Do we need to mention that? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Just as with the inclusion of common abbreviations, MOS:LEDE actually tells use not to include this in the lede sentence. Footnoting is approiate. It's different for people like Kesha where Ke$ha can be a common stage name, but we're not say "Adr1ft" is a different name for "Adrift", its just how its stylized, so footnote that detail. --Masem (t) 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is about video game lists by platform, needing updates!

This is about video game lists by platform, at the bottom of the page of most video game lists, we have video game lists by platform, it needs updating if someone can help do it with me, also seeing as intellivision amico is also getting released, just updating it would be great thankyou everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 20:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (August 17 to August 23)

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 02:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

August 17

  • None

August 18

August 19

  • None

August 20

August 21

August 22

August 23

Unnecessary cats?

Hi everyone,

I noticed new user FelgerFan has been creating a couple of categories. I'm not sure if we need these.

Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this user is new here, given they've only been editing for about a week, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt they aren't aware of how Wikipedia policies regarding categories work (unless this is some kind of long-term abuse case that I'm unaware of). Regardless, I don't see the need for any of these, considering how most have such little scope and aren't in anyway useful for navigation. I'd send all of them to CfD. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily toss the fictional language one, because I can sorta see something somewhere (vague, I know) on the discussion of the use of fictional languages that require the player to either learn them as the game goes on (NMS, FF10), or that it is artistic or gameplay aspect that the player may never come to understand the language but must still come to learn to work with that and other cues (Ico) or simply a development thing that they went with something that sounds fictional because of tech/cost limitations (Okami). But it would be under "Video games with fictional languages" (I think?) --Masem (t) 16:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep but rename Category:Video games with underwater settings to Category:Video games set underwater. I believe that was the intention due to what the category contains. It is not just games with water levels, but games like Steel Diver and the Ecco the Dolphin series.(Oinkers42) (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
That should work since it will be more focused than any game with a water level. Also we should add BioShock and Shinsekai: Into the Depths.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, let's not have every Zelda game in that (Wind Waker, probably, but not like Ocarina of Time, just because of the dreaded water temple). --Masem (t) 17:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
With a lot of category maintenance, I think orphans, fictional language (rename to "Video games about fictional languages"), and brothers could potentially stay. As long as we are willing to ensure that it's really a *focus* of the game, e.g. Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, or Heaven's Vault for language (I think NMS might qualify for this category, but FFX would not). I can't think of a game *about* being an orphan... Basically my issue is that in order for these categories to work, we have to be extremely stringent about qualifies for it and that bar might be too high to populate a useful category. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, with brothers, you also would have Life is Strange 2 for sure as well (as well as A Way Out?), and you could argue TTG's The Walking Dead fit the orphan one, as an example. But yea, there should be clarity to how defining that cat should be and what bounds there are on it on the category page. --Masem (t) 20:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think A Way Out would fit; the characters aren’t brothers, like in A Tale of Two Sons. – Rhain ☔ 21:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Clementine doesn't know where her parents are, it's not established she became an orphan. That would be WP:OR. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've blocked as a suspected sockpuppet either of CensoredScribe or Musicby. Please feel free to clean to your hearts' collective content.--Izno (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. No wonder his editing pattern seemed familiar. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking about video games with fictional languages, and it could maybe work if it was games about a fictional language? I am not sure if there are that many, though. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Sethian. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Sethian doesn't have an article. Besides Heaven's Vault, I can't think of another game that is about a fictional language. And games with a fictional language can be pretty much anything. The Lylat gibberish in Star Fox 64/Lylat Wars, Hylian in The Legend of Zelda, Al Bhed in Final Fantasy X, Qunlat from Dragon Age... soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, well I'm planning to make it, so. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do not. We don't need more filler categories right now. Wait until there's some kind of consensus. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Huh? I meant that I'm planning to make the Sethian article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Except for the underwater one, I've CfD'ed the rest. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

CyberConnect2

Considering how many games they have developed so far, do you think it's possible to give CyberConnect2 its own template of games they developed? I'm not familiar with the handling of templates so I wanted to ask here. However, when it comes to developers, only Hiroshi Matsuyama has his own article. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Here you go: Template:CyberConnect2 --Mika1h (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Which brings up an interesting question. The article mentions work on Final Fantasy VII Remake, but they are not in the article infobox. Is it correct to tie them together more? I mean, if their work was used, wouldn't that make them part of development? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You are fast. CyberConnect2 did make a FFVII mobile game. They were meant to assist in the remake but Square later decided to work alone.Tintor2 (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
"CyberConnect2 was tasked with developing the Final Fantasy VII Remake, described in CyberConnect2's March 2015 Famitsu job advertisement as a photo-realistic role-playing game targeted at the international market being built using Unreal Engine 4 involving physically based rendering. In May 2017, it was announced that they had left the project due to unreasonable management from above, and Square Enix moved the remaining development of Final Fantasy VII Remake in-house. Following the release of the game in 2020, over half of the VII Remake's content was discovered to have been and credited as content developed by Cyberconnect2." Looks like it needs credit to me. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The last sentence is unsourced, added by an IP. I would say it's not clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright then. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The info should be removed unless a source is found since it should be extremely easy to find one in a case like this.--67.68.208.64 (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about "Nintendo Play Station" naming (Nintendo/Sony hybrid console prototype)

Hey there. I posted a question in Talk:Super NES CD-ROM#Is it "Nintendo PlayStation", "Nintendo Play Station", or "Play Station"? regarding the correct official name of the Nintendo/Sony SNES/CD-ROM prototype console. My understanding was that it was officially named "Play Station" (with a space), and Sony later named their exclusive console "PlayStation" (no space) to set it apart from the failed prototype. But I see inconsistency both on Wikipedia and in some of the sources we cite from on the topic. Was wondering if anyone could shed some light on this. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Heads up for possible industry-level article that could see more coverage

I know not too many editors are into the more "industry" type of articles here but it looks like more attention is being drawn to Brazil as its VG sector (more as consumers) so far grows - the Switch is about to be released there for example, so our Video games in Brazil article may see some help [10]. --Masem (t) 13:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Small source news heads up

Wired looks like they will be putting in more resources to game coverage [11] though more into the larger social issues around it. It's already an RS but just if you don't watch them already, just a useful one to add. --Masem (t) 20:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice to hear, when it’s generally the opposite, with big sites scaling back or shutting down, in recent years. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Electronic Gaming Monthly review index

I don't know if anybody has seen this already but a former Electronic Gamin Monthly editor (Greg Sewart) compiled all of the magazine's game reviews up until issue 160 years ago. I saw this on Jeremy Parish's Twitter feed not too long. I hope this is useful for everybody: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wUroHLnLRJIcGSzsXM7CiI6hMmMjULLW/view Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a very good resource, and I wonder if it would be possible to copy it over to the WPVG project space, to guarantee that it is available to us long-term.--AlexandraIDV 22:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for this Roberth!--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Always glad to help! Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Website of a former Alpha Denshi (ADK) employee

I recently noticed via Game Developer Research Institute's Twitter feed that there's a website by a former Alpha Denshi member: http://t-8100.com/newpage4.html Though nothing special at first, there's some never before seen stuff such as concept artwork for some of their Neo Geo projects. I hope this serves of help to any ADK fan! Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks to just be promo art and nothing in the way of developer info or anything like that. I don't know how useful this will be for articles. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
To give you an example: here's concept art of Blue's Journey + its game design document: http://t-8100.com/raguy_08.html & http://t-8100.com/raguy_03.html & http://t-8100.com/raguy_09.html Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I also found the design work for Ninja Commando: http://t-8100.com/ninja-comando_02.html Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think outside of a pretty picture in the article will any of this be that useful. It doesn't really provide anything that could be incorporated in any ADK articles, since there isn't anything like developer information or how the game was designed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

CraveOnline has been renamed as Mandatory (company)

It's true. I discovered that I've been labeling CraveOnline for so long without knowing that it was renamed as Mandatory in March 2018. So, if you encounter any article that has the CraveOnline label, then I want you to change the article link from "CraveOnline" to "Mandatory", okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to do that; see WP:NOTBROKEN.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
And in some instances, it may even be counter-productive. It wouldn’t make sense to change a 2017 written Crave review to Mandatory when it wasn’t called that at the time of publication. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
But if I click on "CraveOnline", it always redirects to "Mandatory (company)". And I don't like redirects. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. That doesn't abide by policy. Just keep it as CraveOnline when necessary. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Good, that means things are as they should be, as long as the article describes the whole Crave/Mandatory situation. (Which it does, in its opening sentence.) You not liking redirect is irrelevant, that’s not how we handle things. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions on suitability of Forge (level editor) as a standalone article

Since the Halo wikiproject is pretty quiet, bringing this here for a more useful cross-section of comments. User:FlotillaFlotsam recently created this article, drawing from existing content in the various video game articles for a standalone article about the Halo franchise's Forge mode, however I don't think this meets notability. Flotsam's argument is that the sources that specifically talk about Forge in the context of the game's release demonstrate notability, but my viewpoint is that they aren't independent of the larger topic (the game) and given that there's no articles being written now about Forge on its own (outside the context of "this game is coming out with Forge") it doesn't meet GNG and is best left in the respective video game articles, or at most a short section in the Halo (franchise) article. Otherwise the threshold established would be that game modes present in multiple outings of a video game series (like CoD Zombies, Horde Mode) would merit their own articles. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked around and see nothing to really distinguish it from Halo 3 or the series itself. --Masem (t) 18:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
RE: "Flotsam's argument is that the sources that specifically talk about Forge in the context of the game's release demonstrate notability", several of the articles cited (and others that I hadn't yet gotten to integrating into the article) were written months or years after the game's release, and are divorced from any promotion cycle for their relevant game. They cover topics such as Forge's impact on console gaming as one of the earliest level editors to allow the widespread proliferation of user-generated content on consoles, along with its impact on the Halo series' future development (user-created gametypes being appropriated and "canonized" by Bungie, future iterations of Forge being designed around the unexpected ways the community interacted with the editor, game developers recounting how Forge was a major inspiration for their career choice, etc.).
While notability is not inherited, I don't believe that all coverage of Forge should be only be construed as coverage of its parent game. Earlier today, I added two sources; one, a print editorial from 2007 where the author discussed Forge's potential to open up the closed console ecosystem to user-created content, and an article from this year where a game developer, now a 343 Industries employee, went into great detail about how Forge influenced his decision to pursue gamedev as a career, alongside opening up employment opportunities for him. I believe both of these articles establish Forge's notability more than Halo 3's, and I believe they would fit better in a standalone article than the article for Halo 3, which is already 75kb and should only offer more generalized information.FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A new-ish computer-graphics sense of "mura"

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mura#Another meaning. We seem to be missing an article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Units of measurement for fictional characters in video games

Already asked at WP:MOSDATE. I was looking at Street Fighter characters' pages (made by Capcom, a Japanese company) and I found them quite messy about units of measurement. For example, Balrog is metric first, although he's American, while Blanka (Brazilian) and Sagat (Thai) are Imperial/customary first. I couldn't find any policy about this topic. I noticed that the official Capcom website is metric, but other video games show character data in Imperial/customary. The reply was that it would be better resolved in this project discussion. What do you think about at WP:VG?--Carnby (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If the Capcom site gives all the characters' measurements and uses metric, I would use metric first then give imperial via {{convert}}, as you then have a consistent starting reference (capcom themselves), and metric is far more common to the world than imperial. --Masem (t) 16:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I would go by what is used most commonly in the developer's country of origin (so metric for Capcom characters). But also - someone's height is most often trivia, and even moreso when it comes to fictional characters, where the exact number is just made up. Would recommend reserving it for when a character is notable for being unusually tall/short (ie to the point where just saying "tall" or "short" isn't enough to give you a rough idea).--AlexandraIDV 16:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem I suspect is that this is a standard field in the infobox character template, and due to how Capcom "set the bar" in this for SFII, fighter characters in fighting games have their height and weight given just like any fighter in a real boxing or wrestling sport, so it's sorta included by default. It would be different if we were talking, say, Mario or Sonic, where the character height makes no sense relative to the game's nature. --Masem (t) 17:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The {{Infobox character}} template has no field for height or weight, so they're always written in the page text, only when it is advisable to note.--Carnby (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (August 24 to August 30)

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 14:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

August 24

August 25

August 26

August 27

August 28

August 29

August 30

Fixing issues with history of Universe of The Legend of Zelda

Hi, was wondering if there were any admins able to fix the issue with the page history of Universe of The Legend of Zelda. The page was moved from Hyrule to that name, when it should really have been created as its own article, with Hyrule's page history remaining there. I think that Hyrule is individually notable, but recreating the article would then ignore its past history. The solution I can see is somehow moving it back but then moving its page history post merge to the Universe article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So I understand this, you think we should have a separate Hyrule article from the Universe of The Legend of Zelda article, correct, and if that was the case, you are worried about content contribution that follows from that? The far easier thing to do would be, if creating the new Hyrule page, would be to follow WP:CWW and when establishing the Hyrule page, first copy from the Universe page with the edit summary to point there (and add a {{Copied}} on the talk page) as per CWW to make all the linking specific as to capture the changes since that page move.
But I beg the question, while I can access Hyrule possibly notable, does that leave the rest of the Zelda universe notable? Is it because we've tied to Hyrule that makes the rest documentable to it? --Masem (t) 13:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm unsure about the notability of the rest of the Zelda universe. Either way, it is really wide ranging with its sheer scope being problematic in terms of fancruft. Possibly something about "recurring elements" would make more sense. I tried to move it back to Hyrule before, citing a lack of notability of the added cruft, but that failed, with people saying it was now essentially about other things. Of course, if I tried to AfD it, the Hyrule information, which is potentially notable, would have no attribution, despite being copied over from said article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. I feel something got merged into this and I don't know what, perhaps the list of monsters or something - I'm going by memory of old AFDs. Unfortunately, the talk page is lacking that history if that was what was done.
But now that I see what you are saying, that page is very much cruft. I agree some concepts of Hyrule and the setting of the Zelda games are generally notable. I would definitely be BOLD and trim down (probably at least 2/3rd of that is easily gone) and move that page back to just Hyrule. --Masem (t) 17:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
That was the gist of my previous RM of the page, where I said that the article should be moved and pared down. It failed miserably. Perhaps I failed to pare it down first, but I am loath to attempt it again if it will just be shot down, or my changes reverted. Hence my desire to separate the page histories, but that doesn't seem to be doable either, since the article inextricably changed to being about the series's universe.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Something has to be done on that page, and yeah, RM is not the only process step. I'm going to move this discussion there (I recommend interested ppl follow) but I think trim then rename is the only logical step. --Masem (t) 19:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

League of Legends templates

I originally mentioned this in one of the New Articles listings, but I think a proper discussion would be better. Recently I've seen a surge of newly-created League of Legends roster templates, none of which I think are appropriate. Just about all of these don't even have any actual links to articles and are just lists of nobody players, with only like two or three actual links to articles. I find all of these to be useless and not at all helpful for readers wanting to find similar articles, but wanted to achieve consensus before I send all of these to AfD. Thoughts? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say deletion is appropriate. Maybe a whole template for the entire LoL teams, with only the notable members listed by team, would be appropriate but not this way. --Masem (t) 20:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete them all, we should already have templates for all the notable teams, right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Subst and delete all. They serve no navigation purpose as they are navigating between one or sometimes zero(???) articles. They are purely decorative. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD but not PRODs in Template:WPVG announcements?

I don't know how exactly this is setup, but if you're going to advertise deletions, PRODs need eyes too. Even moreso than AFDs since AFDs have a lot more people noticing them normally. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: It's consuming Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts/AfD which AAlertBot updates. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts which has everything, including PRODs. I'm not sure how much views the announcement template itself gets. I personally watchlist the Article alerts page. There is no subpage of PRODs. -- ferret (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
A PROD specific alerts could be created. A lot of those sections (FA/FL, GA/GAN, Article reviews) could also be automated in the same way AFD currently is, and this would save people the hassle of maintaining that header manually. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe GA/GAN is already automated. I suspect it's just an old template and no one took on fully automating it. If no one else does, I'll try to check on AAlertBot and figure out what's needed to be requested. -- ferret (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I realized after posting this that you comaintain AAlertBot along with our own @Hellknowz: -- ferret (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts/PROD will populate shortly, but unless there is actual demand to review nominations this way (like there was for AfDs in this talk page's history), it would be template creep. Transforming the lists from ArticleAlerts text also takes a bit of processing, hence why the original GAN transclusion automation took an easier route. czar 02:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree. What exactly do PRODs "need eyes" for? At worst, an expired PROD can be WP:REFUNDed relatively easily. The only thing extra eyes on a PROD can do is save an article from getting deleted, which is an easily reversible process as I noted. They can't make the deletion "go faster". I'm not seeing the value add for including PRODs in the article announcement template and it's liable to add clutter. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      • "What exactly do PRODs "need eyes" for?" because you can have a page watched by 3 people, two inactive, one away, that gets deleted simply because no one knew of the PROD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, and it can be refunded pretty easily. PRODing also recommends pinging the original author. If they're so inactive that they miss a PROD for seven days, I don't see how including it along with the potentially dozens of active PRODs into the article alert banner will help with that. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The actual reason I wrote the GAN code the way I did had nothing to do with technical feasibility of parsing different pages, but was simply because the original Lua request made no mention of Article alerts. It would certainly be technically possible to automatically list PRODs in the template in the same way as AFDs, but this discussion doesn't appear to show consensus for it. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Clockwork Aquario (Repost)

Knowing that a previously unreleased arcade title is coming soon to Nintendo Switch and PlayStation 4, i dediced to make a draft for Westone's Clockwork Aquario (Tokei Jikake no Aquario) but since i'm currently doing various side-projects here on Wikipedia, i don't think i'm able to get it done if the game gets released sometime in 2020. I dedided to post the draft once again here in the talk page (Draft:Tokei Jikake no Aquario) to see if anybody here is interested to turn it into a full-fledge article. I managed to get almost every sources and references related to the title, including development information that i hope is useful... Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Assessment of unassessed pages

Hello! Recently I've started clearing through the backlog of unassessed pages here. So far I've gotten through A, B, and C (I'm going alphabetically). I'm hoping to get through all of them within the week. Just letting you all know so I can be notified if I'm making any errors. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Scratch that, I got it done in one day. Hopefully that helps out! :) Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
It does, thanks! (Spotchecked a few of them as well and they looked pretty reasonable). --PresN 03:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the target of a relevant shortcut redirect

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#WP:WPCG.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Minecraft server Proposal

Minecraft servers have the unsuitable infobox of Template:Infobox software. It lacks the required fields desirable, and many fields are not even relevant to it. I propose a new Infobox, aptly named Infobox minecraft server. I have written a near-final draft on my userspace, full with examples and copy-and-paste-able code. This new infobox will allow quick reference, as one would demand from one. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of the proper procedure on how to formally submit a proposal, but my best guess is that this would be a proper home for it. I would like this to become an actual template, and if you know what I should do to make it one, please tell me! Suggestions are really welcome, and critiques, too. SWinxy (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you could be bold, move it to that name, apply it to the four articles, and see what happens. There may be WP:NOTDIR/WP:GAMEGUIDE concerns, and whether a template for such a limited number of articles is necessary: that could be discussed at TfD, if someone were to object. –xenotalk 15:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that WP:GAMEGUIDE would be a real concern. WP:NOTDIR, on the other hand, may require me to remove the IP listings. SWinxy (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Software infobox is full of trivial fields video game infobox has long decided against. Making a new infobox because it lacks fields in software infobox takes it in the opposite direction. That's all assuming 4 articles need a specialized infobox, which they really don't. (Many infoboxes used by way more articles have been deleted.) IP addresses and game versions are the sort of trivial details that do not appear in reliable sources and should not appear in infoboxes either. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I understand what you mean by "Software infobox is full of trivial fields video game infobox has long decided against."? I'm not discussing modifying Template:Infobox video game, but proposing a new one. SWinxy (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The fields you are proposing are only of interest to a specialized audience. Wikipedia is a generalized encyclopedia and a general reader has no use for fields like server IP address or compatible Minecraft version that have no reliable sourcing. There are many examples of such fields and discussions about them in video game infobox, which I am using as an example of the project's consensus about such fields. But again, that's all assuming 4 articles need a specialized infobox, which they really don't. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems quite fancrufty to me for like 4 articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to say no for four articles, but is there a way we can generalize this for any game's specific server where that server is notable on its own? I'm thinking how this could work alongside something like those listed in List of MUDs, where (spotchecking) most just use Infobox VG. Then having something like "infobox video game server" now makes sense that could apply to Minecraft and these and other potential ones. --Masem (t) 15:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Generalizing it to game servers in general sound like a good idea. How many articles of them exist? SWinxy (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
List of MUDs has several dozens (50ish?) just looking at the table. I'm trying to think of any other "server"s that were notable -- Warcraft ones? Anyone familiar with Roblox?? A template that at least serves 50+ is better than one that just servers 4. --Masem (t) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary. There seems to be two goals here: To be able to differentiate between Minecraft Editions, and to provide an IP. This is beyond Wikipedia scope, NOTCAT, NOTDIR content. Server IPs are even more prone to being stale over time than hostnames would be, and we deliberately removed website and versions from Infobox video game. Infobox software or VG serve just fine, this is a level of detail that's just not needed. Per Hellknowz, in other words. -- ferret (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Just thinking aloud here, and I forget where I've seen this, but perhaps there is a case here for creating a "module" that adds on to the VG infobox to deal with servers. Eg I wouldn't structure it like {{Infobox animanga}} but we could have a field in the current infobox for additional modules that are called in and one could be "infobox video game/server" that includes certain specific fields. This also may be a way to address those games-as-a-service where the required server has been shut down and the game thus unplayable for all purposes. This way we aren't populating the main infobox with empty fields that novice editors feel they must be filed in (you have to know about these "modules"). And just thinking on the module idea, this would give a way to talk about remasters/remakes in a manner that might help declutter the release fields.... but I'm just talking aloud here. --Masem (t) 16:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Minecraft servers, I see five results, one of which is just the article for Minecraft servers in general. Making an infobox that is useful for only four articles is unnecessary. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking for tips to get started

I'm new to Wikipedia and would be interested in editing pages related to Mario RPGs, Pokemon, Metroid, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Megami Tensei, Touhou, and Zelda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunitsukami74 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Be bold, you don't have to ask permission to edit anything. However, if you don't cite your information to reliable sources, expect your edits to be reverted. So the list of reliable sources may be of interest.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, so long as you reliably source any additions, you should be good. That said, it may be a good idea to start with small-scale edits, just because it can be frustrating to spend an hour on an edit only to have it be reverted due to some content policy you hadn't heard of. Also, when I was starting out on Wikipedia I found it helped to look in the "History" of articles and look at other people's edits. It's how I learned a lot of the coding and which things needed improving on Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Find some good example article for a reference point...but then spend some time working on some obscure, low traffic article. That’s what I did. It helps a lot to work on an article where you can get a hang of things. If you just jump right into editing Breath of the Wild or Fortnite, a bunch of editors will immediately jump on you and undo your mistakes, and it’s easy to take offense or get discouraged. But go find your Ristar or Pulseman and you can take your time and experiment without intrusion. Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! If I want to find articles that need editing, do I just check this very page? Kunitsukami74 (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Setting restrictions on list of games for X platform when platform has a "open" digital storefront

Today, the Nintendo Switch list of games got split again into three pages, with the list rapidly approaching nearly 3000 games. Now, they are all "documented" in that if the game is not blue-linked, there's a reference to where the game's been confirmed as announced or released, typically to one of four sites (see List of Nintendo Switch games (A–F)), so its not like WP:V fails here.

But, at some point this list breaks WP:NOT#CATALOG. Now, I can see the argument "But we document every game for the Nintendo 64!" and that's true, but then - and nearly every console pre 7th gen - those were "closed" publishing systems, requiring a publishing licensing from the console manufacture, so there were only a limited number of games that could be published with official blessing, and even when digital distribution started, this was still heavily controlled by the console. Only with programs like id@xbox and the newer Nintendo stuff are we seeing it "easier" for devs to get games onto these consoles. Yes , there's still approvals they have to go through, but the shear number of titles being pushed out now is approaching Steam levels of games, and we're not documenting all of Steam's games. A good half of these games for at least the Switch just get no notice, and the refences just being "this game is now out" announcements are pretty much the only sourcing that exists.

So recognizing that NOT#CATALOG is core policy, I would suggest that on these game lists, not just the Switch but for any console where there is digital download storefronts that are "easy" to publish to, that we limit games on these to those that notable on their own (blue-lined), part of a notable series or readily connected to a notable article (For example, a new game by a notable developer could be linked to that developer if that page talks about the new page for the time being, more than just a listing in a table, but linking the game to the publisher's page would not be appropriate), or there is clear standalone detailed sourcing about the game that is more than just announcement details (and not just twitters or blogs, this would be third-party RSes). This would allow, for example, announcements of games that come after events like E3 where it is more than "here was this trailer!" to be used as sources and allow the game to be included (as a preliminary indicator of notability and a standalone article in time). Games only where sources says it was released to the storefront or the like but no deeper coverage would not be sufficient.

Again, key here is that digital storefronts on consoles are not as closed as consoles were two generations ago, and it makes for insanely long games lists that clearly fail NOT#CATALOG when taken as far out as the Switch one has. --Masem (t) 06:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure I'd say Switch is so easy to publish to that someone can snap their fingers and make a game appear on Switch. This may just be a factor of how popular the Switch is - and it makes sense, since Switch fills the void of two former consoles in one. If a console merely being popular is a disqualifier, why have any list of games on X console lists at all? The point is, I don't think we've reached the point of Steam where it's fully open, "anyone can pay a bit of money and release on it" levels.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
It may not be as open as Steam, but still, something is amiss when we have a near 3000+ game list for a platform that WP cannot support having a full list, unless it was clear every single game was notable. The fact that many of the sources are references that routine sources of which games have arrived on the Switch shop this week is pretty indicative that we are simply making a catalog of the shop and not making a list of notable games here. --Masem (t) 13:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I don’t agree with the jump in logic of “well it’s big now so it’s a NOTCATALOGUE violation. Popular platforms attract a lot of shovelware. It’s just how it works. Not particularly in favor of more of these odd restrictions. It’s current counterintuitive set up causes enough headaches as is. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lot of shovelware, but I mean, this has been a concern of mine for a while. Given the sourcing used for this, why don't we have a list of Steam games? (I am not about to go make that because I know *that* would be a problem). There's a line here that I feel has been crossed, not recently, and we need to figure out what the line is. --Masem (t) 14:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I don’t see how or where we could possibly draw the line. There’s no objective metric present other than “all or nothing”, and I don’t think you’ll get a consensus to delete video game lists. It’d likely play out like prior efforts to rewrite/reorganize the generation articles - people would come out if the woodwork to oppose. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sure it would, but it begs (asking in the devil's advocate way, not "I intend to create them" way) why we don't have a list of PC games or a list of games on Steam or similar. I note we have a List of iOS games, but wisely, this is already established as "popular" limiting it to notable titles. List of Android games is small given what technically is possible but doesn't state a similar restriction. I'm thinking of this as an issue beyond that of a video game editor but from a WP editor and knowing WP:NOT. Something feels off here and while we can throw our hands up and say "that's just the way it is" I feel there is something we can do here to make the lists of these games fundamentally more encyclopdic. --Masem (t) 18:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I think all "List of X games" are NOTCATALOGUE. I never understood the logic of "platform X only has 100 games, so let's make a list" but "Steam has tens of thousands of games, so we're not making a list". We have categories and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database. But that's not exactly the consensus and just my 2¢. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
When the console game production line was strictly limited (due to cartridges or other similar means), there was sorta a rational for that, but even still, you have games on even the oldest consoles that are non-notable and that we just list. I do think there is something to be said on seeing the list of releases in a chronological order which is why simply shuffling these to a category doesn't make sense. --Masem (t) 15:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
That seems like a software problem to me. Wikidata already collects structured data, so category pages ought to be able to display pages based on selection and sorting criteria. A bot could do it. We're basically making lists because they are "useful". But WP:USEFUL is for categories and such, not articles. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that stricter restriction is needed. Having 3000 entries in one list is just not helpful to the readers at all. When I am thinking of Switch games, most people would be thinking of Nintend-published games, ports for major third-party games, and notable indies like BoxBoy and The Stretchers, but they are diluted by entries that seemingly don't matter to anyone. Most of the entries listed are not even primarily associated with the platform as well. (For instance, you can find Borderlands 2 in 10 other lists because the game and its ports were released on 10 different platforms). I honestly think these lists would serve much better as categories. OceanHok (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to go with the idiosyncratic position of "let it be". Maintaining, updating, and wikignoming these massive console game lists (not just for modern consoles with questionable inclusion criteria, which is the issue at hand, but for all consoles) is an enormous and thankless task that I definitely do not have the energy for. To the extent that these lists are "good enough"---i.e., well-scoped, not split by ridiculous gerrymandered criteria (not "List of PSVR games with 3D audio and PS Move support"), include reasonable information on each game, and exclude minutia---I think it's fine to keep them around to soak up the wikienergy of their maintainers. A lot of these editors have zero interaction with WPVG at large and many of them edit no other articles at all. As long as the wikiproject maintains a firm hand about the title and scope of the list, we should allow them to putter around in this subspace instead of censuring them and pushing them to expend their restless energy elsewhere on the wiki where it might be less constructive and more disruptive. This is a purely pragmatic position based on practical considerations. If we are not prepared to do the long and hard work of putting a console game list into FL shape, why should we proactively take away the toys of others? Seems like it's provoking a content dispute for no reason. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Anybody interested in Judgment (video game)?

While I've been working in some Yakuza games, I think my biggest contribution from the series was the spinoff Judgment (video game). The article was copyedited and has a B class but I'm not so sure if I can bring it to GA alone. I mean I did make .hack//G.U. but that was thanks to a collaboration I had with Axem Titanium. As a result, if anybody is into the game it would good to see if this article could become GA in a collaboration or something. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What makes you think you can't bring it to GA? TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: I'm not confident about my prose. The only GAs I've made are characters so their articles are quite smaller. You suggest a peer review?Tintor2 (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Well after looking at the article, I agree the prose needs some help. I think it needs a detailed copyedit from a VG project member. I see it got a copyedit from the GOCE in October 2019 but the article changed significantly since then. You could post it for peer review, but I think that may just confirm what you already know is true. TarkusABtalk/contrib 12:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Thanks. I'll focus on another project before moving back to Judgment.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Plot spoilers are fine...?

Hmmm. [12]. Recent game released just few days ago, and anon adds detailed plot information with spoilers for the ending. Hmmm. Well, we don't have rules against spoilers, I guess, so this is fine... I guess? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's totally fine - see WP:SPOILER. In fact, a well developed WP article about a piece of fiction would be expected to (concisely) describe the plot.--AlexandraIDV 11:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
As said above, spoilers should be expected if you read the Plot section of an article, per WP:SPOILER. Look at any video game featured article and you will see that the plot section describes the whole plot from start to finish including spoilers.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The only concern we should have is with full plots before a game's official release which may be the result of leaks (eg The Last of Us Part II). Some plot details can be sourced as media talks about a game, but a full plot summary is likely impossible without having violated some legal issues somewhere, and in that case we don't allow such full summaries. --Masem (t) 12:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Masem, which makes sense, as it can't be verified by the general public yet. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The real problem is trying to describe a work of fiction whose marketing is a blatant lie, such as The Tall Man (2012 film). The film was marketed as being about a desperate parent's attempt to recover her kidnapped child. This is a blatant misrepresentation for the sake of a plot twist within the first ten minutes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if we've had that in video games (No Man's Sky doesn't quite count as that wasn't plot related...) but if RSes discuss the disconnect between pre-release marketing of story and what it actually was, that should be a piece of our articles. --Masem (t) 13:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, spoilers are fine, though sometimes you can kind of bury them a bit too, depending on how you write and present things. There’s no grounds for removing them, but at the same time, you can at least have them deep in there, opposed to some people, who try to open up plot summaries with “The movie stars Bruce Willis, as Malcom, the guy who was dead all along.” Just speaking hypothetically, I didn’t read the games actual plot summar because it was so long, which was going to be my other point - spoilers are okay, but that plot length needs trimming. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Except in extraordinary cases where it dramatically helps with flow or concision, I generally write plot summaries to reveal information at the same time it is revealed in the work (e.g. Bruce Willis' death would be explained in the section where the character discovers it himself). Axem Titanium (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_151&oldid=1137359427"