Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 149

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Jean-Frédéric in topic Helping out with connecting new articles to Wikidata?
Archive 145 ← Archive 147 Archive 148 Archive 149 Archive 150 Archive 151 → Archive 155

List of Logitech Racing Wheels compatible games

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

There's an inconsistency at List of Logitech Racing Wheels compatible games. It says "Xbox One" at the top of the third column and "PlayStation 4" at the bottom. Does anyone know which is correct? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

PlayStation 4 is correct since one of the games listed is Gran Turismo Sport which is created by a developer owned by Sony.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. DH85868993 (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Isn't a list like that WP:CATALOG? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It does looks like a typical WP:NOTCATALOG -- unencyclopedic and fairly arbitrary cross-listing of two topics. I doubt there are strong sources that discuss games compatible with Logitech wheels specifically. Not even just wheel support, but Logitech specifically. It's almost an ad for Logitech. It's almost a shame stumbling on these random articles that have been expanded for years, but no one really asked if they establish notability beyond just WP:USEFUL. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it should go to XFD. A random peripheral compatibility does not a LISTN topic make. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Standardizing a company's VG release list

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Doing a few edits on various company games over the last few days, I notice we're super inconsistent between these. Some are lists, some are tables. Some use forward chronological releases, some reverse, some group by series, etc.

The specifics I'd take over to the MOS but I wonder if we should try to set a standard format for a list of video games developed by a company, accounting for shared/support development roles, release dates, platforms, etc. (publishers would have a different approach, and not yet sure if that easily can be standardized when you consider a big entity like Xbox Game Studios).

Is this even something to consider or is flexibility fine? Or at least some basic ground rules to work from to build out at the MOS? --Masem (t) 16:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Flexibility is fine. --Izno (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's justifiable to have different formats for different types of studios; some have 6-7 disparate games, some have multiple 8+ game franchises, some have a single long franchise and a few separate games, some have a mile-long list of standalone titles (especially for older devs). List of games by Epic Games stands out to me as a prime example of a good list of games by studio (it's an FL too) but I wouldn't dream of using a similar format of list for, say, List of Activision video games or List of Atlus games. I think in most long lists the "sortable table" is the better solution, but for shorter lists like Epic or List of BioWare video games, a "table with details" can be an enrichment to content presentation. Question is, should we draw a hard MOS line? Not sure. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
One thing we should add to MoS is to avoid bullet point lists of games since tables are easier to sort/view/read. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

About that Conquer COVID-19 Bundle

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

Yesterday I purchased Humble Bundle's Conquer COVID-19 Bundle, mostly for games like Hollow Knight, Superhot and Undertale. But there's a bunch of games I already own, on PlayStation or on Steam: indie darlings Psychonauts, Brütal Legend and The Witness; Zelda-inspired action games Darksiders and Darksiders II or Sniper Elite III's Nazi-killing fun, and some other titles. I don't want to keep anyone from editing Wikipedia, but maybe I can make another WP:VG member happy with these games. Anyone interested? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Oh, you're too kind! Would you share Tilt Brush? There's nothing like wasting your time with some good VR games in times like these. IceWelder [✉] 09:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I've got PSVR, which sadly doesn't work on other platforms. Would you send me an email, IceWelder? With Tilt Brush gone, I've got these up for grabs:
  • The Witness
  • Killing Floor 2
  • Darksiders Warmastered Edition
  • Darksiders II Deathinitive Edition
  • Sniper Elite 3
  • This Is the Police
  • Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons
  • Stealth Inc 2: A Game of Clones
  • Psychonauts
  • Brütal Legend
  • Broken Age

soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you be willing to part with Jackbox? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • On a related note: if anyone wants to play Switch together (I've got Smash Ultimate, Mario Kart, Minecraft, Animal Crossing, and a few others), let me know and I'll send you my friend code. JOEBRO64 17:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Axem Titanium, sorry, I didn't see your reply earlier. I'm afraid it's just the games listed that are up for grabs. I've also asked other acquaintances if they're interested, so the list might be gone pretty soon. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
No worries! Axem Titanium (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sakura Wars FAC

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've mentioned before that the Sakura Wars article is undergoing an FAC at the moment so it can be featured on the main page on September 27, 2021, which marks the 25th anniversary of the series. The FAC can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sakura Wars (1996 video game)/archive1. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Spy-cicle is taking a long time to review the rest of the article. Anyone else can review the article. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Eyes needed - Final Fantasy Awakening

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Given that it will soon be closing down, I've done a large rewrite and expansion of the article Final Fantasy Awakening. It must be noted that it suffered from low coverage over its lifespan, and so I've had to really scour the internet for sources and commentary. Having another pair of eyes look over the article would be good. I intend on taking it to GA at some point in the near future, so someone else's tidying and input would be very useful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

Hello,
Please note that The Sims (video game), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

I remember when we had one of these for the Coleco Gemini and there was barely any work done on it. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Translated Japanese sources

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So, 24.196.57.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added in some translated articles via Google Translate on certain Sega articles ([1]). Google Translate can bring poor results sometimes. Should we remove those links and keep the originals? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No we shouldn't link directly to Translate. -- ferret (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Extreme amount of plot detail in Lego Star Wars video game articles

Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

The other day I noticed that the Lego Star Wars video game articles all had recently added sections called "Plot". They had all added by anonymous users within the past few months. The articles read perfectly competently, and much more succinctly, before they were added. I therefore feel they should be removed, or at the very least, heavily condensed.

The synopses are all disproportionately large compared to the rest of each article. In fact, the synopsis for each film represented in the games are as large as the synopsis you can find on the article for that respective film! The Complete Saga's plot synopsis also consists almost entirely of paragraphs copied from the Lego Star Wars: The Video Game and Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy articles.

This is not a Lego Star Wars wiki, and so this much detail strikes me as being inappropriate, and inconsistent with typical video game articles on Wikipedia. The information in these sections also seems completely unreferenced.

I took it upon myself to remove them, but this was quickly reverted by another user. I therefore feel it would be best to obtain opinions from other users, and obtain a consensus before any further action can be taken.


The articles I am referring to are the following:

Lego Star Wars: The Video Game

Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy

Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga

Lego Star Wars III: The Clone Wars

Lego Star Wars: The Force Awakens


Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zigongosaurus1138: Delete all via MOS:PLOT. It has a link to the respective movies they cover, which already covers the plot thoroughly. That is sufficient since the plot mirrors the films. Yosemiter (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yosemiter: Yeah but there are major differences for some films, the biggest examples I listed below. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Kill it. Kill it with fire. JOEBRO64 23:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Realistically I'm not sure you need Plot sections in the Lego games, given that you can sum them up as "they are the films humorously retold". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • You could probably reduce it down to short, basic summaries of the three episodes and a note on how Episode IV cuts out. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ​​​As the user who reverted the edits, maybe instead of a summary of the plot for Video game-Complete Saga, the articles will say that the plots are based off of the films and then list the biggest differences from the films and the games (for example, the attempt to assassinate Padme in Episode 2 and Anakin destroying the Trade Federation ship in Episode 1 do not appear in the original video game). This way, the plot summaries could be 1 sentence followed with at most 5 bullet points per film recreated in the game (Much shorter than 10-23 paragraphs, depending on the game). OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @OcelotCreeper: I would not call those "major differences". There are some omissions, content changes to make it more kid friendly as a game, and inserted humor, in turn making some "plot elements" different. However, the essential plot of each story is the same. David Fuchs probably has it phrased the best: make it one sentence that says something along the lines of "The game covers they plot of Episodes I, II, and III retold in a humorous fashion". It gets the gist across without getting into the realm of a WP:TRIVIA section on the minor changes (which is what "5 bullet points per film" would almost certainly be). Yosemiter (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @Yosemiter: Actually, the biggest differences from the games and the films were either because they chose to not use dialogue, or because they didn't have the materials or time yet to do certain scenes, and Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures kept the face melting and getting shredded by planes from Raiders of the Lost Ark so I guarantee you that making things kid friendly had no effect on any of the decisions. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I edited the plot of the original video game to fit my description of a potential compromise, where the plot section now mentions that it is mostly like the films, followed with the 15 biggest differences. [Here's what it originally was] and here's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ what it is now. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @OcelotCreeper: First off, don't be a frickin' troll. We all know that youtube link by now and that kind of attitude or behavior will get you in trouble here sooner rather than later.

      Second, your format in the actual edit is basically the very definition of WP:FANCRUFT. None of those are plot points, just minor changes to how the plot moves forward. Yosemiter (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

    • @Yosemiter: Okay, I removed all but 2 of the bullet points (Anakins flight and the attempted assassination of Padme). I honestly think the attempted assassination of Padme should be kept though mainly because that scene was how Obi-Wan got the Kamino dart, which was how he eventually found the Cloning facility on Kamino. Anakin's Flight come to think of it could be removed. Also, I changed the size of the Bonus Level section from 1 paragraph to 2 sentences. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
      • The point is that the plot of the games is so close to the films, that you don't need to say much , outside the fact they have some humorous deviations. They can be much much smaller. --Masem (t) 02:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
        • @Masem: Look here and here after looking at what the plots were before this discussion happened. I think the other than the plots are based off of the films and that they have humorous changes, the only other thing that should be mentioned is the attempted assassination of Padme because of how important that scene was to the film. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment. Ok I fully removed the plots of all but the Clone Wars article to fit the suggestion of David Fuchs. Because of how much content I removed from The Complete Saga, a user actually reverted things because it looked like I was vandalizing an article by blanking. OcelotCreeper (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @OcelotCreeper: It is still wrong. As shown in this gameplay clip at about 1:45, it explicitly states "In this time of turmoil, Obi-Wan Kenobi investigates the attempted assassination of Senator Padme Amidala". So yes, the assassination attempt is in there, it is just not shown. Yosemiter (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @Yosemiter: I will think of how to mention what you just said, but in the meantime, I would like you to try and research how many people actually go that far into the crawl. Because if what I think is correct, people don't really read them, they just wait until the game tells them to press a button. Not saying you are wrong on this one though, I'm just saying this should somehow be kept because I don't think people really read the crawls this far. OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
        • @OcelotCreeper: Just because people don't read it does not suddenly make it not part of the plot. Most people who read The Lord of the Rings don't read the appendices, but that doesn't mean that are not part of The History of Middle-earth. Yosemiter (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
          • @Yosemiter: Did you not read the last sentence I typed? OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
            • @OcelotCreeper: ...I'm just saying this should somehow be kept because I don't think people really read the crawls this far. It is not on the encyclopedia to make up for what someone does not do. Per MOS:PLOT, we summarize what is there. The plot point explicitly exists within the game, whether or not someone chooses to read it. Therefore, there is no difference in the plot. Yosemiter (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
              • @Yosemiter: Did you fail to realize that the punctuation mark that came before was a comma, so you didn't say the whole sentence? I said I was not saying you were wrong. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
                • @OcelotCreeper: I did not fail to realize anything. You seem to fail to realize that you are outright wrong, as evidenced by this edit. Text or clip, the plot point explicitly exists within the game, ergo, it is not a "difference" in plot from the film to game, period. We should not need to mitigate someone's possible chance ignoring text as part of the plot. Yosemiter (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

About Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

Ghost Recon Wildlands and Shadow of the Tomb Raider (and potentially many more) have included content about Croshaw calling the game blandest title of the year. Is this appropriate? First of all, isn't it WP:TRIVIAL to say that these games are only the *second* (not even the top) blandest GOTY in his very personal list and kind of WP:UNDUE for games that receive generally positive reviews? Second, is he even considered to be a legitimate video game critic? He is only a contributor to The Escapist and he isn't even its staff member. I was going to remove all mentions of him in other articles boldly but I want to know you guys' opinions of using his reviews/award lists in reception section first. OceanHok (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it should be removed. For the most part, Yahtzee does more comedic trashing of games than unbiased game reviews. Putting it alongside other critical reviews isn't appropriate.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem being that "generally positive" means devoid of criticism (or a means to cull criticism). There have been several reviewers out there though that have criticised GRWildlands (and other sand-box type affairs) as bland (and worse). So are we representing those points of view??
As for Yahtzee Croshaw. Yes he is a legitimate critic. No his status with Escapist as a contributer is basically irrelevant; he established his credentials as the hyper-critical Zero Punctuation personality over a decade ago(?) and is a known / named entity in that respect in VG in general. I am not sure if he has been aggregated in metacritic or similar, but he has been referenced by other media previously and featured to grant him notability (though not necessarily to all his views per below).
Whether his reviews are due weight or appropriate (depending on the persona he is using) is an entirely different issue. His opinion in the end must be attributed to him, and the medium in which he is passing on his review. And it has to be taken into consideration based upon the weight of review content. Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Btw, just to be clear I haven't read the Wikipedia articles.in question or how his content has been included. Just dealing with the general idea that in an article summarising key reviewers comments his would be valid with context. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I feel like Croshaw is closer to YouTube personalities like AngryJoeShow. The biggest difference is that one is a YouTuber while another has his videos published under The Escapist. Zero Punctuation is his pet project rather than a credible organisation like IGN or Game Informer. They are self-proclaimed critics bit they aren't really professional jouranlists unlike most of our RS, and listing him among our RS in reception section seems rather out-of-place. We didn't include things like PC Gamer's personal picks in our articles, so I don't quite understand why Zero Punctuation or Croshaw gets a pass. OceanHok (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. What makes him any different than any YouTube doing the same content? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Just to deal with the "published under" comment first. There are many people employed to be "published". That is not a black mark. That he has produced his videos and been published by the Escapist for 13 years takes it a little beyond a pet project. He is even mentioned by name under The Escapist as somewhat of an an exception as when they went semi-volunteer he remained the only paid fixture.
As for other points; what we do and don't include on a review page is subjective. What I am saying is that there is a right situation for inclusion. His status on the RS page as "situational" with his own personal clause suggests. That is correct. If we don't agree, then we need to change both the Escapists entry and the exception for Yahtzee obviously. Koncorde (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Generally individual reviewers without a publishing platform like Angry Joe may have valid voices, but because there's no editorial control, its not as appropriate for us to use as a review from a VG RS where while the review is still the opinion of the writer, there's been some editorial control to make sure that the review is reasonable fair and not just a random tirade against the game (among other things). The problem with Croshaw's reviews is that while they may be checked by the Escapists' editorial board, and that they are reflecting his opinion fairly, is that they are presented in a fashion that makes them really hard to us on WP; his attempts to stretch metaphors make it difficult to quote and summarize accurately. --Masem (t) 20:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Seconding this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Following this, I don't think ZP/Croshaw reviews should be dismissed/disallowed out of hand. As always, consider the context and whether it's appropriate to include. Sometimes he brings up things that don't often get mentioned in "normal" reviews. Sometimes he descends into hyperbole. Often he is hard to get a pull quote out of that accurately captures his viewpoint without misrepresenting it. But those are not 100% rules. Having not read the articles in question, "blandest title of the year" is clearly hyperbole because no one has played every game that has released in a year and can accurately judge that. However, it might be appropriate to mention that Croshaw criticized these games as "bland" and include his reasoning for why. "Blandest game of the year" isn't a particularly useful pull quote. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Per above. Most of our reviews currently boil down to a boilerplate metacritic "generally favourable" statement and little else unless there is specific controversy; yet the metacritic reviews aggregated often provide much more nuance in analysis and almost equal parts hyperbolic praise - which is why ZP, Angry Joe and Jim Sterling among others have made a niche for themselves as relatively critical outsiders of the tropey games media. I'm not sure what will ever put AJ or JS over the threshold of relevance, as they are comfortably self publishing, nor is it particularly important. ZP in comparison kind of already crossed the threshold over a decade ago as a paid pundit / entertainment critic. I would agree with Masem that drawing a quote from his transcripts is difficult given his extensive use of metaphor / analogy / metatextuality. But that shouldn't exclude using such reviews if content is found to be relevant - and he can be brutally succinct. Koncorde (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This is where we may need to use guidance from RSes. For example, the fact that he loved Portal to actually praise the game - which he rarely does in this ZP segments - was commented on in an RS [2] which, as long as we recognize him being a reasonable critical voice, we should include. But we can't guess when he's being overly critical or overly praising save for his end of year videos that ranks the games, otherwise. That's what makes them hard. At least with the non-review-score Eurogamer and Kotaku reviews they are very clear which way they fall and why, without second guessing. --Masem (t) 15:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
And in this situation it looks like it was his annual awards that is under question rather than actually from a specific review. Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I would generally agree with this as well. Video game reviewers like Croshaw and Jose Vargas (AngryJoe) should be given some weight in the reception section (perhaps a bit more for Croshaw as he is published under ther Escapist Magazine) but they should not given as much weight as VG RSs like IGN. Regards  Spy-cicle  Talk? 19:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You cannot put content from Zero Punctuation and say it is his actual opinion versus deliberately-exaggerated content for comedy's sake, unless he really is stabbing his balls over how bad X is in Y. Leaving aside all the other issues with him being used as a RS, that's a major stumbling block. For all the obvious problems with journalism in general and video games journalism in particular, they are at least starting from the concept of journalism. ZP is starting from the concept of entertainment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, so reviews are not meant to be hyperbolic or entertainingly brutal. Film critics a long time ago stopped analysing movies based upon genuine analytical studies, and the idea that video games ever had such a foundation to stand upon is obviously false. Video game reviews have historically been corrupt affairs, largely self serving (no good review, no future games to review) and lacking in critical content unlike literary criticism and movie criticism. It has been superficial at best; graphics, sound, gameplay mechanics (ah, invisible walls, we love you so) so to pretend that reviews are journalism is kind of overblowing those organisations, and denigrating one reviewer for his style of review. Fact is, they are all there to entertain, otherwise it would just be some % and a few numbers published on a page filled with pretty pics (which, to be fair, would be better than a lot of the review content out there). Koncorde (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be operating from a POV that is incompatible with our policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. Wikipedia isn't the forum to rail against the perceived deficiencies of games journalists. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
No, I am operating exactly from our reliable source policies. The Escapist was made a "situational" source at the time it went semi-volunteer. The reference in our own RS list is that Yahtzee is a particular exception as he remained the only paid contributer. Objections to his inclusion boils down to arguments about the alleged superiority of X review style over Y review style; despite the obvious lack of evidence that such reviews are objectively better. Subjectively maybe we prefer IGN (or whoever), and it's neat numbering systems of giving an "8" for sound, but that does not invalidate Croshaw, just as it wouldn't invalidate any of the review websites that do not give scores or decided to use memes, or gave every game 2/5 out of principle because they were a curmudgeon. Do we check Polygon for hyperbole? Do we validate scores for exaggeration? Of course not, but we are doing so here for Croshaw because he's a bit sweary and acerbic... This is not a zero sum game, nor is one type of review mutually exclusive.
To sum up: If there is content that can be used from Croshaw, then the RS currently states that we can use it. If we don't want to use it then that is our editorial decision. If we want to exclude Croshaw then we need to remove the Escapist from the RS list entirely and also remove Croshaws exception. But we cannot make crap arguments to exclude based on alleged superiority of X over Y because that is our opinion. Koncorde (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I guess my concern goes more like: when is Croshaw's opinion fundamentally different from the normal review sources as to require inclusion, and when this is met, is it possible to summarize his review in a manner that we're sure of his intent and if we pull a quote, making sure we're sticking to one of his quotes with the least amount of metaphor stretching in it? Since Croshaw's reviews are nearly all mainstream games, its not like his reviews are needed due to lack of reviews for a game. He does tend to be negative towards games for reasons "because" (that is, people come to sometimes expect his snark). Not that he doesn't have good points for why he doesn't like a game but there are times I feel he's trying to hate on a game because we are tuning into watch his reviews to see him rip a game a new one, his "positive reviews" are boring. And that's where one needs to consider UNDUE. If Croshaw is the only review that is that negative on a game while everyone else is praising it, its probably an outlyier not to include. It would be different it if was, say, Eurogamer being the only negative review because historically EG is not going for drawing viewership by shock value. Croshaw can be used, just super careful and probably not the first sets of reviews one should consider including. --Masem (t) 00:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Which is how it should be for any review; not just Croshaw. Represent major themes, ideas, and principle arguments and POV. We don't just exclude one reviewer because of how we feel legitimate reviews should look. If an editor feels it is relevant, they are free to include Croshaw. If an editor feels it is undue then they can remove it. And vice versa. Then the two editors can discuss it between themselves and come to a consensus.
However we should be equally careful to ensure that when we are representing the broad spectrum of opinion on a game, that we try to include criticism where it is due. I have read far too many sanitised "reception" sections on wikipedia. It seems to take a furore for a game to actually get any significant criticism mentioned, where even passing praise can be inserted as a matter of routine (presumably because people feel "generally positive" means "don't mention the negatives"). Koncorde (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
At least sites like IGN or Eurogamer have editorial policies that make them closer to jouranlists than ZP can ever be. If traditional reviews are readily available, I do not see much point in having ZP in the reception section. The only instance I think ZP's opinions may be of value is when his view is reported by RS, like the example mentioned by Masem above. OceanHok (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but by the same token so does the Escapist. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

GAR for XCOM Enemy Unknown

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

XCOM: Enemy Unknown, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. OceanHok (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Need some help with an AfC

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm working on an article on Cooking Mama: Cookstar. The game has generated some coverage over the past few days about the strange circumstances surrounding its release. Is what I have so far good enough (and is the game even notable enough for its own article)? Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. Would be great if an admin could just move this to the mainspace. OceanHok (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:Devil May Cry 4: Special Edition#Merger proposal. It's in regards to a remaster that added more gameplay content to the original game.Tintor2 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Another useful book bundle for chartiy

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

[3] that runs through most of April, with charity going to Doctors w/o Borders. Includes: Tier 1:

  • Stay Awhile and Listen Book 1 - Legendary Edition by David L. Craddock
  • The Anatomy of Super Mario by Jeremy Parish
  • Commodork - Sordid Tales from a BBS Junkie by Rob O'Hara
  • Figure Fight by John Harris

Tier 2: Above plus

  • Stay Awhile and Listen Book 2 by David L. Craddock
  • Boss Fight Books: Breakout by David Sudnow
  • Faster Than Light by Jamie Lendino
  • The Anatomy of Mega Man by Jeremy Parish
  • Commodorkier - New Tales from an Old Dork by Rob O'Hara
  • HG101 Digest Vol. 5: Treasure by Kurt Kalata

--Masem (t) 23:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I won't be buying this one, but in the past I've purchased several of the video game-related bundles, including the Video Game Bundle 3.0 (including Geoff Keighley's book about Portal 2 and Ian Bogost's How to Do Things With Videogames), the Mega Game Bundle, the Video Game Bundle 7.0, the Giga Game Bundle (including Bogost's How to Talk About Videogames and Derek Yu's recollection of Spelunky's development), the Rogue Souls Bundle, and the Pico Game Bundle. If I can help out a fellow editor, hoping to improve some articles, let me know. Or just to read some interesting ebooks. If I recall correctly, I think I've sent Anarchyte one in the past, no? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
If you have purchased some video gaming text, make sure to add yourself to WP:VG/RL. --Izno (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Review thread 46: Stay inside edition

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good time to be reviewing articles as there is a Backlog drive is happening right now. Along with that, we have other articles in need of reviewing.

FAC
FLC
FPC
GAN
PR
Reassessments

And, per usual, we have a Request board with three years worth of requests that can be made or removed, depending on whether they are notable enough. GamerPro64 16:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible helpful free image?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not experienced when it comes to free images but I saw this on image on twitter that might be. It might be helpful to the articles Final Fantasy VII Remake and even Cloud Strife in a similar fashion Metal Gear Rising: Revegeance has one with Raiden (Metal Gear). My cents.Tintor2 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be a fairly cool photograph, but pictures focusing entirely on a banner and the copyrighted imagery printed on the banner are not de minimis. I don't think this picture can be uploaded to Commons. The Raiden artwork might not survive a deletion nomination if it got to it either, I'm afraid. It's hard to know for sure, though; opinions differ! Moreover, the photographer themselves of course needs to release the picture under a free license. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot for Pot Farm? 420 collaboration

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I'm hoping someone here might be able to add a screenshot to Pot Farm.

Also, FYI, the annual ongoing 420 collaboration runs for the month of April, if any project members are interested in creating or improving cannabis-related video game articles. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I added a screenshot to the game. GamerPro64 22:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh it got pulled. Nevermind then. GamerPro64 23:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's an ongoing discussion regarding a potential move for Colleen Villard. The discussion can be found at Talk:Colleen Villard#Requested move 11 April 2020. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (March 23 to April 12)

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

March 23

  • None

March 24

March 25

March 26

March 27

March 28

March 29

March 30

March 31

April 1

April 2

April 3

April 4

April 5

April 6

April 7

April 8

April 9

April 10

April 11

April 12

It lives! --PresN 20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Source question

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I'm planning expanding on the article Dead Space as a standalone thing (haven't done Western survival horror before). One of the potential sources are small making of featurettes released through YouTube by its publisher EA. However due to the game's gory content and its representation in those shorts, it's age restricted so you can only view it if you're over 18 and signed into Google/YouTube. I've usually adopted a policy of using sources that can be freely accessed either online or through an archiving channel, but at a glance these featurettes have lots of useful titbits about the environmental and sound design which both play a key role in how Dead Space was designed from the start. Can these videos still be used as sources under the circumstances? --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be perfectly fine. I think it is nice to prioritize easily accessible sources, but it's not like it's a requirement that a source is a web page that does not require one to log in. I've used print sources a bunch lately in my wp projects, and those are arguably even less easy to access...--AlexandraIDV 14:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
there is zero reason to worry about age restrictions or even those behind a paywall/region lock. These sources are just as useful as those easy to get into. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong using sources which may be restricted however it is useful for the url-access parameter to be filled in. In this case it would probably make sense for it be filled in with: url-access=registration ([4]). Regards  Spy-cicle  Talk? 14:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Reception info

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Cloud Strife has been undergoing some changes in the past months. As a result, there is currently a discussion at Talk:Cloud Strife#Expansion of reception material where me and a fellow editor are discussing what should and should not remain in the section. Maybe a third opinion would help.Tintor2 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Need third party input

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently, an editor added this material to the Marvel Heroes video game article. Since then, me and the editor have gone back and forth on the article talk page. I think I've argued in as many ways and as best I can that the material violates several guidelines, primarily WP:GAMECRUFT, but they don't agree, so I would appreciate it if someone else wants to offer their input. Eik Corell (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ouya as a platform

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey guys, I just had a question because I'm a bit confused: do we classify the Ouya as separate from Android in the infobox? I'm asking because I'm working on Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I right now. The game received separate releases on Android and Ouya (almost a year apart), but Ouya runs on Android, so I'm wondering if the Ouya release would just be considered the Android release. Thanks. JOEBRO64 12:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe the previous consensus (cannot find the discussion at the moment) was to just use "Android", as Ouya is basically Android with integrated controller support. The same would be true for Nvidia Shield releases. Please correct me if I'm wrong. IceWelder [✉] 12:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe that's common practice, yes, unless the game is exclusive to Ouya / Nvidia Shield. But of course if the Ouya / Nvidia Shield release has attatracted significant coverage, it can be covered in prose in the "Release" section even if not in the infobox as a separate release. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series vs Remake changes

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I've added this discussion to the talk page of the article but concerned it's not going to get much visibility. Because the remake does not entirely stick to the original VII (+additional games) storyline/plot/character actions, the expansion of characters such as Biggs, Wedge and Jessie, adding new antagonists such as Roche and the altered fates of some characters I'm concerned that as editors add this new information it will confuse the article with contradictory info (between original and remake), and/or give a false impression that characters backstories/actions apply to for example the original as well as the remake.

I'm just looking to start a conversation on how to handle this - whether it is the creation of a new section listing the new characters, changes to characters etc. in the remake, or just adding a note to new info added that it applies to the remake only or if a seperate article is called for (I don't personally think so). Has there been any precident where a remake has resulted in such changes and how was it handled?  𝌅 Nealbo 𝌅 13:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

How much coverage is there in reliable sources of the differences? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
IGN and some other sources have articles discussing changes to the plot and characters but not in too much detail, perhaps due to the remake only recently being released and the avoidance of spoilers. This is more me thinking ahead as inevitably comparison articles will pop up and I don't want to see the page degrade into confusion. Admittedly I'm personally early on in the game so trying to avoid reading too much myself but I'm already seeing significant fleshing out of characters backstories and divergences/changes to plot so I can only assume this continues throughout. 𝌅 Nealbo 𝌅 13:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
This was similarly brought up at the Remake article as well. My answer there was that broad, high-level stuff can be worked into prose (Jessie has a bigger role, Red isn’t playable) but that some sort of “compare and contrast essay/list” or exhaustive list of minor details that fans try to build up (Cloud now has more buttons on this clothes and smaller eyeballs) would not be appropriate. That’s more wikia type content. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense - something along the lines of "In Final Fantasy VII Remake, xxx backstory was altered to include xyz" makes sense to me. But I think it's an article to keep an eye on as no doubt new details will be dropped in by others without referencing which storyline it is part of.  𝌅 Nealbo 𝌅 19:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
My understanding reading some of these Remake articles is that these are possibly an alternate dimension version of the characters and not necessarily the same characters as the original game, apart from maybe Sephiroth. That is obviously speculation by these writers based on things they have interpreted, but it's something to bear in mind that these might be different characters, like Morty and Cowboy Morty. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
We don’t even need to go that far. We’re an encyclopedia, we don’t need to debate things like canonicity or continuity. We just need to state “X happened in the original, but Y happened in the Remake”. Unless it’s explicitly stated by the creators, leave that stuff to the fansites and social media debates. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
dare we touch the Kingdom Hearts articles then? :) --Masem (t) 00:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I would boil down any actually noteworthy changes and put it in a Characters section at Final Fantasy VII Remake. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Good topic question

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When Quantic Dream and all its games are Good Articles but David Cage and Guillaume de Fondaumière aren't, does it still qualify as a Good Topic? Cognissonance (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. GamerPro64 21:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants video games

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all. I created a page for SpongeBob SquarePants video games. The "Releases" section is complete with two tables detailing all the information regarding SpongeBob's games and the other video games he's appeared in from the list previously found in List of SpongeBob SquarePants merchandise, and I suppose I filled out the Reception section well enough. If there is anyone active in the SpongeBob articles, please feel free to help fill in the Gameplay, Development, and opening sections of the article. Osh33m (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it should move to SpongeBob SquarePants in video games, like with James Bond in video games, Spider-Man in video games, Middle-earth in video games for example (and Harry Potter video games should also move there imo). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Ironically I was using Harry Potter video games as the model. How would I go about moving it? Osh33m (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, I moved both of the pages. Going back to what I asked earlier, if anyone is active on the SpongeBob articles, please feel free to help fill in the Development, Gameplay, and opening sections of this article. Osh33m (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Heads up on new article on Jason Schreier

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With news that former Kotaku writer Jason Schreier is now at Bloomberg (to continue vg coverage), I was able to build out his article Jason Schreier. Since he is a person that is somewhat divisive in the vg community, a few extra eyes to watch for vandals would be helpful on it. --Masem (t) 17:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We should probably avoid cherrypicking Schreier's own articles to display those two or three articles as particularly noteworthy. It's always better to rely on secondary sources for these. Similarly, Kotaku as a source should be avoided as it would be considered primary, even if it is by a different writer. IceWelder [✉] 18:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Main infobox image

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry for bothering you again with this, but there is currently a discussion at Talk:Cloud Strife#The victory pose remade in regards to what image is the more descriptive of the character. My internet has been terrible these past days so getting one from the recent remake was impossible in good quality. As a result, feel free to be bold.Tintor2 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (April 13 to April 19)

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

April 13

April 14

April 15

April 16

April 17

April 18

April 19

I redirected Artisan Studios to Super Neptunia RPG, it lacks independent significant coverage. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Apex Designs Entertainment, as Apex Designs, was previously declined at AfC and moved to draftspace. See creator's MaliciousJeff talk page. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Wish that the Viewtiful Joe series didn't get main spaced immediately. If anyone is interested in helping out with improving the page, that would be great, since I think this has real potential. GamerPro64 18:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  • What the heck are the NAVGTR Awards? I've literally never heard of them or seen them covered in mainstream games press. Why do we have a huge article tree covering all the winners in every category? An award for Control Precision???? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Axem Titanium, these should all be merged back to the main article, as none of them are independently notable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

NFL GameDay 98 release date

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Several editors have been changing the release date in NFL GameDay 98 without providing a source. Ordinarily I have no objection to changing from one unsourced release date to another, but their claimed release date of November 17, 1997 seems implausible given the dates on the reviews cited in the article; taking into account the difference between cover date and publication date, all the leading review publications had published reviews for NFL GameDay 98 by the end of September. That doesn't make it outright impossible that the game was held in reserve until November, but I sure would like to see a source for that.

In the last round of edits, Boz wrote in an edit summary "per MobyGames, these reviews and more!" - but the attached edit just adds to a listing in the "Reviews" section. QuestFour then reinstated the November 17, 1997 release date with an edit summary "Rv unsourced changed", but the claimed sources were still not attached. MobyGames is unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources (and incidentally, MobyGames actually gives August 26, 1997 as the release date!) and I can't find any release dates whatsoever in the reviews Boz mentions. Any input here would be appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no stake in the release date (other than in seeing that the correct one is added), and only made reference to the Mobygames page to show that there are reviews listed under the "Critic Reviews" section.[5] BOZ (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless a different / better / contradicting source exists, IGN is a RS and says November 17, 1997. Is that wrong? Possible. Is it Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source to only collige and report on what secondary and primary sources say about an article topic? Of course. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The Miami Herald (August 26, 1997 issue) says September 2, 1997 for the release date [6] (September also mentioned by GameFan [7]), but The Palm Beach Post says it was out in the August 31, 1997 issue [8]. It's odd to see so many different release dates. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It’s definitely weird, but it does happen with 80s and 90s video games. A bunch of sources reported on how hard it is to even come up with western release dates for something as popular as Super Mario Bros, so it’s not just us... Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, dang. To add further to the confusion, I just realized that I got the article's two release dates mixed up; it was July 31, 1997 which other editors have been changing it to, and November 17 which is the status quo date. You all have my apologies and deepest embarrassment. (I distinctly remember checking to make sure I had the two dates straight before I posted here, so no idea how I managed to still make that goof.) The problem with that date is that while review publications did sometimes review games late, it's unlikely that a high profile game like NFL GameDay 98 would get passed over by all the leading review publications until over a month after it came out. The dates Jovanmilic97 provides both seem much more likely than either July 31 or November 17, and while IGN is reliable I'm more inclined to trust contemporary sources for release dates.
I'm not sure how we're supposed to handle conflicting release dates from multiple sources, but in the interest of keeping the discussion from dying off without reaching a resolution, may I propose we go with The Palm Beach Post since it's the source which is closest to its cited release date without being before it?--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No immediate answer, so I'm going to WP:Be bold and perform the proposed edit. In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, I'm not at all partial to this release date, or to any presentation of the release date as definitive rather than uncertain, but I don't want to leave the article with an unsourced and unlikely release date after Jovanmilic97 did all that nice digging. Feel free to revert me in accordance with WP:BRD.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
September 2 was likely the street date; the game was announced to have been shipped on August 26, seven days prior. Some stores (such as that contacted by The Palm Beach Post) might have gotten it earlier than others. IceWelder [✉] 16:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance... Why does a ship date specifically point to a street date of seven days later? I would have thought the amount of time between street date and ship date would vary according to the distribution network being used.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The street date is the day the publisher expects all/the majority of stores to have received their shipment, and when stores are supposed to start selling the game. Through this, the majority of customers are supposed to get the game on the same day. That said, though, the source speaking of the shipment announcement does not actually include the planned release date, I took that from the source linked above. Also, another source mentioning a September release is IGN. IceWelder [✉] 16:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sorry I misunderstood. Well, I hate to change the date again, but I must admit the bulk of the evidence is pointing towards September. I'll go change it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College Hoops

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Opinions regarding this needed. Per last year's AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College Hoops, it got redirected. Now it got restored again with only difference being an added youtuber video (and was restored multiple times because of it). I re-redirected this back but got reverted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been years since I did my run through 1994 gaming magazines, but I still remember my surprise at the near-complete absence of coverage on this game. It was reviewed in GamePro (hardly significant, since at that time GamePro was reviewing every single game that got released, even obscurities like Strahl for the 3DO and Godzilla for the TurboDuo), but that's about it. Anyway, the youtuber video was there before the article was redirected, and indeed is extensively discussed at the AfD. The only additions I can see are the user reviews from GameSpot and Sega-16, which of course do not qualify as evidence of notability, and should not be included even in articles on notable subjects. So the reasons for the consensus to redirect have not been addressed.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
There are two more reviews listed at MobyGames (Video Games & Computer Entertainment and Game Players), but this still seems like really scant coverage. I'm still of the opinion that it's still not enough to warrant an article at this point, but I'm not opposed if someone wants to draft it and try to get it accepted at an AFC or through approval of an established video games editor. Red Phoenix talk 21:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Soule allegations 2.0

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Requesting VG member assistance on settling an issue (which I thought was settled before) on Jeremy Soule's page, in which users are removing every mention of his 2019 rape allegations despite being well documented, which could just be seen as censorship. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Dissident93, I'd be mindful of your tone when making these notices, as it could come across as canvassing. JOEBRO64 20:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
TheJoebro64, anybody could claim it is canvassing on these types of posts if they really wanted to, but I don't think any part of this falls outside of WP:APPNOTE. Consensus arising from such a post could just go against what the OP argued on the targeted talk page (it's happened to me before). I feel like it's better to assume good faith by asking for more opinions than trying to influence the discussion entirely, in which case I could have just privately mass-messaged friends to support me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
My comment was mostly about your language ("Requesting VG member assistance on settling an issue", "users are removing every mention of his 2019 rape allegations despite being well documented", and "could just be seen as censorship") being non-neutral. I don't really have any opinion yet (I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter) I'm just trying to help. JOEBRO64 21:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting awards tables and lists

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • Per previous discussions (see here and here), WP:VG/AWARDS was modified to its current form. As of right now, many Reception sections for "GOTY-tier" games as well as several members of Category:Lists of accolades by video game do not adhere to the guideline as written, specifically "For the table, only include awards where either the awards individually are notable (e.g. Seumas McNally Grand Prize) or the awards body as a whole is notable (e.g. The Game Awards); omit individual publication awards from the table". Can we put together a clean-up effort to pare back the equivalent of "awardcruft"? Games listed at Game of the Year are probably the first place to look.
  • On another note, for among accolades lists that do comply with our MOS, e.g. List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V, it turns out that compliant tables aren't actually that long. Should we develop some length guidelines for when it's appropriate to split the table out into a separate list? I know there's been some grumbling about how the WP:FILM's model for accolades lists doesn't really make sense to copy for games (CC: PresN). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    I brought this up when I went through all the standalone award articles a few months ago. Most (maybe all?) of them could just be merged back into their respective main articles now that most of the bloat has been removed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    I certainly wouldn't argue with merging small lists back to their articles. I fear that chasing Featured List status has lead to unnecessary spinoffs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

GameFAQs as a primary source?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was reverted at Mindscape (company) page because "GameFAQs is strictly unreliable and should not be used to verify anthing". There was a "citation needed" tag for a publisher in the article and the game's box art has the company's logo on it, and I reference an image of that box art, isn't that a primary source in that case? That's the actual artifact that was created at the time not user generated database info. --Mika1h (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No, you still can’t cite Gamefaqs. You can cite the game/manual/whatever directly, but not Gamefaqs. Sergecross73 msg me 23:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, citing a primary source (like a box cover) is perfectly fine- it just only backs up the literal fact, it doesn't support whether that fact is notable or give any notability weight to the article as a whole. I think it's fine, if not great, to use a box cover to cite that a game was published by Mindscape, but like Serge said you need to cite the actual box, not the non-RS website you found the picture of the box on. --PresN 15:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Odyssey: Pinball Fantasia

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This AfD is sorta spiraling out of control so I think it'd be good if some more seasoned WPVG members got involved. JOEBRO64 23:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for saying something, looks like it wrapped it up pretty quickly really... Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of digital collectible card games#Proposal to redirect to/replace with List of card game-based video games

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey guys, just wanted to draw some attention to the above discussion. I think it would be helpful to have some input from other voices. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ace Combat 3

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm currently reviewing the article Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere. It's going along at a snail's pace, with barely any of the issues I raised having been addressed since I put the article on hold. Can someone please do something? If not, then I can't in all good conscience pass the article in its current state. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

ProtoDrake I did my best to help solve some issues you mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Using this review site for a draft, is it reliable?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The source in question: [9]

I'm checking as I am using it in my submitted draft for Monolith, and wish to confirm so I know how extensively to use it. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Darkstation was ruled unreliable in the discussion here; however, the sole comment specifically about DarkStation was "DarkStation doesn't have any editorial or staff page and about is bare bones; no author info.", and checking the site, it looks like all of that has changed in the three years since that discussion. I'll try bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to see if we have a new reliable source.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (April 20 to April 26)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

April 20

April 21

April 22

April 23

April 24

April 25

April 26

Sakura Wars reception plans

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. There's an ongoing discussion about expanding the reception section of the 2019 Sakura Wars game, which has just been released worldwide. It can be found at Talk:Sakura Wars (2019 video game)#Reception section plans. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Saints Row IV

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion has been initiated about the disputed content in the diff above. Interested editor's are invited to participate in the discussion to help reach a resolution, and to establish a consensus for exclusion or inclusion. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sega All-Stars (series) vs Sega All Stars - disambiguation?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a bit confused as to what the disambiguation for these pages could be to tell them apart. Or even if Sega All Stars is notable in itself. Any thoughts?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Sega All Stars and Sega All-Stars are probably different enough names to not warrant a bracketed disambiguation? Further disambiguation can be done through the hatnote. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Video games / video gaming Categories

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Of project interest: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_27#Video_gaming.

Discussion should occur there. -- ferret (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And I just discovered this is yet another SNAAAAKE!!!! situation , at the end of the day. Great. --Masem (t) 14:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Open source games by genre

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Someone(s) took to subdividing Category:Open-source video games by genre. That doesn't seem appropriate per WP:CATDEFINE. Any opinions? --Izno (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a strange cross-section. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a trivial intersection also. --Izno (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Game Pass has 10 million subscribers

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

How do I even cite this? I have the transcript of an earnings report (Web View) but no RS. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I imagine you can just cite the secondary sources instead, e.g. [10] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for one, somehow the Verge's article never appeared. Gee. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The Verge article is definitely "good enough" but there's been a bunch of bigger news on MS today, see The Guardian for example. When I can, I do preferring using the more mainstream sources for "business" related numbers, but again, my personnel pref. --Masem (t) 00:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Advice on referencing "gameplay" and "plot" sections of games

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hey guys, found myself fixing some old articles for the first time in a long time. I'm as good as ever at finding sources, but my writing is a little rusty. Hoping to get a few articles to "good", or even "featured" status. I've poked around at some other articles, but wanted to know if anyone had any suggestions for best practices for sourcing "in-universe" stuff, without getting lost in the endless detail of primary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot sections of games do not require referencing as it is presumed that the game itself serves as the primary source itself. However, if plot elements are some arcane thing that a player on a normal playthough will not likely encounter (as it is an optional thing, a side quest, requires specific conditions, etc.) then it is a good idea to actually cite that using the game, or a third party source if you game.
Gameplay should be cited to third-party which nearly most reviews should work , if not other sources. If absolulely no other sources work, the game's manual or a published guidebook can work. --Masem (t) 18:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Also check out the section advice at MOS:VG, which is in fact actually MOS these days. -- ferret (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
On top of that, any critical analysis of a plot would need a secondary source.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback guys. I will do my best. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (April 27 to May 3)

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

April 27

April 28

April 29

April 30

May 1

May 2

May 3

Note: "Unshaken" was created on the 20th but not tagged until the 28th, and made GA soon after, so it's still a very rapid GA either way. --PresN 19:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)</ref>

  • Somebody still keeps making these standalone NAVGTR Award articles? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I think they just weren't all tagged at creation. --PresN 23:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent Nintendo leak

Latest comment: 3 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

Anyone think this will be worthy of its own article? 2TB of top-secret Nintendo files (including source code for the N64, GameCube, and Wii, and potentially game prototypes) has been obtained by hackers and is slowly but steadily being leaked. It's being called one of the biggest leaks in video game history and could have massive ramifications. Some sources: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. JOEBRO64 18:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as the info is reported through RS, its fine to use. For example, I already added the interesting tidbit why Nintendo used 12-digit friend codes over screen names via a Eurogamer article. But do not add anything directly from these leaks yourself or from forums. Let the 3rd parties get their hands dirty. --Masem (t) 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I think everyone here should know that already. I was just curious because we usually don't make pages for these leaks, it's just that the sheer magnitude of this one is unprecedented. JOEBRO64 18:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about a standalone article. I mean, this leak just happened, so it hasn't had time to make any lasting impact yet (if at all). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Dissident93, I think the fact that the complete source code for Nintendo consoles escaped into the wild is enough to make it notable. As sources have noted, it means that anyone will be able to duplicate and sell bootleg systems using the code. It's destined to create massive legal showdowns once Nintendo pinpoints who leaked the material and who's pirated it. The ramifications this will have are going to be profound. JOEBRO64 23:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't notable, just that this same info could go in their respective articles without much issue. Justifying a standalone article (as of today) by saying that its legacy is "destined" is still WP:FUTURE, even if it's pretty logically to assume it will have some ramifications in the near future. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It wouldn't be FUTURE because it's not my conclusion, it's what sources are saying. I've started Draft:2020 Nintendo leak, where we can nurture it until it's ready for a standalone article. JOEBRO64 01:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Even then, the sources are just assuming and speculating as it's only been a day since the leak. Has Nintendo officially commented on it yet? That would be the first step. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Also a new Kotaku article is calling this "unprecedented... Such information would be of great interest to emulation enthusiasts, data miners, and anyone curious about the Japanese gaming giant's notoriously secretive past." JOEBRO64 23:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Some commentary from Alex Donaldson, one of VG247's editors who's done quite a bit of work for sites we consider reliable: https://twitter.com/APZonerunner/status/1257037165764194305 JOEBRO64 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Without knowing much about the leak, I just looked at the article you created on this (2020 Nintendo leak), and after reading it, it doesn't seem to warrant its own article. A good chunk of the article is just background on past Nintendo leaks. A summary of the lead could easily just be put into an existing article. Just my two cents. --TorsodogTalk 05:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Torsodog. I don't think this needs a separate article. The information should be put in the Nintendo parent article instead. OceanHok (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    There's unquestionably enough sources to pass WP:GNG, and just look at what some of the sources are saying. This is significant. Torsodog's claim that "A good chunk of the article is just background on past Nintendo leaks" is 100% false; it's a single sentence to explain how serious Nintendo is about IP protection. This is still ongoing, so more sources will be added. JOEBRO64 11:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    I don't oppose having a separate article in the future but the information should be put in the parent article now per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. The ramification section is only a bunch of journalists guessing what may happen in the future instead of what have happened. As the leak continues, I can only see this as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information rather than a proper article. OceanHok (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with NOTNEWS or TOOSOON (this has been going on for a month), or INDISCRIMINATE (I will ensure the information stays concise and doesn't get overly detailed). The ramifications section, if anything, demonstrates how notable it is because of how seriously sources are treating this. This would be too much to squeeze in another article, so a standalone one is more than acceptable. JOEBRO64 14:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    The ramifications at this point are WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Yes there could be. There hasn't been a detailed forensics by experts yet on the information to know the extent of benefit to the industry/damage to Nintendo/etc. Exactly one interesting piece of information has come out of it (the friends code thing). If it becomes Nintendo's downfall for some reason, then probably a separate article is merited but for not, its just sufficient to note the leak at where it makes the most sense. --Masem (t) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, I do think there is a difference between excited journalists covering a story and saying "this will have big ramifications" and those big ramifications actually emerging. I'm not necessarily opposed to a standalone article, I have no opinion there, just worth keeping in mind. Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    Exactly one interesting piece of information you're joking, right? JOEBRO64 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a consensus that this isn't the foundation for a good article, and I'd like to back that consensus up. There are a lot of policies that are higher than the General Notability Guideline, including What Wikipedia is Not. The GNG is only a basic, basic, basic threshold you'd need to pass to even consider an article, because you need to make something that's verifiable and neutral. You can't follow that to its absurdity, that anything verifiable and neutral gets an article, because you could carve every topic up into hundreds of micro-articles.
Following the GNG to absurdity isn't just messy for fictional topics, like a game character's hair (which sometimes does get covered in multiple articles), but also non-fiction topics (like a dev who gives an interview that generates 20 reaction editorials). Like, yeah, I guess you could write that article. But isn't it covered better in context? Isn't it better to just improve the main character article with why the hair is so important, instead of trying to inflate it into its own topic? Shouldn't we summarize most controversies in two sentences, and then tell people what happened next, instead of creating a WP:COATRACK of every journalist's two cents about every controversy? There are exceptions to this, but that's for exceptional topics. This advice applies across many micro-topics.
My advice is to be incremental. Include the information about this leak in relevant articles, like Nintendo's history and business, or famous leaks. Wait and see what these "massive ramifactions" are and actually cover what those are when they happen, instead of creating a quote farm of journalists making proclamations about what might or might not happen. For example, if someone takes leaked code and makes an illegal remake, that could be covered in an article about that game. Of if a leaked game hurts sales, that should be mentioned when talking about that game's sales. At most, I could see this rising to a disruption of Nintendo's business, in which case you'd still include it in an article about Nintendo. I'd be shocked if it's more than that, but rather than arguing about it, start writing and see what legitimately happens. I'm gonna let people think about that, because WP:SNOWBALL. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I still don't agree, but out of respect for the consensus here I've moved it back to draft for the time being. JOEBRO64 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I find myself mixed on this. While I'd certainly disagree that "exactly one interesting piece of information" came out of this leak, I fail to see the need for an article on this when we have no idea how it would affect Nintendo or the industry or what have you. If the company is greatly affected by this in the future then I'd be all for making a page on it, but as of now I'd argue this should be just a short paragraph in the Nintendo article. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Opinion on a possible article or location for one

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Some may be aware that Geoff Keighley is going to be doing a "Summer Game Fest" from May through August as a online replacement to help many of the cons and events that have been cancelled, and he's been partnering with a lot, including Microsoft, Gamescom, numerous others. See the website here for the basics. [16] but for all purposes this is like an extended E3 event.

The event's gotten coverage particularly with some of the big publishers onboard as well as MS + Sony, and so I'm edging on thinking that presenting an article like how we'd typically do an E3 article - in the sense that there's definitely going to be new games announced in the events throughout this period. I was trying to think if there was anywhere else these details could live but , for example, using the current E3 2020 article wouldn't make sense, nor would it be really appropriate on the COVID impact on the VG industry article. So I'm just getting a quick idea if a standalone would be reasons. (I can meet the GNG, that I'm certain). --Masem (t) 03:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, you're usually right on things like this, just go for it. If you're really in doubt, just draft it somewhere and leave the link here so others can help. - X201 (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It's worth a good shot. We're seeing the sources for it. And in these interesting times, it could be as notable an event as any other game conference. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't use "samples" for describing sound in old arcade video games just because MAME says that.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've just fixed several articles that made this error, and hopefully I got them all, but I thought I should explain the problem to this project. Frequently, when describing a very old arcade video game from the 1970s or early 1980s, MAME will list the sound as "Samples". This does not mean that the game had its own digital sound samples which it used to play sounds. That would require relatively advanced circuitry, and if the game had such hardware, MAME would describe that hardware and require the ROM images for that sound data. Rather, "samples" means that the MAME emulation currently relies on sound samples that were obtained by digitizing the output of the game's sound hardware. This is generally because this hardware contains discrete analog circuitry which the MAME authors have not yet created an emulation for, perhaps because of lack of time, lack of detailed information, or difficulty in making an accurate analog emulation with reasonable performance. However, the project's eventual goal is to replace all such samples with proper hardware emulation. Just a caveat that one should be careful in using MAME as a historical reference. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...though this feels like an oddly specific and rare occurrence to be notifying the whole WikiProject of. If you really feel the need to warn people of this, I’d dig through the page history to see who’s actually doing this... Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Opinions on primary topic for Apollo Justice

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The newly created article for Apollo Justice is not disambiguated. The problem is that I am not sure he is as prominent a character as Phoenix Wright to merit that. I am thinking the primary topic could still be the eponymous video game. Thoughts?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, there is no need to disambiguate; as the game with the similar name is naturally disambiguated. This should be fine with just hatnotes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, no need. The title provides natural disambiguation through the rest of the game’s title. Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, an Apollo article... Last time I checked - this may have been a year or two ago, and there has been no new media featuring the character in that time - there was very little coverage of the character in RSs, mostly just within reviews of the video game, so I'm not so sure that a stand-alone article is even warranted.--AlexandraIDV 14:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a really good point. There’s only 11 references in the article, and a good portion of them are either first party sources or with titles that suggest that they’re more about the series than the character... Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone review my draft? Is it publishable?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:De_inferno

I have been told to rephrase the content in my own words. Is there anything else that I need to change?

TheNavedKhan (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The deleted copy does not show why the subject (de_inferno) is notable. (Hint: It probably is not.) --Izno (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Gaming-related request at Vimeo

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, my name is Jordan and I work for Vimeo, which I've disclosed on my profile and at Talk:Vimeo. I've submitted a request here to remove poorly sourced content related to gaming video hosting. Since no one has replied yet, I was hoping someone from this WikiProject could review the request and update the article. Thank you! JS Vimeo (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've addressed this request at the Vimeo page (yes, did a bunch of reworking above and beyond what was asked to bring the article better in line with expected). --Masem (t) 01:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ur-Quan good article nom / image licensing

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've been working on the Ur-Quan article with the help of a few people. They're an oldie but goodie, rated as one of the best game villains, and still mentioned that way this day. I just started the process for a good article nomination, and any help/recommendations for copy-editing would help us stay ahead of the review process.

Another thing that has come up are the use of images. Star Control II was re-released as an open-source project called The Ur-Quan Masters. According to the project FAQ, the content (voiceovers, dialogue, graphics, sounds, and music) may be used freely under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license. I'm not sure where that leaves us with Wikipedia, where the WMF's CC license is 4.0. But either way, we could use some help getting a character image in there, from someone who can navigate the technical and legal aspects. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Anything "Non-commercial" is unfortunatetly not compatible with WMF's definition of "Free", which requires reuse and modification by any end user including commercial ones. So a NC image would have to be treated as non-free. --Masem (t) 18:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure this is at GA quality? There's an expansion template at the top of the page, and I'm not 100% sure if the reception is all that great. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's close, when I benchmark it against articles like Astaroth (Soulcalibur) or Ayla (Chrono Trigger) or Edea Kramer or Faris Scherwiz. I've been out of the editing loop for a while, and I'm interested in feedback on what it still needs to make GA quality. I've currently tried to make it a quality-over-quantity type of article, with a tight description of their story and reception. But there's no lack of sources, and I could find lots of discussion if the benchmark really is hearing 10 different reviewers talk about what made them so memorable. Feel free to tell me what the article still needs, because I have the time and the research to keep improving it. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAVGTR Awards

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could use some more eyes at this AFD. Been a week and only a few comments. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup?

So, this has closed as non-notable and been deleted. As such, do we need an effort to remove it from Award tables? -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Stub clearing for WP:SEGA

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While I've been doing a mass update of the Sega task force page, I've added one of the task force's new goals: inspired by the efforts in clearing out all of the stubs at WP:SQUAREENIX last year, I propose that we should clear out all the stubs for WP:SEGA (79.3% of the 1,064 articles there are free of stubs), if there are no objections, that is. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So I've actually made Horror game...

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As actually noted in RSes, this is the only game genre that is defined by narrative elements rather than gameplay. The key reason I wanted to get this is to provide a landing for Psychological horror game (Also created as redirect). I am sure there's more types of horror games that can be clearly defined besides the three, but I want to be careful here.

An interesting concern is that much of what's int he history of Survival horror's history , prior to Resident Evil, might move to what I've have for Horror gave, leaving a summary there. But Survival horror is a GA so just wanted to check before doing that. --Masem (t) 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Classifying games gets tricky. Most designers classify games by their gameplay: action, strategy, RPG... There are definitely people who classify games by narrative elements: space games, story games, fantasy games, cyberpunk games, superhero games... Among game designers, I usually see narrative classification described as video game themes or settings. Survival Horror is a weird edge case, but evidently a well-written and well-researched one. I would hesitate to pull apart a good article without giving more thought to this. It's a big can of worms to open, but something we can address with just a little planning and discussion. Jontesta (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
With the horror game genre, there's actually details analysis of video game genres that show it and it alone stands out as the only genre called out by theme, and even then its not a clean split. Just that pretty much there's a history of games with horror themes that can be tracked through Alone in the Dark and then to Resident Evil to form Survival Horror as its own specific subgenre (action-adventure + horror), and then there's the "rest" of horror. This is actually well documented in a couple different sources. --Masem (t) 00:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sakura Wars GT/FT

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
edit | discuss
  Sakura Wars titles
6 articles
  Sakura Wars (1996)
  Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die
  Sakura Wars 3: Is Paris Burning?
  Sakura Wars 4: Fall in Love, Maidens
  Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love
  Sakura Wars (2019)

While I'm still working on the reception section for the 2019 Sakura Wars before nominating it for a GAN (and eventually an FAC) as well as addressing some concerns for the FAC on the original Sakura Wars (where we have two supports, two opposes and are still waiting for the other reviewers such as TheJoebro64, Spy-cicle, Alexandra IDV, etc. for other comments), I've posted a possible GT/FT box for the main Sakura Wars titles. Any thoughts or suggestions before we can proceed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There's one support, two comments, and two opposes. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I must have gotten some the numbers mixed up. Thanks for the clarification. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Sjones23, I'll try to get a review in later this week. Sorry I haven't taken a look yet; I was (A) extremely busy and (B) appalled by I'm Aya Syameimaru!'s behavior and wanted to wait until that was resolved. JOEBRO64 17:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Got it. I'm sure the situation with I'm Aya Syameimaru! has already been resolved by now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sakura Wars wasn't promoted. Maybe in about two weeks or so, I'll consider taking it up for an FAC again once all the oppose comments have been addressed. Ian Rose recommended that @Alexandra IDV: might get involved in working on the article. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@ me next time you do a FAC for it, and I'll try to get a review in in a more timely manner--AlexandraIDV 06:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating indexes for task forces?

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

So, on some WikiProjects such as WP:SQUAREENIX, there's an index page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix/Index. Is it possible to use index pages for task forces such as WP:NINTENDO and WP:SEGA, using the Square Enix one as a model, or is it unnecessary at this point? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of work for something that people rarely ever use. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as the maintainer of the WPSE index page, it's a ton of gnome work for very little benefit. There's no real way to automate it, as any sort of subdivisions on the page are inherently subjective and an un-categorized index isn't very useful, and you'd need a bot to keep the article ratings up to date as there's no template way to do it. The WPSE index is handy to see "oh, most of <x series of games + related articles> is GA+, maybe someone should do the last couple", but you only get that by obsessively organizing and maintaining it. I don't think the effort/reward ratio is worth it for task forces, and frankly there are very few editors who even want to spend the time on it- there are a few of us now maintaining the GA/FA pages for WPVG, but there have been years where it was pretty much just me and this is a way larger project to pull people from. WPSE has it because I'm obstinate enough to keep doing it and we only have ~460 articles; SEGA has twice that and NINTENDO 3x the number. --PresN 01:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
All praise to PresN for maintaining it for these years. I have to chime in because I love article indexes: it is amazing to have a place to see where the project is strong, what are it’s goals, where is it going. It makes it so I can jump in after a break of a few years and get right back to work, see what needs doing. Yes they are fiddly, and all done by hand, but I must say I have so much respect for the work done, and you must know it has never been in vain. As to whether it’s appropriate for big projects, probably not, nothing bigger than 500-1000, it would get crazy! Making these kinds of lists automated could be a nice technology ask next time they do a survey. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I also find indices useful, and have set up a page of them for various limited-scope topics I want to eventually bring to GT, and until there is a way to automate this that's probably the way to go.--AlexandraIDV 08:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Echoing Judgesurreal in thanks for maintaining the WPSE index. It's clearly an incredible amount of work. Would love to be able to bot/template query an article's quality assessment somehow in the future. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Upcoming video games

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hey team, a ways back I created Category:Upcoming video games not yet scheduled to capture those games without a year. Consensus seems to be developing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Category:Upcoming video games not yet scheduled that this might be better as a hidden cat that is part of this project. Any objections to my making that change? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, what does this offer that Category:Upcoming video games doesn't, besides a longer title? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It allows the separation of the ones with dates (which are currently in Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2020 and Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2021) from the ones without dates, including those that are probably no longer "Upcoming" (and so may be miscategorized: I'm looking at you, GlowTag). UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
UnitedStatesian, I still don't see what that changes, unless I'm misunderstanding? Upcoming video games already implies that it does not have a date/timeframe announced yet. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no objections to this provided the CfD approaches this consensus. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It makes sense as an internal category. When it comes time to fix these games without dates, it's good to know which ones still need them. Jontesta (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not needed. The parent category (Category:Upcoming video games)was designed to hold games without a date until they had a date and could be moved into one of the "year" categories. - X201 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (May 4 to May 10)

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May 4

  • None

May 5

May 6

May 7

May 8

May 9

May 10

List of Crealude video games doesn't seem notable, right? There's no Crealude article and the listed games don't seem notable to begin with. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, especially since none of the games are notable themselves. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I took some time to check for souces, but alas, 've AfD'ed it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Some—CxBx-Reloaded, Prism3D, Brigandine: The Legend of Runersia, and List of Crealude video games—have since found their way to AfD. IceWelder [✉] 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I do think Runersia is notable though. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems to have been nominated on TOOSOON grounds only, despite releasing in June. Looks like a solid keep at the moment. IceWelder [✉] 08:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
There is not much to cross-buying, is there? A merge would probably be for the better. IceWelder [✉] 08:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Geo-Political Simulator 4: Power and Revolution doesn't look notable for me. Anyone else that found some sources for it? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about Tomb Raider redirect

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

To my surprise is Tomb raider a redirect to grave robbery, while Tomb Raider is the title of the article for the video game franchise. I see in its history it has been changed several times, most recently in February 2018 by Zxcvbnm. As a video game player and WP:VG member I might be biased, but shouldn't Tomb raider redirect to Tomb Raider? Is the lack of a capital letter R a significant enough WP:SMALLDETAILS thing? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If someone is searching for "Tomb raider" without the capital "R", the hatnote will direct them to their destination if they are looking for the video game series, but I don't think it should automatically be assumed to be the case. After all, tomb raiders are a real phenomenon and the game's namesake (though probably not in such an epic, action-packed way).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Too much plot?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

An editor added this large plot summary when the article already had a fair bit of plot information. User:Materialscientist removed it, but the editor added it back, and did so one more time once it was removed. Is this too much plot for one article, or does all the editor's work to play through the game and take everything down in detail mean that we need to include it as they wish? 2601:249:8B80:4050:9DE3:792C:D5F:1B7A (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:VG recommends 700 words. This new addition is 1271 words. We don't need that much plot. -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As ferret says, too much plot. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think at this point this may be considered edit-warring? 2601:249:8B80:4050:61A6:AE6:BC96:71A2 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I was going to say -- the amount of plot actually looks good. But then I realized the 4-paragraph version is the short version. You really don't need much more than that, but I'd encourage the editor trying to add 13 more paragraphs to maybe try something more incremental. A few sentences can go a long way. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The 1000 Destubbing Challenge

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Would anybody be interested in a Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge to see 1000 video games articles destubbed? Not a contest but it might be something which works to help improve existing content. If there is more than five people interested I'll create it.† Encyclopædius 11:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I wanna see what others think of this proposal, but I wouldn't mind joining. I've turn a lot of stubs into B-class or GAs in the past, so I can see myself doing some work for this. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be a bad idea, to be honest... Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
How would this be kept track of? Will it just be the honors system or something? GamerPro64 17:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Genkai Chōsen Distopia

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like to have some more comments regarding this deletion discussion. It's been open for about a week now and there hasn't been much activity. Thanks again. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is a new paper mario game!! The Origami King 71.113.133.152 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Izno (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
An article has since been created at Paper Mario: The Origami King.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

On our video game categories

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Briefly tagged above but back after we had agreed to shift from "video gaming" to "Video games" in mainspace, I had moved a bunch of categories in the same manner but this apparently is NOT how you move categories. This recently was noticed and in addition to the whole mess that what I thought was proper category moves, there was concern about the moving creating a naming conflict. All those category moves have been returned back (eg so we have Category:2019 in video gaming). What this means is right now, the "top level" category for the field of video games is Category:Video gaming.

I have discovered for now, this is a acceptable step, as when I look at the history here, some key considerations:

What that had left us was that we appear to have "Video gaming" as the term to describe the whole of the field of video games. In the discussions on reverting the changes I made, I tried to argue that "Video games" is more the proper term based on our reasoning for the mainspace changes: "video games" describes the medium better that incorporates all aspects including the industry parts, where as "video gaming" is more the act of playing games, and more recently has gained a stigma as tied to addictive behavior patterns. This was rejected during the discussion in part due to lack of sourcing for this conclusion (more on that), and that it seemed more nature, akin to "Gaming" and "Computing".

Now, as I've been instructed and cautioned, I'm not rushing back to fix this, I need to collect thoughts and think about the approach, but a key facet that I think we need (VG project) to present is why "Video games" is the right term to describe the top level, and for this evidence of why this is the top level term. I can point to the fact that video games are consider a medium of art, not an activity, so they are worded like "film", "television", "theater", etc. and if you do scholarly searches, "video games" tends to be more common than "video gaming". But again, here's where any type of sourcing that tries to explain the different from quality sources would be great. I want to be able to present a strong picture that in this field, because its seen as an art form and not a pastime, that we use "video games" for the field. Or alternative, that "video gaming" has become passe for reasons. So if any type of sourcing that you see - ideally in scholarly or non-gaming sources to support this - please let me know.

The other factor that will come into play is the complaints that if "Video games" is the top level category, then we would naturally have categories like "2019 in video games" and then "2019 video games" and that could be confusing (ignoring the fact that we have situations like Category:2019 in film and Category:2019 films). Now, if I can show strongly that "video games" is understood as both a medium and "a game involving video" that there's no confusion between "2019 in video games" and "2019 video games", that's one thing. But I also want to be prepared to present an alternative scheme, this being , I think, using "Video games first introduced in 2019" instead of "2019 video games". This not only resolves the matter of category confusion, but also the fact how many times video games can be ported and remade. There might be better alternatives here, but I'd like to have that in a backpocket as well.

This is all just brainstorming, I'm likely not touching anything with this for a good month here. --Masem (t) 19:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I honestly didn't support the change to begin with, largely per analogy with 'gaming' and 'computing'. Category:Video games additionally is a good category for someone to find actual video games rather than the entirety of everything else that you might care about in the context of video gaming. Video games first introduced in 2019 Please no, categories lists already get long enough without deciding to add unnecessary text. The confusion you comment above is entirely self-inflicted if one decides "C:Video games" should be the top level. --Izno (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The comparison to gaming and computing make sense if you take the stance that the field of video games is more an activity than an art form. And that's probably where this pivots, and a completely fair point. Which is something I would explore and try to present in the arguments. And again, I don't think the confusion betweeen "2019 video games" and "2019 in video games" is there as been claimed, but I'm just noting this. --Masem (t) 20:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the solution is either. I'm not opposed to "gaming" as a term, even if it's less used. My priority would be to give the categories more organization. It does make the categories less useful if I click on "games" and I'm not sure if I'm going to see games, or game-related content, or both. I'm open to proposals, if they're not unclear OR verbose. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I brought this issue up back in the previous discussion. I suggested Category:Video games (topic) for the overall topic and Category:Video games for the games themselves. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    • This might resolve one naming problem but we're still left then with "YYYY in video games" vs "YYYY video games" as a possible name conflict. --Masem (t) 00:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to edit this page. TheJackBasket777 (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting or renaming Panel de Pon/Tetris Attack

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

This was brought to my attention today, and I thought this was worth bringing up here. Years ago there was a feud Tetris Attack, known as Panel de Pon in Japan, regarding if the page should be renamed to its original Japanese title or if the two be split into different articles. The discussion was mostly just people arguing about the other's spelling and behavior, and didn't really go anywhere. An IP started another discussion regarding it due to the game being released as Panel de Pon through the Nintendo Switch Online service. There's never been a clear consensus on this, so I thought I should bring it here so that we can all come to one.

Personally, I'm against the idea of this article being renamed or split. It doesn't abide by Wikipedia:Common name, as most sources (both in the article and online) call it Tetris Attack and not by Panel de Pon. Neither of these games have any differences aside from a change in both the name and theme (fairies in Panel de Pon and Yoshi in Tetris Attack), so it feels pointless to split them. It's not like Doki Doki Panic and Super Mario Bros. 2 where there are fundamental changes and alterations to the gameplay itself; aside from a different title and characters, they are identical. Even if we were to split them, would Panel de Pon even be notable on its own? It would need to establish notability by itself, and I don't know if that is even possible. Those are my opinions on it, but I'm curious to see what others have to say. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the page to resolve the naming issue makes no sense, as it is clearly known to be the same game purposely with asset flips for international release. And I know with the release on the NSO service that Nintendo did make a big deal that this is the first time that Panel de Pon is getting an international release. There is a valid argument to rename to Panel de Pon with this (obviously making it 100% clear it is also Tetris Attack still) but the splitting option needs to be nixxed ASAP; that simply doesn't make sense. --Masem (t) 00:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm the IP in question. It's a bit of an awkward situation; Tetris Attack is still the most common title in sources, as noted, but Panel de Pon will be the official international title of the Switch rerelease. I've put up a suggested solution, which is emphasizing both titles in the lead section: "Tetris Attack, also known as Panel de Pon..." I also tried putting both titles in the infobox, but it looks awkward. That gives me an idea: splitting the page is perhaps too much, but what about splitting the infobox?
(To sum up my opinions: strongly in favor of equal emphasis, weakly in favor of a rename, no page split.) --90.227.30.140 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a Doki Doki Panic / Super Mario Bros. 2 situation - an original Japanese game was retooled to include Mario/Yoshi characters for its Western localization. TA/PdP are less disctinct than DDP/SMB2, and we cover the latter in the same article under the Western title, so it makes sense that the same solution will work for TA/PdP. In the section on the article talk that is just above this current one, I argued against a merge because the previous consensus seemed to lean in favor of a split, and I still think it may be a discussion worth having, but I don't see the combined article as a "problem to solve". As for weight in the lede, sure both versions probably deserve roughly equal weight, especially now that the original PdP version is the one rereleased in Nintendo's eShop. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The one major difference I can see is that Doki Doki Panic never had an official Western release which in a few days won’t be the case for Panel de Pon.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think the Switch release of Panel de Pon calls for an immediate renaming of the article. The Switch release is unlikely to approach the Super NES/Game Boy release's level of fame, and even if it were, we should wait for that to happen rather than presuming it will. I can't seem to recall what the name of the policy is, but a flurry of news reports over a new release shouldn't be taken as an indication that the subject's WP:COMMONNAME has changed.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Eyes on Mafia

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone,

Mafia (video game) (and Talk: Mafia (video game)) could use some input. With the announced remake, the subtitle The City of Lost Heaven keeps being readded. I'm on my tablet, which makes editing painfully slow and I'm heading to a 3RR. Help would appreciated. Thanks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A helpful editing/sourcing reminder

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you are doing anything on the broader video game concepts/terms, or dealing with some of the more fundamental/influential games that are 5+ years old, make sure to check Google Scholar for sources. There's a lot more scholarship writing about VGs than ever (just avoid student thesises) and those can help flesh out some topics that have drawn academic interest. If you have Chrome, there's an extension "Google Scholar Button" that if you searching for terms in a regular google search, will take you to the same search in Google Scholar making it easy. --Masem (t) 17:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Membership

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So I put the userbox on my userpage, but I am not in the member list. I want to be in the member list. I created 1 vg related article and put more than 2 edits which was the minimum to get on the list. Thanks NamelessLameless (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Idk if this is the right place to put this. If it is not im sorry, im still kind of new NamelessLameless (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It’s been forever, but I think you just have to manually add your name to the list. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (May 11 to May 17)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

May 11

May 12

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16

May 17

Scope for Sega task force

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion regarding the scope of WP:SEGA is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sega#What should we include in our scope?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

FARs for Square Enix articles?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Related to the situation with Radical Dreamers, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible to do a check-up on the Kingdom Hearts articles that have been promoted to FA and the Chrono Cross article (also an FA) for potential problems before we take them to FAR. Any thoughts or suggestions? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe bring this up to the Square Enix WikiProject too. GamerPro64 03:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Per instructions make sure to bring up possible issues on the talk page and try and get attention to that before starting a FAR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Satellaview games reviewed in Satella Tsuhin, do you have this magazine?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We are looking for people who have this Japanese magazine, or know where it can be found. Wiki project Square Enix wants it to get the original Japanese reviews for the game released on the Satellaview video game system. Or if you know what issue they reviewed it in, that would help too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Articles for Creation now has a sort tool; you can use it to review Draft video game articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Just thought some folks here would like to be able to see proposed drafts and weigh in: Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Media/Video games MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that according to the header at Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Media/Video games, "Topic predictions are from ORES", not manually sorted, so it's very possible that some of the drafts aren't about video game topics at all. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
While ORES probably is not really good at judging article class for drafts (since it seems to go by the number of sources and length of text without evaluation of quality), the articles in that category seem to be mostly, if not all, related to VG. Not a bad idea imho, allowing people to review drafts based on their expertise. Regards SoWhy 08:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Just noting it since the first two I checked weren't VG-related :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting comments

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenia (emulator). The discussion currently looks like it will make for a "no consensus" closure, the worst possible outcome. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Dream Focus has ever voted to delete something on a AFD. Anyway, this page absolutely fails the notability criteria, there's two sources and neither of them offer significant coverage that makes the subject notable enough to have its own article. This could easily be mentioned on something like Xbox 360 or what have you. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipedia:Teahouse Question related to video games - Assistance requested.

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A Wikipedia:Teahouse discussion has been started revolving around if there's a point to replace 'upcoming' with 'canceled' when a game seems to no longer be under development based off news reports, but has not been officially canceled. Assistance with this question is appreciated. (More information, including the game in question, is available at the Teahouse discussion.)

NOTE: Please go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse discussion to reply, so this conversation occurs in one coherent place. Thank you.--The Navigators (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Inexplicably missing article - Replacement article contains no information of deleted one.

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi y'all.. Looking for the article The Music of the Gran Turismo series, but it has seeminly vanished and now redirects to the Gran Turismo series page. The new page contains no information of the old one. Could we add info to the new page or regain the old one? Thanks

https://web.archive.org/web/20191111082749/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_Gran_Turismo_series Archive of the original page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_(series) Current redirect

Miss Zia (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It was redirected by OceanHok [17] due to it being WP:GAMECRUFT. And from looking at it that seems accurate as it was just a list of songs that appeared in each game with no detail actually of the music like production. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 10:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Miss Zia, a carbon copy of that article is hosted on FANDOM, see here. Given the article's content, FANDOM is also the appropriate venue, unlike Wikipedia, as Spy-cicle explains above. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I was going to note that if you needed anything off those pages the redirect's past history is there, but there's nothing salvagable in terms of sourced information (not soundtrack related). --Masem (t) 19:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Open source games by genre

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I left a note here a week or two ago about the set of genre categories in Category:Open-source video games. I have since started a discussion about the set of categories. Please take a moment to participate. --Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding lists

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I recently noticed that while we have separate lists for List of Nintendo Entertainment System games and List of Family Computer games the List of Super Famicom games was merged with List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games in May 2018. Is there any particular reason that they are handled differently or should the Family Computer List be merged like the Super Famicom list was?--69.157.254.64 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

They should be merged- the SNES lists were merged per this discussion, and at the conclusion the point was raised to merge the NES lists as well, but it apparently never happened. --PresN 13:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability concern regarding Radical Dreamers

Latest comment: 3 years ago26 comments12 people in discussion

When I was working on getting Satellaview up to GA status, I poked around Wikipedia to "harvest" sources from Satellaview games that could be useful for the page. While doing this, I came across a page for Square's Radical Dreamers, which is a Featured Article and has been since 2008. Looking through it, I'm under the belief that this is not FA-quality, as there's multiple glaring issues with the article that go against the FA criteria: most of the references are just quotes of text from the game or unreliable Chrono Trigger fansites, poor writing in multiple places (ex. "Masato Kato wrote Radical Dreamers after Chrono Trigger's release" doesn't make sense, you don't "write" video games), and the noticeable lack of any kind of reception. This leads into my main problem with the article, which is if the game even meets the notability criteria at all. Nothing reliable on sites like MobyGames, could find very little with a Google search, and the Wayback Machine poses few results outside of brief mentions in writings for the Satellaview. There's a Hardcore Gaming 101 podcast episode on the game, but I don't know how usable that is. I don't want to bring this to FAR quite yet in the event some good reliable sources for this are found, but for the time being I do not believe this is either FA-quality or even notable to have its own article. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It was made FA in 2007, and standards were obviously much lower back then. There are actually a bunch of FA and GA articles you could question the notability status of, as the review process doesn't even consider such questions. It's just assumed the article is notable if it's gotten that far. They check mostly prose and how complete it is. I'd say the article would have to be completely re-written and better sources found. And that HG101 podcast would not be one of them. I'd say avoid unscripted podcasts with no editor and checking. It's too off the cuff and errors are way too likely.
Some of the sources cited are translations of solid Japanese sources listed on fan sites. That's fine, but the original Japanese sources need to be found and the citations reformatted completely. It's possible that if you cut the text down to just what can be cited to third parties, then it might be merged into the Chrono series article.
So the game was text heavy, so it likely means that fewer people would have wanted to give in-depth upon release. Pretty much every magazine out there made reference to it and briefly explained it during the release of Chrono Cross but it looks like few actually bothered to review it indepth. That makes sense given it's text heavy and in Japanese, and in a Satellaview broadcast and not a simple game cartridge. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I doubt it’s FA quality - many that were promoted in the 2006-2009 era probably aren’t anymore - but it definitely has notability. Even if you’re not happy with what’s in the article, I’ve seen it get coverage over the years in the context of “lost/rare entries in series” type retrospectives. Please notify me before you start up a formal merge or AFD discussion on it and I’ll do some digging. Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, if it was promoted that long ago then I think it's worth it to try an FAR. Note that FAR is actually not to just delist the article; it's to get a solid analysis of if it's FA quality, and what needs to change. I'd try to improve the article at least a bit before nominating it for FAR, so it could have a better chance of surviving.
Also just throwing it in there that the HG101 podcast is probably fine to use; HG101 is reliable so I think that their reliability would translate to the podcast. JOEBRO64 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It kinda fell by the wayside and might not be up to date but as one time we intended to review all these old FAs. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I thought about proposing an idea exactly like that, but I was concerned over the amount of work that would need to be put into it. I do think something like this should be done; lots of these have not stood the test of time with the notability and FA criteria, and some are in terrible shape that they shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Given that, should we do a proposal for an FAR drive in this case? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
        • My only concern is that these require a lot of input and work from other users, and they take quite a bit of time depending on the subject. I think it would be good to start one for Good Articles as there's plenty of those from pre-2010 that don't meet the criteria (this idea worked decently well with the extensive amount of Sonic the Hedgehog characters a few years ago, so I can see something like that happening). Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
          • Its very do-able, the problem is just editor motivation. The people who love the GA/FA process are very big into “achievement” and “badges of pride”, but there’s little of either in de-certifying and decomposing other people’s work. I’m not saying it’s right it wrong, it’s just the way it is - no one has a “I removed FA status from 10 articles” user box badge on their user page. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
            • I would so be into taking part of FARs here. Due to doing that for over a decade. I can definitely help out with this. GamerPro64 01:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
              • In addition to all the obvious reasons, I don't think you'd be earning any goodwill by batch nominating things to FAR in a "FAR drive" because you'd overwhelm the system. If there are particular FAs you have a problem with, better and simpler to look for collaborators here to improve it than to spam the FAR process and make a headache for the admins/editors who frequent there. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd merge this to Chrono (series)#Radical Dreamers before FARing it. Anything noteworthy from reliable, secondary sources can be sufficiently summarized there. The rest is trivia from primary sources. czar 01:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I dont think merging a Featured Article would pan out well. GamerPro64 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, nothing is going to happen WP:BOLDly here, there’s likely going to be lengthy discussions regardless of venue. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • … poor writing in multiple places (ex. "Masato Kato wrote Radical Dreamers after Chrono Trigger's release" doesn't make sense, you don't "write" video games) What? Sure you do. Wikipedia is happy to say that people "write" comic books, television and movies, why would it be different for video games (let alone a "text-based adventure game", where the writing is very much a key component)? I can buy that using "write" for video games is potentially ambiguous (since it could be writing story or writing code), but it's absolutely not in this case, since 1) Kato is known as a writer, not a programmer and 2) the very next sentence says he "composed the main story". The sentence makes perfect sense. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Establishing notability

The thing I wanna take care of right off the bat is its notability, since that's my biggest concern (aside from it not being of FA quality). Jovanmilic found some good material but isn't sure if that would be enough for a full-length article, and neither do I. Outside of brief mentions I couldn't find anything, and I don't know if the HG101 podcast would be usable since none of it is scripted, so I don't have a lot to contribute. If anybody has some good coverage of this game from reliable sources, post them here and I'll incorporate them into the article. I'm gonna take this to FAR one way or the other, but it would be nice to actually see if this game even deserves an article in the first place. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're conflating notability with amount of material to put into a standalone article. These are not the same. It's clear that it's a notable (Japan-only) release. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Would be helpful to mention the sources that make it notable. WP:ITSNOTABLE can't bring the article anywhere. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not shocking that there's no indepth coverage as the game could not be imported at all since you needed a Satallaview in Japan, and it's text heavy. So there's no import reviews from print game mags in the 90's. In-depth material would be in Japanese magazines. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If parties concerned would please direct their attention to the talk page of Wikiproject Square Enix, we are starting to investigate this issue, and are finding some interviews in Japanese from reliable sources. I do not know at this point how many we will find, but we need more than two days to address an issue we were just made aware of (how weak the article has grown by contrast). Let’s see what we find, and then it will be clear to all what must be done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
If you're completely serious about this: you're going to have to just invest in some Japanese magazines and have them translated. Not just interviews, but proper articles and previews covering the game and its gameplay. I'm certain Dengeki SFC, Famitsu, and others would have had 2-4 page spreads on it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I’ll be helping with cleanup too. I don’t care about FA status, but I feel strongly about the games notability. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I find this game to be particularly interesting (I have an interest in anything related to the Satellaview), so I really hope that notability can be established. I'll spend a bit of time looking for some more stuff if I can. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
User Protodrake has put in a huge amount of work and new references on Radical Dreamers. Other than a reception section, which we are still investigating, how do people think it looks now? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Judgesurreal777: Late response, but I'm really impressed. You two did a pretty good job at this, it looks a lot better. I'll work on trying to establish some notability here. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Addressing sequels of a game as part of its Legacy

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

A recurring pattern I've seen in articles for games that are part of a series is that a "Legacy" or "Sequels" section will often list all sequels that came after it, or list off elements that were carried over to future games. Examples I have off the top of my head are the Paper Mario and the Super Smash Bros. games, and a good portion of the Super Mario games. For each one new entry that is released, most previous articles are updated to include or reference that new game.

Something about having to list all the sequels or what elements carried to future ones seems a bit crufty, or leaning into original research. For particular elements or features that a game introduced that heavily influenced later games' design that are covered by reliable sources (like the world map in SMB3), but something like "enemy X now appears in Y games afterward" seems a bit much. It seems redundant to list all future games in a series, as it's obvious it's a series. How should we approach addressing sequels to games in articles or elements carried over to new games in the Legacy section? Nothing in the manual of style jumped out to me, so I'm curious on best approach. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Listing recurring enemies is too much. I haven't looked but a Legacy/Sequel section for Super Mario Bros. could be something like "It's success spawned [however many] direct sequels, Super Mario Bros 2 and Super Mario Bros 3 to positive critical receptions and financial success. Sinec its release, the Super Mario Bros series has developed into a multimedia spanning franchise across animated series, films, comics, toys, etc, etc. A variety of games featuring the Mario Bros have been made, from continuations that embrace the platforming side to deviations such as Dr Mario, that Tetrisy one, and crossovers with Sega icons like Sonic the Hedgehog in the Olympic ones"
I don't know enough about that series to go all in, but it should be detail of the impact it has had, and an overview of appearances in other games. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the legacy section should address the significant impact a game had on the series, like Mario 3's overworld map. When talking about sequels, I'd mention stuff like what the developers learned from the first game and give a concise (1-2 sentence) summary of the sequel. For instance, a lot of Donkey Kong Country 2 is composed of material that was cut from the first DKC, so that'd definitely merit a mention in the legacy section. JOEBRO64 22:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Quickly looking at the SSB page, its Legacy section is just a history of the game's sequels which means its essentially just a summary of the game's series article (it admits as much by linking to that article as the section's main article). That certainly shouldn't be what's covered in a Legacy section and really shouldn't be covered in the game's article at all. The series article exists for a reason. Something more akin to what Joebro gave as examples would be much more appropriate and interesting. --TorsodogTalk 03:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Stuff like "its success spawned [however many] direct sequels" isn't legacy of a game, but the continuing success of a certain intellectual property or franchise. Maybe it's semantics, but I think of "legacy" of long-lasting impact. That Metroid had several sequels is important, but that there's such a thing as Metroidvania is more of a legacy, if you get my meaning. And particularly in other media like film, literature or television. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Legacy to me feels some beyond the game and/or its franchise. If the game is one that spawned sequels, that is probably a section under Development or Reception, depending. On the other hand, if it spawned a genre (eg "GTA Clones") thats a Legacy thing. Or impact on the market (good OR bad, like ET and the video game crash). --Masem (t) 20:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (May 18 to May 24)

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

May 18

  • None

May 19

May 20

May 21

May 22

  • None

May 23

  • None

May 24

  • A number of these "video games scored by" categories don't even have an article of their respective composer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I was about to say, yeah. Lots of these people I looked into and don't think they're notable enough to have their own article, so I think a CfD might be in order. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • For the record, I want to say this in case somebody assumes that I'm creating these categories for video game composers out of malice and to cause "disruptive editing": I'm a fan of video game music and I like to know who were the composers of each title + their respective conversions so, inspired by the work of users like Phediuk, I decided to perform this mini task by myself. Regardless, even if the categories I created are deleted because they lack an article (which is silly in my honest opinion), i'll continue to make them because I'm not doing anything wrong by doing so... Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
        • There are other Wikis that do this sort of stuff (VGMPF is one), if you simply want to personally track a (non-notable) composer's work. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

FIFA Online 3 AfD Notice

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just put this out there, but FIFA Online 3 was put up for AfD over a week ago. If any wants to comment or help fix up the article, be much appreciated, cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox format

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Today I created the article Mega Man X (character). While it still needs some tide up and sources, I can't fix well the infobox when it comes to voice actors. Sorry for bothering. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I have managed to fix the issue ([21]). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't find any GameRankings review on NBA ShootOut 98

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have a problem. I can't find any GameRankings reviews on NBA ShootOut 98 because Google has wiped all the GameRankings links off from the face of the earth. I even tried searching for the game, even typing in "nba shootout 98" on this link here, but it takes forever and never brings me any results! It seems the Wayback Machine search thing is broken! When will the issues be fixed so that I can find the GameRankings link for NBA ShootOut 98 again? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You must search manually by browsing the webpages on Gamerankings. You cannot use the search mechanism. It does not look in pages, only in the kinds of pages (HTML, PNG, etc.). --Izno (talk)
Particularly for this game, here is the Gamerankings in 2004. --Izno (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's your archive.org page [22].
A trick I have just figured out. Gamefaqs for some reason is at least keeping the id aspects of the games. So if you need to find the GR page on archive.org:
  1. Go to GameFaqs
  2. Search for your game (so like, if I want NBA Shootout 2000, I get to "https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/ps/198089-nba-shootout-2000".
  3. All you care about in that is the stuff after "...gamespot.com/" part, here "/ps/198089-nba-shootout-2000"
  4. The old GameRankings page would have been at "https://www.gamerankings.com" + the last part of the GameFaqs URL, so in this case, the old GR page is "https://www.gamerankings.com/ps/198089-nba-shootout-2000"
  5. Take that to Archive.org and you should be able to grab an archive snapshot.
I have no spot-checked on too many but this seems to work consistently. --Masem (t) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. And I've found the archived link I was looking for. I'll remember your advice next time. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Need further input on Talk:Virtual Boy hardware merge

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anyone provide their input there so that we can have a consensus on whether it should be merged to Virtual Boy or not? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (May 25 to May 31)

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

May 25

May 26

May 27

May 28

May 29

May 30

May 31

  • Anybody want to take all these recently created game composer categories up for deletion? I'm short on time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'll go ahead and do it. It will take a bit, though, due to the sheer amount of them. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The discussion is here. Due to the ridiculous amount of these categories that exist, expect this to be updated several times as I add more. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sega is on the main page

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sega made it to the front page! Congratulations to everybody that has made this possible. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

CFD on "Video game franchises disestablished by YEAR"

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've nominated the categories following that general title formula from 1999-2018 here at CFD, following the recent deletion of the parent cat. bibliomaniac15 18:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Games by Quantic Dream

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone wants to support my Good Topic nomination. Cognissonance (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:XXXX sequel video games

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

A new batch of categories is making its rounds that I find oddly specific. Category:2001 sequel video games and related categories seem like a superfluous combination of Category:Video game sequels and Category:2003 video games. The scope is also very limited and some of these might fail WP:SMALLCAT. Thoughts? IceWelder [✉] 17:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's not a defining cross-categorization. We don't have these yet, but I could argue that cross-categories like "YYYY first-person shooters" or "YYYY Windows games" might be justifyable as there are history changes within genre and/or platform, but sequels -- no. They should be categorized as sequels, and of course by year, but that's it. --Masem (t) 17:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete them all. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Redundant and useless. All of them should be wiped. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Send them to CFD please. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This is this going at a rapid clip. @Cwf97: Could you please stop and join this discussion at the CfD above? -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@IceWelder: You may want to add the "film" version to CfD as well, see [here] -- ferret (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ferret and others: Due to the sheer size the film categories cover, I created a separate CfD discussion. IceWelder [✉] 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Considering this editor's prolific output and poor track record, I would consider proposing a TBAN on category creation so they can focus on less controversial and damaging contributions to the project. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, what the hell is Category:Video game franchises by year of disestablishment? If someone can add that (or start a new CfD), that'd be great. I'm on my very broken phone and my tablet's run out of battery. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Soetermans:: Went ahead and brought it to CfD. Discussion is here. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
User was advised to actually communicate with others nearly 2 years ago and has since proceeded to continue making hundreds of elaborate, superfluous category trees, but only about a dozen edits on talk pages. Is there a local consensus to bring up a WP:TBAN at WP:AN? This is honestly disruptive. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Within the past two years, this editor has created 986 categories, 128 of which have been deleted, with dozens more at CFD right now. They were dormant for the past few months, but seem to be on a 2000+ edit spree in the last month or so. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This user needs either a temporary block or a topic ban regarding categories like these. He's being disruptive at this point and has refused to engage in conversation even when others have asked him to. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I also warned the editor in January, which they ignored. I think at the very least a WP:TBAN is needed per WP:COMPETENCE, although such disruptive behavior doesn't give me any confidence that their edits anywhere else will be any less problematic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I mentioned this at the comics project last year, so I'll bring it up here: I think Cwf97 might be a sock of CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned in 2014. They've been caught socking like 35 times in the last five or six years, and Cwf97's behavior is reminiscent of theirs. JOEBRO64 20:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This is not something this project talk page can deal with, someone will need to either head to SPI if the evidence is strong for that, or to ANI. Seems pretty obvious the local project group believe action is needed, but ANI needs to make the call. I myself left a final warning of sorts. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't here looking for someone to deal with this, I was just mentioning it. JOEBRO64 22:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, meant as a general statement to this entire couple of replies, not directed to you specific. -- ferret (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
He was quiet for a few days which would have made it difficult to bring up at ANI as an immediate pressing issue but he started back up again recently. I'll try to put together a listing soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: I'm willing to just block him, there's more than enough warnings here and he's already got another category at CFD. However if you'd prefer ANI, let me know. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed this ping. I started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TBAN_for_User:Cwf97_from_creating_categories. @Ferret: CC: IceWelder Masem Dissident93 Namcokid47 TheJoebro64 Soetermans Zxcvbnm Axem Titanium (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Axem Titanium, sorry for the late reply, I've haven't been editing last couple of days. I see action has been taken already! Good work. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Industry response to George Floyd/protests/riots on "2020 in video games" page

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Way back before COVID was as big as it was, I suggested keeping the impact on COVID on the 2020 in video games page. Obviously that grew much larger than expected, and the separate page was necessitated.

Now on the other hand, this situation related to the protests and riots to the death of George Floyd has caused enough responses from the industry to be documented, but not for its own page, so I'd suggest a short section on the 2020 page to highlight at least the major efforts (eg companies committing $, specific actions like GTA /RDR Online shutdowns etc.) --Masem (t) 17:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t mind, though I haven’t seen much beyond “Company supports the cause” or “Company donates X amount of money” outside of your GTA example. Not a criticism, just a note that it’ll probably be about repetitive. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Humble Bundle donated $1 million. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sony postponed the PS5 games reveal
  • CD Project postponed the Cyperpunk livestream
  • Eurogamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, Dicebreaker, EGX, MCM Comic Con, VG247, GamesIndustry.biz, USgamer, Outside Xbox, Outside Xtra, Digital Foundry, Nintendo Life, Metabomb, Video Games Chronicle, Push Square, Pure Xbox all took part in blackouttuesday. - X201 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, good point, there have been a bunch of delays too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The list above verges on the trivial for me. There's nothing special about this industry in their response. --Izno (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, all of this could just belong on a gaming-specific subsection within another article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Dissident93 Thats what Masem is already suggesting though. No one is suggesting a stand-alone article. Unless you’re opposing “2020 in gaming” as the target, which, okay, but where are you suggesting then? Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this is what I'm saying, some new section, likely just after the COVID section, on "Industry reaction to the George Floyd protests". And to be clear, this is going to be super high-level. I am presuming most of the major companied voiced support in the same manner other entertainment venues did , it is those that put a significant $ into supporting other efforts that should be called out. Similarly , I don't feel it necessary to pinpoint each announcement or the like delayed form this week into next, but that in general, several major events that had been planned for this week (as the substitute E3 week) were moved. We should document the industry did something, but not be so ... egotistic to identify every single action? That was my original fear with the COVID page but it quickly outgrew that. Here, its still a caution. --Masem (t) 02:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I support that. It's notable in the sense of having third party coverage. But also articles are WP:NOTNEWS, so probably just a couple sentences in the 2020 article. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Until it gets much bigger and much more significant than a twitter post and <1% of their annual revenue, I think a few lines in 2020 in games the DUE level of coverage we should give this. Don't need to pat the Brands on the back for doing the bare minimum. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I was only disagreeing with the suggestion of having a standalone article, as there is always somebody who supports that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
This is about as much as expect to write, only to add any other major donation-type aspects ($100k being the cutoff), or similar actions like Infinity Ward's. I've left 3 articles that are summarizing the industrys response broadly that we don't need to go into the details about otherwise. --Masem (t) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Where is the Sega Master System Version, there is no Mention of it. It could be added on platforms also 79.156.110.38 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The template you're referring to lists nominees for GA, FA and various other statuses - not just a list of articles that come under the remit of WikiProject Video games. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Different question: does anyone know why anon IPs occasionally ask these random edit requests here? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Soetermans, I think it's because they go to the talk page of a WPVG article to submit an edit request, accidentally end up at the project page by clicking the link at the top, and just submit the request without checking that they're on the wrong page. JOEBRO64 20:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, more specifically, check the box to the right- they submitted this request for Template:WPVG announcements, and the talk page for that template redirects here. --PresN 03:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Super Smash Bros. guest characters

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Requesting more opinions on a Super Smash Bros. guest characters category up for discussion. I'd have added this to the deletion noticeboard, but last I checked it did not (natively) support non-articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve got similar concerns about Category:Video game secret characters - which I’ve seen be added to a number of Smash character articles. Not sure it’s fitting. Is Shulk really a secret character in Smash? Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that secret characters have some mystique to them, compared to unlockable, but that's super subjective. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the big issue with this category is that secret characters are much less a thing, and are closer to trivia than ever, not being something people would search for. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. It’s fails WP:DEFINING - it’s highly populated by Smash characters, but none of these characters are defined by being “secretly” unlocked in Smash Bros. Shulk or Pichu are defined by being parts of major video game franchises, not by the fact that they’re not immediately selectable in the opening moments of first loading up Ultimate. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Also it's so subjective as to be meaningless. Anyone can be a secret character if you try hard enough. Diddy Kong is a secret character in DK64 because he's not unlocked at the beginning. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Project Gotham Racing V.2.0 (video game)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone please look at this one. Seems like a case of a blatant hoax using Project Gotham Racing (video game)'s text and references (which I removed, of course). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Obvious hoax, the alleged developer went out of business in 2011.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Initiative to use Module:Sports table and Module:Sports results for team standings and match results

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For e-sports league and competition articles, ICYDK, there are widely used modules for team standings and match results table namely: Module:Sports table and Module:Sports results.

Instead of writing the tables from scratch and choosing your own colors for your table, it is encouraged to use these said modules for standardization of the tables which aligns with the Wikipedia policy in terms of format and design (e.g. MOS:COLOR and WP:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table).

If you have questions regarding the usage of the modules especially those that aren't documented, just let me know. – McVahl (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Helping out with connecting new articles to Wikidata?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello folks!

I am active over at Wikidata’s WikiProject Video games. Among many activities, one of the basic maintenance things we do over there is to make sure Wikipedia articles about games are connected to a Wikidata item.

In practice, I have a Petscan query (see here) for articles that have {{Infobox video game}} but are not connected to any Wikidata items. If there’s already an item for that game, then the en.wp article gets added as sitelink ; if not, we create a new item with instance of (P31)=video game (Q7889). The process is quite smooth with PetScan and Duplicity[1].

I have tried really hard to stay on top of that (for the Wikipedias in English, French and sometimes German) ; but this project is so active that I keep falling behind: right now there are 142 such unconnected articles (And with some personal changes I will soon have very little time for wiki-work). Sometimes someone will eventually run a bot to mass-create items for all these articles, which often results in a bunch of empty items (172 right now), often duplicates[2].

So I was wondering if you folks would consider helping out? It’s simple: when one of you folks create a new article (or put in shape a newly created article):

And that’s it! Something like this new item from the Italian Wikipedia is great (Of course, feel free to add more statements/identifiers ;-). It’s enough for Wikidatians to take it from there (the item will show up in maintenance reports such as d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games/New video game items)

I understand you have plenty enough on your plate without having to care about the Wikidata side of things, and I certainly would not expect it from you. But if some of you folks can sometimes think about this small step, that would be tremendously helpful. :)

Thanks for reading! Jean-Fred (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ PetScan will indicate with the tickboxes which items are likely/unlikely to have a matching item ; and Duplicity is good at surfacing potential matches and creating items with one click
  2. ^ For example, Championship Rally (Q85751430) was bot-created for Championship Rally (2000 video game), but we already had Championship Rally (Q5070141)
  3. ^ there are over 15K video game items without an equivalent article here − for good reasons of course (not all of these would be notable here or are covered as part of another article) ; but it does means that it is likely that an item will already exist for new articles: to take a random example, The Golf Club 2 was created a few days ago, but The Golf Club 2 (Q31285018) has been around for 3 years
See also WP:VG/WD if you want a little info on editing Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't seem to load your PetScan query to check the overlap but as you can see from our new article alerts Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#New_Articles_(May_25_to_May_31), a lot of them are made by editors who aren't active at WPVG. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the answer. It’s not only about the article creator though − I would actually have assumed that WPVG members might routinely survey new articles to (as I put it above) “put them in shape” − whether that’s sanity-checking notability, add an Infobox template or a couple of categories: checking that it’s connected to Wikidata could be an item on that hypothetical checklist.
(Which link is not working for you? I rechecked and both PetScan queries and the SPARQL query do resolve for me)
Jean-Fred (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_149&oldid=1147649977"