Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 134

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135Archive 136→Archive 140

Unsourced reception

I found a number of articles that have unsourced reception sections. As I understand it, including anything in the reception section without a source is a no-no. In some cases, what people posted there is probably just WP:OR that can be removed, and hopefully there are real sources out there that can be used to build a legitimate reception section. In other cases, someone added mentions of legitimate sources, but did not actually include any citations - so it's impossible to tell if those are truly legitimate, or if the person who added it was just being lazy or careless. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Of these, I would note that Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror is up for AFD, although based on the discussion it looks likely to be kept. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all statements are supposed to be supported by sources, per WP:V. It's up to individual editors to decide whether they want to delete it, find and add a source, or tag it as "citation needed", often depending on the ability and likelihood of finding a source. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Good list to work through, should be useful :) ~Mable (chat) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed! I'm sure some that the reception sections of a lot of these articles can be sourced! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
More for the list: The Adventures of Robin Hood (video game), Army Men: Major Malfunction, and Avalon (video game). 73.168.15.161 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed Sonic Pinball Party and Namco Museum Battle Collection from the list as they have been addressed, although the latter could certainly use more sources. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I also removed Mayhem in Monsterland from the list as it has been addressed. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Double Dungeons was much improved, so I removed that one as well. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The unsourced opinions were removed from Tweenies: Doodles' Bones, but the article is still lacking sources. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of sources were added to Yoot Tower, so I removed it. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of sources were added to Lemmings Paintball, so I removed that one as well. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Several sources added to 180 (video game), so I removed that one. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed Pac-Man World from the list because a couple of sources were added to that one. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hollywood Mogul now has one source at least, so I removed it. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You might want to double check that list. For instance, The Adventures of Robin Hood (video game), the first article I looked at *is* properly sourced. It just doesn't use *inline* citations. The references are at the bottom. SharkD  Talk  21:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A PROD has been placed on Back Track - if deleted, I will remove it from the list above. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Back Track was deprodded and a citation added, so I removed it from the list. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Removed Army Men: Major Malfunction from the list, as it has been resolved. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Blood Wake and Cars Race-O-Rama now have at least one reference. --Teancum (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed at Commander Keen in Keen Dreams

I need a 3rd opinion at Talk:Commander Keen in Keen Dreams if anyone's willing. Shaddim recently changed the structure of the article from this to this. I brought it up on the talk page, and we are in complete disagreement on whether the change is for the better, so we could use a 3rd person to chime in. Thanks! --PresN 21:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that "History" is a bit too generic for grouping both paragraphs. I wouldn't go so far as to call the releases as "Legacy". Some pieces of information however such as the copies sold qualify as "Commercial Performance", while other such reviews belong in a "Critical Reception" section. I can see information from the top summary paragraph being repeated in the "Legacy" section. I believe the article needs reorganising with related pieces of information grouped together in sections and sub-sections where necessary. In my own time, I shall experiment with a revision of the article in my sandbox and get approval if possible. Deltasim (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced articles: A

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. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

While appreciative of this effort, the {{Unreferenced}} template populates a hidden category with articles such as this. There is also {{Unreferenced section}} for the unsourced receptions that have been listed before. -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the list. That's not what this talk page is for. IP73, if you want to work through unsourced articles, maybe it would be better to set up a task force (and maybe a user account!) for this. --Izno (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see a task force page for this, where essentially each article would be up for de facto AFD. Let's say, 200 articles per fortnight. 16 week project. Community members would be encouraged to either place a "Delete" underneath if there's no hope, or a "Keep" vote if there are available sources that are either listed or added to the article. The "Delete" ones could speedy deleted, citing the collective community decision. Could be a time efficient way to zoom through these 1600+.--Coin945 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
This comment is baffling. This page isn't for...improving articles? And let's be real - none of these "task forces" are sustainable. They almost never maintain activity. They may just as well document their progress into a sandbox. Sergecross73 msg me 04:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Sergecross73, do you have any suggestions on the best way to deal with these 1600+ articles? There are likely some stinkers in there, but also likely some hidden gems in there too. Do we leave them, dump them, or sort them?--Coin945 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Begin at the beginning," the King said gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.". No need for AFDs etc. Just pick an article, read it, and search for references for the key points. It's easier finding refs, than it is to delete an article and create it from scratch. Look on them as a free resource that just needs a bit of TLC. - X201 (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
If somebody had the zeal and drive to help source these 1600+ articles then that would be ideal even they sourced a fraction of the total, but it will probably never happen. Realistically we need some sort of WPVG elimination drive (funded or not) which would give people an incentive to help get rid of this long-term backlog. JAGUAR  12:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Lack of sourcing on Wikipedia is not necessarily lack of notability. WP:BEFORE needs to be followed with any effort to delete. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Your strawman is unappreciated. If you want to improve articles, go for it. Posting a raw list of 20 articles starting with Aardvark without any obvious sign that you've attempted to work at that list yourself is basically spam (literally, that was the selection of articles the IP posted). We come to this page for help, not for a single editor's mission. I also have no issue with the editor working through this list in a sandbox, but as the IP is not an account, he doesn't have access to such. As for task forces, if the IP can't keep a task force going with his 20-a-week Aardvark selection, then maybe that's fundamentally nonviable as well. But if it is viable, a task force is where it should be, not on this talk page. That also allows the group in question to triage the selection of articles in perhaps a different method than the Aardvark one. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
No need to worry, I'll waste absolutely no more time or effort on this idea. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. If its about building an encyclopedia, and its about video games, it's fair game for this talk page. If you don't want to participate, then don't. That's what I do, every time someone opens up a new section begging for GA reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe some "unsourced article of the day" system where a random unsourced article is selected every day. Of course, this would affect things fairly slowly, but it does allow these articles the attention they may deserve. I like the idea of automatically placing these articles at AfD, though maybe only do so only if no new sources were added that day? That sounds like it would be alright for WP:BEFORE. ~Mable (chat) 13:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't need to be updated regularly about unsourced articles. A reminder that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Backlog exists and was created for the purpose of tracking cleanup issues like this. Aside from me and Czar working on it last year, nobody has bothered to regularly update the Backlog page or make an effort to do significant clean up because boring, tedious and the issues are recurring. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I propose an "Unsourced Article Challenge", to be added to "News and announcements". The articles are crossed off as they're either sent to Speedy Delete/AFD, or alternatively as the template has been removed to to sources added to the article. You could fit about 5/6 columns across the screen so it shouldn't take up too much space. Just article names then a symbol afterwards indicating what happened to it.--Coin945 (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I went through hundreds of articles tagged for cleanup over recent years. For basic triage, when available, add the Metacritic metascore in qualitative prose or MobyGames's review listings as an External link. (Older games require a bit more digging—try a site search of the Internet Archive for old mags, rarely aggregated.) If there are fewer than four major reviews, try to find a redirect/merge target, such as a section of the developer's page (if small) or a list. If it's hopeless, nom for deletion. Doesn't require much coordination. I think it's good advice to split such an effort to a separate page, à la Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Stubcheck Project, to keep a long-term project's notes/progress centralized, if needed, though there's nothing wrong with centralizing discussion here at WT:VG. And it'd take more effort to administrate an "article of the week/month" (many litter the encyclopedia in disrepair) than it would to just dump a list/table of articles on a subpage and have at it. Truth be told, more undersourced articles are added each week than removed, and it's work enough to keep that number stable nevertheless at zero. czar 18:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with my Article

I am writing a sandbox about the upcoming game return of the Obra Dinn(from the creator of papers please and the republic times.)However a person said I couldn't use any interview with the developer Lucas Pope andI couldn't find anything else. The game has received attention from 3 major gaming sites but they'll all interviews with Lucas Pope. Where can I find anything that isn't an interview with this game? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Whomever told you that interviews from RSes with the developer aren't usable is wrong. This is completely acceptable information. I do know the game is coming "soon" and because of Papers Please it got attention when it was announced, so it's reasonable to consider an article, and developer interviews are fine. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The draft under discussion is now at Draft:Return of the Obra Dinn. I do have some difficulty finding more sources, but here are two really short ones I came across: [1] [2]. The most interesting source I was able to find is this Kill Screen article. I hope these help! ~Mable (chat) 21:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: @Masem: Thank you, also I uploaded a screenshot of the demo to the draft and its nominated for speedy deletion even though I took it, the reason was "this image appears to be copyrighted" are screenshots from videogamesv that you took copyrighted? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

GameCube move request

A move request has been posted at Talk:GameCube#Requested move 26 November 2017. -- ferret (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (28 October to 10 November)

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

28 October

2 November

3 November

4 November

5 November

6 November

  • Article accepted as one of the first AfC submissions I've reviewed as a new member of AfC. @Izno: How did I do in comparison? (You can always respond in my User talk if it's appropriate.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

7 November

8 November

9 November

10 November

  • Super Mario 64 HD (edit talk links history) — TheJoebro64
    Concerned that this overlaps greatly with Super Mario 64. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Also agreed. @TheJoebro64: should understand that just because something is covered by reliable sources, doesn't mean it should belong as an independent article. All of this can be condensed and included as a single paragraph in the main article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    That's an incredibly weak argument. You're basically saying "just because it meets the GNG doesn't mean it meets the GNG". It has development articles, reviews, and playthroughs, all published by RSs. Plenty of results show up in the CSE too. JOEBRO64 23:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, List of unofficial Mario media#Super Mario 64 HD Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    But this has plenty of coverage to exist as a separate article. It had plenty of reviews and development articles published, and it's often cited as a good example of Nintendo's stance against fangames. JOEBRO64 21:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I looked at this case a while back and didn't feel that the independent coverage was significant. I did throw together User:Czar/drafts/Super Mario 64 mods, though, which does have sufficient scope. Feel free to edit/expand it czar 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Czar I also found some coverage when I looked into famous SM64 modder Kaze Emanuar ([4]) but not enough for a standalone BLP. For now he's mentioned on the unofficial list but if there ever is an article about SM64 modding he should definitely have his section! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Just as a general point of order, user-mods should default be part of the article about the game they mod before considering making secondary articles. It may take time (eg List of Source mods took a bit of time before it made sense to split out, and even with some of the mods, only a few are considered key notable ones (critically, with both development and reception sections). Just because a mod is noticed doesn't make it a standalone for us. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I too feel that there's not enough for a stand-alone article here. Kind of surprised there's so much pushback here - this is exactly the same as what just happened with JoeBro's creation of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 HD. Fans making largely straight HD conversion of a game doesn't usually warrant a stand-alone article. There's so little to actually be said, as all the coverage it receives just amounts to "Watch this video to see this fangame in HD" and "Whoa, can you believe this corporation sent a cease and desist to a random guy trying to profit off of IP they don't own?" bare bones articles. The rest is just rehashing info already present at the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't create Sonic 2 HD. I just began contributing to it because it seemed notable. This is definitely notable -- it's often cited as the most infamous example of Nintendo's stance against fangames. Also, the gameplay is different in the remake; you have unlimited lives and can collect 100 coins to become invincible. JOEBRO64 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Slight gameplay adjustments are trivial. If that weren't the case, we'd have individual articles for every single enhanced/director's cut/GOTY version of a game. Over half of the used sources are simply the cease and desist announcement from different publications. Of course a company is going to do that to an unauthorized fan project like this, especially Nintendo. What exactly about the game is notable besides that? Anything else can simply fit into a section on the main article, as was the case with Sonic the Hedgehog 2 HD. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, but you were a main contributor to the Sonic 2 HD page, and didn't support it's merger. And its not like its the first time this has happened. Episode Shadow is another example. Seems like there was another one too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    That sounds an awful lot like a personal attack. I didn't oppose the Sonic 2 HD merger, either. JOEBRO64 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    I think "Of course a company is going to do that to an unauthorized fan project like this" is a bit presumptuous (it's not like companies have to polarize their fanbase), but it's true that all DMCA announcement articles released in a short period of time should probably be considered a single "news" item, and Wikipedia isn't a news website. It's something, but it shouldn't be 80% of the article. That being said, in this case, most of the sources aren't about the DMCA. The Verge, Kotaku, and Nintendo Life articles greatly aid in notability here. Differences (or lack thereof) in gameplay and plot are mostly irrelevant, as an encyclopedia should primarily document the development and real-world impact of a work, not the content. ~Mable (chat) 14:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    I'm saying that there's little real world impact though. Every source can be classified as either a short blurb saying "Look at this!" or "It's cancelled", and each source is largely redundantly saying the same thing. If you streamline the info, that's all that's there, and if that's all that there really is to be said, then its better as a small part of the parent article - there's not enough to write a decent stand-alonearticle about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Development of Overwatch (edit talk links history) — Masem
  • List of Western Role-Playing Video Games (edit talk links history) — TheFantasyChronicles – AfD
  • Draft:Bay Route (video game) (edit talk links history) — Betarage64

Salavat (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit request for Meteos

Hey everyone. I'm wondering if I can perform a copyedit for Meteos, which is currently up at FAC. GamerPro64 00:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It was my review of the article at FAC that prompted this request. For the benefit of anyone who takes this on, in addition to the specific issues noted here, I think the reception section needs work -- see WP:RECEPTION for more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect ideas for article creations

I've had a few ideas for some redirects to articles I've created, but since I believe in the idea that an article creator should also not create redirects to those articles, would anyone mind looking into these redirect ideas and/or propose other potential redirects for these pages?

Thanks! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason why an article creator should not create suitable redirects. -- ferret (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
+1, I frequently create a bunch of redirects to article I've created or cleaned up, from altcaps, alt-punc, common misspellings, related topics (such as article-less dev to only notable game, article-less sequels/remakes, etc.) - WP:Redirects are cheap! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, same here. I consider adding plausible redirects as part of the article creation process, like adding categories or infoboxes. I frequently add alternate name/spelling redirects that would help readers get to the page when doing a search. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Including date of discontinuation of game's required servers in infobox?

So as more and more games switch to a service model, we're going to start seeing games become unplayable with servers that support them disabled by the publisher. (eg just today we have Marvel Heroes being shut down).

Would it make sense to include these discontinuation dates in the infobox? Keep in mind a few pointers:

  • These have to be issues related to servers necessary for gameplay. This should not DRM-related issues.
  • If any part of the game is still playable without the servers, this shouldn't qualify for the infobox. A game without multiplayer features due to the lack of servers, but still can be played single player is still playable, and thus not discontinued/shut-down.
  • We can acknowledge that current exemptions in US Copyright law allow for people to run their own servers to play such games that are not official, but as these are unofficial, that still means the original game is unplayable.
  • The game no longer being for sale or supported by the dev/pub is not a milestone here for this purpose. Eg the Deadpool game is being pulled from storefronts, but that's not anything like the game's servers being shut down. Similarly, Battleborn entering it's post-support phase doesn't mean anything here.
  • The game should still be treated as a present-tense title even if discontinued. It is the same way we'd treat something like a television show which there is no present way to get a copy of but still otherwise existed. (As the possibility that the show can be brought to current media/broadcast).

I know right now there's not that many cases, but this does seem to be a direction in the future to be aware of. Obviously, this still qualifies as lede info. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 What about peripherals like PlayStation Move (Sorcery), or additional hardware like the Expansion Pak (Perfect Dark)? They can't be played without, but they're not mentioned in the infobox. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that's worth adding too. I don't share the concerns about the infobox being too cluttered like many of the WP:VG regulars do. But I know it's not a commonly held sentiment either, so it's not like I'm pushing for this real hard or anything. I just voice my support when someone makes a suggestion like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you clarify what you mean by "This should not (include) DRM-related issues?" For example, Darkspore is no longer available for sale, and the DRM servers shut down so existing owners can no longer play it. Would that count as servers necessary for gameplay or a DRM related issue? CurlyWi (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm conflicted on the second bullet point. Phantasy Star Online can still be played single-player, but the game was primarily built for online play, making it notable enough for infobox inclusion IMO. Maybe the field could be titled "Server discontinuation" or "Server termination" and include games like this. TarkusABtalk 01:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Opposed At this time. I'm concerned the rules for the field are already too complex and will require lots of effort to enforce, as well as opening a new avenue for vandalism, i.e. marking games as discontinued that are not. There's certainly good examples where it could be used, especially in the MMO areas, or like Firefall, but... we should be careful that it doesn't become like the released field, which big set of guidelines around that one field. We've already got two examples above that would "violate" the rules at a quick reading but seem very legitimate. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The "criteria" are meant here as points of discussion. We can readily simplify those if this were to be added as a parameter, primarily to stress that post-discontinuation, the game is 100% unplayable anywhere, barring copyright-questionable user hacks. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Another thing we should keep in mind are that this refers to all servers (globally). So what do we do if the servers of an American MMO are terminated everywhere except for in Korea, for example? That being said, I believe this kind of information would definitely work well in the infobox. I'm currently on the fence, but strongly leaning into support. I'd love to discuss some more odd edge cases first. ~Mable (chat) 08:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose. I don't see the benefit of adding this to the infobox, with already those exemptions. The discontinuation of a particular game seems more important to me, than just the official servers being accessible. The game, whether or playable or not, exists. If we're just adding this to see if some games are still playable, that borders WP:CATALOG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying we don't need to mention the discontinuation of servers in the infobox. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But how is that not a key overview point that infoboxes are supposed to capture at a glance? Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll rephrase: oppose this current proposal. I'm not opposed to adding a parameter like this, but I don't agree with the narrowness of it. We could add a "availability" field, where we could mention multiplayer servers taken down, being pulled from digital storefronts altogether (P.T.) or servers being discontinued. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The issue I wanted to stress above was that "completely unplayable" sets a bar that is difficult to argue past so that editors aren't adding in dates that do not reflect this. If you start going in other directions, like not being available on digital storefronts ala PT, you start opening the door to gaming that - "Oh, I can't go out and buy the Zelda CD-i games, guess we list them as discontinued". Discontinuation of required game servers is a very hard line that cannot be gamed. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • My issue is that as soon as the field is added, regardless of the guidelines, that's exactly what it will be used for. Even without it being a field, I occasionally have to cleanup users who just add |discontinued or |offline or |closed to articles, usually on games that aren't. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, and I guess that's kind of the grounds on which I "supported" - it's not such much that I say "let's use these criteria", it's more of a "at the very least, lets do this for the ones that are literally unplayable". If we were coming up with inclusion criteria, point #1 should be "Completely unplayable" should be an "always include" scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I oppose adding it to the infobox. 1. It will only be used on a small proportion of articles. 2. It will be widely misused due to most editors not being for familiar with the criteria. This will lead to us having to spend more time removing incorrect usage of the parameter than inserting correct usage. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per The1337gamer's comments. While in the right case I would support it, it's actually more likely to be harmful than it helps. Also, this would only really be used in MMOs and other online-only games. Perhaps they could use their own split-off infobox that does include this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I feel that there really is not good reason to include this info there as opposed to in the article text. It's confusing and would somewhat be a violation of Wikipedia:GAMEGUIDE, by giving preferential treatment to this over other such info which could be better served there. --Deathawk (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Serge and Masem. While I understand the opposing arguments, this is definitely worth including in the infobox since it's pretty significant and might be crucial to understanding the game. (like if World of Warcraft is discontinued.) JOEBRO64 00:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    Note: this is more of an issue for MMOs and other online-only games, not for ones that are no longer published or actively maintained by the developers, which is the fate that every single game ever will end up as. Actually, I think your example of Minecraft is exactly why this is being opposed in its current form, as what would prevent people from putting "dead" or "inactive" on every game once their devs move on to other projects? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    This wouldn't even be applicable to Minecraft because it can be played offline... --The1337gamer (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    Changed to World of Warcraft then. I'm thinking for online games that are regularly updated once they're discontinued is where we'll need it. JOEBRO64 11:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    That also seems a bad example given World of Warcraft Classic. :D --Izno (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    Which was my sole argument for supporting this. But even in that case, it might be better to have a special infobox for these sort of games, because if it was added to the main infobox, it will just bring up more issues than it would help. A while back, there was a user who claimed that RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 was a dead and inactive project, and I just know they would constantly be adding "inactive" or such to this field, despite it still being officially sold (via Steam) and playable via the original CDs too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Merging the Tails Game Gear games

Hi everyone, I wanted to discuss this here. I was looking for sources on Tails' Skypatrol to see if I could get it to GA-status but there are virtually no reliable reviews, save for an old issue of Famitsu and passing mentions for compilation releases. Would anyone support merging it with Tails' Adventure (A game with far more coverage) redirecting it to List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games? JOEBRO64 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with czar. I don't think merging into Tails Adventure makes much sense. Yes they were both Game Gear games starring Tails, but the games have completely different gameplay, plot, development, etc. and were made by different developers. I understand your concerns with being unable to flesh out the article, so maybe merge into List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games. TarkusABtalk 22:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose this. It makes no sense at all. This is one of the reasons I don't bother with all the GA stuff. People get so obsessed with getting stuff to GA level that they start proposing redirects/mergers/deletions that don't make any sense. You're losing sight of what we're truly trying to do - build an encyclopedia, not "reshape things so it's a GA". Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I've changed my stance to redirecting it, per czar and Tarkus. (And getting stuff to GA/FA is "building an encyclopedia") JOEBRO64 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • EDIT: I've just boldly redirected it to the list. JOEBRO64 01:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
      • As a side note, you seem be to trying to mass nominate all these Sonic games recently. While that isn't bad per-se, it's more preferred if you focus on a single article and improve that as much as possible. Quality over quantity and all that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
        • What do you mean "mass nominate"? Like for GA? Because I think it's better if I broaden my scope since I've turned Sonic Advance, Sonic Adventure, and several others to much-better looking articles now. JOEBRO64 11:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
          • That's what I meant, yes. You nominating and trying to fix numerous articles at once could mean that a single article could be slightly more neglected, possibly hurting its promotion to GA/FA. But that being said, it's not prohibited, it's just a editing practice you see by more experienced editors. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Indeed, and JoeBro's approach is usually self-corrected over time - if he's nominating too many articles at once, they'll just sit there in the review queue for a long time because there's not enough interested people to do all the reviews. (Or editors get irritated and chose to avoid them.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
              • There's no problem with having multiple GANs up at the same time (and three isn't that many). I always keep an eye on the ones I've currently nominated, checking them regularly. JOEBRO64 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
                • Protip: you can watchlist redlinks, which means that you can click the "start review" link and watchlist the page that results without saving, so you'll get a watchlist notification whenever a review starts (though you don't even have to do that, a bot let you know when it starts on your talk page) --PresN 19:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Some eyes on Grand Theft Auto V soundtrack needed

Some time ago, the article Grand Theft Auto V soundtrack was largely (sans the gamecrufty tracklist) merged into Music of Grand Theft Auto V by Rhain. The article was subsequently redirected, but was quickly recovered and even survived AfD. It currently adds nothing valuable atop the afformentioned Music of Grand Theft Auto V article, as such making the only thing Grand Theft Auto V sountrack holds exclusively the way too long tracklist. This tracklist takes up about 90% of the article, is completely unsourced, and by the farthest extend WP:GAMECRUFT (also outside our WP:VGSCOPE). I believe the AfD did not see enough votes from people familiar with these guidelines, or of people who realized that the page is a (not as good) duplicate. Should the article be redirected again? Lordtobi (✉) 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be redirected because the most recent consensus (which was established only 5 weeks ago) was to keep the article. You'd probably have had more success at the AfD if you actually elaborated on your points and made a policy-based argument for deleting it in the discussion instead of writing half a line of text and then ignoring the rest of the discussion. Secondly, you should asked the editor who closed it to reopen and relist it if you thought the outcome wasn't representative of consensus among editors. If you want consensus to change, renominate it for deletion. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It is unclear to me what the difference in scope between these two articles is supposed to be, and this was something that wasn't explained in the deletion discussion by anyone either. Quite odd. ~Mable (chat) 06:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of policies; consensus is what AfD nominations are about. Re-nominating without good cause could be considered a type of edit warring in my eyes. If you were to re-nominate for deletion; I'd make sure that you listed the reasoning behind re-nomination; that it's a psudo-duplication; and that the article is fan-cruft. However, if someone can make a decent argument as to how it is different (Probably regarding the talk radio stations, and how it fits in with the game world), it should stay. I also think the music of article mentions the radio stations in game; but as the soundtrack is almost entirely from this source; the article should be improved to mention specifically that the music is from the in game radio; rather than orchestrated in game without a source. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger: The Sims 4 expansion packs and game packs

I propose the following articles be merged to create a new article The Sims 4 expansion and game packs

You see, these pages are branched out of the main The Sims 4 article, but don't include that much more content than what is already in the main article, and there's not enough new content that can possibly be added to these pages to warrant these game packs all having separate articles. But since merging these back into the main article would only make things clunky, I propose we handle these akin to how the stuff packs for The Sims 2 and The Sims 3 were handled, merging them all into a single article. Given the minute amount of content in each individual article (they mainly only list the game's features), there's really no point in either the editor nor the reader having to keep going to separate articles. Thoughts? —Mythdon 07:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree 100%. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, but with the preposal that if the articles could be made more independent; say with specific information for each one; that they are attempted to be corrected before the merge. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Well they have been out for some time now, with no real effort aside from just listing the new features in a bulleted list and slapping on an infobox. If somebody could expand upon them, then sure, but as of right now that isn't the case. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the merger. Documenting these expansions is fine, but each do not need a separate page. And once you cut out the gamecruft (listing specific new activities/items rather than just broadly talking about them), it would be a reasonable size even with added reception sections. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with condition that the Reception section be cumulative, like a series article. Several Reception sections seems completely redundant. --Teancum (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede image for Boss (video gaming)

I started a discussion about the lede image in Boss (video gaming). Your participation is appreciated. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 03:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

For a while now I've been making sure that video game series navboxes have the full titles listed. @Izno reverted one of these edits, saying there's no reason for long names. Is there a consensus to approach navboxes? I've checked WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV, but there's no Wikipedia-wide guideline on the matter. What does the WP:VG community think?

It's clear that I'm generally in favor of using full titles. There's plenty of room in a navbox, they don't show up on mobile view either. I think that a single character isn't always easy to see (WP:ACCESS), so for a numbered sequel, I don't think it's smart to change Borderlands 2 to 2. It also reminds me of WP:EASTEREGG, which says we shouldn't surprise the reader by making unnecessary piped links. While this intended for articles, making a piped link like this makes it look like the title of the game is Travis Strikes Again, or perhaps No More Heroes: Travis Strikes Again, instead of the actual title Travis Strikes Again: No More Heroes. For BioShock, the original is called just that, the sequel BioShock 2 and the third entry BioShock Infinite, and not 2 and Infinite. For a series like Wolfenstein, shortening titles would be very confusing, where the 1981 original is called Castle Wolfenstein, the sequel Beyond Castle Wolfenstein and the 2001 game Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I think this depends largely on how many entries there is in the navbox, and how they are named. If you only have a few entries with short titles, then I think it makes perfect sense to write the full title. For large numbers of entries, or where the titles are very long, it becomes unwieldy to list the full titles - it would take a lot of extra space to include "Final Fantasy" before every numeral in Template:Final Fantasy series, or "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney" before every subtitle in Template:Ace Attorney series.--IDVtalk 12:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this should be judged with common sense. In some series, like Super Mario, there is enough variety in how the titles are rendered that removing the "Super Mario" portion would only result in confusion. Meanwhile, The Legend of Zelda is so consistent in its title format that repeating the series title ten times in the infobox would make it absolutely unreadable. In the case of Hitman, I would definitely say the series title should be ommitted. ~Mable (chat) 13:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it's reasonable to take the approach that single characters aren't great and am not bothered by that as a reason not to shorten some links. (I don't necessarily agree with it but wouldn't war over someone going from one to the other, in either direction.)

    EGG does not say what you say it says -- the link should not surprise the reader who follows the link, not "don't pipe links when you don't have to". This gets into my next point: context.

    The "there's plenty of room in the navbox" rationale doesn't really fly with me at all since it's not the argument at all (except in super-large navboxes). The motivation to shorten names is about the cognitive load of seeing the same title over and over again. I don't need to see Bioshock Infinite in a navbox or even a group about Bioshock. Once the context is established, making the names longer doesn't aid me as someone attempting to navigate. As for Travis, the disambiguating portion of the text is "Travis Strikes Again" and that's what sets the name of the article. (For that matter, that subtitle could probably be removed for WP:CONCISE since I doubt the phrase "Travis Strikes Back" occurs elsewhere on Wikipedia. But I won't be pointy. :) --Izno (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of content about AVGN in articles

User:Smuckola has decided to delete all content regarding The Angry Video Game Nerd and James Rolfe in several articles about specific video games and video game companies and consoles. He deleted the content, citing in the edit summary WP:RS and WP:N. However, I disagree that much of this content should be deleted.

It started after I added a section to the LJN article about AVGN commonly criticizing the companyl; it was reverted by this user. I reverted it back, basically citing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Then User:Nihlus reverted it back once again, citing WP:BRD, basically encouraging me to talk to User:Smuckola from what I understand, which directly encourages discussion rather than ignoring like what happened. After I told about other articles that talked about AVGN, the user deleted all the content from every article mentioned, simultaneously, including Hong Kong 97 (video game), Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (video game) (which should I mention gained much more attention specifically because AVGN reviewed them?).

So I brought it up on Smuckola's talk page, and they literally just reverted my entire comments, with no explanation whatsoever. Then I reverted that edit, citing a line of WP:Discussion that says that when someone queries you about an edit or revert, you should respond as fully as possible so that the answer to the posed question is very clear. He then reverted me a second time. Though I understand people have their rights to their own talk page, in some senses at least, I saw this as a direct insult to me, especially when on the second revert he called my comments "spam" (which they weren't in any sense of the word).

The problem was that one single user had the opinion that the content should be deleted. No one else even had a chance to discuss it at all, and any attempts to discuss it were blocked out by this user. And I might be wrong, but isn't there some policy about that too? To discuss before just making massive repetitive edits to the same types of articles, or at least regarding users who disagree with that?


Anyway, let's get to the sole problem here. The problem is that, though AVGN might not be considered a "reliable critic" (and yes, I say that in quotes, because HOW CAN ANY CRITIC BE "RELIABLE" ANYWAY? All they do basically is express opinions!), just the fact that he has extensive coverage on Wikipedia already is more than enough to include him in other articles. He has an article for his extremely well-known webseries, Angry Video Game Nerd, an article about him himself, James Rolfe, a list of episodes of AVGN, List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes, and a movie based on the webseries, Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie. Are there any I'm missing?

My point is that AVGN takes relatively unknown games and makes them more known than before. For instance, Little Red Hood, the unlicensed NES game, is probably more well-known for being featured on an AVGN episode than for literally anything else. People who talk about Hong Kong 97 will more likely quote AVGN about it than anyone else on this planet. They're not gonna quote some Metacritic guy or whatever. No, they're gonna quote AVGN, and I can almost guarantee you that. Almost everyone who knows about HK97 in the modern day knows it from AVGN. That's the point.

If you want to talk about "notability" of video game critics...well where can I start... The top video game critics as far as notability goes are...hmmmm... 1.) James Rolfe. 2.) James Rolfe. 3.) James Rolfe. I can't even think of a more notable game critic than him off the top of my head, and I can in fact think of very few other game critics out there in general that would be considered "notable".

Not to mention AVGN in an article about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is like not mentioning trees when talking about a forest, not mentioning electricity when talking about a light bulb, not mentioning alcoholic beverages when talking about bars, etc. By leaving Rolfe out of the Wikipedia picture, we're missing key points of knowledge. Missing them.

And yes, reliable sources to back up my claims can indeed be found. There exist several news sources talking about AVGN's reviews of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (see here). See? It is notable in some instances. It is notable to mention, especially in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde article, that AVGN reviewed that game. His studio even made Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: (The Game:) The Movie, considered an actual parody advertisement short film, which is listed on Rolfe's filmography section on his article.

And I thought "reliable sources" was about proving that content was actually valid? There are certainly reliable sources to back up AVGN's specific game criticisms, so it is indeed valid. In fact, some consider AVGN to fall under the same category as a regular television series, and as far as I know those can be used as sources on Wikipedia too. Rolfe owns an actual studio AFAIK, with complicated procedures, so it's not just any "user-generated content" either.

Perhaps it was inappropriate in some of the instances not to mention AVGN, such as in less notable games that were less notable for being reviewed by AVGN, but I see no reason whatsoever that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (video game) should not mention AVGN. The user confused "reliable sources" with "reliable content". AVGN is not a source in this case, but rather, a fact that is presented on the article; the fact that he said those things about the subject at hand or indeed made those reviews.

Sometimes, things are a little more complicated than just blindly following WP:X without putting very much thought into it, and definitely I can say without discussing it. There's also WP:IGNORE, which basically states that Wikipedia rules are not absolutely absolute, which therefore proves that the rules are too complex to just follow blindly.

It must be discussed. Please do not ignore me in the same manner here. I'm not joking as Smuckola seemed to think (or something); I'm being dead serious. So I'll take you seriously; please do me that same favor. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If it helps, I apologize if I sound rude or anything, but you must understand that I am very frustrated, and I do not like to be treated as if I don't matter. Think about if someone treated you that way. You'd probably be just as upset. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Rolfe is an entertainer known for his comedic value, neither him or his character (the AVGN) are professional critics known for fact-checking and accuracy. Definitely unreliable. TarkusABtalk 17:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"just the fact that he has extensive coverage on Wikipedia already is more than enough to include him in other articles" That's not necessarilly true. We have articles on many unreliable sources that we would not use for sourcing.
"HOW CAN ANY CRITIC BE "RELIABLE" ANYWAY? All they do basically is express opinions!" We have a pretty well established process for vetting reliable sources at WP:VG/RS and it focuses on objective facts (editorial, policies, credentials, history, publisher, peer mentions, etc.) about the source. AVGN has not been vetted reliable, so it's almost always okay to remove citations to it. It's not like we default to some guideline, we have had actual discussions on this source.
"AVGN is not a source in this case, but rather, a fact that is presented on the article" Not sure what you are getting at, but that's literally the same thing. In fact, existence of a source being a fact in itself makes it a WP:PRIMARY source.
"Think about if someone treated you that way. You'd probably be just as upset." If I edited against Wikipedia's consensus, I would likely feel upset about the time wasted, but that wouldn't make me think I was right. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The Angry Video Game Nerd is a character and comedy show. The opinions presented in the Youtube series may not even match those of James Rolfe himself. The episodes of the series themselves are not a source. That being said, if you can find other sources specifically talking about how the Nerd covered a video game, then that can be worth including. This is why Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (video game) and Castlevania II: Simon's Quest have content about the Angry Video Game Nerd. ~Mable (chat) 18:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, until you understand how to identify a reliable source, there is WP:VG/S, which has a massive list of sources already labeled as reliable/not reliable for use in video game related articles, and it's talk pages, at WT:VG/S, have all sorts of discussions about source reliability. Looking through them could help you see the types of things people think about when determining whether or not a source is usable on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If third-party RSes have noted AVGN/Rolfe's statements about a game or the like, that's appropriate to include, but I would agree "bare" references to AVGN is not appropriate (just as with Zero Punctuation or any other "comedic" game reviewer that may actually have a point). In one case, over at List of video games notable for negative reception, a source noted that AVGN had brought to light some of the titles there. That's appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for understanding. I'm glad that this could gain consensus and compromise. This is exactly what I aimed for. I want to show my appreciation for explaining and collaborating so well in so little time. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Fighting game characters

Is there a fighting game character in good shape to use as an example? I say it because recent GAs Ermac and Lars Alexandersson were made with no model at all. I'm also interested in what the project thinks about adding gameplay sections to the articles (of course if they are sourced). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, as to the first question, WP:VG/GA lists a dozen or so; as to the second question of the ones I checked most didn't have any such section, but Rufus (Street Fighter), Hildegard von Krone, and Astaroth (Soulcalibur) do. All 3 were GA'd in 2009/2010, though. Personally, I'm hesitant about Gameplay sections in character articles as they are magnets for in-universe cruft, but the ones you made for Ermac and Lars seem pretty strongly weighted towards real-world connection- development and 3rd-party interest, etc., so I'm cool with them. --PresN 02:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Ivy Valentine is in pretty good shape. TarkusABtalk 02:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey

Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other VG projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cortana (Halo) at FAR

Greetings everyone. I'd like to bring your attention to Cortana (Halo), which I believe falls so far short of FAC standards that it's actually quite embarrassing. I'd argue this article is B-class at best. It reached FA about a decade ago at a time when standards were no doubt lower, though even in the version it passed in I'd argue it doesn't meet FAC standards today, and it's fallen to the weeds considerably since then. Just take a look at the reception section. It begins with information about the character receiving as 'sexy makeover' for Halo 3; where's the reception from the first game? There's an embarrassing collection of listicles pretty much all saying she has nice tits, and sources that don't even meet RS, let alone 'high-quality'. There's also zero coverage of the reception of the character from academic sources, even though a quick search on google scholar finds a plethora of sources to could be mined. And that's just some of the issues with just the reception section.

This is one of only two featured articles for female video-game characters. Due to the lack of featured articles on this subject, and due to my own lack of experience writing about video-game characters at the time, some time ago in my attempts to get Jill Valentine to FAC I actually modeled parts of it off Cortana, since that was one of the only two templates I had to work from. Once I was confident JV met and exceeded the standard set by Cortana, I nominated it for FAC. After two failed FAC's and a seven week peer review there still isn't a consensus that JV meets the standards for FAC. Based on this, I am well aware that Cortana cannot be improved to FA standards without at least several weeks of intense work, if not several months. I've started a discussion on that articles talk page about my intentions to list it at FAR. This is the first time I've proposed an article be taken to FAR. All comments are welcome. Freikorp (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the article, I'd recommend putting it up for review. I don't think it's as low as a B class article, as I think it would still be a good GA article; however featured is a bit of a stretch; and if you feel as positive about this; maybe formally suggesting the review might be a good way forward. I'm not particularly familiar with the review process, however so I might be going about this in the wrong way.
The article was placed as a feature article in 2008; so it's more than possible that Wikipedia guidelines, and the article itself may have changed in this time; requiring a second look. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's not really what we'd expect for a Featured Article today. One thing is concerning is the use of several "top 10 babes" or similar lists in the reception which we've come to recognize as "poor" material to include, at least from the quality of sites given. There's other ways to describe that she was recognized for her sex appeal beyond these and that would help. I also worry how much plot detail there is. I would look to something like GlaDOS, which while not FA or GA, at least has a lot more weight of secondary sources rather than focused on the primary work. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The article has now been listed at FAR. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cortana (Halo)/archive1. All comments are welcome. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (7 November to 17 November)

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

7 November

9 November

10 November

11 November

12 November

13 November

14 November

15 November

16 November

17 November

Salavat (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Video_games

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 19:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Need to provide advice for getting free images from dev

Over at Talk:Tim Schafer, a person who seems legit to be an employee of Double Fine had requested some changes to the article to remove some factually wrong elements (eg games he never worked on). I guided them through to avoid the COI issues, but I noted they were able to provide a newer image of Schafer. I asked on the off-chance if they could provide any more free images and they seem able and willing to provide those for games DF owns the rights to completely (Psychonauts, Broken Age, possibly others).

I don't know how the best way is for them to proceed to 1) verify their identity via OTRS as to make sure this is a legal person with the rights to put those free , and 2) how they should then upload or provide the images. Can those who have worked with studios potentially help here? --MASEM (t) 14:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Permissions need to come from the rights holder (usu. PR/comms dept of company if not the exec in charge) by official email address. They can copy/paste the standard consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) and, ideally, cc you. For photos, either the permission needs to come from the photographer or if ownership was formally transferred, the company needs to say so (acknowledges photographer's rights). Happy to handle it if you want, just let me know czar 17:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Czar (talk · contribs) If you can help them along , that would be great, I've not had the chance to help walk someone through. But we have a good "in" here to get a bunch of useful free images, so I don't want to screw it up :) --MASEM (t) 02:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

New Reviewer For The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt GAN Needed

Original reviewer left me hanging for two months without as much as a reply, despite several pings. If you're interested, click start review on the revised GAN template, which opens GA2. Cognissonance (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll take it. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Playstation 4 games

While looking at the List of Playstation 4 games recently I noticed that the article had been split into two sometime in September. The base List of PlayStation 4 games, and List of Playstation 4 games M-Z. The thing is that the list of Playstation 4 page uses an automatic script to count the number of games, as stated in the article header, the M-Z article has no such header which makes me wonder if the number of titles for the first page is the actual number of titles on the system or if it's just the number of titles in the specific range. We also probably should get a similar script running on the M-Z page. --Deathawk (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The script on the first half references both pages. If you look at the expression in use you'll see that it's adding the row counter from both pages together. -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Video games and charity

I'm looking at starting a "Video games and charity" article to document known efforts. The only thing I would like to see if anyone else knows if there's any real effort before Child's Play (2003) to push well-documented, large-scale efforts in games. (2003 is key, that's the year with Jack Thompson and a bunch of negative "video games are violent games", the reason why CP got started.) I can't find anything else, and given the next big one, Humble Bundle, points back to CP as inspiration, that's the best start I can think of. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I would look into the edutainment space for examples. Those types of games often had collaborations with schools to encourage cognitive health and wellbeing. An example that springs to find is Carmen Sandiego Days, which saw Broderbund offer free packs in these organised yearly rituals to facilitate children's learning in which they extrapolated knowledge from the video games. Examples such as these would be a precursor to video game charities, no? Proof that they were more than twitch devices for basement-bound teens? I suppose it depends on how you define 'charity'. Surely those days of old when people would freely share their source code counts in some way as charity - in opposition to the capitalist model.--Coin945 (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Technically that is. The distinction could be made between corporate-driven charity (which that would be) and player-driven (Child's Play/Humble/etc.) --MASEM (t) 05:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Humble Bundle and Games Done Quick started at around the same time. That's all I have to add to the discussion ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft has done some charity work for the WWF with their Zoo Tycoon series:

TarkusABtalk 12:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Company navbar

@Jax 0677 created Template:Nintendo Company last week. Would like opinions on it, as I stepped in when Nintendo consoles started to be added individually as "toys" when we already have Template:Nintendo hardware. There are several dedicated Nintendo navbars, and I'm not sure a giant "everything about nintendo" navbar is needed. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - I created this navigation box, as it ties many of the other lists and navigation boxes together. The two people, the three legal cases, and many other items do not fit well in any other list nor navigation box. Therefore, I feel that this navbox is indeed useful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I like this navbox, and I don't think it even needs all that much work. The "People" row has unclear inclusion criteria right now. Seeing as there is already a "Nintendo presidents" navbox, I don't believe a "People" row is needed at all. Merging the two is also an option, however. The "Toys" row should not include consoles, and the "Products" row is good as is, including only the two lists. I'm gonna try to merge the two, though. ~Mable (chat) 18:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    I editted it a bit more, and I think the navbox looks pretty good. It is odd that we have an article on Nintendo Australia, but not on Nintendo of America. Why is this? This navbox would definitely be perfect for listing the head offices. ~Mable (chat) 19:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    It's been questioned before whether or not Nintendo Australia is truly independently notable. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    I would definitely expect Nintendo of America to be so, though I haven't actually researched the topic. I know these head offices are commonly discussed in casual conversation, at least. ~Mable (chat) 19:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    I brought that up at AfD a while back, and it failed due to lack of majority delete consensus. I'm debating whether we should try again, because I really don't see why this article should exist. It basically only mentions Nintendo-relevant things in Australia, and doesn't explain why the division itself is notable, which something like Nintendo of America would be. Most of this info wouldn't even belong on the main Nintendo page, yet it gets a pass to remain as a standalone article because it has been around for a decade and has lengthy prose? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The new navbox is fine. As a note, I'm thinking we also probably need an article specifically on Nintendo's recent focus on mobile games, particularly with today's announcement of them offering emulated GC/Wii titles for the Nvidia shield in China. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    A List of Nintendo mobile games featuring all the items in this template? ~Mable (chat) 19:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    I just finished putting together Nintendo mobile games (But I see I'm missing a few of the other licensed games). Note it's more than a list, I get into the history of this. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    Very nice work, Masem! Looks really nice :) ~Mable (chat) 09:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thoughts on having Fusajiro Yamauchi in this template? I don't really see the point of having only one of the Nintendo presidents in there, even if he were the founder. That being said, merging the Nintendo presidents template into this one seems like a pretty decent idea. ~Mable (chat) 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

ATTN ADMINS please be watching for vandals

For some reason, after the Game Awards, a lot of related articles in VG have been hit with a flood of vandals. We think it's from 4chan /v/ but the source doesn't matter. Block IPs, temporarily protect pages. If you are not an admin, please revert and report pages or IPs at WP:ANI#A Way Out (video game) Tommy Wiseau edits . --Masem (t) 05:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

M2 contradiction

A while back, I edited Panasonic M2 to state that the console was demonstrated at the 1996 E3, sourced to the 3DO article in Retro Gamer #122. But I've just now discovered an article in GamePro #95, contemporary to that E3, which says, "The 'other' 64-bit gaming technology failed to show up at E3. According to a Panasonic spokesperson, the company's parent corporation, Matsushita, is still determining how to handle the M2 technology it bought from The 3DO Company for $100 million. Apparently, Matsushita hasn't decided whether it will even use M2 in a gaming platform." Unfortunately, my copy of the Retro Gamer is another state at the moment, so I can't check it to make sure I didn't simply make a typo. Anyone know how to resolve this?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The Retro Gamer article reads as follows: "At E3 in 1996, Trip Hawkins had posed proudly next to three prototypes for the M2 and had demonstrated IMSA Racing. So, when the 3DO M2 failed to emerge at the 1997 E3 Show, supported by rumours that 3DO stalwart WARP had canned the sequel to cult classic D, most people predicted the inevitable." Trip demonstrating the M2 at E3 in 1996 makes no sense, as he sold the technology in 1995 and had nothing more to do with it. My guess is Retro Gamer is off by one year on these events. I would suggest looking at the 1995 mags and seeing if that IMSA Racing demonstration is mentioned. If it is, we know for sure that RG goofed. Indrian (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • A quick glance on YouTube indicates the M2 and IMSA Racing were demonstrated at E3 1995, while there are no 3DO or M2 vidoes from E3 in 1996. While still not definitive, I think this points once more to Retro Gamer being off by a year. Indrian (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks Indrian! You're always a great help. I looked over the 1995 mags as you suggested, and Next Generation indeed talks about an M2 demonstration with photos of IMSA Racing. GamePro and EGM also say M2 was shown at the 1995 E3, though they don't give any indication of what software was used for the demos. Going to correct the article now.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnotes for Early Access releases

We had a discussion last month (Link)about what we should do about early access releases, with regards to the infobox with a couple people (myself including) noting that our current policy of only including the "Official" release date is somewhat misleading to the readers. One proposal was to use footnotes for such releases for instance the Ark Survival Edition would state 2017* in the infobox where the footnote would reveal upon being rolled over that the game was released in Early Access in 2015. This would solve the main problem which arrose in the debate which was that putting early access dates would clutter the infobox. Thoughts? --Deathawk (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

information Note: I have changed the title of this section from "Fottnotes for Early Access releases=" to "Footnotes for Early Access releases". jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It took me a second to understand what you said, and yes, footnotes would work. Originally, I would've said a tooltip, but it probably wouldn't do much. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sonic Adventure/GA3

Uh, can someone do something about this? A random IP just opened it with the phrase "DADDY SEN-PIE NOTICE ME." JOEBRO64 13:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol, people are weird. I'll just take over the review if you don't mind. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I initiated the review through the 'start review' link but it's not updating at the WP:GAN page as being under review. Clearly by making that edit the IP has screwed up how the coding or whatever is supposed to work, which I assume will create problems when I try to close the review as well. I'll still do the review but I think we'll need to get someone to fix that. Freikorp (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: I can delete it so you can restart if you like. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: Yeah that sounds like a plan, cheers. Freikorp (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually it looks like its working now so never mind. Thanks anyway. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (17 November to 24 November)

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

17 November

18 November

19 November

20 November

21 November

22 November

23 November

24 November

Salavat (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi-Tec Software -- tried to add, but system does not work ??

Tried to add this request: "Hi-Tec Software Ltd: commercial UK games software publisher, active in late 1980s, early 1990s, on ZX Spectrum and other platforms. Known for licensed games based on Hanna-Barbera cartoon properties." The WMF Labs thing said it had been added but it does not appear in the list. Maybe someone can add it for me? Equinox ◑ 15:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a request system. It does not make the articles but puts them in a queue for others to review. Your request is here. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it didn't show up in the list of requested articles either: probably just a caching issue. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tomb raider template

The Template:Tomb Raider has a link in the 'related' section to the Media disambiguation page. The other two links in this section, Lara Croft & Toby Gard, are obviously relevant but why is 'Media' here? And what should it be disambiguated to? Leschnei (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Somebody fixed it in this edit. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Need a source review for reliability and accuracy

Hi all. It's been a while since I've been around, but I do lurk around with some frequency. Over the last few days, I've been looking at doing expansion work on Sonic X-treme for whatever reason I'm not even sure it interests me again, but as I'm going through the references, I'm seeing something of concern. @Indrian: You may be a good consultant on this, if you're still around. A large part of the article right now leans on a source from Lost Levels, a website published by Frank Cifaldi, who was a journalist for 1Up.com. The article it leans on was not written by Cifaldi, but by a member of his staff, with interview quotes from Sega producer Mike Wallis and developer Christian Senn. In the GA review a couple of years ago, I suggested it was a reliable source because it was published by Frank Cifaldi, but I feel a little sketchy about it now in retrospect. It has a couple questions of accuracy - for instance, it places more emphasis on Christian Senn's inability to complete the game due to illness rather than Chris Coffin, who other sources pin down as the person whose illness caused the game not to be released. It also cites a visit to Sega from Shoichiro Irimajiri, when all other sources say it was Hayao Nakayama who came to visit. My question is this: though it's written by an established video game journalist, is Lost Levels reliable and accurate? Should it be removed and the article rewritten from other sources? As time allows, I may be willing to undertake this project. Thank you for your input. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps ask Frank if he holds editorial oversight over the articles published there. I'm not familiar with who wrote the X-Treme article and what their credentials are, but if Frank has editorial oversight, that gives it more credibility. On a related note, I tried emailing Frank a month ago to see if he would make his magazine library available to wiki editor source requests (he has nearly every issue of every American game magazine). I never received a reply. TarkusABtalk 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

List of unsourced video game articles

Is there a way to access a list of unsourced video game articles? From what I've uncovered so far, you can only access a list of every unsourced article, by the month that the 'unsourced' tag was added. But I want a list of only video games. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, what you're looking for is the intersection of (unsourced articles) and (video game articles), so head on down to catscan. Here's the intersection of "All articles lacking sources" category with "articles that have a WPVG template on their talk page":
  • All articles lacking sources: 1,904
    • . (pulled from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Backlog). Note that the page takes forever to load. --PresN 03:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    I've been unable to successfully load this page.--Coin945 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

    Award navboxes

    Why do Template:Metacritic GOTY, Template:GDCA GOTY, Template:Golden Joystick GOTY, Template:The Game Awards, Template:JGA GOTY exist? Navboxes are for linking articles that are closely related. The only link between the games in these navboxes is that a group of people voted them the best on one particular year. That's not a meaningful relation at all. They fail to meet guidelines 3 and 5 listed at WP:NAVBOX: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. (These game articles don't refer to each other in any way) and If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. (Nobody ever dumps links to articles of other good games in the See Also section). The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild now each have three navboxes that just link to articles on completely unrelated games. Dumb. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

    Been thinking similar... Sounds like prime place to use category instead. -- ferret (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    I assume you mean {{The Game Awards GOTY}} vs the one I just made {{The Game Awards}} that links the specific shows/results. That said, there does exist similar GOTY navboxes for other media forms , eg {{Academy Award Best Picture}}, but that's hard to tell if it is right or not. --Masem (t) 23:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Note that the guideline states, "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines". (emphasis added) This means that every navbox doesn't have to meet all five of the guidelines. Note also that the guideline states, "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles". (emphasis added) All of these awards templates contain a small, well-defined group of articles: they all won that particular award. It is not unreasonable to assume that a person might be interested to read articles about other games which won the award. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    At the very least, there could be just a primary Game of the Year award template, with groups for each of the main ones. I'm not sure if that is any better, but it would probably fall under more of the guidelines if that is what is needed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    So you'll have no complaints if I create a navbox for every award category from every awarding body just like the film ones? --The1337gamer (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    I wouldn't do all of them. For example, browsing Category:Academy_Award_templates , only the "Awards of Merit" (not technical ones) are given navboxes, and many of them are towards persons rather than games. In the case of video games, at least right now, across the key award ceremonies, the only one that seems sufficiently constant to track is GOTY. The sub-cats "Best Action Game" etc don't make a lot of sense, and if we go into the more creative ones like Best Music or Best Art Direction, how they are awards varies drastically between individuals and/or studios. GOTY is clear in what it is, and thus easy and objective to track. --Masem (t) 17:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

    Cheap reference book headsup

    "Blood Sweat and Pixels" is $2 for Kindle. Book covers: Pillars of Eternity, Uncharted 4, Stardew Valley, Diablo III, Halo Wars, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Shovel Knight, Destiny, Witcher 3, and Star Wars 1313. --Masem (t) 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    Admin technical move needed

    I noticed that someone recently created Bayonetta (franchise). Per naming guidelines, it should actually be at Bayonetta with the first video game being at Bayonetta (video game). However, that would require an admin to delete the page after it is moved.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

    @Zxcvbnm: I'd say TOOSOON to a series article, especially in it's current state. I'd suggest moving it to Draft and completing it. We can do the technical move when the article is in better shape. Wikipedia:NCVGDAB also requires one unrelated video game (i.e. spin offs) or related non-video game item. Does Bayonetta have anything other than the two sequels, one just announced? -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Should it be? If the first game is more notable than the series (and for Bayonetta, I think that could be argued), then the first game should have the principle name, and the series disamb. (Eg see BioShock is the first game). --Masem (t) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Edit conflict, was about to add this: It also requires 3 articles, and the third game is just a redirect at this time. Primary topic should still be the first game according to NCVGDAB. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Does the Bayonetta Film not count as a "related non-video game item" to satisfy that requirement? Also Bayonetta herself has an article, so that's four articles total, not even counting the upcoming 3rd game. CurlyWi (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Not familiar with the topic and didn't spot the film in my initial look (As the franchise article itself is nearly empty of any content). The film would count as the fourth non-VG. I don't think the character would count, the series is looking for three GAME articles. -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    But it should help its case in some way too, I would think. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    With the film noted now, it probably passes the NCVGDAB rule. However, I still wouldn't do the move myself with the series article's current state. -- ferret (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Really should redirect/draftify that "series" article. It's horribly incomplete. Not even close to ready for the mainspace, and it's been 2 days now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Redirected TarkusABtalk 17:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    ...aaaand I was reverted. TarkusABtalk 12:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    Restored redirect, especially since the revert reason was basically "I made it but I'm not going to work on it." -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    It's from Osh33m huh? They've been a problematic editor in the past. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    Debated mentioning that. Most often in regards to series articles and respecting consensus. -- ferret (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    AFD input

    Hello. I know this is only tangentially related, but since there is some overlap in music and video game subjects, I figured I'd mention it here too. Any input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records would be appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    ProQuest Archiver has vanished from the website!

    I have a problem. I was searching for a Detroit Free Press review on Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, only to find that the archived link wasn't there before December 5, 2005. I then went to the ProQuest Archiver page, only to find that the website page was removed, and I got a "404 Not Found"! I can't even search for the Detroit Free Press article through ProQuest Archiver anymore. The only thing I can search for Detroit Free Press' review for Mercenaries is through this archived link, but I don't know how to do it! Life stinks without the ProQuest Archiver webpage! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    Is anyone answering me? ProQuest Archiver has disappeared from the Internet. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    Parts of the website are still up. So, a) for the tenth time, please just wait a bit to see if the website comes back online, or google search around to see if they posted a status update somewhere. b) No one is "answering you" because you didn't ask a question. You let us know that ProQuest archiver is down. That's a shame. What exactly do you expect the rest of us to do about it? We don't have any special powers over other websites. --PresN 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    Template:Wikipedia Requests/WikiProject/WikiProject Video games

    So I don't think this template gets updated anymore by the bot for the project. Since its part of the Request board should it just be removed from the board and be deleted? GamerPro64 16:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    People definitely still use that request system, would be better to find out why the bot stopped or if there's some other issue to resolve. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    XBLA Fans discussion

    Hello all, I've recently opened a discussion about the reliability of XBLA Fans and would like some input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#XBLA Fans. Thanks. JOEBRO64 21:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back: Sources

    Hello. I'm looking for sources for The Empire Strikes Back, the vector game from 1985. I found a bunch of articles on the ports on the severals platforms that came later (see here, page& talkpage), but only one for the original arcade version [5]. Could someone help me (only for the arcade version) ? Any help would be (greatly) appreciated! Thanks --Archimëa (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    • Retro Gamer Issue 70 has a "Making of" feature on the game. Its one of the smaller making of articles, but it can provide a little development information. Indrian (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
      Thanks for help. But I allready listed the Retro Gamer issue 70, and it will be usefull of course. I'm looking for sources from years 1985-1986 or 1987, i thought this point was obvious, sorry. All theses sources I listed was published around the release of the games. --Archimëa (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, did not look at that page because you indicated that all the sources you had were for ports. I doubt there was much coverage of the game in consumer-oriented publications of the time, as 1985 fell during the nadir of the arcade industry after it crashed between 1982 and 1984, and the game was merely a kit upgrade to the original Star Wars. Replay and Playmeter probably announced the release of the game, but would not have reviewed it (and good luck finding those anyway). Good luck with your search! Indrian (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
      After a night, sore eyes and a headache :D i found this [6]. I'm pretty sure there are more (even this one seems to be published by Atari Games), probably no big review, but at least some sentences... If anyone can see something about this game, notify me! regards. --Archimëa (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    Removal of reception

    I don't know if @Disturbedasylum: is trying to remove unreliable sources from Wikipedia's Tekken characters, but in one article, Jin Kazama, he simply blanked the character's reception from the liveaction film so I would like a third opinion before he keeps removing content. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    I checked the user's contribs, and they've done similar blanking on other pages, namely Kazuya Mishima and Heihachi Mishima, as well as unexplained removal of maintenance templates on Akuma (Street Fighter). All such edits occurred today; no use of edit summary. Possibly compromised? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    New Articles (23 November to 1 December)

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

    23 November

    24 November

    25 November

    26 November

    27 November

    28 November

    29 November

    30 November

    1 December

    Salavat (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

    Metascore

    Hello fellow editors! 😀 I came here to ask your suggestions on whether we should mention the Metascore of the games again in the reception section (beneath the review table) or not. Like X game got Y/100 by review aggregation website Metacritic for Z platform?😕 Because I removed it from Batman: Arkham Asylum's "Reception" section but Darkwarriorblak again added it 😕. I offered him to see MOS:VG#Reception (6th bullet). 😉

    I've seen that most of the recent video games doesn't mention the Metascores in that way. 😐

    (If I'm wrong here this time, please let me know) 😃

    Thanks in advance! 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    There's no firm rule about it - proponents argue that it's an important bit of information for the reader, opponents argue that it makes for dry, hard-to-parse sentences leading off the section, and creates the impression that the metacritic score is the most important thing about about a game's reception. I'm on team anti: I think it's bad writing. DWB, obviously, disagrees. --PresN 18:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    I'm indifferent. I don't have a problem with it, but I don't have a problem if they exclude it and just have it in the review table too. Either way, the core information is there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    Okay, but the MOS:VG's reception section's 6th bullet says "remove minutiae inappropriate for a general audience. For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose" .... .Pure conSouls (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    It does, so they should almost never be mentioned in prose. Summarize the wording, and keep the scores in the template only. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    Every article I've worked on, I've always included the Metascore (and for a time the GameRankings score) in the prose starting the reception section (and those articles that I've taken through a review process have become Featured Articles). The score reflects the overall assertion of the critics (e.g., critical acclaim, generally favorable, etc.). I disagree with the Metascore being "inappropriate for a general audience". Quite the opposite, actually (I mentioned the FA notion as many of the FA reviewers are not gamers and had no issue with the Metascore in the prose). I do, however, agree that we shouldn't include the score in the prose for every individual review. --JDC808 ♫ 20:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    @JDC808: We're not talking about "generally favorable", etc, the text from Metacritic we often use as a summary of general reception. We're talking about putting the specific scores in the prose, such as: Suchandsuch received "Generally favorable" reviews according to Metacritic, with scores of xx/100 on platformA, xx/100 on platformb, and xx/100 on platformC". It is the second half, with the actual score data, that the guideline is opposed. The first part, using Metacritic as a summary statement, is supported by guideline.-- ferret (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    (ec) I think if you're into it that including the Metacritic "summary statement" e.g. "Generally positive" or whatever can be useful, though I think including a specific "68 out of 100" (which is very much different from a 67 or 69 out of 100) is boring and pointless. I personally don't include the Metacritic aggregation in the prose at all, even when summarizing the critical reception, and I've taken a bunch of articles to FA as well. That said, just between the two of us its obvious that there's no solid consensus on the issue, nor any pressure from external reviewers one way or another, so at the moment it is down to personal taste. --PresN 20:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, we are discussing the scores/numbers/rating in prose only. They mean nothing if they aren't backed up with the actual opinion from the author. And even when they are, they just look out of place, and should simply remain in the template created specifically for them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    Keep in mind, we do not require the vg reviews template to be used. The review prose section should be written as if the table didn't exist (and the table should be supporting the prose if it is used). That doesn't mean the score is necessary if you go prose only, and a solitare MC score doesn't hurt. That said, when you have a game with more than one release platform, the endless string of MC scores (particularly if they're all close to each other) is drab, and there I would definitely encourage just the "generally favorable"/etc. language. --Masem (t) 20:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    Well, is there any valid reason for not using it? I understand what you mean, but the same logic can be used for basically adding anything to the article. In my opinion, scores should only be added if actually notable, such as a game receiving a 10/10 from a publication that rarely gives them out. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    A case where I would avoid including the table is if a game got only 3 notable scored reviews (in addition to non-scored reviews), such that MC does not qualify a rating. In that case, I would not use a table to list out three scores and instead spell out those scores in prose. Of course, when I do use the table, I do not repeat the scores in prose unless I need to call out to an outlier. The way to work this is that the prose of the recpetions hould still be fully understandable if the table did not exist; it may not be 100% comprehensive since the scores are lacking, but that's not a requirement to include. But taking it from that standpoint, that's where just stating that "Aggregate MC called the reviews "generally positive" gives me no idea exactly where that stands because that's a pretty wide scale. --Masem (t) 20:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    Ferret, Dissident93: You've misunderstood me. Let me clear it up. I always include the score in tandem with including the summary statement. Basically, the score is what is dictating that summary statement. --JDC808 ♫ 21:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    I usually don't include it in my articles. I don't think it's useful for a general audience—the qualitative summary is much more helpful on its own, IMO. JOEBRO64 21:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    The original issue was ConSouls performing mass changes to articles without discussion. The user is citing point 6 on the earlier mentioned link, but none of that states that Metacritic overrides reliable third-party sources, and there's no reason that it should. Metacritic is already given undue weight without us opening the lead of every reception section by highlighting it as the sole voice of critical status. We have already removed GameRankings, taking away any alternative voice. Like Rotten Tomatoes, it is not independent but owned by a massive corporate entity and generates scores and summaries based on concealed weighting procedures. ConSouls originally replaced sourced commentary about "critical acclaim" purely with the Metacritic reception, which made no sense. Then when this was undone, the user instead removed all the Metacritic scores and lumped the Metacritic reference into the claim of critical acclaim alongside the other existing references. I don't know how a) led to b), but the critical reception summary was already present and sourced, so the reception sections in Arkham Asylum and Arkham City do not open with Metacritic, and the scores do no harm per @Masem:, that the section should be written as if the Reception Template does not exist. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    I will point out that ConSouls came to me first about the issue, to which Ferret, as a watcher of my Talk page, pointed out number 6 of MOS:VG#Reception. I, however, am indifferent in regards to how a reception section is written, so long as it meets the criteria described in the MOS. I tend to not include Metacritic scores in the prose as it's usually found in the Video game reviews template anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    So what's the decision? 😕 Pure conSouls (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    Based on where this discussion is going, it's up to the writer of the article. I usually don't include the statistics in prose, but if DWB disagrees at Arkham Asylum, then it's fine. JOEBRO64 20:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    • It's always up to local consensus, but show me another generalist encyclopedia that includes "scores" apropos of nothing in its prose. It's lazy writing. The reader has no way of knowing what a 70/100 represents. If the writer clarifies that the score indicates a mixed reception, then the "70/100" part adds nothing but bulk to the sentence. Metacritic is also the fallback—if a more reputable editorial source has summarized the game's reception, go with that instead (or in addition). czar 15:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

    Atari, Inc. (Atari, SA subsidiary)

    Shouldn't the Games published be in it's own list article? Govvy (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    List of Atari, Inc. (Atari, SA subsidiary) games exists, though it's not linked there. --PresN 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    I removed that list and added the link to the page in See also. Govvy (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

    Opinion: Should Brendan Greene (aka PlayerUnknown) have his own article?

    From knowing what I have done for writing the PUBG article, plus a new piece identifying him as one of GamesIndustry.biz's people of the year, I know that Brendan Greene would surpass any immediate GNG/notability concerns, but given how tied he is to PUGB and very little else (technically H1Z1 too, but we only know that due to PUBG), it seems at this point silly to separate out him from the PUBG dev, since the development is pretty much his story. I've just made a redirect just to at least have that. --Masem (t) 19:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

    He could have his own article, but it would just be redundant with most of the PUBG's history section. I say hold off on making one until he starts on another project. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    That's basically my concern. Add that there's not much about his personal life that's known and/or not associated with PUBG's development, and that leaves little unique to include. --Masem (t) 22:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    If more of his personal/early life before games is revealed, then it probably should. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

    RS source request

    Anyone have a copy of "The making of...Radiant Silvergun" in Retro Gamer 96 (November 2011)? TarkusABtalk 17:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

    It may be a couple of days, but I bought all the back issues of Retro Gamer and put them on my phone. I might be able to help, but it'll be at least a few days until I have available time to work on it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
    Downloaded, thank you!!!! TarkusABtalk 13:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

    Infobox space

    Can Template:Infobox video game, Template:Infobox video game series and Template:Infobox video game character be edited so that they can have more space for data? These three infoboxes don't afford much space, especially the character infobox. For example, take a look at at the infoboxes for Solid Snake and Dante (Devil May Cry); the labels on the left side are taking way more space than the data on the right side. In contrast, other character infoboxes such as Template:Infobox character and Template:Infobox animanga character allow way more space and their fonts aren't too large, see Darth Vader. -- Wrath X (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

    This is the same topic you've brought up before, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 128#Infobox video game and video game series. Same suggestion: Stop using the multiple language labels which are long, and instead use {{Vgrelease}} to list multiple languages in the normal field. I provided an example last time. -- ferret (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Solid Snake done. Dante is a mess and needs re-thought. Suggest having a table due to so many different voice actors and linking the infobox to it. -- ferret (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    The problem is no one uses {{Vgrelease}} and no one will use it. That method isn't mentioned anywhere in Template:Infobox video game character. What is mentioned are the English and Japanese voice actor fields, and editors will continue to use them. You're the only who came up with the {{Vgrelease}} method; it wasn't agreed by consensus. Who knows if other editors will agree to it, there's bound to be disagreements regarding your method. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Suit yourself. There's an alternative available that results in shorter labels if you want it, which is widely used for multiple fields in {{Infobox video game}} already, even in fields not mentioned in the template documentation. Updating template documentation is easy. -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    The problem is no one uses {{Vgrelease}} and no one will use it - well, the template is used on over 14000 pages (compared to 22000 for Infobox VG), so that's a heck of a lot of no ones. If you mean "no one uses it to condense the voice actor lines", that just means they hadn't thought of it. If you think it's better, use it. If you don't, don't. Claiming that you can't because of an invisible potential lack of consensus for something that hasn't been tried yet isn't a strong arguement, and isn't how consensus actually works- someone has to try something first before other people can have an opinion. --PresN 12:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Another alternative for a mess like Dante, if a table outside of the infobox isn't desired, would be to use two collapsible lists in voiceactor, each labelled with the language. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    For Dante (as the example), if you either chose the actor most associated with the role, or simply left it at "Various", or removed the specific games, and in all cases, putting such a table in the body of the article, you'd get a lot of space back and use the infobox more effectively. --Masem (t) 14:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

    Direct proposal to remove japanactor

    I mentioned this the last time WrathX brought it up, but I think we should just eliminate this field altogether. The labels are too long when it is in use, and other character infoboxes don't use separate fields like this. There's only 650ish uses of the infobox, so I'll handle the cleanup.

    General proposal: Infobox video game character has three fields for voice actor: voiced_by, voiceactor, and japanactor. When both voiceactor and japanactor are used, the language is suffixed to the field label, taking up most of the space in the infobox. The fields voiced_by (In template but not documentation) and japanactor will be removed and condensed into voiceactor. Where only a few names are used, {{Vgrelease}} will be used to quickly list the entries next to their language (See Solid Snake example). In cases where long lists of voice actors exist, such as Mario, Princess Zelda, Dante, etc, a collapsible list will be used to wrap each set of actors, with the language as the title, similar to how we do release date when many platforms exist.

    I'll do this work in a few days if no one voices a strong opposition. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

    • I agree with this. If it was up to me, I'd remove all mentions of Japanese actors for non-Japanese developed characters. Do we really need to list who voiced a Call of Duty character in Japan (hypothetically)? This sort of info belongs in prose instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

    Under way, see as an example. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

    Completed, removed from template. -- ferret (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

    Secondary proposal: Retire VG Character completely

    What does Template:Infobox video game character (Approx 650 uses) bring us over Template:Infobox character (6266 uses)? The latter includes enough fields to handle any in universe subtemplates we have as well. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

    Only doing a cursory glance, but could the VG char one be redone as to build a templated call to the main infobox character but filling in the spare labels that infobox character offers? ----Masem (t) 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    I'll side with Masem here. Both infoboxes appear to contain the same parameters, and a templated call / merge into Infobox character could allow for expansion of the current VG character template as a whole. compare Template:Infobox video game character to Template:Infobox character. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with Masom on this point too. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    From what I can tell, Infobox character has the same dedicated fields. Most of our in universe subtemplates also have dedicated fields (or equivolent ones) in it as well. I'm not sure how we'd do a templated call, do you know a good example? I would worry that maintaining it separately that way would fragment updates to Infobox character or risk documentation being outdated, as the main one has far more attention and traffic. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Well, basically, "infobox video game character" would itself invoke the infobox character template, but filling in the additional label fields with the VG-specific terms, and passing arguments to that. --Masem (t) 15:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Something to add to this is that by this means, any changes made to Infobox Character (itself also based on a generic infobox template) will automatically propagate to Infobox Video Game Character, without us having to change anything. This is a Good Thing (TM). --Masem (t) 18:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    There are a lot of fields in Template:infobox character that fail the In-Universe test. I wouldn't have an issue with deprecating/deleting IVGC in the case those fields were removed, nor an issue with turning IVGC into a pass-through, but I would guess those fields in IC are a no-go. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    That's not really something we can solve. IC is in use across 6000 articles by film, tv and novel projects. If it's in violation of policy somehow, that's really a separate issue. IVGC still strikes me as redundant, and many video game characters use IC besides. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    separate issue No, I'm saying that's a blocker to using anything but IVGC. It may need to be solved with different persons included, but for video games characters to use that one by default would require those changes IMO. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Removing in universe fields? Like I said, a lot of VG character articles are already using IC instead of IVGC. So do we basically have IVGC to limit the fields that other projects using IC have? -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    I haven't looked into how or why the one started, but that's been its function since recent times that I've observed--we have regular requests for certain in-universe parameters (family members, jobs) on the IVGC talk page that all get shot down here but which have been the MO at IC for a while now... --Izno (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

    Ocarina of Time "the best" vs "one of the best"

    The perennial "One of..." discussion has popped back up again at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time#"One of" the best, which I opened after several back and forth reverts this month. -- ferret (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

    I say go with "one of" the best. Just because it's got a high MC rating doesn't mean it's "the best", which can be just one person's opinion. I mean, I could say any game -- even Superman 64 -- is the best game ever. JOEBRO64 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    Was just dropping a notification for interested parties. You should make your arguments there. -- ferret (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

    Proposal to adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS as "WP:Manual of Style/Video games"

    FYI
     – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

    Please see: WT:Manual of Style#Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    Some basic "make this encyclopedic" overhauling needed at Multiplayer video game

    FYI
     – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

    Please see Talk:Multiplayer video game/Archive 1#"Local multiplayer" and lack of any LAN vs. online distinction
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

    New Articles (27 November to 8 December)

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

    27 November

    30 November

    1 December

    2 December

    3 December

    4 December

    5 December

    6 December

    7 December

    8 December

    Salavat (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

    Series article version of WP:VGORDER?

    Hello everyone! For video game articles, we can follow this common structure:

    • Lead section (with an Infobox)
    • Gameplay
    • Synopsis (setting, characters, story)
    • History (development, release, remakes, other media...)
    • Reception (sales, criticism, legacy)

    And per WP:VGORDER, gameplay description should be put before the before synopsis.

    Our WikiProject has a lot of series articles, and some of them are FA, which with different structures and confused me:

    (Common elements ≈ Gameplay + Synopsis)

    Well, is there a recommendation for how to organize series articles (i.e. WP:VGORDER for series articles)? --Muhebbet (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

    There is none, but I do think the order in Crazy Taxi (note: my article) is most appropriate. Or at least, putting the full Greenwich are usually tables for subsections after gameplay and history. Whether history or gameplay is first depends on the topi, see Civilization (series) for example. --Masem (t) 17:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I would generally put Titles first since you would probably be referring to specific games frequently in the other sections, but I think it's fine that series articles differ more, since game series differ more than individual games do.--IDVtalk 17:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • On an unrelated note, shouldn't Crazy Taxi (series) be located at Crazy Taxi, per VG naming guidelines, like other similar articles like F-Zero and Resident Evil?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
      • No, it's not required particularly if the first game is more notable than the series overall. I would argue this is the case for Crazy Taxi. Unfortunately Inzo appears to have decided to start this change with getting consensus first. --Masem (t) 00:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
        How people consistently misspell my tag is beyond me. I don't need consensus for a change to bring an article into accord with a guideline--you need consensus to keep it the other way. There are at least three people who have leaned the "go with the guideline state" (that is, the person in 2008 who you reverted, Zx, and myself). --Izno (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
        The guideline does not require the series to be the main topic, that is key. There is no absolute requirement there. More often it will the case but we have exceptions. Four ppl do not make consensus. --Masem (t) 01:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
        No guideline is a requirement. That doesn't mean we ignore them without some great reason. The reason we have the !rule broadly is because we believe it is likely that people who are looking for Crazy Taxi may not know that there are several games (ambiguity), which means the reader is better served by placing the series name at the root page and parenthetically disambiguating the first game, allowing the reader to identify in the series article which Crazy Taxi he might have been looking for. There are a sufficient number of games in the series to meet the bar the guidelines places on this location choice. "It's more notable" is not among any of the five criteria of WP:AT, which is the relevant policy. So, broadly, I see little reason for an exception here. --Izno (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
        Key to AT when disambiguation is needed is what is the primary topic. I would argue that most people are aware of the first Dreamcast game and subsequent emulation, and may not be aware of the series. In the logic flow, the first game is the primary topic and should have the non disambiguated name. However, I am not going to reverse or ask for a reversion, but that these changes should be handled by a standard move request if there is some question. --Masem (t) 04:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
        Wouldn't particularly agree that the Crazy Taxi series is less notable than the first game. The second game was a solid and well-reviewed game that is sure to have been known by many Dreamcast owners. The other games were admittedly mediocre but surely got a decent amount of popularity. Especially considering there is a 2017 "Crazy Taxi" title, people might be coming there looking for it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree with IDV; for Commander Keen (GA), I went Titles->Gameplay->Plot->Development->Reception (by those names, though that's not a big deal); without Titles first it gets awkward talking about multiple games in the series when you haven't actually said what they are. --PresN 20:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

    Super Mario Bros. and Yoshi's Island release dates

    The August 1995 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, page 61, says that Yoshi's Island would be released on October 2, 1995, "Because that's Mario's 10th anniversary." Visiting the articles for Super Mario Bros. and Yoshi's Island and their talk pages, I see there is considerable controversy around the North American release dates for both games, so I hesitate to add this reference in. However, the dates are consistent with the other coverage cited in those articles, and it's hard to believe Nintendo would have missed a crucial release date like Mario's 10th anniversary by just a couple days. Figured I might as well just throw this out there in case this is news to anyone.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I'm not familiar with confusion about Yoshi's Island. Seems @Czar: is more familiar from looking at the talk page. For SMB, there has been enough research done into how we cannot prove the release that this doesn't change anything. Also Nintendo has been known to be wrong about internal info like that. TarkusABtalk 11:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
    Worth repeating that release dates are more pointed/precise today than they have been in the past, which is partially the point of that Cifaldi piece. In general, I prefer ex post facto release date sources as more definitive than magazine announcements made months in advance, since final shipment dates have often changed. This said, in the case of Yoshi's Island, (1) I don't consider Nintendo Life a quality source and am amenable, and (2) if sources don't list a single, specific release date, I think it's fine—as an encyclopedia for general reading—to generalize the date to month/year. Also holy moly that article has taken a beating czar 15:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

    RM notification

    Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Metal_Gear_(weapon)#Requested_move_18_December_2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

    Anyone able to contact the developers of Lichtspeer?

    I've been trying to email them for the last little while but every single one gets bounced by their spam filter. I don't want to make them receive lots of emails at once, but could someone try to ask if they could release their press kit under a Commons-applicable license? The email address is located in the sidebar of the page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

    Try Twitter or FB? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

    New Articles (9 December to 15 December)

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

    9 December

    10 December

    11 December

    12 December

    13 December

    14 December

    15 December

    Salavat (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    Accolades tables and individual sites "GOTY" awards

    More recent years have seen editors use Accolades tables to list out awards games have won, following the style of film and television. This itself is fine, but one concern I have more recently are for accolades that are coming from a single site like the IGN or GameSpot year-end awards, in contrast to BAFTA, Golden Joysticks, or the Game Awards. I really don't think those should be included in the table proper, following how the Film project avoids including a film's listing on specific critics/website's top 10 films of a year in tables, though editors are free to include this in prose. It's basically the difference between a formal process of selecting/soliciting nominees and then the group voting for the best, compared to a group of editors and writers discussing what their GOTY should be. --Masem (t) 19:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

    • I'd argue against the use of such a table anyway. For some reason, quite a few people think it's mandatory for use in articles, and include it even if the game was only nominated for one or two awards. All of this info could be written into prose and still take up less space than the table does. But disregarding that, I agree that we should be following the film project guidelines on accolades and awards for this sort of thing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I would agree that of the "formal" awards (The Game Awards, BAFTA) that if a game has received only a handful, the table is too much weight. It's different for a game like Overwatch or Zelda: Breath of the Wild, where there's dozens of noms and awards from these organizations. --Masem (t) 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
        • At least for the major awards, you could still generalize it and write "the game won various Game of the Year awards from multiple award events and media publications, such as BAFTA, The Game Awards, IGN, GameSpot", etc. For the non GOTY awards, perhaps those could stay in a table, assuming that it is set to be autocollapsible. But yeah, for games that only have a few nominations (under 10 total maybe if you want a clear standard), I'd just write it all in prose. And perhaps for the games with a large amount, where even a table becomes unwieldy, there is always the possibility of creating a separate article for it be expanded as much as people like, such as List of accolades received by The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
          • For only a few accolades, I've seen people use the bottom of the reception box, like here. Do people like this option? TarkusABtalk 21:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Personally, even though the template accepts this, I find this even worse than the normal accolades table, as it tends to drag on and just looks bloated. As per my example above, all of the GOTY info can basically be condensed to a sentence or two in prose, with all the other awards filling out the rest of the paragraph. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I see your point Masem, and am inclined to agree. However, this is not just a matter of individual editors' actions; the template documentation for the Video game reviews table encourages this usage, firstly by naming a field "award1Pub" (which I think you'll agree suggests an individual site more than an organization) and secondly by using an award from PC Zone as an example.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

    Review Thread 34: 2018 Edition

    We're in 2018 now, Ladies and Gentlemen. Might as well ring in the new year by taking are of any articles to review.

    FAC
    FLC
    GAN
    Peer Review
    GARs/FARS

    And, as is always important, there is still the Requests board that is always in constant backlogging. Since we're in 2018 we now have five years of backlog for the project, with 2017 offering ten months of backlog. So if you want an article idea to write about and want to help minimize the backlog, help is always welcome. GamerPro64 01:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

    Metacritic Scores in Lists

    WP:SNOW
    WP:SNOW close on the basis that the single proponent of the MC score inclusion in a "enhanced" platform list seems misinformed that unanimity would be needed for consensus. The consensus was clear from the outset (based on policy considerations such as WP:NOT and other considerations such as that these MC scores are not about the enhanced version). Recommending that LTH ASG would take some time to get comfortable with Wikipedia guidance such as WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS. Under these circumstances, prolonging the discussion here would only absorb editor time with a snowball's chance in hell to lead to a different outcome. Also, DRN is not possible as long as this discussion is active. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

    I'm having an issue where a user is trying very hard to add metacritic scores to only one article. List of Xbox One X Enhanced games, specifically. Can I get a consensus on this one before I keep reverting this nonsense? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

    Atypical for video game platform lists. I don't know of any such list that includes metacritic (Some developer lists do but its rare, usually only in series lists) -- ferret (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Additionally, posting the Xbox One Metacritic score on a list of Xbox One X Enhanced titles is misleading, since they aren't scored for X Enhanced. -- ferret (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Definitely not appropriate for those types of lists. That's bordering on NOT#CATALOG. The use of MC scores on series articles is reasonable since reception of a series is usually talked about, but MC as a bare number without context otherwise is not. --Masem (t) 15:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Definitely against. I don't recall which list, but I explicitly remember there being consensus for removing it from a list I maintained in the past, due to bloat/cruft concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Without looking at the specific case, in general, MC score without context is not particularly helpful and is biased to MC. Readers may find it useful, but that isn't really the criteria WP uses. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    If MC scores are "nonsense", shouldn't all game pages must be cleansed of this info? All individual game pages have MC scores!! Currently, there is no info in internet that provides all parameters in one page (4k, HDR, Patch status and MC scores). People always look in WP for such kind of information. As average AAA titles are costly, such a dimension in data helps in making informed purchase decisions. By adding MC scores, no WP rules/regulations are being broken - so why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTH ASG (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Did you read anyone's response, or just jump write in on an angry response? It's not that its wrong to use MC scores, its just that they don't belong on large lists like this. These lists get huge, and we need to be selective on what we include. MC scores belong on individual game articles, in the reception section. A general reader who is interested in knowing MC scores, is going to be knowledgeable enough to know that all they need to do is click on the game's article to find out review scores. Additionally, I whole-heartedly support Ferret's concern above - the MC scores are not explicitly based on the enhanced version of the game or its features, so it really doesn't make sense that we'd only include it on the enhanced game list. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    "shouldn't all game pages must be cleansed of this info?" No, because MC score is fine in context of reception, which summarizes actual reviews from reliable critics. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    The purpose of such a list is that our "general reader" does not have to individually go to each and every page ( there are quite a few games in market), remember the score or compile the info himself/herself for all parameters (4k, HDR and the MC score). Don't you think it would be a tedious affair? You have not provided a reasonable explanation nor cited regulation as why MC scores do not belong in lists except that it shouldn't. One of the main purposes of a list is to slice and dice data:
    I agree that such scoring should be extended to all lists, not only this one. Fair point, but we need to begin somewhere! Also , valid point that MC scores are not specifically applicable for enhanced game, but the individual game still shows this score. Context - when a reader navigates to game page from the list. Won't a general reader assume that the final score is applicable for One X as well?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by LTH ASG (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    No one at all is suggesting that it should be extended to all lists. Every response above is in opposition to it being on any platform lists. -- ferret (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Lets wait for more responses then, other than gentlemen/ladies from above who have expressed their opposition. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTH ASG (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    We can keep waiting for more input, but it is not to be re-added again without a consensus that favors it, and right now, it's not even close. Right now, we're at 1 person who supports it (you), and at least 5 against (Serge, Ferret, Masem, HellKnowz, and Zero Serenity). With content additions that are objected to by others, the addition stays out of the article unless/until there is a consensus that supports it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    +1 oppose on grouds of WP:NOTCATALOG. TarkusABtalk 18:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, and to be clear, my objection is due to WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:NOTGUIDE, and Ferret's concern that it doesn't even conceptually make sense to add, considering the MC scores aren't specific to the enhanced versions of the game. The list's purpose is to identify which games are enhanced by the Xbox One X, and how they're affected. Adding aggregate review scores that don't specifically review the enhanced version, doesn't contribute to the list's purpose. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    On the contrary, if six gentlemen (or ladies) oppose something, i dont think you can declare "consensus". That too on a page with so many visits and rising. I am sure the general population visits this list does not agree with the "current" consensus by this subset. Especially as this info is helpful to the reader - still cannot understand how that is a bad thing! I would like to explore other options and/or wait for more users to contribute and have a "real" consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTH ASG (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

    DRN Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTH ASG (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

    Need a bit of help at Civilization VI

    There's an editor removing the lede sentence that discusses who developed and published the game, claiming the average reader doesn't need this information. --Masem (t) 06:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

    Rename

    Hi all, just wanted to discuss here the possible page move for Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist, which has a ridiculously long title. I'd recommend Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald, and simply mention the tagline in the prose? I thought I'd mention it here to gauge responses before putting in a move request. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

    New Year's Video Game Purge

    Hello y'all, I've been going through the back catalogue of this Wikiproject and finding a bunch of articles that really need to be discussed due to their apparent lack of independent notability and the fact that they've been a sad unsourced state for a decade. Please contribute to the deletion discussions here.--Coin945 (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

    Please immediately stop and read WP:BEFORE. AFD is not for cleanup. --Masem (t) 02:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    Also read WP:FAIT. Mass AFD moms is very much frowned upon. --Masem (t) 02:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    I mean, there is a lot of crap here though... Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with User:Sergecross73. These articles appear to be pretty cut and dry. And if we don't talk about them now, when will we?--Coin945 (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, there is probably some unnecessary articles, but flooding AFD with noms that haven't been discussed is considered disruptive. You should make a list and discuss those, only starting the afd after there's general consensus. --Masem (t) 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    There was something to this effect a little while ago. 73.168.15.161 added a list to the WP:VG talk page and started a discussion about what to do. Izno commented: "I've removed the list. That's not what this talk page is for.". He suggested starting a task force for this. However, as Sergecross pointed out, "let's be real - none of these "task forces" are sustainable. They almost never maintain activity". I think my route is more direct and efficient.--Coin945 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    Some more quotes from that discussion: --Coin945 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • "Nobody has bothered to regularly update the Backlog page or make an effort to do significant clean up because boring, tedious and the issues are recurring" - The1337gamer
    • "Realistically we need some sort of WPVG elimination drive (funded or not) which would give people an incentive to help get rid of this long-term backlog." - Jaguar
    It is not appropriate to drop 20 articles on AFD all on the same day unless you are willing to do the legwork necessary yourself to hunt down all of the information, given the age of the topics of many of these articles leaves us looking offline, whether these articles are trash or about trash, or not. One or two a day is appropriate. --Izno (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    The issue with the previous list was putting it on this talk page, because of its size. A separate project page would have been better for that. Yes we need to clean up articles that won't go anywhere but you cannot mass force it. --Masem (t) 03:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    The good thing about AFD discussions is time. We have time to discuss these articles. There need not be a sense of urgency to become library-junkies to seek out print sources for 50 articles all in a day. No, not at all. But this is a nice way to swiftly dispose of a bunch of articles that have been created years ago and left in a sorry state ever since.--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    WP:FAIT came out of someone using AFD for what you are talking about. Seven days is nowhere near enough time to discuss it search , particularly given the holiday period. This is being disruptive. --Masem (t) 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    To me, if a lot of these close as "keep", then yeah, don't do this again. But again, a lot of these look like garbage. If they're deleted, then no harm done. At least WP:VG is pretty active at AFD. Some other subject areas only get a response or two. Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Of lot of this abandoned unsourced crud might have been dealt with via WP:PRODs with less hassle. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      Seems to me that most of these could have just been PRODed, and some could have just been redirected (like Riot (developer)). Nominating them all for deletion is just creating a huge workload for people to deal with that could have easily been avoided... ~Mable (chat) 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      I have always been in favour of AFD over PRODDING due to its collaborative consensus-driven nature. In doing this, I have avoided the solitary and lonely trek through the dark and dingy corridors of unsourced stubs, and believe I can turn the dreaded 'Backlog Clearing' into an event that the whole WP:VG community can be aware of and even participate in if they wish. Hopefully this sparks a desire for a few editors to start trawling through the rest.--Coin945 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      You are heavily asking for AFD to be clean up which is absolutely not an appropriate use of AFD. Prods and redirects are far less disruptive for this. --Masem (t) 13:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      Just wanted to throw out there that I vetted the list of 1600 or so unsourced WP:VG articles and only chose the worst offenders to take to WP:AFD (with a tiny margin of error). I came across many that were terribly written but found a bunch of reliable sources so elected to improve those articles instead. So I did not blanket AFD them all. For that reaosn this process should be quite swift and leaning heavily toward delete.--Coin945 (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      I agree that this is just spamming AfD. Personally I think there should be an expansion of WP:A7 to video games so this kind of thing can be dealt with more easily. Right now it's nigh impossible to do major cleanup on videogame articles because they are so easy to create and hard to delete.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      I would argue new games are really easy to delete because near-100% of source are online at the time of nomination and our RS search easily trims the non-notables. It's the old and really old games with offline/defunct sources that are a pain to find. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • What's more likely: each of these discussions will get the attention you think they deserve, or most will close as "no consensus" in three weeks after another editor relists each discussion twice? Wikipedia's "be bold" culture necessitates that editors resolve issues on their own and use others' time only when the help is actually needed. If you determined that these nominated topics are the dregs of the dregs, the PROD system was specifically developed for this use case. Honestly, I'd go back and convert your eligible noms to PRODs before the clock keeps ticking (can't convert, of course, if others begin to participate in the nom). czar 15:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I've no intention of even trying to review the 50+ AFDs in the next 7 days. I don't have the time to give proper review to so many. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      I will try and review these in the next couple of days. A long weekend and no friends (except you all of course).... :) --Izno (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I have a feeling a few there are actually notable, just unsourced and probably hard to source, such as from contemporary offline magazines. But yeah, going through this many AfDs in 7 days during Holidays... no way. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • My big issue with the mass-AfD is that very few of them have been checked to see if they have references for them, that exists. A simple lookup on MobyGames for reviews has netted me a lot of references, which I am in the process of adding to each of the discussion. Problem is, there are 50 of them!
      The point of an AfD is to discuss usually if the article could possibly meet Notability guidelines. A lot of these have been added due to them either being unsourced, badly written or stubs. However, one should really check these articles have no sources that exist that you can find before being nominated. If they are written badly, an AfD won't change that, but it should still pass GNG. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

    Why are the Steam Awards and ScrewAttack getting removed?

    Lately it occurred to me that Sandstein and Dissident93 are causing trouble in the Reception sections of game articles such as Cuphead and Persona 5 by removing ScrewAttack and the Steam Awards from said articles. I was the one who put ScrewAttack and the Steam Awards in other game articles like Resident Evil 7 and PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds and Nier: Automata and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus and every other game article I know of. Are these people saying that both ScrewAttack and the Steam Awards should be removed from said articles too? I don't get it. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

    The Steam Awards are a joke award series. Firstly, they're user voted awards, and secondly, they have categories like The 'Best Use Of A Farm Animal' Award and The 'Mom’s Spaghetti' Award. As amusing as they are, they probably shouldn't be considered as serious/real awards. CurlyWi (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    And Screw Attack is marked as unreliable per WP:VG/S, and has been for years now. No real mysteries going on here... Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    Also, Steam awards are essentially no different than a poll - Steam themselves does not chose the games, at least they don't claim to, although there might be shenanigans behind the scenes. They are therefore not "critical" awards.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then I'll have to remove ScrewAttack's top 10 list (and possibly the Steam Awards) from all the game articles involved. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    They are just a YouTuber in the end, not an actual, reliable news publication. The Steam Awards are also just voted on by fans, with no real curation involved. And I agree with CurlyWi, they are mostly just a joke award, listing that a game won the "Mom’s Spaghetti" award alongside GOTY is just silly. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    Well, it's pretty ironic that Cuphead won both "Best Soundtrack" and "Even Better Than I Expected" awards (and PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds won the "Mom's Spaghetti" award, too) at some fan-made Steam Awards that I'm removing anyways, but here's a link for this anyway. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm honestly debating if we even need the Steam Awards article. Sure, some RS report on it, but it just feels like an unimportant fan poll disguised as an award event in the end. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    I think it should be merged into the main Steam page. Unlike other notable awards, it's not really an award so much as a glorified advertisement. Not only does Valve allow their own games into the running, which should be an instant disqualifier, but it's clear that every game that won was one of the most popular games on Steam. There's no real method at work here beyond straight up popularity.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, if consensus is that they're not a notable award (no argument there) , then there really shouldn't be an article either. --SubSeven (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    Seems like it could pretty easily be merge/redirected to a subsection to the main Steam article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    The awards get enough RS coverage to be notable and documented (taking this year's results, all the major VG RSes have covered and commented on the results). I do fully agree they should not be taken as a curated award. I know they are not "lasting" awards - you don't see them talking about the "2016 Steam Award-winning game" in comparison to the "The Game Awards 2016-winning game". --Masem (t) 16:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    That's not all to this one. Lately Dissident93 has removed Giant Bomb's Game of the Year Awards 2017 from Cuphead's awards chart, because he claims that Giant Bomb is not "a fully reliable source" and that the table should be used for "actual award events, not a publications favorite". What about the Overwatch article? This awards table has Giant Bomb's Game of the Year Awards 2016 in it. Should Giant Bomb's Game of the Year Awards 2016 be removed from the table too? What about all the other video game articles in which I put Giant Bomb's GOTY Awards 2017 in awards tables (Assassin's Creed Origins, What Remains of Edith Finch, Super Mario Odyssey, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus, Night in the Woods, etc.)? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    It does need to be consistent. I feel like what awards can be added should be a part of a manual of style, not done on a case-by-case basis. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    See the section immediately above this one - we've not yet set anything in MOS, so the removal may be jumping the gun but it seems in line with the consensus there that these tables should avoid non-curated awards like a GOTY from a specific publication or the Steam awards. --Masem (t) 16:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    Aren't GiantBomb's (and most of the other publications like IGN) just a collection of an editor's favorite games? They can belong in prose, but they aren't on the same level as a true award from something like BAFTA or the Game Awards. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

    Improve "Template:GamePlatformKey/sub"

    I just saw the URL https://www.nintendo.com/switch/ instead of https://www.nintendo.com/ns/, so will you please change "NS" to "Switch" on {{GamePlatformKey/sub}}? Elmo Fudd (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

    Template doesn't have external links. Can you show us where you see https://www.nintendo.com/switch/ ? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    Wait, no, I just re-read what you said, sorry. We'd have to check in other templates if we use NS or Switch (for consistency). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    No. We use "NS" as an abbreviation for "Nintendo Switch". Nintendo's URLs have no bearing on this. -- ferret (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

    New Articles (11 December to 22 December)

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

    11 December

    15 December

    16 December

    17 December

    18 December

    19 December

    20 December

    21 December

    22 December

    Salavat (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

    Hello, I've started RFCs on a couple of issues that have come up recently in the music related areas of Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in chiming in, your input would be much appreciated. The two discussions are:

    1. Photo use in music genre article infoboxes.
    2. Putting album years in navigation templates.

    Any input would be appreciated, so we can come to a consensus on how to handle these situations. Thanks!

    (Yes, I know this is only tangentially related to WP:VG, but I think it would be good to get input from here too. This could also affect video games articles as well - I've seen people go back and forth on adding years next to game releases on navigation templates in the same manner, for example. So the outcome in these RFCs could affect how WP:VG does things too, really.)

    Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

    What is it?

    A little article in the February 1997 issue of Next Generation says, "Nintendo is releasing a new peripheral for Super NES in Japan that will enable downloading of games via phone lines. The new device, which is essentially a flash ROM cart and costs around $50, will dramatically reduce the manufacturing and distribution costs of future Super NES titles. Video game terminals at retail locations will enable customers to pick the game they wish to burn upon their cart at a cost of between $10 and $40."

    At first I assumed they were talking about the Satellaview, but we're off by a year on release date and $100 on price. I don't know if the basic info provided by this article needs sourcing anyway, but just in case (and for the sake of my own curiosity), I'd like to know what the subject is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

    They are talking about the Nintendo Power (cartridge). TarkusABtalk 23:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

    Charlie Nash

    Capcom appears to be using the full name "Charlie Nash" for the article Charlie (Street Fighter). Since it would avoid taking redirects, I tried being bold and moving it. However, it looks like I'm in no position to do it as the move was not allowed. Any idea? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

    I apologize if I'm stating the obvious, but there appears to already be a Charlie Nash article about a different subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    Try moving it to "Charlie Nash (Street Fighter)". In the case of another subject having the same name, it's always best to leave that subject as the primary topic. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well, not necessarily - you'd want to evaluate the things outline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But in this case, yes, I imagine a real life professional boxer, who even performed in the Olympics, may be the primary topic in this instance. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    I don't see the point. The WP:COMMONNAME of him is still just Charlie isn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's hard to do a "Google Search" tests to gauge it, considering the generic terms and false positives that would occur, but if this is a recent change by Capcom, then yeah, you're probably right. I don't really see any issues with its current status either. Being at Charlie (Street Fighter) and having the opening sentence start with Charlie Nash pretty much covers all the bases - I can't see readers being confused with this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

    The Mystery of the Statuette (aka Tajemnica Statuetki)

    This is a little project I've been working on - Tajemnica Statuetki, the very first Polish adventure game. This is the first major project I've worked on in a while and I'm proud of my achievement, a very confident 10th-or-so draft. The article has been accepted for WP:DYK, but until it's rostered on the main page I would love for you to take a gander and perhaps offer advice or copyediting too.--Coin945 (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

    Only when the topic is known to be notable. I'm not sure about Ramon's Spell, Studio, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    Its a subjective thing, and people approach it differently based on their own editing philosophy, but probably the most widely one held one is basing it off of "whether or not a future article ever looks likely to be notable, and likely to ever be created". Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    If you care for my opinion, I don't like using red links at all. Even if a future article on the subject is likely to be created, I'd just wait until it is before I start linking it. I think they also get removed in GAN/FANs. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I have the same concerns with this article that I did with Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego?. The article contains excessive minutiae from questionable sources, and mixes critical commentary with hard facts. I suggest doing a source review to check for reliability, removing any info from questionable sources while also cutting back on the trivial information. TarkusABtalk 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I am open to a brutal copyedit to adress the issues listed above. I will close my eyes and cover my ears while my baby is hacked to pieces.. #SucksToBeACreator :D--Coin945 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

    Riku

    There is currently a discussion in Talk:Riku (Kingdom Hearts Character)#Expansion on the article in regards to the fact the article was briefly created. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

    If it passes WP:GNG, there should be no issue. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    Comments should go to the linked talk page. TarkusABtalk 15:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

    Draft:Diep.io

    Hi all, When reviewing an WP:AfC article, on Draft:Diep.io, I couldn't find enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. However, as it's a Agar.io clone, the creator; @Cosecant57: was wondering if this should be something to be mentioned in the existing article. However, I understand there is also an article for slither.io; which are both GAs. I see that Cosecant has added information on the Agar.io page, but was wondering if this was the correct way to go, as I believe there are millions of clones for this game. Let me know your thoughts Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

    Since Diep.io to tied to Agar.io via having the same creator, I would merge content there for now and redirect, until/if WP:GNG is met. No need to mention at slither.io unless there's a connection I've missed. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    Everyone thanks for informing. Cosecant57 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

    Template:Square Enix franchises

    I stumbled upon a two week long edit war at Template:Square Enix franchises that could use some eyes. TarkusABtalk 22:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

    Ninja edit, it seems HÊÚL. (talk · contribs) has been adding the template to a lot of pages that may or may not fit the criteria. TarkusABtalk 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    User warned for 3RR to start. Talk page shows numerous warnings for vandalism, unsourced or OR edits. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    First I removed the franchise from the template because I said that was Natsume, then Namcokid47 reverted it back because he said that it is Taito, then you two reverted it back because it is not Taito but Natsume. It is being hard to improve the template this way. All the three SNES and GBA Kiki Kaikai/Pocky & Rocky games were developed by Natsume but licensed by Taito (Square) that owns its rights: https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/screens/c/6/3/gfs_4689_1_1.jpg / https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/screens/8/2/0/gfs_4688_1_1.jpg / https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/screens/8/9/0/gfs_51190_1_4.jpg (in fact in the last one it seems that Taito had a little more involvement: https://www.gamefaqs.com/gba/560446-pocky-and-rocky-with-becky/images https://www.gamefaqs.com/gba/560446-pocky-and-rocky-with-becky/images/144910 https://www.gamefaqs.com/gba/560446-pocky-and-rocky-with-becky/images/22) so now you have to decide if it fits of not in the template. HÊÚL. (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not saying you are wrong with Pocky/KiKi Kai, you may be right, my issue is with the long edit war without discussion and numerous other edits you've made without reliable sources. GameFaqs is not reliable. I also noticed you are adding unsourced entries to List of Square Enix video game franchises which is an FL and adding the template to some pages which don't mention Square Enix at all like Chuck Rock and Rick Dangerous. Not saying it's factually incorrect but from a quick cursory glance it doesn't seem right. TarkusABtalk 23:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    Also, just because they might now own the rights to the company that made an older game, doesn't necessarily mean they own every IP from them. We've seen cases of IPs being auctioned off in the past (2), or allowed to be bought out like with Square Enix themselves and IO Interactive (1). I'm just going to remove the stuff like Chuck Rock unless it can be proven Square Enix holds their rights. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    Why not keep it unless it can be proven that Square does not hold their rights? HÊÚL. (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    Core policies like WP:V? -- ferret (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    So go on and show a reliable source saying that these two IPs are not owned by Square or it was just original research of you saying that they are not? HÊÚL. (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    To make a statement that they are owned by Square Enix, you need a reliable source. I don't have to prove the negative. We can't include something we have no sources for. -- ferret (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    Are you joking right? Because in the Core Design article there are two sources saying that all intellectual property and the Core brand remained in Eidos' possession (the same Eidos that now is called Square Enix Europe since the takeover by Square). Or what was previously on another article does not count anymore? HÊÚL. (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    So you're saying you do have sourcing to back your claims? Don't expect us to dig through dozens of articles to find them for you, the burden is on you. If you have valid sourcing, that's fine. If not, then it can't be included. When you're challenged on something, simply provide the sources so we can all move on. -- ferret (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    I always have sourcing to back my claims. I just think that is funny you acting like gods deciding what can be writen in an article without caring if it will contradict what was previously stated in a more important article (the only one that matters in this case and not a dozen to be digged) and the fact that you seem more interested in prove an user wrong than the information itself. So now that anyone can see that Chuck Rock and Rick Dangerous remained in Eidos' (now called Square Enix Europe) possession you can show a reliable source stating that these two IPs were sold because I do not have to prove the negative. HÊÚL. (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    This was the first time (outside of GameFaqs) that you provided sources here. If you had just done this from the start, it would have avoided most of this debate. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    What a colossal waste of time this was. If asked for sources, just provide them, and everything is fine. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    Always have sourcing? Really? Aren't you the guy who unsuccessfully proposed that Etrian Oddesey was a spinoff of Megami Tensei? And unsuccessfully argued that Final Fantasy Type 0 was a mainline entry and not a spinoff? You've got a long history of making questionable changes to video game templates that cannot be backed up by sources. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    But Final Fantasy Type-0 is a mainline entry no matter what you want to say. HÊÚL. (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    There's no way you have the sourcing to prove that, which discredits your entire "always having sources" point. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    Airborne Brigade, Brave Exvius, Dissidia Nt, Record Keeper, Triple Triad. All of them list Type-0 as a mainline entry of Final Fantasy. But maybe you know more about it than Square. HÊÚL. (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    Listing off random game names is not providing a source. What you've said so far means nothing. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    For you. HÊÚL. (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    Quit lobbing comebacks at others like a toddler and be mature in this. All that needs to happen is that you need to properly source your edits, as none of us should have to find the sources for you. If you can't find anything on it, then you might as well not add it at all. You seem to be making a huge deal out of practically nothing and I'm not a huge fan with that. Don't get all angry because others didn't agree with you (and for good reason), and you shouldn't take this so personal. Your edits aren't incorrect because people don't like you, your edits were incorrect as you couldn't seem to give anyone proper sources to them, hence the purpose of this discussion. I'm not going to deal with this any longer, so consider this my final reply. Happy editing. Namcokid47 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    Let me know if more edits are done without proper sourcing. Protection or blocking will be done. Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    Sadly, I've had my own experiences. King's Knight isn't part of FF, but he tried connecting it - or rather its remake - as part of not only FFXV's associated media but part of the FNC. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    Here we go again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Fabula_Nova_Crystallis_Final_Fantasy&oldid=prev&diff=822362056 Namcokid47 (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

    Watch Dogs - Help?

    I am rewriting the Watch Dogs article in a draft and need more sources concerning Development and Gameplay. Help? Cognissonance (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

    @Cognissonance: have you used these yet?
    http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/216009/hackman_an_interview_with_watch_.php
    https://www.gamestm.co.uk/interviews/interview-the-making-of-watch-dogs/
    https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013/05/16/watch_dogs-behind-the-scenes-with-2013s-rule-breaking-action-epic/
    JOEBRO64 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    @TheJoebro64: Yes, and I found a few more, but this is what I have so far. Considering the subject, there must be more. Cognissonance (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    This might be useful for finding sources. JOEBRO64 21:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

    The rewrite has now been implemented, but there is still an incomplete post-release reception section. @ProtoDrake, TarkusAB, Ferret, Dissident93, Sergecross73, and The1337gamer: Do any of you want to write the section? I would do it myself, except it's my most dreaded part of writing any article and the quality would suffer. It needs to be done before it can be copy edited by the Guild, and it needs to be copy edited by the Guild before it can be nominated for GA. I could review a GAN, FAN, or write a Peer Review in return. Cognissonance (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

    New Articles (13 December to 29 December)

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

    13 December

    16 December

    21 December

    22 December

    23 December

    24 December

    25 December

    26 December

    27 December

    28 December

    29 December

    Salavat (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

    Essay

    Hello everyone, I recently wrote an essay on how to write a dope video game article. I wanted to know if anyone had suggestions on how I could improve it? JOEBRO64 00:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

    Nice! I'd mention guide books for gameplay too. And for development (especially for retro games), I'd mention articles such as GamesTM's "Behind The Scenes" and Retro Gamer's "The Making Of" articles. Also, even guide books sometimes contain information about development. Adam9007 (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback! I've added that to the essay. JOEBRO64 12:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'd mention that a manual of style exists, because new editors may well find there way to this before, maybe in a useful links section at the bottom. You mention that the reception section would be the hardest to write, which I've really never found to be the case. The order of the sections is also important, because if I'd never written a video game article, I'd maybe think that after the lead the reception section needs to come second, and then gameplay. I realise this is for an order of creation, but it's a little ambiguous. Everything else looks great to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    Under the part about writing "Legacy" sections, you mention Did it spawn memes?. I'd recommend qualifying "meme" to some capacity - like Did it spawn memes that gained coverage by third party reliable sources?. Because, as you well know in working in the Sonic subject area, there are any number of non-notable memes we wouldn't bother covering in an article. Something like Luigi Death Stare is worth mentioning. Nonsense like inspiring Sonic and Shadow romance fan fiction would not. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    Done, but you'd be surprised... JOEBRO64 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Just a note here-- didn't we establish that GameSpot took all of GameFAQs's submissions? I think the old site used to have reliable date data (which is what all of my FLs are based on) but the updated version is just as bad nowadays. Nomader (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Hmm, I got it from WP:VG/DATE that GameSpot's got reliable release dates. Maybe the guideline was never updated? JOEBRO64 01:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Crud. Hrm.... lemme go digging through the archives to see what I can find. Nomader (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Created a new section below to figure this out. Nomader (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_134&oldid=1252057629"