Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 146

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140←Archive 144Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147Archive 148→Archive 150

Narrative genre

What's the consensus on adding the genre of the game's narrative or plot to the article? For example Doom II would be science fantasy, Red Dead Revolver would be Western etc. Americanfreedom (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s generally, go by what reliable sources say. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, thanks! Americanfreedom (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Just try to make sure to avoid mixing game and narrative genre in the lead sentence. The lede should be the gameplay genre, and then later, when talking about the game's story, that's when it can be introduced if its needed or appropriate. For example, whereas Celeste would squarely fit into a fantasy narrative genre, it doesn't feel necessary to push that into the article. --Masem (t) 23:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't need to say "science-fiction action role-playing video game" in the opening sentence. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
We sure don't. I can't think of a situation where specifying the genre of the narrative separately from the game genre overall would be very useful - smells like a classic symptom of the video game editor urge towards overexplaining, overclassifying, and overwriting. Popcornduff (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Haha, my first thought for "sci-fi RPG" was Mass Effect, and sure enough: "Mass Effect is a science fiction action role-playing third-person shooter video game series...". That said, I 100% disagree with you: take Secret of Mana - "Secret of Mana [...] is a 1993 action role-playing game[...]. [another sentence about the earlier games in the series]. Set in a high fantasy universe...". Cramming the narrative genre next to the gameplay genre in the opening sentence? A blue mess. Mentioning the gameplay genre in the opening sentence, and touching on the narrative genre a sentence or two later when you hit the plot? Makes perfect sense. A lead to a Mass Effect game that didn't mention that it was science fiction would be a failure, but we don't need to obsessively subcategorize the game before the reader sees anything else. --PresN 04:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I think including a narrative genre depends on context. In my work on the Deus Ex series, mentioning the genre also acted as part of the information regarding what the game was and how the team designed it. Its consistent aesthetic and story theme is the cyberpunk genre, and not mentioning it would be remiss. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but narrative style should still be kept out of the opening sentence, or at least wherever the gameplay genre is. It can be written in a later sentence and look better doing so. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I also think it can be confusing. If a lot of reviewers call it a specific genre but its not a well recognized genre, i dont think its a good idea to use it in the sentence and keep them infoboxes instead.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Pac-Man perfect scores before 1999?

Second, a recent video by Apollo Legend on YouTube (I realize he's not what we'd consider a reliable source) starts off by mentioning a man by the name of Bill Bastable and saying that he provided a photo of a perfect Pac-Man score (3,333,360 points) in 1988, eleven years before Billy Mitchell's officially-recognized "first" perfect game. I hadn't realized that for all this time the "first" perfect game was officially in 1999, more than 17 years after Pac-Man had been released. In 1987, when I was only ten years old, I remember reading about how perfect games had already been achieved, naming that score specifically and commenting on how odd it was that it contained so many threes. While I can no longer remember where I had read those, the fact that it was already published at the time stands out to me. I imagine that it shouldn't be difficult to find that info again if you have access to periodicals from that time period.

There appears to be almost no information about Bill Bastable via Google searches, but there's an interview up on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bZbs7Ma9QE . According to the description of that video, the "perfect game" in 1988 was deemed unacceptable because the board had been modified so it could be frozen at any given moment, but it lends credence to there being more evidence out there of other perfect games long before Mitchell's 1999 benchmark. So I'm just wondering if anyone with better knowledge of the period has better info than I do.

I started a discussion on Talk:Pac-Man about this as well. If that's a better place for the discussion, awesome. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I imagine Apollo's video is gonna go viral and eventually be picked up by some news outlets, so if that's the case I'd definitely add info on it to the article. I've never heard of Bastable so I don't have any info on it, but I'm sure some bits and pieces of it might exist in reliable sources somewhere. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Apollo's been around a while and has taken on the role of investigative reporter for a lot of things related to video game records, speed runners, etc.. He's been one of the more outspoken critics of Mitchell and Twin Galaxies, and he's pulled some pretty gutsy stunts. As such, I'm a little weary of using him directly as a source for any of this. But he's been pretty good about naming his own sources, and most of what he's said so far checks out. He pointed out in that particular video that nobody's heard of Bastable before, specifically because Mitchell far overshadowed him. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at Web Archive for anything about pre-'99 Pac-Man scores and couldn't find anything. But like I said, Apollo's videos usually get picked up by media outlets, so I'm certain this will too, especially considering how much news Billy has made with his lawsuit and whatnot. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've found Apollo Legend himself to be rather poor, and I found it concerning how readily he defended speedrunner RWhiteGoose when he came under fire for posting and supporting antisemitic conspiracy theories and promoting transphobia, among many other things. His method of defense involved only showing mild claims and disregarding the more serious ones, so I am skeptical of his reliability. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I find myself to be a fan of his work, actually. Regardless, it doesn't look like he's some any work for larger game publications and whatnot aside from being mentioned in articles relating to Todd Rogers or Billy Mitchell, so I consider him unreliable. I've also been spending a few hours digging around to find anything relating to Mr. Bastable's perfect Pac-Man score, and there isn't a thing I could find. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
He can be fairly entertaining, but seeing as how the subject came up, I figured it was worth noting that Apollo has concerning behaviour that may suggest that his perspective can be tainted by bias to make bad or incorrect claims. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (September 25 to September 27)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And here's the rest of the week- last post was a conglomeration of September 11-24 in one day. Now we're back on track. --PresN 04:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In celebration of Dreamcast 20th anniversary

Does anyone have any interest in a campaign to improve some of the Dreamcast game articles up to GA? I proposed this at WP:SEGA, but it only got one response. Maybe it will get more traction here. Heres a list of articles I've been working on and/or had my eye on that i think are famous for being Dreamcast games:

Personally, Jet Set Radio is pretty close. I need help with the plot since I'm terrible at it. If anyone played the game and is good at writing plot sections, I would appreciate the assist.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd humbly suggest that the Shenmue 1 and Shenmue 2 pages are GA worthy.
I think the Jet Set Radio plot section is fine as it is. But then I would say that - I wrote it. Popcornduff (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Shenmue 1 and 2 are especially good ones with the upcoming release of the long-awaited third entry happening in November. Sergecross73 msg me 12:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I personally have lost interest in pursuing and reviewing GAs and FAs, because I don't think our standards are high enough and I tend to get stuck in fix loops. But if there's demand to get Shenmue there then I could probably be roped into it. Popcornduff (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the plot for Jet Set Radio is properly summarized in my humble opinion. It could use some more details to help make sense. I'll try to make some adjustments. For some reason, I assumed the Shenmue articles were GAs already. I'll add these to the list now. But after those two, I hope the other ones get attention.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Just be careful not to add more detail to the plot summary just because you think it looks short. Lots of games don't really have much in the way of plot, and short summaries are appropriate there. Popcornduff (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
No I'm not doing it just because it's short. I just think the current summary doesn't try to make it clear what the story is about. Its missing some pieces to the story.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll do Segagaga. Big fan of wacky, sorta "out there" games like that. Namcokid47 (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That's great. That one i consider a challenge. For plot, is it ok to write it in past-tense or does it need to be in present tense?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure. Considering I've never played this game before I don't know how much importance the story has on the actual game. Namcokid47 (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd already done a source hunt for Space Channel 5 and its sequel, and since there's barely anything to do in the bits I find difficult or distracting (plot, gameplay), I'd be happy to have a crack at getting the former article to GA before year's end. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
To add the CT series article is an FA, so the first game could borrow from that if needed to get to GA. --Masem (t) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
OK i re-organized the list to help prioritize the ones we can work on faster. I'm still working on Jet Set Radio. After JSR, i plan on moving onto Crazy Taxi. Also, the FA for Crazy Taxi series may have to be re-evaluated.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Those are good games to work on too. I'm still on Jet Set Radio. After I'm done with Jet Set Radio I'm planning on moving onto Crazy Taxi unless someone else is more interested in that article and has more time to invest. Mr. Driller looks like a fun article to work on.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm about to submit Jet Set Radio for GA-review and move onto Crazy Taxi. Does anyone here see any glaring issues in the article before I submit? I know I can be very bad at grammar, even with the Grammarly app.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This is just an update post to help keep the thread alive but i do want to say thank you to @Namcokid47: and @Protodrake: for your hard work, both Segagaga and Space Channel 5 are looking great. If there is anyone who is comfortable improving Shenmue (video game). it looks like its ready for nomination in my eyes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Namco arcade hardware

There's a lot of articles here for many of Namco's arcade systems, however the issue is that none of them are sourced and I haven't been able to find said sources to add to the page, outside of the Killer List of Videogames (which a lot of the time doesn't even list the actual arcade system) or in brief mentions throughout magazine articles for completely different games. I'm proposing that the articles either be merged into a cohesive list (akin to what List of Sega arcade system boards is) instead of having separate articles for non-notable arcade boards. Thoughts? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A bit of a split opinion here - first and foremost, I made List of Sega arcade system boards years ago by merging 10-20 arcade board articles that didn’t need to be. A merge is definitely a good option because coverage is so light. Now, the caveat: look at the Sega list, and it’s not reliably sourced. I have thought about going back to clean it up, but with that comes some thoughts on structure you should have: how much technical detail and how much background? In my experience coverage is light in both but stronger in background than technical. Consider that when thinking about how to put together a merge. Red Phoenix talk 16:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Review thread 43: Season of the Witch

Its that time again. Time for another review thread thread:

FAC
Other Featured Content Nominations
GAN
Article Reassessments
Peer Reviews

And, as always, we still have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests, which now twenty-four months worth of backlog under its belt. If you want an idea on an article to write, you can stop by to get some possible leads. GamerPro64 15:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Retro Gamer articles

I found this website that encapsulates almost every important articles from Retro Gamer magazine, including interviews: http://www.parkproductions.co.uk/area/magazine/retrogamer.htm I hope this serves as a guiding tool. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Took a gander and noticed interviews for both Jr. Pac-Man and Lucky & Wild, which I might start working on soon. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 05:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Note we have a reference library - Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Retro Gamer - hahnchen 11:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Galaga copyediting

I'm in the process of preparing Galaga for FAC, as I think it's well-written and comprehensive. Would anybody be willing to look over it and take care of any needed copyediting? Thanks. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Gameplay video discussion for Uncharted 4

Would kindly appreciate any thoughts at Talk:Uncharted 4: A Thief's End#Gameplay video clip. – Rhain ☔ 15:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Any good translator?

I recently expanded Judgment (video game) but found little information about its two theme songs by Alexandros. The Japanese Wikipedia has both songs with a reference that leads to Famitsu article. By any chance do they mention anything important about the decision to use any of the songs? Seems to be the only thing lacking from production next to composers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (September 28 to October 4)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

September 28

September 29

  • (None)

September 30

October 1

October 2

  • (None)

October 3

October 4

Request for comment on reliability of VG Chartz

There is a request for comment on the reliability of VG Chartz. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: VG Chartz. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

I was flipping through a few of the video game character GA pages earlier today and came across this page that could use some eyes. How on earth this got to GA status I don't know, but man is this poorly-done. Nothing in the reception section even talks about why the Chaos as characters are great, instead just praising the minigames and mechanics that the Chaos are part of — reception for video game character pages have to be about the character itself, not just about something that they're featured in. Not to mention a lot of the sources are primary or are just quotes from random Sonic the Hedgehog games that they've appeared in, which is why there's been a big fat Notability tag on the page for like two months. I think this needs a reassessment. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 14:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I would almost suggest that it be remade to be about the mode, which I think would be notable. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I myself would think a merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters would seem more appropriate, considering that this has been done before in the past with other GA Sonic characters (such as Big the Cat). Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
As you said however, the article is more about the mode of play. I think what would be most appropriate is to make the article about Chao Garden, have the character information for the concept section, and find more sources about it. First thing before a merge though would be to do a GAR, and once that's done, I'd like to take a crack at reforming it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've thought about starting a merger in the past, but Bryn's suggestion does seem realistic. I can recall reading a few articles all about the Chao Garden mode in the past, and I remember that at least a third of VentureBeat's (I think) review of the XBLA rerelease of SA2 is about it. Additionally, it was a pretty big part of contemporary reviews too, because there was a lot of commentary about how much of a change of pace it was for the series. IMO Chao Garden would pass for notability (but I'll concede if no one agrees). JOEBRO64 01:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh man... much as I appreciated Tezero as an editor and a colleague while he was here, this is the kind of thing he did a lot with Sonic characters - tons of puffery and fluff to make a respectable-looking article without much in the way of true notability-conferring content. It took an FAC at Wisp (Sonic) to really be the turning point. But hey, Wikipedia was a different place in 2013-14, and even more different in 2007-08, when fictional characters were given all sorts of leniency. Anywho, about the Chao Garden rewrite idea... I've read coverage of SA and SA2 as two of my all-time favorite games, and Chao Garden one of my favorite timesinks. Personally I don't think there will be enough, but I'm not willing to say don't do it. In fact, Abryn, I'd encourage you to go for it. Get it GAR'd, then put it under construction or do a userspace draft. Sure doesn't hurt to try; if I stumble across some helpful material, I would be willing to share. Red Phoenix talk 01:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Video game character taskforce

I was wondering if there was any interest in people to make such a thing and participate to improve character articles and create new quality ones. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Opposing this, for two reasons.
  1. We have WikiProject Fictional Characters which also covers video game characters.
  2. Most task forces that I've seen simply cease activity after a while and are just left abandoned.
Unless there's a rather large following in support of this, I don't see such a thing being made. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Fictional characters certainly does, but I think people interested in VG characters participate here much more than there. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I support it conceptually, as in, the area could generally use some work and attention. But it seems like the project generally has 0-2 dedicated people working in the area, so I don’t know how much support you’ll realistically get. That said, I’ll join instantly if anyone can provide sourcing to meet the GNG for Serge (Chrono Cross), Kid (Chrono Cross), or Fiora, no questions asked. ;) Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, like conceptually it seems okay. Considering that I also never really edit character articles (unless they're related to Namco, obviously), I would have very little interest in actually joining this. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I accept that challenge, @Sergecross73:. And I mean, there are a lot of Namco articles that could use some cleanup - Soulcalibur and Tekken characters in particular. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought about making a page for Pooka (an enemy from the Dig Dug series) due to his massive popularity in Japan, but I haven't found much.... Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. I'll try and see if I can't help out. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Dang, I failed both you and Serge. :c - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Right now I'm writing a draft for the Andor Genesis, a boss from the arcade game Xevious. I've found some development info on it and some reception, so I'll see what I can do. If you wanna find some more sources, be my guest. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 05:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have given you impossible conditions, haha. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The biggest issue with this, is that people are generally fans of series. The sega taskforce for instance works because it's about games made by a developer (or publisher, I suppose), characters would be better to have more MOS stuff than a set of people who probably have no want to create an article on certain characters, because they are in games they are not familiar with. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't think Sega task force really has worked in a long time. As someone who has tried and tried and tried to drum up project activity, usually the most I'll get is two-editor collaboration at any given time, and most of the time it's just dead. Unfortunately these were much more popular in 2008 than they are in 2019. Because of that, I don't think the addition of any task force is warranted unless a group of editors express interest. Red Phoenix talk 02:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, most task forces that I see simply become abandoned as users quickly lose interest in it and stop supporting it. Now, if there were a Bandai Namco task force..... Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Funny story, though, in 2008 the Sega task force (then WikiProject Sega) had an active group of 15-20 editors who I swear were all under the age of 13, except me. How times change! Red Phoenix talk 02:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I've thought off-and-on about whether The Elder Scrolls series could support a list of characters that was both well-sourced and written out-of-universe. It wouldn't hurt to have a place where one could discuss such issues and recruit help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Dispute at Quiet (Metal Gear)

There is an editor removing a section from the lead discussing critic opinion on sexualization, with an editor who has reverted my reversion. Can I get some other opinions on this? Thank you. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Intro to Wikidata & video games

Hello folks,

Since my last blog post on the topic was relayed here, I take the liberty of posting my new one: an introduction to Wikidata in the context of video games − it’s the prose version of what I presented at a workshop with video game database maintainers.

My message to video game databases: We(kidata) come in peace

Hope you find it interesting. If you have any questions/remarks/etc. feel free − either directly on my talk page or at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Video games.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sum of All Video Games Poster
Ah, since I’m here, you may also be interested in this poster we made for Wikimania 2019 (Q48010913) and WikidataCon 2019 (Q42449814): File:Sum of All Video Games Poster - WikidataCon 2019.pdf Jean-Fred (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated Donkey Kong (video game) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (October 5 to October 12)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 5

October 6

October 7

October 8

October 9

October 10

October 11

October 12

New week, new post! Digital media use and mental health, by the way, was a tag of an existing GA; it's not a new GA or new article. --PresN 20:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

video game article with video commercial in it

I removed the commercial from Job Simulator [1] but see the video [2] is in the articles for it in other languages. Since the rules are different on different Wikipedias, not sure if that's allowed on any of them or not. Anyone speak those other three languages? Anyone know if Wikimedia Commons allows such video commercials to be hosted on it? Surely someone has dealt with this sort of thing before. Dream Focus 00:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: looked like they got the developers to release the video under a free license. There is no reason to remove it given that, since part of the trailer shows gameplay elements. It is completely acceptable as long as it is marked as a trailer/etc. Commons has no limits on a video if it is commercial as long as the work is PD or has a free license attached to it. Eg File:Design for dreaming (1956).webm is a 10 minute commercial for all purposes, but as it was not marked with correct copyright, it has fallen into the PD. --Masem (t) 01:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
So every single video game company can just release a commercial for their game under that license and get it included into their article. They limit how much pictures and the size and quality level of them, but no such restriction for video. That is rather odd. Dream Focus 01:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, an image could be released under that license too. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
On commons, so they have to release it under a free license if they want that. Many companies will not do that.
That said, I would say that such videos even if free should either 1) be the subject of discussion in the article so that it is not blatently commercial, or 2) demonstrate gameplay elements clearly to augment gameplay sections. For example, this is the video for Gears 5 [3]. Even if that could be licensed freely, it has no illustration of gameplay, and thus would need to be the subject of discussion to be beyond promotional. If neither point is met, then I agree that per WP:NOT we'd not include such videos but still can link to the commons category for it. --Masem (t) 01:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Anyone could upload video footage of them playing a game and then post it in a video game article. And companies will do this to advertise their games once they know they can get away with it. People have tried to advertise on Wikipedia before after all, constantly. Dream Focus 01:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
No. You nor I could upload us playing a game without that being treated as non-free, and thus its inclusion would require higher standards for inclusion (a video by someone of them playing a commercial game would be a derivative work of the game itself, so that's where the copyright sits). And as I said, most game companies don't want to give away their content like this, so we are unlikely in any situation where this will be abused. --Masem (t) 02:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Plus, since it's been released under CC-BY-SA, you can just cut out those parts you believe are too commercial and end up with a gameplay video under a free license, which is a pretty sweet deal. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I dont think there's a need for sound as well. If it was converted into a Gif, would it still be considered free?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as long as the GIF remains under the same free license the video was uploaded with (if that was done, that would call for use of the "Extracted from" template to track to the original upload and the all-important OTRS ticket box.) If editors feel the promotional parts of the video are too much, that's an option, but again, promotion if it is the subject of discussion can be uploaded to commons and used on WP. We do not outright block promotional/advertising content but should have an encyclopedic purpose. --Masem (t) 15:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Gifs are inferior in this day and age to HTML 5 video. Let's not. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't a serious suggestion. Although i believe Gifs still valuable in wikipedia. Tetris, and Archer Maclean's Mercury use them well. I do agree with the idea that these come off as if Wikipedia itself is advertising the games, rather than informing them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Road & Track Presents: The Need for Speed

So...The Need for Speed was "moved" today in a cut-and-paste method (is that even allowed?) to Road & Track Presents: The Need for Speed. Bringing the matter here, but shouldn't The Need for Speed be the WP:COMMONNAME? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on what sources I can see, yes it should just be "The Need for Speed". I am just going to undo the changes and instruct the editor that they should open an RM for that case if they feel the R&T part is needed. Copy and paste moves are not allowed (loses the history). --Masem (t) 21:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Reward board listing

If anyone is interested, I'm offering a barnstar to anyone who brings SCP – Containment Breach to good article status. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There's plenty of reviews for this game, so if one can find some development info on this I'd say this can easily become a GA (not to mention the SCP Foundation page is already a GA). I'm personally not interested in this sort of stuff to clean it up, though. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Genres in lead (again)

Another argument about whether to include multiple genres in the lead is happening at The Last of Us, should anyone want to chip in. Some previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games/Archive_4#Bloated_leads. Popcornduff (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sonic Chronicles' canceled sequel

Hey, could anyone provide input on how to handle this? I'm rewriting the Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood article and I discovered a barrier I'm going to hit. Reports indicate that BioWare was developing a sequel at one point ([4][5][6][7]), but I spend some time digging and I couldn't find any reliable sources that say it was canceled. Anyone know what I should do? IMO the information isn't complete without indicating the sequel was never released, but it'd be WP:OR to say it was canceled without a source explicitly saying so. JOEBRO64 21:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You could just say "...which, as of 2019, has yet to be released", or something along those lines. The release date would be "TBA", which is standard practice for games in development hell that aren't officially cancelled. Phediuk (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. Alternatively, I believe, in similar situations, I’ve called a game or album cancelled without much in the way of sourcing, without any issues. It kinda depends. If it’s pretty certain to be cancelled, then you may just never really be challenged on it. Though that may not hold up if you go GA/FA on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, you could just go with "but it was never released or shown", without a cite, if you want to avoid the term "cancelled" and stick to what's demonstrably true. Even at GA/FA, I don't think anyone's going to demand that you have a citation to prove that a development project that vanished without any trace 11 years ago is not still under active development- you can't prove a negative. --PresN 01:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • My approach would be more like "The door was left open for a potential sequel: the game ended ended on a cliffhanger and left the player with the message "THE END?", and Bioware stated that they had "a precise idea" of how a sequel would be made. However, EA acquired Bioware shortly after Sonic Chronicles' release, and a sequel was never officially announced as being planned or in development." --- it wasn't a cancelled project, Bioware just said "we know how we would do it" and that just never happened. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Also how is TSSZ a reliable source? Baseless speculation from random fans with a website self-proclaiming themselves as "Super Sonic Zone NEWS". Bad cite IMO. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it’s definitely not an RS. I’m sure Joebro knows that, with all the editing he’s done with Sonic articles these last couple years. But casual Sonic fans are pretty relentless with adding the site to articles, so that’s probably how that got there. But you’re right, maybe it should be worded more like “plans for a follow up were discussed/hinted but never materialized” or something rather than outright saying it was cancelled. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I've only cited TSSZ for interviews. I didn't write what's currently in the article (not sure if I've even edited it!), which is part of the reason I wanted to give it a facelift. Also reports between 2009–2010 do seem to indicate that a sequel was at least planned (see the Gamezebo and 1UP links I provided, and the VentureBeat one explicitly says a sequel was in development) JOEBRO64 00:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (October 13 to October 19)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

October 13

October 14

October 15

  • (none)

October 16

October 17

October 18

October 19

Book question

Hi. This is a question about a book related to a video game. Final Fantasy XV: The Dawn of the Future finally has a concrete release date in addition to interviews regarding both it and the cancelled DLC it's adapting into print form, and depending on how much coverage it gets in terms of sales figures and reviews (it's already got some coverage about stock shortages due to unexpected demand in Japan), I was planning on making an article for it. I'm planning on buying it anyway, which will give me access to any special extras the release edition contains. The trouble is I don't know of any book articles I can use as reference. And it'll be the first time I've ever worked on a book article of any kind outside small edits. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How about Halo: The Fall of Reach as an example?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
There's currently 4 Halo novels (Halo: First Strike, Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, Halo: The Fall of Reach, Halo: The Flood) and The Myst Reader that are GAs about video game books, an 1 FA: Halo: Contact Harvest. There are also a few GA/FAs on comics or graphic novels. They're all from 2008, so take that as you will. --PresN 20:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's one from 2015. It's a comic book, not a novel, but the premise is pretty similar. – Rhain ☔ 23:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Book articles can generally just follow a similar layout as games—development, plot synopsis (sometimes in reversed order), reception and sales info. I doubt there's going to be a lot of scholarly thematic stuff to draw on that would complicate things. With that said, I'd definitely wait and see what develops before making an article for it. I've been meaning to clean up the aforementioned GA Halo novels when I have time, but to a certain degree I'm not really sure they make good standalone articles versus another home (I've merged together three Halo novels into The Forerunner Saga and hope to turn that it into a single, good article instead of three rather middling ones.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Daikatana importance

This is a thread regarding a dispute between myself and Lone Internaut at Daikatana over its importance assessment. I believe it should be listed as high importance; he prefers mid. My case:

  • One of the most-covered, most-discussed games ever released (I've spent thousands of hours source-trawling and few games are as heavily represented as this one, both in industry magazines/websites and mainstream news outlets)
  • Major commercial bomb primarily responsible for the bankruptcy of ION Storm and near-bankruptcy of Eidos, and has been blamed in part for the closure of Looking Glass Studios
  • Essentially ended the career of John Romero, then one of America's top-five most famous designers thanks to Doom, Doom II and Quake
  • Generated controversy (such as the infamous poster) that is still being litigated in the press to this day
  • Widely cited as one of the worst games ever released

I can't see how this game's page could be mid-importance, but I'll let the rest of you weigh in. To my eyes, Daikatana is far and away one of WPVG's most essential game articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I had a look around, but, to my surprise, I can't actually find anywhere where the criteria for importance assessments is laid out. Does this exist somewhere?
In lieu of that criteria, I'll have to go by my own instinct... I think importance depends to a large degree on the impact the subject had in its field (and beyond). Daikatana is only extraordinary in that it failed in interesting circumstances (failure is of course otherwise normal, not extraordinary) - but beyond that it has had almost no impact or influence on anything, regardless of the number of articles that have covered it. Popcornduff (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: Here it is--Alexandra IDVtalk 17:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!
Well, then, my feeling that Daikatana is not high-importance stands: Series and games that have been shown to have a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself; typically a few years are needed to assess this impact. (e.g., Pokémon, Final Fantasy, The Bard's Tale, Super Mario 64, Tetris, Metroid, Minecraft) Daikatana has obviously not had anything like the impact of the example games here. Popcornduff (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I think Popcornduff hit my point: Daikatana, in few words, has been a big, big... video game of nothing. Jimmy is actually right in all the points he listed, but the fact is that those points are not enough for a high importance level video game article, as well as they don't even fit in "low importance". Lone Internaut (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
In ending John Romero's career, ION Storm (the industry's golden child) and nearly Eidos (it sent the publisher into deep trouble), Daikatana had a massive impact on the industry and the first-person shooter genre. Imagine if Sid Meier had ended his career with Sid Meier's Colonization—the equivalent to chopping off a huge branch of game history. Daikatana's never-ending controversy continues to impact the culture of the game industry: ask anyone who plays games what Daikatana is, and they'll probably be able to tell you. Its PR debacle continues to be a reference point for how not to do game PR. And so on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I would say that it's Mid importance. Several good reasons are given above. I'd add that there's been little to no commentary about the game beyond dedicated stuff about it. I don't see it mentioned outside such focused articles and videos on "worst game ect.", which doesn't strike me as having a very wide scope within gaming as a whole. It's not mentioned except in connection to its studio and creators, although in some ways it's high profile because of its spectacular failure and the status of the company it came from. But it's not on the same level as Deus Ex.
On this subject, is is possible to have guidelines about assessing an article's importance? It sounds like something that could lead to some nasty edit wars (I'm not counting this one as it's being settled in a sensible way). --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Could I ask what you mean about commentary beyond its studio and creators? As I said, it's one of the most-covered games of all time—the stuff I linked above was from a brief, five-minute Google search. If you need me to present more sources that paint it in a more complex light, I'm more than happy to do so. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Those are too much indirectly correlated things, Jimmy. It all seems a "Imagine what could have been the FPS genre if Romero was still doing FPSs, but Daikatana made this impossible" kind of thing, it's just pure speculation. Controversy and all that, still is not enough.
The requirements are clear for high importance video games article, and it's objectively clear that Daikatana doesn't meet them. Lone Internaut (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't see it as objectively clear in the slightest, but maybe it's because I've done so much research on this period. The fall of John Romero through this game is one of the most iconic stories in PC game history. Again, like the equivalent of Sid Meier losing his career at the peak of his fame. There's a reason why sources so often mention Daikatana and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial in the same breath. If others don't agree, that's fine, but the claim that this is "objectively" not a high-importance article isn't credible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed - there's no point assigning notability to events that possibly caused things not to happen. That way lies madness. Daikatana obviously had a big impact on one notable man's career, but we need more than that. Popcornduff (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
[at JimmyBlackwing] Put it as you want, credible or not, but for sure reading those high importance requirements and looking at what Daikatana is, doesn't make a single link between them. I just think you're watching too much into things. Romero has its own article with its own high importance level. The "imagine if Sid Meier" thing just seems pure speculation on something that never was. Lone Internaut (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean here. John Romero was already far more famous and far more successful than Meier when Daikatana dropped (given sales figures, shareware market penetration and press). Even if we compare Meier's output up to Sid Meier's Antietam! to Romero's up to Daikatana, Romero was the bigger fish. We don't need to speculate about "what would've happened" if Romero's career hadn't ended—it's enough to say that a major star fell at the peak of its fame. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's you whom talked about Meier in the first place, and it's you who seems to just speculate on what Romero's life as a designer would have been, and its influence on today FPS genre, if Daikatana did not fail. The fact that "a major star fell" and so again all the "what could have been if it did not" doesn't make enough for Daikatana to be an high importance article. Given what the requirements clearly say, it's even strange we are talking about it. Lone Internaut (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Since there's a growing consensus that more evidence of Daikatana's importance is needed, I'll ask what everyone wants to see. Whatever you want to read about Daikatana has probably been written in the 20+ years since it entered development. Give me a checklist and I'll find the sources. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate, as per the guideline linked above, a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself. Bigger impact than a couple of companies went bust or a famous man lost his job I mean. Popcornduff (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Impact on culture and industry are easy to demonstrate, given Daikatana's vast fame and coverage from the last ~22 years. Do you have any particular requests? It's easier if I have terms to search for. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean you need to demonstrate that it's had an impact on the scale of something like Pokemon, Tetris or Final Fantasy. Surely you concede that these are not equivalent in importance to Daikatana, a game most people haven't even heard of? But if you want to try, perhaps produce sources showing things like blockbuster movies based on Daikatana, bestselling sequels it spawned, console sales it drove, etc... Popcornduff (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Pokemon, Tetris and Final Fantasy are simply examples. There are lots of high-importance articles less famous than that. For example: Ultima Underworld, Chrono Trigger, BioShock, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Limbo, etc. And Daikatana is more famous and more widely-covered than many (most?) of those games. Do you propose that we limit all high-importance articles to ones connected to "blockbuster movies, bestselling sequels, console sales it drove" and so on? That's a bold idea, but not necessarily part of the scope of our discussion here. Regardless, if tentpole relevance is what you want to see regarding Daikatana, I'll find some. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I question whether all the examples you give there are truly high-importance. Popcornduff (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
[at JimmyBlackwing] More covered? Maybe, I would not be so sure. But all those games have been way more influential, sold, acclaimed and known than Daikatana. The requirements are clear and it's not just about "best selling" or not: a video game can even fall in high importance if it did not reach high sales, but met high critics response and was patently influential as a video game on the genre and industry. No one wants to limit nothing.
Daikatana was simply a mess in sales figures, in critics and fan response and in influence on the genre. It's as simple as that. Lone Internaut (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Internaut has a point. I could go into detail, but that'd be long-winded. But there is something I should say about one of the source cited by JimmyBlackwing as part of their argument. He uses that to say that the game influenced the closure of Looking Glass. Actually reading the text, the writer says that it's hyperbole and speaks in hypothetical and hearsay terms when referring to that, not giving industry quotes or anything more substantial. It states on the very next page that Looking Glass closed because of low game sales, not Daikatana being a flop. And a big thing to remember; we're discussing the notability of an article that's poorly sourced and in desperate need of a full editing overhaul. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Popcornduff: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument here. You provided examples of high-importance articles; I provided examples of high-importance articles. Your comments about sales, movies and so on are simply your own personal interpretation of the guideline. All of the articles I listed are FAs, and presumably have been assessed according to the standards at the guideline page—and I personally would agree, given the sources, that they qualify as high importance. Maybe you don't. That isn't an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue, but an interpretation issue. As for the sources you wanted, I've listed them below. All of these demonstrate major, lasting cultural impact on and relevance within the game industry. I found these via Google searching, and haven't even had to dip into print-only sources yet:
  • "Daikatana became the poster product for how good work can go bad"—from the book Game Work: Language, Power, and Computer Game Culture by Ken McAllister
  • "without a doubt, one of the most infamous video games in history"—PC Gamer
  • "If you had to rank the most infamous video game marketing campaigns, Daikatana's would definitely come in at number one."—USgamer
  • Ibid.: Daikatana cited as the deathknell of the game-designer-as-rockstar mentality from the '90s: "Ion Storm proved, without a doubt, that this rock star mentality just couldn't mesh with games. ... And, working on a project with the scope and ambition of Daikatana, the only way production could have gone is down in flames."
  • "the go-to horror story for gaming aficionados" with an "enduring, monstrous reputation" by 2017—PCGamesN
  • "the game industry's first truly great runaway production"—GamesRadar
  • "one of the most disastrous chapters in video game history"—NPR
  • In addition, Daikatana makes up a significant portion of Masters of Doom, probably the most famous book about video games ever written (at least in America). See here. Masters of Doom is also currently being turned into a TV series for USA Network, so Daikatana's drama should be on television before long.
  • All of these sources discuss Daikatana as a historically-important event with long-term relevance: not merely a one-off flop. And, again, all of this is on top of killing the career of perhaps America's most famous game designer, and one of the most-discussed and most-eulogized companies in the industry. There are many, many sources to corroborate this as well, if you want them.
@Lone Internaut: By your reasoning here, it would be almost impossible for anything other than a highly successful and beloved game to qualify for high importance. That seems manifestly wrong to me. Lots of stuff has a lasting impact on culture or business without being successful or well-received. See, for example, Duke Nukem Forever, an infamous game often compared to Daikatana. It flopped, it got terrible reviews and precisely zero games have consciously copied its design: but it provided a negative example for the industry, became an enormous reference point and went down in history regardless. It's an example of just how wrong things can go, something that businesses don't want to do—as with Daikatana.
@ProtoDrake: I never argued that Looking Glass was killed by Daikatana. To quote myself: Daikatana "has been blamed in part for the closure of Looking Glass". The source I provided said exactly that, even when the writer contradicted the sentiment. It's also stated in this 2015 article: "Even now, 15 years later, the founder denies the idea that Daikatana’s failure was the nail in the coffin. That was a rumor among the developers, some say, and it got worse every time it circled back." Do the article writers blame Daikatana? Maybe, maybe not. Is it my opinion that Daikatana killed Looking Glass? It's complicated—I think it was part of a much larger toxic cocktail. But do many people blame Daikatana for killing Looking Glass? Yes, as stated in both sources, and many others. And that's an important factor when it comes to weighing importance: how do sources report the game's place in the popular imagination? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm playing by the rules, Jimmy, not necessarily bending them to my reasoning. I still don't think these sources you provided are enough to prove Daikatana to be an high importance article. What you say about Duke Nukem Forever it's true, of course, and indeed that game is far from being an high importance article. For me, Daikatana just doesn't meet the requirements, but I must admit I find hard to see it differently. I mean it's just how the story gone, the only way to change it's importance would be changing history and we can't do that.
Don't know what to tell you more than this, maybe other will see it differently in the end. Lone Internaut (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly there seems to be more discussion about the importance of the article more than an actual attempt at improving it. More energy should be used for the latter. GamerPro64 20:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is, in fact, about the importance of the article, not about how attempting to improve it. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
GamerPro64 is saying the importance isn't a real concern worth investing, and more time should be invested in the quality of the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with GamerPro64. I think this whole importance discussion would be at lot easier if the article weren't in such a state. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Daikatana's article desperately needs to be improved. And I agree that this argument is a lot of noise over something very small. I've already compiled dozens of sources on Daikatana's talk page, and could find hundreds more if there was a real push to improve the page. It's always been too daunting to tackle writing the thing myself (I've been thinking about it since the 2000s), but I'd be more than happy to offer sourcing backup to anyone who wanted to give it a shot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I came to comment similarly to GamerPro64’s sentiment. Try not to get too caught up in the Wikipedia navel gazing. These ratings have very little impact on...anything...and are largely unseen by most readers. Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I think people should be putting effort into actually improving the article rather than arguing about its supposed importance. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess a good question to ask is who wants to make a collaborative effort to improve the Daikatana article. I'm down for it if there are others interested. GamerPro64 00:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@GamerPro64: I wouldn't want to take on the whole article, but if you like I can put together the sections on its development and release/promotion. I'm an uninterested party as I haven't got any previous experience and am not strongly motivated by it, but I can put together those sections. I've got a lot of experience with finding sources of that kind., but find gameplay and receptions a bit of a drag unless I'm really invested. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
GamerPro64 ping. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I would love to get involved in it as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2019

I would like to add to the discussion the topic of improving the template box for the league of legends world championship wikipedia page. It currently only shows the current champions of the tournament while other sports pages also include "most successful club(s)" or "most titles won". In this case we could add SK Telecom T1 who has won the world championship title 3 times. Ehershkovitz (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Where is this change currently being discussed? I don't see a thread at Talk:League of Legends World Championship. There's no point adding a non-existent discussion to the WPVG Announcements banner. This seems straightforward enough that you could maybe just do it, and if someone objects it can be discussed on the articles talk page (as per WP:BRD). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Salvidrim!, just to note that this editor cannot edit the template as it is extendedconfirmed protected and Ehershkovitz is only autoconfirmed.
Ehershkovitz, if you could find the relevant threads, that would be useful. Also can you make the changes in the sandbox (Template:WPVG announcements/sandbox)? This will allow you to test and build your changes, and also allow other editors to see what you want to change before the change is made. After you are happy with the changes, you can then ask someone to copy your changes to the template page, or if you make around 90 more edits you will hit 500 edits and then be able to edit the template directly. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC) striking as I misunderstood what Ehershkovitz wanted to do. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand Dreamy Jazz, he wants to add to the WPVG Announcements a discussion that doesn't exist yet about an edit that hasn't been made yet, which is just not... a thing... and I'm recommending he boldly does the edit and/or at least start a discussion about the edit before even thinking about "announcing" the "discussion" about the "edit". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Salvidrim!, Ah I see now, thanks for clearing my misunderstanding up. Yes I agree with you and recommend Ehershkovitz to create the discussion before they ask for it in the banner. Please disregard my previous comment. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (October 20 to October 26)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

October 20

October 21

October 22

October 23

October 24

October 25

October 26

Mobile phone game idea?

So SNK recently released a free mobile phone for every part of the world titled The King of Fighters: All Star. I checked Gamerankings but there was nothing about reviews or in Metacritic. Do mobile phone games get late reviews or something? I thought about creating the article but I can't find stuff to make it pass notability.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a constant struggle to find notability for mobile games. The only well known recognized reviewers are TouchArcade, Pocket Gamer. Other sites like AppAdvice, 148Apps, apparently aren't recognized sources yet. Sometimes the big video game reviewers certain phone games on occasion but its rarity now. I personally think we need to treat them differently than regular video games and find a specific criterion for mobile phone sources. Because putting them in the same standard as the regular console or PC video games isn't going to cut it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately we have an industry that seems rather obtuse or unwanting towards mobile game coverage, or at least for freemium mobile games. I don't see a problem with adding some of those sources as RS (after a proper review) but I don't think we should weaken inclusion guidelines for mobile games just because sourcing is normally thin. Mobile games are as easy to develop as indie games, and we simply cannot cover them all. --Masem (t) 02:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I don’t work on mobile game articles much, but when I have...yeah I’ve often had to rely on proving notability through in-depth previews rather than reviews. You’ll probably be able to scrounge up some reviews over time, but yeah, nothing compared to an SNK console game. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I see. I once created this mobile phone game and used those sources you mention once but it sure came across as small due to the lack of reception. Then again Ryythm only lasted one year while All Star is apparently getting expansion in contrast. I guess cellphone games take more time to get reviews? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Japanese company building photos

If anyone needs photos of specific game developer/publisher buildings in Tokyo (past or present), please let me know soon and I will do my best to photograph them. TarkusABtalk/contrib 14:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "All of them". :) You also may want to tag up the Anime project for any anime/manga buildings too, they might appreciate that if you're not going too far out of your way. --Masem (t) 14:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I have pictures of the building Spike Chunsoft inhabits I took last year. It's a shared tower so nothing fancy but I'll add it (〒107-0052 Tōkyō-to, Minato City, Akasaka, 2-chōme−17−7). I also took a picture of a current Bandai Namco building but I'm not sure if it's their HQ or one of their tier 1 studios (2-37-25 Eitai, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-0034, Japan). SNK is based in Osaka so unfortunately I can't hit that one up. I may hit up the anime project if I have some free time, but I have little to no interest in anime/manga so not sure if I want to spend time for that cause. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The only other place i can think of is Marvelous (company) but it might be in a similar situation as Spike Chunsoft. is it a rarity for game devs to have their own building?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Marvelous is a good pick. And I think it's definitely uncommon, especially in a large city where shared space is common. Only the top dogs have the funds and need for their own building. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Scratch SNK, actually. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 15:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do about Irem and Jaleco. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB:If you could manage to localize Toaplan's old building, that would be pretty damn awesome! Right now, i'm trying to expand many of the game articles related to Toaplan, as it is a company that deserves it after their 10-year run in the industry... Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
If you guys have addresses it would be much appreciated, but I'm afraid a lot of these companies are so small, not sure if a pic would make sense of a building they occupied one floor of. TarkusABtalk/contrib 02:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, looking into it Irem's headquarter building is pretty small, so it's likely not worth the effort running around through Tokyo to try and take a photo of it. Jaleco might have had their own building but I'll need to get back to you on that — their old building is still up and running according to Google Maps as well. I've got addresses for both of them if they're still of any interest, however. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The building where Toaplan's offices resided can be seen on the high score screen of Tiger-Heli: http://shmuplations.com/toaplan-chronicle/ Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Two requested moves - Touhou Project

Hello, I have created requested move discussions for two Touhou Project games:

Please feel free to discuss these proposed moves on their talk pages, which can be found here and here. — Goszei (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Project Sakura Wars for another DYK?

Last time we tried to get Project Sakura Wars up for DYK, it failed, unfortunately.

Now that it’s going to be released in the next few months (December), should we try setting the DYK nomination up for December 12, 2019 or so if we expand on it by then? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is that a VG article can only be promoted/nominated for GA status after it was released. However, you can only nominate an article for DYK after the article is promoted to GA status. Therefore, it is unlikely for the DYK to hit the main page on Dec 12, unless you manage to expand the article five-fold (which is challenging) in the upcoming weeks. OceanHok (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Very good. More details on the game will be available by the end of November, so it's possible we can expand on it. After December 12, we'll nominate it for GA status. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Power Unlimited (Dutch magazine) & Hobby Consolas (Spanish magazine) + Universal Videogame List (uvlist.net) and more...

Here's a website containing all of the issues of Dutch gaming magazine Power Unlimited. I hope this serves of great use in the future: [8981=924969 1]. Also of great use would be the Spanish website Museo Del Videojuego (2), as it contains Spanish game reviews from Hobby Consolas and from other Spanish gaming magazines as well. I would also highly recommend using the Universal Videogame List website as well (3), as its database contains game reviews from Europe that are not found in MobyGames (another recommendable website) for systems such as 3DO. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Character list article

Are we okay with articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_the_Mario_Kart_series ?

Just wanted to check, as I already found myself confused as to what we find acceptable on this. It used to be that character lists were not okay in games, but it was okay in series articles? Now it appears that we’re okay with spinning them out into their own articles? (There’s Characters in the Super Smash Bros. series too.)

Can someone explain how we reconcile this with WP:GAMECRUFT? Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hrm. I don't like it as a separate article as it is crufty that way (plus including the various "costume" variations is really not appropriate, though in that, I do understand "Baby Mario" is not same as "Mario"). If it was part of the series article, I'd have less a problem because it gives an idea of characters across the series. Or if we had a case where there was less "series" crossover and more just an internal set of characters in a series -- for example, a "Characters of Mortal Kombat" would be a reasonable place for that table. But definitely not standalone, regardless of size. --Masem (t) 00:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Tour costume characters, but stuff like Tanooki Mario and Metal Mario are formatted weirdly in this article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The Mario Kart list is obviously inappropriate. The Smash one definitely needs work but IMO is fine enough (I do plan to tackle it eventually), as I'd say there's more than enough sources out there to establish the character roster as notable in itself. JOEBRO64 01:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The Smash character list is an exception because of the massive amount of coverage and newfound popularity a new character gets by their inclusion. The same can not be said for Mario Kart. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The Smash character list doesn't demonstrate any such importance, and even then that can easily be covered in character articles rather than a list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
How? Each character is independently sourced. If you want them to all have prose written about them, then I'd argue that's more WP:GAMECRUFT than it's worth. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (October 27 to November 2)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

October 27

October 28

October 29

October 30

October 31

November 1

November 2

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2019

For the "Legend of the Mystical Ninja" page, Harumi Ueko is the sole composer. Uehara was on sound effects. I am friends with Harumi Ueko, and he said the entire soundtrack was a solo job by him. The fart sound effects, meows, the whack sounds, and every sound effect in the game, were done by Uehara. On the original soundtrack, it strangely lists Uehara first, even though he had no involvement with the music. I encourage you to reach out to Harumi Ueko yourself for confirmation. I would suggest putting Uehara under Sound Effects and Harumi Ueko as sole composer. 2605:E000:1301:8783:6184:471:6F4:ACDE (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Additionally, Legend of the Mystical Ninja is not protected, so it can be edited. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

FA plans for Sakura Wars?

Hello. Is anybody up for an FA push for a Sakura Wars video game article (such as Sakura Wars (video game) or Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love)? I plan to get the fifth game up for a possible TFA on July 7, 2020 for its 15th anniversary and later on, the first game might need to be worked on for its 25th anniversary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

KOF characters

After expanding most of SNK characters, I wonder if any article related to them is need of a merge. You see, I think I kinda created most of these articles when I was a rookie in Wikipedia so I don't know if the material they offer is enough to pass notability. Since the company released so many cellphone games I don't know if I managed to cover everything but there are is also another stuff I wonder. Recently, the most expanded article I worked on Kyo Kusanagi has over 200 references. I didn't work in Mai Shiranui but I'm also confused if the references are okay. If there is any article that need to be merged, I'll accept it.Tintor2 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Coleco Gemini, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Year released in the Lead

Is it worth having the Year released in the lead? Granted, it can be quite useful to see the year it is only really useful for games which are 8-10+ years old to get a perspective on how advanced the game is at a glance. I have noticed this with some older game articles like: Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario 64, Call of Duty 3.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The year of release should first paragraph lede material. While it may not appear to make sense for a recent game, as we get 4+ more years out from release, that date is important. It basically helps to future proof the articles. --Masem (t) 17:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I should have been clearer: Is it worth having the Year of release in the first sentence for 8+ year old titles like: Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario 64, Call of Duty 3?
It's fundamental information, so yes. But I don't object to putting it a little later in the lead if it helps the prose, as it sometimes does. Popcornduff (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, for cases of online games that have changed a lot over years, just make sure to word it right. Say when it was originally released but don't use it as a defining adjective. i.e. "EverQuest was first released in 1999" rather than "EverQuest is a 1999 video game" TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Popcornduff (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The only issue I have with this is redundancy. For some reason, people seem to think that basically saying "Super Mario 64 is a 1996 video game that released in 1996" is not only acceptable, but preferred. If we decide to do year in the opening sentence like this, then we should also omit it being mentioned a few sentences later. The infobox always handles the exact date(s) anyway and is right beside the lead, so we wouldn't really be removing information for glance readers. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, it is better to avoid defining a game by a specific year if the release dates are in between years from different regions. It can cause confusion because some readers will say "its not from that year, its from this year!" I've been adding the release dates in the lead with month, day and year for each main region. But that's just my editing style.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think if it was released in different years in different regions (barring obvious cases like ports and rereleases) then that's sound reasoning. I agree with Dissident's point too. Popcornduff (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Dates in multiple regions (in the lead) should be generalized to month+year though, per WP:VG/DATE. But I agree with the rest of it, as it's what I personally do as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd even consider dropping non-initial releases altogether- I like having the 2nd sentence be "It was first released on X for Y platforms" or something like that, and let any release variability move to the infobox (or just drop it altogether if trivial! It doesn't really matter if it came out 3 days later in Europe!) --PresN 18:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
i follow this practice also.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I've never cared much for seeing "[name of game] is a [year] video game", especially if it had other releases, some of which not being during that year. Something that I established across the God of War articles was to say that the game "was first released on [date]." (essentially what PresN said). I've also adapted this to other multi-platform games, such as the Destiny games/expansions. --JDC808 ♫ 22:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Is the original Ghostbusters a 2019 film because it received a re-release then? This is spurious reasoning, a game receiving a release in a separate year does not then make it belong to that year. Doom isn't a 2019 game either if it's re-released to run on a washing machine, it's still a game from 1993. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Release dates don't vary between years for films like they do in video games.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
But they do. I literally just gave an example of that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
We're not talking about re-releases. Sometimes a game was released in 2001 in Japan and in North America and Europe on 2002. It's not a re-release, its the original release. Films don't have that large of a release window sometimes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
But then it'd be a 2001 video game. Just because it was released in an English-speaking area later doesn't make it the original release, and how rare an occurrence is that in the modern day? If a Japanese film isn't released in English until a year later, does that mean we go off the English release just because it's more applicable to us?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) my point is it avoids confusion and it can be unnecessary to define a game by the year if there are multiple years for the original release window. Just because films do it, doesn't mean everyone else needs to. For example, most albums aren't called a "[year] album" or "Is a [year] company". i'm only giving my opinion. its not a vote or anything.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: you missed my point. It's the simple fact that multiple years could be associated with the release, like what Blue Pumpkin Pie was trying to say. Stating "first released on [Month Day, Year]" removes any of those issues. It still gives us the original release year, while also indicating that there were other releases that followed (unless it's specified that it was released worldwide on that date). --JDC808 ♫ 19:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Fwiw, I don't like the phrase "X is a 'date' video game" regardless. I prefer to say "X is a genre video game, released on Y date." We should go with the earliest release date across platforms and country. If it's released first in Japan, it's the date the game was released. To the original point, a release year is very much encyclopedic information. However, we should try our best to be as accurate as possible, and give a release date (including the year) wherever possible in the lede sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
For older games I think "X is a [year][genre] video game developed by [developer] and published by [publisher]" is a good middle ground but complications can arise with multiple release dates and with games which are constantly updated like RuneScape as mentioned above.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk?
  • DWB's logic is sound. The year of release, in my opinion, is one of the most critical pieces of information and needs to be mentioned in the first sentence. A more exact release date can be provided later in the lede (and this is not redundant; the first instance serves to tell the reader the era of the game while the second relates more to its development or other info). I used this format on FAs Sonic '06, Knuckles' Chaotix, Sonic Adventure, and Super Mario All-Stars with no opposition. JOEBRO64 00:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
In most instances I usually stick with "[Title] is a [year] [genre] video game developed and published by [company]", which I mainly use for video games from pre-2010 (mostly arcade games). If it's for an online game like Runscape I do think something like "it was originally released in [year]" should be used instead. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Stating year of release, and then the release date later in the lead is in fact redundant. You're telling us twice it was released in that year. We only need it once unless there's a good reason or a need to mention it twice. --JDC808 ♫ 19:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Then mentioning later format releases is redundant, I mean we already know it was released, why do we care if it was released 10 years later on a different format? I mean we already mentioned SOME formats, the readers got the gist. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Its redundant to define the game by the year, and later on the lead mention all of the other region releases in detail. I dont think its important to know the year in the first sentence if we're going to give the region release dates in the lead anyways. Re-releases are not an issue, those are rarely given in detail in the lead.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, you're ignoring what I say and just reiterating your stance, so it's redundant having this conversation. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: My comment was in regard to its original release. Mentioning the date of when it was first released and mentioning later format releases are two separate things and would not be redundant, depending on how you handle it. Also, Blue Pumpkin Pie, we should not mention every regions' release in the lead unless there's a particularly noteworthy reason to mention them. --JDC808 ♫ 21:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The only ones i've been adding were North America, Europe and Japan if its from there.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If it's redundant, then how did those four articles get through a rigorous, meticulous review process with no room for issue? JOEBRO64 11:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm - not the best tack to take, I think, Joe. Articles often pass FA with (in my opinion) pretty questionable prose, and "but this passed FA therefore no change can be an improvement" is one of the worst arguments that regularly surfaces on talk pages. Popcornduff (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if it was "redundant", it would've been noticed during those reviews. JOEBRO64 13:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. But I'm saying that lots of bad writing - including redundant phrases, wording and information - goes unnoticed during FA reviews so it's probably not the argument you want to make. "Main protagonist" is a common offender even in FAs, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I have got to agree with TheJoebro64 here, the usage of release dates in those four articles in the lede are done well since it is mentioned in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph when also talking about development.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And I've got to disagree with him. FAs are not perfect, and I've had to fix many MOS-related things in them despite that (even recently passed ones). So simply arguing "it passed the FAN and therefore is infallible now" is silly. Joe says they are "rigorous and meticulous", but the FANs I've been a part of, (which I admit, is only a few) only had around two or three editors present, and some of them were not even familiar with our WP:VG guidelines (also admittedly, was before it was codified into the proper MOS). I get the intent of having the year in the opening sentence (not my personal preference, but it shows up in mini-previews such as when Googling it), but I don't see the purpose of repeating it. This same exact debate continues to come up over time (this is the third time I can recall), so we as WP:VG members need to come to a clear and final consensus on this, preferably via a RFC. Either we prefer the year in the opening sentence "Super Mario Odyssey is a 2017 platform game..." or omit that and have the current WP:VG/DATE guideline: "Super Mario Odyssey is a platform game... It was released on October 27, 2017." The infobox always has the exact date, so having both in the lead is just more pure redundancy. "Super Mario Odyssey is a 2017 platform game... It was released on October 27, 2017." ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Stating the year in the first sentence and then saying the release date two paragraphs later is not redundant. The opening sentence is supposed to be a concise summary of the game. For instance, we say it's a platformer, then we explain how it's played, which is not redundant. The release date is no different; we say the year of origin, and then a more precise date as it relates to development/promotion. Redundancy would be like saying "Super Mario is a 2007 platform game... It is a platformer in which..." MOS:FILM literally recommends the exact format I'm arguing for. The year of release is crucial information that should be in the first sentence, while the release date is an important aspect that would be too much for the opening. JOEBRO64 00:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
See my response below. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, did you even read my interaction with Popcornduff above? It's abundantly clear I am not arguing that it's infallible because it's an FA. Also, for FACs those had a good number of participants (see the Sonic '06 one, for instance. And also, I consider it good if a reviewer is unfamiliar with video games, because they're more likely to spot issues a gamer wouldn't IMO.) JOEBRO64 00:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that getting non WP:VG members to participate in them is a good thing, but that still doesn't excuse some of them not fully following the MOS:VG. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Dissident93 Firstly, my agreement has nothing to with the quality of FANs. My point was that stating the release date a second time in the lede is not necessarily redundant. Take one of TheJoebro64 example's of Sonic '06. When the release date is mentioned a second time in the lede it is towards the end of the second paragraph when talking about it being developed and the release. It provides additonal infomation about its release (like the platform and month) instead of simply the year: "It was released for Xbox 360 in November 2006 and for PlayStation 3 the following month. Versions for Wii and Windows were canceled. Downloadable content featuring new single-player modes was released in 2007." In this example, I do not see how it can be redundant.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still don't agree with this. We're basically listing the release date three times within the lead and infobox with this format, and people don't think this is even a little bit redundant? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
We may mention the release data on three different occassions but on all three occasions they are within different contexts:
  • When mentioned within the first sentence it is only the year in the lede sentence. This provides readers with the technology within or context around the game at a glance. This can be seen through previews without having to click on the article itself.
  • The second time it is mentioned it is through the wider context of the game being developed its promotion and release (usually in the second or third paragraph in the lede) including the platforms and typically the month and year. As seen with the example I used above for Sonic '06 "It was released for Xbox 360 in November 2006 and for PlayStation 3 the following month. Versions for Wii and Windows were canceled. Downloadable content featuring new single-player modes was released in 2007."
  • The third time the release date is mentioned it is throughout the infobox with more intricate details on the exact date (including Date Month Year or Month Date Year) for each platform (if they differ) and regions (if they differ) to meet WP:VG/DATE

Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I am also (still) in disagreeance on this. The examples you've given are but a handful of examples that I have actually seen do what you're arguing for. Most other articles include the release in the first paragraph as that is more important info than to include in the second or third paragraph. Unless there's a particularly noteworthy reason to include it, the years in those paragraphs are unnecessary when discussing developmental info here. --JDC808 ♫ 23:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
In situations in which the second sentence states the release including for the platforms or where it is also stated elsewhere in the first paragraph - I somewhat agree that it can be redundant. But I think it would be more effective to have the year in the first sentence and talk about other things excluding release dates in the first paragraph allowing the second paragraph to discuss the development and release for the game. My question to you would be: Do you think the way of displaying release dates in Sonic '06 is redundant?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Why don't we split it in the middle. if all relevant regions share the same release year, we list it as a "This is a 20XX video game" and we don't list all the release dates between regions in the lead. if the release years differ between regions we say "This is a genre video game. [sic] It was released on month year in this region and month year in the other region." in the lead.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I was not specifically discussing regions here but here is what I think. I think we should still have the year in the lede sentence (like "X is as [year][genre] video game ...") regardless of other regions' release dates. Because fundamentally it is still the same 2018 game just released in a different year. Also, I do not think we should state all the different release dates for all the different regions in the lede unless there is a significant gap between their releases. For example in The Last of Us: it states that The Last of Us was released on the PS4 in July 2014 simplifying all the release dates for regions between July and August to one month and explained with an additional note as well as stating this clearly in the Infobox. This I think is the best solution for resolving differing region releases (although I think it should be stated later on in the lede like in the second paragraph if the year is stated in the first sentence as I explained in my previous points). All the intricate detail about the releases dates and on what platforms (if they differ) and on what regions (if they differ) can be placed in the infobox per WP:VG/DATE. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for trying to cut down excessive dates in the lead. I've argued before that "close" releases don't need to be documented separately, and I would easily see reason to say, "So-and-so was released in 2018 for PS4, and later for Xbox, PC, and Switch", rather than dating each of those. But a lot depends on the initial plans for the game's release. If a title was meant as an exclusive but later came out for other platforms, it might be worthwhile to note when those exclusives started. I would also focus on remasters/remakes , since the date between original and remaster release can be useful. But I don't know how easy this can be documented outside of saying "Avoid dating everything in the lede" --Masem (t) 18:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Start with the positive. "The original release year should be found in the first sentence as part of the introduction to the topic. Other dates, or more specific dates, may appear elsewhere in the lead but should do so only as part of summarizing the topic." --Izno (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. JOEBRO64 18:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a good start as year of relase is important, especially with older articles (something which WP:FILM already has in their MoS). Perhaps we could include an example so users know to state the year of release towards the start of the lede sentence to improve word efficiency. Example:
Grand Theft Auto V is an action-adventure video game developed by Rockstar North and published by Rockstar Games and was released in 2013.
Grand Theft Auto V is a 2013 action-adventure video game developed by Rockstar North and published by Rockstar Games.
Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure about requiring the date before the genre. For example, the current lede on Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney captures where it makes sense to put dates elsewhere in the lede, as in this case, it was the second release that made the game important. --Masem (t) 19:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Bare in mind that this is MoS so common sense, and occasional exceptions will apply. In regards to Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney that game has a very complicated history of release dates with over 20 release dates between 2001 and 2019 and so it would certainly be understandable to have an exception for that article. But I think it is suitable for most VG articles to have the year towards the start of the lede sentence. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: To answer your question of "Do you think the way of displaying release dates in Sonic '06 is redundant?" Yes, I actually do, and right from the very get go. "Sonic the Hedgehog (commonly referred to as Sonic ’06) is a 2006..." You just told us 2006 twice within the first 15 words, so you've actually told us it was released in 2006 three times (not including the infobox). And even if that redundancy was not there, I would still say yes, it is redundant as you're telling us twice within a short span of information (yes, it's two separate paragraphs, but those paragraphs aren't that long). --JDC808 ♫ 19:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I see your point about the repeat of '06 and 2006 (I probably could have picked a better example) although it is uncommon to see that style nowadays. In regards to your second point, I would still disagree becuase: When mentioned within the lede sentence it provides readers with the timeline and brief context around the game at a glance. This can be seen through previews without having to click on the article itself. The second time it is mentioned it is through the wider context of the game being developed its promotion and release (usually in the second or third paragraph in the lede) including the platforms and typically the month and year.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I mentioned before, but we should not list every release in the lead, unless a release other than the original is particularly noteworthy. God of War 2018 currently reads as such: "God of War is an action-adventure hack and slash video game developed by Santa Monica Studio and published by Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE). Released on April 20, 2018, for the PlayStation 4 (PS4),..." Now this was a worldwide release on that date. The previous games had scattered release dates, but were treated similarly (they instead read "First released on [date] for [console]"). The only other time a date is mentioned is if the game had a remastered version released. --JDC808 ♫ 19:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Well there have been previous GAs in the past where the leads have them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make them right, and GAs are not perfect. They still have issues (and some are passed when they probably shouldn't have been). It's excessive detail to include every release in the lead. --JDC808 ♫ 20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This feels like a lot of digital ink spilled for something that should likely be decided case-by-case according to the needs of the prose. We probably don't need a MOS-level rule for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Although this may have be a lengthy discussion I think it is benefical in order to get some kind of MoS for more consistent ledes in the long-term. I think the discussion has been lengthy partly due to the different variables at play like platforms, regions, etc. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The amount of discussion this has generated shows that we need some sort of base guideline for this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at. Speaking from experience, a more prescribed policy does not lead to more consistent results. What you're describing is unenforceable, unless you plan to manually edit every single video game article lead sentence into a set formula (or write a bot to do it). Let wiki magic happen. Let editors work their magic. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not think that having the year in the lede sentence is unenforceable. If it were ever to get in MoS it could implemented firstly, in FA articles then GA articles etc and it would eventually trickle down to other articles. In some occasions it can be better not to have unnecessary MoS but in this occasion I think it is necessary. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars: Jeopardy!

Hello. I just saw this game i never heard about before, nowhere, so i added it in suitable list [19].

That's said, i can't find any reference, any trustable media, nor article in old magazines at archive.org.

Does someone have any information about this game, any reference describing it? Well, i just wonder if it really existed! --Archimëa (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure how much sourcing can be found for a freeware 1999 unofficial PC game... almost a one-man project by "Arnaldo Carvalho" (not clear if Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, could be)... here's what I found:
  1. Star Wars: Jeopardy at MobyGames (user-contributed mostly)
  2. http://www.reviewgames.com/Downloads/Star_Wars_Jeopardy/index.htm (seems to have been first-party)
  3. "Tutti i videogiochi di Star Wars (Parte II, 1994–1999)" [All Star Wars video games (Part II, 1994–1999)]. L'antro Atomico Del Dr. Manhattan (in Italian). 14 February 2014. Retrieved 12 November 2019. Jeopardy!, il quiz show che ammorba l'apparato riproduttivo degli americani dagli anni 60, però su Star Wars e per PC. Altro? Domande? Bene, andiamo avanti. (Jeopardy!, the quiz show that spoils the reproductive system of Americans since the 60's, but about Star Wars and for PC. Any more questions? Well, let's move on.) (unreliable blog)
Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ben · Salvidrim! - Thank you for helping. You found enough accurate informations to cancel the addition to the list. I didn't see it is an unofficial freeware. --Archimëa (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Fruit Ninja: Puss in Boots

There is a merger discussion for the game at Talk:Fruit Ninja: Puss in Boots. I have improved the article sourcing wise (with some additional content and a review table), so I am asking for neutral/objective opinions on how the things should stand. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Micom BASIC Magazine

Hey y'all! I bring here yet another website that hosts an index for a popular magazine from Japan in regards to old PC games from the 80s and 90s; Micom BASIC Magazine. This magazine has a WEALTH of information for known and obscure Japanese PC games that I hope its put to good use here: [1]. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That reminds me that Yuzo Koshiro made an interesting video where he talks how important Micom BASIC Magazine was to growing the Japanese game industry in the 80s. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB:Pretty much, yeah! As Koshiro also stated on the video, he also did some articles for the magazine under an alias. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (November 3 to November 16)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

November 3

November 4

November 5

November 6

November 7

November 8

November 9

November 10

November 11

November 12

November 13

November 14

November 15

November 16

So late it wrapped around to the next week! Sorry! And yes, Alexandra IDV did make and get to GA World of Darkness (video game) within the 2-week period. --PresN 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@PresN: you should very likely exclude 'articles' that have been RfD'd from your script (i.e. Evercrack). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Hmm, good point, will add as a bug- I don't include redirects in this listing, but the magic of talk page templates is such that if you put an empty tag on a redirect, it gets put in the redirect category. But if you have any content on the page in addition to the redirect, such as an RfD tag, it instead is considered an "unassessed article", and thus shows up here. This is the first time this has happened, but I'll put it on the list of things to fix. --PresN 15:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary image file changes

This may seem like an useless topic to bring up here but recently, a user by the name of Veikk0.ma has been uploading new image to these image files, which I had to revert back because (in my honest opinion) I deemed them unnecessary, as the images that are already put in place on their articles are fine enough: (1), (2), (3) & (4). However, he also upload images without any changes whatsoever like this one: (5). So I don't get Veikk0.ma's thought process when it comes to uploading images. Again, this could be an unnecessary topic but I felt I had to bring it up here... Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with specific policies/guidelines on this, but I did find Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Editing_images which seems to suggest routine "touching up" of images is fine or possibly even encouraged. I can't see most of Veikk0.ma's versions since they have been deleted already but the one that remains in the history of [20] seems subjectively clearer than the original, which was just obtained from the internet (Giant Bomb's database, in this case, which is also user-submitted, so its actual provenance is unknown). Based on this example, it seems like Veikk0.ma is doing basic cleaning up of scanner artifacts and color balancing, but I'll let them respond here instead of speculating. In this light, I don't personally have a problem with it. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium:Now that you brought that link to my attention, as I did not took the time to read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Editing_images, I now feel I've been doing the wrong thing towards Veikk0.ma's new images (I never reverted the old images back as means of attacking him and I don't have any trouble with him whatsoever) and if he manages to read this, I'm deeply sorry. I really do... Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
As Alex Titanum correctly guessed, I've mostly been doing color/contrast balancing and sometimes more extensive clean-up or restoration based on a high quality source image before downscaling to acceptable size. In cases where the existing file seems low enough resolution and/or quality, and the given source link is either dead or also low quality, I've retrieved a higher quality version from elsewhere on the web. All of the uploads mentioned above, though, were done for color/contrast correction and some minor improvements, with the exception of number five, which is probably a mistaken link on Robert Martinez's part since it's a completely new image upload by myself and added to an article with no previous image or infobox.
Many (if not most) digital representations of video game covers pre-dating widespread digital distribution of games are not derived from an official digital source such as the publisher or developer. Instead, they were scanned from the physical boxes and cover leaflets by random people who then prepared them for internet distribution to the best of their abilities. Since in these cases the video game covers are physical things, they often get damaged and at the very least the ink used to print them changes color when exposed to sunlight or even just oxygen. And even if this degradation was avoided by keeping the packaging/cover well protected, the scanning process itself can introduce problems in the image in various parts of the digitization process, from the hardware (low-quality scanner) to the software (or lack thereof, or lack of skill in using it). Sometimes people do excellent work digitizing and post-processing video game covers, sometimes hardly anything is done and the scan is at most cropped and rotated.
In the end what I'm trying to say is that quite often old video game covers found on the internet don't look how they did at release, and certainly not how a cover artist would ever intend. I'm personally not an artist of any kind, but I've come to notice that quite a few images – many video game covers included – just look bad. Not necessarily in an overly JPEG compressed way or that the artwork is damaged, but in terms of color. A very common defect in scans of video game cover art seems to be a brown-ish tint over the entire image; I assume this is probably due to degradation of the ink over time. Fortunately, this is often easy to fix without any real knowledge of image manipulation. GIMP has a tool for changing color balance and contrast, and this tool allows automatic input that works very well most of the time. Just open an image in GIMP and go to Colors -> Levels -> Auto Input Levels. Tick/untick the Preview box to observe the difference (if any). Warning, you might start recognising non-ideal images everywhere once you've seen this a few times. Although maybe that's a good thing, as there's a lot of covers that could use improvement.
In relation to my other uploads, in some cases where it wasn't already the case (not the ones linked above), in addition to color balancing and clean-up I've also re-uploaded the image in the maximum allowed resolution for non-free images (0.1 megapixels) per WP:IMAGERES. This is to allow for higher quality thumbnails in articles; unless the uploaded image is exactly the size of the thumbnail displayed in the article (which is not something to strive for since, AFAIK, thumbnail size is user-configurable these days), MediaWiki will re-sample the image to the desired size. When the image is already quite low-resolution (and as a bonus, one that uses lossy compression like JPEG), this leads to significant quality loss in the thumbnail displayed in the article (garbage in, garbage out). With video game covers, this often manifests as minor detail such as titles and especially sub-titles being blurry and unnecessarily difficult to read when it really isn't necessary, even in a low-resolution thumbnail.
Regrettably I haven't actively been adding the pages of files I've improved to my watchlist as it didn't even cross my mind that someone could object to changes that make images look better. Had these pages been in my watchlist, I would've noticed the reversions sooner and contested them. And just as a side note, I don't think re-uploading the full-size images is the best way to conduct these reversions. We should follow the non-free content policy and upload images at a size of 0.1 megapixels at most (and use the required template with an acceptable rationale if there's a reason to go bigger than that). Even though there are bots that reduce non-free images to an acceptable size after uploading, copyright infringement should still be avoided.
I don't know when/if I'll have the time and energy to check which of my uploads have been reverted and re-do the work (since in the cases linked above my improvements were auto-deleted by a bot after reversion). It's not particulary difficult but it did can take a bit of time, and I've already deleted the images from my computer. --Veikk0.ma 01:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Veikk0.ma:As I stated above, i'm truly sorry for what I did and I never did them out of malice. I felt like a complete and utter idiot after I saw the link posted by Alex Titanium. If I come across an image uploaded by you, i'll just leave it like that from now on. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Veikk0.ma:The first four links I posted were the only ones I reverted back. I have not touched the other covers you've uploaded. I forgot to say this in my second response... Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Well it seems like the damage was minimal and we all learned something (thanks for the explainer, Veikk0.ma!). We'll know for next time. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Takuji Kawano

Lately, I've been trying to expand some wellknown fighting game characters but I haven't been able to find too much about most Tekken popular characters. For example, Jin Kazama has undergone multiple changes in each game based in term of costume and gameplay to the point of having his Devil alterego. However, I found almost nothing about his creator, Takuji Kawano. Katsuhiro Harada talked about how the staff wrote Jin but I've been unable to find more stuff about his designer. Anybody might know of a source that includes making of the character? Not even Japanese Wikipedia has some. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Then again I think I also gotta clean up those reception section from Jin and Heihachi too.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I happen to be reading publications from the Tekken 3 era, so I'll keep an eye out, though to be honest 1990s gaming publications didn't tend to cover character designers much.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Should Google Stadia be in the platform field?

Since the Google Stadia announcement, the Stadia has been included to the platform field in the infobox as a platform. My question is should Stadia be really considered as a platform? The Google Stadia article indicates that it's a streaming service that can stream games to multiple platforms such as PC and tables, most probably the service will stream the PC version of these games to the platforms making it a cross-platform service rather an a platform itself. If we are considering Google Stadia as a valid platform then why don't we include services such as PlayStation Now, XCloud and GeForce Now to the platform field in the games infobox? since they basically do the same thing as the Stadia by streaming games to multiple platforms. Template:Infobox video game, clearly states that we should not include services in the platform field and the Google Stadia is a service. I would hear people opinions on this, thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I do agree, but I don't know how we should handle it. Say a game is only released through Stadia. Do we then not list a platform at all in the infobox? That would be quite confusing and uninformative to readers who just want to check the basic facts quickly. Or do we list all platforms that Stadia has support for?--Alexandra IDVtalk 02:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like these issues was discussed back in June. In my opinion that we only should include the Stadia in the infobox if the game was exclusive to the service and only mention the service in the article lede/body if a game is not exclusive to the service. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
That's the way I've been treating Stadia (eg the RDR2 announcement). We've long held that streaming is not really a platform and thus should avoid unless it was an exclusive title on that streaming service (even if later ported to others). --Masem (t) 03:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure about this from a cursory glance. I don't consider streaming services to be actual game platforms (much like how I don't consider stuff like Wii Virtual Console to be a legit game platform). Namcokid47 (Contribs) 03:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I generally agree that it should be excluded, but what's the alternative? Stadia servers use Linux, so do we assume that the game was ported to Linux? The game might or might not be running on WINE or sinilar compat layers. Similarly, 'Android' is commonly listed when a game was released for Nvidia Shield, given that Shields use Android. Lordtobi (✉) 08:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I appear to be in the minority again, but I still think it should be listed as a platform. Or under a different field for all I care. The reader wants to, at a quick glance, see the means of how a game is played. Not listing it somewhere in the infobox is just going to cause confusion and arguments/edit warring. The future will likely have more and more of this kind of stuff. Not adapting is just going to keep complicating things. We need to do something beyond just not listing Stadia at all. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    Sergecross73, in how far would you limit the usage of this proposed field? Would it only include cloud gaming services (OnLive/Stadia)? Lordtobi (✉) 10:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a tricky one but for the time being I suggest we do list Stadia as a platform because if a game was a Stadia exclusive there would be no platforms in the infobox which would completely confuse readers.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I agreed with Serge. With the hardware being less and less important due to the rise of game streaming, a new infobox field is probably needed sooner or later. OceanHok (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's assume that Stadia should be added: what other streaming services should be considered as in the same category as Stadia? For example, I do NOT want to think we want to include PlayStation Now since we know that that is limited to PS games. Similarly, just because a game can be stream-played over Steam does not make that a special platform field. I would be more comfortable if we fixed exactly what streaming services are considered platforms and expression in the MOS that any other streaming service should NOT be considered one, so that when editors go to try to add those that are NOT to be listed, we can remove them with something to point to (same way we take out storefront names). Is there anything now, in the past, or planned, that is similar? --Masem (t) 15:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
A good differentiator might just be if it’s a cross-platform option. From the standpoint of a platform, whether a game is on PlayStation Now or PlayStation as you say is a distinction without a difference as you require a platform. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm just trying to think back to a dead system like OnLive. Would that be added if we added Stadia, and if so, why? OnLive IIRC did a mix of console and PC games, but we know these were not games specially built for streaming, just using the streaming technology OnLive did. Whereas to make a game Stadia compat, the developer actually has to do some work (not a lot, Google tried to make it easy) but it is there. Maybe that's the factor here is that the developer/publisher specifically has to target the Stadia release, while if it happens to be on PS Now after being released for PS4, that's something to ignore. --Masem (t) 20:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
To summarize this: I think it is fair to include Stadia as it has a unique approach to streaming that requires the game to be "ported" to work on the platform, and is not just streaming an existing platform edition ala PlayStation Now. This would exclude nearly all former streaming services but leaves open the door for potential Stadia competitors which require games to be ported and optimized to work with the streaming platform. --Masem (t) 14:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This is my stance as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Based on the lack of opposition and a reasonable way we can separate Stadia from previous streaming attempts, I have included a new section in the MOS Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Platforms to outline how to handle platforms in both lede and infobox to reflect this plus other past advice. --Masem (t) 17:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Guardiana (Sega Database)

Here's another website that hosts an index of old magazine reviews for Sega games in general: http://www.guardiana.net/ Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Lumines: Puzzle Fusion?

Lumines: Puzzle Fusion is the first article i wanted to make a GA when i joined. I'm getting pretty excited now that its pretty close. But before i nominate it, i thought i ask the community if they see any glaring issues that need immediate attention. See any issues anyone?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Even just glancing at the lead I can see plenty of run-on sentences and phrases that just read awkwardly. I would strongly advise requesting a copyedit for this article, as right now I don’t feel its quite ready for a GAN. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the lede is a bit weak. It also needs some more sourcing. Gameplay and some other sections have full paragraphs with a source at the end. Whilst this isn't bad per se, on a GA, we really should be striving to have all statements sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll request someone to copy-edit. The majority of the gameplay is sourced from the manual itself. IGN just further supported what was in the manual.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I adjusted the lead here [21] and addded a short description here [22]. Some feeback:
  • Avoid repeating "launch title for the PlayStation Portable" at the start and end of the Development section
  • It might be worth having a Template:Video game reviews in the Reception section
  • I would recommend having some more references throughout the Development section
  • It may be worth explictly stating that Tetsuya Mizuguchi created the game as part of his company of Q Entertainment in the development section with approriate references to back up the claims in the lead.
  • It may also be worth inserting a picture of Tetsuya Mizuguchi from his article.

I wish you all the best in GAN. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, i'll make the necessary adjustments. In regards to the development, a lot of the information is from the same sources and i felt it was redundant to have each sentence repeat the same source. But if that's not acceptable, i'll add more citations.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that having sentences in the development area still have a source attached to them in order to satisfy WP:V. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I did what i could do. I think the rest i will wait for someone to copy edit. i made a request at WP:COPYEDITORS.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Valve Index games

Surely none of Category:Valve Index games these are unique and platform locked to the Valve Index? It's just a VR headset in the end, right? -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the Valve Index is just a headset/HMD. Games might be exclusively compatible with it, but I know none that are. All games listed in the category are also compatible with the HTC Vive (and some also with the Oculus Rift). Lordtobi (✉) 13:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Just make sure those are all in HTC Vive's category, and add to the HTC Vive's category that this includes games compatible with Index. --Masem (t) 17:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't pay too much attention to VR games (pre-Alyx anyway), but how many of them are actually exclusive to a certain VR headset? If they are the minority, then I have to question why we have these categories. Otherwise, they make around the same sense as creating a Category:DualShock 4 games category. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not 100% certain, but basically if you consider the VR world, you either have PC games, or PS VR games, including games for both (Beat Saber). I agree that that means we should have "List of PlayStation VR games" (as well as "PlayStation VR-exclusive gameplay", and "List of PC-based VR games" (and "PC-exclusive VR"), with "Rift-exclusive", "Vive-exclusive", etc. There should no be "Rift games" category in this, as tht is the PC-based cat. --Masem (t) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
100% agree. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Blizzard Entertainment navbox doesn't have separated DC universe?

Template in question

We have separated Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft universes, but two DC universe titles are merged with other Blizzard titles. And DC universe is even more unique than every other universe in navbox, because it is not Blizzard intelectual property. Few edits ago, DC universe titles were in separated group (called "Licenced"), but now they are merged with Blizzard IPs for some reason that I don't understand. It is much easier to understand developer, and developer's IPs, when titles are grouped in logical groups. Everyone who comes on Wikipedia to learn things, can appreciate logical groups in navbox - it helps in understanding. Keep in mind that not every developer is the same. Blizzard is known as developer of his own IPs, so it can confuse people who are not familiar with Blizzard. Did they still have rights on DC universe, can we expect Superman skin in Overwatch? Batman as Hero? Maybe it is obvious for me or you, but it doesn't mean we need to merge Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft games in one group. If we already created logical groups for the most of the games, why we merged DC universe with original Blizzard IPs? Can we just back like it was? EchoBlu (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • As I stated on my talk page, I don't see a reason to separate two games into another grouping just because their IP is not owned by Blizzard. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Does it mean that we should merge The Lost Vikings titles with Other games, because they are only two games, as well? The Death and Return of Superman and Justice League Task Force are group of games from the same universe, which is very big actually. Why we ignore that? EchoBlu (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
      • We don’t require absolute parity across every single situation. You’ll accomplish more if you just discuss the issue at hand rather than pose hypotheticals no one is arguing about. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
        • @Sergecross73: I am not sure that I understand you, what hypoteticals? Can we start discussion from my first paragraph, please? I started discussion pointing the issue - The Death and Return of Superman and Justice League Task Force are group of games from the same universe, which is not Blizzard IP. If we already think that it's good option to group titles from the same IP in logical group, why we don't have group with that non-Blizzard IP? We don't need to call it "DC universe". It is much easier to use navbox if titles are grouped in logical groups. EchoBlu (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
          • The navbox looks fine the way it is. There's not a lot of games to get lost in. There is no need to organize it too much to the point that its too large.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Can you elaborate, please? It is very bad idea to mix original, and non-original IP titles, keep in mind that Blizzard is recognizable as 'exclusively' original IP developer. It can confuse people who heard a lot about Blizzard, but they are actually not enough familiar with it.EchoBlu (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
              • What i'm trying to say is you're making a mountain out of molehills. I'm aware Blizzard is known for its original IPs, but the navigation box is for navigation purposes, not to present any other information. There are only two titles that have been nearly forgotten in Blizzard's history. We do not need an additional row. and in my humble opinion, its not confusing the way its organized either. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
              • I feel it would not make sense to create a separate line for DC because it's not an original Blizzard IP. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Gonna echo what others (Serge, Dissident, Tarkus, BPP) have said. Also DC is better than Marvel. JOEBRO64 22:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (November 17 to November 23)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

November 17

November 18

November 19

November 20

November 21

November 22

November 23

Should we call it "Autobattler" instead "Auto battler"?

Twitch calls it "autobattler"; "auto" representing automatic in compound words. EchoBlu (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? TarkusABtalk/contrib 14:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
We generally use whatever is used more frequently - the WP:COMMONNAME. That said, with both autobattler and auto battler having a WP:REDIRECT to the same article, and the names being almost identical...it doesn’t really matter much either way. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Auto battler was recently made into a full article. There seem to be enough sources going around for GNG and it's only likely going to get more, so it seems valid to keep it separate. I guess what OP is asking if it should have been at autobattler. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I started discussion about renaming "Auto battler" article into "Autobattler". Both terms are present in google search, Twitch is already using "Autobattler", some gaming sites too. EchoBlu (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I object purely based on the OP's insinuation that we should care what Twitch thinks it's called. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Is this even a notable genre?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I had it redirected to a section over at strategy video games, but the OP insisted it belonged as a separate article. Also, we go with the style most commonly used in sources (which is auto battler), not what Twitch alone calls it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not Twitch alone. Please keep discussion objective. EchoBlu (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Most of the sources (at the time of the redirect creation) used "auto battler", which makes it the WP:COMMONNAME. So unless this has changed, there's no reason to just call out how Twitch spells it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It has a bunch of sources and it's likely to get more coverage, so it seems okay to have an article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but the editor at first simply copypasted the sectional redirect and did not expand it much, which I didn't see the point of doing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I recently seen a link to a youtube video in Untitled Goose Game treated the same as an image and it seemed so odd. I've never seen articles do this. Is this acceptable?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Assuming it falls under fair use, then they really should act exactly the same as any image. However, I do find it a bit odd to just have a link to the game's announcement trailer (which would generally be removed as an external link for being promotional) and not some sort of developer interview. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand using links in the External link section, but i find it very odd to put a random link in the body of the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Does the MOS think this is acceptable?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A few points, this is done with {{external media}}. Second: if it is the case that a piece of official media, uploaded in a non-copyright-violating way (eg to the game's official YouTube channel), and the piece of official media is discussed by secondary sources beyond it existed, then this is appropriate. For example: for Untitled Goose Game, it is known that the original alpha gameplay trailer drew interest, both in the game and the use of a classical piece of music which was then expanded upon in the final release of the game. It would be fully appropriate to include the external link to that trailer in the body of the article where it is being discussed. Same could be argued for something like the Dead Island reveal trailer which we actually have a separate article about Dead Island Reveal Trailer. However, for most games, we get a random trailer which isn't discussed to any degree, so that is where it would be inappropriate to include the trailer link both within the body in external media, and at an External Link. --Masem (t) 15:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    • In other words, while the use of links in the external media section do not have hard-set guidelines, apply the principles of NFCC as a first pass, at least with respect to WP:NFCC#8 - does the link's inclusion help the reader, and does its omission (eg having the reader go hunt it down themselves) harm their understanding of the passage? If having that link helps to support the sourced prose, it should be fine to include. --Masem (t) 15:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The actual trailer at release for UGG was never discussed outside "hey, the game is coming". This is a good reason not to include that trailer. This is the point I'm trying to make: if you using in-body external media, it better be highly relevant to what the user is reading. If it is there for purely promotional reasons because it is not supported by the text, it fails ELNO. --Masem (t) 16:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
For non-free material to be used on Wikipedia is has to pass WP:NFCCP. This includes "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." For a gameplay trailer 99% of the time it will not meet this significance and since there is no significant reception from this launch trailer (to my knowledge) it does not justify its inclusion.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It makes sense to use the external link here rather than upload to Wikipedia as non-free media because if you were uploading it here, you'd have to make serious sacrifices to the video quality so as to not harm commercial opportunities to the copyright owner. Just better to link to the video rather than upload an inferior quality or shortened version here. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll probably avoid using external links in the body of a paragraph just to link to media that we didn't/couldn't upload in Wikipedia. But i wont contest its use. Again, i just dont understand it myself. It seems like its cheating the system. but of course, thats my humble opinion. I'm not advocating its removal. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Look at it as a middle ground. It's for when a piece of copyrighted material is being discussed directly, but uploading that copyrighted content to Wikipedia directly would be difficult or require significant quality reduction that would impact its understanding. We aren't gonna upload the whole damn trailer to Wikipedia in 240p, and/or only show a portion. That's silly and a waste of time when the whole thing is on YouTube in high quality. It's better in this case to just link the trailer. The trailer is discussed directly by several sources so I think it's OK. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think i'm going to drop it. i still don't understand it. I've seen wikipedia opt to never show the media or link to it before if it meant within fair use. Now we are linking to other sites to show the trailer. If it was in External Links, it would make more sense to me, just not in the body of the article. To me, it seems like Wikipedia is advertising the link itself more than presenting the trailer.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I sort of agree with BPP here. If sources are discussing the trailer as often as claimed, why can't we simply write and cite them in prose (assuming they have it embedded in their articles) without presenting a direct link here (via a template) back to YouTube? Putting the same exact link under the EL section would generally see it being removed for being promotional, even under the same circumstances. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Could the issue be juat that the way it is captioned in the external media box? What if for UGG it said "Alpha gameplay trailer for UGG. This trailer drew significant interest to the work-in-progress, and led to further use of Claude Debussy's compositions"? (Obviously the "caption" here has to be clear in the prose). Just leaving that link there I can see looking like outright promotion if no additional details are spelled out. --Masem (t) 01:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
That works actually. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Needing some opinion

So...I have seen Global Star Software that was in recently recreated in this state [23]. Considering the whole article was basically a list itself, I have moved it to List of Global Star Software games per WP:BOLD and WP:COMMONSENSE. Was that the correct move? Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Planning to make a nom for The King of Fighters XIV

After The King of Fighters XI became GA, I decided to try doing that for The King of Fighters XIV since there is some major coverage about the making and reception of the game. I requested a copyedit but I don't know if it has another issue. I thought about asking for a peer review but a fellow user said there was no notable issue for such a thing. Another user helped me to clean up the references and cut some undue weight. Any issue, I'll see if I can fix it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

List of videogames developed in Europe

Hello. I have wasted a large number of hours on a "little" project here. I have made an IMDB list of modern videogames (2000 to present) made in Europe. Maybe some of you will find it interesting or even useful. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls048731858/

The sources are mentioned there. Good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SondreDrakensson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (November 24 to November 30)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

November 24

November 25

November 26

November 27

November 28

November 29 (None)

November 30 (None)

No new articles on November 29, and the bot hiccuped on the 30th. --PresN 15:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

PUBG Korea League

Can someone assist with assessing the notability of Draft:PUBG_Korea_League? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

OPM demo discs from 2003

Hi,

I'm currently working on an article about Hunter: The Reckoning – Wayward, and am looking for a behind-the-scenes feature that was included on Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine demo discs in 2003. The feature - I'm assuming it's the same one on all three discs, but I do not know for sure - is included on demo discs #69, #70 and #71. If you have access to these and the ability to share the feature with me in some way, I'd be very grateful.--Alexandra IDVtalk 02:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A friend found the videos for me, so consider this thread solved.--Alexandra IDVtalk 23:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Loads of of new covers uploaded

User SuperUserCode is uploading loads of new video game covers where perfectly valid covers already exist, in blatant contravention of WP:VG's usual practice of "If a cover already exists don't change it unless you have a bloody good reason". It appears that the rationale and licensing are not being updated when the new images are uploaded leading to inaccurate FUR/Licensing info. There are far too many covers for me to review on my own so this is a heads up to the project. - X201 (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Courtesy ping @SuperUserCode. Also, from what I can see, these are the covers taken from Steam's new library system, meaning that they are only the cover art, void of any logos (which is generally a good thing). Lordtobi (✉) 22:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • However, there are two major issues with these uploads:
      1. They are larger than acceptable non-frees. Yes, we have bots going around to tag and reduce but this should be done before the upload, not after.
      2. The source information is not being updated. A few I spot checked said "from press kit" which is fine, but we need that reflected in the description including a link if one is available. They are not doing that, which harms these as non-frees (We expect sourcing information to work like WP:V - good enough to be able to track it down, but doesn't need to be perfect. ) --Masem (t) 22:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The box art on some of these are completely updated and different from the original ones. Team Fortress Classic for example. MAybe some of them it was a good choice, but not all of them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Review thread 44: The Great Winter Season

We are wrapping up 2019. Remember 2019? Lets also remember that we have one more backlog before the end of the year. So here is to one more and many more for 2020.

FLC
GAN
Article Reassessments
PR

And, as always, we still have The Request board and its continuously increasing backlog. If you want an idea on an article to write, you can stop by to get some possible leads. GamerPro64 22:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Undertale is also an FLC [24]. I am not sure why it is not included in the "Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks" though.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Added it manually--Alexandra IDVtalk 01:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Terminology and redirects?

One thing at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_2#Viridian_City I noticed is that there is a belief that a piece of terminology should not be a redirect if it is not mentioned in the target article. "Viridian City" (one of the "cities" in the game) is not mentioned at all in Pokémon_Red_and_Blue#Setting.

Should all of the city names be put in that section just so the redirects are retained? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't see the point in deleting reasonable search terms as they hurt nothing by existing. Couldn't somebody just add a quick mention of the city there to prevent this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a good long term practice to shoehorn in mentions of every redirect you want to keep into the text of the article. WP:R#PLA says "insignificant or minor redirects can skip [the principle of least astonishment]". Turning the perspective around, consider how many people are searching "Viridian City" in the search bar and hoping to get to Pokemon Red. It's probably a small number and unlikely scenario that someone heard the phrase but wasn't sure where it came from. Maybe this redirect is worth it but I don't think every redirect of a minor in-fiction term from a video game warrants keeping. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree that not every piece of terminology is important/signiciant, so it may be good for the editor base to hash out which terms are relatively important and which are not. I think Pokemon city names are significant enough to be searched for. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Industry: Video game Industry"

Almost all video game developer articles have an infobox for companies. Under most of these articles the "Industry" parameter is filled in as "Video game industry". This ends up with the result of "Industry: Video game industry" which sounds awfully clunky. What are people's thoughts on it being changed to "Video games" or "Video gaming".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Pipe to video games for me. Gaming isn't exactly the industry they are in, (as that suggests the act of playing). They are in the industry of creating video games. I agree this should be piped to remove redundancy Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, video games probably makes the most sense out of those two.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've also always piped it to video games for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Help starting an article?

Hello! I am trying to start Let's Sing Country but having some difficulty starting the initial formatting. Could someone please help with the infobox and reception table? Thanks! --Moscowdreams (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the infobox error in order to add a reception table use the the template here: Template:Video game reviews Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --Moscowdreams (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

GameRankings shuting down ?

An april fools for christmas ? GameRankings announces its shuting down [25]. --Archimëa (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. We should archive anything that Metacritic doesn't cover assuming the games they cover wont be moved to metacritic.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like a joke. We should make sure we have some good archives like on the Wayback Machine of the website before it shuts down. Furthermore, ensuring we have an archived snapshot for each time we reference them.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
A spot check shows GR to be archived at Wayback machine. However, this would also be a good time to strip GR out of anything where MC exists as well. --Masem (t) 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
What is wrong with having references to GameRankings? As long as the reference snapshot is archived I don't see any problem with them being used.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
We decided long ago that generally only one aggregate score is needed, with MC preferred over GR or OpenCritic. GR is acceptable when MC doesn't exist for the game, or that GR provides significantly more hits. It is not that GR is bad, but that we only needed the one aggregate score, so we had to decide what the most preferred ones were. --Masem
Oh that is fair enough but we should remove them situationally (e.g. the usage of both in Age of Empires makes sense in my opinion).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(t) 20:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To add to this, part of the argument to not have both MC and GR is that both are owned by the same company and in many cases was presenting the same review sets (especially for anything after 2005ish) with near identical scores. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (December 1 to December 7)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

December 1

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

Several free eBooks on early PC gaming

Fusion Retro Books has a limited time offer to get several of their ebook/PDFs for free: [26]]. Commodore 64, Spectrum ZX, Amiga histories, as well as for Ocean Software, US Gold, and Oliver Twins. --Masem (t) 19:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

If anyone downloads these, please add them/your name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library! --PresN 23:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I got them, so just stick your name after mine at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Misc publishers. --PresN 03:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to note to anyone who's just vaguely/mildly interested, like I was: you just need to add the books to your cart, and then check out without creating an account and without adding any payment details. It's a fast process, so I definitely recommend getting them.--AlexandraIDV 08:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Loriciels

I was wondering if it should be renamed to List of Loriciels games or a redirect? Govvy (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it should stay. If the studio is notable, it should exist. However, the list of games should either be WP:SPLIT into a page of that title or deleted if it's original research. And if the studio isn't notable, there shouldn't be a list of their games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I also think it should stay put but I don't think there's a compelling need to split their game list into a separate article at this time. The article text is too short to justify both a main page and a list. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me the article should simply be renamed. It is clearly a list of their video games and there is no actual article about the studio. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

MOS question about release dates

The way the VG MOS expects you to handle sourcing for release dates came up in a featured list candidate review I'm doing, and the wording of the MOS is unclear to me. I've started a thread about it at the VG MOS talk page, and would greatly appreciate any clarification or input regarding this. Thank you, AlexandraIDV 21:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Image

A newly game of RE3 remake and character design of Jill Valentine desame like Cloud Strife image should be updated, but has been reverted any idea?. 115.37.207.141 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I would at least wait until RE3 is out so you can be sure about final art assets. --Masem (t) 23:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Jill Valentine's main image

See Talk:Jill Valentine#Nemesis image. More comments would be needed to decide what image of the character should be used in the infobox.Tintor2 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Video games since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_146&oldid=1137359470"