Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 111

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

→

Archive 115

Dark Forces at GOG.com

An IP user has requested that the recent GOG.com release of Star Wars: Dark Forces be noted in the infobox. It's my understanding that we don't generally note releases on GOG unless they're remastered versions. Am I right about that or am I hallucinating? I'm not 100% sure one way or the other, so I wanted to ask before I did anything definite. Thanks guys. Bertaut (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, GOG is a storefront- we list out the first release, but we don't say anything if Best Buy puts it out on shelves a couple years later. If it's been remastered, we're actually just listing that a remastered version was released, rather than focusing on which store sold it. --PresN 04:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

PresN has it right. Unless the only release is through GOG, then no, we don't note that. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. Thanks guys. Bertaut (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

GOG.com can be mentioned in the article body though. The release section also mentions PSN for instance. Kotaku and Game Informer made a note of the game appearing on GOG.com. --Soetermans. T / C 09:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 11, 2015

Hi guys. The two FAC noms for this one aren't around. Crisco_1492 has picked this one for a Main Page appearance soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters, and I also decided to include something about the selection of playable characters; that may appeal more to the Main Page readership. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice it doesn't include any of the characters' names. Would, say, "duty-bound loner Squall" or just "the loner Squall" be alright, for example? In comparison, I think the information about music and reception (namely, the Famitsu accolade, which seems unusually specific for a TFA blurb) could be pared down a bit. Looks good overall, though. But what's with the extremely brief treatment of the plot and characters in the lead? That could possibly fly for a Crash Bandicoot, Pac-Man World, or Mario game, but the Final Fantasy series is known even among RPGs for its deep, lengthy stories and memorable characters. Tezero (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

First two items done; last one is up to you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note also that we've got to keep this limited to 1200 characters (maybe 1250, as there's no image). Too detailed a treatment of the admittedly quite complicated plot will push the number over the limit (on a side note: I can't believe this article is almost 7 years old and hasn't run on the MP. VIII usually has a very vocal fan base). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm usually going a little over 1200. WP:ITN didn't have a problem with that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• (re: side note) True, but FF6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 have all been on the main page, along with the series article, and the main page schedulers don't generally go for popularity. --PresN 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Except for the fact that we have WP:TFAR, which does not seem to have had a visit from FF in ages despite the fact that the main editor(s) could have nominated the article. (And yeah, we don't usually go for popularity... but for an article like that to go six years without a main page appearance is just a shame). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Metal Gear: Ghost Babel

There is an ongoing move request; join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

esports players

Should pro gamers be referred to by their legal names or by their gamer handles?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As always, it depends on which usage is most common. Their legal name is generally put in bold in the first lead sentence either way, but the rest of the article (including the title) depends on the most common usage by media outlets and the like. ~Mable (chat) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Use the most commonly known one, mention both in the opening sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no rule that says that he have to use legal names. For example, we use Hulk Hogan over Terry Bollea.--65.94.255.73 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Video game references in firearms articles

Many modern video games feature realistic versions of real-life firearms. Naturally, editors interested in those games like to add references to those games in the articles on the firearms themselves. Members of the firearms wikiproject, WP:GUNS, object to these additions and have even created a project MOS guideline calling for that material to be routinely deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture. Since it keeps getting re-added, it's clearly something people want. It could be legitimately kept if there were references which showed that the firearms are important to the individual games. However such citations are rare. For example, see FAMAS#Popular culture. I've noticed that many game articles do not include lists of weapons or discussions of their importance either, so it's not easy to just look to those articles to find sources. Do online and print magazines discuss video game weapons, and if so could those references be added somewhere? How else can we bridge the divide between video game content and firearms content on Wikipedia? Rezin (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen much that would be relevant for inclusion (for instance, a list of "Top Counter-Strike guns" is talking about guns in a video game; they aren't perfect replicas of the real article, so relevance is rather minor.) I can understand why the GUNS people would object to what's essentially trivia. If there were sources about a demonstrable impact outside the games ("Because of Counter-Strike, more people purchased P90s") that might merit inclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in my experience video games reviews (and even the individual game's booklets) seldom give a firearm any more than a trivial mention, such as listing it as a useable weapon or perhaps briefly commenting on how well the weapon handles in game. It would be rare to find a game where a particular "real" gun is of significant importance, or to find a review that gives information that would be considered useful to WP:GUNS. For example, a review that compared the weapon's use in-game to how it handles in real life might be of significance, though I can't say i've ever seen one of those. (Incidentally as a person with military training I often find how "real" weapons handle in-game laughable, i've played games where characters can easily reload belt-fed machine-guns while they are running; clearly the developers never tried to test how impossible that would be to do.) I for one thoroughly support removing all unsourced pop-culture mentions. I very much want to delete that entire FAMAS pop culture section. Freikorp (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To put things into perspective, there are 192 games listed in Category:World War II video games. Now I know every game does not have a firearm in it, I don't see why 60+ games should be included on the Colt 1911 page saying the gun was in that perspective game. It would be the same as adding a citation for every time that weapon appeared in a movie or television series. It distracts from the focus of the article. Adding reliable information about changes in demand or cultural reception like User: David Fuchs suggests is the only way I could see the inclusion any type of video game info beneficial. --Molestash (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these prompt responses. Template:In popular culture instructs: "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances; add references to valid content rather than deleting it if possible." Taking that as a guideline, it'd be sufficient to show that a firearm is particularly important within a game, or has been the subject of special discussion. But if the video game press doesn't generally discuss weapons then there probably isn't much hope that such entries could ever be sourced. It sounds like the practice of just deleting the unsourced material without first tagging it with "citation needed" is sound. Rezin (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I expect that some day, there might be a case where a gun within a game is notable on that gun's article, per the sources existing, but until that rare situation comes up, its better to leave video game appearances out of gun articles. The state FAMAS is in is just hilarious, and unsourced to boot. I suggest we remove that section entirely. ~Mable (chat) 08:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, and I don't mean to get political, but discussion of video games in gun articles or discussion of real world guns in video game articles can't be good. It seems like every time there's a shooting incident, one or the other or both get blamed for something. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that seems entirely irrelevant here, as these guns or games aren't tied to violence in any way. It seems more like a case of http://www.xkcd.com/446/ , where the popular culture section is bloated with trivia. Either way, we got video game controversies and list of video game-related deaths to handle most of discussions relating video games with violence. ~Mable (chat) 07:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

xkcd is a genius. Rezin (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment that the popular culture sections are inappropriate; invariably they are full of original research. In fact I can't every remember seeing one with a reference. That said, practically speaking it will be quite a headache to enforce. People will continually come back to add the information and there will be lots of conflicts. There is a long history of conflict over pop culture sections in wikipedia but they always seem to survive by persistence. I don't think it is worth the trouble in the long run; periodically trimming the section and eliminating the more egregious examples of original research is probably the best we can do. Vrac (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Give me a few articles that have this issue frequently, and I'll revert any such edit as soon as I can. It can't be that many articles that frequently have these issues, right? Also, wouldn't a semi-protection be valid if people consistently add unsourced, not-notable information? Either way, at least a commented-out "Please don't add video games" could probably go a long way to make people think twice. ~Mable (chat) 15:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a list handy, but I'll post some on your talk page - thanks.

Regarding a hidden comment, I'm not sure where to put it. If at the top, it might be ignored. But right now, as I'm typing, I see a great big banner that's apparently called a 'page notice'. If there's an easy way of putting one of those on a few hundred articles it might help. I'll check it out. Rezin (talk)

A few hundred? This happens that often? Either way, such a banner might be too much, especially to use it on a massive amount of articles. A hidden comment right between the last section and the see also/references section. Might be more useful. I didn't expect more than 20 articles to have this issue, though, so this might be harder to deal with than I expected :s ~Mable (chat) 07:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be a hundred or less that routinely involve video games. Since the additions and deletions are done quietly there's no easy way to get a handle on the number or articles involved. However the "pop culture" issue also involves movies and TV shows, which is where the "hundreds" come in. Sources are sometimes available for those, though it's rare to see anyone adding them. My thought was to write a short notice, something like "Please do not add entries to appearances of this firearm in video games, motion pictures, TV or video programs, or other popular culture without including a citation to a reliable secondary source describing their significance. Unsourced entries may be removed." Does it make a difference to the server load, etc, to use a page notice versus a hidden comment? Rezin (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like an issue that exists on all of Wikipedia, though - I'm not sure if specific guns are more prone to these issues than many other topics. That would be an issue to discuss within your own Wikiproject, though. "It's not our job" to work on your articles ;p I have no idea what the best way to handle this is myself, anyway. ~Mable (chat) 18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I raised the issue here to see if you guys are aware of sources which could be used, and it sounded like the response was that there aren't. That's all I needed. Maybe if someone becomes aware of a great new source, like "A Guide to Firearms in Video Games" published by Oxford University Press, please let me or someone else over at WP:GUNS know about it. Thanks again for the input. Rezin (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatred and Slipknot

I'd appreciate some honest feedback on the use of an illustration in the Hatred article at Talk:Hatred_(video_game)#Slipknot_comparison czar ⨹ 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Our FAC standards

Lately, I've read a few FAC-related posts that got me thinking about WPVG's standards. The first was from SandyGeorgia:

I am not sure what you are referencing with "increasing standards since 2009". You can find the benchmark dates in the FA process among the footnotes at this chart (which by the way hasn't been updated since 2011, hint, hint) UPDATED. The last time there was a change in the criteria was March 2009: we've had only minor wording changes for clarity or linking since then. The last benchmark change in FAC reviewing processes occurred in November 2010 (copyvio checking was tightened). Reviewing standards have become more lax: we no longer have, as examples only, the highly detailed sourcing checks which were done by Ealdgyth, prose checks on the level of writer Tony1, and copyvio checking also seems to have declined. I could name scores of FAs still on the books that are not up to snuff, but don't do so as not to single out any particular group or editor. I don't doubt that at least a quarter of our FAs are out of compliance. More importantly, because no one has been systematically checking, how do we know if it's not worse?

SandyGeorgia

The second was from Czar, posted today:

Prior to this discussion, however, is our treatment of reviews as cleanup instead of rubber stamps. It's one thing to address a few relatively minor points or to apply one's very specific nitpicks (that could not have possibly been addressed by any other review), but we shouldn't be sending FACs with major issues when they can be feasibly addressed in-house (or at least told in a lower-stakes environment that it's not ready and what it needs). Considering our recent issues with WPVG-based opposes at FAC, it should be less disheartening to break the news here than at FAC.

Czar

As someone who remembers the (helpfully!) savage QA of people like Ealdgyth and Tony1, and who's perplexed by the newly lax FAC process—particularly at WPVG—, I found these comments insightful. FAC standards are lower across the board, but WPVG has been hit especially hard. In my opinion, this is mainly because our reviews are much more insular than they were in 2006 or 2009. Even back then, our project was infamous for its lower standards, but that problem was offset by WikiProjects' cross-pollination at FAC. We don't have that anymore. And now, as Czar points out, we're seeing flawed VG noms passing after major cleanup—or, in a few cases, without major cleanup. (Proud as I am of the FAs I worked on last year, I was shocked that they didn't receive the hard-hitting feedback I remembered—they were far from perfect.) WPVG is contributing to a new and poorer understanding of FAC, in which the bar is low and the burden on opposing reviewers is high. I see only two solutions: either WPVG's internal vetting is toughened significantly, or we somehow bring back cross-pollination at FAC. Right now, we're among the worst offenders when it comes to FAC's drop in standards, and that just can't continue. This will probably be a controversial post, but I thought it needed to be said. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

While I'm aware of FA having some problems of late due to lack of reviewers and likely leading the looser standards, I haven't had done an FA for good while now, so could I ask what are some examples of problematic articles or why the VG articles seem to be lower standards? I always thought that we generally tried to keep up our FAs as good standards, but I am likely missing something. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the current status at FAC vs. 2009ish differently than JimmyBlackwing. Namely, the biggest difference I see is that nowadays no one opposes. Ever. They just... don't support. In 2009 an FAC with good-but-not great prose would get an oppose from reviewers like Tony1, who would post 5-10 prose problems he found in the first couple sections and tell the nominator to fix all the problems like that through the whole article. Nowadays, you don't get that, so it gets split two ways- either no feedback, leading to a failed nom due to lack of comments, or an incredibly lengthy prose cleanup review.

Yeah, now that I think about it, I really only see (or give) opposes when an article blatantly doesn't even fit the GA criteria when it's nominated for FA, which isn't often. Tezero (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was also always a bit hit-or-miss whether you got a "hard-hitting" review- for example, my January 2010 Flower FAC is around 1/4 the size of my May 2014 Infinity Blade FAC. While I know my prose is still mediocre at times, it certainly hasn't gotten worse in 4 years to demand much, much lengthier copyedit-reviews.

The way I see it, it's just luck, like how my AP calculus teacher back in high school technically could check homework in detail for correctness, but only really did when he was pissed off at the class - sometimes people handed in literally blank sheets of paper and got all the points. As nominators, we're expected to have the article either already at the FA criteria or within shooting distance, although by circumstance it might not be checked to maximum rigidity. Tezero (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I will say, though, that it was common practice 4/5 years ago to send an article through a WP:GOCE copyedit prior to FAC; it doesn't seem like people do that much anymore, likely in part because they don't want to wait 2 months. --PresN 06:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's definitely the case for me - even extensive FAC commentary warranting an initial oppose tends to take much less time to resolve than a GOCE copyedit takes to happen. Tezero (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am one of those copyeditors. While it always helps to have second opinions, I've seen copy requests returned in worse state and professional editor-approved drafts held to some otherworldly prose bar at FAC. The process is not foolproof and there is a very wide range of standards for "acceptable" and "professional" (read: licentious) prose, so let's not pretend that there is a predictable consistency at FAC (or GOCE, for that matter) apart from the clear cases. Instead let's accommodate and accept what it is: totally dependent on the reviewers and their whims (as is normal for editing relationships) czar ⨹ 18:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

My two cents: like any wikiproject, you guys are in a position to make a lot of the rules yourself over time ... success naturally leads people to assume that the wikiproject knows what it's doing ... but only if you've got a few guys who review consistently with the goal of making the process work for everyone, trying to strike a balance between what other FAC reviewers are likely to ask for and what writers are likely to be willing to do. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time

This article is a pet project of mine (completely different from the iOS games I created); I have been working on it on/off for a number of years and would really like to see it hit GA. I seek the advice and assistance from this Wikiproject, which is filled with extremely formidable Wikipedia editors in this topic area. Though I am very familiar with this game, I am not used to creating GAs, so I figured I would post here to move things along.

I am fairly sure the sources in the article currently are the best it's ever going to get. Lord knows I've tried various means to access content, but it is tricky with a game from 1997. I think fancruft that has accumulated in my absence needs to be removed, and certain sections need to be copyedited.--Coin945 (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not bad. The layout is a little unusual - "History"/development sections usually come right before Reception, and the Synopsis and possibly Reception could be greatly condensed - but it's definitely within shooting distance of GA. Nice job; I actually can't name an educational game we have at GA, unless the half-ironic Frog Fractions counts. Oh, and you'll want to make sure everything in History is cited - good work with the other sources, though; trust me, I'm well aware of how difficult certain gaming-related topics can be to find RSes for. Feel free to ask me or the project with any pointed questions you have, since while we have a peer review system, it doesn't generate a whole lot of activity. You can also nominate it for GAN and I'll review it, if you're so inclined. Tezero (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tezero - the article currently looks pretty decent. I'm worried that most of the synopsis section should be removed, though, as it completely focuses on in-game content and relies on primary sources. What left could then probably be integrated into the plot-section. That would be a pretty big change, though. In general, the rule is to keep the summary of content within the media in question as concise as possible, and I'm not sure if a reader comes to Wikipedia to read about each case (level) within a specific game - that would be fanwiki territory. ~Mable (chat) 10:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The general guideline on this project is that 700 to maybe 1,000 for particularly in-depth games is a good upper limit of words in a VG plot section. Tezero (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I always thought the case by case synopsis was wayyy to long and detailed so considered paring away everything except the facts regarding the historical accuracy of the information, and creating a "Historical accuracy" section - due to that sort of thing being notable in an edutainment game. I actually peer reviewed it about 2 years ago but no one replied, although it did receive a brutal copyedit from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Baffle_gab1978 so major props to them. I remember having a personal communication with one of the artists who gave me some fascinating design info... But obviously it was deleted from the article as it was unverifiable. A shame really...--Coin945 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for input

A proposal to merge The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and its HD remaster has been made. I have voiced my support on the main article's talk page. Input on the issue is requested and required. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

1UP.com review removal in Metroid II

I would advise anyone to take a look at the edits from 75.142.13.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Jan 13 and Jan 24); he removed the review of 1UP.com from the article of Metroid II: Return of Samus without giving a good reason. The review of the game was already referenced, so why did he removed it? -- Hounder4 15:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember seeing another IP user a couple of years ago that removed 1UP from the reception, claiming it wasn't relevant anymore because 1UP ceased to exist. That might be the reason why. --Soetermans. T / C 16:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is the reason here. The claim was that it was a wall of text about a single rewiew that was written 15 years after. I believe though that would at most be a case for trimming than complete removal.--174.91.184.181 (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Citing a wall of text to a single review is probably unnecessary, but the review would still be usable for less than that. As Maplestrip suggests, that 's a reason to talk-page your issues with it, not remove the ref. (And as a note, having had to find 1up sourcing, wayback does have most of that there, so there's no issue with 1 up deadlink). --MASEM (t) 23:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally, just put it back and discuss it in the article's talk page. They haven't given any rationale for removing it yet. If they remove it again without responding in any way, then it becomes an issue. ~Mable (chat) 23:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Watch out for subtle vandalism

I just reverted and temporarily blocked 109.10.202.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after they went on a spree of changing video game infobox parameters to false ones (usually publisher and developer). Given that IPs in a similar range (109.9.46.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.10.211.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have been doing the same thing over the past few days on some of the same articles I'd appreciate if you kept an eye out for this happening on any games on your watchlist and report the IP to WP:AIV or let me/another admin know. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

86.220.198.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - This one also seems to be changing developer information in the info box. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, seems to be the same thing, reverted. Sam Walton (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to get more rollback happy, see 109.13.72.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.9.0.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). - hahnchen 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

*sigh*  Done. Sam Walton (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

More 90.19.213.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) includes image deletion. - X201 (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And here are some from November 109.9.18.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - X201 (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done some digging, including the ones mentioned above, these are the IPs that need undoing.
109.9.46.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.9.18.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.9.12.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.9.11.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.9.10.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.9.0.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
90.19.213.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.13.72.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.13.243.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.10.211.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
109.10.211.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.10.202.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  Done
109.10.201.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
86.220.198.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Done

- X201 (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted both the first flags, and I too have found a bunch more IPs to add to the above list, 190.79.236.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be doing the same thing though some edits seem ok, 190.198.33.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too (this was blocked as a proxy, I suspect the rest of the above IPs are proxies too?), 109.9.25.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 109.15.84.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 109.10.198.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll get round to reverting all these soon (if anyone else wants to feel free - I've marked the ones I've done in the above list), but in the meantime MusikAnimal has set up an edit filter to log further vandalism of this kind; Special:AbuseFilter/653. Sam Walton (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb appears to have some experience with these IPs, do you have any information that might help us? Sam Walton (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Samwalton9, here are some of my Paris tags (some unrelated content is included). I think you've pretty much found all the ones that I had intersections with. I've started adding my own tags when I start seeing patterns develop... Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I just skimmed Cyphoidbomb's Paris tags to see if there had been any childrens-cartoon-related vandalism in the mix. Sure enough... As I said back in April of last year, that's a pretty telltale sign for me. There are large numbers of these creatures on Wikipedia that I've been aware of since 2012. It's really sad. And it always gives me pause when I'm describing vandal MOs because it's so easy for vandals to change behavior if they see a thread like this. Anyway it may be a good idea to drop a note at SVT for profiling reasons. -Thibbs (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9:I think your friend is back. The IP range fits, and the edits seem in the same vein see Special:Contributions/109.9.56.18 - X201 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

GameFAQs EL and template

Hi everybody,

This has been brought up before, with the outcome usually being no consensus, but what do you think of GameFAQs and Template:GameFAQs? I don't see why we should use GameFAQs as an EL, let alone keep a template for it. GameFAQs is not a WP:VG/RS as it "relies on user-submitted content with no apparent editorial oversight." So why is sometimes used as an EL? It provides cheats and walkthroughs, just like hundreds other websites out there. Isn't it time we got rid of it? --Soetermans. T / C 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. I typically remove it if I see it as an EL in an article I'm working on, for those reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links do not have to be reliable sources, see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered. IMDB and Mobygames are likewise user-submitted with no apparent editorial oversight. I do not include GameFAQs links in articles that I write, but that's just a matter of preference. - hahnchen 19:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And I, on the other hand, frequently include fan wikis as these are, by design, more in-depth than what we're allowed to offer, since if someone's gotten to the bottom of a page, they may well want more information - it's essentially the "(Full article...)" link on a TFA blurb, but squared. Tezero (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that if a template exists for an external resource, then it's good enough for use on Wikipedia.

WP:VG/EL states that IMDb, MobyGames, and (elsewhere in the MOS) GameFaqs are examples of permissible ELs. It differentiates between them and others that aren't allowed, even though they are all "fan-basesd sites". (It also proscribes against linking to homebrew clones and 1UP/IGN/GameSpot there, too, so we need to wipe those out.) Ylee (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, @User: Tezero, a dedicated wikia goes beyond mere gameplay and often they encompass the whole franchise and every bit of behind-the-scenes stuff. I also thought about MobyGames, @User: Ylee, but I think because MobyGames tries to catalog every game it can be especially useful for older games. GameFAQs however just solely serves as a walkthrough website. WP:VG/EL states "Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game", which is just what it's for. --Soetermans. T / C 21:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia is not a walkthrough/game guide/fan-based site" rule doesn't apply to ELs, though, thus the point of the discussion. Linking to a game guide in an EL isn't banned, per se; it's linking to one that doesn't meet the bar for WP's definition of encyclopedic for ELs, which is clearly lower than for the article body. (No one would object to linking to one that was originally published by Prima Games and is now available for free online.) As mentioned, the project MOS already distinguishes, for better or for worse, between the likes of GameFAQs and a random game's Wikia site. I haven't removed any of the latter yet and, despite what I wrote above, don't intend to do so unless there is widespread projectwide consensus (beyond the MOS) to do so. Conversely, GameFAQS has institutional protection, in the forms of an existing template and specific mention as a valid example in the MOS, so is all the more safe in my eyes unless and until all three criteria (template, MOS, and clear projectwide consensus) changes. Ylee (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's the whole reason why I'd started another discussion, to see if we can come to consensus, which is what the MOS is based upon. "Institutional protection"? The MOS isn't set in stone and just because it has a template doesn't mean it should stay either. I remember there being a template for directly linking games to its Steam page, which also has been deleted. For years system requirements were listed also, and we've decided we don't use those anymore either. So just because the GameFAQs template has been around for almost nine years doesn't mean it should be there forever. I didn't cite WP:GAMEGUIDE, I copied WP:VG/EL, which you came up with. "external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game": GameFAQs provides just that and nothing more. --Soetermans. T / C 00:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

My point is that WP:VG/EL's ban on gameguide ELs should be read in context. Given that it explicitly permits GameFAQs elsewhere, clearly the MOS is distinguishing between links to it and links to other game guide-like sites. This isn't a case of GameFAQS sneaking through a loophole in the gameguide ban that everyone else missed.

I am not wedded to GameFAQs at all; I only started using the template in the past two weeks. If a consensus develops that it should be removed like other gameguide ELs/other sites with fan-written content, I have no objections whatsoever. That said, though, given the age and widespread usage of the template (plus numerous non-template links to the site in other articles' ELs), I would be surprised if such a consensus forms soon. Ylee (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys? Penny for your thoughts? --Soetermans. T / C 10:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to using GameFAQs as an external link. I don't really have strong feelings either way, though. The website can be useful to readers and is generally well known for collecting video game-related content. It's useful. It's definitely not a must, though, and its content isn't perfect. I don't mind either way. The template is fine to stay for me. ~Mable (chat) 11:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written for a large audience, and not just gamers. The video game-related content is only gameguide material that's provided by users, not in-depth development, behind-the-scenes production notes or something like essays. The information provided isn't "knowledgeable", so that would fail WP:ELMAYBE.

For argument's sake, let's compare GameFAQs with another website. Take for instance IGN. Unlike GameFAQs, IGN is is considerd a RS and is often used for reception sections. IGN is ranked higher on the Alexa rank with 250 internationally, 102 U.S., while GameFAQs ranked 512 internationally, 186 U.S. IGN also provides walkthroughs. If we would look up Destiny on IGN, you see IGN's review, a 'latest stories' column, a gameguide wiki, a link to Amazon and videos that have something to with Destiny, a news item but also gameplay footage. Destiny on GameFAQs shows the 'home page' with general data, the FAQs (walktroughs), cheats, reviews (both user and professional are listed), images, videos, answers and the board (a forum). So in comparison with GameFAQs, IGN is a RS, is more popular and provides more information. IGN also has a EL template. But if we were to add the IGN template to every single video game article we'd be giving IGN weight as an EL (see WP:SPAMLINK). We do however allow GameFAQs still, even though other websites provide more information.

So far I haven't heard (or read, if you will) a good argument that would say we should keep it. Just because it's been here for a while is not a reason to keep it, that is WP:LONGTIME. --Soetermans. T / C 14:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to keep it. I can't see why we allow this external link carte blanche to be added to the bottom of an article regardless of quality, yet links to in depth articles on Edge or Eurogamer for example have to pass the external link tests. Its a left-over from a by-gone era of WP:VG, it should have gone at the same time as the links to MobiGame. - X201 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just nominated the template for deletion. Am I free to change the WP:VG/MOS myself? --Soetermans. T / C 10:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to add Zzap!64 to Template Video game reviews

I have always wondered why Zzap!64 is missing when it's lesser brethren CRASH and Amtix! are not :) It would be of great benefit for the retro documentation effort to add this influential (at the time) British rag to the mix. These are the pages that link to it, in case it's useful for the scope. If so, is further justification or information required ? SHOlafsson (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Being a published print magazine, it's likely considered reliable and usable, so that probably shouldn't a problem. I don't know the specific criteria for the the template though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Did we put it in the WP:VG/S list? If it's reliable under that list, then its safe to include in the template. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No it's not there, of the triad (Zzap!64, Crash and Amtix!) only Crash is there (although I see no reason Zzap should not have the same recognition), both Amtix! and Crash are in the template though. At least Zzap!64 is mentioned in the checklist (although without a tick mark), strangely Amtix is not even mentioned there. SHOlafsson (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Three questions

Hi everyone, I would like to ask 3 questions.

• I would like to ask whether people can be included in categories like Category:Company or not. For example, is that okay for Todd Howard listed under Category:Bethesda Softworks?

• I would also like to know whether we should move Red Storm Entertainment to Ubisoft Red Storm, or move Ubisoft Massive back to Massive Entertainment. Their name (from what I can see from their logo) is "Red Storm Entertainment - A Ubisoft Studio" and "Massive Entertainment - A Ubisoft Studio". I believe that their pages' name should be uniform, like "Ubisoft -" or "- Entertainment" but I am not sure which one to move.

• Should information about mods be included in video games articles?

- AdrianGamer (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The last one is easy: information on mods should be included if deemed notable - when covered by reliable sources. For example, the word "mods" is used a few times in the article on Skyrim, because the game's mod support is a very notable aspect of the game, and it covered by various sources.

About the people in company categories: I definitely think they should. Category:Nintendo, for example, has tons of people in its subcategory. It seems to me that anything that falls under the company should be within the category. It also actually makes more sense to put people in a company's category than to put its products (games) in it, at least to me. That being said, it might depend on the category's inclusion guidelines. It sucks how most categories don't have those... ~Mable (chat) 13:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Maplestrip said, are they notable? For instance, Fallout 3 doesn't mention them, even though PC Gamer has a 10 essential list. Skyrim mentions some in prose, Fallout: New Vegas#J.E. Sawyer's mod has its own subsection, others have become notable enough to have their own article (DayZ (mod) and The Dark Mod come to mind). --Soetermans. T / C 14:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1. (edit conflict) I personally don't see why not, but I do know there are some category criteria I don't always fully understand, so if someone has a good reason not to, then defer to their opinion.
2. Usually article titles are decided by their most commonly used name. I would think that would take precedent over uniformity. A way to try to gauge this could be doing a Google Search, and seeing which one tends to get more hits. It's not a hard rule, but if "Red Storm Entertainment" get 22,000 hits and "Ubisoft Red Storm" get 7.5 million hits, you can get a vibe for what one is used more frequently.
3. As Maple says above, this is generally handled by whether or not a mod gets third party coverage from a reliable source. If IGN does a story on it, it could be considered worth mentioning. If its something with no coverage and 10 all-time downloads from the corners of the internet, then probably not. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks for answering. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the category question, companies with several notable people normally have a Category:Company people subcat (such as Category:Ubisoft people). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's not as though a "Bethesda people" category couldn't be created. Tezero (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Most 1up.com links have apparently stopped working.

We probably should go about archiving what we can of them. One thing that may be worth noting is that 1up.com often syndicated stories from their various magazines, so if a page isn't properly archived it still may be possible to find the article in an aforementioned magazine. --Deathawk (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edge website closing

As previously discussed, Future have intended to close and consolidate their gaming websites for a while now, and now it's been confirmed: Edge (the website, at least) is going the way of C&VG and merging into GamesRadar. (Sorry, GamesRadar+.)

The site says: "Articles from the Edge archive will be available alongside new interviews, opinion and features and the best content from the website will be migrated over to our new GR+ homepage." In terms of how many citation links will stay working, that could mean anything! --Nick R^Talk 21:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is terrible news, but at least this time we're one step ahead of the game and can archive everything. I was actually thinking of a bot that would be capable of archiving all dead VG links for us, if that's possible. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Spot check shows Edge is properly archived at Wayback Machine. This is not as bad as it could be (we dont need to rush off webcite-ing things), but we really should see about getting a bot to help up archive our links. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I proposed User:JaguarBot to do a very similar thing two years ago, I'll look into it to see if it's possible to automatically archive links. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good lord there are so many websites being shut down lately. Who knows who's next. GamerPro64 22:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Chronological templates

Hi everybody,

There have been discussions about this in the past, that templates that based upon in-game chronological order are not following WP:VG/MOS, as it is WP:GAMETRIVIA, leading to the deletion of templates based upon the timeline of Assassin's Creed, The Legend of Zelda, Grand Theft Auto, Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. To my surprise I found a Category that just list these kind of templates (see Category:Video game fictional chronology templates, not sure how to link to the page!) What do you say about coming to a decision here whether to have these templates or not, or at least come to a consensus what would at least be a minimum of having one around?

To me, some aren't necessary, like Template:Banjo-Kazooie chronology and Template:Killzone chronology, because the main series' article (assuming there is one), can easily explain how the games are set. Template:Silent Hill Chronology and Template:Devil May Cry chronology also list 'other' games, beside the 'main series'. That at the same time breaks the very chronological order, but also makes clear that some entries aren't connected plot-wise to others. But Template:Yakuza chronology lists non-canonical games (two that are set in the past and the zombie spin-off). Then there are some templates that mention other works, like comics, novels and films in the same fictional universe, like Template:Perfect Dark chronology and Template:Dead Space chronology. The deleted template on Assassin's Creed was also one that listed novels and such, which I actually nominated for deletion. Other templates feature game series with games with titles that aren't clear how they fit in the chronological order, like Template:Metroid chronology, Template:God of War chronology and Template: Metal Gear chronology.

So, any thoughts? --Soetermans. T / C 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is my opinion on chronology boxes (hereinafter referred to as timelines for ease of typing). Series which are not in a strictly serialized format (Metroid, Metal Gear, The Legend of Zelda) should have timelines, if not for every article then for the series article. Deciding on such things should take into account the size of the series: the larger the series, the more need there could be for a timeline. Smaller series (Devil May Cry, Dragon Age, Drakengard) can be followed without the need for a timeline. Others which do follow a serialized format or have no set chronology and/or setting (Assassin's Creed, Persona, Mass Effect, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, Tales, Fire Emblem) should not have a timeline. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Key is that the chronological timeline must either be very obvious (Assassin's Creed works in this regard since all the games have a clear presentation of the date they they place), or sourceable (eg like Zelda). If it requires original research, as I think the Metroid timeline would require, then we should not be including this, but can discuss any sourcable concepts of the chronological timeline on the main article. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. The timelines should also be able to be reliably sourced. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think ProtoDrake has a good argument with how bigger the series, the bigger the need for a timeline. Zelda does however have three different timelines, that might need some brainstorming. How do you guys feel about adding other media into the template, like Dead Space does? I think that in this case a recreated Assassin's Creed does make sense, with II, Brotherhood and Revelations taking place in the Renaissance and III and so on in the American Revolution, with IV taking place before III (with novels, comics and so on). Oh, Ubisoft. --Soetermans. T / C 20:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually think that the current Zelda timeline template, though a little... awkward, is better than something akin to the Assassin's Creed one. Because of the way Zelda is constructed, a linear progression with notes is more confusing than its current layout (to me, anyway). And this brings me to something else we need to consider: when to include or exclude extra material such as DLC and novels, as this can make timelines bloated if taken too far. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the chronology of a series is notable and can be serialized without original research, then a template for its chronology can be used. In contrast, if there are no reliable, third-party sources that support the chronology of a video game series, then the template should be avoided as it is game trivia, which is irrelevant to the general reader. Personally, I would nominate Template:Perfect Dark chronology, Template:Banjo-Kazooie chronology, and (probably) Template:Metroid chronology for deletion. I can't speak for the other series you mention as I'm not very familiar with them. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Niwi3:, concerning Metroid this video (from Nintendo via GameTrailers), shows where Metroid: Other M appears, and this original Retrospective video from the same site gives the series' overall chronology excluding Other M. I know it's not very good. It doesn't need to be used. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If that video is considered reliable, then that would probably be a good source. It can also hardly be called gametrivia, as it describes the overarching plot of the Metroid series, rather than simply giving details about how "these games do exist in the same timeline! Ha!" ~Mable (chat) 20:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated. See above.

Ok, it seems fair to keep the template for the Metroid chronology because of those sources, but I'm seriously considering nominating the other two for deletion. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to let everybody know that I nominated Template:Perfect Dark chronology and Template:Banjo-Kazooie chronology for deletion. If anyone cares, please discuss this matter at TFD. Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys. @User:Niwi3, I haven't replied to the deletion proposals myself because there was nothing else I could say. I think we've established a couple of minimal requirements: first, the need for such a template, second, it has to be more than mere gameguide material, and third, if we can verify the information.

Metroid and MGS have passed the test at least. There aren't that many entries in the category, so let's review the ones we haven't discussed, shall we? I think we can keep these three at least:

• Template:Kingdom Hearts chronology: might be worth keeping, because the release and chronological order isn't the same. Three numbered I entries, a prequel before the first game, two between the first and second, two between the second and third. And also, the series (to me at least) is very confusing, but it does has a overarching narrative.
• Template:.hack chronology: from what I understand there are different entries, not numbered in a logical chronological order. It also mentions OVAs and a anime movie. Seems worth keeping.
• Template:Dead Space chronology might be a keeper too: it lists 'main entries', spin-offs, comics, the direct-to-dvd movie and narrative DLCs.

In my opinion, these can go. @User:Niwi3, @User:ProtoDrake and @User:Sergecross73, any thoughts?

• Template:Onimusha chronology: six entries in total, the first two are sequels, three and four are spin-offs, five and six again follow the chronological order of release. Not necessary. Onimusha is the series' main article.
• Template:Killzone chronology doesn't look very necessary either. Only the Vita title Mercenary was released later than it is chronologically set. The series has a main article also, see Killzone (series).
• Template:Ys chronology: confusing, what makes some entries canonical and what means "replaced"? There is also the general Template:Ys series which neatly uses numbers for the entries. There is also Ys (series).
• Template:Devil May Cry chronology. Four entries for the 'original series', in the chronological order of 3, 1, 4, 2. Nothing that the main article Devil May Cry could easily explain.
• Template:Silent Hill Chronology can go too, only Origins was released in 2007 and is set before the first game. It also lists two spin-offs. Silent Hills is also under development, and not clear whether it will be part of the rest of the series. Silent Hill covers the franchise.

I'm not sure about Template:Professor Layton chronology and Template:Ace Attorney chronology, is the chronology important for these games? I haven't played them and I thought they were mostly about solving cases and winning courtcases. Template:Front Mission chronology is so huge, sheer size alone makes me wonder if it's worth having around. Template:God of War chronology doesn't look necessary either, but maybe @User: JDC808 has some input? --Soetermans. T / C 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think all timelines should go unless they are sourced. - X201 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The only one that has a source out of the ones selected is the Devil May Cry series pre-reboot, and that can easily be folded into the main article. I agree that the Kingdom Hearts (can be referenced using GameTrailers Timeline program, and probably official material from Square Enix) and .hack, but I don't see the need to keep Dead Space. All the others can go. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a source is vital, or possibly, maybe, if a timeline is considered particularly important, it could exist without a source. Some games are more story-based than others, which makes the timeline much more notable. Most of the timelines mentioned above - as long as they don't have a source, should probably be deleted. Layton and Ace attorney, being for a large part visual novels that I haven't played, I have no idea. ~Mable (chat) 12:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with those series, but I think the Dead Space chronology is not necessary; two of its entries don't exist, some are DLCs that redirect to their corresponding base game, while others are non-notable books that might not be part of the series canon. The template actually reminds me of the one we had for the Mass Effect series. As for the others, I doubt there are reliable, third-party sources that support them, so they can go. I might be wrong, though. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion nomination help

I think we can delete a bunch of the templates then. To nominate them all individually for the same reasons is silly, so maybe an admin can help out here? --Soetermans. T / C 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@User: Sergecross73, any chance you can help out? --Soetermans. T / C 10:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this the other day. Actually, as much as I take part in deletion discussions, I actually don't nominate hardly anything for deletion. I mean, I could try to help, but if you're aiming for speed and efficiency, I'd be a terrible choice. Maybe another Admin, or someone who does more with automated edits, could help? Salvidrim!? PresN? Satellizer? Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if you tell me what templates to nominate and what's the content of the nomination I can procedurally push it to TfD on your behalf. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. Salvidrim, if you please: Template:Onimusha chronology, Template:Killzone chronology, Template:Ys chronology, Template:Devil May Cry chronology, Template:Silent Hill Chronology, Template:Dead Space chronology, Template:Professor Layton chronology and Template:Ace Attorney chronology. I noticed that for some reason Template: Perfect Dark chronology still exists, even after the result was delete. They're all based upon in-universe timeline, which is either not that important to merit its own template or it the chronology of the series is vague at best. --Soetermans. T / C 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but can you compose a short nomination? I'll really just post it "as is" on your behalf. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, what about this? Per the outcome of this discussion, these templates have been found to be trivial information, based upon in-game information. How these games are chronologically set can also be easily explained by the main series' article. --Soetermans. T / C 14:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, if we have consensus here, I'm not sure a TfD is even needed. I'll mull it over and do something about the whole thing this weekend. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Local consensus applies. TFD is absolutely necessary. --Izno (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be good to get some outside input on the situation as well. (It could lead to an even stronger consensus for the future too, if WP:FILMS and other media-based projects see the same way we seem to here...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nominated - see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 30#Video game series chronology. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Challenge to bot authors: Scraping a massive directory of reviews of Atari 8-bit software

The Addison-Wesley Book of Atari Software 1984 is at the Internet Archive. Its 400 pages review Atari 8-bit software, including almost 200 pages for games. The reviews are in great detail (read the one for Archon: The Light and the Dark, for example) and have letter grades. Since the book is also available in plaintext, I hope an intrepid editor will accept the challenge of write a bot to scrape the grades and insert them into Wikipedia articles (and perhaps, even, creating stub articles when none exists). Ylee (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really do bots, but I can write a script maybe to make a wiki page with "game name-company-score-review text", one game per section, so that someone could go through that later (manually or botted) to stick them in articles. Would that be useful? --PresN 18:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, like User:PresN/AtariReviews. --PresN 19:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ylee: Since it doesn't look like a full bot creator is stepping up, is what I proposed useful to you? Or is the existing source basically the same as far as manual editing goes?

Yes, definitely helpful. It would very much make creating text discussing reviews easier by permitting much of it to be copy-pasted. Would it be possible to have the auto-generated cites include the URL to the pages themselves? As you can see from the URL format, only the page number varies. Ylee (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

--PresN 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good spot with the data. But we can't just populate the reviews template with this as its against the guidelines for the template. - X201 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The prose is much more of interest than the grades. ~Mable (chat) 08:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added the link to this book to the Reference Library; while I'm at it, if anybody has hard or electronic copies of video games magazines or books, please add them to the reference library so other editors can more easily use them as sources. --PresN 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Topical directory of notable Wikipedians

Hello, members of Wikiproject Video games! I'm AmericanLemming, and I'm trying to put together a list of notable/highly active Wikipedians by topic. As you're probably well aware, many or perhaps most of the 446 editors listed as "active" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members#Active either haven't edited in years, never did that much work on video game articles anyway, or are highly active but in areas other than video games.

The problem with all this is that it's difficult for an editor outside the Wikiproject to find active editors to collaborate with and/or ask questions of. Also, it's difficult to know who the most important video game editors are. From DYK, FA, GA, and GAN I've put together the following list of highly active and/or important video game editors:

• Active: czar, Freikorp, GamerPro64, Igordebraga, Jaguar, JDC808, Khanassassin, Masem, PresN, ProtoDrake, Red Phoenix, Sjones23, Tezero
• Inactive: Judgesurreal777

I guess the questions I have for you are as follows:

• 1. Am I missing any important video game editors (5+ FAs and/or 10+ GAs and/or 25+ DYKs, for example), whether they're active or not?
• 2. Are any of the editors I have listed as active actually inactive (haven't edited so far this year, for example)?
• 3. Is there a better way to categorize video game editors? Independent games versus mainstream, console versus PC, strategy versus first-person shooter, older versus more recent, etc.?

I hope none of you feel offended if you aren't included in the above list, and I very much appreciate any help you can offer me. Thanks! AmericanLemming (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I certainly can't speak for everyone since I am included, if I weren't I don't think I'd be offended, since you've clearly stipulated the criteria, so I wouldn't worry about it. One inactive user who seems to have been involved in a curiously high number of GAs and FAs (perhaps his contributions are overstated) is Gary King; you could look into him. There's also a list of Wikipedians by FAs out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other VG editors appeared. Good luck! Tezero (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and you'll want JimmyBlackwing, too. Tezero (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm very active here at WPVG, but I don't bother with all the GA/FA process stuff. But I do meet your "creating over 75 articles" requirement - I've created 87 now. So...I guess it depends on what criteria you find more important? Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're - and Soetermans and Salvidrim and others - only one of the most important Gnomes that we have. You don't count ;-) - X201 (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that reminds me, that's the term Salvidrim uses to describe his edits. He's an active long-term WP:VG contributor and Admin. Smuckola and ThomasO1989 are long-term WPVG editors as well. (Though I haven't seen Thomas around all that much as of lately...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me that I have to login on Salvidrim to setup email notifications because people ping that username (instead of Salvidrim!) all the time. But yeah, I'm definitely gnomish and not a "content contributor" by any stretch of the imagination, even though I've been hovering around WP:VG ever since I started. To the list, (and especially if we go with how long they've contributed to WP:VG instead of judging the quality of the best articles) I would add X201, Samwalton9, Satellizer, Thibbs, JDC808, Hahnchen, and both Blake and Axem Titanium as not very active for now. They're all on the list of those I would consider our most invaluable and helpful collaborators; Sam in particular has produced really really high-end content, and Thibbs is really the go-to person for reliable sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still active, just not as active as I once was. I've actually been working on an FAC the past couple of weeks. Like GamerPro, I was pleasantly surprised too :) --JDC808 ♫ 23:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the mention! I've entertained the notion of returning to hardcore article improvement a number of times but my schedule doesn't really permit it anymore; barely have time to play the games! I'm happy Gnoming where I can and slowing grinding up the FFXIV topic articles up as I play. That said, I'm always happy to review or copyedit an article if you drop a line on my talk page (or I get one of these new-fangled notifications). Regardless, this is super cool. Best, Axem Titanium (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still around-- just been really preoccupied by real life recently, so most of my contributions as of late are quick vandalism reverts. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I have to admit I am pleasantly surprised to be considered "noteworthy" on this site. Guess I'm not fully aware on my impact on the site I guess. GamerPro64 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Sergecross, I too am really only active at c-class articles and below. Plus I'm rather new here and not "highly active"... Just throwing it out there. ~Mable (chat) 07:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of my edits concern video game-related articles. It's usually the small stuff, like writing out terms before using the abbreviations (like "downloadable content, and then DLC") or not using unnecessary capital letters for genres or modes (Graphic adventure -> graphic adventure), and removing gameguide material (like a list of playable characters). Don't know if that merits any inclusion, but I'd be happy to help though! --Soetermans. T / C 10:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Aw I'm flattered ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to noted that I think I'm going to end up being WP-notable for other reasons too, beyond just the quality VG articles too, but I agree with the additional names that Salvidrim adds. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Masem:Its OK. We already know what it is. You've picked up that horrible habit of using stars instead of colons to start talk page comments ;-) Everything will be OK. Keep your chin up chap. - X201 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated list (includes above feedback)

Thanks to everyone who commented above, especially those who suggested names of editors who work behind the scenes with small edits; I wouldn't have realized who they were without the above feedback. There isn't as much glory in reverting vandalism or writing out acronyms as there is in amassing a large collection of FA stars, but it's vital work nonetheless. Since I've chosen to keep the link to the userpages of those editors listed here, it should (?) notify them. That way they can inform me if I've miscategorized them. Again, thank you all very much for your assistance. In a couple of months I'll see if they'll let me run this in the Signpost, once it's (reasonably) complete. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please only comment here if you feel that you or someone else has been placed in the wrong category. This is just a pet project of mine; it's neither authoritative nor comprehensive. I don't think It's especially important for every single editor on this list to know that they're included, since it isn't official or anything. I'm just trying to make it easier to to find active video game editors. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Recognized content (GA and/or FA): czar, Darkwarriorblake, Freikorp, GamerPro64, Igordebraga, Jaguar, JDC808, JimmyBlackwing, Judgesurreal777, Khanassassin, Masem, PresN, ProtoDrake, Red Phoenix, Sergecross73, Sjones23, Tezero
• DYKs, stub expansion, and/or articles created: Maplestrip, Sergecross73
• WikiGnomes (adding references, reverting vandalism, copy-editing, etc.): Axem Titanium, Blake, Hahnchen, JDC808, Satellizer, Thibbs, Salvidrim, Samwalton9, Smuckola, Soetermans, ThomasO1989, X201

@AmericanLemming:re"Since I've chosen to keep the link to the userpages of those editors listed here, it should (?) notify them. " Apparently the notification system has been a bit dodgy of late, with people not receiving notifications that they should have. If its important that they know about this I'd suggest contacting them on their talk page to be safe. - X201 (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good idea, I didn't get notified I was mentioned here (or somewhere else earlier today), though I noticed both because I watch the pages. Freikorp (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Same here... Should we now all comment here so that Lemming does not have to contact us personally, or...? ~Mable (chat) 09:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't need everyone to comment here; if you're happy with your categorization there's no need to explicitly state that. Keeping this discussion relatively short will save both your time and mine. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I've been a bit more Gnomey in regards to articles as of late (since becoming an admin really), I think I fit more into the second category. Cheers, Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I sort of feel like we shouldn't be listed by these kind of categories. I've done some of everything, but I guess I could agree most of my edits are gnomey. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea's that we're placed in the highest categories we fit in, under the supposition that the highest categories signify the most obvious contributions and "major-ness" of a user. My gnoming and (grumble) article-creating activities aren't nearly at the level of my GAs/FAs, for example, but czar by some definitions is one of the greatest gnomes we've got, yet his GAs and FAs place him in the top category. What I'm more surprised about is that, unlike with the listings for many non-video-game fields, we're not given special areas of interest. Tezero (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Article that discusses the "one more turn" phenomenon?

Anyone who's played a good 4X game knows the temptation to play "one more turn", often finding as a result that it is 7am and you have spent the whole night playing. It's so well known that the Civilization games—the series that "one more turn" is most associated with—even mocks it with "just ... one ... more ... try" when you try to quit. Is there an article that discusses the phenomenon? It's not video game addiction; for most "one more turn" is temporary and harmless.

As the 4X article discusses, the phenomenon has been observed since the early days of the genre. I know others have observed it with other turn-based games, like Rogue. There are similaries to "one more episode" in binge watching. In both cases, it seems like the discrete intervals of individual turns/episodes if anything encourages staying with the game/show longer than otherwise, because of the illusion that the next turn/episode will be the last one. Ylee (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a phenomenon unique enough to video games. It depends on whether this idea is covered by reliable sources in detail, but I doubt it is. Tezero (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If I'd be playing video games until 7am for "one more turn", I wouldn't consider that harmless! Not sure if this is similar, but it did remind me of "just one more level", to level-up one more time before quitting. In Cyber Junkie, a book about video game addiction, the author claims that because the player reached another level, it gives a psychological boost of self-esteem. This usually applies to role-playing games though, like Diablo or EverQuest (which was nick-named EverCrack). --Soetermans. T / C 00:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll need to go to JustOneMoreLevel at TVTropes to get a more comprehensive view in various media. In psychology, the is operant conditioning: press a lever, get a reward; press a lever, get a reward; ... --Mark viking (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I love this kind of articles, but it will be hard to find sources of this specific topic. It is incredibly often mentioned in reviews and the like, but never as the primary topic. When it is an important topic, it is usually either framed in a bad light under game addiction, put together with topics like binge watching, or described under a different name and in a different way.

My philosophy is always that if you can find enough sources on the topic you want to write an article about, and there isn't too much overlap with another article, you can definitely start a draft and see if it works. Perhaps the common name for this phenomenon will become clear to you during your research :) ~Mable (chat) 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing about notability. A subject can appear in every article ever published, but if it's not the primary topic of a few of them, no dice. Tezero (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

An essential part of slot machine gambling, the "one more turn" phenomenon is one that is relevant to many parts of gaming includin the Civilisation franchise. It might not be deserving of its own article, but as it is often associated with the aforementioned Sid Meier 4X series (because players eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate) due to their humorous Civilization Anonymous campaign, it could be a subsection there. Otherwise it could be added to an article on the larger topic pf the compulsive behaviour that drives people to do that one thing more.--Coin945 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation question: publishers

There is probably a guideline or other conversation concerning this, but I thought a fresh view would be nice. During my time editing/exploring, I've encountered some GA/FA articles that use the "work=|publisher=" boxes (where it can be done), and others that simply use the "publisher=" box. There doesn't seem to be a solid rule about it. As I have several GAs/FAs in preparation at the moment, and other articles I intend to create in the relatively near future, I need an answer on this. Which is more proper and/or more popular: "work=|publisher=" or "publisher="? --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The work is more important; I need to know IGN published an article, not Ziff Davis. If there's info on both, it's probably best to include. And where an outlet is independent, i.e. its own publisher, I just use publisher—given that web sites are generally not in any style guides italicized. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's WP:ITALICS: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized"—this includes almost all games sites (save, perhaps, for sites like IGN that may be argued as a network rather than as a magazine/news-style site). In this use case, |work= automatically italicizes, and |publisher= is only for completeness. As for needing a definitive answer, remember that WP has no definitive citation style requirement. It just needs to be consistent, and it's more important to keep the existing style than to overhaul for your personal preferences (unless you're rewriting the whole article, but that's another story). Previous discussions:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_84#Web_citation_formatting

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_100#Citing_Game_Informer

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 9

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_98#Publisher_of_IGN.3F

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_72#Premade_VG_citation_templates

czar ⨹ 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I see (and use) just "publisher" more often - this simply acts as the work (except for first-party sources); I do it out of a combination of the actual publisher often not being clear, the reader rarely caring about it, and, as David Fuchs said, the weirdness of having to italicize things like "IGN". Both styles are found widely enough, though. Tezero (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Czar's been pulling me over to the dark side of using |work= for everything, then putting in |publisher= where available (Ziff Davis for IGN, AOL of Joystiq, etc.). I used to, however, put everything into |publisher= unless the citation was to a magazine or the website of a magazine. --PresN 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This is how I do it too; work for the name of the website/magazine/whatever and publisher in addition when I can be bothered. Sam Walton (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

PresN, that's how I do it too: cite_news and work= for magazines, cite_web and publisher= for websites. By longstanding convention printed works like books and magazines (Game Informer, Computer Gaming World, Sports Illustrated) are italicized, and work= does that. Conversely, I don't see why the name of a website that has never been primarily in printed form (ESPN, GameSpot) should be italicized, any more than Google or Facebook is, so publisher= avoids that markup. Ylee (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This is probably not the most ideal place for this question, but what's the point of citation templates anyway? Is it mostly for editor convenience or is it more about structured data with an eye toward the semantic web? I am generally in favor of structured data for just that reason, but I find that when I'm in a rush I almost always just forgo the templates and default to creating the refs by hand. Should I be using citation templates more often? -Thibbs (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To help with remembering to include everything and keeping formatting consistent, I think. I prefer always to use them, but you certainly don't have to. Tezero (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that citation templates are always preferable for consistency purposes, but I see nothing objectively wrong with doing them by hand as long as the necessary information is included. Sam Walton (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the compromises made back at the dawn of time (i.e circa 2003) is that no one citation style is preferred on a Wikipedia article, and editors are free to do whatever they want as long is it's a) consistent within that article and b) makes sense. Even at the FA level, if you have some bizarre variation on the Harvard referencing style practiced only by clergy in the 1910s and you want to do it by hand, you can, and no one can demand that you use the "cite_x" series of templates, or the "harv" series, or any of the other 3 or 4 I know of. The citation templates are there only because most editors will invariably screw up the formatting if they do it all by hand. --PresN 19:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the clarifications. -Thibbs (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Past or present tense for canceled multiplayer online only games?

Hi everybody,

Is there a consensus how to describe canceled multiplayer online games? For instance, is or was Star Wars Galaxies a MMORPG? I have to be honest, just the other day I added a bit to the MOS, saying it should be is, but after seeing a change to Age of Empires Online, I'm not sure. On one hand the game was developed and released, so at one point in time it was playable. On the other hand, since it was cancelled, now nobody can actually play it, effectively stop "being" a game in that sense. --Soetermans. T / C 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If the game is fully unplayable in any official capacity (no single player element, and ignoring things like server hacks run by dedicated fans), I would use past tense, since the game's content is technically no longer accessible to the public. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Masem. On the one hand, the code of which the game consists probably still exists somewhere (you can safely assume), but seeing as an MMO isn't really playable when it is no longer "online" (it is called an MMO for a reason), I guess it can effectively be called "no longer existing."

Perhaps it would make sense to look at how reliable sources talk about defunct MMOs, though, and describe them in the same manner. ~Mable (chat) 20:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit of a stretch. Adherence to reliable sources is supposed to be for factual details; we don't qualify aspects of games as objectively good or bad just because reliable sources do, for instance. Anyway, I think it could go either way: for example, defunct bands and companies use past, while ended TV shows and novel series use present. Personally I'd rather go with past, though, since even old bands can still be listened to (luckily for my classic-rock-loving friends), while defunct MMOs cannot be accessed in any way. Tezero (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason we use present tense for no-longer produced TV shows is that, for the most part, the show is still viewable and still exists, and thus the show still "exists". If there was a case of an early TV or radio show where no recordings of the show were ever kept, and thus no longer viewable, we'd use "was" to describe it. This analogy works for the video game model too. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it seems that lost films are written about in the present tense as well, at least the two articles I checked out for it. I suggested checking sources to see what the common way to do it is in the industry. I guess that depends on how much people talk about old MMOs, though... ~Mable (chat) 06:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There is possibly a difference in that a lost film is one where there is believed no known surviving copy to be recovered, but leaving the possibility of clips, negatives, etc. that may still be around as well as screenplays. On the other hand, when an MMO closes, it closes, there's no guesswork in that. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The "possibility" part is the bit that stops me from fully agreeing with the "If its switched off its gone" argument. The use of present tense for old TV shows etc is based on the fact that if someone bothers to do the correct things to view a recording of that show (even if its in an obscure format that only TV companies can access), then the show becomes is again. The rule for TV shows/films is basically "Does this work have the potential to be viewed again?" if yes, use "is". That possibility exists for MMOs, they posses the potential to be switched back on and experienced again in the same way that old TV shows and films "come to life" when viewed. - X201 (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it is a game that was available? Theoretically, let's imagine that in one point in time no NES consoles will work. Would we change it to "was"? People might still have the physical thing in their possession, even if it doesn't function anymore. It also just might be some old players still have the files on their computer, even if doesn't connect to a server. The game was designed, developed and published, part of its development. The cancellation of the multiplayer doesn't mean it wasn't developed, etc. I guess we're going a bit into the philosophical direction of art. If a old masterpiece has gone missing over the years, without any knowledge whether or not it still exists, wouldn't you say it still does exist? Schrödinger's painting, huh? --Soetermans. T / C 10:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems a good middle ground. Leaving the "was a game" only for titles that never reached release though had notability before that point. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea as well. SWG is an MMORPG that was available from x to y, and was developed by z. Voyager was a game developed from 1995 until it was cancelled in 2007. --PresN 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that we should add this advice to the guidelines, but let's make sure there's no strong objections to this. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I worry that this solution skirts the underlying quandary by simply stipulating a few use cases for past and present nomenclature. Or is it that the game's artistic and technical qualities (e.g. being an MMORPG) ought to be spoken of in the present tense, while those pertaining to its production and release should be in the past? Tezero (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If we were talking a narrative aspects, narratives are always presented in the present tense regardless of the state of the work. I would expect we should write gameplay sections in the same manner, speaking of what the player is doing in the game, irregardless of the availability of the game. This would be true even for a closed MMO, if we adopt "This is an MMO that was open to players..." approach. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems to accord with my reading of WP:TENSE. I'm in favor "it is a game that was available" per Soetermans. -Thibbs (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should also note that even if an MMO is officially offline, there often still exist somekind of downloaded, hacked version. I don't know anything about the technicalities about it, but someone who has the knowledge and technology could run an MMO server from their own computer. It's probably illegal.

Anyway, I support the "is a game that was available"-approach. ~Mable (chat) 07:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks guys. Since I was so bold to change it earlier, it's already in the VG/MOS. Now to look up every canceled MMO... --Soetermans. T / C 13:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Here you go Category:Inactive massively multiplayer online games - X201 (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Request board discussion

There is a discussion at the Requests board about whether the order of submissions should be newer submissions go on top. The discussion can be found here if you have a chance to give your input. GamerPro64 15:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Joystiq possibly shutting down

Joystiq may be closing down, so we might need to get archiving citations to them. No official word yet but worth keeping an eye on. Sam Walton (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw that too. Man, its going to get harder to search for sources on more obscure games soon, with all these reliable sources shutting down... Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen it. Its indeed too bad if they would close down. You are right Serge, a lot of gaming sites are shutting down left and right, which is very saddening. NathanWubs (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I have no source to cite as yet (for some reason none of them want to be the first to break the news), backchannels inform me that there has been a collapse of revenues across the board for videogame related sites. Most likely delayed and indirect fallout of the controversy that Must Not be Named, advertisers have apparently become leery of having any exposure and are avoiding the entire sector. So expect that there will be a lot more of these, and they may not all be announced ahead of time, you may want to check archiving of any article that is critical for its page and make a note for future reference.150.167.144.14 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While possible, most other sites are reporting better-than-ever numbers. More than likely, this is just AOL not aware of what it has in the site. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this one is AOL folding their "nerd" sites together into Engadget- it's been announced that Joystiq and TUAW (Apple) are getting folded in. No word on if the site itself is going to stay up. (source). TechCrunch is saying that Joystiq's view count has been declining for a while, though they don't provide a source for that.

Spot check of a few articles shows that Wayback has them archived. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we could request a bot to be made specifically for archiving Joystiq citations? Bananasoldier (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A while ago, there was a discussion about AllGames and a couple other sites shutting down, and some editor had written a script that automatically archives them (but to his own computer). He then put all the links on a Wikipedia namespace page for us to put in the articles at our leisure. As for a bot, that'd be awesome, but I'm not aware of any. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That was me; the script actually just tries to find a WebArchive link for the link, and if not found, manually archives via Webcite. I then posted a WP page that had the archive links next to the regular links. Masem is reporting that it looks like all of Joystiq is already archived at WebArchive, so I don't think the script is needed here. We do, however, still need an actual bot to put the archive links in the articles themselves. --PresN 19:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Grow Home (my first video game article)

Or the first article I've created from scratch ever; here it is. I'd definitely appreciate some feedback, and maybe even some help improving it. BlookerG ^talk 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So far it looks fine. Obviously once out we'll get more sources for it. I'd recommend avoiding using the steam store page for referencing (eg avoiding one storefront over another). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's lacking in sources, but is otherwise a fine article, it seems :)

I don't think phrases like "inspired" by "this game" and "that game" make much sense, though. It isn's really much of a quote, so I just removed the quotation marks. Oh, and movie titles should be in italics too. Similarly, I don't see how "officially launch" needs to be in quotation marks. Is there something odd about that term? It seems to me to be a pretty common way of saying you're going to launch something officially... Try to reserve quotation marks for longer sentences, opinions (IGN called it "decent", for example) or unusual word choices.

Really, though, these are copy-edit things - you did a nice job realizing the article :) ~Mable (chat) 05:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to deal with speedy deletion or AfD, try to work third-party sources like Polygon, GameSpot, PC Gamer, and VG247 in. Tezero (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Checking now, I think it is good on 3rd party sources. Reviews aren't in yet but that'll be in the next few days, so I don't expect any issues related to deletion now. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest for our assessments: Archive/WebCites for all online references for A-class/GA or better

Because video games are primarily covered in new media (online sources) and judging by all the closures of late, I'd like to suggest that we have an informal guideline that for our A-class articles or articles at GA (or better) that all citations that are only cited to a online source have appropriate archiveurl information, whether this is through Wayback or WebCite. I know we can't readily enforce that at GA level but we can push for that internally, and definitely make than an A-class requirement. Short of having a bot being able to do this for us, this at least ensures that our better content won't be "killed" when these sites go dark. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I approve for what it's worth. I've been reminding myself to at least archive references pertinent to an article when I find them for future use. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean FA-class requirement? A's going down tomorrow. It's definitely a good idea for future ones - I was asked (and obliged) to archive all the online ones for Sonic X a few months back, and most if not all of my other GAs and FAs have the old closures (e.g. 1UP, Edge) archived - but could be a pain for existing GAs/FAs, though a communal or bot-assisted sweep could take care of them within a short time. I tensed initially at this proposition, but aren't Wayback and WebCite working again? Tezero (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC)And given that we're talking about dropping A-class, I'll still say that we should be taking GA (those that have been promoted there) articles to do this. I know some of this can be automated on a per-page basis with the linkchecker tool though I've not had much luck with that myself. (was just writing this when you added that Tezero)--MASEM (t) 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Swatting

Swatting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I suggest we add this to the project since it does seem to happen a lot to gamers and people on Twitch.tv lately. Objections or comments? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sounds fine. I have never heard of it happening outside of gaming before, but apparently its occurrence in gaming is not the rule. That being said, I think it's common in gaming (for as far as swatting is "common"), so it's part of our project. Feel free to add the banner to its talk page. ~Mable (chat) 19:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't myself (other things that happen via Twitch include conversation, enjoyment, anger, and Internet chat, which I'm sure without looking aren't within our project), but I suppose if there's a desire to include it and some kind of followable reasoning, I don't see the harm. Tezero (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread VIII: The SeeD of Good Editing

Figured I'd just jump straight to the review begging/collusion here, since the available GANs, PRs, and FACs are all listed in our project navbox. Anyway:

• Sonic the Hedgehog 3 - I'll take anyone's nomination for a review of this. Tezero (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Tezero: swap you an StH3 review for an FAC review of Children of Mana? --PresN 20:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing, PresN. Tezero (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to continue tradition, I am reminding people to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests if they are interested in new articles to create. Or help decide if the articles being requested meet notability standards. Always good to help out in the project. GamerPro64 02:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the Saturn's FAC has been up for two and a half months. Is it passing or not? Tezero (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I put SSX 3 up for nomination more than a week ago but it isn't receiving much attention. Would anyone be willing to review it? BlookerG ^talk 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with sourcing for an article?

I recently deleted an article for a popular YouTuber and someone asked why articles like Markiplier remain while that one was up for deletion. Upon looking at the page, I can see their point- the article is pretty spotty and much of the sourcing is either primary or not the type that would give notability. Anyone up for improving the article? I'm somewhat busy with school work at the moment and I'm not as good with finding gaming sources for LPers as I am with just plain games, so I thought I'd ask here for some assistance. I'd like to avoid having to put this up for AfD if I can help it, although if any of you want to go that route then I'm fine with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing much that simultaneously satisfies the "in depth" and "independent" prongs of the 4-part GNG test... I would concentrate on looking at academic coverage of the "Let's Play" phenomenon. I've read some papers that touch on this as well as fan-made game guides. If all you're looking for right now are RSes that trivially cover him then I offer these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. -Thibbs (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015's TFA

So as a reminder, Final Fantasy VIII will be on the main page for "Today's Featured Article" on the 11th. And since its part of a Featured Topic, I hope that there will be an introductory paragraph added to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII before the article premiers on there. Just to help standardize introductory paragraphs in Featured Topics. GamerPro64 00:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Made one, just pulled out elements from the lead of the main article. --PresN 02:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks, Pres. GamerPro64 02:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015 TFAs

Just a heads up, God of War is at the request page to hopefully be TFA on March 22nd, the game's 10th anniversary. --JDC808 ♫ 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of podcasts in articles

I'm not exactly sure about the use of podcasts as references in articles since I don't recall any major article using them. That being said, the article Revolution 60 uses podcasts 14 times as a source currently. Some of these podcasts can be considered self sources so I'm not fully confident they hold up well in a review of sorts if it ever does in the future. What's anyone else's take on this? GamerPro64 22:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd expect they'd be treated the same way as any other source: assessed on the reliability of the author in relation to what it's corroborating. People - and this definitely isn't just you - seem to assume that entire media forms (e.g. tweets, YouTube videos, interviews hosted on fansites) can be written off as unreliable, and it's not the case; all of those have passed muster at FAC multiple times. The only reason a source's appropriateness could be cogently questioned if the reliability of its publisher/author is established is if it's inaccessible to the general public - in other words, if the reader is completely at the editor's mercy and has to "just trust" them - and podcasts lie far away from this crevasse.

I have seen articles' proportional reliance on certain types of sources (i.e. "the article is 70% X type of source, and that's bad despite there numerically being plenty of other types and X type of source not attributing anything it shouldn't") be used as a strike against them, but mainly only first-party sources in notability disputes, and I'm not sure this objection is actually even within policy. Tezero (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dishonored is a featured article and references a podcast that I suggested in the FAC. In that case, it's a reliable source because it's Minnesota Public Radio. Podcasts and radio are pretty much the same thing, but there's clearly a difference between NPR and some self published rubbish. Given the live, conversational nature, I value audio and video as be less reliable than text which is published after the fact and can more easily be fact checked and corrected. In R60's case, you should also be careful as the developer is the host of one of the podcasts cited. I would treat these as primary sources. - hahnchen 20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Source request

Hey, all. Over at the FAC for Sonic 1, one user has given my first oppose vote in a while over comprehensiveness concerns. She listed four sources I ought to include if Wikipedia's coverage of the game is to be complete, but my county's library system only has one of them. Does anyone own, or know where I might get access to, any of the below?

• "The History of Sonic from French publisher Pix'n Love (the book is available in English)"
• "Retro Gamer Issue 100, which contains a "Making Of" with a Yuji Naka interview" - no one's listed as owning this issue at our Reference Library
• "Sega Mega Drive/Genesis: Collected Works"

Thanks. I'm not expecting miracles, but even a push in the right direction would be appreciated. Tezero (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Point 1: Is this the US version? « Ryūkotsusei » 23:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Tezero (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You should withdraw the nomination until you've done the research. - hahnchen 23:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll consider it. I might locate the sources before too long, though, and either way other users might have comments that I can address now. Tezero (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There will always be sources left off the table in developing articles, the question becomes is if the article needs more information on that level, and whether without being able to easily access the source if it really should be included. In terms of this case the development section could possibly be longer but it was also a game at a time that game dev wasn't the fount of information we can get today. The Retro Gamer interview seems to be a critical one, but just going by the titles and publishers, do not seem to be necessarily critical, given the rest of the content in the article. So I don't really see the need in withdrawing just to get a few sources in there. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between sources "left off", and sources that the nominator didn't know existed. The first is an editorial decision, the latter is a fail. The only FAC I reviewed this year was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War III/archive4 and it's clear the nominator hadn't done the research, having never come across http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-making-of-god-of-war-iii I didn't suggest a withdrawal in that case, because it was an easily accessible article online. In this case, you're missing books. Earlier this year, there was a thread about WP:VG's lowering FAC standards, and just prior to this, I noted a glaring error (now fixed) in Tezero's previous promotion. Our nominators and reviewers need higher standards. - hahnchen 12:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That's very presumptuous. Just because one or two articles slipped through doesn't mean the research hasn't been done. --JDC808 ♫ 21:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, with Freedom Planet there was no research issue, only misleading wording about one review due to a somewhat hasty copyedit. Hahnchen is free to spotcheck FAC articles as he pleases, as is any reviewer or member of the wider Wiki-public. Tezero (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just didn't think there'd be much more out there about the development, since games before maybe the late '90s don't usually have much of that released. Anyway, I found out Retro Gamer has an iOS app, so I downloaded it and bought the issue. I also found scans of the relevant pages of the History of Sonic book (in English, thankfully; I haven't taken French since middle school) online, so I might just be okay here. Tezero (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I own the Collected Works book. If it looks like there is something in it not covered by the others, I will be happy to add it myself. I don't think development is the main sticking point for me so much as the launch and marketing of the game in the US, which was crucial to Sega's success. Console Wars should take care of that. Sounds like you will be able to satisfy my concerns, and I doubt there is need for a withdrawal. Indrian (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Console Wars and Collected Works were published after the Mega Drive FAC. Has any work been done to integrate their content into that article? I see one reference to Console Wars, isn't there more? - hahnchen 12:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

God of War III FAC

Could use some more reviews. Don't want to see this get closed for lack of reviews. --JDC808 ♫ 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look later today; I see that Oppose vote has been stricken. It also wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if someone here wanted to check out Sonic 1's FAC, beyond comprehensiveness (I'm working in those suggested sources now), if you have the time; thanks. Tezero (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I never returned to that FAC partly because I was disappointed at how you nominated it without having done all the research. You've not included any of the articles or videos I suggested after I struck the oppose, did you find nothing of value? - hahnchen 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed at how very presumptuous you are. I have done my research. Just because I missed a couple of articles doesn't mean I haven't done it. You state that I did not include those as if it is mandatory that I include them because you suggested it. Maybe I didn't find anything of value in those. With the exception of the soundtrack one, those videos are just demonstrations of what's talked about in the articles. --JDC808 ♫ 21:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I put some time into that review, and the article is better because of it, do you agree? But missing the Eurogamer articles was kind of ridiculous. And on the fourth trip to FAC! It's not mandatory that you include the suggestions (hence suggestions), though I am surprised that you didn't find the game engine information or Clint Bajakian's role to be of value. It's why I asked the question. - hahnchen 21:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's better. Never said it wasn't. It's at FAC a fourth time because of either lack of reviews, prose issues, or it was open too long and the admins didn't see a consensus (one of the past FACs closed in the middle of an ongoing review because the FAC was open "for a long time"). No past reviewers have questioned my research. --JDC808 ♫ 23:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Restoring italics to Template:Video game reviews

Italics were inadvertently removed from the listings for print magazines in Template:Video game reviews when it was converted to Lua. I've restored this functionality through a draft in the sandbox, just need an admin to make it live. Either an admin here can do it, or you can drop a line to indicate consensus at Template_talk:Video_game_reviews#Loss_of_italics_in_Lua_transition, if you would be so kind. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

GameFAQs TfD

Hi everyone,

A little while ago I asked about the use of GameFAQs and Template:GameFAQs in the external links section of video game articles. In my mind, it seemed like consensus was reached, and I proposed its deletion. No consensus was reached there however, and it has since been relisted.

Could you please take a moment and share your opinion on the matter? This is by no means canvassing, because the template is used on over 1100 pages so it might be important to hear your thoughts. You can find the discussion here. --Soetermans. T / C 19:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

More eyes at an AFD

I know we're already got the AFD alert page - WP:VG/D - but I wanted to bring more attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jory Prum, as so far, it seems most of the input is from the subject himself, and a bunch of WP:SPA's obviously connected to him. I'd like to see more input from experienced editors who are unconnected to the subject. I'm still personally undecided on my stance, so this is not any sort of WP:CANVASSING. Just wanted more people weighing in. Please look into it, and leave a comment if you have any thoughts or a stance. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So...still very little participation in this one. Don't be alarmed/intimidated with the large size of the discussion - its not the type of discussion where its essential to get caught up on the discussion so far before making a comment. It's probably 75% invalid/unessential SPA comments. (Not trying to discredit anyone, in fact, I may end up on the same side of all the SPAs, for different reasons.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Eh. I don't mind if it gets deleted or is kept. Just would like there to be a discussion that can have some kind of compromise. GamerPro64 22:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Eurogamer dropping 1-10 scoring

Exactly what it says above, as supported by this article with its own link to the blog post. All the details are there for people to read up, including the new review policies and limited rating system. I feel that this merits attention as Eurogamer is a prominent UK/European video game review site. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If they give a game one of their new "Essential", "Recommended" or "Avoid" labels, then as far as I know, those should fit into Template:Video game reviews without any trouble. If it's a game that doesn't receive any of those labels, I suppose two things can be done:

1. Summarise the EG review as "Positive" (or "Favourable"), "Mixed" or "Negative". I've seen this done in a few places on Wikipedia, generally on music reviews more than game or film reviews.

   While I like this idea on its own merit, where I've added it in my own articles it's been challenged as subjective and "not a score". The second option has been pushed. Tezero (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Omit EG entirely from the reviews infobox, and just include any relevant quotations in the main body of the "Reception" section.

--Nick R^Talk 13:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with 1 - that's how WP:ALBUMS handles a few RS review sites that don't give a formal score. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that we would have to pull out "positive" or "negative" for un-rated games where it may not be obvious, I'm not confortable with that, and would rather see option 2 (keeping in mind that we need to keep EG in the template for historical reasons.) However, I'm willing to wait to see how this gets implemented before making a judgement on that to see how much "OR" would be needed. However, I do note that EG says that they will have a 5-star system that will appear on Google searches (with specific mapping of the three above labels to 5, 4, and 1 star reviews, all else being 2 star) and this seems like a fair way as well. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why not simply label them as they actually are? "Recommended" does not equal "Mixed" anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, I believe it says that the positive, mixed, and negative would only be used if one of the labels wasn't used. Which, given their three options, probably means that "mixed" would probably be used most of the time, as I imagine many of the "positives" will be "recommended" or "essential", and many of the negatives will be "avoid". I'm fine with this, as long as we don't allow those silly "mixed to positive" type phrases as options. I get so tired of people trying to POV-push a more positive spin on their favorite subject's reception section prose using that silly phrase. I swear, if unchecked, every reception section would into two classifications: "critical acclaim" or "mixed to positive". Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the new scores that Eurogamer have come up with should be placed inside the review template with no modification to how said scores are worded, but context should always be given in each article containing the score explaining why they gave it that rating. However, in the cases where no label is given, I feel that nothing should be placed in the review template for Eurogamer, as it would definitely lead to a dispute regarding whether people interpret the reviewer's criticism differently. In the latter situation, a mention of their critique in the Reception section would still be appropriate. BlookerG ^talk 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BlookerG, seconded. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mostly agree with BlookerG. We should only use the terms used by EuroGamer. The main problem comes with the games that EuroGamer classes as "games that carry no recommendation", we could put N/A for not applicable just to indicate that EuroGamer have reviewed it, to prevent the lack of an entry in the template looking like they haven't reviewed it. But rather than do that, I think its time to start the discussion about getting rid of VGreviews instead, because it has already started down the path of MetaCritic et al in giving an uneven appraisal of the range of review scores in a handy little box that doesn't represent the words of the reviewer. - X201 (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The VG table isn't to indicate whether a publication has reviewed the game, but a way to remove clumsy percentages from the prose. It also acts as a sanity check against cherry picking of positives/negatives in the prose. If Eurogamer offer no recommendation, it shouldn't fill a row in the table, as it fulfils neither role. Even if Eurogamer offer a recommendation, it might be better just to integrate that with the prose rather than break that out. - hahnchen 14:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is included in the infobox, and it isn't given a solid rating of any kind, we could use something like IGN's review of Tales of Graces f. But that's just a suggestion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The only issue with using EG's terms is that their mid-ranked games have no terminology used with it, and they haven't really described what they will classify those games as (they use many different examples such as a annual sports game installment that might be good but hasn't otherwise changed features from the previous year, so it's not necessarily bad or mediocre.

An option would be to write to EG, get an official email back from them on how they feel we can describe their mid-ranked games so that we are accurately reflecting their scale. The other option, again, is that they have made it clear how a 5-star rating will be on results in Google, and with specific mapping of their four ranks to this scale (5,4,3 and 1 star). Using that is not original research at all, nor misrepresents their take. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. We could use star ratings in the template, but expand on what category it fits into in the Reception section like I mentioned earlier. BlookerG ^talk 17:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not use their Google stars rating. (which is a complete cop out anyway) Eurogamer isn't unique in not scoring their reviews, at no point have we ever had to email Rock, Paper, Shotgun to reduce their review into one word. - hahnchen 19:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is it a copout? They're the ones who assign it. None of us are asserting that Eurogamer is the only reviewer - or even one of the only ones - not to use scores in their body text, nor even that numerical scores are inherently desirable. Would you like to provide some alternative or voice support for an already proposed one? Tezero (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned what we should do above. "cop out" was just my throwaway opinion of Eurogamer's continued use of a star system for Google, and only Google. If you read the Eurogamer editorial, they're only doing this because they're afraid they'll lose Google traffic, not that they actually believe in it. - hahnchen 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a place to discuss whether you agree with the review scores or not. The fact is that they've changed and we need to work out how that will affect articles on Wikipedia. I definitely think emailing Eurogamer for a summary is taking the matter too far, though. BlookerG ^talk 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The key unique feature of the Google search star results from EG is that there is absolutely zero guesswork involved in mapping the star rating to the new EG categories; they are very explicit about how the mapping works. As such, the only reason stars in the VG table make more sense than their ranking is that we'd have something to put there for their mid-tier (3 star) games that they will not assign a label to, so that in a table with other ratings, we have something to fill in instead of either leaving it blank, omitting it (which I think is a bad idea given that EG is now the primary Euro-centric without Edge around), or making up a word ourselves for what EG considers these games. The star ratings are fully objective and do not belie what EG has said. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree with using star ratings. Should we just settle with that? BlookerG ^talk 18:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Eurogamer did bold "games that carry no recommendation" and use it as the label for the games that will not be in the other categories. Some form of that may be usable. - X201 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I would think that if a review carries no grading, we can't just "make up" a grading, and we don't actually need a grading either. I guess we just can no longer put Eurogamer scores in the template: it's too bad, but there are still plenty of websites that do feature such scoring and there is no pressure to get as many scores as possible in the template for each article: you can leave it out altogether and it's fine. ~Mable (chat) 17:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that they have "Essential" , "Recommended" and "Avoid", using "No recommendation" (their words) would also be a solution, since it has the same connotation - is the EG reviewer suggesting you buy this game? Though we would want to make sure that line in the table is linked to some part of the EG page that explains their rating system. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Japanese names for non-Japanese video games in traditionally Japanese game series?

I was just reading our Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood article. The game's connection to Japan appears to be tenuous at best, so why do we give the Japanese name in the opening? Is it just because the character/series is originally Japanese? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably. And it's not as though Sonic's history with Japan was a fleeting affair; most games in the series have been developed there, and Sega is a Japanese company. Tezero (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Video game screenshot size limitations

There is a discussion about our current size limitation policy of video game screenshots going on at NFC Talk. Please come and chime in on the matter. DrNegative (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

When someone tags a non-free image as being too large, regardless of its size and content, it is automatically reduced to 0.1 megapixels by a bot. I've questioned the practice at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Request_for_re-examination_Wikipedia:Bots.2FRequests_for_approval.2FTheo.27s_Little_Bot.2C_Task_1. - hahnchen 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

On the status of our A-class articles

I checked the Article statistics page and according to the monthly statistics table, we've been at 42 A-class articles since November 2013. I used to champion the class during my early days here. But now I'm uncertain about its use for this project. We've have had multiple discussions about the class with no real movement. I just think we may need a definitive consensus on what to do with it. GamerPro64 00:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, now I know that at least one person has that page watchlisted for when I update it (graph updates to come in February, btw). Anyways, I say we kill A-class. We've never really gotten behind it; we may have unofficially agreed on "2 editors agree it's A-class at the assessment page", but almost no-one uses it. We probably have several hundred GAs that are as high quality as the average A-class that will never be nominated, and I've never seen anyone go through A class before taking an article to FAC. If we do end up keeping it, we should do a sweep of the GAs to see which ones should be A-class. --PresN 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that A-class should be cut. It can be useful for a project that wants to use it—see MILHIST. Like PresN said, though, WPVG has never really cared for it. I doubt a single tear would be shed if someone were to retire it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It was one explained to me that seeking A-class is a way to vet potential FACs, but to me it just seems like kind of a waste. I certainly don't think all of the articles marked as A-class deserve to be - Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Pokémon Red and Blue come to mind. It's not even necessarily that they've degraded, but more selection bias: the articles that have received an A-class rating got it years ago, when GA reviews tended to be much looser than they are now. Tezero (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds: (1) we appear to lack the reviewer muscle to handle our bread and butter reviews, nevertheless this, but (2) if we actually used it, it would make our slog of a FA process less of a cleanup. I think of A-class review (ACR) as our internal FAC. (Our FACs are mostly WPVG people anyway.) A-class is a way to queue up two FAC reviews before it sits and languishes on the list of FACs. It would only work, though, if they got the two reviews. (This said, we can let them sit at ACR for longer than at FAC.) Prior to this discussion, however, is our treatment of reviews as cleanup instead of rubber stamps. It's one thing to address a few relatively minor points or to apply one's very specific nitpicks (that could not have possibly been addressed by any other review), but we shouldn't be sending FACs with major issues when they can be feasibly addressed in-house (or at least told in a lower-stakes environment that it's not ready and what it needs). Considering our recent issues with WPVG-based opposes at FAC, it should be less disheartening to break the news here than at FAC. I'd be curious to know what gets other people to give reviews, but I know I'd be more willing to give reviews if my role as a reviewer was less strict and more about broad stroke responses, which I think A-class allows over GAN and FAC. I'm thinking about putting up an ACR just to see how it would go... czar ⨹ 14:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ping me if you'd like some feedback on it; I'm trying to get more active here again as I'm taking care of some real-life obligations. I agree that it can be much less pressure-ful than filling out a full FAC or, oddly, especially a GAN, since with those you're really expected to evaluate every one of the GA criteria to the letter. Tezero (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would be in favour of erasing A-class articles entirety from the VG project as some other WikiProjects have already done - I hope I don't sound harsh in saying that they are both a drain on resources and some are left with cobwebs. They could easily become worthy GAs and through that way more people would be inclined to contribute to them. Put simply, I think GAs are more mainstream. There are 757 GAs here compared to 42 A-class articles, with that being said I think if there was a proper discussion about this then there could easily be a consensus. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose the category isn't doing any harm, but it's analogous to the old (now removed) hidden comment sections on talk pages: just not conducive to cleanliness. Tezero (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Note to all that we do require our A-class articles to be GA-class first before applying. We do not have any A-class articles that are not also GAs. --PresN 06:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I am tempted to say that this idea needs to be thought of alongside the FAC thread below. If we know that FAC is lacking a rigor that we know we really want to strive for, I would propose that we aim our A class to be "as best we can assure an FAC will pass" level - meaning including the copyedit, ref checks, etc. It would be the best we know we can product while FAC may or may not happen due to increasing lack of participation there. --MASEM (t) 07:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a supportive outsider to WPVG, I can tell you that Milhist's A-class has made a big difference in getting drama and learning curves out of the way so that they aren't a drag at FAC ... but that's only because we've always been lucky enough to have people who really enjoy reviewing at A-class. Of course, anything that can be done at A-class can be done at peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So are we keeping A-class in the project? GamerPro64 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we're in favor of getting rid of the idea of "A-class" articles. That said...

Between this and the FAC thread below, I've been thinking about what we can do to better prepare our articles for FAC. We're seeing a lot of articles fail, often multiple times, and even the ones that make it through have a lot of work- and it's pretty much all in the prose department. We used to generally send articles to PR or GOCE before FAC, but PR barely gets any responses and GOCE takes a long time. Maybe what we should do is replace the A-class assessment process with a copyedit process. Even with the understanding that a copyedit won't prevent more prose problems being brought up at FAC, I think most of our FACs would really benefit from having someone, anyone, give it a runthrough for prose issues before nomination. Obviously the issue with a semi-formal copyedit request system is getting people to volunteer, but I think unlike the review processes a copyedit doesn't require the volunteer to take an oppose/support stand at the end, just help out a bit, so we may get more people.

Does anyone else have any ideas in the regard? It could be as informal as just a request here at this talk page, or a separate process page, or whatever, I just think that a second pair of eyes on an article before nomination is more helpful than an A-class review that takes 5 months and doesn't go too deep. --PresN 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like no one is gung-ho about a copyedit pre-review process. Since it looks like we're in favor of dropping A-class as we don't have a rigorous review process like MILHIST, I'll go ahead tomorrow and fix the templates and project pages and such to make all A-class articles be GA-class instead. --PresN 20:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If any of those articles' primary authors are interested in taking this chance to make the jump to FA... Tezero (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A-class is no more! |class=A now leaves an article as unassessed, the 42 A-class articles are now GA-class, the category is deleted and doesn't show up an any assessment table or class-listing template, and the Good article subpage doesn't list A-class articles. If anyone sees anything I missed, let me know. --PresN 21:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wish I would have known about this discussion sooner because I am against the removal of A-class. I had two articles reviewed and passed for A-class and one of those two are now FA. The other one is going to be nominated at FAC in due time. --JDC808 ♫ 18:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel similarly. I would prefer to encourage A-class review over failed FACs. Not getting A-class reviews should be a sign that it will languish at FAC. With A-class gone, we're back where we started. czar ⨹ 03:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Even though, I carried out the execution, I agree. Unfortunately, the primary cause of "not getting A-class reviews" has historically not been "because your article will languish at FAC" but was instead "asking for A-class reviews". For a few years there, asking for an A-class review meant that you'd get a response of some sort 3-6 months later, maybe. It was actually faster to just fail FAC 2-3 times instead, and you'd get more reviews. (not that I'm implying anyone ever did that.) It's a shame that we've dropped A-class reviews, but it was also a shame 5 years ago when we dropped the VG project's peer review system. We seem to have better luck getting reviews by posting in the never-ending reviews threads here (and associated begging/trading sections); maybe we should encourage people to ask for reviews of articles on this talk page before they get to FAC, instead of after? Though given the total lack of response to my above idea of setting up a copyedit request system, since that's what kills most people's FACs, I'm not holding my breath. --PresN 03:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Trail video game series

When I recently posted here about a Carmen Sandiego game I had wanted to take to GA, it was noted that there a very few if any edutainment games with great coverage here on Wikipedia. So today I wanted to quickly talk about the Trail series - one of the most lucrative and important edutainment franchises ever. You probably recognise the most famous entry The Oregon Trail ("You have died of dysentery" is something the majority of 80's kids has read), but in truth this little beast sparked an entire franchise that unfortunately is not covered very well here at all. I wanted to find out more about these games, but found that an internet search + the Wiki articles left such incredible knowledge holes that I'm left more confused than I started.

I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of y'all, as it is something a little bit different that might interest someone here. A new project to sink your teeth into. I honestly don't even know where to begin. I created a stub of one game that still didn't have an article, and created a template to house the franchise, but don't really know how to proceed. So I post this here in order to read the opinions of those more experienced in this area than I.--Coin945 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, except for games that have had lots of re-releases, many games from the 1990's have pretty rough articles, because it can be hard to get any access to the sources needed to do so. (Because they're all in print magazines, and not online.) That's probably why the first half of the the series articles are in rough shape. I imagine the second half isn't that great because its kinda lost its relevance in more modern times. Anyways, I don't have any answers for you; there's a bunch of my own articles like this I'd like to improve, but I'm stuck on the sourcing part myself... Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You probably have an added level of obscurity because they are educational titles. Would they even be covered the games press? You may need access to educational trade publications such as (the American equivalent) of TES (magazine). - hahnchen 12:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I've actually found it easier than one might think. The more recent articles are stubby because I created them yesterday and they are still relatively barebones - but there are lots of sources for them. For the older games, there are many references in texts like PC Mag, and Google Scholar journal articles to do with edutainment. There's some great reviews in old newspapers too. So it's not all bad.--Coin945 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I were you, I'd start expanding those stubs pretty quickly here. Right now, it looks like you're back to creating many extremely short, sloppy, poorly sourced articles again, something you've been warned and blocked for many times in the past... Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks can be deceiving. Just because there are more sources out there, it doesn't mean the current articles are terrible. Plus, at least they have sources. The Trail articles that were created before I took a look at them were filled entirely with fancrufty gameplay stuff with an external link to the Mobygames site. So I think my edits are a vast improvement. In any case, this isn't about me. This is about improving a franchise of articles that it is extremely hard to find coverage for. I think this Wikiproject should collectively work together on how to approach this issue.--Coin945 (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? Because this looks awful. While you've managed to avoid copyright issues that have plagued your article creation in the past, this is otherwise arguably worse than some of your other creations. There is one, singular, unreferenced sentence in the article. You also made this other marginally better article in the same day. There's a clear consensus here and here that says these short, largely unreferenced/no infobox/uncategorized messes you make are not acceptable. I'm losing patience here. Czar? PresN? Any input? Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well yes that particular article stinks. But one out of 8 aint bad. However, I'm going to fix it up now.--Coin945 (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you're expanding things, but now you're veering into your other problem you kept having: COPYVIOs. This article is currently entirely direct quotes. How can you think this is acceptable writing? Every single line is "X source said "(long direct quote)" You didn't word a single thing in your own words. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Consider that if you cannot write standalone articles but can source basic information and discussions about them, a list-style article on education video games or just one of the series can always work. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Coin, I don't understand why you keep doing this. I highly recommend that you work in topics where you don't need to write new pages, since you're repeating the same mistakes as last time. It is not okay to quote from the sources as you're doing—you have to paraphrase. What's more is that the sources used in Serge's links above do not even look reliable... There's no way that these individual games warrant their own articles in the current state of their sourcing, and you should be looking to make an article about the series (if any at all) that can have small paragraphs on what is known about each game. If you can appreciate the aforementioned articles to be a mess, they are not helped by making another somewhat tidier mess. We are not helped by having pages that say (1) the game exists, (2) two non-notable critics claim it's fun and educational. This is an encyclopedia, not a graveyard for all games ever published. As for sourcing, if you have leads on magazines that may have content, I can help in acquiring them either through the university library or the Strong Museum of Play. czar ⨹ 18:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Czar, I've blocked him again, as I found an article where he just ripped all of the quotes straight from MetaCritic, which was one of the exact things that PresN blocked him for last time. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Since he's blocked for a month, what should we do about the articles? Most of the new ones don't have much beyond copypasted quotes; it's unclear to me whether the newer Oregon Trail games are sequels or new versions or remakes, so I don't know if they can be merged into the first game's article, not to mention the non-Oregon games. List of Trail games? --PresN 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, ultimately, I think that should happen. There may be enough there to eke out some stubby articles on some of them, but it appears right now that the only person with the motivation to do this, is unwilling or unable to do it right. In the meantime, it seems like a "List of" or "series" article should envelope most of the entries... Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread 9; The Mightiest Number

Time for the next review thread to come, and we have a doozie. Several ancient FAs, a glut of GAs, and two Peer Reviews. As with previous threads, I shall remind readers and editors that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests has been backlogged since 2011. If you're interested in making any of the articles on the list, feel free.

FAC

• God of War III has been nominated since 9 January 2015. There are two supports, along with one withdrawn oppose.
• Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) has been up since January 31, with one oppose.

GAN

• Hatoful Boyfriend (nom)
• Beneath a Steel Sky (nom)
• Sarah Kerrigan (nom)
• Giant Bomb (nom)
• Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V (nom)
• Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (nom)
• Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time (nom)
• SSX 3 (nom)
• Sonic & Knuckles (nom)
• Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (nom)
• Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII (nom)
• PewDiePie (nom)
• Super Monkey Ball (video game) (nom)
• Tales of Innocence (nom)

Peer Reviews

• Sonic Adventure 2 has been up since February 9 and has no comments of any kind.
• Grow Home has been up since February 11 and has no comments of any kind.

There we are. Enjoy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Negotiation area

For exchanges and such of reviews and opinions on articles. To begin, and open myself up to something I might regret, I'll give some help to a Peer Review or FAC, or take on a GA review, in return for someone taking either Before Crisis or Tales of Innocence. I must exempt Advent Children from those I can take as I am closely involved with bringing VII-related articles to GA status as part of a small project, and thus my objectivity could be called into question. Addendum: As PresN mentioned it below, I also feel that I must exempt myself from Children of Mana as well as I did the GA review for that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was cut off anyway- as the other half of the FF7 project I can't take Before Crisis, but I can't trade you Innocence for Children of Mana since you did the GAN for it. Unless you think you can do an FAC review for the same article you did the GAN for? --PresN 18:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Either way: I'll trade a Children of Mana review for any other review, VG or otherwise. --PresN 18:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, never mind. Sega Saturn got promoted (Yay!) and Children of Mana got archived for lack of response (Boo!) so that's that, at least for a couple weeks. --PresN 07:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already reviewed God of War III and Grow Home (now at GAN, if anyone's interested in that), but I'll take a GA review for anyone in exchange for a review of Sonic 1 (whose Oppose I believe I've addressed to the best of my ability and the voter's inactivity) or of the PR for Sonic Adventure 2. Tezero (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take it on. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll do Innocence, then; thanks. Tezero (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll review a GAN in exchange for someone reviewing SSX 3. I nominated it a while back and it hasn't received much attention. I haven't reviewed an article before, but I'll try my best. BlookerG ^talk 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Questing regarding Twitter as a source

If a developer of a game posts something on Twitter that confirms that a game will or won't have a feature, is it acceptable to use that Twitter post as a source?

This is the particular sentence in question:

Christer Ericson of SCE Santa Monica Studio wrote on his Twitter page that God of War III has seamless loading; no loading screens and no hard disk drive installation requirement. source. --JDC808 ♫ 02:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but with this particular post you'd want to make sure you're obeying the neutrality guidelines; these look like features it would be in a developer's objective best interest to claim. Tezero (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as its confirmed that its someone's Twitter account, then it can be used in the same manner than any 1st party source can be used. (ie, couldn't be used towards meeting the WP:GNG, you wouldn't want to quote something like Nickelback's twitter account claim of being "America's favorite band", because it'd obviously be a biased subjective claim, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Twitter can be used, sure. The sentence in the article reads: "Head of development Christer Ericson of SCE Santa Monica Studio confirmed that God of War III has seamless loading; no loading screens and no hard disk drive installation requirement". Didn't any preview or review mention this? A third-party source might be better about the game's features. Assuming that the game actually does have those features, I think the bit can be rewritten to say something like "God of War III no loading screens, without any hard disk installation requirement", without mentioning it being confirmed by Ericson. --Soetermans. T / C 14:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I found a third party source that mentions the no loading screens and no installation. This Eurogamer article is pretty in depth, so it's probably worth replacing the twitter source. The1337gamer (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the responses. --JDC808 ♫ 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is "universal critical acclaim"?

This probably sounds like a stupid question, but what exactly does it mean for a game, movie, or whatever to have universal critical acclaim? Does that mean every reviewer gave it a perfect score? Basically, there are no flaws?

I ask this because I'm having an issue with its inclusion in an article. On God of War III's FAC, there's a reviewer (a non-gamer) who has an issue with including the statement because there are mixed reviews in the reception section. I explained (and linked) him to Metacritic where it shows the score range a game must have to be universally critically acclaimed (which is 90-100). He said that although that's Metacritic's scoring, it's not actually universal acclaim. He said that although gamers would understand the Metacritic scoring, non-gamers wouldn't. Have any of you dealt with this and how did you resolve it? --JDC808 ♫ 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I remember the same discussion about the definition of "universal" on a Zelda page a few years ago, I'll try to find it -- maybe Sergecross73 remembers? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

((edit conflict), kind of funny, I was already writing it as Salv pinged me!) I always discourage the use of the "universal" part, for the very reason you mentioned - it leaves zero room for any differing opinion. That was also the outcome of a massive RFC for Skyward Sword upon its release, in the same situation. It's also kind of unnecessary. "Critical acclaim" is already very strong wording. It's kinda comparable to saying "Really very good" when "very good" gets the point across just fine. Just use "critical acclaim", unless you're explicitely direct quoting Metacritics description and giving it proper context as such. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The massive discussion is here. If you don't have much of a stomach for tons of arguing, I'd just skip the the actual RFC subsection of it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I dropped "universal" from the lead and beginning of reception, but state that Metacritic describes their score as "universal acclaim". --JDC808 ♫ 00:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And, just for the sake of completeness, a follow-up discussion happened on WT:VG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I saw that the RFC referred to us discussing it here too, but the link I tried to the discussion didn't appear to work, so I hadn't added it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Stuff like "widespread critical acclaim" and "overwhelming critical acclaim" are also non-neutral. As Sergecross says, "critical acclaim" is already very strong wording, and should only be used when all reviews by reliable sources are very positive. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

New Spectrum book

New to the reference library: The Story of the ZX Spectrum in Pixels by Chris Wilkins. Published in 2014 after a Kickstarter campaign. Has a history and descriptions of the various Spectrum models, two-page spreads of important games, and first-person accounts by many developers. Ylee (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just curious. Is the copy of this that's linked to from the Reference library legitimate? This book came out less than six months ago so should still be covered by copyright. I'm just a bit worried that we're linking to material that we shouldn't be. - X201 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, if Nintendo makes it's rumored new console...

Would Nintendo's rumored new console be part of the 8th or 9th generation of video game consoles? They seemed to beat the other two (Sony and Microsoft) to the punch on the eighth generation, but I don't see Sony or Microsoft releasing a new system for at least another 6-or-so years. So, if Nintendo's new platform comes out in the next couple of years (the Wii U has already been release to the public for over two years, bearing the other two major consoles by about a year), what generation would that console belong? Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We should cross that bridge when we have to. It's either going to be sub-scripted in the current gen or a in a new generation if Sony and Microsoft do something. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, we can't make any assumptions now. Rumours like these are usually "leaked" from first party sources anyway, so it's best to see what happens in the coming year. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There are far too many "ifs" in that scenario to make a call on that. We'll likely go based off of what reliable sources call it, because every seems to have their own personal opinion on what defines a generation, and we collectively seem to have a hard time coming up with a definition beyond that. But yeah, its a ways off, we don't even know if that'll happen this year, and that's just a first announcement, the actual release would be even farther out... Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to go with what the video game industry and video game journalism will call it. Sometimes even annoyingly so, like calling PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 "last generation", and PlayStation 4 and Xbox One "next generation". --Soetermans. T / C 14:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Is WP:VG giving too much weight to numbers?

As per EuroGamer, Kotaku, Joystiq, Rock, Paper,Shotgun and any others I've missed, do we need to look at the project's use (or over-use) of numbers to indicate a game's quality? The content of VGReviews will already be biased by the fact that the sites listed above either aren't listed in it at all, or will only be listed at certain times (e.g EuroGamer "Recommended" award). If the template is there to give a quick snapshot of reviews, then it is failing, due to the fact that it can only give a snapshot of sites that assign review scores, this is in itself and in-built bias towards those sites and could start to raise the NPOV question.

A similar problem is the use of MetaCritic in the template, if scores from EuroGamer et al are not going to be included in MetaCritic, then again, we're using a skewed figure that doesn't represent the opinions of a number of key websites.

I think we need to talk about the above, just to see if they really are problems and what we can do about it if they are.. - X201 (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm personally on TotalBiscuit's side with regards to arbitrary scores and things, so I agree that we need to rely less on them, particularly as some big sites are beginning to move away from using them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't feel that a template on the side is too much weight. I think its becoming less encompassing than it once was, true, but there's still a lot of sources that use review scores too. Like it or not, the industry places a lot of emphasis on review score and MC scores, so I don't think it makes sense to remove it. Equally important - I believe it would be a maintenance nightmare to attempt to not use them anymore. Yeah, sure, there's a strong core of 10-20 of us here who would follow it, but there's hundreds and thousands of other editors that edit more casually who are constantly going to be re-adding it because they won't understand or won't agree. I, for one, don't want to be the person reminding CasualEditor57 for the millionth time why it was okay for Halo 5 to have a reviewbox, but not Halo 6. Even if I did want to, I think it'd honestly be about as effective as our "No using Gamefaqs for release dates" stance - largely ignored. The industry and the fans care about it too much, and we don't have a concrete/objective enough reason to change yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The caution on the review score table is that it should not be a crutch for good prose describing the reception of the game - it is to give a highlights of the most RS sources that give reviews to understand how the reviews break down. There's a difference between a game that gets a score of, say, 8/10 with a +/-1 variance, and a game that gets a bunch of 9s and 10s, and a number of 4s and 5s as to average out to 8, and the table should at least make that clear on sight, but the prose definitely then should talk about the difference of opinion on the game. (For example, Goat Simulator has that wide variance.) As such, this is why the review table should not be overloaded with reviews, but generally between 5 to 8 prime sources in addition to aggregates. And agreed on Serge's last point - while there are signs the industry is moving past review scores, it is not there yet and it still remains a significant measure for the industry at least towards AAA publishers. We should still be doing that since this is the data that the industry is based around. Maybe someday we'll have a system based more on the Rotten Tomatoes approach for films, where it's fresh or not, but we're not there yet. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are aligned with Masem's. People should be taking care not to rely on the numbers anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We give the numbers as much weight as the reliable secondary sources and the games industry does. Aside from our massive undue support for Gamerankings, this is the correct approach. It's the prose that counts, the box merely serves as a way to excise clumsy percentages from that prose and acts as a sanity check for the prose. - hahnchen 19:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with Masem as well. I don't find the template to suffer from undue weight and can be a good way to provide "at a glance" info about a game that is supported by the text. In the same way that some commenters snidely remark that a review "reads like a 7/10", I think it's very important that the Reception section read like the scores it supposedly represents. If there's a mixed reception, represent each side to the degree they're supported by reviews. I don't think the project needs to change its MoS with respect to how we write Reception sections. The only difference I see is when citing a review from a publication that no longer uses review scores, like Eurogamer, and taking care to explain their "Recommendation" or lack thereof. In other news, quick plug for the issue I brought up one section above related to the VGReviews code. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Massive undue support"? What are you talking about? We include GameRankings pages when they exist; if not, we don't. If this is about GameRankings supposedly not being used in the game industry, that notion was debunked on a thread about this template a few months ago. Tezero (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't "debunked", WP:VG just said they liked Gamerankings. "We include GameRankings pages when they exist" = undue weight. Compare the prevalence of Gamerankings to Metacritic in the industry. Just search on Google News. See how Eurogamer doesn't mention Gamerankings at all. According to SimilarWeb, Wikipedia accounts for the majority of referrals to the website. - hahnchen 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the lesser of two evils to include GameRankings instead of allowing Metacritic to extend its mindshare monopoly to Wikipedia as well. There is a shortage of review aggregators since Metacritic is so popular so any other voice is welcome. Using Metacritic as the only listing for aggregate reviews confers way more tacit undue approval than including GameRankings and having it appear visually to have the same weight as Metacritic. Axem Titanium (talk)

(Edit conflict) Maybe someone else here can find that discussion, but we did locate a few instances of major companies, like Ubisoft, considering its scores. We've also decided it's useful because of the breadth of scores it includes and calculating them in a different way from Metacritic. Tezero (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Axem, This was one of the arguments. Because some editors don't like Metacritic, our entirely original Wikipedia-only, not enacted by any other publication solution, was to promote Gamerankings. An editors opinion of Metacritic is irrelevant, its position in the industry is not. Tezero, the previous discussion is here. Yes in very few instances gamerankings was mentioned in reliable sources, yet "We include GameRankings pages when they exist". - hahnchen 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure when Tezero said "debunked" he just meant that was a pretty strong consensus against your stance in the link you gave, which seems pretty spot on. You were literally the only person who chose a "discourage GR's use" stance, in a discussion with 10+ participants. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:VG acknowledges and endorses the undue weight placed upon Gamerankings. - hahnchen 17:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on, are you really so stuck in your mindset that you have to try to skew it like that? It seemed much more like "WP:VG acknowledged the weight, but didn't deem it undue, and endorsed its use." Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamerankings has the vast majority of its referred traffic arrive from Wikipedia, it is mentioned by reliable sources at least ten times less than Metacritic, it is ranked by every traffic ranking site as being less popular than http://pcgamesn.com, yet we place it on as many articles as possible and continue to do so. And you do not deem it undue. - hahnchen 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not "scalable" though. Both are mentioned basically one time per article. It's not like you could mention GR 1/10th of the time as MC in an article. It's one brief, sourced mention of a number that exactly matches the source. I'd understand your argument if we had dedicated paragraphs to the respective aggregators, but it's literally nothing but a bare percentage that is presented 1-2 times in an article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic is the industry standard 100% of the time. Use GameRankings only when there is no Metascore, or if a secondary source uses it. If GameRankings is so small, why are we still doing it? Stop asking what it would take away, and ask what it adds. I find out hard to believe that tens of thousands of links across tens of thousands of articles is somehow small. Our readers and the industry care little for GameRankings, it's Wikipedians that love it so much, but who are we to promote that onto others? I'm not proposing a wholesale bot excise of GameRankings, but Template:Video_game_reviews#Guidelines should be edited to state one aggregate as the norm, and that to "stay with the 'usual suspects'" means Metacritic, not GameRankings. I'd also edit the template itself so that Metacritic is above GameRankings, unlike the big list of publications, there's no debate here as to which aggregator is the most important. - hahnchen 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, your whole argument falls apart when you look at the context of how we actually use it. There's no grand scheme of promotion or heavy weight or attention given to the site. It's literally just a half sentence that reads "and a XX% score from GameRankings based on Y number of reviews." Anyways, I'll drop it now though, as it clear you're not swaying anyone with your ludicrous argument, then or now. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Because no one is maliciously scheming to promote GameRankings, it isn't a problem? Whether or not there's a "grand scheme" to promote GameRankings does not detract from the fact that GameRankings enjoys a protected reach on Wikipedia which vastly outstrips its place in the industry. "Literally just half a sentence", how about an external link to Zero Punctuation on every article? That'd probably be too small fry for you to care about. - hahnchen 15:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Here, I'll pose a question, since I personally don't see purely numerical consensus as particularly useful, even though in this case it's running in my favor. What do we lose by allowing GameRankings in cases where Metacritic is available? I genuinely don't get that. I don't see a reliability issue - is it that it's a slippery slope to including less notable sites? (If so, could we set a bar somewhere?) Is it that allowing it will shift convention toward demanding it and that's a lot of work? Is it a template-size issue? Is it that it's seen as excessively redundant? Tezero (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What GR provides - given that they have, as documented, a flat average system that perhaps encompasses a larger number of sites, is a second method of getting what the average review score is to MC. 90% of the time, the MC and GR rankings might be off by 1-2% at most, but on a few titles there is a larger difference (no more than 10% in the worst cases I've seen) that usually have a lower GR as they encompass the broader array of sites. Having the second GR score in addition to the MC score does not harm anyone's understanding (and in fact improves the resource pool for readers looking for information) to glean from . --MASEM (t) 22:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You could say this for any aggregator. You could just add more scores to the VG table and "improve the resource pool", but we do not do this for any other resource aside from GameRankings. The VG table is not the external links, it's in the middle of the article, not a jumping off point at the end. Readers look to the table for the aggregate score, they accept Metacritic, the industry accepts it. Wikipedians say thats not good enough. Requiring a second method for aggregate scoring is not supported by our secondary sources. If you have issues with Metacritic, that's fine, but you have an issue with the games industry. Wikipedians should not be promoting their own remedy for a reality they don't like.

I'm not arguing for the removal of all GameRankings scores, for some games, there are no alternatives, and in some cases, reliable secondary sources may actually quote GameRankings. But if you're going to talk undue weight in our numbers, only one stands out. - hahnchen 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional scores in the table aren't really a good analogy; we don't limit them because they're deemed redundant or "undue weight", but because we've decided that we shouldn't include scores in a table that we don't elaborate on in prose, and adequately representing more than maybe 10-12 scores in prose could take an enormous amount of text and be hard to read. GameRankings suffers no such problem, even when combined with several other aggregators, because they're just single scores that take up one line each of the table and only a small part of the prose. Tezero (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We do limit them because of weight, this is why they're usually the most popular and influential publications, the same publications we use in the prose. We place IGN in the prose and in the table, because we know that IGN satisfies the games industry and our readership (I don't like IGN but use them anyway). We place Gamerankings in the table because it satisfies the whims of the editor. You are talking about a single redundant line replicated on every single games article, a line that drives the majority of Gamerankings referrals, and which is often clumsy. In many cases, Gamerankings isn't referred to in the prose at all. Why would it be when you have Metacritic? And yet GameRankings sits at the head of the table, sometimes in a gang of six. - hahnchen 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realised that Template:Video_game_series_reviews forces you to include GameRankings. - hahnchen 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Review scores

I've been adding review information from magazines like Electronic Gaming Monthly and GamePro for some months now, and it's become clear to me that there's a difference of opinion on how the review scores for these publications should be represented.

• Electronic Gaming Monthly uses a panel of four reviewers which each give their own score on a scale of 1 to 10. No single consensus score appears in their reviews, but in places like their buyers' guides and top 50 games of the year, they use an average of the four reviewers' scores as the game's official score, so I've been taking their lead and doing that. However, some editors instead use the total of the four reviewers' scores. For example, where EGM and I use 6.75 out of 10, another editor might write 27 out of 40.
• GamePro does not provide a single score at all. They give scores in four categories (graphics, control, sound, and FunFactor), but I have not seen any indication that they consider these four categories to all be equally important. Despite this, many editors post GamePro scores, using either the average of the four category scores, or the total of those scores. In a number of cases I've added a summary of a GamePro review to an article, and immediately after an editor has stepped in to add a score to the summary.

How does project consensus say we should represent scores for these publications? I still think we should use each gaming publication's own scoring system (or lack thereof) rather than making up our own, but I'll happily bow to whatever the consensus is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

With EGM, we should suggest the average score, but the total score is fine as long as it is presented "27/40" to show what the maximum is. (I assume that the math works out right that it is a straight up average for that). I'd avoid including GamePro scores in the table - just because the review is used in prose does not require it to be summarized in the table, and there's no simple way to summarize 4 separate scores without engaging in OR (the averaging). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I really like using either of these scores. Taking the average from the four Electronic Gaming Monthly scores doesn't seem that bad for the role these scores play in our articles, but I don't really see the point of doing that. "making up" an out-of-context score from the four GamePro scores doesn't seem right to me, as we have no right of deciding the value of each of the grades, nor can we even know if any of the four accurately show the value of the game in general. Since GamePro doesn't use their scores in such a way either, we probably shouldn't. That, and again, I don't really see the point. The prose is as always way more important and of interest than those grades at the end. ~Mable (chat) 20:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I think of it, using the Famitsu approach for EGM would be better (showing all four scores). I'm still not sure on GamePro, however. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Use the individual scores from EGM. If you use the total score in the table, insert a note indication the separate scores. Do the same for Famitsu. A game receiving 9/10, 9/10, 9/10, 1/10 is different to a game receiving 7/10, 7/10, 7/10, 7/10. I've previously mentioned this at FAC. - hahnchen 22:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

While I doubt that we will ever get a case of three nines and a one there are actual cases were simply listing the average would skewed the facts. For example, the average of the EGM scores for Starfox Adventure was 7.1666.... but that average does not take into account that the actual scores were 8, 9 and 4.5. While EGM is not listed in the table for that game it would be true that if it was, and we only listed the average, it would hide the fact that there was a significant discepency between the scores.--67.68.30.254 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the replies. I'm sorry I'm coming in late with a follow-up question, but as far as variations in EGM's individual review scores, when that happens I've just been noting it in the prose, e.g. instead of "Electronic Gaming Monthly gave it a mixed review", I write "The four reviewers of Electronic Gaming Monthly were divided about the game. Two of them said blah blah blah while the other two said bleh bleh bleh." Is this insufficient? The thing is, while variations in their individual scores do occur, they are not nearly as common as you'd think. It is extremely rare that EGM's highest and lowest scores for a game differ by more than two points, and I've never seen a variation on the level hahnchen suggests. It just seems a bit tedious to list all four review scores when it's mostly along the lines of 6/10, 6/10, 6/10, 7/10.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No Martin, explaining it in the prose like that is perfect and is exactly what you should do. I simply don't recommend trying to at the scores in somekind of table just for the sake of it. The table can be used for a quick overview, but if you have to overcomplicate the table and skew the numbers in the table, then I think you'd be losing sight of what is important. Again, generally, there are plenty of reviews to put in such a table, meaning that it is easy to avoid such situations. ~Mable (chat) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Who made the Reception charts very big?

I noticed a few minutes ago that the Reception charts are suddenly made very big. I have a feeling that they may be too big for article pages. Like this one, for example. Who made these Reception charts so big? Can something be done to make them normal-sized again? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Koavf, at Module:Video game reviews. Reverting, no discussion was held at the template talk or here for a change to a large-use template. --PresN 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreaciate your help. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Angeldeb82: But they're not "normal-sized": the module makes text which is 80% the size of the default: this is almost unreadable in some templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, there's something going on wrong with the template. It looks like the VG article you were editing that you saw a problem in was Apotheon, and I agree- that reviews box is tiny. But look at Children of Mana - same template ({{Video game reviews}}), but actually readable. Something about adding the "platform" columns shrinks the text even more. I'll look into it. --PresN 03:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, think I've got it. That's some... interesting Lua code, at least as far as CSS goes. It shrinks the text down for the table, then undoes some of that shrinking for certain cells- but wasn't undoing it for tables with multiple systems; instead of 88% size, you'd get 70%. Should be fixed now. --PresN 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Another 3 questions

Hi everyone! I would like to ask another 3 different questions.
1. I would like to know whether a video game gone gold is notable to mentioned in the development section. I tend to add them to articles every time when critics made stories about them but are these information necessary?

2. This one is a very minor question. It is about the position of the review template. For example. If an article have both pre-release subsection and post-release subsection, would it be more sensible to put the template along with the post-release section since scores were issued after the game's release? I always found that the template was placed/moved next to the pre-release section like this and this

3. This is also a very minor question. I wonder if information about reception is appropriate for the lead section or not. It often get removed like this

— AdrianGamer (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I see no problem with mentioning when the game went gold.
• I personally find the pre-release/post-release subsections odd. It just depends on how it's done I guess.
• Reception in lead is appropriate, especially for higher quality articles. --JDC808 ♫ 04:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dying Light edit you linked in question 3 happened because the Lead had more detailed information than the Reception section itself. Keep it brief when mentioning reception in the Lead, maybe one or two lines. BlookerG ^talk 08:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with removing reception paragraphs from the lead, just because the actual reception section misses such a summary. We should either add one there, or trim the reception paragraph in the lead. Outright removing it isn't the way to go. --Soetermans. T / C 09:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Two questions on categorising video game franchises.

1. If a franchise article page is placed in subcategory Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2007 should it be removed from the parent category Category:Video game franchises? Going by WP:CAT#Categorizing pages I'm guessing it should be removed from the parent category. Currently, some articles are in both, some only in subcategory, and some only in parent category.

2. On Category: Video game franchises, under Subcategories do the eponymous franchise categories need moving under Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises‎? Again there doesn't seem to be any consistency at the moment.

Just checking I got things right before I make changes. – The1337gamer (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that category has already been removed from Category:Video game franchises. At first glance, I'd think its parent category should be Category:2007 video games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's still there as a sub-subcategory, it's listed under Category:Video game franchises by year which is a subcategory of Category:Video game franchises. I think Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2007 should be removed from Category:2007 video games because the former is for franchise article pages and the later for game article pages. Same goes for other years. The1337gamer (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Which source is more "reliable"?

Hi guys! While read Color TV-Game, I found an opposition between two sources. The one is from the book Game Over, now listed in article, said Color TV-Game 6 and Color TV-Game 15 were sold one million units each; while the another one I found is from Japanese media Nikkei Business Publications, said the totally sales is one million, Color TV-Game 15 is 700,000 and Color TV-Game 6 is 300,000, respectively. I'm not familar with guidelines, we source which one, or both?

The Nikkei BP source said: "The two video game consoles of Nintendo have been sold about 1 million units in total. More than 70% of the sales are from the console priced 15,000 Yen." (任天堂は二つのゲーム機を合計で約100万台販売した。販売台数の7割以上が1万5000円の機種だった。) --CAS222222221 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is one of the sources more recent than the other? i.e. could it be the case that they ended up selling a million each and one story is just behind the other? Sam Walton (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The one is on 1993 and the one is on 1994, while the lifespan of Color TV-Game is 1977 to 1980. --CAS222222221 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe both sources are reliable. I think usually you'd go with the sales figures you see replicated in the most sources, but I imagine there's a limited amount of sources reporting on this. If you can't find out which one is correct, you could always list both, attributing each source for each figure in the writing. ("According to figures from Game Over, it sold "x" units", for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Category - "Role-playing video games introduced in 2015" Question

Okay, so I keep seeing a certain category being added to a bunch of articles on my watchlist, and I wanted to double check here before I start reverting, in case I'm wrong.

Here's an example of what I mean. The category "Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 2015" is being added to games like Xenoblade Chronicles X. My concerns are:

1. This game is not out yet. Its set for a 2015 release date, but is not out yet, or necessarily guaranteed to release this year. The fact that the category is in past tense makes me think this should only be tagged for articles already released in 2015.
2. If "introduced" refers to something besides release, like when the game was first announced, then that doesn't fit either. The game was revealed in concept in 2013, and by official name in 2014, for example.

Am I missing something? Or does this need to be removed? Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this category... useful? I mean, is it going to be expanded back through the years as well? What about all the other genres? We already have genre categories and "released in year" categories. Is this a subcat of both the "RPG" category and the "Released in 2015" category? Nevermind, I see there's dozens and dozens of these categories already populated... I have no relevant input. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduced does sound a bit off to me, how is it "introduced"? Like Serge said, the game was unveiled or announced in 2013, and Chronicles X is not out just yet this year. It isn't the first Xenoblade game either, which could make it the introduction to a series, but that would still be a wrong category (or at least not correctly named). I think it should be "released", like "scheduled for release in..." and later on "released in..." because that doesn't leave any room for confusion, at least to me. --Soetermans. T / C 14:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've always struggled to understand the "introduced" categories, I thought they were there to indicate the first appearance of a series (like on the opening credits of a film or TV show : "Introducing Sergecross as...") not to catalogue individual games. - X201 (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This was how I had previously seen the category used. I also thought it was applied inappropriately on games that have yet to be released. Something like "2015 role-playing games" would be a fine intersection of "released in 2015" and "RPGs", no? We currently have the whole Category:2014 MMORPGs and Category:MMORPGs by year. czar ⨹ 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, I rarely deal with categories other than putting a few very obvious ones on the article's I create; can you just "move/rename" a category in the same manner you can an article? Or would it be better to delete this one and create a new one? Any help would be appreciated. I normally wouldn't be all that concerned, but as I said, it, and similar ones, have been making it on my watchlist lately, and I know it needs fixing, but just wasn't sure how to go about doing it... Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think if we do keep this is should only used for the year of the first entry in a RPGS series, not the latest entry in an established series. At the very least the category should be removed from Xenoblade Chronicles X since that was not the game that started the series.--64.229.166.239 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduced would make sense if it was the "introduction" of a franchise. Final Fantasy could have "Role-playing video game series introduced in 1987" as a category, for example. It currently has "Video game franchises introduced in 1987". I guess that's better anyway. One does not introduce a game, it gets either released or announced. Xenoblade Chronicles X could have a "2015 role-playing video games" category (if it isn't considered Christal ball or something). Probably an category's title worth changing. ~Mable (chat) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(We get around the crystal ball by putting forthcoming games in the "Upcoming video games scheduled for 2015" category; since that list is pretty small comparatively it doesn't get broken down by genre the way the released games categories do.) --PresN 19:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This subject has been nagging me all week. I've just done a bit of digging and I've just dug this out (User_talk:Mindmatrix/December_2014#Dispersion_of_year_categories_by_genre) I knew it rang a bell. I contacted the user that created them last year, as they were going against our consensus on WP:DUPCAT, I hadn't seen their additional explanation until this morning. It seems the user was trying to create something akin to Category:2007 role-playing video games and instead decided upon a different naming structure to fit in with different projects. I think a mass category rename is in order to avoid the confusion that "introduced" has introduced. - X201 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Prodding @Sergecross73: just to make sure he's seen the above. - X201 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I did read this, I just haven't been around that much the last few days. I agree with what you say, I believe it should be changed or deleted. I was hoping someone else would take the lead on this though, as I'm not expert with categories. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:GamloftLifeSimulationGames

If someone has a chance to look into notability on this bunch (I believe it's the same author), it looks to me like they should largely remain redirects. I'm on the run right now. czar ⨹ 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Success in the City looks like it establishes notability. Friends for Life and Singles in the City do not appear to do so. Paris Nights is questionable, though rough assessment leans toward not.

I would suggest a merge for all involved, even for Success. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just moved the template to Template:Gameloft social simulation games. --Soetermans. T / C 13:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Infobox credits

If a game does not list anybody as a director or co-director, but a member/s of a development team are listed as a development director/s, can I place them in the infobox as directors? BlookerG ^talk 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We generally suggest avoiding listing these type of credits unless the person is notable (that is, having a blue-linked article here). Thus for titles like any Final Fantasy game, a lot of these will be listed out since these people are all notable, but for many indie games or the like, even if the credits have a director, its not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. BlookerG ^talk 23:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Brainbread

I've just stumbled across these two articles(BrainBread (Half Life Mod) and Brainbread 2, I can't find a reliable source for either. If someone wants to try before I AFD them, feel free. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: GDC

With the 2015 main GDC conference on us, it is a good reminder that their Flickr photostream [1] in CC-BY licenses , meaning they are great pictures to illustrate articles, particularly to illustrate major devs, etc. These can be uploaded to commons, just make sure to tag them with the "Game Developers Conference 2015" category there. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this reminds me. I've been meaning to ask someone about this but never got around to doing it... Two years ago, video game director Kotaro Uchikoshi attended GDC, and only one single person seems to have taken a photo of him. Uchikoshi is not a very public person, so I dunno if there would be an opportunity to take a photo of him again anytime soon. I'd ask the photographer politely if they'd be willing to release the photo under a Commons-friendly license, but I don't know much about copyright law or what would be needed to do this. Is there anyone who's knowledgeable and willing to try? IDV^talk 05:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

GDC is a public place, and unless there was any known specific restrictions on photography there (unlikely), the picture would be appropriate to use if you could get the proper release from the photographer. The easy way to do it is send him a message to ask him to put the photo on flickr as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (what we treat as free licenses), but you can also review WP:CONSENT for getting such permission. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually send a flickr mail to the photo holder asking if they're willing to re-license it to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or public domain so that it can be used in X article. Slap a prefix to the mail to the affect that "I'm a Wikipedia editor that's currently working in X topic area, which doesn't have a photo of person Y, and noticed they had one." I've had a pretty good success rate with that. Changing licenses on Flickr is something most users understand, unlike sending the picture in an email to OTRS, which is really easy to mess up. --PresN 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Also: Even though there's 136 pages of photos, actually (as of this writing) only the first 6 pages are GDC15, after that it goes back in time to GDC Europe 2014, etc. --PresN 06:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Survival game request and category confusion

Survival games have been one of the hottest genres of the last few years. A survival game is not a survival horror game, yet currently still redirects to it. What's even more confusing is that we don't have a survival horror category, but instead place everything into Category:Survival video games. There's also Category:Horror games, Category:Horror video games and Category:Psychological horror games (which itself is a poorly defined subset of survival horror).

If anyone has time, I'm sure a survival game article would be a rewarding project, can't be that many opportunities to start a new genre article. - hahnchen 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As a note, there are at least a few articles that can be used to build out a genre page [2], [3]. I do agree this needs to be separated from the survivor-horror genre. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. Concept has been popular in the indie game scene for quite awhile now, and it has roots at least back to Robinson's Requiem—probably earlier. Definitely a distinct and notable genre. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, a survival game article is a good idea, with games like Don't Starve, Rust and DayZ. About the categories, I think we've agreed that video game genres are based upon gameplay and not narrative. Still we do have categories like "horror games", "horror video games" and "psychological horror games". For the last one, I had to remove it a couple of times from the infobox and the lead (usually by rewording it a bit), like on Condemned, Alan Wake, Manhunt, Deadly Premonition. The psychological horror category lead reads: "Psychological horror games are a new breed of horror games that attempt to frighten or affect the player with a reality of the situation given in the game. Even going as far as to deliberately take the player out of the game for a moment to directly challenge the player's psyche." It lists 1995's Clock Tower, so how these are "new" isn't exactly clear. "To frighten or affect the player with a reality of the situation given in the game" isn't necessarily just for "psychological horror" games, as Resident Evil 2's dog through the window bit can definitely frighten the player with that situation. BioShock also has a couple of scary moments (finding the shotgun and being surrounded by Splicers), but that isn't "psychological", but "would you kindly?" might just be. I think we should either rename them to something like "games with horror elements" or "games with a psychological horror narrative" and emphasize that this doesn't say anything about the gameplay. --Soetermans. T / C 13:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for the creation of an article and category, however there is one small disambiguation problem to think about. In Japan, survival game refers to outdoor airsoft competitions. In the English language, the videogame genre is more likely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but as a global website there will be some non-native speakers searching for the alternate definition, so it's best to add a disambiguation hatnote at the top or something. This is nothing overly big or problematic, but small things still need to be nitpicked at. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This project has 478 faulty articles.

In a desperate attempt for you to keep reading I want to say now ITS EASY TO FIX, you won't believe how easy to fix it is, there's even a tool to help you, it finds the fault and tells you what it is, all you have to do is make the edit.

Hopefully you're still reading.

This project has 478 faulty articles, including Featured Articles and Good Articles. The fault is caused by a template field being duplicated; so it may be the media field appearing twice in the infobox or accessdate appearing twice in a reference or IGN being listed twice in the reviews box. The problem is that this can cause readers to see the wrong info as the template will obviously only display one field call, so incorrect or out of date info could be being displayed to users.

If this project clears this 478 articles we'll be the only WikiProject without an article in the obscenely large Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.

The tool and simple usage instructions are available from here.

Then, all you have to do is:

1. Pick one of the articles from here
2. Fix it.
3. Delete the page that you've fixed from the list.

Thanks in advance for any help. - X201 (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I did 50 for today, hope it alleviates a bit of the workload. If each person does 50, we would only need 9 people participating, and this WikiProject should have something like a few hundred members. If I wake up tomorrow morning and there's still some left, I'll do another 50. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We're down to 292 already, it really is quite easy. --PresN 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Huge thanks to Benlisquare, Freikorp, AdrianGamer, PresN and The1337gamer. The list is down to 161 already. Thanks for your help. - X201 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks everyone, a brilliant team effort. It was great fun watching the list shrinking by the minute as The1337gamer and AdrianGamer attacked it this morning. - X201 (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) . - X201 (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, all, but please mark these edits as minor next time? The work's appreciated but my feed is flooded with these uncontroversial template syntax fixes. czar ⨹ 12:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you block all minor edits from being on your watchlist? I find that these "minor edits" are commonly the most ripe for vandalism... Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I do—saves a lot of time and definitely worth the cost-benefit. Almost all obvious vandalism is picked up by the anti-vandal tools, so I focus more on content changes (and when I edit, I tend to review all recent edits) czar ⨹ 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Maldita Castilla computer game has been edited by me and still requires an info box. This article appears in the March 2015 list of articles requiring editing. Having edited it I have marked it

According to the information editing was first requested Feb 2012. Please add the info box. Isthisuseful (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for more information from an editor

Hi. I'm in the process of getting WP:GAMES on it's feet and there's a recent request on WT:GAMES from an editor for more information(?) in the Asphalt_8:_Airborne article. Cheers. - Mattwheatley (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

K, because there are more cars and tracks in the game than shown on the Wikipedia article, also, there are new sound tracks and the sound tracks do not have links going to thier wikipeages, so ya. Doorknob747 14:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)

User rearranging infobox platform items

ClassicOnAStick (talk · contribs) is systematically going through game articles and rearranging their platform order from comma-separated to line break-separated apropos of nothing. They have been warned in the past, if you view their talk page history. I don't have time to look into this right now, if someone else can. czar ⨹ 22:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: This might be WP:ANI worthy. He's had a lot of comments about his editing and responded to none of them in any great amount of substance (if at all). --Izno (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i'll stop, I thought it looked better my way. But oh well. Rewind Wrestling (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting some extra help in Ratchet & Clank (series article)

Hey! Not sure if this the right place to go asking for this, but I'd like some help trying to bring the Ratchet & Clank series article up to snuff-- there's a couple of things I'm trying to get organised that would be a lot easier with an extra set of hands, since I'm not a super experienced editor, and the talkpage is as dead as doornails.

• Primarily, the article needs a Reception section. All the review percentages and data have been stuck in as tables (one for the "main" series, one for the "future" series released on the PS3) next to the synopses of the separate installments of the series, and since I'm in the process of crafting a game release timeline to put in that space I wanted to allocate the reviews/reception data into its own section as that's where it normally goes.
• I also need some additional opinions re: content cleanup; what belongs in the article, what doesn't, giving it more of an encyclopedic polish. Main areas of concern right now are the release details in each installment overview of the Games section-- compare to Metroid's, where each only covers the gist of the game itself and leaves coverage of the relase details to each game's main article-- and the Merchandising/other media section (not even Pokemon has a merch section, so personally I think there's no reason for merch-related content to be there at all).

Anyone up for it? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the reception should be about the series as a whole (as much as possible) and that if there's enough content for a "marketing" section, that's a broader subject than simply "merchandising". czar ⨹ 17:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm working on consolidating all the review scores into one table in my sandbox right now, and in addition to that I'm going to try to do some research and form an overview paragraph of RS-covered reception of the series as a whole. As far as the prospective Marketing section goes, I haven't been able to find a whole lot of notable or reliable material about the franchise's marketing campaigns aside from a weapon design contest to promote one of the later games-- just really minor stuff like collector's editions, preorder content and the like. Probably not enough to warrant considerable coverage in the article for the whole series. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Official Xbox Magazine links broken

Future have just moved OXM across to GamesRadar. All their links no longer work and their old material has not transferred across to the new domain.

Future have recently closed various websites and publications such as C&VG and Official Nintendo Magazine. Did we do anything about those? Are there any bots on Wikipedia where we can request mass archive link updates for an entire domain? - hahnchen 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There was some previous discussion about it here. There, User:PresN generated a list of Wikipedia's links to pages on the C&VG site and their corresponding archive.org URLs.

Edge reviews, Time Extends and Making Ofs seem fairly well preserved on archive.org, as well. (Although the recent page announcing the GamesRadar move hadn't been backed up; for that one I had to find a Google Cache version. Does anyone know how well Google Cache versions stay working if you access them via direct URL links?) --Nick R^Talk 19:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Google cache goes away after a while, I believe- there's no guarantee that it will stick around. You might be able to archive the cached version at webcite, though. --PresN 20:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that the article had not been updated yet, so I had to update it further to include the closure. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The magazine is still in publication, but the website has been moved across to gamesradar without preserving the old content. Same thing happened with Edge. - hahnchen 01:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

3DS is still not on the Multi-Platform Reception chart!

I have a problem, again. I wanted to modify the Reception chart to a multi-platform one in the article for Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory because this link here claims that Nintendo 3DS is enlisted as "3DS" in the "Predefined System Type" list. But when I tried modifying the Reception chart, "3DS" is missing because it is still not in the multi-platform Reception chart! Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Module:Video_game_reviews/data needs updating. It's template-protected so an admin or template editor needs to make the change. Wii U also needs adding to the module. I made an edit request on the talk page. The1337gamer (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Salvidrim! made the changes. It should work now. The1337gamer (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I've now modified the chart to save up space in the article. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we not use Template:Video game reviews, it looks ridiculous in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. You'd save space by getting rid of all the reviews you don't actually reference in the prose, we're not here to recreate Metacritic. On the other hand, reviews from Edge and Maxim are referenced, but ignored by the box. I'd get rid of the 8 lines dedicated to Gamerankings, it's a Metacritic mirror that no one uses. I question the value of putting the main/handheld games in the same table, and would split out the reception sections for what are clearly different experiences. - hahnchen 01:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember that most reviews tables should be about 5-8 reviewers, no more; I don't think that having multiple platforms should increase that if possible. I'd cut the minor ones and the single-platform ones first- Sydney Morning Herald, Detroit Free Press, Official Xbox, Official PlayStation, PC Magazine; then cut the ones that only have 2-3 columns filled (EGM, Eurogamer, GamePro, Nintendo Power). You'd be at 7 reviewers then, not 16, making the table much more reasonable. You can ease up on the width by dropping the star templates; "3/5" is much shorter than five stars. Awards don't really need to be in the table as well, the E3 ones are the only major-ish ones and they're all better off expressed in prose. --PresN 01:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Need this answered

This may only concern one game, but no-one is noticing it on the article's talk page, and I need an answer. Info from the section (with minor correction): "I have found an article from a site called Final Fantasy News (a fan site of some kind) containing details on a lecture Yusuke Naora gave at Southern Methodist University which features new information on Final Fantasy Type-0 the former's HD remaster, and Final Fantasy XV. There is a video on Twitch, but it won't archive (the video might be taken down), and this information is not stored on any other referable site in its entirety. I have encountered other cases where a fan site like this is acceptable if the transcription is proved accurate or there is no other usable source. Can it be used on this article and Type-0 (they are both likely to become FA in the future)?" As an extra detail, there don't appear to be any malicious elements in the page, such as malware or unfriendly cookies, so it should be usable risk-free. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the recap notes, I would cite the talk itself, and provide the URL for verification, instead of citing the webpage itself. Click "edit" and copy the code:

Naora, Yusuke (27 February 2015), "Recap notes", Lecture at SMU, Southern Methodist University{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and there's no reason to doubt it. The video is currently available and lines up with the recapped information. Update: The video is also linked in the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the video itself should be archived, and linked to for verification? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it won't archive (not for me, anyway). I've tried WebCite and Wayback, but the former just shows black and the latter just displays a grey screen saying "Twitch". --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into it tonight -- https://archive.org/details/movies should be able to work, otherwise I will look for an alternate solution. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't get video to work, but now that I have been able to actually see the source, here's the correct data, ProtoDrake:

Naora, Yusuke (26 February 2015), "Lecture recap", The visual evolution of Final Fantasy, The Guildhall at Southern Methodist University in Plano, Texas{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, thanks. This will be very useful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced since 2008

Found this while doing other stuff; Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1991 video game) has been unreferenced for 7 years, just dropping it here in case anyone fancies having dabble at it. - X201 (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015's TFAs

Well I missed out on mentioning Lost Luggage (video game) being on the main page on March 8th. However, we have another video game article going on the main page on the 22nd with God of War (video game). And its the tenth anniversary of its release, too. GamerPro64 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of video games in the {{Marvel Cinematic Universe}} template

Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Inclusion of video games in the template may be of interest. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo of America, Inc. v. NTDEC?

I've been thinking about this for months, but I'm no law expert, and I'm not sure if it's notable to have its own article, so what do you guys think? Should an article about Nintendo's lawsuit against NTDEC be written on the merit of the latter making unauthorised use of Nintendo's name? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what kinds of reliable sources you have on the topic. Do you have significant coverage? (?) (You can use the custom Google search at WP:VG/RS.) czar ⨹ 01:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that coverage in reliable sources is more important regarding creating a article than the fact that NTDEC misused Nintendo's name.--64.229.166.35 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

True, yeah I know that. At least some major newspapers did cover the issue, but as I said earlier I'm no legal expert so I'll leave it up to some of you guys to decide. It's that I find the lawsuit quite interesting in that NTDEC actually had the nerve to use Nintendo's name outright. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(I meant that if you already did the source research, you can post links here and save everyone else the trouble of repeating the same work. Otherwise it's more likely than not that no one will look into this.) czar ⨹ 12:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, since you asked for it, there's this one, this scholarly article to which I cited on the main NTDEC page, as well as this NYT article. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The question really isn't one of WP:V, but one of WP:N. The NTDEC article appears to already have a suffice paragraph about the lawsuit. Is there enough coverage to warrant saying more? Was the case important in some way that is not immediately obvious? For example, has it been since used as a precedence in other cases? -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)