Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 96

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98→Archive 100

Sarah Kerrigan

Sarah Kerrigan, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 October 2012‎ (UTC)

PR request

Hi, I've listed God of War (video game) for peer review if anyone would be willing to post comments/suggestions. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 01:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? --JDC808 ♫ 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to know that no one has done a peer review on God of War. I do not have the interest nor the ability to write a peer review, but I think the other members may be busy. Please be a little patient.--Bumblezellio (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger for free video games

I think we could potentially merge the contents of these:

Both are subcategories of Category:Freeware games and I think they for the most part cover the same content matter. Most popular free games nowadays have online components to them, and there are many items on each of these two lists which could easily fit into the other.

The only potential opposition to such a merger could be games which are free to play, but which are not online.

I also think the titles are a bit ambiguous to their meaning. For example "free to play" could apply to games such as Warcraft III which costs money to purchase/install the game, but no fees actually associated with playing. Conversely, a game like World of Warcraft is something players can play (as a demo up to level 20) for free, but to go past that point, requires monthly playing fees.

The title 'game' versus 'video game' is also used in these categories is also inconsistent. I'm sure the 'video' is somewhat implied when we are talking about games which are online or free, for example.

Does anyone have any ideas on a better title under which to consolidate these categories? I guess we could have subcategories for online/offline but it doesn't seem that useful at this point. Whatever 'offline free games' there are, are probably a minority at this point, and organizing them via their own category would be more useful than making a subcategory for the vast majority of free games playable (or obtainable) online. Ranze (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a free game with micro-transactions, and a flash game or similar. The former is specially called "free-to-play", which implies you can play for free but not all the content is available for free. There's also the category of freeware that's DLable and not online, and that's not even getting into games are are freely downloadable now, but were originally retail games (like Daggerfall and Betrayal at Krondor. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think they should be consolidated, as they are rather different things. With the industry in a state of transition, with companies increasingly trying these new types of pay structures, I think it would only complicate things more in the future to merge these two different concepts. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I requested the F2P category be created at WP:VG/R, because I couldn't find one. It looks like there is overlap between that and Category:Free online games, but the latter is even more poorly defined than F2P. Category:Free online games does include plenty of F2P games, but given its title, I would have assumed it meant either free-as-in-freedom free, or pure freeware such as Newgrounds Flash games. Free-to-play is generally confined to freemium style games, in which you have a persistent character that you can upgrade, I think there should be a category dedicated to those games. I think Category:Free online games should have its constituents recategorised as Category:Free-to-play video games or just Category:Freeware games. - hahnchen 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

CfD of interest

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 1#Video game images (renaming "media" to "images" on some VG categories) czar · · 19:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

VGChartz Inquiry

I have been wondering... Is there any way we could find out where the website VGChartz gets its sales figures? I know that Wikipedia says it does not site its sources (thus making it a highly questionable resource), and I am perfectly willing to respect their info on references (WP:VG/S), but I thought there might be some kind of friendly inquiry, or a gentle ferret around. If it's purely user contributions, then the question is meaningless, but if not... If the website can be verified as reliable, it would greatly help when stating sales figures for certain games. I mean, I seem to remember something similar has been done for other sites in the past. Why not for this one? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that they refuse their methods/sources. I'm against making them reliable... Sergecross73 msg me 00:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Previous discussions (linked near the bottom of our sources page have consistently marked VGChartz as unreliable for numbers, and if I recall those four discussions go into detail as to why. --Teancum (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
You can still provide an indication of how well it sold by saying how long the title remained in the games charts. - X201 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. A pity, but it can't be helped. Hmm. Not sure about NDP being the best source for finding out sales figures, at least for laymen like myself. I have just tried, and got completely lost. Where do I look on the website? You see, I am looking for something very specific which has been in question for a long while. The sales figures for Final Fantasy XIII-2. It is not of overwhelming importance, but the reception section seems a little..short without some solid sales figure, especially since initial sales and combined sales with the original XIII are stated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Truthfully accurate sales numbers are extremely hard to find. Unless I can easily find them via a reliable source I tend to just omit them from the article I'm working on. --Teancum (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it was about mid-2010 when NPD decided to stop detailed public publication of sales figures, giving only the numbers for the top 10 games each month. Since that point, I think most agree that we really can't except reliable sources of sales figures, though any hint dropped about them should be used. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand. It's just that I'm worried about the Fabula Nova Crystallis series in general. It has been getting a lot of badmouthing from the internet community (you just have to look at the comments sections of sites like Joystiq and IGN to see them, plus occasional abominable language) and I'm slightly afraid it might spread into their articles here. After all, it's not a bad series, just a little experimental.--ProtoDrake (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Sales figures, even positive ones, won't change that though, people will just resort to "The masses buy crap" type arguments. Your best bet will just be to keep an eye on the articles and remove any sort of vandalism or unsourced/unwarranted criticism. I can help too if you'd like, I've been considering getting into the games within the FNC scope... Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I would certainly be nice to have a fresh eye going over the article. I am really looking forward to Lightning Returns. The story has had me gripped for over a year! (though not enough to become obsessive or to lend excess weight to certain points about the article) --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Some of the gaming mags publish lists of top selling games though without specific figures, and every so often I see a sales figure in an article, especially in retrospectives. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

Hello video game wikipedians! I have two portions of this article I wish to get third-party consideration of:

  • First, input into the naming of a feature in a table. Primarily, if the region coding systems employed by consoles in a feature table should be listed as "Region free" or "Regional lockout". As I believe most sources consider "region free" a feature, and not the other way around, that is where I stand, and how I believe the feature should be named.
  • Secondly, input into the formal inclusion of the Ouya in the Eighth-gen console category (Particularly an addition to the table comparing it to the Wii U). A prototype PCB has been spied, and it appears on track for release during the eighth generation of consoles.

Any questions that I can answer, I am welcome to do so, and I look forward to any input received. Thank you. -Kai445 (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yolofamicom22‎ (talk · contribs)

I have concerns about his edits and attempting to unmerge those articles as those actions may be WP:POINT vios. I have reverted his edits but would appreciate someone double checking me. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't look at every one of your reverts, but they look pretty legit to me. -Kai445 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Pokedex

FYI, someone has proposed to create a Pokemon Index project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pokédex . As Pokemon is a videogame topic, I thought I'd let you know. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

System requirements template

Going through the pages for video games, the placement of the System Requirements for each game is inconsistent. For example in the Portal article the System requirements are placed under Development while in Portal 2 the System Requirements are under the main column on the right of the page.

Is their a reason to not have the requirements in the main column?
Am I free to correct this as well as the others? Some other examples of the formatting with it in the main column include Portal 2, F.E.A.R, Call of Duty (2003). With "others" such as Portal, Left 4 Dead 2, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. The lists go on...

Cheers,
4DHS (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's freeform due to the use of other items on the right hand side, such as images that you may want to use in a particular section. It's usually placed directly under the infobox, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and development is usually the place where it fits best after attempting to place it further up on the page. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A-class backlog

Noticing how slow our project is right now, I think its a good time to mention the backlog we have for A-class candidates. The older one we have as of now is Yuna (Final Fantasy) from September 3rd with one support. If anyone wants to decrease the count on them, please go to their talk pages to vote and remember WP:A-Class. GamerPro64 23:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reached out to a couple of editors to see if they could help. One is a bit busy these days, and the other hasn't responded. I've done what I can as most are my noms. --JDC808 ♫ 22:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
"A bit busy" has to be the understatement of the week, but I'll see what time allows me to review this weekend. :) Salvidrim! 23:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We've still got 6 articles listed if anyone has some time. --JDC808 ♫ 01:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edge reviews

Good news everyone. This Tweet from Edge: "From today, we'll be publishing one classic review every day, building towards a complete database of Edge reviews that span back to 1993." [1] - X201 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Terrific! I've taken the liberty of thanking them on our behalf. :) Salvidrim! 23:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That is great, hopefully this will be especially helpful with the pre-PS1/N64 era, where there's not always a ton of reviews available online. Any idea where they'll be at in particular yet? (I don't usually read Edge personally.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that we have Edge well covered in our underused reference library. - hahnchen 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
That archive.org link is quite impressive! --Odie5533 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Where exactly are they publishing them, I don't see anything immediately? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"building towards" - X201 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I read the date wrong...... I thought they had been going for a month.... Facepalm Facepalm —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The first review of Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos was announced on their twitter, but I found many, many more reviews from even the first issue published on their website. *EDIT* here is an even better link to finding the old reviews. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:ZhenJiart DW5.jpg

File:ZhenJiart DW5.jpg (Dynasty Warriors 5 character Zhen Ji) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Did some clean-up (in half a dozen edits... eek). Clarified license, reduced size, fixed the page's templating, responded to the en.wiki FfD and nominated for CSD under F5 and F6. Salvidrim! 07:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The file wasn't used anywhere. I see no reason to keep it on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Grouping of COD series/universes in COD main article and template

Hi all. I'm excusing myself from further involvement in these discussions as I've had issues with an editor involved in the past and do not feel I can participate objectively. Input is needed at Call of Duty and Template:Call of Duty series regarding how the games are logically grouped. The particular point of contention appears to be that World at War, a game known to be in the same universe and continuum as Black Ops, is not directly a member of the series. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Niemti

I know that its been said before but I find that his nominations at GAN are getting out of hand. He now has over 25 articles on the block with his oldest article nominated (August 10th) just now being reviewed. Has anyone talked to him about all of this over saturating he is causing to the project's GAN section? GamerPro64 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The user actually has been involved in similar cases in the past (See here). Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Niemti's behavior aside, it looks to me like the only procedural problem here is a practical one - there's not enough reviewers. Because Niemti is making the issue arise by nominating more than the current review staff can handle, I think it is certainly fair to ask him (as Teancum did) to help with some of the other editors' reviews. Beyond this, I suggest that reviewers take the number of reviews the nominator has completed into account as a factor (along with date of nomination) in determining the order of reviewing. Perhaps the number of nom's reviews times the age of the nomination should determine the preferred order of review?
Anyway I'd hesitate to suggest that he should cease or even reduce nominating, though, because these seem to be goodfaith judgment calls and it is an important step in quality improvement. If the majority of the items Niemti is nominating end up failing then someone should explain the process to him and encourage him to perform more reviews to learn the GAN criteria, but for now I'd just adopt a policy of weighing in number of reviews conducted by the nom, and I'd send him a note that his lack of contribution to the GAN review process will result in a much slower rate of review for his nominations. If he's content to have them slowly slowly eke through the GAN process then I think it's fine. If he wants faster action then he should start contributing more. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. More GA noms are coming though. You only review if you want, you know? --Niemti (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As of "and that user has only ever completed one GAN review" - no, i didn't complete it. I only wanted to comment on the article, I didn't know that it would make me a reviewer for this.[2] Also nah, most don't "end failing". --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty, Niemti, but I think it's likely that this fact (zero reviews instead of one) actually makes your lack of contribution even more outrageous in the eyes of some of your fellow editors... -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it does. Some of the nominations themselves also concern me. Shank (video game) was recently nominated by Niemti, but having spent several hours on the article I can tell you it's not ready. Several claims need additional sourcing, and it needs a good copy edit. The other one that comes to mind is the Taki (Soulcalibur) GAN review. Several concerns were brought up, but the conflicting manner of replies led the reviewer to bow out, and myself to get riled up at one point. --Teancum (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

His condescending, abrasive approach to interaction bothers me as well, though I haven't had to deal with him lately, so I haven't been pushing anything there. If he keeps it up, it could be worth bringing to WP:ANI though. As far as his GAN's go, if you don't like how many he's nominating, just don't review them. Let him rack up as many as he wants, and let them just sit there. You can just move to ones you think are more justified, and wait for someone else more sympathetic to his work review his GANs. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any prejudice against reviewing them just because of the source of the nomination even if he is abrasive, but the speed and order in which they are reviewed should take the nominator's reviews of other articles into account. -Thibbs (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying with prejudice, that sounds more like "failing the article because you don't like how he acts", which is not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm just saying, there's an endless number of things to be worked on, whether it be WP:VG or Wikipedia in general. If you don't like what he's doing, work on something else, and let him wait on his giant stack of review requests that he was advised against doing to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood. I agree with that 100%. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with this matter. Even though I find Niemti's abrasive attitude puzzling, I have not been pushing anything on the GANs. However, if he keeps up with this behavior, we should report this matter to WP:ANI. I think the speed and order in which they are reviewed should take the nominator's reviews of other articles into account as well. There's an endless number of things to be worked on here, and if anyone does not like what he's doing at the moment, we should work on something else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
As a comment, WP:RFC/U would be the proper first place to address behavioral issues that are far from immediately being disruptive, before ANI. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably true. I just said ANI because that's what I typically use, because I only typically report blatant, terrible offenders. It does seem that much of Niemti's behavior is closer to "rude" than any sort of blockable offense... Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup. We don't want to cause drama over at ANI either, so I also think it would be appropriate if we should use WP:RFC/U to address any type of behavioral issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 3:12 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Also, maybe you should consider his habit on this page of blitzkrieging sections he created on subjects with all references and no explanation on how he wanted to use them. I had to do the work, for goodness sake! All he did afterwards was do a little editing for grammar and to expand on detail. We have been working on the main page for a few days now to get it into better shape, which is how I came into contact with his apparent working methods. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As a former contributor to the articles that Niemti is nominating, i'm not entirely sure what the issue is with placing sources in the talk page with intent to expand later. While I agree in looking at the article that his contributions were slim, I actually have a similar habit in "blitzkrieging" talk pages with sources while I accumulate enough information and reception like I did in the Talk:Eddy Gordo page. I believe the habit is well-founded if the user follows up in full force. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As another point, I think if a user is nominating an article for GAR, they should be fully ready to be knowledgeable about everything in the article, and be able to tackle any problems brought up by reviewers. I don't see how Niemti can stay focused on improving 30 articles at once and allow them to be the same quality as if he was only taking care of 5. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I would expect a GAN nominator to be familiar with the topic enough to respond to issues and to fix the article in a timely fashion. Nominating only as many articles as are ready and as nominator can devote time to is just common courtesy and etiquette, not to mention much desired quid pro quo. I'm not against any of these nomination per se, but I have doubts they have all been thoroughly reviewed by the nominator. My experience is that articles that are GA ready would have been nominated by the editor who wrote them up. I don't see many GA-ready articles just sitting about requiring no further improvement. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note on that, I think it's sometimes an editorial style preference. Some editors prefer not to nominate their own work for advancement on DYK, GA-class, FA-class, etc. for some reason or other. Personally speaking, I don't even like removing refimprove tags on things I've worked on since I feel biased toward my own reffing efforts and for all I know more and better sources may exist. But yeah otherwise I agree with the above 2 comments regarding requisite familiarity with the details of the article nominated for advancement (e.g. in GAN). -Thibbs (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you guys just don't realize that I've been working on these articles for many months or even several years (and most of them have most edits by me even if you count only current account since March of this year, and which you can see by checking Contributors, like in this very article which I'm going to nominate next when I'm done with it) and only started nominating them like 2 months ago. Also lol at "I had to do the work, for goodness sake!" You know what? Well, this: [3] --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I can vouch for this claim as Niemti has listed roughly 150+ articles in the past two months to WP:VG/A/R, all of which he has worked on. It is A LOT of work. --JDC808 ♫ 23:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologies for my attitude there. But it did feel like it at the time. Actually, you have helped me a lot with getting the Prince article in a fit state (considering what it was like before). Please accept my apologies for a hot remark when seeing so many references with not much guidance on how to use them. Wow! You do a lot of work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the original from April, I think we're missing the Prince from the graphic novel thing (I didn't even know it exists, apparently it does[4]). --Niemti (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with Niemti's Good Article noms, I've taken a quick look at some of them (not enough to review), but its clear that he's done good content work. - hahnchen 01:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with an editor submitting many articles for GAN. If the majority of them reach GA status then there is no issue. If they fail a lot the perhaps we can take the time to assist Niemti with the aspects that are causing them to fail. I've started a GA review on one of his articles and would encourage other editors to assist with clearing the backlog too rather than simply complaining that there are too many. We should not discourage editors from making prolific contributions so long as they are productive and benefit Wikipedia. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, a lot of these character articles should not be in the GA queue, and should have gone through peer review and/or the league of copy editors first. I reviewed some, passed a couple (after much copy editing) and failed a few: see here, here and here. Despite some drama over this, I think I'm vindicated in that two other reviewers (here and here) have brought up the exact same issues I did: in-universe, purple prose problems in the plot sections and overly-long, effusive reception sections full of quotes about tits. Kasumi and Jill Valentine at least should not be in the queue: they meet the quick-fail criteria due to unresolved content disputes, per what I said in their respective reviews. And yes, Niemti's abrasive, foot-dragging and OWN-y style is problematic, as are his arrogantly-held opinions on stuff he poorly understands, both policy, and to put it bluntly the English language. bridies (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I also think the lack of edit summaries and more so the ownership issues are already reasons enough for an RFC. Here's the latest charming instance. bridies (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty bad. Can't believe he didn't have any repercussions for that one, he's being pretty blatant and he's working on pretty mainstream articles... Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup, and I have been ignoring Niemti due to his behavior. Based on Bridies's evidence, I tend to agree that Niemti's being blatant as well. Besides that, I think it's time we should get to work on my proposal for character and video game reception as well at my sandbox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, we may as well work on something constructive. It's clear Niemti won't change, (and probably just thrives off of attention like this) so I'll go back to ignoring him as well, and only addressing him if issues/RFCs/ANIs arise regarding his misbehavior. I'll start looking over the proposal stuff again soon. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"And he's working" haha, sure I am. About 85-90% of all content in this "pretty mainstream article" (of 362,427 views this month) was written by me (and same for the related articles of XCOM, X-COM, UFO: Enemy Unknown, X-COM: Alliance, etc.), and the remaining 10-15% was all re-written lol. Pretty blatant indeed. :3 --Niemti (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction, Alliance is pretty much 100% (unless one counts copy-edits). And The Dreamland Chronicles: Freedom Ridge (the original would-be reboot) is 100%. --Niemti (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't doubt that you contribute a ton. My problem with you is that there's no reason you can't contribute at the level you do and also respect others. There's no legitimate reason for you to talk to people the way you do, and it's your own fault when that overshadows the good things you do. Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing Kitana (Mortal Kombat) here and I am seeing many of the same issues that bridies has previously raised. I have pointed out the issues and began work on copy-editing the article to resolve them. There is clearly a lot of work been put into these articles but much of it would be more at home on a wikia related to the game/series specifically as they tend to go into too much detail resulting in a hard-to-read, waffling article. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • And it continues: [5], [6]. The fact that this is still continuing after this discussion makes it ANI worthy IMO, but nevertheless I've created the suggested RfC/U: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti. I possibly am not the best person to have done it, but it needed doing. It also needs certified within 48h. I think anyone doing this should feel free to edit the description of the dispute. Otherwise I'm hoping it more or less reflects the dissenting sentiments here. bridies (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't yet listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList. If anyone wants to do so if and when it meets the certification requirements, that'd be great. bridies (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Niemti has conclusively and contemptuously stated he won't participate, so I've taken it to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Niemti, community ban proposal. Not sure if the RfC should be withdrawn (it should be preserved somewhere if so), but I've left it for now bridies (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the ANI discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎#User:Niemti, community ban proposal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talking of article contribution, I did a lot of work on this one here. But I still don't see that this automatically means it must be nominated as a Good article, just because someone has done a lot of work on it, especially if the one editing it put it up in the first place. Sound a little like favoritism to me (if that's the right word). --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I was previously a major contributor to one of the articles that Niemti has currently nominated [7]. And it looks like I have not been surpassed in this effect. I don't agree; however, that MK9 is a GA just yet. Plot section is very in-universe, some places are missing references, there is at least one bare URL, and suffers from quite a bit of Linkrot [8] and Reception is lacking, in comparison to how gargantuan the rest of the article is (Halo 3#Reception for comparison), I highly doubt there's only a few sentences of commentary for a game that was widely acclaimed as the "Rebirth" of the Mortal Kombat franchise, although overall opinion on the video game itself have been mixed. Sorry for the tangent, but all in all, despite being a large contributor to the article makes me think that the article is ready for GA, not by a long shot. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think like Subzerosmokerain. I worked in The King of Fighters XIII and I can point out it could not become a GA due to an unsourced plot section, lack of wikilinks, poor references and small reception sections (most of which have no context). The same goes for Liu Kang. It is not strange that GA reviewers will ask for some fixes and it is difficult for a person to work on several sections at the same time.Tintor2 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on AN has been closed by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "no consensus", since the ban discussion is not heading towards consensus one way or another. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion for Ayane (Dead or Alive)

Theres a discussion about which age we should use for Ayane (Dead or Alive). It would be great if we had more opinions on the matter.Lucia Black (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we please get some attention here?Lucia Black (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I've looked it over some, but have nothing to contribute. Looks like it largely comes down to picture preference. Either seem useable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
it has nothing to do with preference. if the reception was more based on her "Ninja Gaiden" version and development, and introduced in Ninja Gaiden, i wouldn't have a problem with the Ninja Gaiden version in the infobox. But because thats clearly not the case, i would have to say it's misleading and suggests her Ninja Gaiden version is more significant than her original appearance (in which Niemti doesn't deny).Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, I think no one is commenting because either picture is useable, and it's just one giant back and forth argument between some stubborn editors. Pick one and move on to something more important. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

we did. it's 2 against 1. and although its consensus by definition of wikipedia, i'm afraid if any of us make any edit, it will lead to an edit war. both images we have are useable.Lucia Black (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added another opinion. I do not know what side of the consensus it comes down on but it seems like the logical way forward to me. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012's TFA

On November 17th, Metroid Prime will be on the Main Page as that day's Featured Article. It should also be noted that the following day would be its 10th anniversary of its release in North America. GamerPro64 15:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

BlazBlue series

Anyone wanna work in improving BlazBlue series? As it stands, it's really just a dab page listing all the games in the series. However, when I found it, it was tagged as a stub instead of a dab page. Given that there are several inbound links to this incredibly short page, shouldn't it be more of a page summarizing the franchise as a whole, such as Super Mario (series)? I don't know the first thing about the series, but this just seems like the right approach to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Aubrey Hodges

I'm working on this right now, but I'd like your opinions on this. Should composer Aubrey Hodges be created? He created tracks for over 180 games, including Doom and Quake. Should this be created? Some sources here if needed: [9][10][11]. ZappaOMati 02:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that's sufficient coverage in general, but I'm not familiar with BLP notability guidelines. Salvidrim! 02:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
He appears notable to me as well. I wish some of the other video game music composers received that kind of attention in the media; their work usually seems to go unnoticed. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
For a current case, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Daglish. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Those are good sources, but all three are basically the same thing and smell of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. So I don't know if this is enough for WP:GNG. Unfortunately, as Odie5533 says, composers don't get the secondary source attention they often deserve. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about aggregators

While working on improving the article for Wreckateer, I added the reviews infobox and the scores from the two preferred review aggregators, Metacritic and GameRankings.com. It was at this point that I made an interesting observation - they're the same site, basically. Both are operated by CBS Interactive (the same parent company as Gamespot.com), and the only difference I've found in scores (a limited sample, honestly) is that GR takes its scores out to two decimal places, while Metacritic uses whole numbers. Is there a reason we're including both, and is there another aggregator not operated by CBS Interactive? --McDoobAU93 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The choice of what scores/ratings to include in the aggregation differs between the sites, so they are sufficiently independent to not be considered the same site. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Aggregators generally say the same thing, you don't need to double it up. I generally stick with Metacritic. - hahnchen 20:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I usually list both, since their scores and methods differ somewhat. It also never hurts to double it up and looks more professional that we don't give preference to one. Also, if one of them ever goes defunct, we'll have cited records that may be hard to obtain afterwards. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
An alternative is http://www.gamestats.com/, but it only lists IGN and GameSpy's scores. I think IGN gave up on the site. I am with Hanchen on this one; I don't think Metacritic is going anywhere so I generally just use them. edit for older games, GameStats isn't bad: see Halo. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ha-ha, may be I'll start using three! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
GR seems to have more older games on their database and they list more reviews for them. Metacritic usually lists more reviews for newer games. --Mika1h (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Seems that Template:Video game cleanup is up for deletion. Please post your comments on if it should be kept or deleted to the discussion provided here. GamerPro64 15:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFA: Metroid Prime

See title. The citation is slightly on the lesser side of featured quality, imo. --Izno (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Reception section could also use a bit of grammatical help. There's a bit of mixed tense, and the sentence or two of criticism in the second paragraph is just a mess. --Izno (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I have made grammatical improvements myself on the Reception section of Metroid Prime, but I need someone to review and check if there is any more mistake. I am not confident myself either. --Bumblezellio (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Title disambig for mobile games

The My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic mobile game by Gameloft has more than enough sources + info for an article, but obviously the name overlaps with the show which gets first billing. Applying the "(video game)" disambig would be my first inclination, and given that I've not heard of any specific console/PC type games that may make sense, but I've got a hard time calling the mobile app a "video game" as opposed to a "mobile game" or some other moniker. Any suggestions what to use for the disambig title ? --MASEM (t) 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps (mobile)? I haven't come across any dispute thus far that implied video games on non-console platforms (iOS, mobile) shouldn't be called "video games", at least for disambiguation purposes. Can you find other examples on-wiki to compare how these were handled? Salvidrim! 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
We seem to treat iOS/Android as just another video game system, so standard naming rules would apply- (video game), unless there's already an MLP (video game) article out there. Same way GBA/3DS games don't get (handheld game) as their disambig generally. --PresN 16:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
"video game" seems like the best generic dab, independent of the platform. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a (video game). - X201 (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Carmen Sandiego‎

Do any of you want to help me out with the Carmen Sandiego franchise? Before I started work on them, only about 4 pages on CS games were created, and they were pretty bad. I have been working a lot to bring them all up to a better status, but it's rather daunting tackling this on my own. FYI (to give you an idea of what work I've been doing so far), the article I have focused on has been Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time (previously known as Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego). If this edutainment series was as much an integral part of your childhood as it was mine, please don't hesitate to give me a hand. Writing articles, gaining access to content behind paywalls that I can't, copyediting, adding images, whatever, there is a lot that can be done. I sincerely hope this project appeals to you. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to set up a Carmen Sandiego task force. Can or, or somebody else in this project help me out with that?--Coin945 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Savedhits88/speedy deletion phenomenon

I have seen something very strange happening to several articles. The release dates for this and this article seems to have several 'speedy deletion' messages with each of the release dates. Meanwhile, this, and this one have this strange 'User:Savedhits88' thing in front of each date. What on earth is happening here?! --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I took care of the edit by Savedhits88, and someone else got the SD notice thing, I think. --Izno (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems to have suddenly cleared itself, and thanks to Izno for the help. But keep an eye out, everyone. It makes the articles both look really untidy and very silly. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Commodore 64 games

Is there not an exact number of games released? As no total value is given for how many should be in the list. Govvy (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there is an exact number. I have seen numbers between 10,000 to 20,000. --Mika1h (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Is that including homebrew games? Should they even be included? Surely the list should just be official releases, games that are released by registered companies? Govvy (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with not having homebew games, if anything it should be a separate list.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone any good at doing a math calculation in wiki code? Total number of games in the list? Govvy (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
A-M has 1259 ganes and N-Z has 693 games. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
okay, so can I add the math cal on List of Commodore 64 games next to each page? Or shall I just add a manual version of those values? Govvy (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Heads up: VGChartz pusher on the loose

There's an IP-hopping anon who seems intent on pushing VGChartz sales figures related to PS3 and XBox 360. Help could be used in watching the affected articles. I've seen them on Console wars, Template:PlayStation 3 sales/data, Template:PlayStation 3 sales/data/doc, and List of best-selling game consoles so far. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 02:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the VGChartz sales figures considered unreliable? --Odie5533 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It's still listed at WP:VG/RS#Unreliable sources. Anomie⚔ 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not linked to a specific consensus there; I'll have to look for one. But perhaps a quick compromise would be to allow it if it is disclosed directly that the information is from VGChartz: "According to VGChartz, the game has sold XXX copies." --Odie5533 (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
We have reliable sources (Gamasutra) telling us that their method for calculating sales figures is a bunch of black magic, and they'll adjust their figures with no warning based on other, better figures. They are less than useless, and should rightly be ignored and burned with fire, even if other sites quote them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Bit of help at Bastion , re indie games

Talk:Bastion (video game) has a new discussion where a user is trying to dispute the claim that Bastion is an indie game because of the publishing/QA help that Supergiant received from WarnerBros late in the development process. This comes to the fact that "indie game" doesn't have a strong definition. Note that the article is a recent FA, and the issue has been brought up before (favoring that it is indie, based on sourcing) but this user seems to insist on a strong definition that it is not. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Its won so many "Indie" awards its really quite difficult to argue it as anything but. Terms like Indie are notoriously hard to define as there is no widely agreed definition, numerous sources of a reputable nature refer to it as such Adycarter (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, but the point of this user is to assert that if had any type of large publisher support that it cannot qualify for indie, which I think is simply not true, given the number of sources out there that call the game and developer indie. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sega Genesis inconsistencies across Wikipedia/Wikimedia sister projects

Reading up on the Sega Genesis title change as of last year, I notice that in complete contradiction to that decision, many Sega Genesis (although we called it the "Mega Drive" here in the UK) related articles are still using the Mega Drive name (including the main categtory for the console), link to the Sega Mega Drive redirect in other articles or use the International/Japan/Europe/Asia name - ie. Sega Multi-Mega as opposed to the Sega CDX, which would fall in line with the Sega Genesis title consensus. Even on Wikimedia Commons, the main page for Sega Genesis images is Sega Mega Drive. Any likelihood of consistency across Wikipedia and Wikimedia's sister projects? --tgheretford (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, one concern of note is WP:ENGVAR, which means we will likely never have consistency even across articles. However, you are right to call into question the name of the category, and I'll be nominating that shortly for WP:CFD. It should qualify for CSD:C2D, but I'll put it up for a normal CfD anyway (and the subcategories).

As for other wikis, no chance, unless you can convince the users of those wikis that the decision at Talk:Sega Genesis was a sound decision.

The worrying common practice on the wiki is the use of both (via the backslash). That should be stamped out and one or the other used. --Izno (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Type in Sega Genesis on google I got 8,850,000 results (0.22 seconds), and with Sega Mega Drive I got 3,930,000 results (0.31 seconds). Govvy (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't wish to rehash the whole Sega Genesis or Mega Drive debate which has been to death several times over elsewhere, what I merely express is the inconsistent interchangeable way that the console is referred to across the whole encyclopaedia (extending beyond Wikipedia too). Consistency and sticking to consensus is a good thing, but this isn't being applied across the whole plethora of Genesis related articles, categories and the like. --tgheretford (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
On en.Wikipedia the only decision maker should be WP:ENGVAR or WP:COMMONNAME, and then by the first major contributor to the article, roughly in that order. The use of redirects makes the actual usage of whichever link across the Pedia a non-issue, largely. You can start move requests for those articles which have Mega Drive in the name; some of those requests will fail likely, due to entrenched interests. Shrug. It's really a small issue to be worried about, but you're welcome to work at it, as we're all volunteers. As I said before about other wikis, what we name our articles and categories has no bearing on how they are named elsewhere, and the only way to change those pages is the same as here. --Izno (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't open the naming debate again, it only causes bad blood (I certainly felt conned after the last move took advantage of the goodwill of the people who voted for the compromise name.), the article always suffers and the winners end up with a pyrrhic victory. - X201 (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Charts of historical quality/importance data

Not sure if anyone here cares that much, but I've gone through and updated the quality/importance data at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics, as well as making pretty new charts with the Wikipedia colors. Thought I should let everyone know! It previously only went up through June 2011, and the charts were the wrong colors and had non-article data confusing the picture. I didn't update the deletion results or chart. --PresN 02:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Very interested! Thanks a lot for your work! I also noticed we're inching close to one of our three current goals, 10% C+ articles. :) Salvidrim! 02:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
These are interesting, thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Echoing the above, thanks for the update! Always good to be able to track our progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality scale update

Can someone with experience update the assessment quality scale for Start, C, and B to showcase the worst pages that still meet those criteria? I think particularly the Start class example needs to be updated. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim RFC

Just so everyone is aware, there is a discussion concerning the conduct of Bluerim (talk · contribs), which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluerim. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Some issues concerning the "List of commercial video games released as freeware"

Greetings fellow Wikipedians. I've been doing some work on the List of commercial video games released as freeware to improve the article's references. Along the way, my Google searches revealed that certain games have issues which may affect their eligibility to be included in that list. I already described my concerns with these games on that article's Talk page which I would encourage you to examine. Nobody has responded thus far...and normally I would be content to just wait as long as need be to obtain a WP:Consensus as the comments slowly trickle in. But some of the concerns I described involve the current copyright/distribution status of games currently listed as "freeware". As another editor of that article previously explained, "This article is telling the world that certain games are legal to download. Such claims MUST be backed up by a reliable source, otherwise Wikipedia is aiding copyright infringement." That's why I feel that a more speedy resolution is warranted...and that's why I'm bringing the subject up here to attract the attention of more experienced editors than myself. Thanks in advance. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and respond to the point-by-point concerns on the talk page, but it seems to me a "move entry to the talk page until it's a verified free game" seems the best option--just comment out the entry and then put it back in once it's addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Any Brits that can give an article a once-over?

When I did heavy work on Forza Horizon I decided it would be the first article where I strictly adhered to our unwritten guideline of "go by the developer's nationality (as far as spelling) if there isn't already precedence)". Trouble is I'm not sure what all needs those changes. I'm used to the "ized" vs "ised", and things like "favor" vs "favour", but I'd really like this to be a decent-in-not-good example of British English writing. Can a Brit take a look at it and look for US vs UK spelling issues? Thanks. --Teancum (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox release dates need to be flipped, but you appear to have the rest done right. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting comment on a dispute with Niemti

User:Niemti recently has tried to shift portions of Thief: The Dark Project's Legacy section to its Reception section, namely those parts covering "best of" lists and so forth. I initially reverted and told him to discuss it on the talk page, but he reverted back without doing so. A further revert got him to post a brief response on the talk page, but I'll leave it to you guys to decide who's right. In my experience, stuff along the lines of "best of" lists goes in the Legacy section alongside a work's impact. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • His trademark rudeness and inability to cooperate have surfaced, once again. He's blatantly shrugged off any effort to argue his case or build a consensus, and has now, for the fourth time, made these changes based on his own personal view. Any help would be appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Josh Sawyer picture

Which picture is better for the Josh Sawyer article, the one that was added today or the one that was already there? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

They don't look like the same person to me, but the second one was uploaded on Wikicommons by someone claiming to be Josh Sawyer. Of course, anyone can claim to be anyone online. I think the first one is better in terms of a simple image, while the second has a lot of extra details we don't need. The bike part is really unrelated to anything in the article. Sorry I don't have a great answer. —Torchiest talkedits 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you just said, why is why I initially reverted it. That, and we don't have to change a picture just because the subject prefers one over another. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The picture has been reverted back to the newer one.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me like this would be a case for WP:OTRS. If the subject truly is the one trying to push for the newer picture because the old one isn't him (or whatever) then they need to go through the official process, otherwise anyone editing is just an editor and may only use the same considerations as anyone. We can't take anyone's word that the old picture is problematic any more than we can that the new one is better without evidence. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
According to the person that recently readdedd the new pic it came from a request at his formspring account [[12]]. The question would be is that an acceptable source to deem that the new picture is from him or should the old picture be restored until the new picture goes through official channels? Another question could be even if this is a real picture is the original on better and should it be used instead and if that is the case should we ask for a new picture with less background objects?--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The Formspring site says he responded to the question 23 hour ago. The image was uploaded to Commons approximately 23 hours ago by JESawyer1975. I think we have enough evidence and reason to use this picture over the other one. And at least this one we are sure is the right guy. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe the JESawyer1975 account should still need to verify ID/photo ownership via OTRS though. Яehevkor ✉ 12:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
What is required?--JESawyer1975 (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Mr Sawyer. I think the simplest method is following Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. I believe sending this from a named company email address (such as Obsidian) is sufficient for identification (this address and email is not visible to anyone but OTRS members). Cheers. Яehevkor ✉ 11:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So if this is the consensus, should I revert it? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Come on, the original photo is now highly outdated; the Formspring account is legit, Sawyer has been using it to communicate with the public for quite some time. To someone who is wondering if it's even the same person, yes, watch some of his recent interviews, and that's precisely why we need the new photo for his article to be up to date. The photo was even uploaded by the subject matter (he linked to it and commented via his Formspring) and is not copyrighted, rarely do such beneficial circumstances happen, it's a no-brainer to use the newer one. With the bike wheel part visible and all it might not be perfect, but better than the alternative, which is more than 10 years old. TheBearPaw (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You guys are seriously pathetic. I've asked Josh Sawyer to come here and confirm himself, but don't be surprised if he doesn't feel like it. Then Wikipedia will be stuck with that decade old picture. QUALITY ENCYCLOPEDIA FOR THE MASSES! Melnorme1984 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Calm down. Яehevkor ✉ 23:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Josh Sawyer can be seen together with a mention of his name (and the fact that he is Project Director for Project Eternity at Obsidian Entertainment) in the video (at 2:02) that is shown at the top of the page at http://eternity.obsidian.net... (direct link to video). If an email from an Obsidian email address would suffice to prove his identity, this should suffice as well... --85.180.80.35 (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This should not have been necessary, but VRTS ticket # 2012111810008362 confirms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And image now in place. Яehevkor ✉ 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Free Video Game for a Featured Article

Hey guys. Don't know if this is going to become a new fad for the Wikiproject, but up at Wikipedia:Reward Board, there are two editors that are offering one free video game for their respected challenge. One editor is offering a free copy of Civilization V while the other is giving away Counter-Strike: Condition Zero. So if you're interested, follow the links to read the rules. GamerPro64 23:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've chipped in a few more games. I just worry that a $20-50 video game is not much incentive for all the work it takes to create an FA, unless you are already interested in improving the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, you aren't getting anything else out of editing Wikipedia under normal circumstances :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have a few PS2 games I don't play any more that I could chip in. Not for an FA, of course, but more like at least a GA. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
What PS2 games? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
TBH, they're somewhat cheesy IMO, but they're mainly games from the early 2000's, like Crazy Taxi, Spider Man, Motocross Mania 3, Power Drome, XGRA, Ford Racing 3, Madden 12 (not in early millennium, but I don't play it anymore), Wave Rally, Le Mans 24 Hours, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, and a few others that I can't remember. I might find them when I get back to California on Saturday. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 17:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should set up some drive or something and give games out as prizes. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. That sort of sounds like Paid Editing. GamerPro64 03:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not see a problem with this type of transparent incentives. Is there a specific problem you are worried it would lead to? --Odie5533 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be Paid Editing if the games' developers/publisher gave out games for working on their articles; giving out a free game as a fellow editor if someone improves one of 5-10 articles to GA/FA is certainly not, in my opinion. --PresN 04:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is another request that, while unrelated to the project, is also offering Civ 5 as an award. Found here. GamerPro64 15:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Online archive

Resolved
 – Page already exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Defunct archived websites.

We currently have an Online print archive which has archive links to magazine articles that were hosted online. But there were many reliable websites that hosted their own articles online that are now defunct as well. I was wondering if I could create Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online archive and add it to the sidebar. I have some already compiled for sites like DailyRadar.co.uk, Voodoo Extreme ve3d which ran many interviews, ConsoleWire.com, PlanetXbox.com, old Bungie.net sites, ConsoleDomain.co.uk, Next-Generation.com, cdmag.com, CGOnline.com, xgr.com, 3dgw.com, Game-Ireland.com, and Stomped.com. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps whoever is in charge of specialized VG google search can add those links to the search as well. Who is in charge of it btw, and is it possible to view what sites it uses? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that there is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Defunct archived websites page, linked to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library#Dead sites. You should probably merge with/take over that page as well, since it seems to be a similar sort of thing. --PresN 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I was not aware we already had a subpage for it. I'll be expanding the page with sources I've found. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with 3RR issues on List_of_Ouya_software

Hey, can someone give me a hand with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Ouya_software&action=history

We've got someone (seemingly the dev) relentlessly adding their own game with basically no sources.

Cheers! Adycarter (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible Final Fantasy resource

I have found a site that seems to be dedicated to news concerning select games within the Final Fantasy franchise (entries in the Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy subseries, Final Fantasy XIV, Kingdom Hearts 1.5 HD and others). All the news they have in their articles is supported by other websites and it also has interviews and other things from ordinary gaming magazines that are not always published online. It is called www.novacrystallis.com: here it is. Could it be used in terms of references and an external link, or is it like VGChartz and others, not to be trusted or used in citations, even if its info is good according to other sites? Please let me know. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ive only seen this be sourced in forums. Never on actual reliable sources. So its iffy. Also what kind od interviews? Some people may be a little too easy to access. If it was a japanese deceloper then it could be good.Lucia Black (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :On one hand, a lot of these times these one-purpose "fansites" aren't usually considered reliable sources. On the other hand, I've noticed, for instance, that many of the articles in the Chrono series, which are featured content, reference the "Chrono Compendium", which seems comparable. Let's see if anyone else comments on past precedents/reasonings I'm not familiar with... Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Re Chrono Compendium- 1, those FAs are older and I don't know if it would fly now. 2- If I recall correctly, it's sourced for English transcripts of Japanese interviews and pictures of magazine spots, which should probably be sourced directly nowadays. 3- Not that it matters, but Zeality, who FA'd those articles, also runs Chrono Compendium, so I guess he vouched for himself? --PresN 21:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that was kind of what I had suspected and gathered upon research, but it's good to hear it from someone else. Alright then, probably not a reference point in favor for using NC then. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Seems to be little more than a fan site to me.. I'm struggling to find anything on who or what entity is behind the site, making it hard to assess as a reliable source at all. If they cite reliable sources then Wikipedia should be using those sources, not this. As for using material from gaming magazines this is a two step issue, I doubt they are publishing this material with respect to copyright, running afoul of WP:LINKVIO and there is no requirement for sources to be available online, so the original source can be cited anyway. Basically no, I don't see this as a viable resource, but that's just one person's opinion. Яehevkor ✉ 20:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
like i said before, if its sited from any reliable source we already use, then it could be considered. But yes, it looks like a fansite. Like KHinsider.Lucia Black (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In reply to you all, here is an interview with several key figures in the development of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII. It is brought via Famitsu, but for me, finding things on Famitsu is like trying my hand at water divination; I tend to get utterly lost. I will be happy with whatever conclusion this discussion comes to (just so you know I am not being swayed by personal liking of the site). --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

if they conducted their own interviews it woukd be different. It doesnt mean the site is reliable dor having the same acess we do. They merely reporting news off of other reliable sources but overall doesnt provide any info from their own and the credibility of the owners of the site has yet to be proven.Lucia Black (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with a strange source

I just found this source, which would be tremendously helpful for covering a period of the business history of Looking Glass Studios. However, I've never seen one of these pages in my life, nor have I ever seen one used as a reference. Does anyone know if it's possible to cite this? Does it qualify as reliable? I figure one of the long-time users might have a clue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an IPO filing straight from NASDAQ's site. I very strongly doubt any argument can be made against its reliability. Salvidrim! 00:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That's good. Do you know if there's a template suitable for a document like this? I can only think of {{cite press release}}, but that doesn't seem correct. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What's used to cite archived legal or para-legal documents (birth certificates, court documents, etc.)? Salvidrim! 02:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I did some digging and found Template:Cite report. Never heard of it before, but it seems like what you'd use in the cases you mentioned. Thanks for helping me figure this out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hitman (video game series)

Some issues regarding the article, first whats with the games per year bit? The first floor it is vertical and not horizontal.

There is no short synopsis for each game stating storyline, this seems a major floor with the article, I haven't played any of the Hitman games, I just wanted to know the short version for each one in the series. Can anyone around that has actually played the game write something?

In section, International Contract Agency, “The Agency's motto, the Latin, "Merces Letifer" means literally, "lethal trade." It is also interesting to note that the Agency's logo itself is based on the original MI5 emblem replacing, along with the images themselves, the characters in the three corners, originally M, I, and 5, from left to right with IOI, for IO Interactive. “

WP:NOR?

I do think this is one of the worse VG Project articles I have ever read! Govvy (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a point. I could find the stories for you, though I find the series a bit unappealing for my taste. I will think about it, and see if I can do concise synopses for the series' article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When I went to that article originally I wanted to read the story arc for each game leading up to the latest release. It's certainly an improvement, however I think instead in all one shot, keep the story of each game, under the game headings. I would like to thank the editors that have improved the article, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Help for re-rating article

King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow is rated as start-class, but I recently spent some time improving its sourcing, and it may now deserve a higher rating. How does one request that an article's rating be re-evaluated? --Mors Martell (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You can add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests to have it evaluated. GamerPro64 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Mors Martell (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the "History of video game consoles (eighth generation)" articles

Alright, I'm starting this discussion on behalf of User:InternetMeme. I have no stance on the this yet, I'm not pushing for or against this, I'm just helping him to the proper avenues for discussing this. I'll let him describe his proposal himself when he gets the chance, as I don't think I quite "get it" yet, but he's discussed it some on my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73#Mass_title_changes if any one wants to read up with it in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, it seems the user has had a change of heart. Just as well, I don't think it would have gone over well, but I wanted him to follow the proper avenues to discuss and understand it, rather than resorting to edit warring or resenting experienced users for bullying him or something. Oh well. This section can be ignored now. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No, and I specifically said that I haven't had a change of heart. Rather, I realised that this is not the right place for discussing the topic, as what I'm suggesting is completely unrelated to video games. Instead, it's related to the fundamental layout of Wikipedia, and the logic of article titles. However, I still haven't found out where these kinds of things are discussed, so I'll put the idea on hold for now : ) InternetMeme (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that you haven't discussed it and found consensus anywhere, let alone here, which is absolutely a relevant place for discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review request

I have The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay up for over a week and have gotten no comments on it. Can someone do a review of it? Thanks. Wikipedia:Peer review/The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay/archive2. GamerPro64 15:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll hit it up today or tomorrow. Also, editors should be mindful that PR is slowing down recently, so helping clear the backlog yourself means more time and energy can be spent on your own reviews :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Andriasang issues

I have been having problems with the references that use the site I have come to know as Andriasang. They are taking forever to load, or are not loading at all. Since several Final Fantasy articles, and perhaps others, seem to use it for vital information, perhaps we should find out what is happening, unless this is a local problem I alone am experiencing (mind you, even if my computer has its full attention on loading the thing, it still does not do it). Examples of this problem can be found on Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII, ref number 3. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this link here, also related to the game mentioned above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"database-driven stuff and technology tests" perhaps? [13] « Ryūkotsusei » 23:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It is loading very slowly for me as well. Archive.org has stuff from July 2011 and earlier saved, but anything newer than that, like the link your provided, should be backed up with WebCite when the site is fully back online. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rise of Flight article

I have been cleaning up articles for some time now, focusing almost exclusively on WP:GAMECRUFT. However, on the aforementioned article, I encountered a particularly persistent editor who didn't want me to remove a list of planes, trains, and automobiles. Instead of arguing for its inclusion, he engaged in meatpuppetry here[14] and [15]. I was blocked twice for edit-warring; told to discuss edits. However, I tried this with the original user by contacting them and explaining my edits on their user talk page. The response was my entry being deleted. Then we tried on the article talk page, and the original user disengaged, to the best of my knowledge, but additional IPs turned up to vandalize my user page, revert my edits, etc. They don't talk, either. I'd like you guys to have a look and see if I'm spot on with the WP:GAMECRUFT concern. Eik Corell (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lists like that are definitely excessive trivia. Past a couple examples, they don't really further the understanding of the game and would only be of interest to fans. This is no different to any other genre, even fighting games. At best, this should be in prose and concise. Other sections on AI, mission editor, and stat logging should be trimmed and all go into generic gameplay section. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rockstar North nationality (touches on project guidelines for nationality)

Another debate has been started about the "correct" nationality for Rockstar North - British, Scottish, other. I've answered the poster's query, but there is also a chance for us to make a start on the groundwork for a guideline to address this kind of issue on the future. Please comment at Talk:Rockstar_North#Rockstar_North_Origin_Problem. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on the "generation" articles

User:InternetMeme, the user who I tried to set up a discussion for, but then decided he wasn't interested in discussing it, is now taking it upon himself to try to go and split up the generations of video game articles without any sort of discussion or consensus. This concerns me considering the huge scope of the articles, and how many articles obviously link to those generation articles. Please keep an eye out for this, and if anyone notices him doing this, please remind him he needs to discuss it first. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary box arts/soundtrack covers

I need some second opinions on this issue. Often, I find secondary covers - typically soundtrack covers - on articles, and upon removal, this is reverted, by the logic that the soundtrack needs visual representation. I would enjoy either a consensus on the matter, or to discuss making the VG images guideline clearer on the issue. One of the articles in question is Paper Mario (at least the most egregious example, since the soundtrack doesn't even feature a unique cover, merely the N64 image). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is reasonable allowance if a soundtrack has a commercial release and its cover is sufficiently different from the game cover, that the cover art of the soundtrack can be included per NFCC. But if the cover nearly matches the game cover, the soundtrack cover is duplicative and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it can in those circumstances, but I feel that it's important to be minimal; for example, if one article were to lose its soundtrack cover, I feel that it would be easier to convince someone performing a GAN or participating in an FAC that the image FU rationals are strong. Plus, I personally think that an article rarely needs more than three images, and that merely representing a related product isn't a terribly strong rationale. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the soundtrack COULD be on its own page, but it doesn't need to most of the time, so why should it lose its cover because it happens to share a page with something else? I don't understand why people seem to consider articles as singular entities rather than the whole of the encyclopedia. Each picture should be considered on its own merit, not based on if other pictures happen to be there or not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:NFCC 3a. 1 is less than 2. That said, I'm one to tend to remove the image if it duplicate the cover, and go case-by-case if it does not. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem lies with WP:NFCC #8. If the removal of the image does not have a big impact on the article then the image should be removed. See WP:NFCI #1 and its footnote: "[...] when the work is described in other articles [...] the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article". If you see articles with secondary box art/soundtrack covers where the artwork is not specifically discussed in the article then they should be removed. A good example of an exception would be Pink Floyd where the album's artwork is iconic and the artwork itself is discussed in the article as well as the album. See also the current RfC and past RfC. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
By that logic the cover art of all videogame boxes shouldn't be used either, unless there is an screenshot of what the game actually contains on it. For example "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" No where does the article mention the shield and sword with the logo on a brown background. Therefore most videogame page info boxes images should be removed. Unless having the info box empty is disliked, then an image there should only be used if it's a screenshot of the game, and not box art. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC))
The image in the main infobox at the top of the page is covered by NFCI #1. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason the info box is there is to give the reader a quick guide as to where they are and what information to expect in that location. For instance the featured article;

Final_Fantasy_Tactics

Which also has its soundtrack cover. Similar to the Super Mario 64 which was also a featured article 'New Age Retro Hippie' deleted the soundtrack cover art form. Leaving the info box without an image, which only invites users to complete the information in the infobox by re-uploading the image, to that section that discussed that portion of the game. Just like the screenshot of the representing the gameplay and graphics, the soundtrack represents the music, its availability and most times also the sound effects, are discussed in the articles and have "contextual significance" to the article.

That was the outcome of the discussion at;

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC: Can cover art can be used within articles on authors/bands?

That's why the Final Fantasy and others earned their featured article status. And complaining that one soundtrack image shouldn't be there because it looks a bit like the box art cover is pretty pointless since most Nintendo soundtrack covers have other variations of their covers that are different then the box art, if it isn't liked pick another. As with the 'Final Fantasy' soundtrack the soundtrack is discussed and its contents described, in the same way a screenshot of the game should represent a aspect of the game mentioned. As Mario Kart 64 has an image of the single player mode and another of the multiplayer mode. While both modes look quite different from each other in the way they are displayed. Removing one and keeping the other, or deleting soundtrack covers when they are of contextual significance to the article, then leaving infoboxes with things like |cover= seems to be just sloppy editing, without thinking of the article. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC))

Is removing the soundtrack cover art from the Super Mario 64 article significantly detrimental to the readers' understanding of Super Mario 64? I do not believe so, and so I agree that it should be removed per WP:NFCC policy. Screenshots can illustrate gameplay mechanics, graphics, character depictions, art style, background artwork, game interface, and many other aspects of the game. Unless the soundtrack artwork is iconic then it does not really contribute to the article in the same way that a screenshot does. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
But it doesn't make any sense that if the Mario 64 OST had its own article it WOULD be fine to have the cover there, but because it happens to be listed in the main article it can't be -- yet it still gets its own infobox. Yes, at the moment there's no real talk about the soundtrack itself to warrent much of an article, but there COULD be. How is it different from Music of Final Fantasy VI which has four separate album covers? If there were an article about the music of Mario games would it be ok there? I've never heard a resonable explanation why trying to be efficient in presenting info means there has to be less images. and the above does NOT answer the question how box art is any different either. How does it "illustrate gameplay mechanics, graphics, character depictions, art style, background artwork, game interface, and many other aspects of the game."?? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Cover art is generally allowed when the work that the cover describes is being discussed in depth within the article - the cover art, if not explicitly discussed, is assumed to carry information on the marketing and branding of the work (this is how NFCC#8 is met). Hence that if you have a notable video game, you can have a cover art in that. Now for most VG soundtracks, you rarely can go into depth about them, so the discussion "in depth" about the soundtrack is usually not there to support that. Moreso, the soundtrack cover for most video game soundtracks is comparatively close to the video game cover artwork, making the soundtrack cover redundant for the marketing/branding aspect (per NFCC#1). Since we seek to minimize non-free use, per NFCC#3a, we avoid these uses. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So far it seems the only consensus for soundtracks seems to be that the art work shouldn't be the same as the box art, if it's on the same page as the box art. As Paper Mario with its new image and [Final_Fantasy_Tactics]]. And it should have the references that discusses the album and its contents. 'For identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art.'

According to the "Licensing" notice that appears on all the Album covers it must meet these requirements.

"This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers

solely to illustrate the audi`o recording in question,

on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information." (Floppydog66 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC))

The problem with your argument is that the cover isn't of the primary subject. The images should be directly relevant to the subject and not of additional media or products unless we can see thatthese additional products are significant to the primary subject. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
How is a soundtrack not 'significant to the primary subject'? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The soundtrack is only significant due to its audio. Seeing the cover art doesn't contribute at all. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the comment about the four images in Music of Final Fantasy VI by Melodia above- don't use the "Music of" articles as examples of what to do. When I first wrote them, every album got it's own image. While GA'ing them, they all were cut down to a single image due to discussions very similar to this one at NFCC. The infoboxes, of course, were left, and driveby editors/IPs gradually re-filled them with images. They don't have images due to any real consensus, I just don't much feel like re-removing them. As I recall, the (ignored) argument in favor of them was that if an article about one album gets one image of the cover, a merged article about four albums should get four, if the albums could theoretically support their own articles. Very similar to the argument here, about soundtracks in game articles. --PresN 22:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC the Music of FF articles all have been FA'd post 2008, where we had more stringent image reviews, and thus there the allowance for additional covers was deemed acceptable as they would have all otherwise been there if each album had its own (which they could being individually notable). However most video game soundtracks don't have this capability. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I assume you mean GA'd, none of the music-of-ff articles are featured. MoFF6 was GA'd in April 2008 with 4 images, all but one image was removed in October 2008, and they were readded in November 2011. All of the Final Fantasy music articles got hit that summer/fall; a few in July, and the rest by September/October 2008. I started writing/GAing them in spring 08, and finished by spring 09. So, no, they were right in the middle of the 2008 NFCC blitz, and the "notable album" argument didn't fly, whether it would now or not or would work for other music articles or not. History! --PresN 23:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Huh, I could have sworn that was one that I had commented on in light of FA/NFC. Never mind then. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The only objection seems to be that of the soundtrack has a 'cover' rather then an image itself. Just like the ones showing the game play, it illustrates a key feature in the game. And thus is 'significant' to the game. (Floppydog66 (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC))
The objection I discussed was a lot more serious than semantics. Unless the article discusses the actual artwork of the cover, saying for instance that "The cover art for the game's soundtrack received a lot of flak for their decision to use an image of a decapitated Mario," then I do not believe the image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC and should be deleted. If a game simply has a soundtrack cover I do not believe it significantly contributes to the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
As with the album 'Licensing' statement, I shared above. An image of a video game's soundtrack does meet all these qualifications.


1a. Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect? No, free version has been

1b. Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" No it illustrates the separate nature of the soundtrack/audio from the gameplay and adds 'significant' coverage of the what is being described to the reader.


2. It isn't a poster and the image doesn't replace its original market role.

3a. There is no other image of the game's audio or sound track, that illustrates that feature of the game.

3b. An image of the album is a small portion of its work.

4. The album was published by Nintendo or the producer of the soundtrack

5. Images provides contextual significance.

6. image meets 'Licensing' statement, see above where I posted complete licensing for album.

7. It does not appear on any other page.

8. Presence does significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

9. It in an article discussing the game it is a part of.

10a. Source, artist, publisher and copyright and information about the album are part of the article and 'Licensing' statement, on the description page.

10b. Images do have 'image copyright tags'.

10c. Fair use is claimed for the item, and meets all the 'Licensing' statement.

As with any information on Wikipedia the soundtrack and information about the audio contained on it should be referenced. (Floppydog66 (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC))

Indeed, though I could see it not applying where the soundtrack cover is basically the same as the game cover. This isn't as often as a couple people above imply it is, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
But it does "significantly aid in the reader's understanding of the soundtrack" as much as the game's cover does for the game. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
So far there hasn't been one argument put forth as to how it doesn't meet #8. The album itself is discussed, the contents of the album are discussed, and the audio was produced to be released on a soundtrack which most video games don't have. Which means they actually put some effort into the the music and audio as a stand alone feature rather then most games that had the one minute looped, repetitive music of earlier games.(Floppydog66 (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC))
The cover is not important because the soundtrack is discussed as an aside. The topic, as discussed in #8, is the video game, not the soundtrack. If we really wanted to depict the soundtrack, we would use an audio file that depicts a specific song - which would be far more likely to be discussed than the soundtrack. Most discussions of the soundtrack, that I can see, are of its contents - but not in the context OF the soundtrack. You're applying synthesis here, and so is the audio section. They aren't discussing the product - that is, the soundtrack - they are discussing the quality of the music in the game. The content should be split into the development and reception sections, no doubt. The first soundtrack cover was redundant, meaning that it is simple to understand what it is; the second soundtrack cover is Japanese, meaning that there is little chance that readers will be aided by this through identification purposes. Before you argue about Japanese covers in Japan-only video game articles, the difference lies in the fact that the Japan-only video game is the primary subject of the article, while this soundtrack cover depicts a secondary subject. Additionally, the cover is all text, meaning that its visual impact is minimal. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Your argument is invalid. Especially the part about 'Japan only'. Many games have soundtracks released outside of Japan. Why are you getting into specifics anyway? And what's this "first one" "second one" business? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A key factor before even considering if we should include the soundtrack cover when the soundtrack is on the same page as the game itself is to ask if the soundtrack would pass notability requirements to get a separate article. For many video game soundtracks, this is not true; yes, the soundtrack is released as a purchasable album, and we can list the tracks, but there's usually little discussion about the music composition or the reception of the soundtrack itself - or if there is, this is usually talked about in context of the game and not the standalone soundtrack. If we wouldn't have a standalone article, then the soundtrack itself is not being discussed sufficiently to warrant the allowance of cover art that is given per WP:NFCI#1. (Note that you don't have to give the soundtrack a separate article if it is notable, if you feel it is better to include the soundtrack within the game's article).
Once you get to that point, the question to then ask is if the cover art is sufficiently different from the game's cover to necessitate a separate image to show the marketing/branding of the soundtrack per the WP:NFCI#1 allowance. Not a video game, but a case I am contesting right now is Megamind (at least, as of this revision where the soundtrack cover is clearly obvious from the movie poster cover, so if the soundtrack were notable and covered in the movie article, its image would be redundant. That's there to meet WP:NFCC#3a on minimal use and NFCC#1 free replacement. This happens often with game covers (all 3 Gears of War soundtracks are near-identical to the game cover), so more often than not we'd not include the cover. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, to comment on NFCC#8. It is generally accepted that without any discussion of the cover image itself, most cover art would otherwise fail NFCC#8 because one can still read about the published work without seeing the art. However, through a recent RFC, the use of a cover art in conjunction with the published work it represents is generally considered acceptable because when used as the identifying image for that work, it implicitly shows marketing and branding for the work, in lieu of any further discussion that could be made about the image. This is why we don't typically allow for alternate covers to be used unless they themselves become the subject of sourced discussion in the article (Ico, Okami, the Simpsons game from 2010). Otherwise, the additional covers are purely decorative and fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Melodia: The game cover art does meet criteria #8 based on its interpretation as WP:NFCI #1 and subsequent community discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Which is exactly my point. The soundtrack cover meets it for the exact same reason the game cover does. Just because it's shoehorned into the page with the game /for utility's sake/ doesn't make that fact any different. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I know of no consensus supporting that argument, and I do not agree with it. I consider an article on a video game to be about that game, and I do not think the notability of the soundtrack should have any bearing on whether or not the cover art is included. My belief is that unless the artwork is discussed in the article, it does not meet WP:NFCC #8. Regardless of notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
@Floppydog: The argument must be made that it does meet criteria #8, not that it doesn't. When you consider #8, without any commentary on the artwork itself, I don't believe the image significantly adds to the reader's understanding of the video game as the picture of the cover art is somewhat like trivia. The whole reason we don't want extra non-free content everywhere is from the 3rd pillar of WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." Wikipedia aims to offer free content, and having extra bits of non-free content that aren't critically discussed in the article is against that aim. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches which discusses the criteria with examples, a perfect one being Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. Here the image significantly adds to the reader's understanding of the topic and thus the image meets criteria #8. Extra cover art added to an article must be shown to also meet criteria #8, and just existing does not meet that criteria. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
@Odie5533 Honestly, "The argument must be made that it does meet criteria #8" you don't read other peoples comments do you?
The 'audio and music and soundtrack' of the game do significantly add to the reader's understanding of the game. That's why there is a section about them in the article, if they weren't, there wouldn't be any need to mention audio or music at all. As 'New Age Retro Hippie' said the soundtrack is 'significant due to its audio', and thus to the game as a whole. As stated above it should have references and have contextual significants, at least five should be about the album itself, while the remaining should be about the music and the content of the album and game itself. As with other information about a game it should be reviewed in that section, where it discusses that feature of the game. The 'Reception' sections are mostly redundant in these articles, there is a 'Gameplay' section, where the gameplay is described, and then down in the reception section they are redescribing the gameplay all over again, such information should be "integrated into the article text" according to Wikipedia policies. (Floppydog66 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC))
Five? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, there's no number of required sourced for this. We need "significant coverage" and whatever sources it takes to show that is the minimum number, which will be different for every game. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC on soundtrack covers in video game articles

I've started an RFC here on the use of non-free soundtrack covers in articles on the video game that they represent, among other cases. Input would be helpful here. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Another source in question

i've seen this site pop up a few times, wondered if it can be used as a reliable source. [16]. It looks like any other news site and ive been looking for info on this one article and this site seems to have some coverage on it, but i wanted to check if it was truly reliable.Lucia Black (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please ask reliability questions at WT:VG/S. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Defunct archived websites update

I expanded Defunct archived websites with a few more sites, and created a subpage for DailyRadar which lists over a two thousand archive links to articles that were hosted on Daily Radar. All of the titles are searchable from the box on the main reference library page. This is a reminder about the reference library's existence and also to encourage people to add to the defunct archived websites page or subpages. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! That's a ton of links there, and a lot of N64 games with reviews. --PresN 08:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Command & Conquer collaboration

I wanted to see if anyone would be interested in helping me bring Command & Conquer (1995 video game) to GA status. In particular, one or more people familiar with the game would be great: I have never played it, nor have I read much about it. I'm not sure I'd be able to do it justice on my own. The reason I ask is that Command & Conquer one of the few remaining articles that needs to reach GA in order for the "Looking Glass Studios video games" Good Topic to be possible. They developed the N64 port, which isn't notable enough for its own article; and so the original game's article has to reach GA instead. The article isn't in terrible shape as it is, so it shouldn't be too much work. I'd really appreciate a hand, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Whew, I haven't played the original C&C in fifteen years. I'll try to chip in some work, maybe dust off an old copy and give it a spin. For research purposes, of course. —Torchiest talkedits 02:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Anyone else want to give us a hand? It's a big subject—more hands make it a lot easier. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Count me in. The original C&C was great (although Red Alert was better). I find it funny that the obscure N64 port is what started this collaboration. –Mabeenot (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Great—just jump in whenever you can. I'm doing some work on the Development section right now, expanding on what Niemti got in there during his recent edits. And I agree that it's ridiculous, but c'est la vie. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Requests for improving Wikipedia and our WikiProject

I am making several requests to the video games WikiProject. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Creation of Battlefield task force

Call of Duty has its own task force. And, there are many Battlefield contributors out there, especially me. With that being said, I am proposing the creation of the Battlefield task force. If you are a Battlefield contributor, please leave your message of support, starting with "Support." with the period. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

COD task force has 2 listed participants. Frankly, if it doesn't pick up pace we'll probably defunct it. What makes you sure Battlefield task force will fare that much better? As far as I can tell COD franchise is bigger than BF franchise. Of course, let's see how many BF editors want this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the project, but I am tentatively against this idea. I think it's spreading our editors too thin. I wouldn't mind seeing more BF discussions on this talk page. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the two above. From what I've gathered, many WikiProjects have a hard time sustaining activity, let alone small-scope Task Forces like this. (We're probably luck WP:VG stays as active as it does.) That being said, it certainly a good idea to keep gathering support, and putting up ideas/projects for things to do, at other places, like here, or various Battlefield talk pages. I have noticed that there are some video game series, like Battlefield, that even though they're extremely mainstream and popular, they're still not in the best of shape. The same goes for the Skylanders games, very popular series, but pretty terrible articles. So I do understand your general concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Help move Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes out of 'stub' status

Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes needs to have more information, and I can't do it alone. You can help! If there are any contributors to the spoken article, or anyone that plays that game, reply to this and message me to set up a teamwork operation. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a really short article right now. If it can be expanded five-fold, you could nominate it for a WP:DYK. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Help move Battlefield Play4Free out of 'stub' status

Battlefield Play4Free needs to have more information, and I can't do it alone. You can help! If there are any contributors to the spoken article, or anyone that plays that game, reply to this and message me to set up a teamwork operation. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't really a stub. I changed the class to Start. The main thing the article needs is copy editing to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Also, just so you know, we do have over 15,000 video game stubs. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • First off, its good to see someone asking for improvements on our project that would benefit it in any way. However, with a title like "Requests for improving Wikipedia and our WikiProject", I would've expected ideas for a reform. Not request a Task Force and asking for assessments that could be taken care of here. GamerPro64 15:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
He's not asking for assessments but rather for people to collaborate with him on articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I do agree that the section title lead me to believe this was going to be a different sort of discussion. However, I don't think we should complain too much here, I'm just happy they managed find WP:VG at all. Also, I don't think many new people stumble upon those more obscure sub-pages of the project right off the bat... Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That makes sense. I'll retract my assessment statement. GamerPro64 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

H-game: Atlach-Nacha

I could use some assistance regarding video game(s) mentioned on a (non-VG related) article that I'm working on. I can't clarify something that I don't understand myself. The article refers to an "H-game: Atlach-Nacha", as well as a "Visual novel" of the same name. My first question: Are these one and the same? Second: What is an H-game? Same thing as a "eroge" or "hentai"? Is this/these game(s) notable enough for a mention - does anybody know of a source to cite? ~Thanks for your attention on this matter, ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If it redirects to Eroge, then yes. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
When referring to a 'Visual novel' and an 'H-game' of the same name, would that be simply 2 ways of describing the same thing? ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. Visual novel just means that the game is mainly a story being told to the player, where they may have input at key decision points but it's somewhere between a novel with pretty pictures and a "choose your own adventure" story (with pretty pictures). H-game, on the other hand, means that the content is erotic in nature (on a scale from titillating to pornographic). They don't mean the same thing, obviously, but a lot (most? almost all?) H-games are visual novels, since they're cheaper to make than a game that's interactive nonstop. In this case, a little research tells me that Atlach-Nacha is both an H-game and a visual novel. It also tells me that this is a rather obscure game, and perhaps not worth a mention in the specific article you're working on, given the vast sea of spider-related things out there in the world that you're not remarking upon. --PresN 08:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with PresN on the notability/relevance of the game, although I will admit sexual depictions are an important part of cultural analysis and if you analyse "Cultural depictions of spiders", this H-game must be one of the rare instances depicting clear spider-human sexual relations... Salvidrim! 08:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

~Thanks for clarifying things - this helps a lot. I'll have to think about whether keep this in. Although apparently not notable, it does add something modern and unique - in a "cultural" sense. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek: Klingon Academy article

An editor seems determined to keep information about how the game is unplayable on modern machines and how to fix it. I've linked him to WP:NOT#GUIDE, but he's still reverting. Eik Corell (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

End of the year backlog

In the hopes that the holiday season can help decrease the project's backlog, here's what needs to be reviewed:

Featured Content:

A-Class candidates: Most of them are from the God of War (series) and have been up since September. The other one is Thief: The Dark Project, which was nominated by Niemti, even though he wasn't the main contributor to the article. They can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests

Good Article Nominations: We currently have 34 up for GAN, which can be found here. The reviewers for Mai Shiranui and Dead or Alive 5 are both asking for a second opinion or to finish their review.

So if anyone's willing to lend a helping hand, that would be much appreciated. GamerPro64 15:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am reviewing John Madden Football '93 and plan on reviewing at least 2-3 more articles, but only if someone reviews one of my two nominations. --Teancum (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

Can any experienced editors please fix World_of_Warcraft#Security_concerns, I tried fixing it but was reverted. Large proportions of it do not meet core policies. I break them down at Talk:World_of_Warcraft/Archive_19#Security_concerns_section_fails. They violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR.--Barbwrecker (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR: I would disagree.
WP:NPOV: Not exactly. WP:WEIGHT might be a concerning question. --Izno (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You need to make a new post on the talk page not in the archive. Some of the stuff doesn't seem relevant to Security concerns and should be moved to another section. But saying that these problems could happen to any video game, while true, is beside the point. Reliable sources are talking about security concerns for WoW, so we should cover it. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment at List of Call of Duty characters article

Hello, I have started an RfC here to discuss whether the List of Call of Duty characters should have the KIA/MIA markers or they should be removed. Please give your thoughts. Thanks! Some guy (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A similar issue is apparent over at List of Assassin's Creed characters, with misused {{KIA}} markers and the ridiculous application of {{flagicon}}. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the two articles inspired similar practice on the other. While in its current state the Assassin's Creed article is rubbish in respect of WP:INUNIVERSE anyway, any decision made in relation to the above RfC should also apply there. I took an executive decision given the direction of the RfC and removed the offending templates once, though its predictably been partially reverted already. Others to keep an eye on that article would be appreciated, given my general lack of activity these days. -- Sabre (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wii U and Wii backwards compatability discussion

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wii_U#the_section_on_wii_compatibility_should_be_extended

I'd like some input on this information regarding the Wii U and if it upscales original Wii games. I'm not into all of the tech jargon stuff (Most of my gaming takes place on a 3DS or a PSP, so it doesn't usually affect me), but I jumped in because of all the sources I had seen about it in passing. Well, conflicting sources have been presented now, and all I really know on the stuff is what the sources tell me, so I was wondering if I could get another set of eyes. (Also, if the truth is "somewhere in the middle", we may need help with someone describing this accurately too I suppose.) Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If sources conflict, I would not mention it at all unless an overwhelming majority of sources point to one option. 98.194.143.132 (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think omitting it altogether is the answer. That will just lead to either edit warring, or people just adding one side of the story. If anything, I'd lean towards presenting both sides, if there's truth to both. But I don't know tech jargon enough to do it accurately. This, why I'm here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It is actually not that the sources are conflicting, in that they both point out that games aren't being rendered in any higher detail than the original 480p, but just employs a renderer that ups the resolution 1080p with some intelligence smoothing to make it look less blocky. The issue is that some call this "upscaling", some don't, and that's because the term is not well defined in the industry. It would be best to try to avoid that term and explain what is happening, or if the term is unavoidable, use the most reliable source to say that is the case but explain what it actually does; if Nintendo, for example, calls it upscaling, then it makes sense to quote them for the word even if it is not what 90% of everyone else uses. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
From what I've gathered, Nintendo doesn't consider it upscaling. Sources have quoted high level Nintendo executives saying flat out, it doesn't. (And I tend to side with them, because, well, if it were widely considered true, it seems like they'd be using it as a selling point.) It's these tech websites, like Eurogamer's "Digital Foundry" or Computer and Video Games, that are saying to the contrary. (The respective sources are at the link I first posted.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Then I would definitely not outright call it "upscaling", and try to describe around it to the exact nature which all sources agree on. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

IP-hopper following me around reverting my edits to video-game articles

I made an entry further up about the Star Trek: Klingon Academy article. After the editor didn't respond on the talk page, they disappeared, but now an old Nemesis, so to speak, has reappeared[17] and restarted their vendetta against me. In the previous link, search for "rv v". This is how they exclusively communicate -- Misleading edit summaries. I took this to WP:AN/I, who referred me to WP:RFPP. There, it was in turn denied because it was a content dispute. Honestly it's like banging my head against a wall because what I write is ignored, like this not actually being a content dispute because this is an IP-hopper who is following me around doing this. Eik Corell (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a reply on the talk page of the article. Unless another editor joins the conversation, it's not a content dispute because they aren't discussing it; it's simply disruptive behavior. I added the page to my watchlist as well. In the future, please be careful about engaging in edit wars. You must seeks consensus on the talk page, not just revert things. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Bootlegs of Keitai Denjū Telefang

Hey. Are the specifics about the changes made in the bootlegs of Keitai Denjū Telefang notable enough to be in the article? These false games are notable enough to be mentioned (and they are mentioned already). But I don't see these specifics as being notable since these games are not official. My idea is to summarize the changes by merely stating that the names of characters are changed, some features are broken and many bugs and/or glitches are present. Would it be OK for me to do it? Thanks. 85.246.176.112 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the entire section on the article with reliable sources. If you feel like expanding it, you could check the kotaku and blog source and pull more information from it, though I've nearly picked it clean. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice job! I'll look at the sources and expand it if appropriate. Thanks once more. 85.240.139.72 (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Steam Games Cat

Category:Steam games This showed up last night and seems to me to be bordering on advertising. Its not SteamWorks games or similar and instead is just a list of games Steam sells. Surely not relevant? Adycarter (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This page contains video games available via Valve Corporation's Steam service. So it'll be okay to go ahead and create an "Amazon games" category? Яehevkor ✉ 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Granted Steam is the biggest online retailer, but they are still a retailer, so it seems inappropriate to list their store contents. Then again it seems to pass WP:LISTN and we have lists like List of Steam games or List of OnLive video games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I doesn't indicate which country they are available in. Steam regularly limits availablility of content to certain regions usually at publisher request. e.g. Skyrim was not available to UK Steam users for quite a while after launch, Far Cry 3 will be the same this week. - X201 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Remove cat -- It's a WP:GOODFAITH edit, but in the end it's a storefront. If Steam were it's own OS that would be different. --Teancum (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for CFD. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Followup: List of Steam games for deletion?

I've been thinking about this for a while and I think that the various List of Steam games (that's split across about 8 lists) is also a problem, in that we are basically being a catalog for a vendor here.

Note that lists of games on a platform is fine, so a List of Microsoft Windows games should be acceptable. Further, a list of games that are enabled by Steamworks is completely reasonable. But listing out all the games on Steam without any other metric is basically a violation of WP:NOT#CATALOG.

I want to be clear that I believe this is different from something like List of Xbox Live Arcade games. While this too is a storefront and we are basically listing its full contents, at the same time XBLA games have to have certain hooks ala Steamworks and are only available (for the Xbox) from XBLA. So the list is more instead a list of all games for the XBLA platform, rather than just a catalog.

I want to get a feel of others opinions on this before nominating those pages for AFD. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I hadn't been keeping up with the CfD discussion, but checked before reading this and my first thought was "those lists have to go". The list of games requiring steam authentication is a little different. I wonder if it would be better as a category? —Torchiest talkedits 14:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure to follow what is the problem here. Is it because all games come from the same vendor? We have many lists of brands by vendor, so that shouldn't be a problem. In order for this to breach WP:NOT#CATALOG it should include prices for the games, but it's just a navigation list to content that is available somewhere at Wikipedia or is being asked to be created (the redlinks). What makes this list radically different from the rest? Diego (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Just because we dont have prices doesn't change the fact that it is basically a catalog for a storefront. Recently we deleted numerous lists of television channels that were organized into lists of "by provider"; there were no prices, but they were still considered commercial directories. That's what I see this here. The distinction of "list of games on platform" or "list of games supporting specific API feature" is on the otherhand more encyclopedia; the former has no commercial interest in mind, the latter is about a feature and not so much the commercial nature of that. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the best comparison I can make would be the same reason we don't want a list of video games available from Amazon. Wait, we don't have a list of Amazon games, do we? No, only a List of Amazon parrots. I got worried for a moment there and went and checked. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
An additional point to Diego's comment is that List of Steam games is not a "List of (products) by Vendor" at as those are set up, as every product there is made by the vendor in question (the equivalent here would be List of Valve Corporation games) Because Steam sells Valve's own and other third party games, the full list is more a catalog than a list of products. Going "up" to include all Windows (MacOSX/Linux) games, or "down" to include games with specific feature sets (games supporting the Steamworks API - eg require Steam to run), is fine, it takes out the catalog nature. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated the bblock for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Steam games (2nd nomination); I do note that the previous deletion discussion was 2008, but that was also when Steam was in its proverbial infancy. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of XBLA games, Template:XBLA Summer of Arcade was nominated for deletion. Should it be successfully deleted, do we want to keep a category of the same, or would that be too trivial? --Izno (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Final Fantasy TFA for December 18

Un-nominated but chosen anyway, Final Fantasy is the TFA for December 18. It last had a formal FA review in 2009, so it likely needs some brushing up on prose at least- article history shows it hasn't exactly been static for three years, regardless of standards shifting, and most of the people involved in its 2007 FA-ing and 2009 review are semi-retired at least. --PresN 22:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII trilogy question

This may come up at a later date, since one of the games has yet to be released. Now that the world and locations of Final Fantasy XIII (Gran Pulse, Cocoon, Valhalla, Novus Partus) have three games and a lot of rough detail to their credit, should there be come kind of article about the world itself, not just about the characters and the games (like the articles for Gaia and Ivalice. I don't count Spira as that article seems to need at least a clean-up)? This need not be put into effect, if at all, until Lightning Returns is released. But I feel that there aught to be a kind of preliminary hearing as to whether the article would be suitable or just liable to become something like List of Prince of Persia characters or Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu: an all-too obvious target for few references and over-inclusion of detail. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to ask how much attention has been given to the worlds (and even a better topic, the overall mythos of the FF13) to consider if it could use its own article. Typically locations in video games rarely get significant coverage, and if it just ends up being all primary source material, it will likely be deleted (Lists of characters sourced only to primary are generally more tolerated only because characters always drive the story, whereas the world, not so much). If you can find one or more of the locations notable , that would be good start to making a "list of locations in FF13" article to account for them all. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe, thinking about it, it would probably better to just expand the "There are several worlds..." paragraph (with adequate normal and quote references) in this section into its own subsection. That would avoid the hassle of getting a whole new article out there and there would still be a section on the world's locations (and even the locations in the overall mythos). This solution is also supported by the fact that the mythos of the FF13 games is the same as in a couple of other games, and that they all, in a sense, are part of a Final Fantasy subseries. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I have put something of the sort in the Fabula Nova Crystallis section tonight. Could people tell me what everyone thinks of it, and any suggestions for improving it in a positive way? (and in possible defense of the image, the Gaia and Ivalice articles have such images. Why not a similar picture in a section about the worlds of the series?) --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with expanding the Fabula Nova section rather than creating a new article off the cuff- they generally can't support themselves. Ivalice is alright, but Gaia is one stiff breeze from getting merged to FF7, just like the other games over the years. Back in the day I tried to OCR and translate some of the Ultimania for FF13, which may be helpful for you- Talk:Final_Fantasy_XIII/Ultimania_translations - there's a bunch of typos as they weren't great scans, so it comes out as a lot of gibberish in Google translate sometimes, but it may be helpful. Also! We have a Square Enix wikiproject; feel free to drop by sometime. --PresN 20:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dark Souls

I kind of want to take Dark Souls to GAN at some point. It seems pretty complete. Any pointers? I've plenty experience with the process at this point, but not in this particular subject matter. ResMar 02:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick scan shows at least three major problems: you need a more comprehensive lead to summarize the article (particularly what the gameplay and plot are like, and the reception); the gameplay section needs to have references, and you really really need a development section, which should be entirely possible with this title being a sequel. It may not be as fleshed out as other games, since it was developed in Japan, but I'm pretty confident there was discussion of the design philosphopy for the game, in addition to other details like that. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ay, I'll put it on my to do. ResMar 03:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't usually deal with images, so I don't know if it's a requirement or not, but usually there's an image or two depicting the game as well... Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Aye, at least one screenshot that is either very representative of the general gameplay or that displays a unique, well-cited aspect of the game are used; sometimes both. Salvidrim! 03:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"YOU DIED" would do that :) --MASEM (t) 04:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Haha, okay, that was funny. —Torchiest talkedits 04:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I can see the rationale there hehe. ResMar 23:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Some images would be nice. You could probably add references to certain points in the gameplay sections. There is no development section, you could write up about that if there are enough sources of information; only PC development is mentioned in the Dark_Souls#PC_version section. Maybe some information on the release, promotion, announcements and reveals for the game if there is any sources for this. Also there is no mentioned of the limited edition version of the game which comes with additional content including a soundtrack. The1337gamer (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality scale update round 2

I asked a few weeks ago about updating the Quality Scale. I didn't get any responses, so I am trying again. I'd like to add to the page that the following articles would be considered Start-Class. Please let me know if you agree or disagree that they are Start-Class.

Start-Class criteria (emphasis added):

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

  1. Fire King (video game) - usable amount of good content. I think this article requires expansion to reach C-Class.
  2. Fire and Ice (video game) - Requires expansion and more citations for C-Class.
  3. Final Blow - Requires expansion and citations for C-Class.
  4. Firetrack - Requires citations for C-Class
  5. Fish'em All - Requires expansion and citations for C-Class
  6. Flushed Away (video game) - Requires expansion for C-Class
  7. Flood (video game) - Requires citations for C-Class
  8. Floigan Bros. - Requires expansion for C-Class

I think this one is at the weak end, but would be considered C-Class:

  1. Flight Control (video game)- "substantial, but is still missing important content"

I think this one should be added to showcase a great stub:

  1. Fly! - "A very basic description of the topic." Requires expansion for Start-Class to have a "usable amount of good content"

--Odie5533 (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I think I would consider all of the games on that list of eight to be stubs, personally. They're very short, thus failing the "usable amount of material" guideline, and mostly lacking in references. The Flood article looks heftier at first glance, but it's actually loaded with cruft that needs to be cut. The Flight Control article might still be start class, because it's still quite short and doesn't have all that many references, if you consider that half of the references are just for release dates and operating systems, and the development section is just two unreferenced sentences. —Torchiest talkedits 14:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:STUB states that stubs usually contain "only one or a few sentences of text". Most of the ones I listed have all the major sections of a video game article covered. Could you find an article you consider start class and explain why it is start but the ones I listed are not? --Odie5533 (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Farther down the stub page, it says, "Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a couple of paragraphs long." The first article, Fire King, only has two references and is missing both gameplay and development sections. Like I said, the Flight Control looks like a good example of a start class article to me. But maybe I'm being too strict. —Torchiest talkedits 15:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For Fire King, even C-Class articles can be "missing important content" and Start-Class articles are supposed to be lacking "adequate reliable sources". I think you are being too strict, but maybe being strict is the norm. I am bringing this up here because I am not really sure and would like to form a consensus on this. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Video game plot citation discussion

Your input would be welcome at WT:VG/GL#Unusable plot summary referencing. --Izno (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights 2

Could someone please check this series of edits? This is a Good Article, so we need to make sure to maintain quality. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I worked over the text a bit and it is now a small paragraph in the release section. Kinda sad what happened. GameSpy had been offering free services for years for all the old online games, but the new owners decided to cut the charity. The publishers have long since abandoned the games, so there's no one left to pay the fees that Glu/GameSpy is now demanding. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There are more edits, and discussion on the talk page. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ben Kuchera's editorial about game journalism

Normally I wouldn't feel a need to simply post an article I read here for the project... But it touches something pretty relevant to our focus. [18] discusses the widespread use of 'rewriting' in gaming journalism. It's worth a read, and as you look for sources for your articles, keeping some of these points in mind could help us have better articles. We should strive to try to dig to the original reporting source.

I can think of several cases where I've seen an unreliable source sneak in because a reliable source picked up and carried their quote. I.e. Kotaku reporting that "Site xyz claims that..." Ben points out a case where CVG and Xbox Magazine both carried news of Mass Effect 4, but when you dug back to the original report at GamerSyndrome, the interview had been pulled as unofficial/unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This would make a great article to analyze for the VG Newsletter. The article argues for better attribution, giving credit to the source that originally reported the news item. Perhaps we could try to do this as well. I usually end up citing multiple sources for a single news item since they each sprinkle little facts in. I think it would be best to start research with a retrospective or at least a lengthy analysis before digging back to the original reporting so that we don't end up with too many references just repeating information. One problem he doesn't discuss is many news reports that get cycled are originally just thinly edited press releases. I guess this isn't seen as an issue. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking that with articles like this, there's enough for an encyclopic article on "Controversies in video game journalism" or a sction in the current video game journalism, which can include that, the whole Eurogamer/Doritoes thing, Gamespot/Gerstman and the formation of Giant Bomb, etc. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I just learned more about video game journalism than I ever knew before. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
An Forbes article about video game journalism, it was written following the Doritos/Eurogamer thing and also mentions Gamespot/Gernstann thing and other stuff: [19]. The1337gamer (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a controversy article, because those tend to become piles of dreck and fact flotsam. Any content about the Doritos thing, Gerstmann, et al belongs (as far as its proper weighting) in the parent video game journalism article; this is, for better or worse, the way games journalism is, and how things like reviews are done, that to segregate it to its own page is doing everyone a disservice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

At the time I wrote teh above comment, I didn't know how big the current video game journalism article was, but it is clearly small enough to include the few notable controversies, and yes, no need for a seperate article. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Fuchs is right,we don't need a controversy article,maybe a selection would do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.177.48 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion needed on Talk:Taki (Soulcalibur)/GA2 and User:Niemti's GAs

I've been working through the GA review for Taki (Soulcalibur); it needed a serious prose overhaul which I've started on, but I'd appreciate another set of eyes.

More problematic is I just realized Taki is one of literally dozens of GA reviews for fighting game characters nom'd by User:Niemti, and I'm going to hazard a guess they all suffer from the same issues as Taki. Given that the user has said English is not his best language I don't see how any of these can reach GA without serious outside help. In the meantime 25 out of the 36 backlogged GA reviews in our category are his. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He refuses to either slow down with the nominations, or improve the quality before nomination, and is typically very difficult to work with, so I personally have no interest in assisting in this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been having problems with reviewing one of Niemti's article too. I have no idea if I should fail Tyrant (Resident Evil) or not since I'm not sure if the article meets 3a in the criteria. But I don't know if I want to ask for a second opinion. GamerPro64 15:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look at Tyrant if you take a look at Taki? Beyond finishing off the reviews of his that we've started, I think a suggestion that he withdraw the majority of them and focus on only one or two in the queue would be in order. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Asking him to just focus on one article and not putting a shovelful to GAN might make things easier in the future. I'll start looking at Taki. GamerPro64 15:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with both of your approach, it's what I'd do as well, I'm pretty certain last time it was suggested he slow down, his response was something along the lines of "No, and I've got lots more coming"...(Just checked. Yup. Right here, it was his first response.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be best not to open old wounds. But at the same time, some of the articles don't meet the criteria and he justs brings them back to GAN. If we explain the idea carefully, all may turn up swell. GamerPro64 16:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to close the GANs I unwittingly stumbled into, and I'm going to have a word with the user to see if I can impart our view of the issue. Beyond that, the simplest thing I can see doing is simply to ignore his other GANs. I'm going to clear out the next oldest noms when I have time. Beyond that, if he's not willing to put the effort into cleaning up articles properly before they are nominated we have no responsibility to do it for him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. What you've said is pretty much my exact stance last time around (and now). Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I get for not paying attention to WT:VG and missing this last month… truly, those who do not search the archives are doomed to repeat them! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a solution than benefits anyone: for everyone to just ignore his nominations. Probably part of the reason for the many nominations is so reviewers can pick an article that interests them. Niemti has stated that he is not the best copy-editor, so perhaps if the nomination was worked on at WP:GOCE before GAN, we would be able to work through the main issue of the nominations which seems to be the quality of the prose. I have made this recommendation to Niemti. If the articles are thoroughly copy-edited beforehand, then I hope the VG GAN reviewers might reconsider their position on the nominations. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your ideas, I also feel that we should also work on one GAN at a time and clear the GA backlog per the concerns by David Fuchs and simply focus on one article at a time, as we do not want to open old wounds and we are not ignoring all of Niemti's nominations. I am an experienced copyeditor, and as a member of the WP:GOCE, I can work on prose issues in any type of article, but I am still wary about the recent GANs, especially since Niemti can be very difficult to deal with for many users (including myself and Sergecross73). I think Niemti's GANs should get more help from outside users (including users of the VG project), as nobody owns the articles. The articles can undergo an extensive copyediting via the GOCE for prose, or at the very least, the articles may have to go through a peer review by other editors before nominating it for GAN. I should also mention that edit warring during a GAN can also lead to the article becoming unstable, and can result in a quickfail. However, Niemti can bring the failed GANs back when some of the articles do not satisfy the good article criteria, and we are concerned about this. If the GAN is unsuccessful, we should work on the prose and address the GAN concerns before we should nominating them again. Also, everyone should keep in mind that there is no deadline, as Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Without a good resolution, none of the GANs nominated by Niemti can reach GA. Meanwhile, GamerPro64 is going to take a look at the Taki article for a second opinion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I would like him to take the failed GAs to WP:GAR instead just to hear other opinions instead of making it harder for the project and its members to put up with the repeated relistings. GamerPro64 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, would one of you be kind enough to finish Dead or Alive 5's review... if not for Niemti, than for myself? I've been impossibly busy over the last two weeks and haven't been able to adequately fulfill my duties as reviewer. - Altava, 98.194.143.132 (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that so many of those nominations were by one guy. That's kind of disruptive. (Not that I have much room to complain—I put up four GANs in the last week and a half.) Maybe some of his worse nominations could be failed? It isn't the reviewer's problem if prose isn't up to par—that's the job of the nominator. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but the problem is he usually puts an article back up after it fails. And I mean immediately. With no changes to the article whatsoever. GamerPro64 17:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Well, that's the kind of action that warrants an ANI, in my view. The entire purpose of the GAN process is for high-quality articles to be recognized and low-quality articles to be sent back for improvements. Getting failed and then instantly renominating without changes is seriously bad form. I know an ANI would be kind of an extreme step—but if he can be reined in from his disruptive practices, I think he'd make a good Wikipedian. Plus, from what's already happened, it's clear that he isn't going to listen to informal methods of persuasion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
There was one like that here but there was no consensus. As well, there's still a Request for Comment on Niemti up as we speak. GamerPro64 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Reading that, I feel terrible for bridies. I didn't realize Niemti was that bad. The world (let alone Wikipedia) needs less people like him. With any luck, he'll be banned again soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I've just had my own troubles with his incivility and failure to cooperate. Is it possible for me to contribute to that RfC? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course. It's all the more really you should contribute, really... Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we should be very cautious about re-treading this ground. It was drawn out into a discussion that got nowhere. I began to become something of a negative talking point for the user in question. I'm just thankful it did not escalate into edit warring and that I can still work with him on articles like this (managing to get it into a presentable form after a few days work). So, whatever decision is reached, I don't really want to be involved. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me try this again: would one of you guys please be kind enough to take over my review for Dead or Alive 5? I will probably not have the time to finish it until January, and that's... a bit of a wait. Emmy Altava 01:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's funny; my interactions with him have been mild at best. I even had a pretty pleasant discussion about some of the images he had on a handful of articles, and we came to an agreement on certain images that left everyone (hopefully) satisfied. I guess I got lucky and didn't get him on a bad day?

Anyway, I'm tied up in real life for the next month so I too will have to ask someone take over Talk:Mai Shiranui/GA1; I wish I could, but I got interviews to deal with, and Christmas, and work, so it's all kind of hectic. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

lolok a bit of a problem there. :v On the /GA1, I'm trying to explain why we can't use someone's opinion just because they're popular and/or have a Wikipedia page. Maybe I'm doing a poor job, I dunno. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Just as a heads up, Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) is reviewing a GAN: Lemmings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

More problems with Niemti

Niemti has decided to disrupt the collaboration on Command & Conquer (1995 video game). After I removed some hugely unnecessary categories, he readded them with the summary "the whole point is to have many". He also overloaded the infobox with Mobygames-style credit listings, which I trimmed—and which he then reverted with the summary "if it was so, there would [sic] be the lines for programmers and artists at all". Could someone please put a leash on this guy? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and there's been plenty of discussion, but there haven't been any Admin take any action or anything. (I'm an Admin, but I'm WP:INVOLVED, so I personally can't take any sort of action here.) He was brought to WP:ANI, but there was no consensus in the end. The last I checked, there was an WP:RFC/U going on him, but it doesn't appear anything has come from that either, despite the consensus seeming to creep towards "some action should be taken" (The last time I checked at least - it's been a while now.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
It's still going by the look of it. I'm just a little worried that it won't go anywhere. I've certainly got a slightly mixed experience of him, and his habit of putting in dozens of little edits is more than a little annoying (when I try to make reasonably large edits unless it's a simple grammar correction or an incorrect word). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Can't we as a project do something to stop these disruptions? Like, enforcing sanctions without asking ANI? GamerPro64 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
We as a project could go to ANI and ask - again - for that with reasonable evidence to back it up, but we alone, even those of us that are admins, cannot actually put the block down without getting the wider response to do so. It would make it really easy for a small cabal to shut down another person without oversight. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the only thing we could really do as a group would be the throwing out of his poorly done GA-nominations, but I don't think we even have consensus on that, I mean, it looks like people keep on reviewing his stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I might have missed it, but where was Niemti invited to talk about editorial decisions on the talk page? He may be in the wrong for reverting the reversion, but that does not absolve anyone else from discussing on the talk page per normal procedure. If you want to collaborate, then first invite the other person to collaborate. --Izno (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I have tried this in my past encounter(s) with Niemti. It does not work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Then is not now. If you do not continue to attempt to at least talk to him, then you have no ground to stand on when he inevitably ends up at WP:AN/I going along on your track (and I will be quick to point it out then myself). When you put out the effort to communicate, and then he shows that he will not be cooperative, then you have a (rightful) place to stand on this point. In other words, you cannot know until you try (again). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Arguably, this is just off an ANI report on his behavior that closed a week ago, for exactly the same thing. Yes, consensus was not there to block him at that time, but the editor knows very well he's being scrutinized. Yes, he needs to be communicated to for this specific edits, but it is not like this is out of the blue. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
And I took that into account when I said as much. If he wants to act in a manner not in keeping with Wikipedia, fine with me. But he needs to be doing so after being warned that he is doing so for any complaint about his most recent activities to have merit. I can see that being a reason the ANI request did not go anywhere... He does good work, but I think he needs to be reminded to be collaborative. So someone should remind him, rather than coming here and complaining that he's not collaborating! Extend the olive branch, until such time that it is obvious that the user in question does not plan to take the branch. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree to a certain extent. As another editor said somewhere, keep your nose clean and follow all the protocols to simplify the question of where the problem lies. —Torchiest talkedits 04:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
If you guys want to try reasoning with him, that's fine by me. I've done that. Most of us in this project have done that. The result was an ANI in which Niemti made bizarre, insulting accusations of bad faith against User:bridies, one of WPVG's most respected editors. We were also led to a RfC, in which he graced us with this remark. The guy is, quite simpy, an anti-social punk. The fact that the three administrators (GamerPro, Masem and Serge) who've commented here say the exact same thing would give me pause if I was in your shoes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait. Me as an administrator? Now that's something more dangerous then the current situation. GamerPro64 04:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
But none-the-less, his point still stands if he subs in "experienced editor". I understand JimmyBlackwing; Niemti either just ignores people, or goes on incoherent rants, and neither one gets you anywhere. But Izno and the rest are correct too. There's two ways to do this right; either follow the rules to a T around him, or stay clear of him altogether. (I go back and forth on the two, personally.) Sergecross73 msg me 05:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry GamerPro—I could have sworn you were an admin. I guess I got confused by your being in charge of FTC. Oops. In any case, I would avoid Niemti, but the article he's invaded has to be finished if the LGS topic is to be completed. But reasoning with him doesn't work, as we all know. That's why I posted here: I just have no idea what else to do. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you and I can get it done it we stick with it and follow appprpriate talk page procedures. I'm trying to follow a 0RR on C&C now. Tourchiest (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope it works. I guess I'll just go back to editing and see what happens. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. Dot the Ts and cross the Is (wait...). Each time a T is dotted and an I crossed, and Niemti doesn't collaborate, take note (get the diff or series of diffs). Then when (if) it happens that Niemti continues to be disruptive, take your collected evidence and present it either at the RFC or a new ANI. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. He seems to upset virtually everyone in his path, and seems incapable or unwilling to change, so I imagine it's only a matter of time before he upsets the wrong person, or too many people. Alternatively, if he does get better, well then the problem would be solved that way too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll bump it back to three admins- I haven't interacted with him personally, but that's certainly how I would describe him from what I've seen. --PresN 06:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I reported the user at WP:ANEW. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This may sound like a roll-over-and-die solution, but I've simply decided to work on articles that he has no interest in. The primary reason is the same as other folks' experience, but it's also because, generally speaking, what he does improves the given articles. Some of his edits aren't in line with consensus, but he does expand and improve by at least sourcing claims from somewhere, even if dubiously reliable or totally unreliable. I'd rather he do what he will on a given article and I'll come back to it once he loses interest. --Teancum (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Those who can work with him can work with him, and those who can't can just tactfully avoid him until things quiet down and they can work on the article again. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
You know. Its hard to tell when he's lost interest in editing an article. Mainly because I noticed that he sometimes edits articles Jimmy works on. That kind of raises some flags of trolling for me. GamerPro64 23:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
That's not really solution. This is intended to be a collaborative encyclopedia, not one where certain people own different articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but what you propose we do now then? Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I still say we should try to have sanctions placed on him to get him off of Video Games articles. GamerPro64 15:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
But how? We seem to have been trying it for over a month now, and where has it got us? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he necessarily needs to stay off of Video Game articles, he does do good work when it's non-controversial edits, it's just that's he's incapable of cooperating with other's when they raise concerns, and he doesn't seem to have a clear cut understanding of when an article is at GA level or not. (It seems he takes a "let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks approach - something that bogs down the queue, and rubs people the wrong way, another example of him not working well with others.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay. But here's a question: Has anyone really talked to him about all of this on his talk page? I'm starting to think we're not trying everything out before going to an alternative. GamerPro64 15:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I know it was discussed at length when brought to ANI. But at that point, which the prospect of a block/ban, he seemed panicked beyond any sort of rational discussion, most of his responses were his trademark incoherent rants and absurd analogies. Same goes for his RFC/U. (I think he only responded once there, but it was the same kind of thing.) If you go through his talk page archives, you'll see all sorts of sections regarding incilivity, OWN issues, or ANI notifications. I'd find it pretty hard to believe if the issues are arising "because he doesn't know any better"... Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention that Niemti used the talk page as a forum (which is forbidden) on a drawn out, heated and pointless debate on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian (fortunately, I had to stay out of that debate and participate only when I felt like it). If you go to that page, you can see plenty of examples there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Can't all this information that we're cathering be enough evidence to have another ANI? I know a lot of us were not pleased with the last one. However, what's the worst thing to come from making another thread at ANI? GamerPro64 17:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The prospect of wasting time was the only reason I'm not really pursuing it personally, though I'd gladly help if you're not afraid of that. Also, at first I had thought that he was getting better, seems like we had gone a week without so much complaining about him, but his recent "get a new hobby" comment to Sjones was pretty out of line, and only a few days old, so I guess that's not really the case... Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that "get a new hobby" comment was pretty much what I believe to be incivil. I am willing to help as I am never afraid of anything. There was numerous incidents of major drama over at ANI and AN, almost all of which actually never led to a block. We do not want to waste too much time on this, but it is only a matter of time before Niemti's actions would result in yet another AN/ANI thread, and he is incapable of cooperating with others (myself included) when they raise concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Niemti is just like me and is just misunderstood a little.74.178.177.48 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Push on D-Pad Hero

Can I get a handful of editors who know the homebrew and/or music game scene to do some quick expansion on D-Pad Hero? I saved it from a PROD and sourced it as well as I could, but if a handful of other folks came in and did quick splash updates we could at least have one less stub. If anyone knows of sources I missed please add them, even if only on the talk page. I plan to come back to it later, but I know this got a bit of attention from the media so I thought it might be fun for the community to do some quick edits on. Nothing fancy, I don't think this'll ever get past a C, but I'd like to get it to Start class. --Teancum (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.74.178.177.48 (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "MMO"

After discussion on an IP editor's talk page, it's been brought to my attention that a number of the games we have listed on List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games and Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (and probably a number of other articles) don't meet the definition of "MMORPG" as found on Massively multiplayer online role-playing game. Games such as Soul of the Ultimate Nation, Vindictus, Phantasy Star Online 2, Dungeons and Dragons Online, White Knight Chronicles 1/2 (all suggested by User:96.42.44.251) feature lobbies with instanced dungeons (or other areas), not a true persistent world. Now they're all called "MMORPGS" by sources in their individual articles, so I'm wondering where we go from here. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think if reliable sources generally describe the subject as an MMO, it'd be a good idea to reflect that. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't think "true persistent world" is a requirement to be an MMO, most MMOs have instanced dungeons, AFAIK. - SudoGhost 06:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The industry uses a broad sense of "MMO" and I think it's fine for articles to reflect this. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Another issue could be that the MMO article itself is wrong or the definition has changed since the persistent world statement was placed there. Also, we should see if the persistent world statement is reliably sourced because if not it should be disregarded entirely. Personally, if there is a dispute between a reliable source and a Wikipedia article on whether a game is a MMO or not we should go with the reliable source and list game as such unless we can find a reliable source that specifically states otherwise.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
To be clear. it is my opinion that if reliable sources call a game a MMO and the only thing to contradict it is the Wikipedia article on MMO's it should not be removed from the list.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Massively multiplayer online games don't always have a persistent world. Some games allow hundreds of people or more at a time to just shoot each other at once, without the world being persistent. So it can be a massive multiplayer online game without needing persistence. Just have to be "massive multiplayer" which means hundreds of players, although that doesn't seem as massive as it once did, "online", and a "game". Dream Focus 23:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
MMO's?What in blazes does that mean,maybe something like MMOG, Massively Multiplayer Online Games?74.178.177.48 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have heard similar things with people saying that Guild Wars 2 is not exactly an MMO because its maps are separate from each other, linked by portals. I think MMO means different things for different people. Generally, Massive Multiplayer Online means that there is a massive amount of players playing the same game you are, at the same time, in the same game world. This basically excludes games where players are separated into small servers/rooms(less then 50 people in a map), and MOBAS are still multiplayer, but they aren't massively multiplayer. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    You are right friend,they aren't MM's.74.178.177.48 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Should The War Z be classified as an MMO? I understand that the game is advertised as an MMO, but advertising can be deceptive and the game's servers only hold a maximum of 50 players, which hardly massively multiplayer. The1337gamer (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So, to summarize: the criteria and definitions can be fuzzy, and it pretty much comes down to WP:V? I can live with that. Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much yes. It should be what reliable sources generally agree to what it is. (We recently had a similar issue when someone challenged if Bastion was an indie game given that it had funding and publishing support from WB, but >90% of the sources would call it indie, ergo it is indie). --MASEM (t) 17:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Conway's Game of Life

Do peeps think this article should come under the vg project also? Govvy (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't get a reply so I added it on the talk page! Another question, I asked Chuck Sommerville (he is a programmer, worked for Atari/Eypx) directly on facebook a question about why he added Life as an Easter Egg in the game Zarlor Mercenary I got a responce and posted it on my blog. I was wondering if I can reference it or not in a citation, or is that bad WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Generally, when a project takes a topic until its prerogative, we'd expect to make sure it adheres to standards for that project. In the case of Game of Life, I'm not really seeing how we can apply our video game guidelines to it; it's not so much a "game" as it is a demonstration of automata, and more a scientific curiosity than for entertainment. Yes, the concepts of the Game of Life reflect back to inspire video game elements and the like, but I'm just not seeing how us at the VG project can help that. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Conceptually that makes sense, but if it really is a zero-player game like the page says, I see a semantic arguement for inclusion. —Ost (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The blog response is original research because it isn't published in a reliable source. If the author had posted his answer on his Facebook wall, that could have been used as a reference. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
On a completely unrelated note, shouldn't Zarlor Mercenary be written in present tense? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I recall that the viruses in the NES game The Mutant Virus: Crisis in a Computer World multiply similar to the rules of Conway's Game of Life. To what extent, however, I don't know; I don't think many people at all has written about the specific game. --MuZemike 01:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

MK template

I changed it round a bit to be clearer, just wanted to check with the project if anything is missing. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And there's an ongoing discussion about this at Template talk:Mortal Kombat#layout is not clear enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
And it seems good old Niemti is involved. Facepalm Facepalm GamerPro64 17:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup, another week, another user complaining about Niemt for the same old things... Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
And amid the ongoing RFC, yet another discussion has been resolved. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about sources

There was a long-standing content dispute on the Unreal_(video_game) article about the inclusion of a user-made patch. Recently, it seems to have received coverage by Rock, Paper, Shotgun. There's no doubt as to the credentials of the short article's author, but the article mentions that they were contacted about it via email. Does this invalidate the source? My take is that it does, because such coverage did not come about naturally without canvassing from involved parties. I've seen this happen before on other pages, too; Following a dispute about including a patch or a mod or whatever in an article, a short article from a reliable source is quoted. Here's the article in question - [20] Eik Corell (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Old Man Murray was saved from AFD by a similar approach. As long as they are publishing via their normal editing, reliable process, it should be okay. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • News sources get ideas from many sources, including email tips, which they take into consideration when publishing content. If we consider the site reliable, and not discounted as an advertorial (which it is not), then I see no reason to think the information they wrote about the patch is not reliable. I'd also like to mention that reliability is different than notability. In some cases, it may be worth discussing fan-made patches even if they haven't been covered by secondary sources. Notability does not dictate content, and primary sources can, and often are, reliable for information about themselves. It is up to the consensus on each article to decide what content from reliable sources should be included, and I would often be in favor of including such information. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon

Currently, this article is a one of our Featured articles promoted pre-2007. I am trying to prepare an FAR for it but I can't put my finger on the exact problems the article has. I ask for another set of eyes to get their opinion on the page or if it even needs to be sent to FAR. GamerPro64 01:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There were a bunch of referencing problems, which I've fixed (using cite book for magazines, using work instead of publisher all over the place, inconsistent with how they cited IGN, missing parameters, etc.), and a few dead links that I've archived, but I'd say the issues that jump out at me are that the plot section is too long by 2 paragraphs or so and there are a few sources that aren't really reliable. --PresN 02:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I had a feeling there were reliability issues for the sources. Skipped on the Plot section due to it being long ironically. So with all that's been said, I guess a FAR should be in order. Thanks for your help Pres. GamerPro64 03:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the issues can be found here. GamerPro64 03:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

Holiday Cheer
Sjones23 is wishing all Project Video Games members Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Feel welcome to spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, someone with whom you had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions)
Thanks for the wishes and happy holidays to all; however I must say, that color scheme is quite... startling! :) Salvidrim! 06:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It's kinda straining my eyes, but it's probably because it's 10:20 pm right now in my hometown. =P ZappaOMati 06:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about that! I have made the background a dark red. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Sjones23. And the same to you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Snoopy and the Red Baron (video game)

Hi there. It'd be great if someone from this project could take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Snoopy and the Red Baron (video game). The sources don't appear reliable to me, but, perhaps they are considered trusted and reliable in the land of video games. Any input on the page for the review process would be brilliant (i.e. "accept" or "decline" :) ) Thank you so much! SarahStierch (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I only see one reference [21] that is reliable and in-depth. But that does not pass the WP:GNG bar. That said, here is another review. Technically, that passes WP:GNG with 2 sources, but it's not a lot to go on. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Humble Bundle

I nominated {{Humble Bundle}} for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 29. I think it relates to the previous Lists of Steam games and the Steam games category, so I figured I'd post it here to hopefully generate some discussion (TfD are usually rather dull). --Odie5533 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yosuke Hayashi

Also, just as a heads up: Yosuke Hayashi has been deleted following an AFD, citing no significant coverage of him in any reliable sources. No sources seem to actually talk about him directly. As such, it was deleted per WP:GNG. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

All the sources I can find are interviews with him about Team Ninja projects. Salvidrim! 04:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
When I did some extensive searching, I also could not find anything about the person, apart from the same interviews about the Team Ninja projects. Therefore, I think that he is not notable enough to be added. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Should Former Featured Articles be added to Former Good Article

I've been having problems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content as User:‎Mika1h and I are doing reverts on each others edits. The reason for that is Mika1h is adding articles that were demoted from FA status are being placed with the Delisted Good Articles section while I removing them explaining that once they are promoted to FA status, their GA status is removed, not delisted like from a GAR. Can someone straighten out this issue? GamerPro64 00:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If they were once GA and are now rated lower, they are a former GA. If they were once a FA and are now rated lower, they are a former FA. Neither is mutually exclusive or dependent on the other. If an article is a former GA and former FA it should be on both pages. If it reaches GA status again, it can be moved from former GA to current GA, but remains a former FA. Salvidrim! 00:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think we want current FAs listed in the Former Good articles section. I think that articles which are neither GA nor FA but used to be GA or FA or both should be listed in as many places as apply; articles which are current GA and former FA should be listed as former FA; and no other listings. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But the article gets it GA status taken away when they go to FA status. Does that mean you should say it was a former Good Article and at the same time placing it with delisted Good Articles? GamerPro64 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Former good content term implies that an article had a GA status at one time and it's now at a lower class. --Mika1h (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

False information in Hiroyuki Ito article

Hi, apparently the paragraph sourced from an IOS Gamer magazine is false and was made up by a notoriously biased person on GameFAQs. My source: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=503730 Can someone confirm that this is false and remove the paragraph? Thanks. Yoyo hitashi (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you believe there is false information added to a biography about a living person, such as Hiroyuki Ito, then you should immediately remove the information and move it to the talk page for discussion. In this case, the user that added the information, User:G-Zay, added other information to the article such as the interview at Tokyo Game Show 2012. I checked those facts against the reference, and it's verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. I see no reason to believe that the information on the interview for IOS Gamer was faked either by IOS Gamer or by User:G-Zay. Why do you think the information is false? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
From doing my own research, I find no evidence of "iOS Gamer" being an existing publication (German or otherwise), and searching with the alleged interview's title returns exclusively this very article. A germanized version of the title returns no result. Clearly something's amiss.... Salvidrim! 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Should probably be removed then, paper published articles can sometimes be hard to verify but if failing to verify the existence of the publication itself indicates something is amiss, it is a BLP after all. A previous version named the source as "iOS GameZone", which I am also having trouble finding. Яehevkor ✉ 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this is made up especially because the user has a history of creating rumors about Hiroyuki Ito and "Final Fantasy XV". Please see this post for example where he admitted one: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/619315-final-fantasy-xiii-2/63767653 . Yoyo hitashi (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoa. I am highly concerned that a user who admits to creating baseless rumours deliberately inserts outright misinformation in a BLP for the sole purpose of "creating firestorms" around said rumours. That seems like an extremely severe violation to me, one that could have rather damaging impacts on WMF. Salvidrim! 11:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unreal Engine 2

Hello,

I have troubles finding reliable sources that consider XIII (video game) featuring Unreal Engine 2. My question is, should the engine be referenced, and if not, is MobyGames acceptable in such cases? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"XIII marshals the power of Unreal™ II technology and unique comic-book visual styles." Source: Ubisoft game page. The1337gamer (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I must have missed that. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Two articles up for AFD

Resolved
 – Merged. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two articles up for AFD: Call of Cthulhu: Beyond the Mountains of Madness and Call of Cthulhu: Destiny's End. The discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Cthulhu: Destiny's End and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Cthulhu: Beyond the Mountains of Madness. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

They both closed as "Merge", FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

We would like to wish everyone here at WikiProject Video games a very Happy New Year! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, even though it's still 2012 in California right now! ZappaOMati 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year all-round. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dragons of Flame

I was looking at some of the reviews listed on the article Dragons of Flame (video game) and was pretty disappointed by the Sinclair User reviews. If you look at the three reviews listed under the References section - but which are not actually used as sources in the article yet - you'll find that... all three are linked to the same review instead of three separate reviews. Does anyone know where to find the other two reviews online? BOZ (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Creative URL manipulation allowed me to find scans of the other sources on the same website, here for the second and here for the first. You're welcome! :) Salvidrim! 06:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon's FAR

I have nominated Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 15:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Educational video game article

Can someone help the Educational video game article ? The article has a lot of issues: 1. Little references. 2. Original research. 3. Messed up citing. 4. The part about "popular educational videogames" does not have a way of defining popular, looks made up. 5. Looks like advertizing. 6. The "Evaluating video games' educational potential" section makes no sense whatsoever. 7. Bad writing in general.

I think that there is more than enough potential for it to be a great article, but it needs more attention. Can someone please improve the article? Thanks, Jucchan (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I worked it over a bit. It still needs a lot of help and especially needs some references. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN backlog

I think it's about time to mention the backlog we have for WP:GANs on the VG-related articles. As of January 2013, there are about 29 GANs. The oldest nomination we have so far is Leon S. Kennedy. If anyone is willing to help clear the backlog, please go ahead and review the GANs to see if they pass or fail. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that of the 29, 11 are non-Niemti nominations (if you care about that), which is still a respectably high number. 6 of those are not marked as being under review, with the oldest LoK Wiki's Kain (Legacy of Kain), which has been there since September. There's a couple others that have been there 1-2 months. --PresN 07:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I only count 5, not 6. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Avatar (Ultima)

Just so everyone is aware, there is a discussion going on at Talk:Avatar (Ultima) regarding the lead section's tagging of the Avatar (Ultima) article between two users (Dream Focus and Niemti). The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Avatar (Ultima)#tag up top complaining about the lead is longer than the lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am thinking about making the Sonic the Hedgehog series a Featured Topic, or at the very least, Good Topic. I plan to help work on the main Sonic games and get them up to at least Good Article status. Any input or thoughts about this idea would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The entire franchise is too large a topic. Focus on one aspect -- characters? Main series games? Other media? Salvidrim! 06:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we should focus on the main series articles first. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Best of luck on this. I maintain a lot of the Sonic related articles, but I mostly keep the WP:GAMECRUFT and other garbage off of them. For whatever reason, the fanbase has quite the obsession with adding useless trivia, speculation, fan theories, hoaxes, etc. It's usually enough work keeping them readable and correct, let alone something along the lines of "featured". (Also, be prepared to figure out which games qualify as "main" games, another argument that arises frequently.) Anyways, I'd recommend maybe just working on an article or two and seeing how that goes, and taking it from there, but you're of course free to do as you chose. I'll likely be assisting you a bunch either way. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I support.:) ~TM67~ 74.178.177.48 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Historically, you have been one of the worst offenders of random people from the fanbase adding all sorts of sloppy, irrelevant, "does-not-belong-on-Wikipedia"-type information to Sonic articles. (This is a long term, disruptive, IP-hopping editor - especially to Sonic articles - see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67) Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I told you I don't do fanbase shiz,Sonic Retro has source we could use nothing more,and whats up with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.177.48 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as you are de facto banned by the community, banned means banned. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not the same ip I was then and it was suggested that I was de facto banned by the community,but a user put in a good word for me.74.178.177.48 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oy, I strongly object to you parading around claiming I supported your return. After months of inactivity, I wasn't opposed to giving you a bit of rope in your return to editing in hopes that you may have grown up, but it seems you're very intent on tightening the noose around your own neck. Don't count on me to cut you some slack again. I don't particularly wish to engage in discussion with you, but don't take my lack of attention for passive approbation. Salvidrim! 06:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Salvidrim is more tired of of dealing with you than he is supporting you. I gave you a shot, thinking it may be easier to try to help you along rather than warning you all the time, but you never seem to change, so we're back to warnings. You are on extremely thin ice. I advise you to stop arguing here (this belongs on either of our talk pages, not WP:VG) and do something constructive. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Salv,you know I try,right?98.71.62.112 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
98.71.62.112, please do not waste our time here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Now to get back on topic, I am going to get Sonic Adventure, Sonic Colors, Sonic Generations Sonic Adventure 2, as well as the first four Sonic games to GA status first. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Its been a little bit, but a ways back I did some major cleanup on the first 4, and I was one of the main writers of Generations, so those ones shouldn't be too bad at least, probably not too far away from B level. Sergecross73 msg me 04:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind hearing from a delegate. Are you planning on getting all of the games in the franchise to be a Good Topic? If so, are you adding spin-offs to it? GamerPro64 04:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I'm planning to. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Making sure all the bases are covered. And so that would mean you'd have to make List of Sonic video games a Featured List. GamerPro64 04:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
My stance is the same as before. I feel it's too big of an undertaking (The sheer # of titles, the complications of how to split "main" or "spinoff" if you do decide to only take on only some some of them, the rather difficult fanbase, and the fact that you're going to have to do some digging for sources for the Game Gear games; there's not many sources online, and Sega made a bunch of GG Sonic games.) That being said, majority of them are on my watchlist already, so I'll be there to assist along the way. Worst comes to worst, we'll just have done further clean up on the series - nothing wrong with that. Sergecross73 msg me 05:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Why not simply make "Sonic the Hedgehog console titles"? They're generally well-covered and should keep the scope manageable. Salvidrim! 05:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Heads up! I've listed List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games for peer review here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion request

I've just put in a request for a second opinion at Talk:Cow Clicker/GA1. It would help if someone familiar with the videogame GA standards could comment. Thanks, Cthulhu (R'lyeh) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GTA 3 plot

I edited (as an IP wasnt logged in) just now, I am trying to clean it up, any help with it would be appreciated, especially if you are familiar with the events of the game.--JTBX (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories

(I could take this to WT:CAT but it's probably better here).

Say we have a game series where each entry can fall into similar genre (both gameplay and motif) categories. Now, it is reasonable to create a category for the series itself, and have that category also classify into the genre categories, but when it comes to the actual games and the series articles, it certainly makes sense to categorize them into the series category, but my long-term understanding of categories, from CATDUP, is that we would also include the genre categories on these articles, since the are non-diffuse catagories, and from a reader, they will easily be able to jump to the list of other games that are in that genre; if we only left the single series category there, they would be able to get to that but after two (or more) jumps.

The specific case here is BioShock with categories like Alternate History and First Person Shooter. Now, I could understand that if we had a BioShock category and, say, Rapture series of BioShock (for the first two games) that we'd only include the "Rapture series" since its obvious they are children of BioShock. But I don't see the same with the genre categories, and would expect them listed. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oddworld

I really hate to bring this up here, but Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee New N' Tasty! has been unmerged from the main Oddworld article without proper discussion after Op47 (talk · contribs) removed the split tag on the article in question. However, I believe that this unmerge is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Rather than getting involved directly, I am posting this notice here to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I see there are some reliable sources on there, but others are sourced by facebook posts and whatnot. If some of those sources could be replaced by third party ones, I tend to side with the "Keep" side of things. If what is in the article is truly all that is out there, then it should probably be merged back. (I've never played or followed the series, so I don't personally know how much has been revealed so far.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless there's a lot of detail on the HD remake it should be merged into the Abe's Oddysee article (not the original article it was pulled from). --MASEM (t) 16:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's only an HD remake? In that case, I'd almost certainly support merging. I misinterpreted this, I thought it was a new game that had been unmerged from a series article. Guess I spent too much time counting sources at the bottom and forgot to check what the article really is. If there's another article for an original version of this game, then definitely merge if the HD remake isn't even out yet... Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Daniel Olivaw and Mass Effect characters

Could someone help clean up this editor's recent contributions to Mass Effect characters? A lot of unredirects which are basically not notable, and I don't want to act unilaterally. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone started and I finished. Review is welcome, naturally, and it might be helpful to get some eyes on the list articles, Characters of the Mass Effect universe and Recurring squad members of the Mass Effect universe. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_96&oldid=1084188008"