Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 98

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

→

Archive 105

List of video games notable for negative reception

I wonder if improving this article is needed. Hahnchen raised concerns about its criteria as too broad or "bastardized". While the list is decent to read, there are other worse games than listed ones. --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I got an obvious problem that needs fixing. Make the lead more than one sentence. List of commercial failures in video gaming, for example. Its not perfect but it does exactly what it says on the tin. Heck, this list this thread is centered on is the reason why I improved on the commercial failures one. GamerPro64 00:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

For this, I would argue the criteria needs to be other RS's talking about the negative reception published by other sources. In other words, just getting bad review scores isn't sufficient (like Naughty Bear on that list). Things like War Z (the negative feedback from players as of the as-released features), Plumbers Don't Wear Ties (comments results from result of AVGN's review), etc. are more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Game of the Year awards

List of Game of the Year awards survived an AfD (disclosure, I NAC'd it) conditional on a number of improvements. It's an important article but it needs a good clean up and possibly a split into List of Game of the Year awards (board games) and List of Game of the Year awards (video games). Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and split the page. I've also sorted it into publication style (i.e. print magazines, websites etc) and moved all the readers choice awards into the relevant parent pubplication/website if applicable. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, PantherLeapord (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox VG character move discussion

I have opened a move discussion at Template talk:Infobox VG character to move it to Template:Infobox video game character. Please comment. --Izno (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I tried helping but I may have broken a few things here and there. Hopefully I've fixed it now, and the accidentally created double redirects will be botfixed. I need coffee! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of List of Halo multiplayer maps

This article has been nominated for deletion for the 2nd time, entry here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Halo multiplayer maps (2nd nomination). No consensus was reached on the first nomination. The1337gamer (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy XII

Recently, I reviewed Fortress and passed it as a GA, which was once a part of this Good Topic, but that's beside the point. Even if Fortress was readded, wouldn't the topic also need to include Vaan and Balthier to satisfy WP:WIAFT criterion 1(d) for completeness? Should the topic be taken to WP:FTRC and discussed there?--十八 22:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess the idea is that since Characters of Final Fantasy XII is in the topic, that Vaan and Balthier, as subarticles of that list, don't need to be directly included. --PresN 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'd agree when this project has two other FTs which include branch character articles in addition to a character list: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII. Both Vaan and Balthier were recreated after the the topic became a GT, and it was just never brought up until now it seems.--十八 05:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment about voice actors at Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance

I'd like to request anyone interested to participate in a dispute over the inclusion of voice actors at the above article. I included the actors in a similar way to Batman: Arkham City and other game articles in the style of "charactername (actor name)", only a handful of actors names, but a user repeatedly removes the content even when sourced, raising different excuses each time, and since I am on my 3rd revert and he is on his 4th, its clear he will not be stopping any time soon, and since the dispute includes only 2 editors, it requires additional voices to end it one way or another, as I feel he will just continue to edit war if the content is restored by myself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Just Dance 4

I'm floating this by users here: Just Dance 4 has become a game guide, with its exhaustive list of songs. Should those be removed? Why, if we were to do so, would those list articles for Rock Band (video game) (List of songs in Rock Band) and other music video games not also be removed? I was going to be bold, but I figured, why not ask the project. In other words, how do these lists not fail WP:VGSCOPE #6? --Izno (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone once in a while, in my experience, it's found that lists are acceptable if they're a core part of understanding the game. In my opinion, I think the songs/artists columns are appropriate, but all the columns, like "game mode" and "difficulty", are too detailed and should be remover per GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Character designer discussion at WT:SE

Heads up: there's a character designer discussion over at WT:SE#Character designer question. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there are some concerns about the recent activity by Niemti, who is currently the subject of an RFC, I think we should delete these categories while we're still waiting for an AN thread about the proposal to ban him from the WP:VG subpages. The articles need information about the designer and the categories are unnecessary per Tintor2 and PresN. The possibility of a WP:CFD was not discounted by ProtoDrake, one of the people involved in the discussion. Does anyone have thoughts about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me. I noticed that the RFC is not listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList anymore. Is that an oversight or are we now realizing that the RFC has no purpose? GamerPro64 23:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The RFC is still active and still has a purpose, but it was closed following a topic ban on Anita Sarkeesian was enacted, and that was boldly reverted by Salvidrim (see also this). Also, the ban proposal on the WP:VG and its subpages are not up at AN or ANI yet. Surely if there are still active issues with Niemti (which there still are), maybe it's time to discuss a ban of some sorts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I know this is late, but the RFC was relisted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Generation XTH

I've been doing research into a Japanese video game series by a development team called Generation XTH under a company called Experience (neither of which seem to have a Wikipedia entry here, but I'll get to that later). I'm currently interested in writing an article for one of their games called Meikyuu Cross Blood Infinity, a PS Vita port of an earlier game called Meikyuu Cross Blood (the former is to be published by another company called Cyberfront). However, I can't understand from the Japanese Wiki articles as to what the name of the series actually is. Since MCBI has yet to be released, should I make an article for the series instead? If so, where can I find good sources? Alternatively, should I make an article for Experience/Generation XTH? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The article says that Generation XTH is a series of 3D dungeon RPGs, and that Experience, under the development team Team Muramasa, are the makers. Meikyuu Cross Blood is the fourth title in the series, which later had a sequel Meikyuu Cross Blood Reloaded and the PSV port.--十八 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So is it safe to write an article for it? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I guess it'd make more sense to write an article on Meikyuu Cross Blood instead of the Generation XTH series if the MCB games are what you're going to focus on.--十八 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible ban discussion on Niemti?

Since ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) has raised a point that the issue with Niemti (talk · contribs), who is currently the subject of an ongoing RFC has not been brought up at AN/ANI yet, and with the discussion of a possible ban on this user from the project now stored in the archives, I think that this is really the time to discuss the best course of action to ban Niemti from WP:VG to minimize disruption in video game articles. Personally, I would suggest that a thorough summary of the evidence should be created before taking this up to AN or ANI and that multiple people will need to check and agree that evidence shows a significant problem; really bad results will occur when a report is taken to AN/ANI prematurely - really good evidence should be needed first, with a few clear cases that onlookers can understand. Thoughts or ideas on how to proceed with this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me break the ice by stating this: why did the first banning attempt fail? I feel like we should find a way to persuade that Niemti is disrupting the project's productivity, morale, hell even making users lose their enjoyment of editing. If we do that it may help with this cause. GamerPro64 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we must find a way to deal with this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As much as I don't approve of his behavior, and tire of always having to intervene in the trouble he's always creating, (my irritation being directed towards him, not the ones who ask me for help) it seems like when its presented to higher ups, like the Admin outside of WP:VG, they seem tolerant of his antics as long as his behavior continues to be more of the equivalent of "pushing, shoving, and grumbling" instead of full on "assaults and tirades" he did more when he was originally indef blocked. I'll likely support actions proposed to be taken against him, but I wouldn't be a "driving force" unless more serious infractions happens (like blockable ones). As is, I think discussions are going to just be the endless arguing circles of "Well I think he's bad enough to be banned from X", with the other half saying "Well I think not" that we had the last time he was taken to ANI. (which happened around the same time of the start of his RFC/U.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Earlier, the earlier attempt to ban Niemti from the project was closed by Salvidrim after suggestions that it should be taken to AN or ANI and the proposal to community ban Niemti the first time on AN failed due to no consensus and was driven off topic. I feel that we should really build a thorough but not exhaustive compilation of really good evidence (such as the one on Jagged 85 which led to his ban) before we take this up to ANI with very clear cases for onlookers and we must provide a complete history on the user to make everyone more familiar of the situation and the RFC/U (as I feel that some of the users outside of WP:VG are unaware of the RfC). I am prepared to put a significant amount of my time into getting a proper resolution this time and I am thinking it would be useful to illustrate the prevalence of bad editing on those particular video game pages. Regardless of Niemti's motives, his antics are incredibly destructive to the project, and they must stop. In the words of actor Patrick Stewart, "The line must be drawn here, no further!" Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Salvidrim closed the discussion pending an AN thread (and its outcome, since the user may have been blocked/banned thus not requiring any project intervention). Where is this AN thread? If there is no AN thread, or if the discussion at AN is over, then I think we should re-open the case for a project ban. I think Salvidrim shouldn't have closed it in the first place, since the project could ban him regardless of any AN discussion or outcome. If someone wants to pull the evidence from the archive, we could re-open the discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't know, mate, but there is no ANI thread, so I think we should re-open the project ban discussion now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  The AN(I) thread was never opened. Presumably Salvidrim got busy. Maybe it would be useful to create a subpage of the RFC/U to document the transgressions, or something to that effect. --Izno (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Good choice. I think we should create a subpage of the RFC/U about what is going on, using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Computer Games Evidence as a reference. However, I think we need multiple users to help build up solid evidence before taking this to ANI. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  To Lord Sjones23, thank you for inviting me, and here is my own little piece of experience. I have stayed roughly on his civil side, but when working with him on this article, I did encounter his seeming tenancy to do lots of little edits and not take into account what the rest of the paragraph says, leading to occasional bad grammar and repetitive phrasing (read second paragraph. Also, I saw an example of his incivility with another editor (see edit description). I may not contribute to this discussion much, but I will keep my eye on it and if it comes to a ban, you have my support. In the words of that greatest Final Fantasy heroine "I'll never forget. [...] Come what may". --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think it should be an RFC/U subpage. I think it should be posted right here, like it was before. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  This, quite frankly, is not the appropriate venue. Discussions which lead to bans, blocks, et al. of (good faith and) somewhat long term contributors, are in WP:AN(I) space, WP:RFC/U space, or WP:ARBCOM space.... --Izno (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I would rather get a compilation of evidence on a RFC/U subpages, just to play safe and not cause too much drama. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  He has had an RFCU. I think that ANI --> ArbCom is the way to go, sadly. I have tried to help him with good results sometimes, although I see that his way of refusing making the fixes we point to him at his nominations to be very troubling. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I know, but we don't want to cause unnecessary drama and start with something a good discussion before taking it to ANI if the complaints stand up to scrutiny. That's why I am thinking about proposing a creation of an RFC/U subpage similar to the one on Jagged 85. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

All right, I've boldly created an RFC/U subpage at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. Please add entries there. If it is the wrong place, it should be easy enough to simply transfer the evidence to a new page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason Salvidrim withdrew the previous discussion about banning Niemti from WP:VG project space is because doing so would be meaningless. Niemti doesn't even edit here, thus, banning him from here would not effect a change in his behavior. If you are proposing a ban from WP:VG, I suggest you reconsider. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a ban on him from the project page, or from pages covered by the project? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but doing so may possibly be meaningless. Damn... For now, per the concerns over at the RFC subpage, we should remove his GANs immediately as they create a backlog here. I think that it should be a ban on him video game-related articles or even a site ban on ANI if possible after we gain enough evidence at my subpage. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that what is meant by a "ban from the project", is a "topic ban from video game-related articles", and it should be worded as such. As SergeCross wrote above: an attempt at a full community ban was made at ANI some time ago, and despite almost universal support from video game editors (and I believe, majority support overall), the number of detractors from "outside of WP:VG" (as Serge put it) was sufficient that it was closed as "no consensus" (this despite the fact that his old, consensus-supported community ban was overturned by the unilateral actions of one admin, without consensus; hey, welcome to Wikipedia). That said, even among his supporters there was support for lesser sanctions (explicitly including a topic ban from video games and/or good articles) so perhaps that would have a better chance of success. bridies (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bridies has a good point. A localized ban would be the best way of getting him out of our hair. It would be like an extension of his ban from Anita Sarkeesian-related articles. Yes, let's see if that can be done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. We shall gather more evidence first to have good editors address the obstacles, and then, we should take it up to WP:AN. By the way, some of the users "outside of the RFC" are actually unaware of the problems, but we just want to make others more aware of the situation. I think lesser sanctions should do before we go for a full site ban. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to wade further into this, as if by some horrible happenstance it ended up in front of ArbCom I'd have to recuse anyhow, but some advice: make a damn good case on the RfC as suggested above, and if you get a rough consensus on the RfC page take it to ANI with that in hand. Taking the time for formulate your evidence will save everyone more grief and back-and-forth. In terms of recent successes where good editors have addressed an obstacle, I'd take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paul_Bedson Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! It takes time to investigate, so the investigation will take up to a few weeks or so. If anyone wants to add further evidence, please do so at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Publisher of IGN?

Hey, when I'm citing sources from IGN, what should be listed as the "work" and what should be listed as the "publisher"? The way I approach this is that "IGN" (the website) is the "work", and that "IGN Entertainment" (the company) is the publisher. I got this from the copyright notice at the bottom of the website, which says "Copyright 1996-2013, IGN Entertainment, Inc.". Is this the correct way to cite IGN sources?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You could cite it that way. Most people in the project from what I've seen have largely ignored the work parameter in the case of IGN, except where it's, say, a blog on the website. It doesn't add any more information than you already had, which is the point of a citation. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I do it, which is how I was informed of doing it, is that the publisher is the owner, which in the case of IGN is J2 Global. --JDC808 ♫ 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've always ignored the work parameter for websites as a whole, so just |publisher=[[IGN]]. I only use work and publisher for offline sources. --PresN 17:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FAC reviews generally want (at least that I've encountered) publisher and work, unless they're the same. --JDC808 ♫ 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They've never bothered me about it on any of my FACs, so I guess we got different reviewers. --PresN 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It won't matter for FAC etc, but in a lot of magazines they list the publisher by name (not company), not sure if its a UK only requirement, I'm fairly certain its a legal one. - X201 (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Selection criteria for inclusion in List of Game of the Year awards

I've started trying to clean up this page and I'm trying to determine some sort of selection criteria for inclusion so we can establish what should/shouldn't make it into the page. If people could pop over to Talk:List of Game of the Year awards#Selection criteria and offer some thoughts it'd be much appreciated. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Asylum FAC

Now Arkham City is up to FAC I'd like to look at taking Asylum to the next level as well, but I don't have as much free time anymore with my job, is anyone willing to collaborate on this? Or just dig up some reliable sources for me to use in expanding it? It needs a little more work than I had assumed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

discussion to change what's in all the infoboxes

Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#discussion_about_new_changes One editor seems to have made changes without any discussion, and is now going around removing things from infoboxes. Please join the discussion there. Dream Focus 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed for over a month on this very page. I think you'll agree that 23 people is too many for one infobox. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be too many. Its incomplete information to list some and not others, and no reason not to list exactly what their jobs were. You had four people participating in that discussion with you. Doesn't seem like a lot. I'm against the changes. Its useful for those who want to see who worked on what, easy to scan to what they are looking for in each section of the infobox, and not something you couldn't easily ignore if you didn't want to see it. I'd like others to state their opinions, get more input than just the handful of you that had a brief discussion last month. Dream Focus 15:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't really cry foul, the discussion was on-going for weeks... Anyways, I'm all for trimming too, as PresN said in the past discussion, the infobox, much like the lead, is meant for summarizing key information, not presenting new info. As such, if it's really necessary to go into that sort of detail, it should be present in the prose, like in the Dev section or something. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG is the final authority on video game-related materials. Of the hundreds of editors who traffic this page, four of them hashed out a consensus on this issue and the rest gave their silent approval. I couldn't go to any higher authority. I even made a huge-ass section on it and added the RFC template, so you couldn't possibly have missed it if you cared at all. I'm all for giving credit where credit is due, but I think it's due in the development section, not clogging up the infobox. The infobox is for information at a glance, not "everything ever about the game". Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to back up the "Silent Approval" part. I read the debate and was happy with the way it was going, if there had been anything I disagreed with I would have said so. - X201 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a list of credits. We're not naming every single team member. I mean, "scenario writer", "world map director"? It's about as encyclopedic as naming all the programmers. Name the directors, done. - hahnchen 16:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The scenario writer is far more important than the director. You could have a fold down thing closed by default, people clicking on it to see the valid information. If you like maps/levels/scenarios someone made on one game, be nice to see what else they did on other titles. Dream Focus 16:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So, hide the important people in among the less-important people, and then hide the whole group as a default? Sounds worse than cluttering up the infobox to start with. If someone's work was important in a game, it should mention it in the dev section. If you want to know what else they did, it should be in their article. Scenario writer, btw, tends to be the one "writer" that gets put in an infobox if there's not a "lead writer" listed. --PresN 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that credits for video games are nowhere near as important as they are for films (hence, for example, why we tend to not name VAs). It's the studios and developers that are the instrumental factors that most people consider. But that said, sources will call out people associated with games and give them credit (eg, Ken Levine with BioShock, Tim Schafer with Grim Fandango, etc.) When sources do this for us for the major positions (eg producer, developer, writer, etc.), then their inclusion within the box makes sense, as we will also likely talk about their participation in the body of the article too. But if its just going to the manual or credits to fill in the space, it's wasting time. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we don't name the majority of people in a film either, not even every actor, just major roles and creators. In other fields too...members of an orchestra or big band (usually) aren't all individually named, but leaders and prominent individuals within them are. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my other main area of my contributions is with music albums, and usually the only people mentioned are the band members and a handful of other key staff, typically like a producer or sound mixer, not everyone in the liner notes and production studio... Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm thinking, in films and albums, tv shows, etc, filling in of these top fields is a regular thing - if the data is known, its entered, no questions asked. But in these fields, we're talking that most of these people are known for doing that job - eg, the sound producer for an album can be just as important as the artist themselves and can make or break that. Thus it makes sense to list them. In the world of VG development, even the top position - the executive director or producer of the game - making all the fundamental designs about the game's design - is often a position without significant praise, because at the end of the day, for most mainstream AAA games, its the studio, not the specific personal, that make or break things. Hence why I don't think when it comes to the creative direction on a game that we should list even the highest positions, unless their involvement has been called out elsewhere, at which point that tells us the media considers this person at this point as a major factor influencing the game. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Its good to have basic development team should be allowed while all the details be listed in the development section.Lucia Black (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Halo featured topic delisted!

Hello everyone. I just want to make an important announcement: the Halo featured topic has been delisted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Flashback Origins screenshot

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Flashback (video game)#Flashback Origins. -- Trevj (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeez Laweez, and it looks like Niemti's involved. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, beyond reverting once without an edit summary, he didn't really do anything wrong this time... Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, he sure didn't. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

infobox

Why isn't the "version" number appearing in the infobox? For example, God of War: Ascension. I have it formatted correctly (at least I'm pretty sure I do), but I don't know why it's not appearing. There's another article I edit and it appears just fine. --JDC808 ♫ 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It only appears fine in that other article because your browser has the page cached: the version field was removed on February 25, as per Template talk:Infobox video game#Proposal for removal of Version field. --PresN 06:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --JDC808 ♫ 07:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing of digital game manuals

I don't know if all games are doing this now, but it seems as if game's are moving towards having digital versions of the instruction manual as opposed to physical versions (PlayStation All-Stars and God of War: Ascension for example). Game manuals are often used as a source for the gameplay sections of these articles. How should we go about sourcing a digital version of the manual? The same way as the physical version? Is there a ref template for sourcing digital books? --JDC808 ♫ 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree to source it just like a regular printed manual, you'll just have to use a "format" parameter (that most the cite templates have) to indicate its digital nature. You can still reference page numbers (at least, if its like a PDF , you can). It might also be the case with these brief digital manuals they may be online as well, so you can provide the URL too. Maybe. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As Masem says, a lot of it depends on the kind of manual, but {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} should work for your uses; both have page parameters, url fields, etc. I would definitely try and archive the webpage either way, because the downside of an electronic manual is obviously its transience compared to a printed manual that will still be found in game shops years from now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Putting an archive link in would be a very good idea too. In preparation for the day they take them offline, or re-organise the file path. - X201 (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

GAN discussion

After Futuretrillionaire quick-failed Jill Valentine due to sourcing concerns as explained at RSN, a discussion about GANs has started over at WT:GAN#Problem: reviewers often not knowing/understanding policies/guildelines, and/or choosing to "ignore" them. Your comments would be appreciated there. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that one of the primary motivators of the discussion, Niemti, has been blocked for 2 weeks, so the discussion may not be as fruitful as otherwise. --PresN 02:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

3O at Template talk:Ghost in the Shell

I would like to request a third opinion at Template talk:Ghost in the Shell#Heading "redundant". For context, see my preferred version of the template and Ryulong/Lucia Black's preferred version. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Usually, WP:3O is the venue for these requests, not a vaguely related wikiproject's talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Also a third opinion must only be sought when there are only two people arguing over something. You, Izno, are arguing with at least 3 other people on this issue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

See my reply at WT:WikiProject Anime and manga#3O at Template talk:Ghost in the Shell. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "third opinion" is a general phrase referring to any outside opinion, not specifically the "third person's opinion". Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:3O is directly referencing an actual third person not outside opinion in general. WP:3O specifically mentions that it is not appropriate if more than two people are involved. There are other avenues to explore but WP:3O is not one of them in this case.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess the Wikipedia definition is more strict than common parlance. On the other hand, it looks like more than one person can provide a third opinion, under Wikipedia rules. Are these all still called "third opinions"? :P Axem Titanium (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess you could say they're "third opinions" in the same way Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutionalists are all "third parties".—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't see anyone stating that you are not able to try and ask for additional opinions on the subject but simply that the specific process of WP:3O is not the correct venue in this case.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Update on 1up, Gamespy, UGO shutting down?

We heard about this in February. Anomie has a list of all 1up, Gamespy, and UGO links currently on Wikipedia. What's the status on archiving these links? Is there a bot that can automate that for us? What are some action items we can do to get this sorted out, preferably sooner before the actual shutdown? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Tossed a request at WP:BOTR. Feel free to add on. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Looks like the ball is rolling now. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Separate wiki for gaming guide content

Since Wikipedia doesn't allow gaming guide, would it be okay to move the gaming guide content from the old Wikipedia 2004-2007 revisions to my wiki, Video Games Wiki (a wiki supposed to be like Wikipedia, but focused upon video games). Link: http://videogames.shoutwiki.com. I'd be happy to have a reply if I can merge gaming guide content to my video games wiki from here. Thanks. Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

All wikipedia content is under GDFL/CC-BY licenses, thus allowing you to do just that. You'll need to provide appropriate documentation for attribution (page history) but you can see how to do that at Help:Transwiki. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please help me out with this project of mine? Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If anyone can help out on this project, I'd much appreciate the help. Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You could also try asking for help at WP:PUMP - X201 (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed split of TRS-80 article

Hi there,

I've proposed a split of the TRS-80 article; one article covering the original-architecture machines (Model I, III and 4) and one covering the overall history and use of the brand (which was subsequently applied to many unrelated architectures).

I'd appreciate more feedback before going ahead with anything, and as the article is part of WikiProject Video Games, it seems appropriate to ask here.

More details and discussion can be found at Talk:TRS-80/Archives/2015#Split_proposal. Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Video game guides wiki

I'm just leaving this message here for anyone who might be interested. A new non-WMF wiki called Wikilevels has been started by some Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) users, as a wiki focused on video game guides. Given that this is the Wikiproject for Video games, and given that I'm part of it and I find myself interested in that proposal, I assume that leaving this note here will let other possibly-interested users aware of this. Regards. — ṞṈ 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is very new, right? Searches for "Sonic", "Mario", and "Final Fantasy" all had zero hits for me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, this is very very new. Currently we have only three pages. Anybody who would like to help out in any way possible is welcome. We have a guide template form on our main page. Vacation9 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Why use plainlinks here? Seems a bit redundant, and deceptive... Яehevkor ✉ 10:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, lets say it is a matter of preference. I hate the little icon that appears alongside external links, hence I prefer to put it on plainlinks. I don't see any issue with it. — ṞṈ 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I already did start my own (http://videogames.shoutwiki.com). It's like a gaming equivalent for Wikipedia if anyone's interested. Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• We already have Wikia Video Games wikis. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone likes Wikia or their massive plastering of ads everywhere. There's no harm in someone wanting to build an alternative with a closer focus on guides. -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like Wikia for whatever reason then there is StrategyWiki.org which is also CC-BY-SA. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't work the same either. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

IP adding gameguide

Would somebody mind having a word with Special:Contributions/50.82.22.60? They're obviously well-intentioned, but adding strategy guides to articles, and right now my brain can't handle the light touch needed to avoid WP:BITE (i.e. not scaring away a potential editor while discouraging or re-channeling their current efforts). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you say.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LEE JUNG HYUN (talk • contribs)

He said that making strategy guides is against policy.-- OsirisV (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible game trilogies list, article or category

I was wondering this when looking through the category labelled "Literary trilogies" and List of film series with three entries. There are many games that form trilogies, whether it is three games forming a self-contained story within a larger series (The three-game Lightning Saga within the Final Fantasy series, the original three Sands of Time games in the Prince of Persia franchise) or a set of three games as three games (the three numbered God of War games, the Mass Effect trilogy). Why not a list or category or article showing these various game trilogies, whether they are called "trilogies" or not. Any thoughts as to whether it's practical or useful? --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• We have List of video game franchises. I think that is sufficient. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Each one would need to have a reference (usually from the author) stating explicitly that Game X, Y and Z were a trilogy. The "series" articles can cover this better than a standalone. - X201 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• WP:Listcruft, beyond the list article Odie mentions, and it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE beyond saying "oh, there are three games in a series". --Izno (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• If it's common in other media like books and movies, then I see no technical problem as to why it couldn't be done for video games. However, its not something I'd personally want to maintain; something I've learned on Wikipedia is that every other person has some sort of crackpot theory as to which games(s) constitute as sequels, "spirtual sequels", series, franchises, etc, so I bet there'd be all sorts of ludicrous proposals or any games that have come in threes. ( The 2D Bubsy trilogy, the Chrono (series) trilogy, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Although this came after Serge's post, this post is actually a prequel and is chronologically before serge's. - X201 (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I see and understand. It would be rather superfluous. It was just an idea looking at that category and the article I mentioned. Thank you everyone for your advice. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox, Redundancy

In videogame infoboxes like the on at Mr. Nutz. I have noticed the platforms/consoles are in one list of their own, then underneath the release dates of the different platforms is listed in a separate list. Which basically means all the same consoles are listed twice only one with dates next to them and one without; in the case of this game at least the list above of platforms is completely useless/redundant and makes infoboxes a little longer then they need to be. There appears to be a dislike to making boxes longer than they need to be, eg with many credits talked about above. Is there a way we could put platforms and release dates in one list instead of two, should we? I imagine there would be games that it wouldn't work for very well, or perhaps at all, like if a game is released for all platforms on the same date, it may end up showing the same date several times instead of one, or if for old games especially the platforms may be known but not the exact release date so it may be hard to display. However I'm sure this is a perfect idea for games such as the one I mentioned Mr. Nutz and others with infoboxes like it, even if not for all games. If it is already possible to do this, or if it has been discussed somewhere within the 90+ archives of this talk page, forgive me I wasn't aware. What are peoples views on this? Carlwev (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In many cases, games may be announced that they are coming for a platform but the date is so vague that it doesn't make sense to add a release line. Additionally, when there are games with complex release dates and editors opt to use the collapsed release date format to summarize these, this would hide the platforms. In other cases, while the game is out on multiple platforms, it may have been released on the same day for all platforms so its not necessary to list those out on the release dates. It is a bit annoying but its hard not to repeat this information because of a number of possible scenarios that can't be easily simplified. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon articles

When ive been skimming through the old pokemon games, specifically the "X &Y" type series and notice certain articles are bundled together when it looks like they can potentially be their own article. Specifically, Pokemon Emerald, Pokemon Black2 & White2. Overall, i think these articles are already long enough and i doubt splitting said topics wont harm the article in becoming GA or featured status. Does anyone else see this problematic?Lucia Black (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason we have Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire instead of Pokémon Ruby and Pokémon Sapphire, there's no reason to have Pokémon Emerald when it's essentially the same game as Ruby/Sapphire except for relatively minor additions or changes. The same applies for other similar examples.--十八 09:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• As Juhachi said, they are substantially the same game and should not be split. Similarly, we don't have separate articles for every platform a game is available for because despite minor differences they are substantially the same games.--Odie5533 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon Black and White 2 is a sequel to Pokemon Black and White, and should be split. - hahnchen 14:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's the same with games like The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. There's no need to split them as a lot of the content would be duplicated and the differing content could be considered WP:GAMECRUFT. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Pokemon Ruby, and Pokemon Saphire are basically the same game and considered part of a whole installment, but overall any other game that spun out from its initial series cant possibly be considered too similar to be spun out even if the changes are there. They hold their own notability. Lets not forget that these are RPGs, meaning plot is a significance to how games differ. This is why Link to Past and Link to the Past & four swords was such a heated debate on whether being merged. At least Black2 and White2 are direct sequels, so it doesnt matter if gameplay is exactly the same. The thing is, these are already notable on their own, but for some reason the wikiproject prefers them merged and underdeveloped. such as listing scores instead of concrete statements from reviews. AT LEAST Black2 and White2 should gain their own article. Its a direct sequel.Lucia Black (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You could try out my wiki (http://videogames.shoutwiki.com). It's simply a Gaming Wikipedia. I hope I helped out! The GAMECRUFT isn't a very good rule in my opinion so this wiki was born. There is also http://wikilevels.org, a gaming guide supposed to be like Wikipedia. Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

the problem isnt gamecruft exactly. If theres enough info for a split, and enough differences between them, than why not? The thing i see with pokemon articles and several other articles is that they prefer merging rather than expanding knowing the topic is notable.Lucia Black (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't really need discussion to split Pokemon Black 2 from Pokemon Black. I split Prinny 2 from Prinny: Can I Really Be the Hero? - they're two separate games, with their own plot and reception. One of the reasons that the sequel is undeveloped is because it's crushed at the bottom of a long parent article. - hahnchen 21:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

But thats why it was merged back in the first place. Its a viscious circle.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You could always develop it in a sandbox and paste it out when completed. « Ryūkotsusei » 23:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This would be my suggestion also. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you just split it, there is already enough material in the Pokemon Black 2 section to qualify for a new article. You can continue to work on it in the live area. - hahnchen 13:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children

There's a request for comment going on at Talk:Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children regarding what we should do to streamline the plot summary. The discussion is at Talk:Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children#RfC: Plot summary in Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WIC edit war

An edit war is currently in progress on the article, whether a section on the Modern Warfare mod should be included. I've opened up a discussion on the talk page, but Blahdy21 (talk · contribs) has insisted on its inclusion. I cited the case of the twice-deleted Company of Heroes Eastern Front mod as a precedent as to why a section shouldn't be included. I'll put in a 3RR warning on the editor. Thanks!--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Image question

I noticed that this picture, which is also a Featured Picture, is tagged for this project. However I'm not certain if it should. What do you guys think? GamerPro64 17:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on it, but it my be tangentially related, the image is used in PC game#PC gaming technology. Яehevkor ✉ 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that it should not be tagged for us. --PresN 18:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm indifferent, our project uses that image so I suppose its correct, but its also used in loads of other places. - X201 (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Researching reliable sources—WP templates vs. Google custom search

I noticed a discussion on Google Custom Search of Reliable Sources in the archives. You may be interested to know that the same technique can be used inside WP by creating and using templates based on {{Google RS}}. The same template technique should also work for search engines like Yahoo that apparently don't offer free Custom Search. With Google, you are limited to searching up to 32 sites at a time. LittleBen (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert Clotworthy's FPC

There is a Featured Picture nomination for an image of Robert Clotworthy, voice actor of Jim Raynor from the Starcraft series. If anyone is willing to Support or Oppose the nomination, it can be found here. GamerPro64 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

God of War (video game) FAC

God of War is up fo FAC again if anyone would care to look it over. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive3. --JDC808 ♫ 05:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

7554

I've just made an edit on this last night after seeing some footage. Are there people here who have played the game? Feel free to expand. Thanks!--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was planning to redo the article a while back. I haven't played it, and it wasn't widely reviewed outwith Vietnam, but I have the PC Gamer print review. I might get round to adding it. There's also a BBC interview/feature that I don't think is included yet. bridies (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead with what you can work on. I've built it up as much as I can. --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move of Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon

See Talk:Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon#Requested move, where it is proposed to move the article to Luigi's Mansion 2. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

So far, other than the nominator, no one has weighed in yet. More input would be helpful to reach a consensus on the issue.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:3O requested at Talk:Garrett (character)

Please see Talk:Garrett (character)#Archive links. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey look. Another Niemti related issue. Good to know we hit our quota so early in the week. GamerPro64 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, yet another Niemti-related issue here. I've added this to the RfC subpage as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't an admin just block him already? He's clearly detrimental to the encyclopedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a good question. Can an admin give a reason why he hasn't been blocked? GamerPro64 16:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Because even though you're technically allowed to block someone for "gross incivility", most admins are leary of blocking anyone who's been here more than a few months for a subjective reason like Niemti's massive civility, "I didn't hear that" and "being a jerk" problems, rather than an objective problem like 3RR violations or edit warring. Ugh. I guess we don't have so many admins around here that I can just ignore it and hope it goes away- I'll try to work out some sort of official warning and criteria for blocking him. --PresN 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can second much of what you're saying. Why he is extremely difficult to work worth, most of what he does falls just barely onto the side of "not-blockable". Sadly, as it is, "being a jerk" without dropping any direct personal attacks or profanity isn't quite blockable, and knowing his history, there would be endless drama if someone were to block him prematurely too. Additionally, many of the Admin, such as myself or Salvidrim, have had to deal with him so much in the past that it would be hard for us to block him due to the WP:INVOLVED clause of being an Admin. When he's been brought to ANI before, outside Admin seem willing to make little efforts, like narrow topic bans, but there doesn't seem to be consensus that there's enough to block/ban him. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I also support what both of you are saying as well. Some of the outside admins are not really aware of the RFC. Bad results will occur if we take Niemti to ANI prematurely or block him in a premature manner. That's why we are trying to formulate evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Officially warned. We'll see how long before the first block comes. --PresN 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to think of any upcoming block as "the first block".¹² :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Given his history, Niemti was blocked numerous times. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, it appears that Niemti is going around badmouthing me to regular, established editors here, here, here and here. He accused me of "lying", which is considered a clear violation of NPA. What a piece of work! Can we please do something about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You know. That could probably give you either a reason to start up a case against him... or may result in a ban from both of you talking to each other. GamerPro64 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to minimize contact with Niemti, but calling someone a liar is a personal attack and speculating on my motives based on personal opinions is not allowed. Also, it's only stalking if the edit's not done in good faith, but I am trying to maintain good faith. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've notified PresN about this here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to say you're stalking him, and I really do appreciate that you keep us informed when there's a problem with him rather than letting it fester, but it's okay to back off now- I'm watching his contributions and I have the power to block him (which I just used), so I don't think it's necessary to post to WT:VG every time he does something. Just the RFC page is fine, if you really want to- it does make you come across as a little obsessive to post here each time there's a new development. --PresN 02:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point now and apologize. The RFC subpage should be good enough for me. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there is a motion to close here and a ban proposal has just been added to AN here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Follow-up - A proposal to ban him is taking place at WP:AN#RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

MetaCritic about to get messy - but shouldn't affect us

[1].

Reps from MC revealed their weighting system and how it was determined at GDC today, and there's a lot of people "upset" in internet terms at the skewing as well as exactly how the weights were determined. (For example, Eurogamer above only get an average weight of 1, while some more fan-ish sites that fall outside our RS got higher).

In terms of our project and how we handle video games, I would say this should have zero impact. I've yet to see a MC aggregated score so inflated or deflated by a few reviews compared to the rest of the scores for a game; we're probably talking about the one or two percentage points at most that this scale would change games with widely mixed reception ala Duke Nukem Forever. It is still valuable as 1) a score that gives a rough judge of a game's reception that we ourselves cannot calculate per SYNTH, and 2) a good list of all reviews for the title - the equivalent of Rotten Tomatoes for films.

However, I would also caution - at least until MC explains their process and determination for review weighting - that in considering our reliable sources, we shouldn't consider MC's weights. One example is Giant Bomb, listed at a lower-than-average rating, despite the fact that the staff reviewers are experienced people. I would still consider GB to be a reliable source and a possible review source. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange, I checked the link and it now shows "404 Page not found" error. Hounder4 (Talk) 23:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

...and it's back online. Hounder4 (Talk) 00:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"wildly, wholly inaccurate." Nothing to see here. - hahnchen 00:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be completely honest here: I'm not took keen on aggregate scores the way they've been used in gaming articles. They rely on reviews we ourselves wouldn't consider reliable. There has been qualms brought up about such scores by the people whose reviews are citing including Adam Sessler. And the fact that they apply their own system of weights to review scores really plants a sour taste in my mouth. Yes, they can claim this formula is false...but hasn't it been established by now that they do indeed do this as quoted by other articles?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Metacritic were quoted in Edge as saying they weighted the scores. - X201 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, the only purposes of including the aggregators is to point readers to a plethera of reviews that we ourselves simply can't include wholly. Our reception section should capture the general praise or criticism the title has received, and should be less focused on the specifics of the score, outside of using that to ID outlyiers and the like. Thus this whole mess (which appears to be not a mess anymore) really doesn't affect us. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

vgmdb.net

Is vgmdb.net RS? It provides some useful information about video game OST, however, it seems a user-contribution database? And it's not available in WP:VG/RS#Checklist...--Today's FA is ? (film) 04:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you kiddin me?! Websites with User submitted content should not be used as a source, period. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As discussed previously, it is indeed user-generated. There are often scans that are useful though (however said scans should be credited to the original item not the site). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned last time it came up, vgmdb is really, really useful, and almost always correct, but is user-generated, so it's a no-go. Use it to find out what albums exist and check the links to reviews and such it has in those albums, but don't source anything to it directly. --PresN 07:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto WikiProject

A new user has (badly) re-created Wikipedia:WikiProject_GTA and tagged a load of GTA articles with a GTA project template. The previous GTA Project was closed due to inactivity and converted to a WP:VG Task Force. So, does anyone want to start the stopwatch? - X201 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I would inform the user that there is a task force and then redirect the project boldly. --Izno (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid V

There is a discussion at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#Two games confusion regarding if it should be split due to its ambiguous nature. Users started moving it without an agreement or consensus so I reverted it. It would be appreciated if more users could give their 10 cents in the discussion. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hideki Kamiya

I've expanded the Hideki Kamiya article. Mostly using material from other articles. Please review it and expand it yourself if you wish. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Silent Hill multiverse disputes

There is a discussion going on at the List of Silent Hill 2 and Silent Hill 3 characters page regarding the multiverse disputes. The discussion is at Talk:List of Silent Hill 2 and Silent Hill 3 characters#Multiverse issues. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Single-platform video games

I was thinking about the sub-categories in this category and I've found the criteria for inclusion to be somewhat problematic. In this day and age, (almost) everything gets ported to newer consoles eventually and supported emulation (e.g. Virtual Console, GOG, HD remasters) will only get easier and more common over time. Isn't it ridiculous that The Legend of Zelda (video game) isn't in Category:Nintendo Entertainment System-only games? Eventually, these categories will become completely empty when every single game ever released gets ported to a successful "retro games" service (like Xbox Live Game Room, but successful). I propose a change in the definition of these categories that will aid in both future-proofing them and allowing readers to meaningfully identify "console exclusive" games. I propose that these categories should only apply to games which were console exclusive within that console generation only. This allows us to correctly identify that Banjo Kazooie was exclusive to N64 at the time, but has since been ported to another console of a different generation. I believe readers of Category:Single-platform video games are interested in knowing what was exclusive at the time, rather than what is the case currently. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This also ties in with the platform nonsense. With old games being classed as Wii, Xbox 360 or PS3 games when they become available on PSN, XBL etc. We'll soon start encountering console categories that will contain almost every game ever released. - X201 (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea in general. For example I have a Mega Drive Landstalker: The Treasures of King Nole and I watch its article, it was a "Mega Drive only game" for a long while and was known as such, but now it is not, as it is on a virtual console somewhere. We would have to decide on a proper description, and inclusion criteria, and the title will be unchanged and slightly incorrect, or correct but a bit long and awkward, but I,m sure we could work round that. How are/would games be treated that are released at the crossover from one generation to the next but only on one companies consoles. Such as The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess it is a Nintendo exclusive game, because of it's release date came out on Game Cube and Wii, but not any Playstation or X-Box, so it is not a single platform game, but it still kind of in the same vein, being a nintendo console only game. People I believe may expect to find games such as this included perhaps. Could we incorporate games like that within similar categories but in a correct way, I think we could? Or would this get too complicated. Carlwev (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Twilight Princess seems like an unusual edge case. I'm leaning towards not putting it in the category because it's sort of in the same boat as games like FIFA 11 which was released for both PS2 and PS3 (in addition to other platforms). In terms of naming, perhaps Category:Console exclusive video games for X Platform? In the description, be sure to wikilink console exclusivity. The actual working definition of "console exclusive" generally ignores ports to newer platforms. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone think it would be a good idea to have a list of available platforms then also a list of platforms where the game is a downloadable? Something like Plants vs Zombies would be listed with xbox 360 under both sections since it also came out on disc, whereas ToeJam & Earl would be Genesis and only say xbox 360 in the downloadable section.Quickmythril (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to a category or a list with this suggestion? Usually, the platforms that a game has been released on are listed in the infobox. Sometimes, Xbox 360 & XBLA / PS3 & PSN are listed separately, if applicable, but I don't know that we have a hard and fast rule for that yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

New GAN

God of War: Ascension is up for GAN if there's any takers. --JDC808 ♫ 02:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, Sonic Adventure is up for GAN if anyone wants to take this on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As are 5 others without reviewers for a total of 13 open GANs, come on guys. I don't think we need to post them all here- the oldest unreviewed article is only 3 weeks old, now that Niemti's have been cleared out. --PresN 04:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was wanting to get this GAN out in the open more. Picking which GAN to review is a choice, so asking might attract someone to review, instead of waiting around and hoping someone will see it on the list. --JDC808 ♫ 16:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

List of The Warriors characters

The List of The Warriors characters article is relevant to this Project, so I would like some feedback from other editors. I took the pruning shears to this article, and am open to the criticism that I went too far, but the article was such a bloated mess, I felt it necessary to trim it way back and then slowly readd necessary details. A look at the article history shows that a dedicated anon. has been almost exclusively editing the article for a long time, turning into fanboy paradise. At any rate, I would like to hear some thoughts on this article and my editing thereof. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and video games

For those gamers interested on Wikidata, I have created a task force to manage and improve all the Wikidata items that store information about video games. The task force is here: Video games task force. Feel free to join! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Characters of Final Fantasy XIII

There is a discussion going on at the talk page of WikiProject Square Enix concerning the article formally known as Characters of Final Fantasy XIII, regarding what it should be called from here on. You will see the detailed reason on the section. The new title there now (my fault there folks) is a bit of a mess. There are two probably candidates so far: Characters of Final Fantasy XIII series and (I think) Characters of the Lightning Saga (since Square Enix has been repeatedly referring to the three XIII games under that title). THe discussion is at Characters of Final Fantasy XIII. Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fatal Frame III: The Tormented plot references

There's an argument (and edit war) at Talk:Fatal Frame III: The Tormented#"citation needed" over plot references. --Mika1h (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI Featured Article of the Day

I have nominated it for consideration for the day of May the 16th, please comment on its nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Which would work better as Wikipedia front page image for Final Fantasy XI?

or

I've already made my comment, but there's an editor throwing their toys out of the pram in the nomination (ie - strong oppose if their favourite isn't chosen) and I don't want to further engage. - hahnchen 14:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Asylum FAC help

Thought I would strike at a wider audience. I'm trying to improve Batman: Arkham Asylum for FAC but I am struggling to find sources for some things and was wondering if anyone could help.

1. The comic, the source given in the article for the comic doesn't really back up what it is sourcing, doesn't appear to be the greatest source in the world and doesn't provide a tonne of information.
2. Any criticism of the Quinn redesign, I seem to remember it being a thing, not a HUGE thing but a thing.
3. The genre. The opening sentence says it is an action-adventure, but pretty much every review used as a source in the article w hich mentions a genre only says it is an action game, not an action adventure.
4. The opening sentence of gameplay says it is an over-the-shoulder game, I don't think this is true throughout the game or even most of the game or any of the game?
5. Anything else anyone can suggest before I wrap it up and send it for a copy edit.

Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Real Racing 3 Copyright issues

I noticed that the article for Real Racing 3, which is at the Request board, has been tagged with a copyvio. Anyone have any ideas on how to take care of it? GamerPro64 15:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Characters of Final Fantasy XIII, XIII-2 and Lightning Returns

I have started a proposal for moving the Talk Page, as per our conversations. This needs consensus before any action is taken, so I have made an RfC so as to bring in the maximum opinions. Whether you have shown your views clear in the discussion on this page, your comments are needed and appreciated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Issue resolved. My thanks to those who left their comments.--ProtoDrake (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

I got a question on the importance on this generation. Its currently at Low, which isn't right, but I don't know what it should be instead. Obvious choices would be High or Top importance but kinda hard to figure out since we're only a year into it. GamerPro64 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that we're getting more details of the next consoles, it probably can go to whatever the other History articles are, which should be at least High. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd bung it up to high. This is the next generation of gaming hardware, a very important subject in our sphere at the moment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Upgraded it to High importance. GamerPro64 20:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Where can I go about obtaining help with..

Where can I go about obtaing help with the WP:SEGA logo File:Wikiproject-sega-project-logo.svg, it contains path lines which i cannot seem to remove Simon ^{How can I help?} 20:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you want to do it yourself, since it's just an .svg, you can edit it with Inkscape. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Apps Proposal

A proposal for a WikiProject Apps has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Apps. As WikiProject Video games is a related WikiProject, members of this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion. Thank you. XapApp (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Update - The proposal seems to have been a success and the new WikiProject can be found here. GamerPro64 23:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Isometric perspective on Pool of Radiance

We have an IP who is edit warring over this, claiming that a wikilink to another article that doesn't even mention the game can suffice as a 'source'. Meanwhile, another editor did add a citation supporting the isometric perspective but the IP removed the source. Wondering if someone can provide some perspective on this, so to speak. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

More of the same here as well. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is my own post in the game's talk page. This is a situation where the "source" is difficult to come by for each individual case but anyone who knows what an isometric perspective is can clearly see that the article's original statement is untrue. The prerequisites for such knowledge is in the articles I linked to. An analogous situation would be asking for proof that a game is rendered in 3D when the screenshots tell everything already. 91.157.203.137 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been able to find any sources really mentioning this yet, but it seems pretty clear that it's cavalier and not isometric, based on the screenshots and the definitions of those two types of perspective. With cavalier, you're seeing a plane head on, and with isometric, you're seeing a vertex. Look at the two screenshots in the Q*bert article for a clear way to tell them apart in a video game. The image at the top is isometric; the image near the bottom of the article, showing the sequel, is cavalier. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Then the trick is to find a source that confirms this. If we can't find a source which says "Pool of Radiance has cavalier perspective" or similar, then the only other option would be to remove the information about perspective altogether if we can be reasonably sure that isometric is incorrect. BOZ (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What is your reasoning in needing an explicit external source for something that can be ascertained simply by knowing about a subject which in this case is projections? The example on the PoR talk page is as clear as can be for those who don't want to bother with the written description of the projections. Does this kind of source policy apply to Wikipedia mathematical solutions as well when the algorithm is already given and you have everything you need to confirm the result yourself? Because this is a thing that you can simply deduce after reading one paragraph in the cavalier projection description and looking at a Pool of Radiance screenshot. 91.157.203.137 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

PoR is a GA, so we have to insist on better sourcing to maintain that level of quality. We could let people do all the original research they want to determine what they think is the truth, but we have to rely on reliable sources. Now, if you want to be different and prefer not to use reliable sources to make sure articles are accurate, then that is up to you. The best thing to do here may be to remove references to perspective altogether if no sources exist to verify what type of perspective the game actually uses. BOZ (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "research" per se because the only two things you need to know are what cavalier perspective is and how the game looks, i.e. it can be deduced for all instances without knowing more about a specific instance. There is no way in the world that this kind of trivia is written somewhere on the internet for every game that uses a projection that many people don't even know by name, and the many instances where non-isometric games are called isometric just adds to the mess, and those have been used as a source/citation to "confirm" a false fact, even in the GA in question. I see this as analogous to a mathematical problem or claiming that a game is rendered in 3D, because confirming their validity is also within everyone's grasp assuming they know the underlying logic, and incidentally an external source is not required for each specific instance. How is linking to the article containing cavalier projection not sufficient proof when it describes exactly how the perspective in Pool of Radiance looks like? 91.157.203.137 (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The way things are generally handled in situations like this is that we don't require sources for non-controversial information, but if something is challenged, it is then by definition controversial and needs a source. Having done more research on this, it looks like multiple sources refer to this as isometric: Allgame and IGN are two. There is this, which says, "Combat is in an overhead oblique isometric view with a limited battlefield." I get the impression most people don't understand, and in fact, are not even aware of the distinction between isometric and cavalier. I myself hadn't heard of cavalier before this discussion, but after reading about it, I could see that it was the proper description. Unfortunately, we might not be able to describe it that way. A good compromise might be to describe it as 2D with a faux-3D appearance, based on a source that says something along those lines, and link to a more generic graphical perspectives article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that projections in games get described wrong in game magazines and similar places, I can see that that it is not isometric but oblique cavalier perspective, but I know we want sources for statements like that here on Wikipedia. What is the correct thing to do in cases like this following Wikipedia's proper guide lines? Talking of original research; if there are 10 sources that say this game is isometric projection (incorrectly) but we find one source that calls it oblique and/or cavalier projection, isn't it original research or at least a bit cheeky to pick and choose your sources, especially when there are a lot more sources that contradict our statement than confirm it. Is this OK though as long as we can find at least one source to back up a statement even if 10 contradict it? This is a problem across Wikipedia I should think, What do you do if all your sources are incorrect and everyone knows it and its obvious, but nobody's published anything that can be a source with a correct statement. There must be many untrue statements that can be backed up by soures, and actual true ones hard to find. It is a common known error that this perspective in games is called isometric when it is oblique/cavalier, can we have a good source that describes the correct terms and the common labeling errors really well, and use that somehow, or does it have to specifically say this game's title is oblique/cavalier and nothing short of that is enough?Carlwev (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's like saying you need a source to say an octagon is really a hexagon. SharkD  Talk  06:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So, what is to be done with this article... 24.12.74.21 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We know that video games sources are not reliable with respect to the overuse of "isometric", so we don't need to rely on them, and we can just say that the combat sequences are in some form of pseudo-3D. Better yet, we could use some of the best sources at 2.5D to identify the particular perspective being used by the game. Or if there really isn't any source allowing us to identify the problem from an external perspective, ignoring all rules when doing it improves Wikipedia is policy and we should follow it. In any case, I've changed the link from isometric to Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art#Similar projections, the Wikipedia section that better describes the perspective verifiably used by the game. Diego (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Category? Contradiction?

What about the category? We are all kind of admitting we know its oblique not isometric, just having trouble with a proper source. The text still says isometric but this game is in the category Category:Video games with oblique graphics (Which is correct) not the isometric category. The text and category of the article contradict each other. Does placement in a category require a source the same as a statement in the text does? As we are still stating in the article that the game has oblique graphics, only in the categories at the bottom not the main text. Should facts or statements in the main text of all articles agree or match the categories at the bottom? it would be odd if they didn't. If it doesn't match, an article like this one at present will contradict itself. Can we keep the article in this category if we are not allowed to state the same fact in the main text? Or are we at some point going to say in the text that it does oblique view? matching the category. Do we turn a blind eye to categories as kind of separate from the article text? Carlwev (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid V (again)

The discussion at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#Two games confusion seems to have stalled again and both sides are mostly talking past each other now. You are invited to share your opinion on the matter to break the deadlock. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Transformers characters for the category "Robot characters in video games"

I had added a bunch of Transformers characters who appeared in recent Transformers video games to the category "Robot character in video games", but then someone came in and removed them all. Just looking for other opinions. If a Transformers character appears in a Transformers video game, is it correct to add the category "Robot characters in video games" to their page? They are robots, they appear in a video game... Seems to make sense. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I will say that category looks under populated, I'm not 100% sure the category should exist, I haven't looked through all robot and game character categories to see what is "normal". I'm not sure who I would expect to find in the category. Potentially all movie/TV/Comic characters articles, who are at least part robot and appeared in a game at some point should be in it. I would probably expect to find Robocop, Terminator characters and the Star Wars robots there, they have appeared in many games and have articles, but they are missing from the category. Categories, especially character ones I find usually lean towards including all articles that "may be" included rather than exclude them. In my opinion if the category exists the said Transformers should be in it along with the other characters I mentioned. I would imagine you would have to put them in separately as adding transformers characters as a sub cat of robot video game characters, would include all transformers, including some that haven't been in any games, so would be incorrect, no? (although many categories have this kind of problem, and that's another issue.) Carlwev (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason perhaps that it's underpopulated is possibly because one editor removed about 30 characters from it recently. That's the reason I came here. He claims the category is just got robot characters originating in video games, but if that's the case then shouldn't the category have a more specific name, like "Robot characters originating in video games"? I would not include ALL Transformers characters either, just the ones who appeared in video games. Mathewignash (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree; they're robots, and they appear in video games, so it seems like they qualify, as long as that's the name of the category, and there's no further apparent inclusion criteria... Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's pretty straightforward. --Teancum (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in this, but I concur with Teancum and Sergecross73. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC) On second thought, it's not worth it... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• So, what exactly is the counter-argument here...? Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"One editor" (that's me) created the category in first place, too (along with a few dozen of others). ([2], most of them.) All of video game character articles are for the characters originating in video games only, it was always this way (with an apparent single exception of Video game bosses). Otherwise, it's just "Fictional robots" etc. (and "Transformers characters" is another sub-category of "Fictional robots", just like "Fictional robotic dinosaurs" (WTF) with a separate "Robotic pterosaurs‎" (seriously?), "DC Comics robots‎" and "Marvel Comics robots‎", and "R2-D2" for R2-D2 only). --Niemti (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And if one wants more articles in it, go and create them. One good candidate that was recently brought to my attention is Doctor Nefarious (I already created Clank (Ratchet & Clank) from the same franchise). Wikipedia needs more vg characters overall: among those obviously missing are Faith, Nariko (both from just 1 game, but it doesn't matter), Sackboy (no personality, doesn't matter either), Amaterasu, Otacon, Heather Mason, Marcus Fenix, Isaac Clarke, Cole Phelps, Mokujin (it's a robot), Razputin, Dirk & Daphne, Rynn, and many many others. I can't do everything almost all alone. --Niemti (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are "further apparent inclusion criteria", like in all the other similar cats (since always). It's in the description. What to find there: "Potentially" none of "movie/TV/Comic characters articles." Almost all video game character categories are for video game character articles. Just as the description, well, describes. --Niemti (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's precedent for what you're saying, then that's fine. (I wouldn't know, I don't usually do much with categories.) Nothing was linked to, so I didn't know what the category said, or what rationale was given on it's removal. Without any sort of background, it truly looks like any any robot in a video game should be included, and since Transformers are both robots and in video games... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It was always like that. That's why we have less than 400 exactly only 411 vg character articles of all kinds (including a few dozen of them started/restarted by me, and all the pokeymen). Now, one more thing, to Mathewignash: you told me "there are some Transformers characters whose first appearance is a video game." In this case, this is a video game character and should be also in other categories (like, "introduced in"). But mind you: WPVG folks have extremely strict rules as for when a vg character is even allowed to have an article on Wikipedia. For one, you need a substantional reception section, also overly well-referenced content (with what people think is reliable sources). So I hope you have all of it ready. --Niemti (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog box art discussion

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) regarding which box art to use: the North American one or the European one. The discussion can be found at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)#Box Art. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013's TFA

On April 19th we will be seeing God of War: Chains of Olympus appearing on the main page as that day's Featured Article. GamerPro64 00:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Which characters should be in video games character categories?

I think the transformer videogame robot category is part of a bigger problem, with character categories. Many characters start of in one medium then spill over into others. Characters from the mediums of movies, TV, novels, comics, and videogames can spread over into one another. Many character's from disney and, Warner Brothers toons, TV shows like 24, Simpsons, Movies like Terminator, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, James Bond, LOTR, and nearly all major comic characters, are all in several video games each as player characters or otherwise, and to be really nit picking real people like most major sports people and many historical leaders are characters in sports games and strategy war games. Characters and people from everywhere appear in games, is there a loose rule that they have to originate in a game to appear in a game cat? I imagine inclusion to a game category would be based on the content of the article, if a large part of the article describes the character within games it would be sensible to put it in a game category. Real people like tiger Woods appear in many games but would presumably never be in a video game character category. Characters like transformers, batman, luke skywalker, Jack Bauer, James Bond, Homer Simpson, and Aragorn are main player characters in many games, they are border line, could be included or not, usually not as there not originally from games. There are some that characters should definitely be in, some that would definitely be out, but there are loads that are a grey area. I thought Transformers should be in the said article, but now I am not sure. Terminator, and Robocop should also be in but theyre not either. We need to think about guidelines or rules for this. What do users think about this, I am guessing a character has to be designed for a game and appear originally in a game before something else to be in game character category is the simplest solution, this could be really simple or realy complicated depending on how its dealt with? Carlwev (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me if you want to limit those categories to just characters ORIGINATING in video games, the categories need to be renamed, as their current names are inaccurate. Either that or split the each into two categories. One for characters originating and one for simply appearing in a video game. Mathewignash (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's so easy:

• Batman: comic book character
• Luke Skywalker: film character
• Jack Bauer: TV character
• Aragorn: literary character
• Alisa Bosconovitch: game character (and a robot) - also written like a game character (compare with the previous articles, then to any other game character article)

Categories for Alisa Bosconovitch: Anthropomorphic characters in video games; Female characters in video games; Fictional gynoids; Robot characters in video games; Tekken characters; Video game characters introduced in 2008 (she was in a film, but she's not a film character). Categories for Batman, Luke, Bauer, Aragorn - various, but nothing about games, because they're not from games.

But if anyone wants, an additional category for licensed characters in video games can be created (with sub-categories if needed, such as for Marvel comics characters etc). --Niemti (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mathewignash and Niemti's suggestions and examples seem good taken together. Just as long as no-one goes mad with the categories, it can actually be an aid to navigation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If I wanted to create a category for all robot character who appear in video games, what would I call it? Maybe "Category:Robot characters in video games"? Problem is that the name of the existing category. The current category should probably be called "Category:Robot characters introduced in video games". The current setup would be like if I made a category "US Senators", and then in the told people "This category is only for US Senators who who were born in the United States, not the foreign born ones". The name of the category is not PRECISELY the same as the description. Mathewignash (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's because "robot video game characters" is impossible to have due to sounding awkard, just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_video_game_characters was deleted in 2012 (after several years) and changed to "Male characters in video games" (of course, it's still for the game characters only, too). --Niemti (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I already wanted to split licensed characters into a sub-cat of the rarily inclusive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_bosses and then to populate it further (there are lots of such characters, of course), but I can't think of a non-awkward name for it. --Niemti (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the name of the category to "Robot characters introduced in video games", so it is more accurate. Then make a a new category called "Robot characters in video games" that can include EVERYONE who is a robot and is in a video game. Mathewignash (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, a little problem with the example of "*Luke Skywalker: film character", is that the BOOK of Star Wars: A New Hope was released slightly before the movie premiered. If you want to be accurate, Luke is a literary character, not a film character. Also, what do you do with Transformers character? Their first appearance could be in a comic book, TV series, film, book or video game... depending on the character's FIRST appearance! That's not really a wise way to organize them. Better to just call them fictional characters. Mathewignash (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still a film character. And, as I said, and repeat again, if you want to classify any character as a game character, the criteria for vg character article to exist are extremely strict over here, and unless you get a solid start reception and reliable sources for that, people here will get it merged/redirected/deleted. Go figure. And I don't oppose to have all the Transformers character to be in just category "Transformers characters" (which is a sub-cat of "Fictional robots" itself), not at all. --Niemti (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and: it's not just "their first appearance". It's their main media, too. In vg articles you have usually the main section "appearances", and in it there are sometimes the sub-sections: "in video games" (which is the main section) and "other appearances" (covering any possible films, TV series, comics, merch, etc, but these are only additional appearances). Just like for comics characters ([3], description: "This is a category for all fictional characters that originated in comics."), it's mostly about comics, for a characters known from the comics (the mentioned above Batman has even a separate category "Batman in other media", that is outside the comics[4]). --Niemti (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Andriasang

Seems that the website has been having some technical difficulties or maybe its being closed permanently. Should we archive the links? My phone cant load archive sites for some reason.Lucia Black (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Andriasang is closed; they're keeping the site up for now, but it's been bouncing up and down for months now and there's no telling when they'll just drop the site altogether. Any andriasang links should be archived; webarchive has been pretty good about having everything so it's not a rush, but the technical problems make it more of a necessity right now. --PresN 20:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok i'll see what i can do.Lucia Black (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone's already done a lot of the archiving already checking here and from past discussions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanx. I'll link these right away.Lucia Black (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories for game characters in other media

OK, so many of video game characters are spamming the comics and film categories while they're from video games mainly. It's contributing to the main comics characters category having 527 characters that often didn't really "originated in comics." How about categories for vg characters who make licensed appearances in other media, maybe "Video game characters in other media", and form that "Video game characters in television series" etc? (Or one could just start removing them. That's an alternative.)

Also, how to name a sub-category of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_bosses for the appearances of licensed characters? (Same would apply for protagonists‎, sidekicks, and secret characters, that are currently for mainly-vg characters only, while the bosses category is much more inclusive.) --Niemti (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll do the first one as proposed, the other part I still don't know how to name it. --Niemti (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I hope you understand that it just seems illogical to have a category called "Robot characters in video games" and then exclude robot characters who appeared in video games from being listed. I just changed the proposal to simply change it to "Category:Video game robots", which I think would solve the problem, since the emphasis would become "video game" character who are "robots". It would be a consistant naming scheme to your "Video game bosses" category, right? I don't see any reason NOT to change the name of the category to be more accurate, do you?Mathewignash (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

New milestone plans?

So from the looks at the percentages on the project's front page, we are within one percent to getting 10% of our project's articles to C-class or higher. Since we're almost to that mark, what milestone should we replace it with once the goal is met? GamerPro64 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We should replace it with B-class, obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could do 20% C+ (currently: 49.6% done), or 10% B+ (currently: 46.8% done), or 50% start+ (currently: 91.1%), or 20% of all lists featured (currently: 27% done). I vote for getting more than 50% of our articles out of the stub category, though that may be because WP:SE just managed to eliminate all of our stubs with the same tracker. --PresN 18:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How about replacing it with something to re-start the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/2012 Stubcheck process. And instead of starting with stubs, start with the start-class articles (so you don't have to reassess stub->start articles again). - hahnchen 12:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Hanchen's idea may work. The other suggestions can be on hold as the other two goals are passed 80%. So we'd probably expect them to be reached in like a year or two. GamerPro64 14:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Stub sections not done: 46/107 (57% done); start sections not done 107/107 (0% done). --PresN 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely 20% C+ class and 50%+ Start class to keep pushing up quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sony franchises?

Hi everybody,

Concering this template, what do we consider a franchise? Cause to me a franchise means not just a series, but everything associated with a fictional universe: video games, movies, toys, comics, etc. Franchise could be used for both though, but right now this template includes stand-alone games (i.e., Gravity Rush, PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale). Should those be taken out? --Soetermans. T / C 12:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For naming purposes we define a series as "a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item." so a franchise will be the same or pretty close to that definition. - X201 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've asked the same thing on the Nintendo Franchises template, and didn't get much of a response. I personally set the inclusion criteria to "two titles", (I personally thought that's all it took to be a "series", which is essentially the same thing.) just because editors inexplicably just kept on adding single games to it. (ie Eternal Darkness). Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(So yeah, I'd remove Gravity Rush, PS All-Stars, and Legend of Dragoon personally.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

See Template talk:Nintendo#Inclusion Criteria for previous related discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I've removed all articles without a series article, except for everquest. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, now that we've established that, I'm not too sure those franchises are Sony's. inFamous might be a console exclusive, but does that also mean they own it? Isn't the IP Sucker Punch's? And what about PlayStation 1 era video games, like Cool Boarders, were they Sony's also? --Soetermans. T / C 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.trademarkia.com/infamous-85491654.html http://www.trademarkia.com/cool-boarders-75280695.html --Mika1h (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Explanation: I'm almost certain the distinction is that a series involves multiple entries of the same media type (hence film series or book series), but a franchise denotes any multi-media series - i.e. those including entries across multiple platforms. And therefore, franchises are a subsection of series - a specific case where the entries are on multiple platforms. For e.g., once Harry Potter was adapted into movies and games, it evolved from a series into a franchise.--Coin945 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Mika1h.

But if we consider a series just to be multiple entries of the same media type, these aren't all 'series'. Right now it lists Colony Wars with three games; a series, but also God of War with seven games, several cameo appearances, a comic book and a novel, which then would be a franchise. Wouldn't intellectual property (IP) be a more appropriate term then? --Soetermans. T / C 12:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Intellectual property refers to the copyrighted concept used in the pieces of media, not the media themselves. If you take a peek at the Wikipedia page for media franchise, it even says: "the licensing of intellectual property of an original work of media (usually a work of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game, to others". So for example once you license a videogame to others to make more things based off of the same concept on a different platform (such as film), your game evolves into a franchise. If the original makers just make more, then the game evolves into a series. Generally (at least in the past) different types of media were made by very different groups of people, so licensing was necessary when franchising an intellectual property to a new platform. But now, even if the original makers can make additional pieces of media on different formats due to being multimedia corporations (such as Disney), the terminology has been kept for any series spanning across different types of media.--Coin945 (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This source gives a definition based on how the pieces of media are defined: "franchise is defined only in terms of distributing licensed goods, while series is simply defined as a collection of things", and that's a slightly different way to look at it. And obviously you'll get rampant misuse of these terms for marketing purposes etc (e.g. franchise seems more grandeur than series).--Coin945 (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Soetermans, the same issue came up with the Nintendo Template as well - "which ones are Nintendo Franchises, and which ones are just games on Nintendo platforms?" We (I) split it into two categories; first party ones that are completely done by Nintendo, (Super Mario]]), and 2nd/3rd party ones that are done by other companies but published by Nintendo or pretty much locked into Nintendo consoles (Golden Sun). If majority of a series appeared on another consoles, then they were not included. (The Xeno (series).) Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming Reviewers / Reception section formatting

Hey everyone, punting this over to WT:VG to hopefully get some more opinions on a subject that impacted Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary's FA, and I'd like to start up a discussion while I improve the article to resubmit. At the FAC User:Hanchen argued that I should reword the section to strip out reviewer's names and use publications instead, so "IGN said X" rather than "GameSpot editor Chris Watters wrote" or variations thereof. I can certainly see his point (echoed by User:Czar on the talk page) that the names are not as recognizable as the publications, and so referring to the reviewer's comments can be a bit harder to link.

On the other hand, my concern is that we're linking writer's statements and opinions to entities that can't have opinions, namely a games journo outlet. This is different from "Gamespot reported", we're saying "Gamespot thinks this", even if it's a single reviewer (and in many cases there are different reviews from the same parent, e.g. IGN UK/AU/US.) The reviews aren't something the outlets "stand behind" in that it's a consistent opinion; later "top ten" lists or second opinion articles regularly challenge what was said before, so I'm uncomfortable not making the distinction; hence why I've used a similar formulation for a while (e.g. Halo Wars, Halo 3: ODST, et al.)

Thoughts?

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. He said or wrote it, not the publication. This is certainly wrong from a good practices of citation point of view. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support Either - I personally don't typically list the writers, since I don't think majority of them are recognizable to the general reader, but I was under the impression that listing them was equally, if not more, acceptable. I haven't worked on getting article to FA though, so I only speak in general, of what I've observed. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I consider the review to be the writer's opinion though representing the publication they are writing for (see Jeff Gerstman and the whole Gamespot thing) - assuming the reviewer is listed (Edge doesn't do this, for example). Different members on the same publication may have different opinions though rarely will works publish two reviews by different editors. Including the name helps in case later down the road we gain different commentary from the other staff on the same work that conflict with the "official" review. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You already cover the author in the citation, I think it's OK to introduce the author once and then proceed using the publication name. Publications do have opinions, the Daily Mail supported fascism before the outbreak of World War II - clearly that's not been consistent. IGN isn't a group blog, it's not a collective of independent individuals - the work they publish travels up an editorial chain. No one cares that some anonymous writer said it, they care because IGN did. - hahnchen 14:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

While the reviewer is writing the publiciation's "official" review that will represent the publication's stance on the game, it's still the opinion of the person writing it, not the entire staff of the work. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep names - It's not a matter of whether people care who said it, it's a matter of properly citing those who did the work. An entity has no mouth to speak, nor fingers to type. A reviewer does. The author should be cited just as we would any other quote in any other field on Wikipedia. --Teancum (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep names per Teancum's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The argument was never to remove all names and citations. My suggestion at the FAC above was to introduce the reviewer once, and then to proceed thereon using the publication name. Having random unrecognisable names pop up in the reception section causes the reader to break off and backtrack. Writers represent their publications. - hahnchen 15:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem's response is the best defense for going the names routes. I think this can be applied on a case-by-case basis. In a critical response section, the names would be useful when registering opinions as the author's own, but if aspects of the review recur later in the paragraph, it's a bad idea to refer to the review by the author's surname, which requires backtracking. It's the same thing as having multiple obscure references in a main body paragraph—it shouldn't be confusing to read (especially if it's brilliant prose). And for what it's worth, the definitive IGN review becomes IGN's review, even if it doesn't assume all of the opinions of the author. So I say case-by-case basis. When I made my FAC comment, I spot-checked several other featured VG articles and the greater majority referred to the work (source title) as totum pro parte and not the author. I think this is more nuanced than declaring one practice right/wrong over the other. czar · · 15:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no problem that once one has said "John Smith of VGReviewSite stated that..." (crediting the reviewer) that either "Smith" or "VGReviewSite" can then be used subsequently to identify the review - that becomes implicit from that point forward. Only if needed clarity on who is speaking from that site (like GameInformer's second opinions), should the review name be used. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Metacritic/Game Rankings in review sections - digits of significance and inclusion

These are two related issues involving the use of the aggregate review sites Metacritic and Gamerankings.

It is common (though it is a practice I don't like) to call out the specifics of the MC/GR rankings in the first para of prose about a game's reception, with statements like "It received a 80.23% aggregate score from 23 reviews from Metacritic".

First is the digits of precision. I know that MC and GR report the numbers to this level of detail but given how they do their work, the 3rd digit is barely in the area of being precise and the fourth digit is well beyond that. In other words, their aggregate scores are reasonably statistically significant to the first 2 digits (80, above), but anything more is being overly precise given their systems. But because editors tend to include these two digits, what starts to happen is that IPs and other editors tend to frequently update these numbers, in particular if a game is multiconsole and the accuracy of these numbers puts their preferred console over another. After about 3-5 days of a game's release, the number should have settled down that at worst the aggregate score changes by a point (on a 100 point scale), so all these edits after that are just overly-fine tuning. It's a lot of excessive busywork for unimportant numbers. I would rather encourage us to report MC and GR to 2 digits (or one, if the game happens to get less than a 10 out of 100 rating), such that frequent updating can be avoided and we're giving more appropriate broad strokes to these scores as all they are are meant as a rough guide to a game's reception.

That points to the fact in prose that a lot of weight is given to these scores. If one is using the VG reviews table, the scores will be right there, and I'm not seeing the need to go into detail about the scores (particularly for a multi-console game). I agree it is a good way to start a reception section, to tell the reader the general average rating the game got, but we don't need the finer breakdown of how many reviews, etc. Having a bulk of numbers at the start of prose like this weakens the reception sections. But it may be that this is tied with the digits of precision above, as this produces just a lot of extra numbers that can blur clear prose reading. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on the score. I think it would take a long, hard paradigm shift to get everyone on board, particularly IPs, and I'm not willing to police articles for some decimal points. What I do think is doable is omitting the "from 23 reviews" blurbs in paragraphs and the infobox. I can't stand when it's in the infobox as it clutters things, and I'm not a fan of it in the prose for the same reasons of score-shift you mention above. I'd submit that for mulitconsole games simply mentioning a general range or omitting actual scores in the prose may be useful, but at the editor's discretion. Any time I've ever removed aggregate scores from prose I've been met with opposition. --Teancum (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, sometimes its important to note that "from X number of reviews" part, to accurately show the picture, namely, older games. I've seen it before, where some odd digital re-release has a "97.5%" GR ranking, but it's only because it's only been reviewed by two random fansites that gave it a "96" and "99" score, and all of the other reviews, while they may be in to 60's and 70's, are added because they're old magazines not considered by the aggregators. What I'm getting at is, there is a difference between getting a 97.5% on 2 reviews or 30... Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If a game only has a handful of scores that are used by MC/GR, including the MC/GR aspect is silly, since we likely can run down the reviews ourselves directly, and there's the statistical significance of such a low sampling for the MC/GR rating to have a lot of relevance compared to most modern games that get 20+ reviews. (This is also the case where we also don't need the VG reviews table). That is, the point of our use of MC/GR score is to say "We can't cover every review, but you can go here to read more, and they say the average is here." If we can cover every review, MC/GR makes little sense. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh I agree, I personally have no interest in MC/GR scores, and never add them myself, I'm just going based off of what I've observed, and why I assumed people add that "Out of X reviews" comment. However, while I don't care about them, it sure seems like most of the rest of the world does, and I think it's own of those "this is going to be more work to change/enforce than its worth" type situations. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a change I would have a retroactive scrubbing of the project but instead encourage it going forward, and cleaning the "mess" up in older articles as they come up. It's similar to hardware requirements that we're deprecating out of articles, for example. And yes, no one is required to use GR/MC scores; I'm just saying that if you less than, say, 10 reviews that those aggregiates track, their average is not going to be statistically significant, and it might just be better to go through all the reviews instead. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with every point you make, in a perfect world. I'm just saying, even going forward, it's going to be an uphill battle. Its so "against the grain" with the current trend. Everyone loves all their MC details. Companies even base expectations and sales off of them these days. I won't "Oppose", and wouldn't ever work against your plan, if by no other reason than by default, because I never mess with them to begin with. I'm just not really on-board for trying to enforce this either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly in the end I'm not for it. I don't look at aggregate scores and think "Oh man, that's hard to read in the prose". Individual reviews are a different matter. For those I expect to hear what people thought, not see a number attached to a score. But for me (and presumably many since it's been the standard for so long) seeing the aggregates in the prose makes sense, as someone choosing to read the prose and not the infobox gets a good picture of averaged review scores. --Teancum (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with including those scores as long as it is made clear that they are not the deciding factor in its success. People LOVE to add "universal acclaim" to a game, whether it's on MC or not, but MC's personal interpretation of those scores and very loose interpretation of the word "universal" does not speak for reality or the entire reception of the game. Frankly the line "Game Name received positive/negative/mixed/critical acclaim" should be dropped because it is interpretation on somebody's part, and the review section should speak for itself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal - Toss MC/GR scores out of articles altogether, unless the score itself is notable and has been the subject of significant coverage, in which case it should be discussed in prose in the Reception section, like everything else. We should stick with what we actually use, which is a qualifier of the overall reception (mixed, generally positive, generally negative, etc.), since it conveys basically the same information as the "average" score without the problematic calculations and scores and percentage things. Perhaps the field could still sit atop the review list template but in the prose, it's useless. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do you really think that'll be enforceable? And is there any precedent for doing this? For example, I know Film websites use relevent Aggregators too... Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• If we toss out MC/GR scores from the articles, what about the ones from movie of music related articles? Doing this may need a wider consensus. GamerPro64 16:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - really??? --Teancum (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• RE:"Do you really think that'll be enforceable?" The solution is to simply remove the "aggregator" fields from the VGReviews template. What film/music articles do is no business of ours. Personally, I think I'm not completely opposed to the idea of removing MC/GR from VGReviews and I think, at least on an academic level, it would lead to more well-constructed and well-written Reception sections. I'll have to think more about it, but I'm leaning towards support. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• That only solves its appearrance in the template though. Unless I'm misreading, it seems like these efforts are more targeted over keeping MC out prose, or out of the prose and template. So that doesn't address most of what is being proposed here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well there's obviously no systemic/enforceable way to remove it from prose and I don't know that I would support unilateral removal of it in prose either. We are essentially using the MC score as a crutch/shortcut to summarizing reviews, to the detriment of the prose. Of course, I have no evidence for this, other than anecdotal observations of my own and others' work. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's fine, I was just trying to understand what exactly you were leaning towards supporting. It looks like we're getting pulled in 4 different directions; No use of MC, use in prose, use in templates, or use in both. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Opppose - The more I think about this, the more I'm against it. Like them or not, MC/GR have a strong influence in video games, and other media, these days, can be reliably sourced, and don't go against anything along the lines of WP:NOT or WP:GAMECRUFT. Its annoying how some people obsess or go overboard with them, but that comes with just about everything on Wikipedia. I don't believe any change is in order. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Following up on my previous comment, I think that removing aggregators from the VGReviews template forces us as editors to think more critically about the content of the Reception section and evaluate the actual meaning of the reviews. I, myself, am guilty of poor/lazy reception writing, even in FAs I've worked on, and this change might encourage better writing in this extremely important section of every article. Just something to think about. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• • My problem is not with GR/MC directly. In fact, when they provide >10 reviews, it is a source that we as a tertiary research aid should be linking. We can't cover 30+ different reviews that MC may provide on WP, but we can say "Here's a link to find those sources" for the research - that is a huge plus regardless of any other issues with GR/MC's aggregation or the like. It's just such an easy crutch as well. I do note that no one should be required to use MC/GR where they don't want to where it would otherwise make sense, though in such case I would regulate it to an External Link or a general Reference link for the reader for the purposes of finding more resources. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a suitable Metacritic score, drop Gamerankings. I've mentioned this at article reviews before. Metacritic is the industry standard, it is a reliable source, we trust it to provide an accurate consensus score. Adding Gamerankings as well (and any other aggregators) is just redundancy. - hahnchen 21:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, if we are reasonably assured that reviews sited by GR that we would otherwise on WP consider reliable are all also tracked by MC. That is, hypothetical, if GR tracked IGN (highly reliable for WP) among its scores but MC didn't, we shouldn't be dropping GR. That said, this is a hypothetical because I know of no instance of a reliable GR-tracked site that isn't also tracked on MC (GR tends to gather more blogs and the like). It's like with films where they use RottenTomatoes.com as the sole aggregator, even though MC also does track scores. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support dropping the fractional part of the aggregator scores moving forward (per Masem's arguments in the first post); oppose removing the "from 23 reviews" portion (per Sergecross73 re: older games); oppose tossing MC/GR scores entirely because metareviews are strongly in line with NPOV and thus 5P; neutral on using GR only as a backup. -Thibbs (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support cutting aggregates, and Comment I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do strongly feel at this point aggregate scores should not be considered a reliable source. My logic on here is the following:

The use of sources that we ourselves would not use in the articles: several cites are cited on their that have no actual say in the article's prose itself because we can't cite them as a reliable source. Yet because the aggregates do, they weigh in and sometimes rather heavily in the cases of older games that have very few reviews available.

Misrepresentation: Aggregate scores more often than not do not include scores listed from other media they don't normally include but are still considered reliable sources, such as obscure printed gaming magazines. Looking at the aggregate on the surface can give readers the implication that the particular reviews included are also weighed in on said aggregate, when they may not be whatsoever.

Reliability: There are two things to consider here, and both weigh particularly in on Metacritic. One is the fact that their aggregate scores are based on a scale, with certain reviewers given more weight than others. To the regular reader that may not always be obvious. Then there's the interesting case of "Natural Selection 2", a game that GameSpot re-reviewed after readers complained that it was not factually accurate and rightfully so, bringing into question whether or not the reviewer had actually played the title. As a result, the game was re-reviewed by GameSpot, jumping from 60 to 80. Metacritic opted to keep the original review and has a policy of doing so, despite the fact it was deemed unreliable by the reviewing website.

And lastly, the number is *meaningless*. Even if we put into prose "score of so-and-so based off X number of reviews", this tells the reader nothing of value. In fact it can create confusion for the reader who may be led to believe that they cover all reviews in the article in certain cases. In actuality, these numbers are arbitrary, have been emphasized by reviewers not to always adequately represent their feelings towards a game, and I advocate their complete removal for the sake of reliability when discussing critical reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of remarks on this.

(1) First of all, I don't think it's fair to cut a metareview based on the speculation that readers may misinterpret the score. The same could be said for any source whose weighted breakdowns we either don't know or don't report. All we're obliged to do is to give attribution for the score and provide relevant details (like the size of the sample population). The reader can dig deeper on his own if he wants to find out exactly why the score is what it is. We don't usually have to hold his hand or shield him from his own ignorance regarding the policies underlying the score.

(2) Secondly, I think that even with a few potentially non-RS elements thrown into the mix, an average score will almost always be closer to the hypothetical "real" score of a game than any one individual. This is just straight statistics. The larger the sample group, the smaller the error. There will be outliers, sure, but hopefully fewer outliers than not.

(3) And that brings me to the third point: No source is either reliable or unreliable for scores all of the time. The individual facts leading to the score may always be taken into account and any individual score may be omitted based on a consensus that the score is unreliable. The charts and lists at WP:VG/RS are guidelines, they aren't the final word on reliability. The people at WP:RSN are often scandalized when they find out about WP:VG/RS because they suffer the misimpression that VG/RS purports to be a final determination that articles from those sources are reliable 100% of the time. Of course this is completely contrary to the actual intent of the VG/RS lists. As with all sources, it's ultimately a case-by-case determination. Some MC/GS scores will be unreliable in some contexts. The "Natural Selection 2" score might be a good example. But these individual cases of unreliability should be brought up on the article talk page for a consensus, or brought to VG/RS or RSN. -Thibbs (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If the sample set used at MC is statistically significant, a jump of 20 points by 1 review should change the aggregate by 2 points or less - eg it shouldn't have a big impact on the reader given the purpose of including the aggregate scores as a 'test the waters' measure of the game's critical success. We (as Wikipedians) should not be tied up too much in the exacting process of these numbers in the first place, otherwise, we're seeing the use of these scores wrong. We should reflect Gamespot's ultimate score (and the fact they were changed) of course. But we shouldn't be overly concerned if in a statistically large sample, that MC misrepresents the score by a point or less. (When the sample size is not significant, yes, that change can be more pronounced, but there, that's when I say we just talking about all the reviews directly instead of thinking about the aggregate score) --MASEM (t) 14:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, as MC/GR have been extremely helpful for video game reviews and they do not violate either WP:NOT, WP:GAMECRUFT or WP:V. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: They are needed. This seems to be providing a pretext for cutting down on review scores until only a very few are left. There has often been a big difference between Game Ranking and Metacritic scores from what I have seen. Keep them both in. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's Play (video gaming)

I'd like to fix the article up a bit. I'm not planning on getting it to GA status, in fact, I might not even get it past stub or start status, but I would like to get it referenced and at least provide a little bit more information. A question on the talk page of the article is related to revenue received by people making LP videos, so that's one of the areas I'd like to expand the article on. I've begun searching for sources, but so far I've found zilch. Most of what is available comes from forums, wikis, or other unreliable sources. I did find this and I might search more into that Senate bill, but I don't want to focus on that since it would really be undue, especially in regards to the size of the article. In any case, can anyone help me find a few sources? Ryan Vesey 19:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help! I added a couple of sources. I'll work on it some more as time permits. There are also more sources cited in the foreign language versions of the article that could be used. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe mention notable Let's Players like Totalbiscuit or Day [9] to help show examples on the types of games that are played. GamerPro64 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As an infrequent LPer myself, it seems recently the focus has somewhat shifted to livestreaming, especially when considering revenue (sponsorships by Twitch and the like), but I'm unsure how that fits in the topic of LPs themselves. Perhaps a broader topic would be the concept of watching others playing video games as a form of entertainment, like watching a Hockey match, for example. On that topic, I would love an article about the AGDQ charity event! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Eroge Task Force

I was thinking of starting this WikiProject to expand on eroge articles, but I'm unsure about it cause I lack some experience on Wikipedia. Is anybody interested? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe WP:VN covers that already.--十八 10:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There are eroge which are neither VNs or dating sims, such as Steam-Heart's and RapeLay. And then there are also Western eroge like Leisure Suit Larry and Bonetown. Perhaps such a task force could cover all sexually explicit videogames regardless of genre. (Sure, there will be overlap with WP:VN, but lots of wikigroups overlap.) I'd help out if this was created.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There's simply far too much overlap to make sense. The vast majority of (notable) eroge are visual novels, or otherwise already covered under WP:VN. Task forces should be for more than just a few "exception" articles, such as the ones you listed. Is there really a large number of adult video game articles outside the scope of WP:VN? Most of the articles in Category:Erotic video games are stubs that I doubt would survive an AFD or PROD. Not everything needs a WikiProject/taskforce.--十八 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

G-Zay CCI?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That's all folks! Post new evidence on G-Zay's activity at User talk:G-Zay/Source problems. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

---

All right. G-Zay has been indef banned per community consensus. Is it time to take action and launch a WP:CCI on him? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Context: G-Zay was banned a few days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#User G-Zay and BLP concerns for making up sources when he couldn't find them or when he wanted to put something in WP that he could use in off-wiki discussions. While a few of the articles he worked on have been blanked until they can be looked through, he was here for a while and worked on a lot of articles besides the 6 mentioned in the ANI thread; what should be done about all of his other edits? --PresN 17:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I am thinking about compiling a record of transgressions of G-Zay's misuse of sources on BLPs and issues as well on an evidence page. Of course, no personal attacks or harassment are to be intended on my part. However, there's one thing everyone must keep in mind, I have an exceptionally low tolerance when it comes to trivial matters, or unfounded accusations without clear evidence, or issues that could be easily resolved on talk pages (anyone who can look through my edit history or checks my barnstars can easily disprove some allegations that anyone has and will no doubt realize that I have been active since December 2006 and I have made a few articles up to FA status (i.e. Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy XIII and the Kingdom Hearts series, and also helped work on GAs as well, such as Thor (film) and The Avengers (2012 film)), and may also realize that I have built up a reputation of being fair, honest and objective, but at times, I admit that I have occasionally lost my temper and stepped on some toes). I do not intend to break any policies in doing so, nor do I want to cause any problems or feed the Streisand effect on any problems that I may be involved in. But I digress obviously. I have had encounters with G-Zay before, especially on articles like FFVI, FFXIII, FFXII, and also some of the BLPs I have worked on, and part of my statement above is relevant. My concern about this situation is that we should compile evidence on this matter in filing a WP:CCI or WP:RSN case on this matter. A strong helpful case on G-Zay's actions will probably help restore my faith in the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to reply at length, but two things that may help -- fish out my posts here & at AN/I from a few months back, and check the posts from his GameFAQs accounts. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some GameFAQs discussions involving G-Zay (also known as Galvanization): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. All I can say is: Damn it all to hell (sorry for my incivility here), this definitely does not look good for Wikipedia as a whole. This evidence clearly demonstrates that we need to file a WP:CCI on G-Zay immediately and check out the sources used. On an unrelated note, Fragments of Jade (also known as SyberiaWinx) is still on the loose. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

CCI isn't the right venue; he didn't violate copyright, he just made up sources (and information). Not sure if there is a process in place for things like this- what did they do with that guy who made up all those sources on music articles? User:Legolas2186? G-Zay had 1576 edits to article space, and fortunately a lot of them are going to be those quibbling edits to infoboxes that he loved so much, the majority of which have been reverted in any case as TMI. I guess someone's going to have to go through them all sequentially- I ripped out his contributions to Final Fantasy 6, but I don't think that article-by-article is the way to go here, necessarily. --PresN 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like for Legolas they did it ad-hoc- User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems, and went article by article- though of course, Legolas had 19238 article edits, so a full sweep would take forever. If we want to do that, I can get a page set up. --PresN 19:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:Xiomicronpi seems to be running through all of G-Zay's contributions at a rate that suggests semi-automation. --PresN 19:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Whether we call it a copyright investigation or not, an investigation of the exact same type must begin as soon as possible. I was subject to a similar investigation on the most trivial grounds, and are we really going to drag our feet on investigating someone who flaunted putting fake information on Wikipedia? If an edit by edit investigation is not initiated, that is reason to lose faith in this project and an outrage. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's as good as done! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to create a page on this at User talk:G-Zay/Source problems. Please post your evidence there Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

G-Zay's already back with a spare account named Azure223. Fortunately his alternate accounts and UK based IPs are easy to spot because he always tries to add fake info (mostly pro-Ito and anti-Kitase/Toriyama propaganda and rumours about FF15) to the pages Hiroyuki Ito - Yoshinori Kitase - Motomu Toriyama and all the other pages I've cleaned up lately. He admitted to create new accounts at Internet cafes in order to circumvent permabans ([14]). As you'll see he sometimes uses poor grammar to hide his identity. I've undid his changes to Hiroyuki Ito which added back much of his pro-Ito lies. Stay wary on new editors. @PresN: I've shot a mail to Ktr101 to verify this account as separate from G-Zay. I've also gone over the edits and provided Ktr101 with a list of text pages with G-Zay's fake contributions apart from credits on the top of game pages. @Lord Sjones23: I'll try to explain some of the fake info on your page.Xiomicronpi (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment : Sorry , but I am not G-zay but I really see some right information about the SNES and PS1 Era on Wiki jap and some interview page so i just add but really not good at writing so I copy the old one with some edit . Also in others wikipage Ito really invole with Final Fantasy VII concept system and he is really lyric writer for " melody of life " in FFIX and " Dear friend album " in FFV . You can check the credit of FFIX for information about the lyric .

ps : This is my first time using Wiki edit . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure223 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who G-Zay is, but considering no one on your talk page has alerted you to this discussion, you have very few edits spread across a long time span and yet managed to be aware that your name was mentioned in this discussion on this page leads me to believe, as a not-involved party, that you are totally G-Zay. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Your shamelessness really knows no borders does it? You're hurting people by spreading these lies. I think you should seek help. This is not normal behaviour.Xiomicronpi (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment :

Well , You guys are rude . you accused me G zay when I was not even a English speaker. When I see you guy delete all the information , I try to search on Jap page to find some infor that can be keep . I come to this disscusion because I click into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xiomicronpi gameplay system such as junction , meteria , FF tactic: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Hiroyuki_It%C5%8D , http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BC%8A%E8%97%A4%E8%A3%95%E4%B9%8B The lyric writer is a right part . If you guy delete that , i can concluse that you never play Final Fantasy 9 and the others FF . For Final fantasy V http://squaremusic.ffworld.com/?comp=uematsu&page=ff5df.htm Paroles : Yoshihiko Maekawa (5), Hiroyuki Ito (11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure223 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

See, this is all just clearly untrue. For one, despite your claim above that this is your first time editing, your first time was actually last Summer. For two, you didn't just see information on the JA wikipedia and bring it in, you instead specifically re-reverted bits of what G-Zay had written, with the sources that he had used- and not only used, but had specifically made up. Finally, you're editing in the exact same style on the exact same articles that G-Zay did, just a few days after he was banned- managing to stretch Ito writing the lyrics to one song on an obscure arranged album into "being a lyrics writer for Final Fantasy V", for example. Even if you are not G-Zay, you need to stop adding untrue and falsely-sourced material to the Hiroyuki Ito page. --PresN 16:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, this is very entertaining, but can some please check these accounts for being sock puppets? To me it seems very obvious all three of these account are G-Zay un-recovered from wikipedia and lying addiction and are interfering in our efforts to clean up this mess.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, now please don't make my voluntary ban be in vain. I willfully stepped down from editing without a fight and provided a clear and lengthy apology for my actions that was both honest and sincere. The fact you all have read that and now think Azure223 (talk • contribs) is me is a travesty and a mockery of my apology. I have not edited a single page on Wikipedia since I was banned. This is my home IP and you can check its history and see I have never edited. Azure223 is not me. Do your research, people! If you look at the history of the Hiroyuki Ito page edits, you'll see that myself (G-Zay) and Azure223 have clashed over edits. Why would I conduct and edit war with myself? Honestly, I step down from my post and provide a sincere and in-depth apology for my actions and yet people still guarantee and are certain I would do sockpuppeting not even over a week since I was banned? What a disgrace. As I said in my support ban post: Go ahead and ban my IP if you want to. The ironic thing is that by not doing so, I have at least been able to defend myself (and Azure223) from these ridiculous new allegations. I hope I don't have to post on Wikipedia again to debunk such nonsensical theories like this. This user is not me and bears no blame for my wrongdoing. Having said that, please keep up the good work mending the pages I edited. I've seen the progress and I respect it, even if some legit info that is well sourced has been disregarded. --89.240.44.205 (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not making your ban be in vein, but you should leave Wikipedia with dignity and not be humiliated at all. I apologize if I mistook you for Azure223. Unfortunately, you are using an IP while banned, and that is considered a ban evasion. Can someone please block this IP? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed yet: your ban wasn't voluntary. And who knows how many accounts you've registered well in advance. It's not like it's the first site you got banned on. You say all this as if you hadn't mastered the art of the proxy G-Zay. Your so-called "spreading truth with references that were lies" also just so happens to turn out as spreading lies with references that were lies. So you shouldn't use words like "honest" or "sincere." And edit wars with yourself appear to be another trademark editing style of yours. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] No idea why you'd also use several accounts to do it. But the others have pointed out Azure223's timing, editing and involvement in this discussion is very suspect. What reason could you have for protecting this account of allegations other than leaving a loophole for future edits to articles like Hiroyuki Ito? At least the possibility that you're just an "honest" and "sincere" guy can be ruled out.Xiomicronpi (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, speaking honestly as I did when I supported my ban, I only have one account. I don't dabble in alts on any website so your claim that I'm Azure223 is invalid. If I get banned from a website, I make a new account. i never have more than one account running in parallel on a website. That's me being honest. I merely speak out about this as it's unfair to see another member get scapegoated for my actions. Your mindset of further misconduct by me would be valid had I not been so open and supported my band. However, seeing as I was open and supportive, your speculation into further misconduct by me is undeserved. I did bad. I accepted and apologised and stepped away. It's now up to yourself and others to focus on the future. It's your call. This is the last post I make on the matter as I want to stay banned. Please don't reply in a way that provokes me to have to post again. Again, good work on improving the pages. --92.24.53.160 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll note now that I haven't read all of the above so I apologize if I mention something that's already been mentioned. First, there's no point in really compiling a record of his transgressions if he's already been indef-banned. That said, you probably meant to compile that so they can be fixed, not so you can use them against him, in which case it would be fine. I think the best way for you to examine his edits is to use the exact same form as is used in CCI investigations. That can be created on the toolserver by someone who knows more than me and you can copy it into a subpage to be able to check all of his edits. Let me know if you want me to have someone create that. Ryan Vesey 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how G-Zay has already returned as IP 78.151.150.54 and added back his vandalism to the article I don't think these so-called apologies are to be trusted. I didn't go over the complete edit but I found some fake and unsourced statements just skimming through it. Page protection perhaps?Xiomicronpi (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not G-Zay, but I do know him via GameFAQs and NeoGAF. He's a really passionate Hiroyuki Ito fan. Granted, I'm also a fan of Hiroyuki Ito, but he is just beyond even me in knowledge of Ito's works. I read the Hiroyuki Ito page when it was at its most detailed via this thread on NeoGAF and found it a fascinating article. I'm shocked at these reports that the page was filled with lies and false references, but I do believe that some truthful and well sourced information has been deliberately removed in the corrected article. As a result, I spent a good 6 hours dissecting G-Zay's last edit for sources that were legit and added them back again. I see no reason why legit information should be thrown out with the lies. I also decided to add some images to better improve the presentation of the page. G-Zay may have lied vehemently on that Hiroyuki Ito page, but his writing style did inspire and I would like to preserve that style but with 100% truthful information and sources. If there is anything I added that is off then feel free to make the information closer to the provided source. Otherwise, don't just revert the entire page thinking I'm G-Zay reincarnated. Thank you. --78.151.150.54 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please. You've never edited WP before, you don't have an account, but you're able on your first try to perfectly restore parts of G-Zay's contributions, add images to the article, and come here and find this discussion to argue your case? Just as Azure disappears and G-Zay's ip address is banned following a "final" message asking us not to accuse other people of being him or he might have to come back here to defend himself? You're either G-Zay or someone else doing what he asked you to do with him setting up the edits. I'm getting really tired of this nonsense- G-Zay, I know you're reading this- just give it up. This is getting to be really sad. Blocking this ip and semiprotecting the page. --PresN 15:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. His whole indef block/ban was on the grounds of long-term history of dishonesty, so to think that either GZay, or a random IP with absolutely no edit history, could come and vouch for him like this, and have it be worth anything, is ludicrous. Sorry, all his bad deeds have tarnished any of his good work. It needs to be removed wholesale, and then future editors can decide whether or not they want to rebuild it with legit sources... Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

People, the moment this and any other IP or account showed up someone should have filed a WP:SPI and possibly WP:DUCK blocked the IPs. /trouts the administrators taking part in this conversation. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

PresN already blocked both, on the very date they posted. Was this not fast enough for you or something? (I wasn't following the conversation until now, and PresN already said he was going to block him, so there wasn't much for me to do here...) (EDIT: It appears there's more SPIs in question here than just the 2 IPs I was referring to, but my point still largely stands. And it doesn't take an admin to go to SPI... Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Which I hadn't checked. Still saying that the whole discussion with the IPs/accounts did not need to occur. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just end this thread if all that's happening is new IPs that are violating rules. GamerPro64 16:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we shall. If there are new IPs violating rules, this topic shall be closed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Metal Arms help

I've been in discussion with another registered user concerning some additions he made to Metal Arms: Glitch in The System. They look to me like trivial information that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but he argues that he put it here to preserve it, as external wikis devoted to this game are soon to be shut down. Is there any reason to retain the additions, or any way to integrate them into the article better? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, here's a working link. Metal Arms: Glitch in the System. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Going on your description; see item 6 at WP:GAMECRUFT for a list of inappropriate content and also WP:NOTHOSTING seems appropriate as well. Having looked at the addition, it needs to be distilled into a single short paragraph for each subject, and the rest removed from the article. - X201 (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Checking WP:VG, I was so bold to do some necessary hacking and slashing in the article. X is correct, it was more like a game guide than a Wikipedia article. Hopefully Vuthakral Darastrix will check the guide lines before hitting the revert button. --Soetermans. T / C 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I figured that'd be the response, but I felt the need for confirmation. Thank you. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Second box art in articles for special editions, etc

Ok fellas, quick query of y'all. Earlier today, someone added the BFG Edition box art to the Doom 3 article, in its appropriate section. Now, I can't help feel that it seems entirely unnecessary, just shoehorned in for the sake of showing the box art. Being so far down the article anyway doesn't exactly meet our usual rationale as means of identification for the reader. To me it just doesn't add anything; certainly in this case it doesn't seem so drastically radical it needs to be shown (being just the logo from the original box on a black background). I do note that there are articles, such as The Secret of Monkey Island and Myst that don't bother with showing any re-release artwork. I can't, however, express that in a way relating to current practice or guidelines. Any precedents, thoughts or so on regarding this sort of thing? -- Sabre (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The excuse for using box art is that it helps identify the topic, a section on a special edition IN an identified article doesn't need identifying unless tehre is something notable about the cover, so no the DOOM thing doesn't need to be there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is only one "free" non-free cover allowance in any published-work (including video games) article (and this still means that all other NFC parts have to be met in setting up the article). Any subsequent box art must be the cover of significant commentary and discussion, and not just present because it's different. An example I can justify is on Okami where the Wii edition was noted by sources to be using watermarked assets from IGN. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like something that would be useful. It would be inviting articles to be flooded with cover images they don't need. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem's pretty much hit what I was feeling but couldn't describe right on the head. Mostly just wanted to be comfortable with the rationale before I hit the "undo" button. -- Sabre (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also going back to the Okami example, Capcom also allowed people to register to receive replacement covers due to the IGN copyright issue. I think its safe to say that the second Doom 3 cover did not garner anywhere near that level of coverage and that the second Okami cover would have been removed years ago if it was not for these special circumstances.--174.93.164.125 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure

Sonic Adventure is now a GA! I am also planning to take Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game). Before I go, I want to let everyone know that I have worked on 11 GAs and at least 10 FAs and have at least improved video game articles to the highest degree. Any thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have plenty of thoughts. What exactly are you looking for feedback about? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! I forgot to mention that I am going to take Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) to GA status in my last post. My bad! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you did mention it. So you're looking for feedback on the article before taking it to GA? Perhaps a Peer Review or a GOCE copyedit is what you're looking for? Otherwise my thoughts are "good luck". I'm not sure what you're looking for. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was asking if someone can help me work on the article and help polish it up before taking this to GA status. Sorry if that didn't come out right. I think a GOCE request should work. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You should probably bug the GOCE after you finish adding most of the content, which would be after you have someone help you. :) --Izno (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it! At least I think it's best for the community if I should avoid contentious confrontations on Wikipedia. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Now up for WP:PR here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you (or anyone else in the project) ever need a copy editor, drop me a note on my talk page. I'll take a look at the PR if I have time tonight. czar · · 00:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Can caption data be saved and used for readers with sight problems?

The current discussion about captions in infoboxes (and specifically in videogame infoboxes) seems to be drifting towards the removal of captions. Rather than this information being blithely removed from articles, would it be possible to alter the Caption field in the template, so that it was used as alt-text for the image, and thus available for users that use screen readers etc? Just deleting it would seem a stupid thing to do, when we could put it to a good use. - X201 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Caption data should just be kept as captions - hahnchen 11:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Mario-and-luigi-dream-team-3-630x354.jpg

File:Mario-and-luigi-dream-team-3-630x354.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda feminist criticism

There is a new subsection in the Reception section of the The Legend of Zelda article about the recent criticism the series has received about the role of women within them (quite well deserved in my opinion, but I shall remain impartial in terms of the article's references and wording). Can anyone help with seeing whether the section needs to stay. There has already been a small conflict between two unregistered users as to whether the section belongs there or not (which can be seen in the article's edit history. It had problems anyway, with some dreadful spelling and grammar, which I have corrected, and some work seems to have been done by another editor to correct biased wording or something like that, but I think the references need a look over and the thing in general needs to be looked over in terms of notoriety and possible bias. I don't think I'm qualified to look at this, so could someone more experienced do it? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• For what its worth, my two cents: If people really think it needs to be in there, then so be it, but right now I think there's a bit too much there, causing some WP:UNDUE issues. Has it really been that much of a "criticism"? Seems like there's been an journalist or two write a little editorial, but I hardly think this is a major aspect of the game's reception... Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Must be brief, but my 2 pence; isn't the the Anita Sarkeesian video self published? No editorial control, it's just one person's opinion, Kickstarter or no. The YouTube response video is definitely self published and way out as a source. Яehevkor ✉ 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully this won't cause as much drama as last time. Anyway, I oppose this inclusion, simply due to the fact that I don't consider ref #147 to be a reliable source, and of course the other two (#148 and #149) are even worse. Additionally, by looking at the video, it's main focus doesn't seem to be the Zelda series, but in fact women in video games in general, thus making it even more unimportant. Like Sergecross said, there are WP:UNDUE issues. If multiple feminists agreed about it, this would be a different story, but at the moment this one view hardly seems to be an important aspect of the video game series' general reception. And even if it is eventually agreed that this is notable, an entire subsection is not necessary. I suggest this sentence in the general reception section: The Legend of Zelda series has been scrutinized by feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian for its depiction of women." Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 22:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page, please. czar · · 00:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Review pages as project pages

Should we be tagging review pages (GAN, etc.) as project pages on the talk page? I can't find previous dialogue about this. It would help keep track of the reviews related to the project, though perhaps this is viewed as needless, unhelpful work. Anyway, wanted to throw it out there. czar · · 04:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox discussion - De-Link / Rename "Media/Distribution"

There is a discussion about the above at Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#De-Link_.2F_Rename_.22Media.2FDistribution.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 12:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge Final Fantasy Tactics (series) into Ivalice

There is currently a discussion about merging these two articles. Your input is welcome. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Z (video game)

Could someone in the know quickly check the notability of the section "Zod Engine (remake)"? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Atari Merge

should Atari not be merged with Atari Corporation ? It's basicly the same entity in name and has at some point been devided up between the two articles. There was a conversation about a merge, but lacked any input because no one appears to have looked. Govvy (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just in the first two lines of each article, it appears to me that Atari is scoped to the brand name and Atari Corp is scoped to the company that existed between 1984 and 1996. It seems sensible to me that they should remain separate articles. --Izno (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In other words, WP:SUMMARY seems to be the guiding policy behind the structure of the articles. --Izno (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Atari is both brand and a company, it's just changing hands at a later date, the company hasn't truely died, it was just sold on when the previous owners failed. Why should you have two seperate articles for that. I seem very simular articles, although for some reason the history on one is better written than the other. I still say they need to be merged. Govvy (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Izno, keep them as separate articles. The Atari article is a summary of the brand, while the corporation article is coverage of a smaller, distinct and significant period in Atari history. - X201 (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi rename discussion

There is a stagnated proposed merge rename discussion open for Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi. (updated) czar · · 15:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, its not a merge request but a request to rename the article in question.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops—fixed czar · · 02:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Oton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 19:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Ghost in the Shell template

Some heavy edits by Ryulong have been done to the template. it seems excessive, and the chain of tiny edits to comply with the previous tiny edits need to stop. The issue on the surrent page's layout is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Character guidelines

I know this is pretty old, but can anyone look at my proposal regarding character articles and provide some advice on this or is it needed on WP:VG/GL? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though I would possibly emphasize that if the plot is covered in another article, then we should not be creating redundancy by repeating most of the same beats, any plot about the character should be hitting the notes important to that character, and it should not be exceeding the length of a full game plot which should be around 700 words. At least with film and tv character lists, fans tend to love to just note every single thing a person has ever done, repeating multiple times just in that one article the same plot elements instead of linking to the episode article or film article and letting it do the work and remove the redundancy, which if you're IT educated at all, is irritating to the max. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree this should be added to our GLs after any suggestions here. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Does anyone else have suggestions? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, it looks OK to me, maybe needs a little work, a little clearer and what should be done in a greater number situations, as characters are written about a lot here, maybe a little too much. It looks like a good start though, and it's good you've started it. Maybe it needs polishing by users that have worked on other guidelines, but a good start. I will see if I can think of anything to add to it. Carlwev (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I started working on this after I proposed an addition of character notability guidelines in order to prevent endless arguing about merging or demerging a character whether or not its notable to be included as a separate article. In that same discussion, an RFC determined that Top X lists should be used with caution, as it must include a decent description of the character and needs to be from a reliable source to verify the information and quote farms about aesthetics should be discouraged. But of course, that's water under the bridge now. Given the fact that there are still some unreliable sources in some of the other characters article (i.e. ScrewAttack, Game Dynamo and Cheat Code Central) and discussed extensively (for example, see Talk:Akuma (Street Fighter)#Reliability of sources, I wanted to revisit the guidelines. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

When I raised it up at WT:VG/GL#RfC: Time to implement the character notability proposal?, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) has stated that we need to change the tag regarding WP:VG/GL, as it is a guideline, and to skip WP:PROPOSAL. Thoughts about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We forgot about GDC photos!

Every year, the Game Developers Conference release their images onto Flickr with free-use licenses. Normally someone drops a reminder on this talk page too - but it looks like we forgot this year. So I'm reminding you now.

We may already have a lot of photos for industry figures on commons, but this year GDC have exceeded themselves - you will never ever find a better picture of Michael Pachter, ever. If you need to figure out who's who in those 80s images, the facebook galleries at [24][25][26] might help. Take a look through the the flickr, find the useful images (there are some genuinely useful ones of the GDC and IGF winners), and use commons:User:Flickr upload bot to upload images into commons:Category:Game Developers Conference. - hahnchen 18:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just one thing to be careful. GDC's photostream on flickr usually tags any photo they have appropriately, but sometimes if they are using freelancers work, there will be (c) message. Those that have those that aren't clearly the GDC's own, avoid adding if we can. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Adios

Just so everyone knows, I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well. I will only be back to work on certain articles like Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) and the Lightning saga. Till then, adios. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That'll be good to focus on schooling (or enjoy being off if you've wrapped that up.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, just to clarify, some of the stress stems from the recent disputes that I have been involved in as well as my frustration over Wikipedia's inability to deal with a couple of persistently disruptive users (i.e. those with a bullying or battleground mentality in general or those who seem to be oblivious to their own uncivil behaviors), combined with realization of my unintended immaturity in some of my approaches to dealing with these users (including my unintentional feeding of the Streisand effect), a couple of users' comments towards me were in a negative light and/or condescending (I have exceptionally low tolerance for these comments which were uncalled for, and one of these users has already apologized to me after I apologized to him for any issues I may have caused). I have been recently subjected to very serious personal abuse and constant uncivil behavior by these users, but I have mostly moved on from that. Also, some of the users have been trying to discredit my views, which I do not appreciate. Such things like these are considered a disgrace to the community and to an editor with an excellent contribution record, which is myself. Also, I fear that if I engage a disruptive user while trying to avoid them, I may push the wrong buttons accidentally. These reasons are a couple of the factors in my Wikibreak, and are also why I refuse to get involved in dealing with other difficult users until the time is right because it causes me undue stress. In the past, while I have almost always been civil, I may have caused issues with other users (disruptive or not) in anyway or might have been uncivil in any way towards anyone and I do not appreciate it when people are incivil or condescending towards me, so if I have done that or anything wrong, I am terribly sorry and I really didn't mean for some things to happen... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chain of Command (video game)

The article Chain of Command (video game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NVG (no secondary sources on page and only source on a google search was this), promotional

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ansh666 08:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Have managed to find a single reliable source, so have removed the PROD for now. But this needs some work and extra refs or I'll re-nominate it myself in a month or two. - X201 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was concerned about Wikipedia:ONESOURCE but it's only an essay anyways. Thanks, though! Ansh666 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

World in Conflict mod inclusion

Need another set of eyes over at World in Conflict. Last 20 or so edits have been reverts of content regarding a mod of the game, which an IP is currently reinserting. -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Protected so that discussion can be more emphasized on talk page. Left a note on the talk page on how this type of thing is typically handled. Let me know if problems keep occurring after the protection runs out, it seems the IP has a history of similar warnings on its talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Merger Proposal

Request to merge Freeciv.net into Freeciv. Discussion >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

G-Zay back

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

---

G-Zay (see ban discussion and cleanup plan) is back with IP sockpuppets 89.240.41.89 and 92.18.158.199 vandalising articles Motomu Toriyama and Yoshinori Kitase. I've reverted for now but don't think it'll last long as he constantly hops UK IPs at Internet cafés. I don't know where to report this so I put it here. The third of his vandalised articles is Hiroyuki Ito which is protected. Should the same go for the other two?Xiomicronpi (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If it really is G-Zay using sock puppets for these edits, then yes the pages should be protected. He should not be able to cheat his way out of his ban by using other IP addresses. I've had first-hand experience of what he did to Final Fantasy Versus XIII and I do not want a repeat of the thing. Yes, protect them, and all other pages at risk if needs be. He has to get the message. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Good heavens! Should we file an abuse response as well or install an edit filter to keep him out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

All three articles now semi'd. --PresN 17:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap's GAR

The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, 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. GamerPro64 19:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion sorting (delsort)

The project currently delsorts (sorts deletion discussions and notices) manually. I understand this was the popular opinion three years ago and that the last discussion kind of stagnated (it isn't a very exciting topic), but time has certainly passed. Article Alerts currently tracks any articles, categories, etc. tagged into WPVG and publishes results daily. The video games delsort page is kept separate from the other topics, uses a custom template, and requires manual archiving. That whole process can be automated like the other topics if we were to switch. I went to archive posts March 4 through April 26 (7/8th of the page, which severely impedes pageload speed), but was put off by the amount of (needless?) work that goes into refactoring for the archive page.

Has consensus changed in the past several years, and, if so, can we finally convert to the current delsort system? Are WPVGers still receiving added benefit from manual delsort considering both Article Alerts and the perks of automated delsort (see how the other topics work)? As a delsorter, I'd be willing to do the conversion work and logistics, as I currently waste time in our manual upkeep. czar · · 01:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Never tracked delsorts, I use exlusively WP:VG/AA. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Archives are useless. Just prune the old stuff. I recently culled a load from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements without archiving. The VG deletion page should just show open and recently closed discussions so editors can comment, or consider DRV. - hahnchen 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on [[User talk:WhatamIdoing|my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Two things...

1) as of just now, I'm a member of this WikiGroup. After seven years of editing (mostly) video game articles, I think it was about to time actually join. You might've spotted this frequent edit of mine in VG infoboxes: [[single-player]] -> [[single-player video game|single-player]] 2) just a little heads-up: Fazm1bico (talk · contribs) is active again. Though a lot of his edits are of a constructive nature, in the past he also made some erros and did not communicate at all. I do of course assume good faith, so hopefully this time he'll be nice. But I did have to warn him earlier for making a unnecessary piped link, which he did all the time last year. Anyhoo, glad to be part of the team. For real, this time. --Soetermans. T / C 11:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This makes me feel better, actually, since I've been on Wikipedia writing video game related articles for over 4 years, but only "formally a member" for the last 6 months. I thought I was the only one! Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We can be members now? :) - hahnchen 16:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could make you happy Serge. And we can become members, hahnch. BUT NOT YOU!! Kidding, whether or not I'm a member I am an active participant of this here group! -- Soetermans. T / C 08:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Italics in article titles?

How do you do it? For example, I just moved List of God of War characters to Characters of God of War, but I don't know how to make the display title for "God of War" on the page italicized. --JDC808 ♫ 05:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally the infobox will handle it for you; for character articles and the like, put {{DISPLAYTITLE:Characters of ''God of War''}} at the top. The text itself (minus italics) needs to match the article title or else it won't do anything. --PresN 06:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 12:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Starcraft Topic

So the StarCraft titles Featured Topic's grace period is about to end on the 12th. Is it possible for anyone to try to improve it to at least GA status before that happens? Or at least when the 12th comes and goes someone can place it at Good Topic Review? I have other topics on the backburner to get them on there but I don't want to clog the review page. GamerPro64 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"improve it to at least GA status" → improve HotS to GA, right? czar · · 16:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I should have specified myself better. GamerPro64 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The topic still has until June 12.--十八 21:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(Link) That buys us some time. czar · · 22:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You know what the sad thing is? I was the one who placed it there after the game came out. Goes to show that I am not good with dates. GamerPro64 23:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematic user

Hi guys,

Like I said earlier, Fazm1bico (talk · contribs) is back. This user main interest seems to be video game engines, and that's fine. But he doesn't follow the guidelines and does not communicate at all. His edits over the last two days have been the same once more: adding Capital Letters to genres, making unnecessary piped links, being too descriptive of a video game engine in the infobox and adding (and re-adding) unnecessary breaks for platforms. I'm getting really tired of cleaning up after this guy, but I'm not sure what to do next. Assuming good faith, I do think he means good, but he just doesn't seem to listen. Any help? --Soetermans. T / C 11:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you've done everything I would have done as far as warnings and cleaning up his messes and whatnot. There wasn't much left to do except for that I redirected his newly created article about the game engine that powers Watch Dogs, which obviously has no chance of being notable at this point. Let me know if it continues/escalates, I can leave some harsher warnings that can lead to a block if he keeps ignoring them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sega v. Accolade Peer review

Hello, everyone. It's been a long time since I left Wikipedia, but it seems I'm back for the time being. Anyway, I've got a peer review going for Sega v. Accolade at WP:PR, and I'd like some feedback to help improve it, with the goal of nominating it for GA-status soon. Thanks! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(direct link) czar · · 01:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Any VG TFAs?

I hate to ask in advance, but aside from FFXI, are there any upcoming TFAs pertaining to video games for this month or this year for that matter? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

looking at 2003 in video games to take advantage of 10 yr anniv., the only two major titles that stand out (personal opinion) are Call of Duty and Beyond Good & Evil. The latter is a GA and if TFA, would be a Nov/Dec nom. Maybe a push on that? --MASEM (t) 02:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm game to get BG&E to FA. GamerPro64 04:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. 3 (5 pts.) turns 25 on October 23. Make haste! (Also I'd help with BG&E: Nov. 11, 2 pts.) Alternatives: The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening is 20 on June 6th (FA two+ years ago negates subtraction from FFXI: 2 pts.), Mario Bros. is 30 on July 14th (2 pts., almost "widely covered"). czar · · 09:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Famitsu review scores are on its website now

Just wanted to point out that the Famitsu's website now lists the review scores from Weekly Famitsu and Famitsu Xbox 360 on the games' pages (as an example [27]; and in the former's case, a few sentences from the reviews). Each game that received reviews from Weekly Famitsu now has a "Famitsu Cross Review" (ファミ通クロスレビュー) section in its "infobox" that shows the score combined from the four individual reviews. The pages also include a few sentences from the reviews and the Famitsu Xbox 360 scores under the "This game's assessments" (このゲームの評価) section. That section does also include reviews from users and blogs, though.

Hope this helps verifying Famitsu scores/reviews in the articles.-- クラウド６６８ 09:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Aw, awesome. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Need some Vietnamese/Norwegian/Italian/Chinese/Taiwanese speakers to check if these are VGRS

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Foreign language sources for consideration. Thanks in advance.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Implement B-Class checklist?

Should we implement the B-Class checklist as part of the WP:VG assessment? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea for future assessments, but not worth the time if we'd be reassessing current B-class articles. While we're on the subject, I'm also a fan of Torchiest's recent suggestion for MILHIST-style A-class subpage assessments. czar · · 02:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it already? I've seen it used. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

B-class checklists, or A-class subpages—which? czar · · 02:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

B-class checklists. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

They're already the project's official B-class criteria. --Izno (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was in reference to the {{WPMILHIST}}'s B-class in-template checklist, which {{WPVG}} doesn't use. Otherwise, yes, we have criteria, but there's no requirement to add six checkmarks anywhere to show that an article "passes" each point. czar · · 03:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No more assessment overhead is needed. - hahnchen 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is another one of those things where I believe the more complicated we make it, the less people are going to take the time to actually learn it and adhere to it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was only asking, that's all. We do need to beef up the A-class assessment though. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's fine, it was a good question to ask. And that's just my personal stance on things here at Wikipedia, feel free to pursue it if you do get support. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A-class assessment subpages

Any thoughts on or objections to setting up A-class assessment subpages similar to MILHIST's A-class process (per Torchiest's suggestion)? I'd be willing to write up the draft if there is consensus in favor. (Maybe the current Riddick nom could be first?) czar · · 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - If it can help move the A-class process fasting, I'm all for it. GamerPro64 15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support- It could be fun! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Makes perfect sense. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support and nominate Batman: Arkham Asylum for assessment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Since there is clear consensus, I am going to start working on the A-Class assessment in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/A-Class review. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate feedback on questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/A-Class review (talk page) if y'all have a chance czar · · 08:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination for Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association

I've nominated Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association for GA status, and I'd appreciate an informed reviewer. Please have a look and maybe write a review. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 16:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AdventureQuest, ArchKnight and Zardgame

Hi - my video games knowledge is very minimal, so I'd be grateful for some input here before going any further.

The recently created article Zardgame, appears to be basically a copy/paste of ArchKnight, which was itself redirected a long time ago, and seems to be largely copied from AdventureQuest.

The same user created the new article, and undid the redirect/creating ArchKnight.

Should either of these 2 articles exist, and if so, does anyone here want to look at what content they should include, or is the best plan to do what I originally intended to do and just redirect both to AQ? Thanks. Begoon ^talk 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirect both, I'd say. Woodroar (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done that, then, since that was my plan anyway - [28] and [29]. The copy pasted text is no loss if it turns out someone does want to create something there after all. Thanks for the quick input and easing my concerns. Begoon ^talk 05:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OpenEmuHeroScreenshot.jpg

image:OpenEmuHeroScreenshot.jpg has been nominated for deletion, concerns revolve around the appropriateness of the inclusion of NES material. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Goal Reached

Not sure when the goal was reached but as a project we have over 10% of our articles at least C-class. Congrats to everyone. GamerPro64 14:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

10% of articles C-Class or better: 252.6% complete

Alright, so what do we want to replace it with? Front-runners from last time are Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/2012 Stubcheck progress (either stubs or starts), 20% C+ class, or 50%+ Start class. I vote 50%+ Start class. --PresN 04:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I vote 20% C+ and 50%+ Start class, that way we keep tracking our great progress with the C, and launch another baseline tracker to get 50% Start. Four goals isn't too many. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I vote for the stubcheck. The point of the stubcheck was that our articles are misclassified, if we do a pass with those, then it'll naturally progress our other goals. Then again, I'm not sure that this bar would motivate any of us to do a task we obviously couldn't be bothered with last year. - hahnchen 16:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Start and C goals would encourage the stub project, because its an easy way to move the meter, much quicker than building up a stub to a start or C. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the stats on those who work towards these goals, and their feedback. Since the numbers are apropos of nothing, I also want to suggest an alternative metric: essential articles to B+. Not to diminish stub sorting, but getting the essential articles to GA is more utilitarian for an encyclopedia, no? (I'd also favor adding a fourth bar for the stub sort.) czar · · 22:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A Bar for essential articles is essentially impossible to do in an automated way, since as noted below, WP's category scheme is awful. The bar can only do simple math on #NUM_ARTICLES_IN_A_CATEGORY, and there's no single category for "B-class essential video game articles" - it's an intersection of the B-class vg articles cat and the high/top importance vg articles cats, and there's no way to do that on-wiki. Which is not to say that we couldn't do it in a manually-updated fashion, just letting everyone know. (Incidentally, we're at ~31% for all top/high-importance articles being B+)

As to your question, I work at things on bars- more so at the Square Enix project level, since with ~380 articles each improvement has a noticeable change in the total, but in a strange way filling up the bars makes me a little more motivated. --PresN 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking into whether it's possible to pull the number of items in an ordered list (e.g., our GA list), because that'd be easy to maintain. I suppose doing a high/mid and class intersection would require a bot. Anyway, points taken. This could be cool if we started an essential articles drive, and we'd manually update the slider. Not sure if the interest's there. czar · · 01:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Any updates on this? We should really get a replacement goal up there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember Me (video game)

I have done some significant work on the article, pretty much created the current development section from scratch and replaced the old system requirements box with a more sensible version. I would value more opinions, and if people can suggest ways of improving it or finding other references if the current ones are not suitable would be much appreciated. The article just looked as though it needed working on, so I did it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's dev section is an interesting read, I wasn't aware of all of that. The only change in that part I'd recommend is mentioning the dev team by name ("DONTNOT"?) in the actual dev section. It just mentions "the team" in the dev section, and at first I was puzzled because it sounded like it was transferred from a Sony to Capcom dev team, which seems unlikely, until I scrolled back and saw it was made by an unaffiliated dev team. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done some tweaking and it is now clearer that Dontnod was the team behind it throughout, with added development power and the source of funding coming from different companies at different times. I'm glad you found it interesting otherwise. I'm surprised someone didn't write it before, it was all quite easy to find, easier than most stuff about Tomb Raider or Final Fantasy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another big development source you don't seem to have used - [30]. Really long interview, got me excited for the game. --PresN 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow-wee, good interview! Thank you, PresN. I've used it and it's really useful, made a definite improvement. Don't know how I came to miss it. Section needs some polishing, but it's looking better still. That interview was enlightening. What backwards dunderheads some game publishers can be. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013's TFA

For this months Featured Article that's going to be on the front page is Final Fantasy XI on the 16th. This date is special as it will be the 11th anniversary of the games release. GamerPro64 14:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Link's Awakening for Today's Featured Article June 6th

Come and vote on the nomination please, it would be great to have your feedback. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

GTA infobox

Hey everybody,

I have some problems with the GTA infobox. Rather I bring it to you kind gentle folks, instead of editing first and going into an almost immediate tug of war. Let's get to it then. Right now, it looks like this:

The subsections for 'video games' seem off to me. The two orignal games are listed as '2D'. A top-down perspective is of course 2D, but I think many a gamer and surely an average person thinks of 2D as a side-scroller platformer and/or shooter. Ya know, Duke Nukem blasting aliens, not running Hare Krisnhas over with a tank. After the transition into 3D games the infobox makes a distinction between the previous generation and the current, into 3D and HD. To me that sounds HD isn't 3D, when they of course are both. That brings up another problem, because I think it is safe to assume that every GTA title from now 'till the end of time will be in high-definition. Or ultra HD. Or megaultra HD. Or... That's why I suggest we change 2D, 3D and the current roster of HD into their respective generations of consoles, sixth, seventh, and eigth. Even if a hardcore PC gamer objects that GTA through IV also came out on PC, it still makes sense graphics and game-size wise, also with the future in mind.

Now you! --Soetermans. T / C 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, it's a navbox, not an infobox. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The notion that the term "2D" is synonymous with sidescrollers and 2.5D shooters is ridiculous, there are hundreds of other well known 2D games from other perspectives. Anyway those subsections come from official sources: Rockstargames.com Q&A and Game Informer's GTA V cover story. --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had no experience with the GTA series, but this navbox looks a right mess. Categorization run amok. I think the games should be listed by decade/year released, not by console generation or how many dimensions its gameplay features. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Basing myself on the general system used in the parent series articles, this is the most logical organization I come up with. Please improve and discuss as needed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would rename "Handheld-only" to "Handheld" since both Stories games are on PS2. --Mika1h (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that. The issue is that some main series games are also on handhelds (GBC, I think?). Any suggestions? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's looks fine now. Handheld section should list only games that were designed from the start as handheld games (as it does currently). Other solution would be to rename it to "Spinoff games" but I think "Handheld games" is better. --Mika1h (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I too am rather uneasy with the term spinoff in regards to these games. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I also support the use of "handheld games" in the template per Mika1h's reasoning. It's a clear and positive solution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Another vote for handheld. Spinoff conjures up images of Tommy Vercitti: The High School Years. - X201 (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Claude Speed needs to be merged, other characters need work. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Taskforce logos

The Sega and Nintendo logos are listed on Commons as PD. Would we be able to use them as the logos for the task forces? The current Sega icon is a bronze blob. czar · · 03:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, commons images can be used for that purpose. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

For Nintendo I think File:Micrologo Nintendo.svg is more suited to a logo format. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks czar; I just updated Nintendo's one. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's listed as PD in terms of copyright, but is it not still protected by trademark? Placing someone else's trademark on your own work is a violation of the law (see: Lanham Act). Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 13:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The logos are protected by trademark but that's not a concern of ours here. These tasks forces are not selling a product nor trying to confuse consumers. Within the Foundation's projects including en.wiki, we don't worry ourselves with trademark protection as long as its being used towards the educational purpose and obviously not to slander the branding. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, I wouldn't mind the Sega Task Force using it. I'm a little surprised they even are considered free of copyright, but I'm not one to argue that. I've been working on redesigning the Sega Task Force pages and such, to essentially "reboot" the project, so I'll incorporate it into my test designs. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 15:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a concept called "Threshold of Originality" and while it varies and is a very grey line, there's obvious cases. Basically, images that are simple combinations of simple shapes and text (as sega and N's are) are considered too simple to merit copyright and by that nature, fall into the public domain. (They, however, can still be trademarked images but that doesn't copyright). --MASEM (t) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)