Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 133

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135→Archive 140

Reliability of Siliconera

Hello fellow gamers! I've noticed that the website "Siliconera" has been used in a source for several articles. I myself recently used it in Atelier Lydie & Suelle: Alchemists of the Mysterious Painting. It looks like a reliable source, but do any of you have a reason to contradict that? It appears to be not entirely correct in some articles, so I was just wondering if any of you have heard of any incidents regarding reliability of the website. If you have an answer, please leave it on my talk page. Thanks! VTnav (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@VTnav:I see no reason why it wouldn't be reliable, in most cases. They are listed on WP:VG/S.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm:Okay, thanks a bunch! VTnav (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
SiliconEra has been discussed a whopping seven times, and the most recent time [1] it was considered unanimously reliable. ~Mable (chat) 08:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • They are frequently cited by other RSs, and have staff with experience writing for other sites (off the top of my head, Chris Priestman, who has written for at least Killscreen, Pocketgamer and The Guardian, and Jenni Lada, who has written for TechnologyTell).--IDVtalk 08:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Ike Sato too, a veteran of GameSpot. I consider Siliconera to be a reliable source for both original news (interviews and other things) and translations, although Gematsu often has the more comprehensive and complete versions of any shared translations. I do prefer it for Japanese titles over Western releases, as Western releases are better covered by other sites and journals. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • SiliconEra may be "slightly more reliable" than Gematsu, which is technically more of a "blog" by an expert journalist. But both are very good sources in general. ~Mable (chat) 09:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • To add to Siliconera's reliability, they do tend to fill a niche of Western-centric coverage of the Japanese games market even smaller titles. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just another person voicing my support for Siliconera, for many of the same reasons already listed above. And yes, as Masem suggests, it is a very good source for Japanese-only games, or "Japanese-games-not-released-in-English-yet". Years in the past, the consensus was to only use it in games like that, and in that time, I used it to start up a ton of Japanese game articles in their earlier stages of development, prior to their English release. While its not limited to that use anymore, its certainly invaluable in those scenarios. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you got your answer, but I'd be careful with some of the other advice here... A source is made "reliable" by its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which almost always stems from editorial chain and quality review. Being cited for a scoop, having editors who once worked reputable publications, being the best publication in a niche field are all useful traits, but not necessarily an indicator of reputation for fact-checking or accuracy.
A Times reporter's hobby blog is not reliable by virtue of the individual's past—it's completely reliant on the editorial chain to validate the author's work. The "reliability" is at the publication (not author) level. And citing another source's scoop, as a hat tip or simply to ward off plagiarism, is hardly an endorsement of quality—especially given the rather low standards of press release churnalism in video game journalism. A passerby looks at the last WP:VG/S discussion mentioned above and sees what looks like a popularity contest rather than an assessment of pedigree. The basis of "reliability" discussions should be the actual oversight chain. czar 04:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Member List?

Hello! I've been editing video game articles for a while now, and have considered myself a member of the wikiproject (I have the userbox and the works) but I realized I hadn't added my name to a member list. Is there one? I looked all around the WikiProject: Video Games Portal, but I couldn't find one. Thanks for your help! VTnav (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses! VTnav (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

What about Nathan Bitner?

Should Nathan Bitner get his own article he did create Fearless Photog and also contributed to making the [[Halo games. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that cover him? JOEBRO64 22:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Mass Effect characters

this has got to be a record for removal of content. It could really stand to have someone go over it who is familiar with the content and sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't see anything to review, @Izno and Czar are highly experienced editors who are well versed in content and sourcing. That list needed a pruning badly, it was a massive collection of in-universe fan cruft. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The gift that keeps on giving... this was a public edit czar 22:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the trim, though I think there were a few of the early names I would have kept (Ashley for example) after trimming significantly. Character lists are havens for getting around concise plots and when no sources are presented, they should be massively trimmed down. There are a few things I'd recover that are appropriate for brief intro of setting. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
To follow up, I found Polygon had a great complete "setting of ME" (released just before Andromeda), so I've at least seeded a Setting section that should help with the rest of the characters there. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Oh, don't get me wrong: there was plenty of bloat that needed trimming... but certain key characters, like Ashley, are missing entirely. Not even a listing for several of the characters, and while I haven't done any amount of looking (I just ran across the article trying to actually use it to look up the name of the Israeli-ish merc, which I couldn't remember) I'm sure there are sources for many, if not most, of the Mass Effect companions. There seems to be a growing dearth of editors who understand 'unsourced' != 'unsourceable' and "probably OK but unsourced" is a better state of affairs than "trimmed to the bone such that nothing unsourced remains". It's unfortunate that so few editors are actually willing to improve content by fixing fixable problems. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes TNT on something so massive it's nearly unfixable is better. Individual characters can always be added back by any editor (Hopefully with proper sourcing and conciseness), but it's nearly impossible to get a group of editors to work on trimming, and this list was far too large for any editor to really "fix" in my opinion. I've voted keep on several list AFDs that I kind of regret, as all the editors who were claiming they'd work on cleanup or trim never did. -- ferret (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
But *that* wasn't TNT, which I believe to be inappropriate in this case, but doing Mohs surgery with a chainsaw: what's kept and what's gone is without internal consistency, and doesn't give close to an encyclopedic overivew of the characters. Keeping something along the lines of "Ashley (whatever her last name was) is a human soldier encountered early in the first Mass Effect game. She is characterized as religious and xenophobic, and is a potential romantic interest for a male protagonist." is pretty hard to argue against, I would think. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"probably OK but unsourced" is a better state of affairs than "trimmed to the bone such that nothing unsourced remains"
— Jclemens

All content must be verifiable.
— Wikipedia:Verifiability

That opinion on verifiability is not aligned with Wikipedia policy or widespread consensus... A general purpose encyclopedia is, by design, not suited for looking up lore from a video game—and it's not like there aren't other encyclopedias that fit that niche. But even what remains in the list in its current state (or the short one-sentence character summaries you're after) should have been first incubated at Mass Effect#Characters (which is equally disastrous) and only split summary style when warranted by sourcing. czar 00:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

How about a longer quote: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Bold emphasis mine.
Now, the nitty-gritty: Verifiable != verified != failed verification. Just because something isn't currently sourced doesn't mean it fails V. It can't fail V until and unless someone tries to source it in good faith and fails. Note that simply saying "that's unsourced!" isn't a challenge; a challenge specifically requires belief that the fact in question is wrong (or BLP, but that's not relevant here). The issue I have is editors who are willing to trim without any attempt to source seemingly appropriate statements: that is just as wrong and just as contrary to Wikipedia policies--WP:SOFIXIT is a guideline, just like WP:N is. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

simply saying "that's unsourced!" isn't a challenge; a challenge specifically requires belief that the fact in question is wrong

Where are you getting this? All non-obvious claims (e.g., everything deleted in the original diff) are "likely to be challenged"—as they're otherwise based on thin air—and the burden of preempting that challenge is on the editor who adds the content. So even under the ideology that claims need explicit belief-challenge, the act of removing unsourced content is exactly that. (Not to mention that it's foolhardy—and against basic media literacy—to believe any claim made without reliable backing, especially on the Internet nevertheless Wikipedia.) "SOFIXIT" is a pejorative, not a guideline—the guideline is "be bold", meaning that re: unsourced content, one user's TNT is worth as much as another's slogging through reams of in-universe tone to salvage content (perhaps at best) fit for Wikia. But on a basic level, "SOFIXIT" certainly doesn't entitle any editor to another's time. Statements like

The issue I have is editors who are willing to trim without any attempt to source seemingly appropriate statements: that is just as wrong and just as contrary to Wikipedia policies

have no basis in WP policy, guideline, or consensus. czar 03:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
If challenging wasn't a part of verifiability, then the text I bolded above is superfluous and irrelevant. So, please, be WP:BOLD and remove that clause from policy, see how long that takes to get reverted.
If no editor has the right to another's time, a sentiment with which I agree, then nominating for deletion something that can be fixed through regular editing, but which the nominating editor does not prefer to perform him or herself, is itself improper: using up someone else's time goes both ways. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, one more thing: Unsourced statements made in an article should be fairly easy to triage for anyone familiar with the topic. I think your parenthetical characterization above is incompatible with WP:AGF, in that it appears to posit editors--e.g. of List of Mass Effect characters--as fundamentally incapable of correctly recalling basic plot elements, as I did above. Let's not forget that much of what was deleted from that article was WP:BLUE material. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
This article had suffered quite long enough. If you peruse its history, you'll find that for five years there was 200kb of nearly, in toto, unsourced crud (and more if you count all of the unnecessary spinoff articles). We could just as easily walked it over to WP:AFD where AFD would either have resulted in consensus for deletion... or the exact same cuts I made (it's plausible a merge could have been argued, but all of these results are more destructive than your preferred result). I am not a fan of AFD because it does tend more toward deletion of content history (and the history is the important part) rather than merges or redirects, so I made the cuts myself.
As for the policy quotation, no one part of the policy can be read in isolation; nor, rather, can that single policy be read out of context with its cohorts. WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT) are rather relevant. (WP:SELFPUB has not a few number of caveats, to boot.)
To directly answer your original post: We have precious few editors (in general, not specific to video games!) who a) are domain experts, b) understand our content policies and guidelines, c) have the time to edit articles on Wikipedia, d) take the time to edit articles on Wikipedia, and e) would have edited that specific article. No-one in that discussion, nor is there likely ever to have been such a person in recent times, raised their hand and said, "I am all five".
I am sympathetic to readers interested in fictional content (really, I am--I started wiki editing on one of the largest and most-visited, fiction wikis, as measured by Alexa at the time), but I also understand the three options of the post-2006-2008 war on fiction: source it, delete it from the article but not the history (either via hacksaw or merge/redirect--making it visible to anyone who wants to take the time and energy to make it Good), or delete it permanently (save to administrators).
Lastly, the so-far implicit comment, somewhat preemptively: This content is all just about guaranteed to be present elsewhere, presented in exactly the same way if not even greater detail, and probably freely licensed to boot, in case you should want to add any content you are unable to identify solely in the article's history. --Izno (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine at peer review

Jill Valentine received seven supports and two opposes at its first FAC, and nine supports and three opposes at its second FAC, though I was almost finished addressing the concerns of one opposer when the second nomination was closed abruptly today. I nominated the article for peer review prior to the original nomination, and have been advised to do so again prior to renominating it for FAC; I intend to renominate it in a couple months once I've finished working on a couple other projects. While there was arguably no consensus to promote the article at FAC, there was also no consensus that the concerns of the remaining people opposing was valid. Accordingly, at this stage, having already addressed the overwhelming majority of the issues raised at the last FAC, I have no plans to make major changes to the article before renominating it, though obviously this will change if a consensus is reached at peer review that more work needs to be done. All comments on the peer review are welcome; even if your only comment is that you don't think any further work needs to be done, that information is helpful to know. I will happily review any video game related PR, GA, or FAC in return for your comments at the new peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Jill Valentine/archive2. Freikorp (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing Cloud Strife and Aerith Gainsborough at the Star-crossed article

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Star-crossed#TheJaff's repeated deletion of Cloud/Aerith. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (16 September to 22 September)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

16 September

17 September

18 September

19 September

20 September

21 September

22 September

Salavat (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • PSA: Please move articles to their proper titles before nominating them for deletion. This puts the page history in the right location if or when it needs to be referenced in the future, e.g., if the article is recreated czar 05:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Coin945, you really gotta slow down again - you're really scraping the very bottom of the barrel with some of these articles you're creating. They're extremely short and devoid of hardly any content at all. Icarus: Sanctuary of the Gods is a mere 6 sentences (3 unsourced) streched out across 3 sections. Riddler's Den, is in a similar state. Articles like this aren't helping anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Whoa there. I disagree. Creating subs (even substubs) with one or two lines and a handful of sigcov in RSes is not only constructive, it is desirable. I encourage Coin945 to continue to do that. I do it too -- I have created many substubs in fact! A little is better than nothing (as long as it's not promotional and it has a few sources). Sometimes a small article is more conducive to iterative improvements than a redlink. Take the first step and others will follow. WP:PUTEFFORT. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Looking at an article like Icarus: Sanctuary of the Gods, I agree with Sergecross that Coin could put a bit more effort into such articles. I think this is a big difference in editing philosophy, possibly valuing coverage over overall quality? There are no real rules against this behavior as long as you put in two or more good sources, but it's something worth thinking about. ~Mable (chat) 09:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Seems like a philosophy of "if I make these stubs it will be easier for people to expand". Alhough, I think it's wrong headed, specifically because the games are so obscure that it's unlikely most of the articles will be significantly expanded. It's akin to wanting to make Wikipedia into a WP:DIRECTORY and is the wrong approach to take, people should be trying to add value rather than just cataloguing everything. Stuff like Mobygames will always be a better catalog than Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
          • It bothers me in particular because I dislike expanding article compared to starting an article from scratch. Stubs like these would actively deter me from writing articles ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 09:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 HD merge discussion

Hello. I'm looking for more input here, about the article Sonic the Hedgehog 2 HD. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick opinion needed - potential WP:CIRC issue

I have been working a bit at improving the loot box article, so when I saw this article on the history of microtransactions in VGs from USGamer I was initially thrilled. However, I'm getting a feel that the Loot Box section of that article might have borrowed concepts (not verbatim text) from our loot box article, only because the narrative and list of games mentioned is practically the same. USgamer is a RS, Williams is a key editor there, and the loot box situation is limited to a small number of very visible games (eg that article conforms to other previous sources as to origins), so I might be seeing something that really isn't a problem. Just would like a quick check before adding. (Though I am off to Video game monetization to use that there) --MASEM (t) 17:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Tread lightly. Most games history pieces I've seen recently—anything that requires long-term analysis—appear to crib liberally from Wikipedia, not to mention that recent Rignall listicle. This said, we supposedly trust USgamer's editorial chain to catch and correct errors. But I think your hunch is right:

... the first purchasable game to feature loot boxes was Mass Effect 3, which launched in March 2012 with a variety of "packs" in its multiplayer mode. This was followed in August 2013 by Counter-Strike: Global Offensive adding "weapon cases" in an update. In October 2013, Battlefield 4 launched with "battlepacks", though they did not become purchasable until May 2014 and never granted duplicate items. Today, loot boxes are found in many commercially successful games, such as Overwatch, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, Halo 5: Guardians, Battlefield 1, Paragon, Gears of War 4, and FIFA 17.
— Loot box

Mass Effect 3's Galaxy at War multiplayer launched with purchasable equipment packs. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive added weapon cases in 2013, requiring an additional key to unlock. (PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds toyed with a similar system.) Battlefield 4 launched with Battlepacks, adding real-money purchases in 2014. Releases from 2016 were riddled with loot boxes: Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare has supply drops and zombie crates, Halo 5: Guardians has REQ Packs, Battlefield 1 has Battlepacks, and Gears of War 4 has Gear Packs.
— USgamer

Perhaps can't avoid the first half as basic chronology, but the last sentence has some uncannily coincidental ordering—it's not like it even preserves order of release (also consider that Halo 5 is not even 2016). If the tables were turned, I would encourage the WP editor to at least change the order to avoid the appearance of close paraphrasing. But unless someone does a deeper dive, paraphrasing is more an issue of plagiarism (ethics) than unreliability. I wouldn't replace old refs with this piece, but if the author makes new claims useful to your article, I don't think it has reached the point that the source is untouchable. czar 20:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That was my gut. All the other sections in that article point to other RSes so when I expanded the video game monetization article, I included those too. But the loot box section was devoid of such, and the ordering of games was far too uncanny. Fortunately, there's not much that I need from that beyond the statement that Overwatch popularized the current loot box glut. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

What about Talisman:Digital Edition?

I think that video games as Talisman:Digital Edition who represents traditional board games should have an article. It represents the Dungeon and Dragons typical structure and many people around the globe still enjoy this gender of video games and board games.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SplitShadow (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Classic Home Video Games 1972-1984: reliable source?

What is the position of WP:VG on the book Classic Home Video Games 1972-1984, by Brett Weiss? A quick Google search indicates it's already used in quite a few articles. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, there's never been an explicit judgment made on it one way or another. This book is the only substantial coverage that exists for a whole spate of older games, so it would be useful. Phediuk (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

McFarland & Company is a reputable publisher, so the book is assumed to have received baseline editing. For those interested, the title should be available through Wikipedia:McFarland. czar 23:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Czar that it's a real book published through a real publisher, so it's likely pretty good as a source. General caveat for this era of gaming is that the "history" aspects of any book are likely to be suspect regardless of publisher, so comparing multiple sources is usually needed; that said, this appears to be more of a discusion on individual games instead of the industry as a whole, in which case it should be just fine on its own. I've applied for access through the link Czar posted. I'm likely the most active editor in the <1975 video game space, though I've never read this book; I'm excited- pre-1972 is covered by other books more or less, but works covering 1972-1980 mostly focus on arcade games, so that's what I've been doing. Wish this did computer games too, but console fills in a good gap by itself and lots of stuff got ported all over the place. --PresN 02:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (19 September to 29 September)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

19 September

21 September

22 September

23 September

24 September

25 September

26 September

27 September

28 September

29 September

Salavat (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. draft

Hi everyone, I've recently been working on a draft to improve the Super Mario Bros. page at User:TheJoebro64/drafts/SMB. I was wondering if anyone was willing to assist? I'm probably going to need a bit of help writing the reception section and copyediting. JOEBRO64 20:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't the article a GA until recently? Does it really need a complete reworking like this? Sergecross73 msg me 21:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
And even if it did, is there any reason why you can't just edit the mainspace article piece by piece over time? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The reason I'm completely re-writing it from the ground up is because the article was a GA from 2007 until this year (when I removed it per consensus at a GAR). The current version of the article is a complete mess -- it's way too detailed, poorly written (just look at the music section, for example), and unreliably sourced (sources like multiple "TheMushroomKingdom" refs and a Wordpress blog). The reason I'm re-writing it from scratch is because I find it easier than editing in mainspace (it's how I got Sonic Colors and Batman: A Death in the Family to much better-looking articles) JOEBRO64 21:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough I suppose, the article is badly written for how well known the game is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know TMK was no longer considered reliable. AFAIR it was situational (okay for facts but does not establish notability). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Got bumped in May: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 17#TheMushroomKingdom --PresN 01:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

2017-18 Dota Pro Circuit template up for deletion

Thought I'd give WT:VG a notice for a relevant TfD. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die

Does anyone have a copy of this book? I'd like to know what it says about Super Mario Bros., since I'd like to add its commentary to my current draft's reception (see my above discussion). JOEBRO64 20:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. CurlyWi (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! JOEBRO64 21:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability question

Hi everyone,

Does a listicle like List of cultural references to Game Grumps need a third-party source that mention these cultural references, or can the article point to the cultural references itself? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:IPCEXAMPLES, each reference has to be pointed out by multiple third party sources. "Unremarkable mentions" are discouraged, so if it's just someone's cameo name or picture, that isn't really a notable thing. Pretty much the entire article is filled with small cameo appearances in various media, which means it's likely not an encyclopedic list.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I really can't believe that the list itself is notable. This looks like the kind of junk that wouldn't last at the parent article, let alone on its own. Strongly support merger/deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There is zero reason to have that list as a separate article. It needs to be post-haste merged back into the main Game Grumps page (which is nowhere close to a critical size), and trimmed per WP:TRIVIA (where only third-party RSes discuss the connection). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see this as notable at all. The lack of sources only reinforces this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Compilations

Did we ever get a consensus on whether or not the "platforms" field in the video game infobox should include appearances in compilations?--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the answer be "No" if it's emulation (which it is in most compilations), and "Yes" if it's a proper port. TarkusABtalk 20:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This. The same guidelines we use for standalone releases should also apply to appearances in compilations. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks, guys.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (29 September to 6 October)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

29 September

30 September

1 October

2 October

3 October

4 October

5 October

6 October

Salavat (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Publisher Template

Hello everyone. While perusing Wikipedia, I realized something that made no sense to me; the utter lack of a video game publisher template. I realized that "some" publishers were listed on the "Major information technology companies" template, but that also never made sense to me. For one, video game companies aren't information technology companies. Secondly, the template's setup and methodology would exclude that vast majority of publishers. Thirdly, the template is already unwieldy and very big. So, I figured it would make sense to make a better, tighter, cleaner alternate and remove the video game companies from the information technology template, as I feel they were just stuck on their because there was no other place to put them. I already have a working draft template here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rogue_Commander/sandbox. I would appreciate some critique and feedback from other members of the video game wiki project before making any unilateral changes.Rogue Commander (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • What is your criteria for classifying them as big/medium/small publisher size? Without objective criteria, there will be endless arguments. (Is Sega large or medium? Is Atlus small or medium? Etc etc) Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should do this either, but hypothetically we could only include publishers that have more than one game that sold more than a million copies or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Without reliable sources classifying publishers in some way, it would end up being OR. Even criteria like the number of sold copies is unrepresentative. For example, Zynga has sold 0 copies, because all games are mobile F2Ps. Or a niche publisher who sells 100k copies for 80$ is not the same as casual publisher who sells 1M copies for 3$ or something. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
What about companies that are developers and publishers? Or companies that used to be developers but are now only publishers; and vice versa? - X201 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I was late to respond to this. For some reason Wikipedia sent me no notifications regarding this page, even though I was watching it. I looked at two possible criteria for this template: Criteria one, was to look at applicable revenues of the companies involved, Criteria two was to look at number of listed personnel cut the numbers off at certain points. The problem with both criteria is that the company pages of many of these publishers lack either one or both of these numbers. So I had to come up with a hybrid system to account for his. Platform owners are just that: platform owners who also publish games. Of course all three console makers are included. Valve and CDProjekt are also included because they own the largest independent game retail platforms on the PC. I avoided publisher specific platforms, like Origin, and focused on general storefronts in order to keep this section from including any company that bothers to create one and focus on those who give platforms all other game companies. For former publishers, I focused on only on those companies that were major publishers that either went completely defunct, like Midway and THQ, simply left the video game business, like Majesco, or who merged with/were acquired by another company and ceased to exist entirely, like Eidos. Companies that had an equal partner merger are not counted separately, like Square Enix. Companies that got bought out by another publisher, but still exist, only allowing their new parent to publish for them, are also not included (think Atlus). For the Small publishers, I focused on the following: companies that primarily only self publish, or publish themselves and maybe a few others; or companies that publish in their home market but maybe published by others in foreign markets; and (this overlaps with the other two company criteria for his section) independent publishers with less than 1000 personnel listed on their company pages, regardless of where they publish. For Midsize publishers, I focused on independent publishers that had at least 1000 personnel, but less than 5000 and/or had less than $1 billion in FY2014/15 applicable revenues (the latter is the methodology used to include a video game company on the major info companies template). For major publishers, I focused on independents that had: a)At least 5000 personnel employed, and/or b)companies that had at least $1 billion in FY2014/15 applicable revenues.Rogue Commander (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Still not sold on this. You've created no hard restriction for small publishers, so that list will become unwieldy quick. Even if you limit the list to midsize and up, people will bitch and moan aaaaalll daaay about how publishers be categorized, the definitions of those categories, and which publishers to include. Also, who are we to decide what defines a major publisher vs mid-size vs small. The methodology should be based off reliable sources, not Template:Major information technology companies. TarkusABtalk 11:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions? There aren't that many publishers that fit into this criteria, especially the upper ones. That's why we are here, to hash out one. The Major information technology companies template obviously had some kind of discussion to hash out their methodology, and that probably required a lot of "bitching and moaning". I wasn't actually basing it off that template, per se, but I considered US$1 billion a reasonable cutoff since so few game publishers reach that milestone. Its not like there are any hard definitions regarding AAA and AA publishers, its more of an informal general perception; this criteria actually lines up with that general perception fairly well, so people complaining about the placement of the companies should be minimal. If you want an objective criteria, the closest you will get is the "Major publishers" list on the game publishers Wikipedia page, but that just list the largest companies by their revenue in the billions of Euros. At least this criteria is based on something tangible that we can calculate and measure and once its set, it will be there and no one can just go "but I think this" without having a discussion or risk getting their edits reverted. As for the smaller publishers, a minimal number of, say, employees, like no less than 10, should take care of smaller indies that just so happen to self publish. At 15 people, Devolver Digital would probably be the smallest company to hit that list. This list encompasses all the big names people would be likely to think of when it comes to "game publishers" and then some. The chances of anyone actually adding more to this list are minimal.Rogue Commander (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The problems are two-fold - 1) I share TarkusAB's concerns - the standards for classificaiton are rather arbitrary will lead to all sorts of arguments and 2) even if they were tightened up, its not intuitive, and a template is not a good format for something that isn't intuitive. This sort of thing could (in theory, hypothetically) work well as a list or article, because you could include prose explaining these sorts of detailed classification criteria. But there's no room for that in a template. Because there's no where to explain all that, you're still gonna have the same sort of issues occurring all the time (Switching Sega between medium and large, adding 3 person dev teams on, etc etc.) It's something you learn while spending a lot of time editing Wikipedia - if its not a concrete, black and white type situation, this sort of thing either requires constant maintenance, or falls quickly into disrepair. I'm against it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Would you feel better about the list if the groupings were removed completely and simple minimum for inclusion was set instead, like the major info technology template?Rogue Commander (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's better but it's still not intuitive like Serge said. Per WP:NAV, navboxes should feature articles that are "established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles". The articles would not be related except for being above some arbitrary threshold we set here that is not based on reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that repeatedly identify the same threshold/criteria and agree on the same set of major publishers that meet this criteria, you can make a case for a template, but I don't think you'll find any cohesive agreement among sources because in reality, there is no fine line which defines major publishers, it's all gray. TarkusABtalk 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems though that defining a minimum would easier than defining a multi tiered methodology, wouldn't you say? And does a list as it is now, minus the differing definitions and sections, already satisfy the requirement that articles in this navbox are "established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles." They are related by the fact that they are all video game publishers and template is only a list of video game publishers. The threshold would be for keeping the list from being too cluttered with small self publishing teams of 3 guys in garage. i don't know how Template:Major information technology companies came up with their methodology. I don't even know what the methodology behind Template:Electronics industry in Japan is. But clearly a consensus was reached that enabled these templates to exist stably. The real question I guess would have to be if a threshold is even necessary if we make it a general list and forego having specified sections, other than having separate sections form existing and defunct companies. Would anyone even bother to list the 3 guys in their garage on this template?Rogue Commander (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems though that defining a minimum would easier than defining a multi tiered methodology, wouldn't you say?
— Yes, but I don't think we should be placing any line in the sand that isn't first drawn by reliable sources.
And does a list as it is now, minus the differing definitions and sections, already satisfy the requirement that articles in this navbox are "established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles."
— If only ~20 publishers existed, I would agree. But the sheer excess of publishers requires us to find a more tight relationship between the specific publishers we include in the template. That threshold needs to first be identified by RSs.
i don't know how Template:Major information technology companies came up with their methodology[...]But clearly a consensus was reached that enabled these templates to exist stably.
—Frankly, I think both those templates are horrible. Way too large in scope and tough to navigate. I think we run a tighter ship here at WP:VG, and we wouldn't create a method ahead of RSs.
Would anyone even bother to list the 3 guys in their garage on this template?
— Yes, the VG community is much more passionate about their favorite niche publishers than followers of IT companies. :)
I think I've said my piece on this. Curious on others' thoughts. TarkusABtalk 16:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe I've mostly said my piece on this as well, though I will add that, yes, I think one of the most frequently recurring issues on Wikipedia is fan's tendency for example bloat, so yes, I believe that passerby editors would frequently bloat the template up with every single minor video game company under the sun. (Different subject area, but to illustrate what I mean with a recent example, look at this, where I removed over 30 examples of bands that have more than one main singer. 30 examples in the prose to illustrate such a basic, easily understood concept. The tendency for example bloat on Wikipedia is insane.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to here other people's thoughts on this though I thank you both for your feedback. and that bloated singer list was...abysmal. A minimum would probably be necessary in that case, and a renaming to make it clear we are talking about independent publishers/publisher subsidiaries of conglomerates and not internal publishing brands/subsidiaries of larger publishers (i.e. Activision Blizzard are already listed, so there is no reason to list Blizzard and Activision separately even though they do publish under their own names, same with Koei Tecmo). That by itself will cut down potential conflict. The minimum itself might be slightly harder. But I'll try to wait for others suggestions before chiming in more.Rogue Commander (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
As above, without reliable sources, any categorization is WP:OR. And, as far as I have seen while maintaining stuff like List of video game publishers, sources do not classify publishers in any standard way. I don't much see a point in navbox that lists all publishers we have, while anything else is subjective classification. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Navboxes are for simplified navigation between related articles. I don't see how the proposed set of publishers are in any way connected, especially such that they would need to be linked beneath their articles. The existing list adequately addresses the function. czar 23:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • That list unwieldy and damn near unreadable, and I bet its a pain in the neck to maintain and update. How many people would really want to wade through that at all? The Automotive industry has like five lists of marquees/companies/manufacturers that are just as long and unwieldy. It used to have a list of the largest manufacturers that was even worse. And yet, alongside those lists they have multiple navboxes, large, unwieldy navboxes, divided around national automotive industries, that still list automobile marquees/companies/manufacturers. If the purpose is ease of navigation, would a publisher navbox function in that better than a list of that nature? Should we follow the automotive industry section Wikipedia and have multiple navboxes based around national video game industries?Rogue Commander (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably not. The list does a fine job of subdividing by country, if that's the desired subdivision for lookup. I don't think Template:Automotive industry in the United States/Template:Automotive industry in the United Kingdom is a good guide—perhaps its pages about regulations in an individual country are intertwined but the companies share next to nothing in common for the purposes of inter-navigation. czar 15:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Weird Talk:Health (gaming) edit war

An edit was has been going on at Health (gaming)'s talk page for ages now and I have no idea why. How can it be stopped? ~Mable (chat) 12:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the current IP, though it switches now and then, they seem to have been on this one for a couple weeks. I've watchlisted the article for now. -- ferret (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"List of video games considered the best" is a Frankenstein's monster of bad sourcing

Holy moley, how has this remained this way for this long? The article claims that it compiles "best games ever" lists, but so many of the lists are expressly not that that the whole article is practically useless, especially the ridiculous "tally" which falsely draws an equivalence between stuff like "top 10 games of the 90s" and "top 10 Nintendo games".

Let's take a look at the listed sources, shall we?

List of sources

1. CNET -- Top 10 Video Games -- not a "best games ever" list; considers games from the last 10 years only, which would mean 1995-2005 in this case.

2. Computer and Video Games, issue 218 -- Notice how the citation on this page doesn't mention what the article actually is, despite being a difficult-to-access source. Turns out it's just a reader poll, not the choices of the editors. Obviously, readers are not experts.

3. Edge issue 80 -- Cannot access source, citation does not clarify what the article is.

4. Edge's Top 100 games of all time (2007) -- Explicitly takes into account reader votes as well as editor's choices, methodology unclear.

5. Edge -- The 100 Best Games to Play Today -- Finally, a "best games" article that's actually chosen by the staff, except it's framed as "the 100 best games to play today", and expressly not the "100 best games ever".

6. Edge -- The 20 best games of Edge's lifetime -- Limited to games released between Edge's lifetime at time of publication, so 1993-2013. Obviously, this is not the same as "best games ever", nor does it claim to be.

7. Edge -- The Ten Amendments: We Crown Seven Games from the Last 20 Years of Edge with a Retrospective 10 -- First off, it's again limited to Edge's lifetime (1993 onward), and second, it's not a list of "best games ever", and makes no such claim; it's just a few games retroactively deemed to deserve a high score.

8. Electronic Gaming Monthly -- Top 100 Games of All Time (2001) -- Alright, an example that's both chosen by the staff and explicitly framed as the best games of all time. Now, granted, there should still be an asterisk here, since EGM does not cover PC games--a pretty vast swath of the gaming industry, I should say--but this is probably still acceptable.

9. EGM -- The Greatest 200 Videogames of Their Time -- The article goes out of its way to clarify that it is not a list of "best games of all time", but "best games of their time".

10. Empire -- The 100 Greatest Games -- Okay, here's the first source so far that's chosen by the editors, covers all games, and is explicitly about the best games.

11. Empire -- The 100 Greatest Video Games, Feature -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

12. Famitsu (as reported by Edge) -- Japan Votes on All Time Top 100 -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

13. G4TV's Top 100 Games -- Doesn't seem to be any issues here.

14. GameRankings -- All-Time Best -- First off, this list is machine-generated, not a list compiled by editors, and second, GameRankings is of dubious notability anyway. with almost no secondary sources cited on its page.

15. GamingBolt -- Top 100 greatest video games ever made -- No issues here.

16. GameFAQs -- Spring 2004: Best. Game. Ever. -- First off, it's GameFAQs, meaning it's unreliable and should never have been posted in the first place. Second, this isn't an article, it's a series of silly polls held as a "contest" on the site. How did this ever end up on the list?

17. GameFAQs -- Fall 2005: 10-Year Anniversary Contest - The 10 Best Games Ever -- Another GameFAQs contest? Seriously?

18. GameFAQs -- Spring 2009: Best. Game. Ever 2009 -- Yes, that's right. Three GameFAQs contests have been cited as sources on this page.

19. DJ Games -- Top 10 Snubs in the Top 100 Games of All Time, According to GameFAQs -- What in god's name is this? Some random guy's personal analysis of a GameFAQs contest? How did no one ever remove this before now?

20. Game Informer -- Editors' Top Te Console Games (1999) -- This is not a "best games ever" list, it's just a top 10 "hottest games of the month" list, like the one they published every month. Notice how all of the games are from within the last few months prior to publication

21. Game Informer -- Top 100 Games of All Time (2001) -- No issues here.

22. Game Informer -- Top 200 Games of All Time -- No issues here.

23. GameSpot -- The Greatest Games of All Time -- It should be noted that this is not a list, but rather an ongoing series of retrospectives over a number of years, each highlighting an individual game.

24. GameSpot -- GameSpot's Complete List of 10/10 Reviews and How Those Scores Are Decided -- Not a list of "best games ever", nor does it claim to be. It is, as it says, simply a list of the highest scores GameSpot has given, which obviously does not encompass all games (hence the existence of the previous entry).

25. Guinness World Records 2009 Gamer's Edition reveals the Top 50 console games of all time -- As the title suggests, only covers console games.

26. IGN -- "Masterpiece" scores -- Not a list by IGN, just their highest-scores games as compiled in another Wikipedia article. IGN makes no claim of these being the best games ever, because, well, there is no article.

27. IGN -- IGN's Top 100 Games of All Time (2003) -- No issues here.

28. IGN -- IGN' Top 100 Games of All Time (2005) -- No issues here.

29. IGN -- Top 99 Games of All Time: Readers' Picks (2005) -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

30. IGN -- IGN's Top 100 Games, Reader-Submitted Poll (2006) -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors. Even the blurbs are written by random IGN users.

31. IGN -- The Top 100 Games of All Time! -- No issues here.

32. IGN -- Top 100 Games 2008 -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

33. Alvanista -- Top 100 Games -- Some no-name non-RS site, and it's not even an article either, just a machine-generated list of their top scores.

34. Metacritic -- Game Releases By Score, All Time -- Machine-generated list, which furthermore does not claim to represent the "best games ever", just the highest-scored games.

35. NowGamer -- Top 100 Retro Games -- Not "best games ever", but rather, "best retro games", which is not the same thing.

36. Popular Mechanics -- The 100 Greatest Video Games of All Time -- No issues here.

37. Retro Gamer no. 1 (2004) -- Top 100 Retro Games -- Not a "best games ever" list, but a "best retro games" list.

38. Slant -- The 100 Greatest Video Games of All Time -- No issues here.

39. Stuff (October 2008) -- 100 Greatest Games -- Source is inaccessible, so I can't verify it.

40. Stuff (February 2014) -- 100 Best Games Ever -- Likewise.

41. UnikGamer -- Favorite Video Games of All Time (page 1) -- First, UnikGamer is not listed on WP:VG's source checklist; reliability is dubious. Second, this is just a machine-generated list created from user lists.

42. Yahoo -- The 100 greatest computer games of all time -- No issues here.

43. ActionButton -- Top 10 Video Games of All Time -- Not listed as RS.

44. Kotaku -- Dengeki Readers Say Fav 207 Game, Fav of All Time -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

45. EGM -- 100 Best Games of All Time (1997) -- Comes with the same caveat as the other EGM list, which is that PC and other home computer games are not covered.

46. GamesRadar -- The 100 best games ever -- No issues here.

47. Game Informer(January 1998) -- Editors' Top 10 Console Games -- Another one of these? Really? This is not a list of "best games ever", it's a list of games the editors were playing that particular month, hence why all the games are from within a few months of publication.

48. Best Video Games of ALL-TIME -- Time -- No issues here.

49. Computer & Video Games -- The 101 best PC games ever, part one -- Only covers PC games.

50. EGM (November 1997) -- "Best Games of All Time (developers' picks)" -- Not chosen by editors, but rather from polling a few developers. Better than a reader poll, but still of dubious value.

51. EGM (November 1997) -- "Best Games of All Time (readers' choice)" -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

52. Next Generation (1996) -- "Top 100 Games of All Time" -- No issues here.

53. Electronic Games (1992) -- "The Five Best Cartridges For..." -- Not a list of "best games ever", and makes no claim to be, It's just a list of five recommended games for each then-contemporary console.

54. EGM (November 1997) -- "The 10 Best Arcade Games of All Time" -- Only covers arcade games, which, furthermore, are also included in the master list from the same issue.

55. FHM -- FHM's 100 Greatest Games of All Time -- No issues here.

56. GameSpy -- GameSpy's Top 50 Arcade Games of All Time -- Only covers arcade games.

57. Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition (2008) -- "Top 100 Arcade Games" -- Only covers arcade games.

58. Next Generation (February 1999) -- "50 Greatest Games of All Time" -- No issues here.

59. Destructoid -- The Top 50 Videogames of the Decade -- Not a "best games ever" list, but rather a "best games released 2000-2009" list.

60. MyGameMag -- 10 Most Popular Games Ever -- First, the site is so obscure that is literally the only WP page that cites it; obviously not RS. Second, it's not even about the best games, just the most popular ones.

61. Famitsu (All Soft Catalog '89) -- "Best Games" -- Very difficult source to check, and thus unverifiable; it's certainly not clear at all from the title if it actually lists "best games ever".

62. GameSpy -- GameSpy's 50 Favorite Console Games of the '80s -- Only covers console games, and only ones from the 1980s, at that.

63. World Video Game Hall of Fame -- Not a list of "best games ever", just particularly popular or influential ones.

64. GameSpy -- GameSpy's 25 Favorite PC Games of the 2000s -- Only covers PC games, and only ones from the 2000s, at that.

65. IGN -- Games of the Decade - Best Games Overall] -- Not a "best games ever" list, but rather a "best games released 2000-2009" list.

66. PC Gamer -- The 100 best PC games of all time -- Only covers PC games.

67. PC Gamer (September 2013) -- "The 100 Greatest PC Games of All Time" -- Only covers PC games.

68. Electronic Games (January 1985) -- "Hall of Fame Winners" -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

69. Killer List of Videogames -- The Top Coin-Operated Videogames of All Time -- Only covers arcade games.

70. GameSpy -- GameSpy's 25 Favorite PC Games of the 90s -- Only covers PC games, and only ones from the 1990s, at that.

71. Eurogamer -- Eurogamer's Games of the Generation -- Not a "best games ever" list, but a "best games of this console generation" list, which is a far more limited claim.

72. Edge -- Edge ranks the ten best games of the generation -- Likewise.

73. IGN -- Top 100 Games of a Generation -- Likewise, again.

74. IGN -- Top 100 Modern Video Games -- Not a "best games ever" list, but a list from the last six years of video games, as of 2011--so nothing before 2005 is covered.

75. Bit-Tech -- 50 Best PC Games -- Only covers PC games.

76. PC Gamer -- Best PC Games -- Only covers PC games, and only ones that "you can play right now", i.e., that are currently available for purchase.

77. Nintendo Power (September 1997) -- Only covers games on Nintendo platforms.

78. Nintendo Power (September 2005-February 2006) -- Only covers games on Nintendo platforms.

79. Time (2016)-- 50 Best Video Games of All Time -- No issues here.

80. WhatCulture -- 20 Greatest PC Games of All Time -- Only covers PC games.

81. GameSpot -- Best PC games] -- Only covers PC games, and furthermore, only ones that you can "play right now", i.e. that are currently available for purchase.

82. Complex -- The 10 Best Video Games of the Past 5 Years -- Only covers games from the last five years as of the time of publication, meaning nothing before 2008 is covered.

83. WhatCulture -- 15 Best Video Games of the Decade (So Far) -- Only covers games from the current decade (i.e., nothing from before 2010), and even then, only up to 2016.

84. Crave -- The Top 50 Best Video Games of the Decade (So Far) -- Same as the previous entry, but this time only up to 2015.

85. GamesRadar: The 25 best indie games of all time -- Only covers indie games.

86. Nintendo Power (August 2008) -- "Best of the Best" -- Only covers games on Nintendo platforms, and even then, has a separate list for each platform.

87. Nintendo Power (December 2012) -- "Top 285 Nintendo Games of All Time" -- Only covers games on Nintendo platforms.

88. Retro Gamer (September 2008) -- "Top 25 arcade games" -- Only covers arcade games.

89. GameFAQs -- Fall 2010: Game of the Decade -- Yet another worthless GameFAQs contest citation in here.

90. Complex -- The 30 Best Arcade Video Games of the 90s -- Only covers arcade gaes, and only ones from the 1990s, at that.

91. Buzzfeed -- The 23 Best Vintage Video Games You Can Play In Your Browser --Only covers "vintage" video games, and even then, only ones that can be played in an internet browser.

92. GameSpy -- The 30 Greatest 16-Bit Games -- Only 16-bit gamess, and apparently that means only console games,too.

93. Destructoid -- Poll: Final Fantasy VII most wanted remake, Dragon Quest V favorite PlayStation game This isn't a list of "best games ever" at all, it's just a survey Sony sent out, and furthermore, it's restricted to Sony platforms.

94. IGN -- Top 100 Video Games of All Time -- No issues here. Finally, another one.

95. Nintendo Everything -- EDGE ranks the top 100 greatest games (2017 edition) -- No issues here.

96. Nintendo Everything -- Famitsu readers choose the top 100 best games of all time -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

97. WhatCulture -- 30 Best Video Game of All Time] -- No issues here.

98. GameFan (February 1998) -- "Top Ten" -- first off, there are several lists on the page, which appear at the beginning of every GameFan issue. The first is a reader poll that simply tallies the top 10 most popular games with readers that particular month, making no claim that they are the "best". Every other list is simply one of "favorites", mostly the personal top 10s of staff members, which are also not described anywhere as "best", just favorites.

99. Retro Gamer (January 2016) -- "150 Greatest Games Ever" -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

100. VGChartz -- Top 100 Best Games of All Time -- Well, at least GameFAQs is no longer the worst source on the list.

101. Ranker -- Top 100: Greatest Games of All Time -- This is about one step above citing a Youtube comment.

102. WhatCulture -- 25 Best Video Games of the 90s -- Only covers games released in the 1990s.

103. Film Exodus -- The 100 Greatest Games Of All Time -- This is just some guy's blog.

104. ShortList -- 20 Greatest Retro Games -- Only covers "retro" games, which seems to mean games released before 1993-ish.

105. HiConsumption -- The 100 Best Video Games of All Time -- Some no-name site, no citations anywhere else on Wikipedia. Obviously fails RS.

106. Joystik Entertainment -- Top 100 Video Games of All Time -- Another no-name with no citations anywhere else, clearly non-RS.

107. Stuff -- Stuff's Best Games Ever: The 50 greatest games of all time -- No issues here.

108. FHM -- Game Changers: 40 Video Games That Changed The World -- This is explicitly about the most important video games, not the best ones.

109. Computer and Video Games (November 2001) -- Inaccessible source, and the lack of title makes me suspicious, considering how often these magazine sources have been misrepresented

110. The Video Game Critic -- Top 50 Console Video Games -- Source is unreliable per WP:VG checklist. Furthermore, the list is limited to console games only.

111. Screen Fellows -- The 50 Best Games of the 1990s -- Yet another no-name site with zero citations outside this article. Furthermore, the list is limited to the 1990s only.

112. Complex -- The 100 Best Video Games of the 2000s -- Limited to games from 2000-2009 only.

113. Fandomania -- Top 100: Greatest Video Games of All Time -- List at least partially compiled from reader polls.

114. Retro Gamer (January 2005) -- "Your Top 100 Games" -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

115. MobyGames -- All-Time Best: Best Games By Critic Score -- Mobygames is not a reliable source per WP:VG checklist.

116. Ranker -- Top 50 Retro Games of All Time -- Another Ranker?!?!

117. SegaBits -- SegaBits Presents the Top 100 Sega Games -- Dubious source; does not appear on WP:VG's checklist. And besides, it only covers Sega games.

118. The Best 100 Lists -- Best 100 Video Games -- Good lord, the sources just keep getting worse and worse.

119. Hardcore Gaming 101 -- The Best 200Video Games of All Time -- No issues here.

120. PALGN -- The Greatest 100 Games Ever -- Reader poll, not chosen by editors.

121. Business Insider -- The 11 best games from the '90s -- Restricted to games released in the 1990s.

122. Florida Today -- The complete list of the 50 Greatest Video Games Ever -- Restricted to console games only.

123. Kotaku -- Games of the Generation, for Every Generation -- Not "best games ever", or even "best games", it's just one guy choosing his favorite game for each console generation, without making any claim of them being the best.

124. USGamer -- The 15 Best Games Since 2000: The Complete List -- Only covers games released since 2000.

125. WhatCulture -- 20 Best Video Games of the Generation (So Far) -- Only covers games released in the last 3-4 years

126. IMDB -- Greatest Games of the Decade So Far -- Some random IMDB user's list of favorite games from this decade. I'm starting to miss those Ranker citations.

127. TechRadar -- 40 Best PC Games -- Only includes PC games, and even then, only ones currently being sold.

Of that list, 20 sources fulfill the two criteria of being about "best games ever" and being from an unquestionably reliable source. Twenty! Out of 127!

So, why is this article such an awful mess? A quick look at its edit history reveals a huge number of anonymous edits surreptitiously adding in new sources and meticulously keeping track of the "tally", (which doesn't actually tally anything, since most of the sources are about different things.) Examples: 1, 2, 3, and a LOT more where those came from. I believe this article has been largely curated by anonymous sockpuppets of banned user Jagged 85, as the continual misrepresentation of sources, inappropriate synthesis of sources, along with addition of questionable or poor sources, is consistent with their usual behavior (details: 1, 2, 3) and one of their preferred IPs is in the 86 range, which was also the range implicated in their most recent sockpuppet investigation.

In short, this page is in desperate need of a cleanup and rewrite. Phediuk (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

    • I am of the opinion that this article's title in itself implies WP:SYNTH and therefore will never be encyclopedic. "Considered" is such a weasel word, because it leaves vague whether actual people consider the games the best, or critics who may or may not be moneyhats. If this article was listed for deletion I would probably vote delete.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
      • That's just it though, these lists rare ever get consensus for deletion. (Nor should they, the implementation may be flawed, but few can successfull argue that "best/worst of respective media" isn't a notable subject in a world obsessed with top/bottom 5/10/100 lists all the time.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
        • This is different from other lists though. If this just listed games that topped best of lists or something, it would still be pretty crufty, but defensible under a broad interpretation of WP:List. That is not what we have here. Instead this list creates a ranking of games based on the number of times they appear in a best of list without any attempt at justification for the lists chosen or any reliable source that considers such a ranking to be valid. This is as flagrant a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I mean, it opens with a methodology section for goodness sake! If someone is creating their own evaluation model, they are conducting their own independent research. Indrian (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Indeed, the list is different, and a mess, and I'm not a fan of it one bit...but what I said still applies. It'd still pass an AFD because conceptually its a notable subject. (It wouldn't help that half the !votes would probably be "Urrr there's almost 300 refs, you deletionists are out of control!" etc etc either though.) I'm not defending it at all, I was just saying AFD is not the right way to go. We could always create a new draft as a community and then sub it in for the nonsense that is this current article or something. But it'd be a massive undertaking, and I'm not sure if anyone is volunteering to take it on. (I'd help here and there with cleanup and whatnot, but by no means would I drive such an effort.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
            • The list needs to be reworked, and done in a manner that has a set of nearly-objective inclusion requirements, ala what we have for List of video games notable for negative reception (in which there are edge cases that we can discuss for inclusion like No Man's Sky). Here I would expect that a game is included if it falls within a top 10 list (not 25, not 100) from one of our RSes that is only limited by the date of publication (eg eliminating the list of best games in the 2000s). I'd also consider that if it is not so much a list article but a retrospect of a game, that if three or more separate RSes all agree a game is one of the best, then it should be included. You just need good objective guidelines for inclusion to weed out nonsense and bad sources. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is something I've proposed on the talk page there for a while. The only way this list gets fixed is if its done as a community project. First of all, we should only be using sources located at WP:VG/S, which would get rid of citations such as GameFaqs, CraveDecadeSoFar, and Alvanista. Second, we should not be using yearly best game lists as separate citations, such as Edge's and IGN's. This is doable by a single person and would help set the foundation for a clean up. If nobody disagrees with this, I'll go ahead and get started on it soon. EDIT: As a related note, I think we could also take the List of video game soundtracks considered the best article and merge it, with the additional qualification that it needs five mentions instead of three to be included. (Three is too low to be considered the best of all time) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Disclaimer: I made an early version of this article, which you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_video_games_considered_the_best&oldid=630387453 . It was based roughly off of List of important operas, a Featured List, which uses exactly 9 sources - but high quality ones! - to determine what should appear.

That said, I disagree with the idea that "only" lists that are strictly "list of best games" ever should qualify as a good source. For better or for worse, there traditionally was a large divide between computer games and video games. For example, take the 2006 EGM list "The Greatest 200 Videogames of Their Time" ( link ). It is a great source: it is from a respected-at-the-time dead tree print publication with editorial oversight, it is cross-platform, it covers the then-current history of gaming. But: it doesn't include computer games. Is this cause to throw it out? In the same way, PC Gamer 2013 had a "Top 100 Computer Games of all time." Nothing console-exclusive in it. I think a combined list can be made just fine as long as lists on both sides of the divide are included.

Now, I agree that something like a "Best Nintendo games" list is not great for sourcing, because it is entirely possible that some platform has no games considered significant (Virtual Boy, 3DO, whatever). However, something like "Best 7th Generation Games" (link) might be okay to include, as long as it didn't exercise undue weight upon the list and was from a high-quality source.

Basically, it's about the quality of the source, not necessarily the breadth. It's very difficult to get truly all-encompassing sources, so cobbling together console-specific, PC-specific, different period of time specific, etc. lists CAN be a reasonable way to reach a consensus. A lot of the sources since added to the list are garbage, but the problem is not the narrowness of focus necessarily, but rather just being a weak source to begin with.

(Note that I gave up attempting to impose my vision of the article a long time ago, but if I was still in charge, the list would be chronological, not by number of lists on; it would use a small number of high-quality sources; and the list would be much shorter than what it grew to.) SnowFire (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  • But: it doesn't include computer games. Is this cause to throw it out? I don't think by omitting a certain platform means any opinions on Ocarina of Time or whatever game they list at the top becomes automatically invalid just because of that. The same should apply to platform-excluse lists; I.E. if a game is listed as the best PC game of all time, and also appears in the top 10s of overall lists, then the source should be used. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I propose that, to begin with, the entire list be gutted except for the 20 or so sources that are actually reliable and have a wide breadth; the rest can be decided on later, case by case, by consensus. Also, the absurd "tally" must go; I suggest presenting the games in chronological order, and as pointed out above, List of important operas looks like a good model to follow. Phediuk (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess my point is that I'm less concerned about "wide breadth" for any one list individually than about making sure that the sources used as a whole have wide breadth. In other words, it would be an issue of undue weight if 6 lists that only covered 2010-2017 were included and just 1 list that was 1990-1999 was included. But including time-specific sources might be fine, as long as they're spread out roughly equally, and are high quality. I see you complain above about lots of time-locked or "best of generation" lists, but I think that they can potentially be usable as long as the above proviso is kept in mind. SnowFire (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, belatedly, if those IP edits were the sockpuppet of a banner user, that'd explain a lot. For awhile, I tried to defend "my" version of the list, but the IP edits came in too fast and detailed to double-check and determined to fundamentally restructure the article that I figured it wasn't worth fighting. I'm glad if it gets chopped back down to size.

@TheJoebro64:, for what it's worth, I personally really dislike those free-form "write an essay about the game" style of the worst games ever list. There's no need to duplicate content. If people are interested in what a game was, or why it was so good, or why it was so bad, they can darn well click the link and read the full article. Historical rankings of presidents of the United States might have an intro, sure, but it's ultimately a big ranked table. IMO, keep the information density high; I don't need to be told a random out-of-context reviewer quote praising / mocking a game. (In fact, I'd be in favor of removing stuff like the Publisher and Genre from the list as needless cruft as is. Who cares who the Publisher was? Is this useful information in context of a list of best *games*, not best publishers?)

As a side comment seeing the current flurry of edits, I would definitely be in favor of slowing down a bit and perhaps discussing which sources get kept first, and then reconstructing the list based on that (since I'm 100% sure that with so many listed sources, some of those "refs" are a lie.). As stated above, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. What sources should be used? As noted before, I think that time-specific lists are potentially fine, as are consoles-in-general specific list and PC-specific lists (especially for historical games... thanks to Steam & the XBox, cross-releases are much more common now). In the same way, there's some nitpicking I don't think I agree with about "best games ever" vs. "best games right now"; I'm not sure there's actually a useful distinction here, even if the publications are claiming to draw it. Best ever, best now, best then, those all sound relevant. I do think that the Metacritic generated list of their top X scores is legit to use... once. We obviously don't want to use something like it multiple times since reviews at time of release != long-term impact and acclaim, but scoring high on reviews isn't totally irrelevant to bring up. I also think that having one or two reader surveys might be legitimate, as long as they weren't useless stuff-the-ballot-box type surveys, but good luck telling the difference, and including one reader poll could easily open the door to more (like happened... sigh...), so maybe best just to exclude after all. (The main asterisk is that I think a lot of the Japanese best-ever lists were reader polls for whatever reason, so excluding them might make the list more American-centric than it "should" be.)

Anyway, tentatively, from chopping at Phediuk's commentary, I think a good first pass cut would be:

List of sources 2

1. CNET -- Top 10 Video Games -- not a "best games ever" list; considers games from the last 10 years only, which would mean 1995-2005 in this case.

5. Edge -- The 100 Best Games to Play Today -- Finally, a "best games" article that's actually chosen by the staff, except it's framed as "the 100 best games to play today", and expressly not the "100 best games ever".

6. Edge -- The 20 best games of Edge's lifetime -- Limited to games released between Edge's lifetime at time of publication, so 1993-2013. Obviously, this is not the same as "best games ever", nor does it claim to be.

8. Electronic Gaming Monthly -- Top 100 Games of All Time (2001) -- Alright, an example that's both chosen by the staff and explicitly framed as the best games of all time. Now, granted, there should still be an asterisk here, since EGM does not cover PC games--a pretty vast swath of the gaming industry, I should say--but this is probably still acceptable.

9. EGM -- The Greatest 200 Videogames of Their Time -- The article goes out of its way to clarify that it is not a list of "best games of all time", but "best games of their time".

10. Empire -- The 100 Greatest Games -- Okay, here's the first source so far that's chosen by the editors, covers all games, and is explicitly about the best games.

13. G4TV's Top 100 Games -- Doesn't seem to be any issues here.

15. GamingBolt -- Top 100 greatest video games ever made -- No issues here.

21. Game Informer -- Top 100 Games of All Time (2001) -- No issues here.

22. Game Informer -- Top 200 Games of All Time -- No issues here.

25. Guinness World Records 2009 Gamer's Edition reveals the Top 50 console games of all time -- As the title suggests, only covers console games.

27. IGN -- IGN's Top 100 Games of All Time (2003) -- No issues here.

28. IGN -- IGN' Top 100 Games of All Time (2005) -- No issues here.

34. Metacritic -- Game Releases By Score, All Time -- Machine-generated list, which furthermore does not claim to represent the "best games ever", just the highest-scored games.

36. Popular Mechanics -- The 100 Greatest Video Games of All Time -- No issues here.

38. Slant -- The 100 Greatest Video Games of All Time -- No issues here.

42. Yahoo -- The 100 greatest computer games of all time -- No issues here.

45. EGM -- 100 Best Games of All Time (1997) -- Comes with the same caveat as the other EGM list, which is that PC and other home computer games are not covered.

46. GamesRadar -- The 100 best games ever -- No issues here.

48. Best Video Games of ALL-TIME -- Time -- No issues here.

49. Computer & Video Games -- The 101 best PC games ever, part one -- Only covers PC games.

52. Next Generation (1996) -- "Top 100 Games of All Time" -- No issues here.

55. FHM -- FHM's 100 Greatest Games of All Time -- No issues here.

58. Next Generation (February 1999) -- "50 Greatest Games of All Time" -- No issues here.

59. Destructoid -- The Top 50 Videogames of the Decade -- Not a "best games ever" list, but rather a "best games released 2000-2009" list.

62. GameSpy -- GameSpy's 50 Favorite Console Games of the '80s -- Only covers console games, and only ones from the 1980s, at that.

64. GameSpy -- GameSpy's 25 Favorite PC Games of the 2000s -- Only covers PC games, and only ones from the 2000s, at that.

65. IGN -- Games of the Decade - Best Games Overall] -- Not a "best games ever" list, but rather a "best games released 2000-2009" list.

66. PC Gamer -- The 100 best PC games of all time -- Only covers PC games.

67. PC Gamer (September 2013) -- "The 100 Greatest PC Games of All Time" -- Only covers PC games.

70. GameSpy -- GameSpy's 25 Favorite PC Games of the 90s -- Only covers PC games, and only ones from the 1990s, at that.

71. Eurogamer -- Eurogamer's Games of the Generation -- Not a "best games ever" list, but a "best games of this console generation" list, which is a far more limited claim.

73. IGN -- Top 100 Games of a Generation -- Likewise, again.

75. Bit-Tech -- 50 Best PC Games -- Only covers PC games.

76. PC Gamer -- Best PC Games -- Only covers PC games, and only ones that "you can play right now", i.e., that are currently available for purchase.

79. Time (2016)-- 50 Best Video Games of All Time -- No issues here.

80. WhatCulture -- 20 Greatest PC Games of All Time -- Only covers PC games.

81. GameSpot -- Best PC games] -- Only covers PC games, and furthermore, only ones that you can "play right now", i.e. that are currently available for purchase.

82. Complex -- The 10 Best Video Games of the Past 5 Years -- Only covers games from the last five years as of the time of publication, meaning nothing before 2008 is covered.

83. WhatCulture -- 15 Best Video Games of the Decade (So Far) -- Only covers games from the current decade (i.e., nothing from before 2010), and even then, only up to 2016.

84. Crave -- The Top 50 Best Video Games of the Decade (So Far) -- Same as the previous entry, but this time only up to 2015.

92. GameSpy -- The 30 Greatest 16-Bit Games -- Only 16-bit gamess, and apparently that means only console games,too.

94. IGN -- Top 100 Video Games of All Time -- No issues here. Finally, another one.

95. Nintendo Everything -- EDGE ranks the top 100 greatest games (2017 edition) -- No issues here.

97. WhatCulture -- 30 Best Video Game of All Time] -- No issues here.

107. Stuff -- Stuff's Best Games Ever: The 50 greatest games of all time -- No issues here.

112. Complex -- The 100 Best Video Games of the 2000s -- Limited to games from 2000-2009 only.

119. Hardcore Gaming 101 -- The Best 200Video Games of All Time -- No issues here.

124. USGamer -- The 15 Best Games Since 2000: The Complete List -- Only covers games released since 2000.

Only 49 sources! Can definitely be chopped further, of course. SnowFire (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the bad games list is definitely more stable with its inclusion criteria, whether you like it or not. Literally a case can be made for many, many games to be on the list of worst games, allowing it to be very comprehensive and complete. I've added multiple games to the list (Hotel Mario and Just Dance, for example). It's definitely a more stable list. JOEBRO64 20:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I had to remove citation #95 as Nintendo Everything shouldn't be used as a source. Can somebody find a better source? We could always just cite Edge itself, but then it can't be easily verified online (as it's a printed magazine). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Retro Revival Consoles

So I was kicking around the idea of an article consisting of the NES Classic and the SNES Classic and wondered do we have a name for these and with said name should we have an article? I feel there will be more of these eventually. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

See also Neo Geo X - unlike the Nintendo ones, it's a handheld console that plays remasters of Neo Geo games- both 20 built-in ones and 15 separately-sold ones. --PresN 20:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Typically classed as dedicated consoles. The Atari Flashbacks are the longest running series probably. -- ferret (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, there's a difference between a dedicated console (a console with games built into it instead of accepting an indefinite amount of seperate games) and a "retro console" (a console designed to play games, built in or not, that were originally released decades prior), even if most retro consoles are dedicated consoles. Not sure if there's enough for an article, but dedicated consoles were among the first consoles ever released, so it's a bit conflative to combine a 1970s Pong console and a 2010s pseudo-SNES. --PresN 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you invent this term? Is it your own neologism? Otherwise, I would say this is a good topic for an article. SharkD  Talk  04:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't invent the term (at least I'm pretty sure I haven't), hence why I said "Do we have a name for these?" Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Newegg has such a category, but I could not find anything on the VGRS Google custom search that deals with the topic in broad terms. SharkD  Talk  21:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Character lists

Some weeks ago, I tried expanding the article Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2 but I don't know if we should be list all fighters as it might be undue weight. Is there a good fighting game article I can use as a reference. Also, I don't have the manual of the game, so I might not be able to reference most of the characters. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:VGSCOPE #6 and #7 typically frown on simply listing out all the fighters. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I see. So it's not necessary to make list. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Fighting game articles usually have some sort of grandfather clause for allowing a list of fighters, however. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there an example to follow?Tintor2 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Well we really should not be including a list of fighters at all. But if you need an example of how they are done, just check the regular fighting games, like Tekken and Street Fighter. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
In general, a list of characters is only useful if most of the characters are notable on their own, like is the case with Street Fighter V and the Smash Bros. series in general. With a fighting game based on a manga like Naruto, you may also need to worry about the list of characters being "obvious". If there is a strong overlap with List of Naruto characters, I wonder if there is much of a point to listing them. Of course, if the list of characters featured in a game is very long, it should generally be excluded as well per undue weight. In this case, 44 playable characters and 15 support characters would probably be too many to reasonably list. Anyone who knows the franchise would probably get the needed information from "Across the story mode, Naruto and his allies fight many enemies from a criminal organization known as Akatsuki ending with his encounter against acting leader, Pain" (though of course the plot description can still be expanded). ~Mable (chat) 11:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
In that vein, a roster of existing characters (that existed before the game, and thus have individual characters pointed to via wikilinks) would be reasonable - those characters have pre-existing stories, background/dev, etc. Its when a game introduces a completely new set of characters, where there is minimal story or the like, that those lists make little sense to include. "Here's a bunch of random names that make no sense out of context". --MASEM (t) 14:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(Brain implodes) Here is the entire cast for the ones wondering. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

  • That's not terribly bad. Consider how the table (of about the same size) is very concise for, say Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite. Same could be done here, I think. And just as a couple of data points, we don't have (nor need) a character table for MOBA League of Legends (which 130+ characters are all new for the game), nor does Heroes of the Storm (though that's a case where I do think there may be a reasonable allowance for such a list). Key is not just to throw up a bunch of random names with no way otherwise to give them context for these lists. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Very surprised HotS doesn't have one. It's Blizzard's MOBA equivalent to Nintendo's Smash Bros., its character rosyer is super notable. You pointed it out and I'm tempted to do it. Just a small table like MvC:I separating per originating game, takes almost no space at all. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was too. HotS would be an appropriate case for such a compact list. LoL or Dota 2 (at least right now, Artifact might change that) shouldn't for this reason - there's no meaning of these characters outside those games. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
So a character list could be added and there's something I wonder. Even though the plot is a retelling should I at least explain the premise of every chapter? Thanks for the comments.Tintor2 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Reception sources

Hello everyone. I have a question about reviews that I was hoping someone could answer. There is an IP user who has been adding several review scores for the Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite article that I'm currently working on (to eventually bring to GA). I had previously reverted them once for adding Eurogamer's score to the table without actually citing their review within the post-release reception section's text (per T:VGR). Now, my revert was reverted by the IP, who then added more review scores and provided some text, as seen here: [2]. I'd normally be fine with this, but as you can see, they just tacked everything on at the end of the section (it looks like they copy-pasted the summaries from Metacritic). To me, it kinda seems like this IP wants to "hat-collect" review scores for the sake of having them, rather than add them to the section to provide input that hasn't already been stated several times (given how long the paragraphs already are). I wasn't exactly sure whether or not I should re-revert with this concern in mind.

Would I be in the wrong for reverting? Wani (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not, particularly if they are just quote-farming the bits from MetaCritic. We don't need to document every review if there's more than 6-8 or so, that's why we include the MC link so that an interested reader can search out for more reviews. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I was unsure whether VG had anything against adding "too many" reviews or something. Granted, the additional sources are starting to repeat the same ideas and become redundant. Thanks for the reply. Wani (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne's FAR

I have nominated Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne 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 03:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Anon deleting content from RPG articles

An anon has been deleting stuff from History of Western role-playing video games and Role-playing video game. I didn't write any of the stuff he deleted, but I checked and the stuff he's deleting is properly sourced. What should we do in this instance? He has not logged into an account, or left any messages on the Talk pages. SharkD  Talk  20:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Just revert and leave them a user talk page message to discuss on the article talks, per WP:BRD. He's not required to log in or use the talk pages before taking action, but once reverted, discussion should happen before he reinstates the edits. -- ferret (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Repeating myself from the "List of video games considered the best" section, I have reason to believe that this is the "work" of sockpuppets of banned user Jagged 85, as the deletion of legitimate sources (along with continual misrepresentation of sources, inappropriate synthesis of sources, along with addition of questionable or poor sources in other articles) is consistent with their usual behavior (details: 1, 2, 3) and one of their preferred IPs is in the 86 range, which was also the range implicated in their most recent sockpuppet investigation. If there's an anonymous IP on a video game history article that's downplaying Western games while promoting Japanese ones, and using the aforementioned techniques to do so, it's almost certainly Jagged. They've chosen this article specifically, I believe, in retaliation to my gutting of the Action role-playing game article, which was almost entirely Jagged's work. Phediuk (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Phediuk: While plausible, Jagged's IP are all from btcentralplus.com as his ISP. This IP is a static IP from another carrier in a different country, and has been in use since 2014 (Clearly the same editor in all that time and the IP is denoted as static). Perhaps this is a work IP? See this diff in particular. I'm not familiar with Jagged's case though so am not comfortable making a behavioral block. @Sergecross73 and Salvidrim!: I think you both have looked at this case before. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't ever work with Jagged on an administrative level either, so it's hard for me to say. It does seem like there was someone who reported a similar issue to this to WP:VG months/years back, about issues related to IPs and the history of RPGs or something. I don't really recall where that went either though. Anyways, regardless, if the IP edits are repeatedly troublesome, and seem to most be from IPs, I have no problem protecting the article for a while, at least forcing them to discuss or stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

OpenCritic as reliable source

OpenCritic is being discussed again. This time, regarding whether it can be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia in general, site-wide. The new RfC has nothing to do does not specifically deal with the Template talk:Video game reviews template (as was the case last time). SharkD  Talk  14:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it can be used to cite snarky comments. SharkD  Talk  21:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I cannot find anything on OpenCritic that can cite your comment SharkD. It's unsourced, could you strike it? -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a legit question. There's already consensus not to use it in review boxes. Why do we need a separate discussion for prose? Why would it matter whether or not the content is written in a contained rectangle, or an open sentence? Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Editors in the previous discussion intimated that a move to allow OC to be used in the template could not be made until OC were first deemed reliable at VGRS. We've reached that stage in the process right now. SharkD  Talk  20:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've made an arbitrary break in the WP:VG/RS discussion to gather clearer statements of support or oppose from participants. -- ferret (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Games lists & wikidata

List articles like this one can be easily reproduced using Wikidata result sets such as this one. (Except maybe for redlinks? Dunno.) Is there any desire to replace these list articles with database queries? The database is more flexible, but requires some skill. Whereas the wiki article just requires a working Web browser. Thoughts? SharkD  Talk  15:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel like you've asked this a couple times, but I can only find a discussion from over a year ago right now. Either way, I wouldn't pursue this right now. Wikidata adoption is very controversial, and is mostly limited to various template implementations with frequently-challenged Infobox implementations being the primary use. There's strong objections in the community about using Wikidata for article prose or sourcing, most often due to issues with verification policy differing between ENWIKI and WD. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about auto-embedding wikidata in an WP article. But maybe linking to a result set in an article's "External links" section? SharkD  Talk  15:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't really see 7KB long links being a good call for EL sections. What might be more useful would be to build a guide to performing video game related queries against WD, as a part of (or subpage of) WP:VG/WD. -- ferret (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Problem is, List_of_role-playing_video_games:_2016_to_2017 only has one item in it! Nobody is going to update it by hand. Wouldn't it be worse to import the data from WD than to just link to WD? SharkD  Talk  16:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
In my view that's not the issue. This list should be reorganized from "date ranges" to alphabetical. It's unnecessary for most of these articles to be split into single year periods for just a few entries. It creates a lot of duplicates and maintenance such as repeating the Legend, etc. I would combine into a single list. IF that list is too big, I would first split as A-L and M-Z, similar to List of PlayStation 4 games. -- ferret (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
As an example, the 1994 to 1995 page has nearly 200 games on it. You're still going to have to split the list into many pages, repeat the legend, etc. You're not really solving anything. SharkD  Talk  20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
That PS4 list is a nice list, but I think it's against Wikipedia rules to use a font so small. It also has fewer games on it than the number of RPGs on Wikidata. SharkD  Talk  20:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, when I originally made the list it was split into 5 and 10 year spans. Someone else came along and split it into 2 year intervals. SharkD  Talk  21:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It was split into smaller intervals due to page loading times and other performance reasons apparently, though I thought 5 years was fine. SharkD  Talk  22:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

These indexes aren't really encyclopedic, so l would love to see them be replaced with Wikidata. After all, they're basically a literal database already, except written in wikitext. My solution is as follows: make these indexes in Wikidata, show that it replaces the indexes, and then we can decide what to do next. Right? ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I already posted the Wikidata query. Read my post again. And, yes, I agree with you, in that I wonder why do we need these lists when we have Wikidata? SharkD  Talk  20:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies. The only difficulty is that I still don't really understand how to use (browse?) Wikidata, and that even if I wanted to create something like this, I wouldn't know how to. If I knew how to use Wikidata (or rather, once I finally figure out how to use Wikidata), I would probably be 100% on board with using Wikidata more. Either way, these types of "indexes" aren't encyclopedic, that I know, and I'd vote delete if they came up. Unless a list article contains original information (One or more good prose sections, a specific context for existence, or because they are filled with non-notable subjects), they are likely not encyclopedic in nature... ~Mable (chat) 12:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Why these lists at all? This looks like the realm of categories. Unless we promote redlink inclusions, any of these lists are purely the intersection of genre and year vg cats. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
    I think this index exists because it allows people to sort these works by developer, setting, platform, etc. This is a databse' job. It's cool and useful, but it's pretty literally what Wikidata was made for, if I am not mistaken. ~Mable (chat) 11:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
We need some way to point readers toward the database however. Normally, in SQL you can create a "view" or report of some type so users don't have to build the queries themselves. But we don't have such a feature over at Wikidata yet. I suppose a user could create and host such a view on their own website, but I'd rather see this stuff remain within the Wikipedia/data sphere. SharkD  Talk  21:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, FYI, Wikipedia does not support Wikipedia:Category intersections yet, AFAIK. SharkD  Talk  21:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure but instead of these lists there could be "role-playing games per year" (which would automatically place in RPG and "(year) video games) instead... but that's a pretty big change to implement. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but as Mable explained, a category intersection omits all the other data, like developer, publisher, subgenre, release dates for different regions, etc. etc. And a regular list is a pain in the ass to maintain. SharkD  Talk  03:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (5 October to 13 October)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

5 October

7 October'

8 October

9 October

10 October

11 October

12 October

13 October

Salavat (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Skotos

Is there a video game with the name "Skotos"? On wikidata it is listed as a game, and was listed as an RPG before I removed the statement. It links to Skotos which seems to be a gaming portal. Are there other gaming portals I can use as a model? SharkD  Talk  03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

A bot seems to have done that back in 2013, probably was never a game. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Kiryu's 1up article

While expanding the creation section of Kazuma Kiryu, I realized this 1UP interview was never archived so it's dead. By any chance does anybody know another archive? The article Yakuza (video game) also used some 1UP references but all of them are dead now. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Here's a complete archived version of the interview you mentioned. Here's an alternate version you can use. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Video game genre

Can we move Artillery to the "Other genres" section? I don't think there are a whole lot of strategy or tactics in these games. They are more focused on the pointing, shooting and ballistics, and I think they don't fit very well in any of the other categories. SharkD  Talk  04:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I suppose the Worms series could be strategic, since you control multiple units, and they have different types of weapons (AoE, ballistic, direct fire weapons, etc.). SharkD  Talk  04:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Are there any other opinions? SharkD  Talk  00:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Black Cauldron

The video game description takes up a pretty big section of the film article. It was merged in there several years ago[3] because it did not have any sources, although one source was added on the film article since then. I am wondering if more sources exist to improve this and maybe one day split it back out? 76.231.73.99 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Good call. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Thread 33 - October 2017 edition

We're on the point of November, and as I look, I see multiple GAs waiting for someone to review them. As with previous entries by myself and other editors on this theme, I'll be putting open FAs, GAs, FLCs, and other stuff. GAs were generally nominated across September and October, unless otherwise noted.

FACs
FLC
GANs
Other

As before, there is the Requests board as a related addition to this. Please feel free to review article requests, as there is a gigantic backlog. Out of the articles nominated above, four are my own and thus exempted from me taking them on: Bullet Witch, Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love and the two Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei games. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You know, Knuckles' Chaotix looks like it needs some reviews... :) JOEBRO64 11:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Somari peer review

Hi, I've recently nominated Somari for a peer review and would like some comments. The peer review is here. Thanks! JOEBRO64 17:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sister Sonic

Looking for input on a potential merge of Sister Sonic into Popful Mail: Talk:Sister Sonic#Merge into Popful Mail. Thanks. TarkusABtalk 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Domark Software

How comes no discussion was raise about merging? It was just merged without discussion, I don't think they should of been merged as they were separate companies. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The article was an unsourced mess, only one properly referenced was present, that depeicting Domark's reformation into Eidos (which later became Square Enix Europe); hence, the article did not meet any article criteria and could have simply been CSD'd or redirected. I am currently trying to work out on having a nice history section, including Domark, drawn out at the given target article, though it appears trublesome to find good sources for Domark (another con-notability pointer). You are invited to help me out in SE Europe's history section if you happen to know good sources (MobyGames is not). Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 11:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
German magazine Retro Gamer has a six page article on Domark. Part of the articles of Retro Gamer are translations from the UK original so it might be that article is available in English as well. Here's an article in MoneyWeek. I don't have the time, but for someone with time it should be easy to come up with an article on Domark. Kind regards, Grueslayer 19:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yet, it should just be part of the article under the name it has now (it is litterally the same company). Having a seperate article for the same company just in an older phase makes little sense. Lordtobi (✉) 19:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
With 100+ games in their rooster? That's definately worth an own article. Domark was one of the big players of the homecomputer era. Kind regards, Grueslayer 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Just because they've made a bunch of games is not a reason to keep something (WP:INHERITED). What I understand from the article Square Enix Europe, is that Domark became that company, so I don't see an issue with merging/redirecting. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is a List of Domark games, or category for the games? It's often the case for these older gaming companies from the Commandore - Spectrum era to be under the radar and not have the same presence on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
A category would be alright. Surprised there is not one already. SharkD  Talk  00:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
There is Category:Domark games. Lordtobi (✉) 12:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it me or is it vastly under-populated? Govvy (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I totally disagree with the redirect of Domark. It was a fundamental player in the history of the UK game's industry. This should have been discussed before this dramatic decision. I am not disputing the article needed improvement MrMarmite (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
As given above, there are only these two reliable sources plus those discussing the company's closure. And as Soetermans stated, per WP:INHERITED, having notable games does not make the company behind it notable. Plus your statement "It was a fundamental player in the history of the UK game's industry." comes completely unsourced. Lordtobi (✉) 13:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If the Domark stuff ever gets expanded, it could be split off once again into its own article. SharkD  Talk  02:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Kazuya Mishima's importance

While trying to clean up the article of Kazuya Mishima, I've been wondering if the character could be midclass like Jin and Heihachi. I mean, he first appeared in the very first Tekken game and then he became one of the main antagonists. There is also a lot of reception about him too but I wanted somebody to clarify it. Also, if possible the article lacks creation information about him. I only found information about his devil form. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine to bump it up to mid-importance if the other Tekken protagonists are too. I don't think any of them really deserve it (Heihachi is the only one I, a non-fan, recognize), but it's not really important what importance these characters have. Generally, there's no need to ask about switching from low to mid or vice versa - if someone disagrees, they will revert. As for creation information: it can be hard to find creation information about 1990s characters, but maybe you can find some interviews in magazines of the time that aren't in the article yet. I don't have much experience with that, so good luck ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 09:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockstar San Diego

Over the past days, I expanded some on the Rockstar San Diego article. However, I'm not a particularly good writer and hence, I would like to ask some of you to take a look and maybe do some c/e. Furthermore, the last senteces of the history section are currently, more or less, a source dump and should be fleshed out a bit. Lastly, I couldn't find a lot of info on what they did in recent years, that is after the release of GTAV, and I'm not sure if the C rating on the talk page is appropriate. Thanks in advance for your help! Lordtobi (✉) 14:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the recent years stuff will probably be RDR2, but there are no reliable sources for that yet. - X201 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style/Computing#Definite article section proposed for revision

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The WT:MOSCOMP#Definite article section is proposed, here, to be substantially revised for better agreement with RS practice, linguistics, and MoS norms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify for everyone - This is not just computing. There is a specific proposal to change the way video games handle the definite article. - X201 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

H1Z1 page move contestment

Opinions wanted here, which has become contested for some reason. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (14 October to 20 October)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

14 October

15 October

16 October

17 October

18 October

19 October

20 October

Salavat (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @Dissident93: It seems to be a direct translation of the current version of the enwp article, with the references removed(???), presumably to be moved over to svwp. I don't know what the typical procedure is here, but it's clearly not material intended to be used on enwp in any way.--IDVtalk 20:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you, but the draft itself is a Swedish translation of our English PUBG article, so it makes no sense to add a request for a swe-eng translation.--IDVtalk 23:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

List of characters notability

Hi everyone,

Is List of Art of Fighting characters worth having on its own? List of The King of Fighters characters, a similar fighting game series by SNK is properly sourced, but Art of Fighting has one reference currently. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD'ed. Sidenote: WP:VG/AA hasn't been updated in a couple of days. Does anyone know why? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it updated this morning. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Pay to Win - possible commercial protection !

Like in theme I noticed possible commercial protection by malicious authors, see discussion and proper reaction.--Darek555 (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Like I expected when I rise discussion about pay-to-win, some editors start fight with me and even removed section added by me long time ago and even improved by other editors, like I expected topic is protected by hidden commercial editors--Darek555 (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have placed such a section in main Article, but user Maplestrip removed it:

(section)Pay models

All the types can be implemented to coexist in a single game, provided they do not contradict one another. Payment models can be officially declared or must be classified by players or by the user community.

References

  1. ^ "never pay to win". Grinding Gear Games. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ "A discussion on P2W (Pay to win) • r/gaming". reddit. Retrieved 2017-11-01.
  3. ^ "Free-to-play". Wikipédia (in French). 2017-10-24.

What do You think this section is needed or not ? I mention that this section was long time accepted and even improved by other editors, until now when I raised topic about the pay mechanism of pay-to-win--Darek555 (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This section isn't needed. The Criticism section already discusses Pay-to-win, which seems from your posts to be what you are concerned about. Your issues with a particular game's implementation of "pay to win" and their moderation of their forums is inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't provided such sources what You mentioned, I don't know what about You think. Show me where I point to such sources. All is above, here is 3 sources. Back to the Criticism section I think it should be changed or removed. This is authors creativity based on describing of Dota2. For me this is a hidden advertisement and it should be removed as soon as possible. When I try add information about other games with other payment implementation it is removed. For me this is hidden commercial protection. Either game examples are examples or not, let's decide ! For me this is commercial protection. I will vote to remove it or to shorten to basic information--Darek555 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
None of your three sources above are usable. They are either primary sources (Pathofexile), or user generated (Reddit, Wikipedia itself). See WP:USERG for more information. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Not usable ? They are the same as other sources, then what do You want sources ? In Wikipedia I can't find because of it is banned here, what sources ? In Path of Exile source You have clearly mention by developers of this game -never pay to win - this is not source ? Media, not games then what ? specify it--Darek555 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guideline on what are considered reliable sources can be found at WP:RS. A list of discussed sources commonly used in this WikiProject can be found at WP:VG/S. If you know a source that hasn't been discussed there yet, feel free to bring it up at WT:VG/S. Pardon my use of abbreviations in these wikilinks, I hope it is not overly confusing. ~Mable (chat) 15:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In some specific situations, primary sources can be used, but the "Never pay to win" source you linked doesn't state anything about "pay-to-win" in general, it's just the company saying there game isn't "pay-to-win". It wouldn't even really add anything. ~Mable (chat) 15:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
All sources from free to play are the same as I provided. They don't state anything. In first definition of free to play there is no sources, not even one, first appears in Game mechanics section: two point to private opinion some people, one to game Quake Live, and one to discussion about EA games - now this is a reliable sources ? :) For my that's the proof of commercial protection.--Darek555 (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I am having trouble parsing Dereks' posts. Could a better English speaker please summarize? SharkD  Talk  21:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Derek has issues with the Pay-to-win system of a particular game and wants to highlight it within the article. Since it's been reverted for a variety of reasons, such as sourcing, by several editors, he believes there's a commercial interest at work to hide that information. I.e. there's a conspiracy to protect some mobile game. In effect, a bad faith accusation of COI against several well established VG editors. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
What game? SharkD  Talk  22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Call of War, which doesn't have an article. -- ferret (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think an article about payment models in general would be more interesting than just "free-to-play". Are there sources which cover this? Is there anyone willing to write it? SharkD  Talk  22:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Well an article on free-to-play already exists. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, read my post one more time. SharkD  Talk  00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Unleashed

Hi everyone. As most of you probably know, next year is 2018, and will mark the tenth anniversary of Sonic Unleashed's release. With this coming, I would like to try and bring its article to featured article status. It's already in good shape (it is a GA, after all), but I think we really need to give it a push and improve its music and legacy sections. Also, there are a lot of dead links. Would anyone be willing to assist me in a cleanup/copyedit? JOEBRO64 01:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I will. SwaggerKing32 (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I join?

Can someone please tell me how? SwaggerKing32 (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @SwaggerKing32, welcome to Wikipedia and the WikiProject Video Games! There's not a real formal way of joining, but if you'd like, you can add your name here. The main page is WP:VG and you can find video game specific guidelines at WP:VG/MOS. On this page, we discuss articles, policies and other stuff. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Super Mario 64 and the SNES

Could I get some eyes on the Super Mario 64 page. The first paragraph talks about a game for the SNES titled "Super Mario FX" however the next sentence seemingly implies that this, as a game was never a real product, without giving weight to either statement. As a result it reads very confusingly. Could we get some clarification about what's going on here? --Deathawk (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "giving weight"? That's a featured article and the paragraph in question (Assuming first paragraph of development is what you meant) appears to be appropriately sourced. It's basically reports and personal statements about the earliest concept of the game and its relation to the FX chip for the SNES. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see an issue here yet either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I find that paragraph a little confusing too. You've got a citation to IGN extensively discussing the development of a game called "Super Mario FX", followed by a citation to an interview saying no game called Super Mario FX ever existed, as if these two claims weren't in direct contradiction. Also, that paragraph leads with "Although development of Super Mario 64 lasted two years", but the very next paragraph contradicts this: "The development of Super Mario 64 took less than two years."--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Deathawk and Martin IIIa: Hi guys. The article body text was fairly clear, saying that he considered making the SNES game but didn't do it, and made a completely different Nintendo 64 game instead, with no contradiction in the body. But I see Martin IIIa's point about an apparent contradiction within the sources, which can be zealously blunt. I had written or copy edited that area long ago when Dylan's quote came out on Twitter and I struggled to connect those dots of the story. And I just now wordsmithed it for a while and I see how to clarify it now based on your feedback.[4]
There wasn't ever a five year project; that five year idea is discussed here. That's a bogus number misconstrued by an IGN contributor who poorly summarized what was presumably that Nintendo Power interview. They probably didn't interview him about it and they didn't name any sources for their one-paragraph blurb, and just wanted to put a summary title entry for that particular format of fluff signpost page. So I deleted that bogus source.
I deleted one of the timeframe claims and rewrote and cited the other. We can safely infer a general timeframe approximated to the nearest year, based on that Nintendo Power interview. It was published in January 1996 at a time when another source says that Miyamoto had made a request of Yamauchi to be allowed an extension until April 1996. In the interview, he says it'd already taken "a year and a half" and they were continuing to do so for another few months, so I expressed that as "approximately two years".
Anyway, I hope you enjoy my recent labors over Super Mario 64, Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo Space World, and Nintendo 64. And the next order of business shall be to take a vote on whether Martin IIIa should create a dummy character on his User page so Wikipedia quits redlink-insinuating that he doesn't exist. — Smuckola(talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Smuckola: - Yeah, that's much clearer. Many thanks!--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Further input appreciated: should we include development progress?

I just started a thread over at Talk:Dai Gyakuten Saiban: Naruhodō Ryūnosuke no Bōken#Level of development completion about whether we should include information about how far along development of a game had progressed at a particular point in time. I am of the belief that if we have sources reporting on it, it should be useful information that allows further insight into the production of the game - how long time it takes, how far into the development they announce it, and so on. Another user, Smeagol 17, is of the opinion that it does not matter after the game has come out (I hope I am not misrepresenting their argument, since they only replied in an edit comment so far). Since this would affect more articles than just Dai Gyakuten Saiban, I would like to ask others in the wikiproject to weigh in as well, if you have the time.--IDVtalk 19:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends, but I agree if noted by sources, it's fine. That is, we shouldn't be tracking development blogs or version/change logs, unless those progress points in dev blogs are mirrored in RSes discussing the game. I know several of the articles in my backlog I've included points where the developer said they were XX% done, or they report they had XX% of the game by E3, or when the game went gold, etc. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as long as you've got the sourcing for it, go for it. Sometimes, it may be good to trim back details that end up being more trivial down the line (kind of like how we sometimes trim back on the "pre-release reception" stuff based around hands-on previews once a game is out and we've got 20-60 MetaCritic reviews to pull from) but in general, yes, IDV, you would be in the right here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless there was something notable about the state of development at the time, such as a new feature that got announced, I also agree that info that simply says "In late January 2017, development was 35% complete" shouldn't really be added. What if it's reported on monthly, would we just have a large paragraph stating the completion percentage in each month prior to release? The only real way I could see this being added is at the start of a sentence that includes other info, so By the start of 2017, development of the game was around 35% completed, with OTHER NOTABLE DEVELOPMENT INFO HERE. with By the start of 2017, a third of the game's development was finished being an alternative. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, if there were monthly updates with new progress percentages or whatever (which I believe is not the case with DGS2, but could be with other games), we would summarize them and not include every single date in the article. I get that it's not ideal to just list a date without much additional context, but I am not in any way pretending that that paragraph is fully developed or anywhere near "final", and it would be strange to me to purposefully not include some information that would be included in a more developed version of the article.--IDVtalk 21:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
When I start up JRPG articles, I commonly add stuff like "The game was at 40% completion upon announcement by Famitsu" and I don't recall any opposition ever really. Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to note that development of a video game isn't exactly linear. A completion percentage is not a fact. "The game was described as being at 35% completion" or something along those lines would work better. Better yet, "X stated that the game's development was at 35% completion as of ..." ~Mable (chat) 09:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Just as an example, development time in an article about Duke Nukem Forever is probably very noteworthy. Other articles, not so much. SharkD  Talk  21:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@IDV: - I don't think there's any real need to mention the percentage completion without any context. If the source which provides the context doesn't mention the percentage completion, then the percentage probably isn't important in that instance. And if it does mention the percentage completion, then the source which states it without context is redundant.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it an RPG?

Should Virtual Woman be considered an RPG? It seems more like a dating sim or virtual "pet". Is anyone familiar with this software? Is it even a game? SharkD  Talk  06:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I wouldn't consider it to be a game. What do reliable sources call it? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I mean, I we've got to go by what reliable sources say, but skimming over the article's current text, I wouldn't expect video game specialist sources to call it one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
None of the sources used in the article - including the software's own website - call it an RPG. SharkD  Talk  03:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Super Hydlide wikidata

Should this and this be combined into one record? The latter is a remake of the former AFAIK. Both are discussed in Super Hydlide on English Wikipedia, but French Wikipedia has two separate articles. SharkD  Talk  03:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

These kind of topics don't really belong here and should be asked on Wikidata. Since frwiki has two articles though, there should be two items. Wikidata does not follow enwiki notability guidelines, and treats these as distinct topics, which they are. -- ferret (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
My question is more about whether these games should be treated as the same topic, not about how wikidata works. I've been reviewing a long list of RPGs, and this is the first time (so far) that I've encountered a game and its remake that were split into two separate records/articles. Wikidatians will be hesitant to answer this, or topics about video games in general. SharkD  Talk  07:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the original release and the remake are two distinct entities. Wikidata is about data points. On enwiki, we combine them into a single article topic, but they ARE two separate things. -- ferret (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Decksplash demands 100K players

Would this be an appropriate source for a possible article on Decksplash, an article I requested at WP:VG/R? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just that one single source? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a step in the right direction - a detailed RS - but the GNG requires multiple, and it usually takes 4 or 5 to keep an article safe from deletion at AFD in my experience. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
So far, I also have 2, 3, 4, and 5. Is this okay? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Probably the bare minimum now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yup, I'd say that good enough to keep it from being deleted at an AFD or something. However, if you go for it, I'd recommend writing as long of an article as possible - not just one of those "2 sentence, 5 sources plastered after it" type articles - or, as you can see by Masem's comment below, people may be in favor of a merge/redirect situation for now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There is, or at least should be, more to say about the game, such as Gameplay and Developent, like it is presented in these sources [5][6][7][8][9][10] (and there is more). Lordtobi (✉) 17:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
As creator of this article, I am unopposed to any willing editor adding this information to the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced articles

There are currently over 1600 unsourced video game articles, so I am looking to reduce that list bit by bit. I'm hoping there are reliable sources to add to these articles to improve them. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:414:9EFC:879B:A1ED (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 1987 in video gaming and other articles like it, can't you verify the dates by simply visiting the games' individual articles? There are not a lot of redlinks as far as I can tell. SharkD  Talk  02:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. There's more in those articles than just names and dates. SharkD  Talk  02:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking for a review of 180 and I found this www.zxspectrumreviews.co.uk which will come in useful for Spectrum games. It holds transcripts of reviews. Useful for page and issue numbers. - X201 (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks X201, that's great! I found one of the three reviews listed for 180, as well as three more reivews that were not already listed in the article, so I removed that one from this list. None of the reviews listed a Title so I left that blank, and some of them did not give the name of the reviewer.65.126.152.254 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
2017 League of Legends World Championship actually had three sources before this list was even posted, so I removed it. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
8 Eyes has a few references now. --Teancum (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Great! I removed it from the list. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (19 October to 27 October)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

19 October

20 October

21 October

22 October

23 October

24 October

25 October

26 October

27 October

Salavat (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Dead Ahead

The September 1996 issue of EGM has a full-page article on a Nintendo 64 game in development called Dead Ahead. It's supposedly a combination of fighting game and action-adventure, a la Tobal No. 1 I suppose, though oddly the article claims Dead Ahead is the first game to combine these genres. The developer and/or publisher is Optical Entertainment, though the article notes "Programming work is being handled by Software Creation, one of the original members of Nintendo 64's 'Dream Team'." The music was composed by David Newman. Planned release date is Christmas 1997.

I can't seem to find this game mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, which I would expect it to be even if it was cancelled. My guess is the title "Dead Ahead" is either wrong or was changed later in development. Anyone have any idea what game this might be?--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that looks like the only name, nice find. I think normally you're right that a game far in development would have a mention of it on WP, but I think since it wasn't a part of any well known series or from a renowned developer, it got missed. TarkusABtalk 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting! I've never heard of it, and I'm usually pretty familiar with most N64 games, released or not. Smuckola, how about you? I know you've done some pretty deep dives into N64 research. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't ever heard of this lol, sorry. However, I am looking for sources for Mario no Photopi but I think that a relatively unpopular Japan-only release sometimes wouldn't have any coverage at all outside of Japanese print media. :-[ — Smuckola(talk) 17:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Czar! For whatever reason, I didn't think to check on Unseen64; I'll try to keep that site in mind when and if I run across something like this again.
Smuckola - Actually, I've found that most major American gaming magazines in the 1990s provided coverage on Japanese games before anyone began localizing them (and of course in some cases such games were never localized at all). Naturally not every game got covered, but with "Mario" in the title I'd be very surprised if the game didn't get at least a mention in Electronic Gaming Monthly at some point.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game)

Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game) needs more eyes, reddit controversy. Mostly been constructive but starting to veer off. -- ferret (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and protected it as the edits picked up to continuously re-add variations of "pay to win" (as the most innocent) to the genres and lead. -- ferret (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, probably warranted, I've seen a lot of negativity about the reddit controversy/microtransaction stuff online today. FYI, to you or anyone else, I'm not really into Star Wars stuff, so feel free to contact me if you need an uninvolved admin to intervene. I have no interest in editing personally, so I have no issue in holding out. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Negativity? That's an understatement... HalfShadow 21:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Did it need full/admin protection though? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm honestly not surprised at the continuous refactoring of my post on the article's Talk page after full protection. Please continue to keep an eye out for that. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Football (video game)

If it was released as NFL Football, shouldn't the title and article name be NFL Football? Having the title as Football seems a bit ambiguous to me. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and the sources all list it was NFL Football (Or in one case, Super Challenge Football). -- ferret (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the name is definitely "NFL Football", but I don't know if that's the best choice for the article title. I really don't feel like this video game from the 1970s is what most people who type in "NFL Football" in the search bar are looking for... Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
NFL Football (video game). Just overwrite the redirect. "Football (video game)" should probably redirect to the list of football video games. ~Mable (chat) 14:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be my suggestion as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe NFL Football (1979 video game)? I don't think I can perform page moves, Hopefully a more sensible naming solution is found. Govvy (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The year should only be included if there was another video game to distinguish it from. (So, for example, if there was any article for something like a NFL Football (1983 video game) video game. Since there isn't (to my knowledge), the year wouldn't be necessary. I can perform the page move, but I wanted to confirm that everyone was on-board first. Sergecross73 msg me
k, cheers, on a side note, would you call the Atari Lynx version a port of the game or a separate game? I was deciding if I should be linking to this article as a port, but I think the Lynx version was built from scratch. Govvy (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
How do sources describe the relationship between these two games? ~Mable (chat) 18:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, IGN reviewed the Lynx version and didn't mention the original. 1. The 1992 Lynx version says trademark and copyright Atari. The original is Mattel, do you think should be on the same page or separate articles? Govvy (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
So technically the Atari Lynx version is not a port, do you think they should be be on the same page? Because they are the same title game. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If there isn't really a relation, no. Is the Lynx' game notable as well? ~Mable (chat) 15:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it was notable for being bad and unplayable, as I pointed to in one of the links above IGN reviewed it. I can try and work on something in my sandbox at some point. Govvy (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Release dates in the age of early access

I would like to bring up a detail that I find troubling with how we report release dates. Certain articles such as Arc: Survival Evolved and Minecraft have release dates given for their final release, which is in both cases around two years after the game was made available to the public. In the Minecraft article I believe someone actually tried to correct this but it was reverted here citing the "infobox documentation". Searching through the project archives it seems the agreed upon approach is to only use such "early access" release dates until the final product is out, which seems misguided. The rationale seems to be that if the article states within the article the early release that it's ok to have the infobox only list the "official" release date, however this is disenguine and assumes everyone who looks at the infobox also reads the entire article. \

My main issue is that this gives provides an incorrect view of the events that surround it, for instance Arc: Survival was pretty influential in the gaming culture circia 2015, or 2016, however you wouldn't know that if you just did a glance because the infobox states "2017" as a release date. I propose that if a game had been released through a type of early access program and that reporting on that has been significant that we should also include that date as well. --Deathawk (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that early access or similar means do not always end up in a fully released game. The final release demonstrates a released title. If the early access release is important (as it is at least for Minecraft, ARK, and PUBG) that can be outlined in the lead. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that these dates should just be listed as the general release date, what I'm suggesting is that they have some type of clarification with the "official date" listed below, for instance Arc Survival would look something like
Release Date: Early access: June 2 2015
                August 29,2017

The format clearly establishes that A) The game was available to the public prior to 2017, and B) that the version provided then was not the final version. --Deathawk (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Deathawk, as I have always found the listed release date for Minecraft incredibly misleading. Perhaps an early access release date parameter would be useful? ~Mable (chat) 06:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Early access dates can be covered in the article body. Not every bit of information needs to be added to the infobox. The release date field is already a mess for games that released on multiple platforms at different dates. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The way I see it is these pre-release dates (especially when they're years ahead of actual release) are as important as the actual release date, and just ignoring this as a factor is not a valid solution for the problem. --Deathawk (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Excluding it from the infobox is not ignoring it. Video game articles typically have an entire section dedicated to the release information. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with Masem and The1337gamer, if the early access date is in fact notable (such as with Minecraft) it should go in the lead instead. We don't need to mark this in the infobox for 99% of cases, and we surely don't need a dedicated parameter for it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There's some arguments here that the info should appear in the article itself rather than the infobox. The problem with this, is that neither the articles for Minecraft nor Ark Survival list these early releases until the "development" section. If one were to take a glance at the Minecraft article page on their phone, and weren't that invested in it, they would leave believing that the game was first released two years after it was out, which as another editor said is misleading. We should not be allowing that kind of action to occur. The argument that the infobox is overcrowded, thus does not particularly strike me as a valid reason for exclusion. --Deathawk (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The problem with this, is that neither the articles for Minecraft nor Ark Survival list these early releases until the "development" section. So add it yourself? Nobody has been against the mentioning of this in prose, just the infobox. Also, the argument that the infobox would be overcrowded can be valid, and having EA dates for something like PUBG for two or more systems is just messy and better covered in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not specifically talking about those games here, I'm talking that there's no policy for it, so if I were to change both of those game, those games are covered, but there's still the question of everything else that had a stagnate release schedule. The infobox should ideally serve as a way to correct this. I do not think you realize the options that could be done to alleviate the problem. For instance, I do not think it necessary to reveal the early access date for each platform, just that there was an early release available. I would say that the info by platform could be covered in prose. There are other ways to avoid cluttering the infobox as well, I'm sure. My thing is, that this isn't just select games, this is a new way games are released and we should update our infobox policy accordingly. --Deathawk (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the infobox should "serve as a way to correct this." However, I do think that the first/initial public release date of these kinds of games should be listed in the infobox, perhaps even moreso than the "version 1.0" release date. An infobox serves to "summarize ... key facts that appear in the article," and I believe this is one of the more important ones. ~Mable (chat) 09:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mable. Not only is it a key fact, I find it misleading to leave out the early access date. "It's in the prose" sounds fine, but a lot of people only read the infobox and possibly the lead. The key facts need to be in those two places.--IDVtalk 09:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps as a note after the official release date? Just listing it in the open can be messy if the game had versions on other platforms, which could potentially have their own EA programs too (like PUBG, which would have four release dates for only two platforms). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing listing it as text above the actual release date, which clearly labels it as "Early access". If you scroll upwards, you can see my very rough example of what it might look like for Ark. I'm primary concerned more about listing the fact that it had an early release over listing it for every platform. That, I would say we can do in prose. My chief concern is letting it be known that the version released of, say Minecraft, on it's "official release" was not the first time it was released to the public. --Deathawk (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, and I disagree with that proposal. In terms of the infobox, a game being available in open beta shouldn't be considered as important its official release date. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a difference between an "Open Beta" period as it is defined in games such as has been traditionally applied to MMO's though and how Early Access releases are handled. For one, Betas for MMO's usually occur a few months prior, while the examples I've given both had such a period being years long. --Deathawk (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but that doesn't change my opinion any. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Open source games/software have a similar issue, in that they report much lower version numbers as the "release version". We tried to address this on Infobox software, but there was no consensus. SharkD  Talk  21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I still oppose adding this, in part because what defines "early access" is not clear. Is it an paid-closed beta period that a game like Fortnite or Dauntless is having? Is it an open beta? Is it being put available on a site on itch.io (as something like Loot Rascals had) before being "fully" released on Steam early access. There's far too many variabilities in what this is to include in the infobox. Again, where it is notable, as with Minecraft or PUBG, the highlighting in the lede makes perfect sense. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously one of the challenges that we have to face, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. I imagine we could open a seperate discussion here to get input about what we should include. Me? I think that it should defined as "A paid stand alone release or a release that large scale release that occurs multiple years prior to the "official" one. --Deathawk (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the footnote idea Dissident suggested. Reminds me of country infoboxes, where the government type or national languages are often footnoted because they need further explanation. This would also help account for all "early access" cases like Masem said. TarkusABtalk 22:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So what would one of these footnote sections looklike? Can I get an example? --Deathawk (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I fully support this idea, I always have. If this is added, it should be how the devs identify the game's state. Simple as that. If a dev company says the game is in early access, you say its in early access, if they say it's a paid-closed beta, it's a paid-closed beta. For example, Faster Than Light was released as an E.A. title in 2011, but was released as a full game in 2012. In this age of sneaky devs we really should add an Early Access date just simply because some never release their games, its also a very important time in the game's development that should be highlighted. Blod722 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wolfenstein series article name change

Wolfenstein (series) was moved to Wolfenstein (video game series) by In ictu oculi without discussion or consensus—the reason for the move was that "series means tv series to most people". The article title was fine before: "(series)" is the preferable disambiguator per WP:NCVGDAB. Looking for other opinions. – Rhain ☔ 13:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well I didn't know about Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(video_games)#Disambiguation but clearly that guideline is wrong. Otherwise all the (TV series) articles should have "TV" removed and just be series. The word "series" on its own is clearly more likely to mean "TV series" than "Video game series" as TV series are more popular and more culturally significant than video game series. Presumably there are also series of books, magazines, physical games, etc etc. The term "series" does not indicate that the a video game series is meant. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
In a sense, In ictu oculi is correct. Just using the disambiguator "series" by itself on an article title is confusing at first, because it's not clear to the reader just from looking at the title what kind of series it is. This disambiguator issue can be expanded to other media types as well, for example, books. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The term in the disambiguator doesn't need to be 100% crystal clear, just that it provides a reasonably descriptive term that makes the disambiguation work, and thus as short as possible. "Series" works for video games, books, comics, movies, etc. The only reason for where it stands out in television is that a TV show is not a series of works, but a series of episodes, making it a unique type of serialization and hence why "TV series" is used there. Whereas for most games, these are games that typically share the same name, so "series" works just fine as long as there are no other series of the same name to worry about. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
What Masem said. The whole point of the disambiguator is to disambiguate, not to precisely identify the nature of the article subject; otherwise, we wouldn't have so many articles which have no disambiguator at all!--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
As per Masem. Additionally, series also there because not every item in a video game series is a video game. Series is there to cover various spin-off media. - X201 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The move has been undone. The guideline is clearly not wrong, and there's no reason to make a title unnecessarily long. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
They're not contradicting approaches of titles. Like @Masem said, the term is "TV series". Compare "Twin Peaks is a TV series" and "BioShock is a video game series". While we can also say "BioShock is a series of video games", we wouldn't say "Twin Peaks is a series of TV episodes". Does that make sense at all? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense no, the term "a new series on CBS" obviously means "TV series". TV series is the usual and main meaning of series in English. This really looks like a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about what the word series means to one project. What about sports series? Other series? The term "series" alone would never suggest "video game" to someone not involved in video games. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
"TV series is the usual and main meaning of series in English." No it isn't. It really isn't. - X201 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It reads like you have the opinion that the Video Games Project has claimed "series" for itself. We haven't. Other projects can use it too. Series doesn't have to suggest video games to anyone, all series has to do is tell people that the subject of the article is part of a series. - X201 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Well we can try that. Are you happy for "TV" to disappear from all (TV series) articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No opinion, don't care. Video game series have long been at (series) unless there was a competing topic that required further disambiguation. We then use (video game series). This isn't anything new or controversial. -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. Exactly my thoughts. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there some issue regarding video game article titles we're not aware of? I find your reading of Wikipedia: CONSISTENCY too narrow; we're not suggesting to change TV series articles at all. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes there is an article for a series of manga, and another article for the series of video games based on the manga. Can't think of an example right now, but I ran across one this past week. I'm not sure what was done in those cases. SharkD  Talk  01:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wolfenstein (series) should be moved to Wolfenstein and the latter should be moved to Wolfenstein (disambiguation). The other three pages on the disambiguation page receive an average of 5-12 views per day while Wolfenstein (series) receives over 2000. TarkusABtalk 03:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • No. We do try to avoid recentism and popularity in names particularly when we are talking pop culture (eg , when Avatar the film was out, we opted not to move that over avatar, the religious concept). While the other pages that are off the Wolfenstein page are not that major, they are more permanent in encyclopedic information compared to the VG series. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Eh, page views aren't the reason but looking at the other options, the game series appears to be the primary topic for "Wolfenstein". But that's a matter for another talk page. czar 05:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree with this. Wolfenstein the video game series is definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I will make a move request for that shortly. (That said, I disagree with adding "video game series" or "TV series" per WP:PRECISE.)ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm responding to Masem, who said the religious meaning of the word avatar is more "permanent" than the meaning viz-a-viz computing/gaming/movies/pop culture. I don't want to predict what will be considered "permanent" in the year 3017. Maybe Mario will be a deity and Vishnu forgotten? Masem explained why the "permanence" of an encyclopedic topic versus "recentism and popularity" is important to this discussion/policy. SharkD  Talk  22:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That all wasn't exactly clear in your initial comment... Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
See religion and video games, and "Video Games Are The Next Big Religion". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Fox McCloud's legs - were they amputated? (OR discussion)

As per Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Fox_McCloud.27s_legs_-_were_they_amputated.3F

The question is whether you can use artwork alone to argue whether a fictional character (Fox McCloud) had his legs removed despite statements from the Star Fox's programmer (Dylan Cuthbert) and the game's main producer (Shigeru Miyamoto) saying the legs were not amputated. Please see the thread at: Talk:Fox_McCloud#Legs_not_prosthetic WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sales figures outside the UK

Does anyone know good sites for sales figures? I can get fairly detailed information for games in the UK (in this case South Park: The Fractured but Whole) but I can't really find decent information on areas elsewhere. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Japanese sales are documented by Famitsu and Media Create and pretty frequently covered by English websites like Siliconera and Gematsu, but anywhere else, it seems like figures only really come from the publishers themselves, if they chose to announce them or put them on their quarterly reports. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Alright thanks, felt a bit awkward having a beefy UK sales section for a US game, but eh. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
South Park seems like major enough of a release that they'll probably announce figures eventually at least. Looks like they did eventually with The Stick of Truth but it took...wow, looks like over a year after release, according to the article? I feel your pain though, I'd report sales on video game articles all the time if I could, but the video game industry is way less open about that sort of thing than film or music... Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (25 October to 3 November)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

25 October

27 October

29 October

30 October

31 October

1 November

2 November

3 November

Salavat (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Develop

Develop is going to be merged into the MCV brand in early 2018 [11]. I don't read this as making the old content go away, since it was all owned by the same media group to start, but as Develop is a rather key work, we may want to be careful to archive. That said, a spot check of archive.org shows they allow caching, so if their older stories manage to disappear, we should still be okay. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

citing a game manual

If I wanted to cite a game manual, what template, format should I use? Govvy (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Preferably a Harvard-style citation where you can attribute specific pages. You can see examples here or how they're being used in articles like Super Mario World. JAGUAR  19:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Short answer, if you're only citing one page: {{Cite book}}. --PresN 20:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Zarlor Mercenary

I think it's as complete as it's ever going to be, I was wondering if it's good enough for GA or not for an Atari Lynx game. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Article is not good at all. No section on gameplay, goes into way too much detail on minor plot elements, and no development or release information. Reception is the best part of the article but has issues. Here are some tips: Use the reviews to write a Gameplay section. Remove the Missions and Pilots sections. Merge the Space Port section into the Gameplay section you write. Search far and wide for developer interviews. See WP:VG/GL for more help. TarkusABtalk 21:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_133&oldid=1094742341"