Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 148

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Red Phoenix in topic Sega
Archive 145 Archive 146 Archive 147 Archive 148 Archive 149 Archive 150 → Archive 155

Arcomage

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So... I came here for a wider place for opinions. This feels like a video game that should be notable for a WP:GNG pass being a spin-off of Might and Magic, but I'm not getting anything besides [1], which doesn't even go in-depth about the game itself. I considered WP:ATD, but it's mentioned in several articles and lists, so it wouldn't be appropriate either. I'm not sure what to do now. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a thing at JeuxVideo also? No obvious author there though. Anyway, my recommendation for ATD is a redirect/mention at Might and Magic VII: For Blood and Honor. --Izno (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (January 27 to February 2)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

January 27

January 28

January 29

January 30

January 31

February 1

February 2

  • (none)

Ars Technica War Stories

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Watchers here might be interested in this YouTube series by Ars Technica. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

These have been good. As a tip: there is always an article at Ars Tech to point to this, and under the embedded video they will have their edited transcript (not the Youtube one) that makes it easy to search or copy out quotes/etc. eg: [2]. Easy to find via a site: search along with the game name and "War stories" in google. --Masem (t) 04:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint about the transcript. I'm much less hesitant to use video for refs if we've got a transcript to go with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
And to that end, I generally cite the article on Ars Tech rather than to the YouTube video so that all the parts are their: their summary, the video, and the transcript. --Masem (t) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Text can also be archived more easliy than videos. Lordtobi (✉) 18:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Also better for some older devices that can't play video or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

GameRankings and Metacritic

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

As some of us know, GameRankings was discontinued back in December 2019 and some of its reviews have since been migrated to Metacritic. Given that, I have a question: what should we do about the sources in the articles? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Fill in the archive-url parameter with that of the corresponding GameRankings url via the Wayback Machine (setting the url-status as dead). Alternatively, you could remove it and simply replace it with the Metacritic score. Personally, I would choose the former option but it depends on the article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Has anyone actually proven that all the Gamerankings migrated to metacritic? There are some that have not migrated to metacritic, (For Example Lumines mobile) and instead just redirect to GameFAQS. They have the reviews there, but no official aggregated score.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked into it yet, unfortunately. Maybe I'll go ask around and see what can be done. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I found links related to GameRankings, and they directed me into GameFAQs pages, which hold the reviews with corresponding links. This link for Koudelka is an example (I use Koudelka because it didn't have a Metacritic page and still doesn't). Here's the original link that's still findable through searching, so you can try it for yourself. There doesn't appear to have been any mass migration as yet to Metacritic. Review links are instead going to GameFAQs. As to preserving them... Archiving them's the simplest option, since several games I've come across don't as yet have a Metacritic score. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
So it seems that GameRankings scores are, at least for the moment, still valuable to have in articles. Especially for platforms that Metacritic didn't cover but Gamerankings did.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Got pinged to participate in this discussion. Not sure what more I can contribute beyond Spycicle's advice to archive. Use OpenCritic! It's more transparent and full-featured than MC/GR. I like their Rottentomatoes-style % recommended score and the score histogram, compared to Metacritic's voodoo score. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I've already opened up a discussion regarding OpenCritic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#OpenCritic if you guys are interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Before archivelinking a GameRankings score I always check on the content. You'd be amazed at how many articles on Wikipedia cite GameRankings scores that are based on just one or two reviews, which I don't think are worth preserving even in the absence of a Metacritic score.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, so should we do a cleanup project to remove the GR sources that have scores based on one or two reviews in them? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Both gamerankings and metacritic required four reviews in order to create an average.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 14:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, GameRankings created an average no matter how many (or how few) reviews were in a game's database. Example here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I confused the overall rank with the aggregative score. So if it is acceptable for just three reviews to consider it an average, then thats fine.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, not to mention that, the GR cross-section often isn’t very representative of the reception either. I can’t think think of any exact examples, but a hypothetical to express the sentiment: Sonic 3 having a GR score of 67%, based off of a two Virtual Console reviews from NintendoLife and Sega16. That sort of stuff occurs too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of defaultsort

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So I noticed this removal of a defaultsort that sorted Shin Megami Tensei II as Shin Megami Tensei 2, and after reverting noticed that the IP editor has made a ton of that kind of edits. Is there something I'm missing here or is it just a very specific kind of disruptive edit pattern?--AlexandraIDV 08:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Odd indeed, but I suspect the editor somehow misunderstood WP formatting. WP:SORTKEY point 6 makes explicit that defaultsorts of this kind are appropriate.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I suspect the biggest issue here is that "television" and "radio" are terms for both the singular and also the whole. If "video gaming" is not the name for the whole sector, perhaps category:video games would be more suitable? Considering most of the subtopics say "video games in..." or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

we are discussing this proposal right now at:

* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Another category issue

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Just happened to see this in one of my watchlist, but the categories within Category:Video games by game engine I believe should be renamed, in general, from "ENGINE games" to "Video games developed with ENGINE". The "(noun) games" form makes sense for going by platform (eg Category:Xbox One games) or by genre (Category:Rhythm video games), but I feel the game engine or similar tooks (eg RPG Maker) are better described this way. I'm getting a quick opinion before taking that to the appropriate discussion page. --Masem (t) 23:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Broadly agree. The "ENGINE games" categories' naming fails to make clear that the first word is the name of an engine, which is a problem since engine names are less well known compared to genres or consoles. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Also support. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I think "developed with" is misleading. It implies that the engine was literally the only thing used to develop the game. The current names are simple and less confusing. If someone unfamiliar to video games saw the category "Xbox One games" they wouldn't know what it meant either. Do we also change that to "Video games developed for Xbox One"? Where does it end?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It could be "developed using", instead. And that would not imply a singular engine: something using both Unreal and PhysX could easily show both. --Masem (t) 18:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with either "developed with" or "developed using" as a descriptor, but I don't think it's the job of category names to explain what the respective category means. I feel that purpose is better served by a complete sentence or two on the page for the category.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (February 3 to February 9)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

February 3

February 4

February 5

February 6

February 7

February 8

February 9

A new article that could use a few admin eyes on

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just created an article for Manveen Heir, who, if not familiar, is a very outspoken dev about diversity in video games, and because of that, he had been a target of GG. Because of that, just a few admins to help watch the page would be nice. --Masem (t) 01:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey everyone! I hope 2020's been treating you all great so far. Anyway, I just wanted a bit of peer review. Sonic the Hedgehog has been an article I've been working on for quite some time now, and I'm getting ready to nominate it for GAN soon. I still have to source two sections (Gameplay and Crossovers), but otherwise, I'm comfortable with how it looks. I just wanted to ask if any of you guys had any suggestions or problems with the article. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! JOEBRO64 02:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, nice work as ever - this article looks greatly improved. I'll probably do my usual nitpicking copyedit at some point, but one thing does strike me immediately - am I dreaming or is the Crossovers section mostly uncited? Wait, you said that already. Duh. Popcornduff (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinions requested on Characters of Halo

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hey all, I could use some feedback on suggestions for what to do with Characters of Halo. This article went back and forth from being a list to technically an article to list, then its current state, but I feel like it's become a bit unwieldy. An IP has been adding a lot of stuff that I want to bpare back heavily, but even aside from that the original threshold of "recurring characters" still leaves the series with dozens of characters for whom there's no useful information save voice actors, appearances, and then plot info. Suggestions? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I really hope you meant "pare back". - X201 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Heh. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
This is standard character list cruft and should be removed on sight. For reference, this is the diff from when the version just prior to the IP's initial contributions, way back in 2019. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
There's clearly a fair way to keep the list in general, but things like that VA table is way overkill. Unless the set of characters as a whole are discussed, I'd require a third-party source to include any name on that list. Obviously your Master Chief and Cortana will be there, but not sure about 70% of those. --Masem (t) 16:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Izno, the version before was way better. David Fuchs, you can just play the WP:BURDEN card and remove any unsourced material straight away. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:VG navbox guidelines

Latest comment: 4 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

Last Wednesday I had my last day of work at my (now old) job. I wasn't particularly in a mood to actually do some work, so I spent most of my day editing Wikipedia. What were they gonna do, fire me? Anyway, I went on somewhat of a deletion nomination spree when it came to navboxes (see the log). It seems I have been overzealous; when I saw that Zxcvbnm opposed to these nominations I tried to find additional arguments for deletion, but I haven't been able to find any. But also, to my surprise, there isn't a specific WP:VG guide for navboxes.

But maybe we should make a guideline for video game-related navboxes! WP:LINKBACK says "Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects (...)". This is a WikProject, we can suggest this! These are the advantages listed:

1. Provides a consistent look and navigation system for related articles.

  • Most of the video game-related articles already have a clear layout and order, based on guidelines, but there isn't one yet for navboxes.

2. Faster to navigate than a category.

  • True, but what should be listed in a navbox?

3. Gives immediate information to equivalent elements

  • Also true, especially for a series of games, works of particular studio or a director.

4. For presenting a series of articles in a chronological order, a template is often most appropriate (...)

  • Well, this another example why a guideline would be a good idea, sometimes articles are listed chronologically, sometimes alphabetically (see subsection below)

If I recall correctly, I think I've seen mentioned that WP:VG is one of the most active and well-organised WikiProjects, so coming to consensus on what to include for specific WP:VG navboxes might be a good idea. To give an example, WP:MUSICIAN has {{Navbox musical artist}}, to show how we might handle a navbox guideline. Assuming most of the people agree that it might be beneficial, I've added a subsection below for points we'll have to discuss. If you think this is unnecessary or maybe a downright bad idea, please reply in this main section, to keep the discussion orderly. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Points of discussion

These are some of my issues, feel free to add your own.

What should and what shouldn't be listed in a navbox?

I think it's safe to say that what is listed, there should be an article for. But I've seen developers and publishers with articles both listed and omitted. How tangibly related does it have an article be to be included? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Layout for navbox

This is of course specific to a series, a studio or person. But what goes first? Games I guess, but do we first list particular series, then stand-alone games? Or everything chronologically? For instance, should {{Hideo Kojima}} be everything chronological, without a Metal Gear subgroup? There is already {{Metal Gear}} of course. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, there is no set rule. Just have to follow the principle behind navboxes. The goal of navboxes to assist readers to navigate through related articles in an easy to understand layout. Not every developer has the same type of history, so you take it on a case-by-case basis. For Hideo Kojima, the biggest franchise he's worked on is Metal Gear, so it makes sense for it to have its own subgroup. And although it's important to group information accurately, it's not important to make everything as chronological as possible. If making it chronological makes it harder to navigate, its best to find a format that is easier to navigate.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It is going to depend on type of navbox (game series? company? other reasonable connection?) I am sure for at least the series and company we can device a basic order to the groups (for a series, games first, then maybe characters, then other related works, etc...) but their needs to be flexibility. The {{Final Fantasy}} box is an example of adapting to a complex set of articles that would make no sense to do for, say, BioShock. --Masem (t) 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Piped links

Ah yes, piped links. I think most people will agree there's really no need to shorten Dishonored 2 to just 2, but what about the case of something like {{Mega Man Battle Network series}}? I like to keep WP:ACCESS in mind and not have a single character be the link. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, the target is that a navbox line should not go across two, unless impossible due to how many things to list. When we can pipe links as with the Mega Man example, we should to avoid that unnecessary split. When that's not an issue, avoid the piping. --Masem (t) 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This should only be done in super large navboxes, like the Sonic one. Otherwise it serves little to no point when space is not an issue. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
What is the bare minimum for a navbox?

For instance, should there be a an article on the subject of the navbox (WP:NAVBOX guideline No. 4)? Is three entries for a series enough? What if it's the developer and just two games? For instance, there isn't a Bayonetta navbox, while there are two games, an article on the character and anime film, it's listed in {{PlatinumGames}}, which wasn't involved with the anime film. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For me it is four, which Should be directly relevant article, but not limited to games. Can be gamed and the dev (not publisher). With only two other three links those are easy to if in the body. --Masem (t) 12:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought somewhere out there in the world of Wiki-alphabet soup, the rule was five. I can’t recall where it was at though, and it could be more of music-specific guideline, as I tend to make more navboxes for bands than video games. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, let's band together and brainstorm what the minimum of entries should be for WP:VG. Three? Four? Five? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
IMHO, i believe it should 4 links is the bare minimum not including the header. The header wont always have a link.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Should years of release be mentioned?

Compare {{Edmund McMillen}} and {{Hideo Kojima}}, {{Codemasters}} and {{Irrational Games}}. I'd say for consistency that a year should be mentioned. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I have a rational argument to advance for this position (other than precedent) but I think years, yes, only when the topic of the NavBox is a person, as opposed to a series, franchise or studio. Does that make sense? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No, only if needed to disambiguate (like {{God of War}}) We've established that a good series article should have a visual timeline on it, so the date doesn't really help in the navbox outside of the disambiguation. --Masem (t) 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to say yes, but realized that this would just look super cluttered on larger navboxes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Can logos or other images be shown?

{{Bennett Foddy}} shows an image from QWOP (Czar?). {{Super Smash Bros.}} shows the Smash Bros. logo. Is it dependent on size? If so, what is the size cut-off? Me personally am not in favor of images, it can unnecessarily make a navbox crammed together. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It more a free vs non free case. Non free can't be used, period. That's not saying a nachos must use the free logo when it exists, but it's use should not impact the layout. Adding a 100x100 logo to a one line nachos is not right. --Masem (t) 12:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Nachos 😂 Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I get for doing that on mobile :P But my point still remains that there should be no significant layout impact with the logo as without logo. eg {{Overwatch}} uses its logo just perfectly. --Masem (t) 16:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Examples are {{Tetris}}, {{Lumines}}, and {{Zelda}} are good examples aswell. Their logos don't meeth the threshold of originality, so they can be used for navboxes.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Crossovers

Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, the article listed should have the navbox in question. I was surprised to see Diablo III mentioned in {{The Legend of Zelda}}, but apparently there is some sort of Switch-exclusive Zelda themed content. However, The Legend of Zelda isn't mentioned in {{Diablo}}. Or the LittleBigPlanet DLC, stuff like that. How should we handle that? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The crossover has to be major. I expect, for the Marvel v Capcom games, that both Marvel and Capcom related navboxes (which they are and specific navboxes to the video games). But I would not expect as the ur example that any property used in SSBU have the {{Super Smash Bros.}}, and from what it looks like, its only used for notable crossover characters, and not the game/franchise page. --Masem (t) 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Resources for Japanese game coverage

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, asked this in the Slack and Izno chimed in wondering the same thing, so asking here: we've obviously got a pretty decent coverage of print resources/etc for western games, but what about Japanese ones? I'm working on expanding some old game articles (Golden Sun) and I imagine a lot of development information is probably from Japanese sources, especially offline ones since the games came out in 2001ish. Besides Famitsu, which appears to be the only Japanese source specifically called out over at the reference library, are there esteemed Japanese magazines/websites we should be looking at, and what’s our capability with accurate-enough-for-citing Japanese speakers? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Shmuplations, which translates interviews from Japanese gaming magazines, is a great resource for getting some developer info on specific games. There's also stuff like Gamest, Neo Geo Freak, Game Machine and Micom BASIC that are beginning to see their way onto the Web Archive. Sega Retro also contains scans of publications like Sega Saturn Magazine, as does NEC Retro with TurboGrafx/PC-Engine stuff. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Namcokid47:In regards to Game Machine, I would say support the official publisher's website (1), which is where the scans come from... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but we're also seeing some issues be uploaded to the Web Archive. The website you posted is good for earlier issues though (I used one of them for Galaxian), but either resource is good. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata goings-on for video games

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Always fun to share goings-on from the wikiverse for video games; see Wikidata and the sum of all video games, 2019 edition. --Izno (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! And as always, if you have any feedback, I would be very glad to read it :) Jean-Fred (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A relative new book I just discovered

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Happened upon this book, "20 Essential Games to Study" [3], [4] from 2018. It hits on genre-defining games or at least those with the most influence on the genre. A quick TOC:

  • Star Control 2
  • Super Metroid
  • X-COM UFO Defense
  • The Logical Journey of the Zoombinis
  • Goldeneye 64
  • Metal Gear Solid
  • Diablo II
  • Half-Life 2
  • Katamari Damacy
  • Devil May Cry 3
  • Shadow of the Colossus
  • Team Fortress 2
  • The World End with You
  • Left 4 Dead
  • Spelunky
  • Demon's Souls
  • Plants vs Zombies
  • The Binding of Isaac
  • Infinifactory
  • Doom (2016)

--Masem (t) 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Just checked and all of them have WP articles. Oh, and I tagged Logical Journey of the Zoombinis for egregrious gamecruft violations. ミラP 20:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
And kudos to Soetermans for cleaning up the mess. ミラP 01:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we have an article on video game currency?

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I mean, I know we have monetization articles, but I'm looking at one that speaks specifically to this. The only reason is that this article about the IRS taxing in -game currency came across my browsing this morning [5] and I feel we need a place for discussing the idea of nominal and premium currency types used in games. (not to document all the different types of fictional currency though examples of gold and gil can be put further). --Masem (t) 17:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I found this link [6] and [7]. I have no idea how reliable gimitheapp.com is.
There's an article on Virtual economy but I don't know if its tangent to in-game currency. I'm very unfamiliar of the topic. sorry if this was no help.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
That one works. Needs just a bit of bg to get from Monopoly money to D&D gold to video game things and how that became virtualized. --Masem (t) 19:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd also like to have something on "skins" other than redirecting to skins gambling (a section would work). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that would fit into the virtual economy as well, since I would expect skin gambling and loot boxes to be linked from it. But it also needs to discuss things like "premium currencies" and the like, and figuring some historical points of reference. --Masem (t) 20:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I imagine Eve Online would be a good game to mine for sources on. –xenotalk 20:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There's an article on microtransaction and the {{Video game monetization}} template. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Gaming" stragglers

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

The project seems to have come to a consensus on the phrase "video gaming" in the above discussion but there are still a few stragglers left at User:Masem/gaming list. All of the categories are at CFD and looking for more comments. The remaining are probably legitimate uses of "gaming" in an article title unless people here have objections? If not, I'll remove them from Masem's list as well. The final one I do want to talk about is Category:Video gaming. What exactly is this category for and what do we want it to be for? Category:Video games already exists as the supercategory for the actual games. It looks like Category:Video gaming is supposed to be a very top level supercategory for everything to do with video games, so maybe we could rename it Category:Video games (topic)? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No one has opposed the merge that I've been planning for the "Online gaming in China", so I need to figure out what's needed to complete that merge. For the top level category, I suggest just Category:Video game as to match with Category:Film, Category:Television and Category:Radio, among others in Category:Media formats--Masem (t) 19:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
That would be unnatural English. I believe Category:Video gaming is correct as used for a supercategory. --Izno (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I mean, yes, that's true and when you look at Category:Entertainment, we have "gaming" and "gambling" there as gerunds, where most other forms of entertainment list the media type.... At least to try to find symmetry with other categories here , a Category:Video game should still be had, but just not necessarily the topic level one we're talking about here. I just feel uncomfortably that we've been moving away from "Video gaming" for this, and are going back to that now... --Masem (t) 19:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean in this situation I think Category:Video games makes the most sense but that category is already being used for individual video games themselves. So Category:Video gaming seems like the best next option as Category:Video game does not really make sense as it is singular. Although, Category:Video game industry could be an option but that is clunky.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the difference between games and Category:Film, Category:Television, and Category:Radio is that the latter 3 are all implicitly plural when referring to the medium (but use normal plurals when referring to the physical items). I'm still partial to Category:Video games (topic) now that parentheticals are more accepted in category names. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Another possible option, given I think this category should align with other media types is Category:Video games (media). --Masem (t) 22:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I say we should use Category:Gilm. In all seriousness, I would be support that proposal except I'd go with Category:Video games (medium) over "media". Axem Titanium (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Still need more comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 30 for the CFDs please. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sort of a side note, but should Health (game terminology) be renamed "Health (video games)"? Popcornduff (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
That article is about a concept in both video games and tabletop games, so that wouldn't work.--AlexandraIDV 12:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Alexandra IDV, good point. But how about just "games" instead of "game terminology"? Popcornduff (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

MissingNo. FAR

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated MissingNo. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Blah2 (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Galaxy Force

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey. I'm in the middle of cleaning up Galaxy Force to eventually bring it up to GA status. Right now, I'm a bit confused as to why the article is called "Galaxy Force (video game)"? Looking at the disambiguation page, "Galaxy Force" is also used as subtitles for a certain Transformers and Power Rangers series, but I really don't know why the Galaxy Force game article actually needs to specify it's a video game; neither of those two articles even really mention the "Galaxy Force" subtitle, and doing a Google search for Galaxy Force brings up several results on the front page, all of which relate to the Sega game and not anything else. Any chance this can be fixed? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (with current Galaxy Force to move to Galaxy Force (disambiguation)). The others are partial matches, none of them have articles and both are Asian only title versions. Google searches bring up only the game's results mostly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I have filed a RMTR myself, let's see what happens. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for new tab

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to add a tab to the headers for this WikiProject, to link to the page below, which is a "Town Hall" for allowing communication between different WikiProjects. Is it okay for me to do so? Please feel free to let me know, or to comment. thanks!!

Please note, the page linked to below is merely an example, so that tab header for this page is for a different WikiProject. If implemented, the link would be placed on the specific tab header for this WikiProject, not the one shown below. thanks.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain a little more? What is a “town hall” in the Wikipedia context? I guess I don’t really follow what sort of inter-WikiProject communication would be going on here? Sergecross73 msg me 05:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: it's a spam notice for an idea that doesn't get any traction because it's fully redundant with other venues, like WP:COUNCIL. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In the Gameplay section the following "SHC" should be "SHD":

Once a safehouse is discovered, locations of several SHC tech caches would be revealed. Finding them grants players SHC tech cache points, 138.162.0.42 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Not done Err right page? --Masem (t) 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Assuming this is an error in an article for specific game this should be posted on the talk page for that particular game.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (February 10 to February 16)

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

February 10

February 11

February 12

February 13

February 14

February 15

February 16

Marmalade Game Studio seems COI-ish, no? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at COI about Marmalade Game Studios, see here. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
And List of Human: Fall Flat speedrunning records seems like it should be prod'd- whole thing is sourced to speedrun.com, no indication of notability beyond that. The box at the bottom says there are 4 other speedrun-by-game articles? Is this a thing now? --PresN 18:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that whole lot of speedrun record articles needs to be deleted. That these are games that have speedruns is noted elsewhere and giving an idea of what the fastest known run may be is fair enough there, but we shouldn't be trying to track them. --Masem (t) 18:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
What about Eric Sparrow? A large part of the citations are just "top 10 characters we hate in games" lists, which gives some notability to the character, but is that enough?
I am saying no, just a spot in a list is not enough coverage. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
There was already an AfD on the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Sparrow. Seems like there were similar issues during that discussion as well. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
AfD'ed for a second time. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

OpenCritic discussion at WT:VG/S

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion about the reliability of OpenCritic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#OpenCritic that could use more feedback. Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Honkai Impact 3rd character listing

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I was wondering (because I'm newish) whether information on the Honkai Impact 3rd about the characters could be partially moved to make stubs for the important characters, and nothing for the minor ones, with only a list of the names (with links) in the original post? DriftWrench2k (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@DriftWrench2k: You may want to discuss about it at here instead. flixwito ^(•‿•)^ 13:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Music article proposals

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm thinking about creating potential articles pertaining to the Fire Emblem series, titled Music of the Fire Emblem series. Any thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No objections from me.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Video game article reassessment backlog needs attention

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So, I flagged a couple video game articles for reassessment (Dirt Rally 2.0 and Playsaurus), and noticed that there isn't much attention to that category. I don't feel that I should do this task myself, so if anyone who reads this is able to help in this area, I would greatly appreciate it. "Category:Wikipedia video game articles for reassessment" is the category. Thanks, King of Scorpions 21:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I reassessed those two at least.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
For the record, there's nothing wrong with reassessing articles you yourself worked on if you feel confident in doing it - ratings are not super strict (they are a tool for editors rather than a part of the encyclopedia proper) and are largely based on any one editor's interpretation of the article, so as long as you're not calling stubs B-class or w/e you're probably fine. I reassess articles I work on all the time.--AlexandraIDV 22:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me! King of Scorpions 18:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Cleaned out the category... will continue to keep watching it for new articles. King of Scorpions 19:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

On VGs and the coronavirus

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I was thinking about making some page about how the coronavirus outbreak is affecting the vg market, but felt something like that's a huge "1st world problem" nonsense if it was by itself. (there's no clear evidence of it yet, but it *might* affect the release of the next consoles, something that MS nor Sony would want to admit, but which would have a bit impact if it happened). But I got a flash of inspiration and set up a section on the 2020 in video games specifically on impacts on the VG sector from the conoravirus. If you see anything else like that, it would help to build that out. --Masem (t) 21:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, taking a longer view, I think the coronavirus impact on games is a storm in a teacup compared to the things that Actually Matter. A section in 2020 in video games was the right move. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, as I first started reading your comment, I was going to recommend adding it to the year in video games article, as that’s how I handle similar things in the music world that could be seen as an unnecessary spinout. It’s nice to see some prose there too, when they’re commonly just release schedules and list bloat. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Prose in the YYYY in video games articles becomes easier after the year is over, once we can talk with 20/20 hindsight. eg financial performance, significant events beyond just the table, etc. But like, I know we had the that Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry which is a bit different case and I can see the reasons for the standalone there, but the coronvirus is such a different matter and "Complaining" about VG effects feels completely wrong, but from an encyclopedic standpoint, this is having documentable effects. --Masem (t) 22:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
As much as I like that article, it feels increasingly self-indulgent in hindsight. I think it could use a trim and a hard consideration of merging into 2011 in video games. It's always good to remember that things can be newsworthy without being notable. Dunno if it's appropriate to ping User:Abryn who's on wikibreak right now. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
We could always make relevant parts as part of 2011 in video games in the same manner. There's certainly parts to document. --Masem (t) 22:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
That article embarrasses me. I knew why I was being pinged when I saw the header lol. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey, at the time, it seemed okay, but I think all of us have matured a bit particularly in light of this coronavirus. I am going to assume this is your blessing to merge in down? :) --Masem (t) 01:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Be my guest, haha. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I tagged Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry in Wikidata d:Q17042367 as "instance of disaster". That means that it shows up on the list at humanitarian data in its time, something like this automated report from the past 90 days. Disasters happen and will continue to happen, and any documentation is helpful. Video games are at the forefront of society and not a fringe topic, so if anyone can detect a statistical trend about video game sales and makes a claim that this is a result of a disaster, then that is useful information. This Wikipedia article only summarizes what reliable sources say and is not a narrative with origins in the Wikipedia community. I think it is great. I know nothing about the field of consumer trends, but considering the size of the video game market, it seems plausible to me that video game industry activity could be an economic indicator of the impact of other events. If editors here wish to curate this kind of content and perspective then I say do it. Merge if there is consensus. I see there is hesitation here and at that article's talk page, but I think the sourcing and idea is clever and the article could stand. Health professionals have a tendency to follow tradition and when new data can tell new stories, the people narrowly in health may not acknowledge signals from other sectors. Editors of the article are citing a great mix of mainstream general news sources, mainstream video game news sources, and specialized publications. I think this is great content and if anyone wants to do more of this then they should. If anyone here ever wants feedback on this kind of content then feel free to visit WikiProject Medicine or one of the other projects and ask for comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine + WikiProject Video Games

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hey everyone, I am from WikiProject Medicine. I am writing to invite anyone here to participate in an WP:RfC at

The situation is that we have been discussing whether and how Wikipedia articles might present the prices of drugs. I looked for where in Wikipedia people have discussed prices, and it seems that posting the price is a recurring issue in video game consoles. I tried to compile a list of prior discussion at

and this includes video games. If anyone knows of more discussions then please add them to that list. Because there is a history of discussion about prices of video games, I wanted to invite this WikiProject to that RfC.

While I am here, I want to thank everyone here for your contributions to Wikipedia's medical content. For people outside of Wikipedia I often have to explain how everyone helps everyone else here, and how by having some collaboration across fields everyone benefits regardless of what they edit. I have watched many well funded medical wikis imagine that they could organize policy and a community and editing by isolating themselves with just medical editors. It never works, because only collaboration and inclusion does. I recently thanked WikiProject Video Games on Wikidata because editors there had developed a policy and best process for a complicated issue there which applied broadly in the field of many WikiProjects. Regardless of how this price thing turns out for medicine, WikiProject Video games contributors are already a big part of its development.

So, thanks, and please comment at the RfC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks for the notice. Broadly, I agree with the general sentiment I observed in the RFC that pricing information is a crucial aspect that Wikipedia should cover about drugs due to their influence on health outcomes, accessibility, etc. I'd go so far as to say it's more crucial in this field than it is for video games and game consoles, so my position would be that any guideline you guys develop should probably narrowly focus on drug prices and not try to override larger policies that broadly discourage price information elsewhere on Wikipedia where it's not necessary. Yes, it's noteworthy that average video game prices jumped by $10 with the launch of PS3/Xbox 360 and also that the PS4 outsold the Xbox One due in no small part to its cheaper price. Listing every local price for every individual video game is not warranted.
That said, this is an enormous RFC and I'm having trouble figuring out how best to convey these comments in a way that would be useful to the people who would be assessing it. Do you have any advice? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Thanks for trying to understand the issues.
You could just copy what you said here to that page. The best kind of comment here, as in many cases, says something to more than one perspective, like "this is good for this reason but also problematic like the other side says". Saying where you typically edit helps, and a comparison to video games or any other context is helpful.
In general, I think bringing traditionally unrelated perspectives together makes Wikipedia better and more robust. There is no way to go wrong with just posting. No one is under obligation to read all the background. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This is not a neutral message and falls afoul of canvassing. Further, the RFC is not about NOT in general, it is about the use of very specific sources for drugs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It was not my intent, if I am in error then I apologize, I have answered the complaint at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices#Invited_WikiProject_Video_Games_to_comment, please excuse me. In general, thanks WikiProject Video Games. I intended to be helpful and anticipated no controversy, but will go with the judgement of that RfC's moderators to fully state apology if I am in error. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible FA push for Yakuza

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm thinking about getting Yakuza (video game) up for FA status so we can feature it as a WP:TFA on December 8, 2020 (the 15th anniversary of the series), using the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest FAs as models. There are a few problems: we may need some more sources, especially in the gameplay section. I'm also concerned about the possibility of dead citations as well. The ultimate goal is to get the Yakuza main series a good or featured topic should we get all seven articles up to GA or FA. Any thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me improving a draft page?

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I would ask for helping me helping the draft page List of fictional wars. Anyone? Dannyguns (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Gonna be honest: this is unlikely to work, it's a bit of how Wikipedia was designed in 2006 that WP has since moved away from. If a fictional war is notable enough for an article, like Galactic Civil War, then work on improving / writing that specific article, and maybe create a category if there are more fictional wars with their own article than I suspect. If it's notable but not enough for a stand-alone article, then make a referenced section of either the fictional work it's a part of, or whatever spinoff article already exists on the setting / plot of that work. If it's not notable, then don't write about it at all. Basically, when such fictional elements are notable, they're notable for the work they are part of; a list that is a conglomeration of totally unrelated wars(/other fictional elements) across works that happen to all be wars (all share the same fictional element) is frowned upon, as it's not clear why these are all jammed into the same article. This doesn't apply only to fiction; you'll see it for real-world topics too, where Wikipedia has tried to move away from something like List of saviors and instead have separate articles for Messiah, Madhi, Saoshyant, Dashavatara, etc. which are really not actually related to one another, and thus having a single article that claims they're all the same thing would be weird. SnowFire (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Good advice is to always look for any cultural impact in the real world before making articles focused on fiction.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hate to pile on, but yeah, I can’t imagine this meeting Wikipedia’s notability requirements. Reliable sources aren’t frequently covering that subject separate from the games themselves. You’re free to try in the draft space, but it’s not something I’d pursue, sorry. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:WAF is where the formalized info lives. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, thanks. Anyway we have a list of fictional BEARS! So why should we have a list of fictional wars? Wars are important in human culture... Dannyguns (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dannyguns: Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Those lists that you are looking at may not be the best example to follow and could potentially be removed if challenged.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 14:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

More restrictions on List of fictional elements

I made a new discussion in WT:Notability (fiction) regarding adding more restrictions on lists regarding fictional elements such as swords, animals, profession, and so on. if anyone is interested in bringing their opinion on the topic. here.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me in "Category:Unassessed video game articles"?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm working in this category, rating video game articles, but there's still over 60 articles left. Could someone help me with this task? Thanks, King of Scorpions 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I did a few, and nice, all cleaned out already.--AlexandraIDV 21:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me! It would have taken me forever otherwise... King of Scorpions 21:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (February 17 to February 23)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

February 17

February 18

February 19

February 20

February 21

February 22

February 23

Using online manuals as sources

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

While I'm still working on the Sakura Wars (2019 video game) article using this online instruction manual from Sega, I have a question: should we include an online manual's page numbers in the citation template or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If its a short manual, its not required. Anything more than say 40-50 pages, I would include. The idea is, how much effort does it take the reader to confirm the citation assuming they have access to the right version of the work. Having them read a 20 page manual is trivial, but a 50 page may not be. --Masem (t) 01:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
In this case, the digital instruction manual is about 30 pages long. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Then I would say yes, it can't hurt. --Masem (t) 05:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
For the Sakura Wars web manual, do you think it would be possible to replace the Japanese version with the English version when it's released this April? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, english sources are preferred if you have the option (since we can presume the english version will be an official translation) --Masem (t) 03:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Mass RM of video game players

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Watchers of this page may be interested in this discussion regarding a mass requested move of "(video game player)" to "(gamer)" article titles. --Izno (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Reviews for Famitsu

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is there anyone here who has a copy of Famitsu’s April 2007 edition and the ability to translate it? I’m working on improving the article for Super Paper Mario and in order to include a review in the reviews template, something from the review has to be mentioned in the body as well. Famitsu is normally an essential review. Toa Nidhiki05 20:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: On the Famitsu website, the review has been directly transcribed and can be put through Google Translate for essential details. I could also put in the information, as I've long experience of translating Japanese reviews like this for my work on JP-exclusive games. This article from Cubed3 has the score in numbers, which the Famitsu link above doesn't. From the articles I've worked on, Cubed3 is accepted as a source. Hope that helps. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This solved literally everything I was asking for, thanks so much ProtoDrake! Toa Nidhiki05 20:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Shield Knight / Shovel Knight merge proposal

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a discussion regarding merging Shield Knight with Shovel Knight found here: Shovel Knight#Merge proposal

If we could get more opinions on this, that would be appreciated.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Original publication sources of reviews archived on computerandvideogames.com?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that the reviews infobox on Trespasser (video game) listed C&VG's score as 1 out of 10. That didn't look right to me, since at the time the game came out, C&VG's scoring system was out of 5, not out of 10. So I checked the cited reference, an online version dated August 2001:

  • Kim Randell (2001-08-15). "PC Review: Trespasser". Computer and Video Games. Future plc. Archived from the original on 2007-06-24. Retrieved 2014-04-12.

That review text looked very unfamiliar to me: that web page shows 600 words of continuous prose, but C&VG's reviews were formatted as a page full of boxouts, with about half that word count. So I dug out my old issue of the magazine and sure enough, the printed version (though covering similar criticisms) was by an entirely different reviewer:

I added it to the article, listing the web and print versions separately.

It's not surprising that a review hosted on computerandvideogames.com is different from the one originally printed in C&VG. Over the years, C&VG switched from being published by EMAP to Dennis to Future, so that at one point, Future's computerandvideogames.com website was able to republish reviews from a number of different magazines - e.g. Dennis's Official Dreamcast Magazine (UK magazine).

(e.g. Look at the the review infobox for Metropolis_Street_Racer#Reception. It cites two computerandvideogames.com reviews: the one by Stephen Fulljames is preserved on archive.org, but Ed Lomas's ODM review used to be hosted there, but does not have any working archive.org page captures. Note that like Trespasser, the working link is also dated 15 August 2001, which is presumably the date when they put a big batch of old reviews online.)

So the question is: if the Kim Randell review of Trespasser wasn't originally published in the printed version of C&VG, where was it from? (Some of the comments towards the end imply it was a PC magazine rather than a multiformat one.) And how many other "Reception" sections ascribe computerandvideogames.com reviews to C&VG magazine, when they actually originated in other EMAP/Dennis/Future publications? --Nick RTalk 17:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Challenge!!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As most have probably heard, the creator of the Konami code Kazuhisa Hashimoto passed away yesterday. We don't have an article on him, but his death is being widely covered and it feels like we should be able to document this better than just mention in passing in the code's article. I've got a draft here User:Masem/Hashimoto that gets up to about 1990 and then has little until his death yesterday.

The jp.wiki article doesn't help.

The only clue I've seen as to post NES/SNES things he did may be tied to Phantasy Star Online but I can't confirm that. If you can to my draft, please do. i'd just like a bit more about the latter career before slotting into place. --Masem (t) 19:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

1981 Philippine video game ban

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cross-posting from this talk page section, can anyone lend me some input on Ferdinand Marcos's edict banning video games under pressure from parent groups? RioHondo seems sceptical that the ban on arcade games actually took place, but while this may not be RS I've read about anecdotal testimony about arcade operators either being forced to close shop, dump the verboten machines to Clark as it was United States territory at the time and thus exempt from the ban, or just disregard the constabulary and run a Pac-Man speakeasy regardless.

While a number of sources did report about a total ban on arcade games at least like the New York Times, the edict's wording seems to be muddy and ambiguous:

WHEREAS, the operation and maintenance of video machines, as a prohibited or gambling device or contrivance, tends to corrupt the children and other youth of school age and encourages juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, petty thievery, lying and the gambling instinct which may lead to idleness, economic waste and dislike for work;

...

WHEREAS, I consider video machines within the classification of “similar contrivances”, under LOI No. 9 and “other devices” under PD 519.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby declare jackpot machines, commonly known as “one armed bandits”, pinball machines, slot machines, video machines and similar devices as prohibited and/or gambling devices and contrivances, and do hereby order and direct that you forthwith take over or cause the taking over of the possession of said devices wherever they may be found and to completely destroy or cause the destruction of the same.

...as "video machines" could mean anything interactive that can be displayed on a video device, from an Atari 2600 to those so-called video karera betting machines which local officials are playing a whack-a-mole game with. The edict's wording could be a result of older generations having next to no idea on what video games are about, not to mention that pinball which has been banned earlier doesn't normally involve gambling anyway. And if anything, local importers of Ataris apparently tried to skirt around the ban by marketing the VCS as a "home computer" as evidenced by this Readers Digest ad. Any thoughts on whether a separate article on the Philippine electronic games ban is worth the trouble? Blake Gripling (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

GT/FT plans for the Sakura Wars series

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I've been thinking that we should revisit a potential good/featured topic nomination for the Sakura Wars series, given that we might need to put the article up before or after the worldwide release on April 28. After my potential GA push for Sakura Wars (2019 video game), I plan to take the series as a whole up to a Good topic at least and revise the List of Sakura Wars characters and List of Sakura Wars media for potential GA or FL nominations. The mainline games may also be nominated for FAC at some point later on. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Since it's not out yet worldwide you can at least make a peer review for it to get the GTC out earlier. GamerPro64 02:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Got it. By the way, while I'm still working on a music article in my sandbox and am trying to nominate some articles for FAC status, ProtoDrake has unfortunately decided to bow out of the project. I've already notified WT:SEGA of this discussion. If anyone else who is familiar with the Sakura Wars can help out, that would be great. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I must say, I’m very impressed with even where everything is right now. It’s amazing you done as much as you have with so many entries stuck in Japan. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Unless someone objects, I'm probably going to take over the efforts from here and like I said, I've asked around to see what can be done. Meanwhile, as per GamerPro64's suggestion, I've listed the 2019 Sakura Wars for a peer review on this page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

TFA plans

Regarding the potential WP:TFA plans, if we do get all six main series articles and the main page for FA status, I propose that we should feature Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love on the 15th anniversary of its release (July 7, 2020), then Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die for its 23rd anniversary (April 4, 2021), Sakura Wars 3: Is Paris Burning? on the 20th anniversary of its release (March 22, 2021), Sakura Wars (1996 video game) and/or Sakura Wars on the 25th anniversary of its release (September 27, 2021) and Sakura Wars 4: Fall in Love, Maidens on the 20th anniversary of its release (March 21, 2022). Any thoughts or suggestions? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

TFA is sorely lacking in enough featured articles to actually feature. I'm sure they'll be all for it. Red Phoenix talk 03:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. I've nominated the first Sakura Wars game for FAC on this page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Any Yakuza fan?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A user created Shun Akiyama (Yakuza) some time ago but with almost nothing that might help to surpass notability. There is no character list available so merging doesn't seem a posibility. Considering how more popular the franchise became in the past years, it might be possible the Akiyama might pass or a character list is possible but I still haven't touched all games to know who they are. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know, it might be more of a WP:TNT type situation... Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Potential Sonic the Hedgehog GT and FT push.

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Hello again. After a brief discussion with Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I’m thinking about getting the main Sonic the Hedgehog series up to GT and eventually, FT status. One of the goals is to make the first Sonic the Hedgehog video game and/or the franchise page an FA so we can feature it on the main page on June 23, 2021 (the 30th anniversary of the franchise). Any thoughts or ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s doable. I think we need a list of what goes in and what doesn’t, though. Main games or also with spinoffs? Do fan games notable enough for inclusion count? Character lists? What is our scope? Red Phoenix talk 21:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
How many main Sonic games are there? GamerPro64 21:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
See what the navbox describes as the "main series": {{Sonic the Hedgehog}}; the documentation even quite goes in-depth on the subjecct. Seems pretty uncontroversial. I suppose if I'd question anything, it'd be about whether Sonic Boom and Storybook are "spinoff" subseries or "main" subseries. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I should note that some of the original main editors like TarkusAB have since left us when we got some of the articles to GA status, so for the GTC or FTC, we should mention the original main editors of the articles if possible, using the second Final Fantasy FT nomination as a model. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It’s calmed down lately, but historically there have been many arguments over “main” or spinoff”. It might not be the best way to draw the line. But that’s okay, it seems like a lot of the spinoffs could be seen as a major part of the topic anyways. (Sonic Spinball, Sonic Boom games, etc.) It might be better to draw the line more on is it primarily a Sonic game or a crossover/tangential connection, excluding things like Smash Bros, LEGO Dimensions, etc. Just my two cents, I don’t know where the line is typically drawn or anything like that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging TheJoebro64, as he’d likely be a major contributor if this moves forward. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I’ve actually been working on a GA push for the main Sonic article for a while and I’m almost done. I’ve just got to source two sections before I put it up. My plan has been to get the franchise page to FA status for the 30th anniversary in 2021. In case y’all are curious as to what’s left for a GT, it isn’t too excessive:
    • The game and media lists
    • The TV shows
    • The movies (the OVA and the live-action one, which isn’t that bad believe it or not)
    • The Game Gear games
    • Sonic 4 (which could be merged into one article, IMO)
    • The character articles and list
    • The comics (STC could probably be merged to the printed media list, as sources for it are a bit scarce)
    I’m going to get back to editing the main article around Saturday, as I’ve been on vacation this week and don’t have access to my computer. But this would be an awesome push. JOEBRO64 23:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd love to take care of the Game Gear Sonic games, if that's okay with everybody else. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I say go for it, if you can. I’ve wanted to improve them in the past, but it can be difficult to find sourcing for them, with so many sources being locked in 90s print mags. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Main article editors

So, I've been thinking: I know myself, Sergecross73 and TheJoebro64 were a few of the primary editors involved in working on the articles, but how many other primary editors were involved in getting the articles up to GA or FA? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I will take care of the remaining Game Gear Sonic games. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pokemon Trading Card Game Online

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@King of Scorpions: @Stefvanschie: @Yeungkahchun: @Frietjes: @Jevin1048: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_TCG_Online This article is in the road of becoming a GA, but need your help. The review advice has been lay out by GA reviewer. Regice2020 (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The GA was instant-failed on the grounds of things like “not having a development section” and “only containing a single review in the reception section”. It’s good that you try to improve it, but it’s really anywhere near GA level... Sergecross73 msg me
Regice2020 If it helps, there are few sources that could be used to expand the article: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Dynasty Warriors Next

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I have no idea what to do with this one. It is written like a promotional ad (all with bullets even!) with WP:GAMECRUFT parts. I was thinking about eliminating everything but the Reception section, but it felt too radical to just do it right away. Opinions on this would be nice, and thanks in advance. Pinging Soetermans that is cleaning lots of VG articles recently too. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd nuke everything but the reception section, find several reliable sources and use those to rewrite the gameplay section.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I also would WP:TNT it. Since the gameplay and game modes sections are completely unsourced, I would put the WP:BURDEN of sourcing it on the one who tries to restore it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I also support using WP:TNT on the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Did a TNT and started re-expanding gameplay section (for now, will come back to it later). Thanks to everyone! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to this thread about the most played computer games of all time

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please respond to this thread :- Talk:List_of_most-played_video_games_by_player_count#Pacman_Doodle ~ R.T.G 02:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A notification to Wikipedia video games editors

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

So recently a ANI report was for a disruptive user, but for some reason individual Phil Bridger and Phil colleagues joined to inappropriately joke about mma, pro wresting, and video games Wikipedia community not able to resolve issues normally through talk page and WP:Con. Are you fucking kidding me? I want to let you guys know. What you think about the deliberate absurd behavior? What is this??? Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Regice2020, this is a bit WP:CANVASSING on your part. This isn't informing the project on an actual relevant discussion, but asking for support on a snide comment about people editing video game-related articles. I'd say WP:LETITGO. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Soetermans The ANI was for a user not the one being inappropriate under "Discussion of an aside that is not relevant to the main issue here". I was just asking for a reaction for this alarming behavior, because i never even mention video games project community or wresting project community on there? Regice2020 (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems more like a snarky opinion than "alarming behavior". I think you are taking that far too personally.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
What Zxcvbnm says. Since WT:VG isn't a general forum, there's no reason to ask for a reaction or input. From what I gather from reading the discussion, we're apparently hipsters, so I wouldn't take it too seriously. It might not be particularly friendly, but it's not a detrimental attitude to Wikipedia, or WP:VG for that matter. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Soetermans Zxcvbnm Pretty much i only asked was that comment necessary..etc and let it go. I was not expected the discussion lead to joking about these specific wiki communities not able resolve a conflict in a normal way. I am only here letting the video game community know about the discussion. Regice2020 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I have the feeling I'm not getting through to you. First, I do not think there is an actual discussion which would need the input of WP:VG at large. This WikiProject is a collaborative effort for video game-related articles. If Phil, or anybody for that matter, badmouths WP:VG somewhere else on Wikipedia, they're completely entitled to their opinion, no matter if they're wrong. Second, maybe someone noticed a trend that some topics attract more problematic users (for a good time, check out Talk: Armenian Genocide!), but I don't think they're being very serious here. Apparently people who go to the opera are Eurotrash (as a European, I am offended. I do not go to the opera). Third, you can still have a talk about the attitude of other users on that particular page. Furthermore, WP:ANI has plenty of experienced users, so if other people would find it equally inappropriate, they would've probably said something. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Namco Classic Collection Vol. 1 + Vol. 2

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi again. Right now I am thinking of doing some heavy cleanup to the Namco Classic Collection games - Vol. 1 is in pretty rough shape (no sourcing, very little in the way of actual content), and Vol. 2 has sat as a stub for a long while now. My problem with these pages is the reception, as I don't know how to write it. FOr those that aren't aware of these games, they're collections that include three original arcade games and three remakes, or "Arrangements", of those three. While I have not found much coverage on these collections as a whole, I have seen the individual Arrangement games see some reception due to them being featured on a few Namco compilations in the past. The question is; should I merge that reception into this and have it talk about the individual Arrangement games or should they only be for these compilations specifically? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll be patrolling categories

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I just wanted to put it out there that if anyone notices that there are items in either Category:Unassessed video game articles or Category:Wikipedia video game articles for reassessment, you can post a message on my talk page and I will take care of it as soon as I am available. Just cleared them, King of Scorpions 01:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also Category:Unknown-importance video game articles... King of Scorpions 01:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Incineroar AFD

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone. If at all possible, we’d like some more input at the AFD for Incineroar. I know we don’t usually need to alert people to this due to the existence of WP:VG/D, but it’s already been closed, overturned, and relisted due to a lack of participation so far, so I wanted to try to get more people in it. Especially since this WikiProject generally has strong feelings (both sides) when it comes to character articles and Pokemon articles, but few regulars participated in round one.

Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:VG/AA. </shameless plug> —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Need help building up this page

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I need help building up Pine (video game) so that the page feels complete. Colonel sanders123 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Be bold, Colonel sanders123! The custom Google search engine is a lifesaver. While "pine" is pretty generic, the name of the developer, Twirlbound, can help you out. Is there anything specifically that do you need help with? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mainly need help with the gameplay section, it’s completely empty and I don’t own the game.Colonel sanders123 (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Colonel sanders123, you don't have to own a particular game to write about it. Have you checked out what reliable sources say? The link to the custom Google search engine uses reliable sources listed at WP:VG/RS. Let's check out some sources:
  • "Kongregate and Twirlbound will launch Pine on PC and Nintendo Switch on October 10" says "Albamare has a diverse simulated ecology of species which constantly compete for food and territory. Players will have to decide when to befriend or hinder any particular species through trade, questing, and fighting. Along the way, Hue will explore an open world ripe with secrets, puzzles, and collectibles."
  • "AI animals have 'lives, goals and quests of their own' in this ambitious sandbox action game" says "In finding that new home, Hue is faced with a choice. You venture out onto Albamare, the mysterious island that comprises Pine's world, with nothing but a shield and a sword. You can try your hand at combat, fighting species like the Fexel and Litter for resources and supremacy, or you can choose to talk with these civilizations, trading with them and accomplishing tasks with them in order to earn their trust and forge community. Your actions will earn you resources that you can craft and trade with, and in my experience, certain actions even triggered changes in my relationship with the island's different tribes."
From these two sources, we can already say "Pine is an open world action-adventure, wherein the player character Hue explores the fictional island of Albamare. Five tribes, anthropomorphic species of fox, deer and other animals, offer opties to trade and optional quests to complete to the player; the relationship of the player character and the different tribes is dependent of actions taken. Combat, mostly with sword and shield, is an option. Puzzles and collectibles can be found throughout Albamare. Through crafting, the player can create items." I don't own the game and haven't seen any videos, but this is a summation of what I've read in the two bits here.
  • "Feature: Twirlbound On Pine's Open World And The Inevitable Zelda Comparisons" is an interview with one of the developers; that might help with expanding the development: "We looked at pretty much every open world game out there. Initial inspirations were [The Legend of Zelda] series, but also the Fable trilogy, for its famous systemic good-and-evil systems in an action-adventure game. You'll also find hints of The Witcher, Horizon: Zero Dawn, the later Assassin's Creed games and other series. For the world itself, we mostly look at nature and real life. Shows like Planet Earth gave us a lot of inspiration for animals and landscapes, as they also often cover evolutionary theory, which is the most important core pillar for the concept behind Pine!"
If you need any other help, feel free to message me. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Quick question, purely out of curiosity, why are you trying to improve an article about a six year old game that you've never even played? Certainly, improving Wikipedia is an end unto itself but why this one and why right now? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm now thinking that's must be a typo, considering there was a Kickstarter campaign in 2017. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Double-checking the platforms shows that it wasn't released for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. My guess is someone made a copy-paste of a different VG infobox and forgot to change it accordingly or something. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yakuza cast

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's quite rushed and incomplete but I made a List of Yakuza characters. I will add more content yet but I wanted to make sure this site got space to cover the cast from the series. Will appreciate any help.Tintor2 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Command (series)#Page move

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Command (series)#Page move. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Any policy-enforcing administrators interested in taking a look? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
What the hell is going on here? As far as I can tell, this user made a draft for a new series entry. When the draft was rejected as not-notable, he merged it into the article for the first game and then renamed them as a series? It's two games. This stinks of trying to circumvent WP:N and synthesis a new topic. And it doesn't seem like the user is listening to any of the other editors involved.. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a big, fat WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on all accounts, Ferret. Apparently I'm spinning the words of others to fit my own narrative. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Sincerest apologies but I don't have the time or willpower to wade into this today, I already dealt with a IDONTHEARYOU this week. The entire thing should be reverted and re-evaluated from last good. Terrible page move and clearly contested. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about it, I'm not getting anymore involved either. Not worth the hassle. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Soetermans and Ferret: I understand the frustration you're probably feeling, but civil discussion can still take place on an article talk page despite the intransigence of one editor. All editors are welcomed to participate in an article talk page discussion, but discussions need not be catered to one editor. If the editors participating in a discussion reach a consensus that I personally find wrong, then it's up to me to convince them otherwise. If I'm unable to do that, then perhaps it's time to move on. An article talk page consensus might not be perfect and it can't supersede a community-wide consensus, but at the same time it can't be simply ignored because someone doesn't like it. So, if a consensus is established that the page move is fine, then that's OK; if I don't like that and try to edit against that consensus, I will end up being seen as disruptive. The same applies to any editor and anything else about the article. If one editor is being frustrating, then consider engaging others involved in the discssion and see if a consensus can be reached among them because after all a consensus need not be unanimous. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (February 24 to March 1)

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

February 24

February 25

February 26

February 27

February 28

February 29

March 1

Things only show up on this list when the talk page template changes... and turns out no one's been fixing missed templates on new "articles redirected" for quite a while before I cleared it out a couple days ago. So... lots of links. --PresN 03:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've XfD'ed the Bendy template, Games Finder and Family Island and removed the WP:VG project banner from 2019 Markham home massacre, as it doesn't mention anything related to video games. And shouldn't it be Iron Bull instead of The Iron Bull? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
RE Iron Bull. Yes, but the page creator did a C&P move early on. Can an admin do a histmerge real quick? Otherwise I'll request it. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Surely Category:Xbox (4th generation) games can't be the final name of this category, right? Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Microsoft's naming scheme to date has left us in a bind. We know "Xbox Series X" is not the only console in this next family so we can't use that name. --Masem (t) 22:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
What if we named it similar to how pokemon games are titled: Xbox Series X, Y, & Z. or something similar. Also if X is the base model, and the others are still enhancement, i don't think we have to worry about including. OR howa bout just calling it Xbox One Series?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

An interesting Metacritic situation

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So Black Mesa (video game) finally got released today. This is the paid, Valve-approved version, out of Early Access, Xen-revised review. It is drawing reviews. Great.

Except that back in 2012, a free mod version of Black Mesa was released, before they did Xen and before a lot of other work was done to put to a newer version of Source. And then, in 2012 there were reviews for THAT version of Metacritic. Unfortunately, Metacritic is apparently not distinguishing between these two versions which, to me, makes little sense [15].

Now at this point we only have 2 "new" reviews. And as an additional point, OpenCritic's page for Black Mesa is only tracking the 2020 game reviews. [16]. So I'm thinking, in an IAR type approach for this case, that - assuming more reviews come in over the next week - that we use MC via archive.org to do pre-2020 final release aggregate, and only use OpenCritic for the new game aggregate. If we dont' get more than a few reviews on the latest version, this likely doesn't matter then. --Masem (t) 07:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. MC doesn't really have the singular focus on games to care about paying special attention to unique cases. I'm not surprised that they goofed this one. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Wait so is OpenCritic a source to use on Wikipedia now? GamerPro64 08:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Clean out the GAN backlog

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I don't think I've ever seen the GAN list that massive before. Any chance there could be a push to start cleaning this backlog out? I'm not the best admittedly at reviewing GANs (though I try my best and stick to the guidelines, instead of just promoting it automatically with no questions asked), so I probably am not up to the task of doing this, but some of the more experienced editors here likely are. I've actually been rather hesitant to nominate a few articles I'm proud of making for GAN because I don't wanna bloat the page with even more entries, so it would be nice to get a lot of this stuff taken care of; some of these nominations are close to five months old with no activity. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope my post didn't sound like me saying "review my articles plz". Sorry if it did. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC
I wonder if I could review those articles. My Monster Truck Madness entry was the 30th GAN on the video games list when I nominated it. Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 10:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I've taken the plunge. I'm reviewing Development of Uncharted 4: A Thief's End. that's one less. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Namcokid47: After looking at it, and before realising it was one of your noms, I decided to take on Satellaview as well. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm taking a stab at Minerva's Den. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
As a serial nominator/reviewer, I picked up a couple. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The list is now down to 28 items, 8 of which are currently under review. That's not a ridiculous size (see the 80 in sports and recreation above), but it would be nice to push this down even lower whilst we are talking about it. It should be noted that there are a few users who have outstanding nominations who have only a couple (or no) reviews to their name. If we all do reviews, especially when we have nominated an article, the backlog is greatly reduced. That being said, I picked up Vanillaware. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of video game remakes and remastered ports#Rename Trials of Mana back to Seiken Densetsu 3

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of video game remakes and remastered ports#Rename Trials of Mana back to Seiken Densetsu 3. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There is now an Request to move at Talk:Trials of Mana#Requested move 7 March 2020, if anyone would like to comment on this.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Localization articles?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Given that Square Enix has a dedicated localization article for their games over at Localization of Square Enix video games, should we also create one for Sega or Nintendo unless someone objects? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Make sure there are sources. I believe you'll have luck with Capcom games (at least with Ace Attorney which I know has some), but not sure on others. --Masem (t) 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Very good. I'll see what can be done. I've created a userspace draft for Sega as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lost video games

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

Anyone think this would be a noteworthy topic for an article? In case you're a bit confused, I'm talking about games that have been lost to time, like a lot of the Satellaview stuff. JOEBRO64 17:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there's an article for lost films, so I think if there's enough coverage there could be one for lost video games too. I find it to be a fascinating topic and interesting to read up on (in fact, I even preserved one myself), so I'd be all up for an article on it. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure there are examples of this, so go ahead, but if you can't make an article long enough, also consider a home for such a list at Video game preservation (you can redirect a "Lost video games" to a section there), since preservation is meant to fight exactly against that. --Masem (t) 18:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea, and would help maintain if nothing else. You may want to think a bit about how you want to define the scope of the article though. If they shut down the servers to Final Fantasy XI, dues that make it a lost game? Is the Sega Saturn version of Resident Evil 2 a lost game because it never came out? Or the Saturn version of Shenmue? Is Sonic Blast a lost game because it’s not available to purchase anywhere right now? I’m not trying to be difficult or anything, I’m genuinely curious as to where we’d draw the line. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd definitely not include online games that lack servers to play as "lost", there's still copies of the game though they simply can't be executed. Similarly, a port of a game otherwise released for other systems isn't lost, since that game existed elsewhere. I'd start with how the lost film lede goes " is no longer known to exist in any studio archives, private collections, or public archives". Also would specifically exclude wholly cancelled games (like Prey 2). The game had to have been known to exist at one point but due to age and time, has disappeared. A good example , save for the fact we know one exists , is the Super NES CD-ROM as a hardware example. --Masem (t) 18:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, yeah, that’s what I was leaning towards too, I just wanted to make sure there were rationalizations for not including all these variations. (You just know passerbys are going to add all sorts of things like that over time.) It sounds good, as long as there are enough things to add to it. I agree with Satellaview and the Nintendo Playstation. Is there a lot else? I guess stuff like the Sega Neptune may qualify? Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's sort of what I was thinking. Stuff like Project Atlantis (the original successor to the Game Boy) and Garfield: The Lost Levels, assuming reliable sources can be found. JOEBRO64 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Should Scott Pilgrim vs the World and P.T. should count as Lost games?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Copies of them still exist, so no. They were just removed from storefronts. JOEBRO64 19:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm lucky that I still own the Scott Pilgrim game, lol. Anyway, if such an article was made I'd love to help out. I think some topics that should definitely be discussed are the aforementioned Sega Neptune, Satellaview, and SNES PlayStation, a bunch of the cancelled 64DD games, and Mario Takes America (okay, maybe I'm stretching it with the last one). Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like a article with potential. But I think it should be just that if there's enough sources, an article that goes into different eras. Also, how do we distinguish between "lost" and vaporware? I see potential for a lot of confusing overlap here. Based on the suggestion of Sergecross73, the original "1.ect" version of Final Fantasy XIV would count as a lost game as its only accessible through private servers. Indeed, defunct MMOs or online-reliant could all technically count as "lost" under this definition. Though since some of them are still being run on private servers, they're not totally lost as they're not inaccessible. But several mobile games could certainly count as lost as we haven't got a means of backing them up yet. Final Fantasy Agito and Demons' Score are examples of this, as its only legacy is written articles and videos online. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
"Inaccessible" is still different from "lost", going by the film industry's version. For the most part, I think we're limiting this type of stuff to arcade games, and fixed-game and cartridge-based home consoles, where at the time there was effectively no way for any user to back up the media. (Even early mobile games, you still grabbed APKs that you could likely find on pirate sites). Not saying there aren't "modern" games that are lost, but I'd think it is nearly impossible any post-2000 game to be called "lost". --Masem (t) 20:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, similar to MMO's that have been discontinued, it is game that is no longer playable. And I initially thought TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) wanted to expand Lost: Via Domus ("Hey! Over here!"). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Leave Garfield: Caught in the Act and its fabled lost levels to me! I plan to expand it soon in the future... Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! That’s one I wanted to do years back, but couldn’t find the sourcing to make it possible. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started a draft at User:TheJoebro64/drafts/Lost. Feel free to contribute. JOEBRO64 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking to contribute towards Dota 2-related pages

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello everyone, I am relatively new and severely inexperienced with Wikipedia pages. But I guess that's not a problem here because I see very healthy discussions which are actually very helpful (minus the bullying that's happening) for newbies like me. Nonetheless, I was hoping I could add more to the the Wikipedia gaming community and would love to know if any dedicated Dota2 Wikipedia projects currently exist. If not, then please let me know that is it a good idea to make pages about players who currently don't have Wikipedia pages and characters of the game. While I know many players will not meet the WP:GNG but is there any difference for the game's characters when it comes to compliance? Have left a similar question on the Teahouse but I guess this is the better place to ask this question. Thanks in advance. NotJuggerNot (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! As far as I know, the notability guidelines are applicable to both people and fictional characters. As long as those requirements are met, you are free to create pages on missing players. If you want, you could first make a WP:DRAFT and have someone else review it before publishing it.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
There are none, I've been basically the sole maintainer of the Dota 2 page for 3-4 years now, in addition to subarticles like TI and various teams/players. We should also avoid making standalone characters articles since none of them really have any independent notability outside of the game. We used to have a generic list article, but that got redirected into the main article a few years ago for the same reason. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

SXSW Gaming Awards Cancelled

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I hate to bother you by repeating this, but here's another update: The SXSW Gaming Awards have been cancelled due to the coronavirus outbreak! I don't know if all games in that event are affected, but I read that some guys will find a way to reschedule the events now. Here's the news. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Same situation above. It doesn't affect the games nominated, just the event. --Masem (t) 02:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
If it's being rescheduled and doesn't change the original nomination list, then we still don't need to note this on each game's page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons purge of convention images

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I've noticed over the last couple months that Community Tech Bot has been posting to many articles about pending deletions on Commons. It appears to be a slow general purge of images taken by Niemti at conventions, in particular. I don't profess to be a commons expert or not, but I don't think I saw anyone commenting anywhere on it so thought to bring it up. Maybe it's all 100% kosher, but despite his community ban on enwiki, I'd hope it's not simply that they were taken by Niemti. The latest notification I saw was at Dark Souls III. -- ferret (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Looking at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paris Games Week 2015 it’s being suggested that the Dark Souls III image as well as three others are derivative works and therefore copyright violations. I don’t know enough about copyright law to know if that is accurate but if would be helpful if someone more versed on copyright law weighs in at the deletion discussion.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes. The effort has been undertaken apparently solely by a single editor, who nominates 4-5 images of Niemti's for deletion at a time. Most of the discussions seem to never get any participation and get deleted as "per nom". -- ferret (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
As detailed on WT:VG and elsewhere, Niemti had a very loose grasp on copyright, one of the reasons they were indefinitely blocked. Looking at the deletion requests, I think the nominator has a solid argument that they're non free. You can't just take a picture of a non free item and make it free to use on Commons. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
To add, photos taken at conventions are tricky. Just because the photographer put it on flickr as a CC image doesn't make the image really copyright-free. If it centers on a copyrighted piece of art like a banner or statue, that likely makes it a derivative work of that piece of art, with copyright still held by the holder of the original art, particular if the country the convention is held in does not allow for freedom of panorama for non-fixed art displays (as in the case of the US). This File:Fortnite Battle Royale at GDC 2018.jpg for example is reasonable as no specific piece of art is the focal point of the photograph so it can be argued to be used in de minimus and thus free of the art's copyright. But the ones I've seen are all photographs where a statue or other piece of art are the main focus and thus the deletion at commons makes full sense. --Masem (t) 17:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
That all makes sense, of course. I brought it up because the deletions have affected dozens of articles, so felt it was worth.. er... noting. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
NIEMTI GOT INDEF BLOCKED?! Joy to the world! I took last year of from editing, so I'm just finding this out. That's fantastic. I mean, I'd rather would've seen that they ever would change their horrendous attitude, but they were absolutely the most obnoxious, stubborn, and toxic editor that I've ever come across. I tried AGF'ing so many times, but that has been years. Years! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Tell us how you really feel. GamerPro64 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Soetermans, not just indeff'd. He was CBANned. JOEBRO64 20:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Back in July, about a month after the last discussion here about him, about the scads of photos he was uploading/porting from flickr without due diligence about the tags, which appear to be the ones getting deleted now. --PresN 21:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"gamer" or "video game player" as parenthetical disambiguation?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) § RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? Izno (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Greg Chun

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I recently expanded Greg Chun's recently created article to provide experience on the actor's career as a musician as well as early life through some sources I found due to the warnings of the template. Any suggestions? I'm not too familiar with voice actors' articles.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you can search for some interviews from reliable sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (March 2 to March 8)

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2

March 3

  • None

March 4

March 5

March 6

March 7

March 8

  • How is Scott Pilgrim vs. the World a new article? GamerPro64 05:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Someone wrongly added the VG banner to it (and it is an article about the movie). I have reverted that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog Episode 4 merge

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Hello once again. I'm thinking about holding a potential merge discussion for Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I and Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode II into the Sonic the Hedgehog 4 article. Thoughts or objections before we can do so? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I would probably oppose that one per WP:NOTPAPER, since "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". If both Episodes pass WP:GNG comfortably on their own like they do, I don't see any reason to merge them. I would have agreed if one of them were barely passing the threshold, but it's not the case here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I’d oppose too. Despite the names, they’re two completely separate games, with completely separate coverage. As I’ve mentioned before, if they had named Ep 2 something like “Sonic 5” or “Sonic Zoom” or something, we wouldn’t be having these discussions. (This was proposed a few months back somewhere else, but ended inconclusively without a consensus, and then was just kinda dropped.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I oppose. They're completely different games, and they each have significant coverage that would prove unwieldy to combine into a single article. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that these are two completely irrelevant. Otherwise, what was the point of calling it "episodes 1 and 2". What if we create a page that covered both episode 1 and 2 while still having the individual pages? In a similar fashion as to how Fortnite covered Fortnite: Save the World and Fortnite Battle Royale.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Short version? EP 1 bombed, so they completely changed things up for EP 2. That didn’t do all that great either, so they ended it. So it’s not really your typical episodic release. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
That's not quite accurate. Episode I actually sold fine, it just got a lot of criticism so they refined the engine and graphics for Episode II. Episode III was planned and they even offered Christian Whitehead the job of director, but it wasn't at the top of Sega's to-do list so it just never ended up being made. To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to merging the two. Their development cycle was tightly tied together, and they have the same exact gameplay, same story, etc. The only thing that was really different about Episode II was Tails and the special stages. JOEBRO64 19:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
”Bombed” isn’t necessarily a sales thing, it’s a review thing too, and it was panned to the point of them completely changing EP 2. Usually, new episode entries are just plugging new content in the format of the old game. But Ep 2 has new graphics engine, new physics, new presentation, etc. the two episodes are only related win a similar way that Sonic 1 was similar to Sonic 2 on the Genesis (Tails included, ironically.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
They're similar, but not the same. Like you said (and others too), Episode II has stuff like Tails, special stages, different level themes, different level structures, etc. They have simularities, but not enough to warrant a cumbersome merge I feel (especially when there's so many reviews for both of them; I can't even imagine how long the Reception would be). Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm also going to oppose this. Despite being labelled as "Episode I" and "Episode II", they're really completely different games, and given the abundance of RS coverage for both, I see no real reason to merge. Phediuk (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, since there's some opposition for merging those articles, I think they may need some work in order to make the main Sonic series a GT/FT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ogre Battle title thoughts?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

While the series Ogre Battle is the only subject of that name with a full article, its namesake was quite obviously the Queen song, Ogre Battle (song), given the subtitle of the first game, "March of the Black Queen". With that in mind, does it make sense to move it to Ogre Battle (series) and create a disambiguation page to the song? It seems unusual that a game series would overshadow the song it was named after, even if the series is more notable than the individual song.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I would've agreed if Ogre Battle (song) had an article of its own, but it only redirects back to the full album. I'm against the idea unless the article is created for the song first.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd keep the title of the article as is and remove the old link, since it only redirects. If an article comes about in the future for the Queen single, it can be put back into place and this discussion raised again. I would say; that article needs some serious work. For instance, the fact that the series is named after that song isn't reliable sourced, either in this article or the first game's article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is Dissident93 removing the coronavirus news links from game articles?

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

We have a problem. Lately the 20th Game Developers Choice Awards, Independent Games Festival Awards and the 18th Annual G.A.N.G. Awards have been postponed to a later date due to concerns over the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. I tried posting the news and their news links in the Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice and Disco Elysium articles, but Dissident93 keeps removing them, claiming that we don't need the coronavirus news links to know that these three awards festivals were postponed! So now what? Do I have to remove all of the coronavirus news links from all game articles except the Sayonara Wild Hearts article?! It's like Dissident93 doesn't want the coronavirus news in all game articles except in 20th Game Developers Choice Awards' own article! Can somebody do something?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The outbreak is delaying the awards so it makes sense to mention there, but in terms of the games that have been nominated, when the award is given means little. The only key date for an award (nomination or winning) is the year that the award was meant to cover, so the fact that it will be delayed a handful of months doesn't matter. (This is also why we generally try not to include the date of the awards show in those game articles, since again, it doesn't matter much). --Masem (t) 01:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I’m inclined to agree - what matters for these articles is that the games were nominated, not when the events are held. Popcornfud (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I concur with the above. I don't see why the delay of the award matters unless it results in the award being changed or revoked, or some other kind of behind-the-scenes shenanigans. Phediuk (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. There’s no reason the awards delay needs to be mentioned in each game article. It’s not particularly important in the context of the scope of the game itself. It’s enough to mention at the awards article. Dissident is in the right here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that (after reading this [17]) that if games themselves are actually delayed due to the COVID-19 then yes, that should definitely be documented. Just the timing of when a published game gets its award is not something that we really need to be documenting to that detail. --Masem (t) 14:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed in this too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Another update: The SXSW Gaming Awards have been cancelled due to the coronavirus outbreak! I don't know if all games in that event are affected, but I read that some guys will find a way to reschedule the events now. Here's the news. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
And the Sakura Wars stage play has been cancelled due to the outbreak as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
And why dates don't matter: [https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/359319/Game_Developers_Conference_2020_announces_virtual_awards_and_talk_schedule.php GDC will still host its virtual award ceremony on the 18th. -Masem (t) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Final Fantasy

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a section at Talk:Final Fantasy#Explanation of Edits that could use some eyes. Final Fantasy is a featured article and several claims in the article are being challenged. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Characters/VA Tables

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've seen tables like these [18] popping up on character or series lists. Given that we have de-emphasized voice actors generally for VAs unless they are a point of discussion, these feel unnecessary and too much detail. Thoughts? --Masem (t) 03:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the characters and VA tables in character and/or series lists are too much. Not only is it a violation of WP:NOTINFO, but WP:GAMECRUFT discourages the use of cast tables in game articles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, that isn't helpful at all. A huge table, with which characters voiced by which voice actor appears in what game? That's trivia. I've reverted the edit. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

What should I add to MKLeo to make it worthy of submission as a good article?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all. I'm quite rusty at article writing, but I recently put a lot of work into the article for MKLeo, which needed sources and a rewrite for readability. If someone could look at the article and let me know what else it needs in order to be ready for submission as a Good Article, I'd greatly appreciate it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at WP:WIAGA. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

E3 pages need eyes

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Rumors are flying around that E3 may be cancelled this year due to coronavirus which would not be of any surprise, but ESA has yet to say. But I'm seeing some oddness already on both E3 and E3 2020. Eyes would help until we have an official ESA statement. --Masem (t) 03:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If E3 got cancelled what would happen to its article? GamerPro64 03:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing immediate as I fully expect that the major publishers to pivot and do virtual conferences (like GDC is now doing). In other words, we'd still have game announcements and pressers. But that would to see what happens in the few weeks after the cancellation. If E3 is cancelled and no one does any virtual pressers, then maybe the page is deleted? I'm not sure yet. --Masem (t) 03:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Although the cancellation would make it notable. - X201 (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It has officially been cancelled and I still need eyes as to not have information erased as ESA still says they are exploring virtual options for the show, in otherwords there still may be a E3 2020 , just onlne. --Masem (t) 15:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm watching it, but keep bumping up against edit conflicts because that Masem character has beaten me to it. - X201 (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Script

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Anyone know if there's a script to remove publisher parameters from references? JOEBRO64 03:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but if you edit a page in wikitext mode, and click the magnifying glass icon on the right, you can search for \| *publisher *= *.+?(\||}) and replace with |, check the "Treat search string as a regular expression" box, and replace all. Note that this will wipe out any publisher field in any template, so watch out for the infobox. --PresN 03:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I recommend strongly against replace all; replace ad hoc is much more reasonable. --Izno (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It's more important to be Bold when editing than careful, especially when copying someone else's regex from the internet. (That is to say, yeah, replacing one at a time is safer). --PresN 13:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Why does it need to be removed? - X201 (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Just for ref consistency. I'm working on Sonic the Hedgehog right now and want to get all the publishers out of citations where a website parameter is present. JOEBRO64 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you could fill in the publisher parameter for refs which already have the website parameter filled in. (e.g. website=IGN|publisher=Ziff Davis) Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Eh, it's not necessary and the majority of the refs don't have publishers, so I think it'd be easier to remove them. I'll probably just end up doing it manually. JOEBRO64 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Need advice

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, i need advice for Liberation 71, should i afd this? This game was never fully released & game developments have been suspended by devs due to lack of budget and is no longer being developed. There's no official info about how much of the game was developed. There website is dead. There was some media coverage when beta version of the game was released and that's it. i was unable to find anything or any info after that. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's your best solution; the developers aren't notable, and I don't see a good target for even merging that an attempt for a game about the historical event to be made. I cannot judge the significance/reliability of the sources, but you could take those that are most reliable and add them to the video game section on Artistic depictions of the Bangladesh Liberation War for the game, adding a brief note that the game failed to be completd, and then you can make that game's page a redirect to that target in case anything else came about. --Masem (t) 16:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll echo Masem's suggestion to merge what can be salvaged to the Artistic depictions article. Generally speaking, a game that gets canceled isn't in principle not notable. It does limit future sourcing but the mere act of getting canceled does not erase its prior notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, ideally the article would only be made once the subject became notable. It is difficult to tell if it is already notable or not. A WP:BEFORE search might be very difficult in this circumstance, as the refs look foriegn. The game being cancelled as above doesn't show it isn't notable, it just doesn't help future sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Article was created by people I would assume we're directly involved in the project (some names match, or at least we're SPA). It wasn't tagged by the various project oversight groups until much later so for at least a few years it was allowed to get crufty with the limited sourcing. In all likelihood it had no notability to start with, and certainly doesn't now. Some flagging for citations / support was done previously but was reverted by other motivated SPA often Bangladeshi. Prod'ing for additional sources may be helpful, but then also Prod'ing for delete would be appropriate. Anyone who cares will come out of the woodwork. Koncorde (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Koncorde: An article cannot be PROD'd a second time. AFD would be the next step. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I mistyped. The original intervention was a request for sources not a PROD. Have edited for clarity. Koncorde (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, again, I can see it was actually PROD'd properly in 2015. Missed that when I was glancing through the history. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, i started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberation 71 (2nd nomination) as advised. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Article Statistics

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's been a year since I last touched it, but the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics page has been updated with the past year's data, as well as adding old data from June 2006-March 2007. The graphs are also now up to date, with two more added showing our progress over the years in GA+ and FA/FL articles. Check it out if you're interested! --PresN 00:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this! Keeps us all in perspective. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it actually notable?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Going back to an article I previously created, Playing History 2 - Slave Trade, I am not so sure if it's actually notable. Since most of the reception for the game came from a single controversial minigame, it may violate WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage was mostly at that time, for that controversy. Thoughts?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it could be merged into Educational video game (maybe as a separate "Controversy" section) or Slavery#Media (a section which I find severely lacking for the potential that it has over various media and art variations)? Like you said, this seems like a WP:ONEEVENT case (though not applicable as this is not a person). From what I can see, only [19] goes in-depth beyond just the controversy. Gamasutra source is being generally about the borders of education, and the rest are fully "it was taken off Steam". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This game is actually the third in a series of games: “Playing History: The Plague,” “Playing History: Slave Trade” and “Playing History: Vikings - this is worth noting. The coverage on the series is centralised on a minigame in the second game, and this title as a whole. That said there is a lot of coverage on it and the series has won awards. There are a few links to things unrelated to the controversy below to consider:

--Coin945 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible new GT and FT project for Super Mario

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

After a brief discussion with Salvidrim and Sergecross73, I would like to propose that we should make the main Super Mario series topic a GT (and eventually an FT) in preparation for the upcoming 35th anniversary of the original Super Mario Bros. game, while we’re still doing the relevant pushes for the main Sakura Wars series, the main Sonic series and the Yakuza series. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You sure are planning a lot of Topic ideas all at once. GamerPro64 01:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This is where I'm starting to become concerned. As much as I appreciate your willingness to cleanup and attract some attention to these articles/series, I feel that this is the point where it's starting to become a bit silly. You're proposing that Wikipedia editors get every single article, every single character, game, cartoon or whatever relating to two massive franchises in time for these upcoming anniversaries? I'm sorry, but I don't feel that's a very realistic proposal. The Sonic the Hedgehog one is enormous, and not even before that one is half-way done you're already proposing we do one that's based on a much grander franchise? There needs to be a line drawn here. We need to focus on these massive ideas one at a time. Proposing more and more of them just gives editors a bunch of headaches and I don't feel a lot of work would be done on them if it continues like this. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I also don't remember anybody proposing one for the Yakuza games, but maybe I overlooked it. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to echo Namcokid. I think your time is better spent focusing on just one at a time. These topic proposals are massive and will likely require multiple editors who have a keen interest in the subject. JOEBRO64 02:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I proposed the Yakuza one not too long ago. Still, I admit that that some of these proposals I made are a little too much on our plates right now; no disruption is intended. Should we work on Mario or Sonic at the present? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
We should work on Pac-Man. :) In seriousness, we've already gotten editors working on Sonic stuff (including myself), so I think we should take care of Sonic before we do Mario. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, not to mention that Sonic the Hedgehog is going through a rigorous GAN as we speak. JOEBRO64 02:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll do the rest of the Game Gear games when I finish Pac-Man Championship Edition and some other side projects. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course, Pac-Man can be an interesting topic we can work on (July 2020 is the 40th anniversary of the franchise, by the way, so we may put the main Pac-Man page up for TFA by then, but even that might be too much at the moment). Not to mention that Sakura Wars (1996 video game) is also going through an FAC; I'll take care of the GAN (and later FAC) for Sakura Wars (2019 video game) shortly after the worldwide release this April. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Section break

Anyway, since we're doing that GT/FT push for Sonic at the moment, here are some statistics for the main Sonic series: 22 out of the 28 main series articles are GAs while only 2 of them are FAs. So, we've got like 4 articles that are not GA/FA yet (the Sonic the Hedgehog 4 articles, the 8-bit Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Sonic Chaos). That means in order to satisfy the criteria, the four articles should be at least GA+. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please create a stub article for "BigBang", the engine for the game Revelation Online

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Can we please create a stub article for BigBang,

the "in-house developed engine" for the game Revelation Online - [ https://ro.my.games/faq?_1ld=2634154_0&_1lp=1 ]

Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to show that there are reliable, non-primary sources that cover this in detail. Otherwise it fails WP:NOTABILITY. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It's very unlikely. The game's own article doesn't even mention it. -- ferret (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It’s not very often game engines have enough sourcing (or content to discuss) to warrant its own article on Wikipedia. Just mention it at the game or company articles. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

TV Tropes template

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

{{TV Tropes}} has been nominated for deletion. As it falls within the purview of this WikiProject, your input is requested. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox video game engine

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

{{Infobox video game engine}} probably needs some input/thought/review by the project. It has been created by Orangeisacop who is in the process of replacing {{Infobox software}} with it on various game engine articles. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, hope this doesn't cause any commotion. It's fairly a 1:1 swap-out for between the two templates - with some fields pertaining to engines and engine tech that are descriptive of feature-sets and version chronology. I'm happy to pause with updating infoboxes until we're happy to move forward with this change? Orangeisacop (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I guess the question is -- which fields are we "adding" that need a separate infobox? I see |first title=, |latest title=, |notable=, and |tools=. Personally, I don't think any of them should be in the infobox. First and latest title is whoever happened to make the first and last game. Not limiting this to notable entries will mean any old jam or test game counts. Limiting it to notable means it being outdated at best and inaccurate at worst. Plus, I don't think we can reliably source more than a few of these (how many sources actually say "game x is first/last game made in engine X"; there will be some mentions of first, but last?). At a stretch, I might see that the first notable game is a "stable" field. Notable games will be impossible to source and would end up being a subjective example list. Tools is something applicable to only a very small subset of articles. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
And |developer= is whoever happened to make the engine? I don't understand this point, I think having a clear beginning and (often) end to an engine's life cycle are clearly defining factors of the tech? I do understand the point about non-notable games being added to these fields, especially in the case of one-size-fits-all options such as Unity and Unreal, where any old '2-minuites in Unity Free and upload to Google Drive' games could fill the |latest title= (and even then would it be accurate ?) so I wonder if it's worth simply adding hidden text to these rare occasions to simply not add this field. In the vast majority of cases, however, the engine isn't as freely licenced and the in-article list of titles is pretty comprehensive so I don't see the point about not being able to verify this either. Also I do think it is key to seperate what are engine versions from game releases, as there are a number of cases I can think of where these would be different. For instance, shareware or demo copies of a game that are released would be the first version - but the first release would be when that retail copy comes out, im sure you can see the distinction. Also, |notable= are in most cases non disputed, and they often mainly fill the article with related text - so I see that as justification. Your point on |tools= seems shortsighted, there are many cases where engine-related tools are notable enough to have their own articles and it seems only fitting that they are linked-to in such a predominent way (the software infobox has |included with= as a reverse of this). I think this would be useful in painting a complete picture of an engine and it's tech. Orangeisacop (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I also forgot to mention the fields |forked from=, |preceded by= and |succeded by= which are also useful and accurate in depicting the chronology of engine tech.Orangeisacop (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't really think there even should be a separate infobox, let alone extra fields. I'm sorry if I sound dismissive, but our views on this differ too greatly to discuss one field at a time at this point. I could indeed elaborate every point I made. In short, I'm partly basing my opinion on previous consensus about video game infobox(es) fields, where VG project has spent a lot of time establishing fields. In the end, I'm just voicing an opposing opinion to support a WP:BRD and hopefully a discussion/proposal. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that we don't really need one. For something like Unreal, we'd be adding the "latest game" almost every week or 2. If we do decide to keep this, I'd also get rid of platforms and genre, because both of those only relate to the games and not the engine itself. The SDK/dev tools of something like Unreal are only available on the PC (correct me if I'm wrong though), while genre is subjective and not locked to any engine outside of single genre-only ones, such as Ren'Py or RPG Maker. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I am going to cosign the idea that we don't need our own infobox just for this. The trend over the past few years has been to streamline and consolidate infoboxes where possible to aid in maintenance and consistency across the project, which has the added benefit of heavily interrogating every single parameter and line item. If you're making a whole new infobox template just to add a few parameters, consider if they were important enough to begin with? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to:

present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles
— Help:Infobox

I'm not sure how you can argue that this doesnt fulfil this? Game engines just aren't like usual pieces of software. They are underlying tech of often many consumer-facing products and so have a different method of development from standard software products. They are far more reliant on libraries and middleware than regular software, they are iterated upon over a longer lifetime than most software and they often have related tools etc. I think the information within this is an improvement over the standard software infobox, and I can see how it would be an easy reference for key, unique characteristics of an engine. I'm not saying that there aren't more fields that could be included and useful, but I consider these changes a positive in the whole intention of an infobox in the first place. Orangeisacop (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if we take all your claims here as true (which I do not necessarily believe to be the case), how different can they be from "standard" software if it only adds a handful of dubiously useful new parameters and is otherwise identical to the standard software infobox? Take Decima (game engine) for example. Why is it useful that I see the first, last, and notable games using this engine in the infobox when that information is repeated in better context 6 inches to the left? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This is what I have the most issues with. The "first, last, and notable games" parameters shouldn't really be used, and we're basically left with the same parameters as the general software infobox if gotten rid of, making this separate infobox entirely unnecessary. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've nominated this template for deletion. Please comment at TFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Star Citizen/Squadron 42 Split Discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I have a discussion going on at Talk:Star Citizen#Spin Squadron 42 off into new article that I could use some insight on. Currently it's just a 1-on-1 debate and is boiling a bit without some outside input. — seadoubleyoujay [talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ] 23:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of making things easier for anyone who wants to comment on the discussion without reading a rather messy discussion, I'm summarizing my justification here, but this shouldn't become a separate discussion away from the SC talk page. Also for reference, I've written a draft article as well as a sandbox expansion of the current Star Citizen article to show how I'd envision they'd exist side by side.
  • Squadron 42 is listed in sources and by its developer as a separate, standalone release, further supported by Crytek v CIG, in which a major claim was in regards to the split of the two titles.
  • Squadron 42 has notability around its voice cast, gameplay, story, and development, which has been covered by the press.
  • Gameplay and story are sufficiently different from Star Citizen and notable enough that we'd have to include them in either S42 or SC. In SC it would be unwieldy describing the differences between a sandbox open world space combat and trading sim and a story-driven singleplayer game with space and fps combat focus. Including S42's story, setting, and voice cast details may be confusing to readers (e.g. Mark Hamill is only in S42, not SC).
  • Currently coverage of S42 in the SC article is vastly underwritten, as a summary of a larger article it works but by itself it needs expansion.
  • There will be some duplication of information (especially in legal and pre-split development), but S42 can include less dense, more specific information and be linked to the more expansive SC coverage.
  • Precedent. As User:OceanHok and I pointed out in the pages discussion, WP:VG has some precedent for splitting up titles like this (expansion packs, sequels, etc.). Squadron 42 would satisfy the general guidelines for a standalone release, a sequel/prequel (technically it's a prequel to Star Citizen), and a notable expansion pack.
  • As a final point, technically Star Citizen is "released" in some form. The game's alpha is currently at a playable state with sources reviewing gameplay experiences akin to standard Early Access titles. Squadron 42, however is not. The idea of having a released game and unreleased game, even if the released game isn't at a commercial level, is an odd choice.

— seadoubleyoujay [talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ] 14:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

As a participant in the discussion, I would note that there is disagreement concerning several of the points made above, and accordingly I would ask that people refer to discussions on the article talk page to further understand differing perspectives, since I see little point in duplicating them here. It seems likely though that an RfC will be conducted on the split issue at some point (probably not for a week or so at minimum, I'd guess). WikiProject Video Games will of course be notified. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

off-topic

Derailed conversation
It is grossly inappropriate to use a WikiProject talk page to canvass for support for one side of an ongoing debate (especially after being told that an RfC on the issue under debate is imminent) I shall be reporting this at WP:ANI. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the approach. The editor isn't explicitly stating to side with them, only that they would like more input.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It is WP:BITEY to report a good faith new editor to ANI just for this... OceanHok (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor is simply requesting additional comments. That's a common thing to do here, so I fail to see how it is "grossly inappropriate" (which, ironically, would be a pretty fit description for you reporting a new editor to ANI for). Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The appropriateness or otherwise of this is more properly discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing by Seadoubleyoujay., though I will note that Wikipedia:Canvassing seems clear enough on what constitutes neutral notification - and presenting one side of an argument can never be neutral. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Canvassing is defined as "a notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". This seems more like just "clarifying the discussion to those interested in commenting in it" than canvassing. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No, Seadoubleyoujay has done nothing whatsoever to present opposing arguments. It is canvassing, pure and simple. And incidentally, some of the claims made above in Seadoubleyoujay's partisan arguments cannot be supported in WP:RS - they are pure WP:OR, and have no relevance to the discussion. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, I'd like to point to my earlier quote: "this shouldn't become a separate discussion away from the SC talk page." If you have an issue, continue discussion on ANI, SC, or my talk page. This is once again making it impossible for anyone to actually participate in this discussion without having to sift through derailed conversation. — seadoubleyoujay [talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ] 17:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure you'd rather that people participate in a discussion after only seeing your side of the argument. I suggest you stop digging holes for yourself here... 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Seadoubleyoujay has only started editing in late January of this year, meaning he's a new editor and likely doesn't know all of the guidelines here. I find it very inappropriate you've decided to take both a new editor and something that could easily have been hashed out on the article talk page to ANI. This isn't canvassing; frankly he could have been a bit less biased in his initial post above, but nothing of his comment is of malicious intent. This is clarification for those interested in providing comments on the page and is simply providing context for what the discussion is about. That's not canvassing by any means. I don't know why you're continuously accusing him of this, but I request you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Oh, and this "passive-aggressive" behavior on both your recent posts and edit summaries is ridiculous. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
:As to when Seadoubleyoujay started editing, I'd have to suggest that the knowledge of Wikipedia workings demonstrated in early posts might possibly lead people to wonder how new to it s/he was, but whatever. People might say the same things about me of course, and likewise wonder (I've been here a very long time, post as WP policy allows as an IP, dynamic IP number changes as and when my ISP sees fit). Anyway, I've made the post at WP:ANI because I consider it canvassing, so there isn't much point in arguing over it here. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It comes off more like "you don't like what they said" rather than "they are violating Wikipedia policy". Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Fascinating. I am asked to 'drop the stick'. I say I'm dropping said stick here. Namcokid47 promptly picks stick up again. Doh! 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Arcade Heroes (arcadeheroes.com)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Arcade Heroes (arcadeheroes.com). If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Arcade Heroes. — Newslinger talk 23:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Video game engine navbox

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

Has anyone got an idea how to reorganize {{Video game engines}}? I think it's currently kinda cluttered, with the distinction "free and open source" and "proprietary", as well as "historical (free and open source)" and "historical (proprietary)", with subgroups on 2D, 2.5D, 3D and "mix", whatever that is. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps differentiating between free/open source and proprietary and then by decade of first introduction (eg no need to consider any "historical") but otherwise stripping out the 2d/3d distinctions? --Masem (t) 19:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, this is taking ages! I'll finish up later. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I took forever, but I've changed this into {{Video game engines}}. Like Masem suggested, a distinction between proprietary and open source, ordered by decade, then alphabetically. 2D, 3D, "mix" and middleware has been put into the relevant places. I've gone through each entry, adding the navbox where needed and AfD'ed PLIB for a second time and Multimedia Applications Development Environment for a third time. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I think structurally it's much cleaner, but I'm wondering if middleware like Havok and SpeedTree belong here and whether it makes sense to split up certain "sequel engines" like Source 2 and the various idTechs in this list. I think we should still retain a middleware section at the very least. — seadoubleyoujay [talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ] 17:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Seadoubleyoujay, I don't know if that works. Right now it's just based on whether it's proprietary or free/open source, so having another group just based on if it's middleware is an odd distinction to me. Isn't middleware software proprietary too? And if Havok and SpeedTree don't belong there, that makes a total of six entries that were considered middleware before. If you like to try it out, there is a template sandbox, so feel free to try it out in the meantime. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That's fair, I thought about it further and it didn't make sense on a second pass. I was more concerned with the mixing of middleware and game engines and how we're determining the distinction between "major revisions". Applications like Havok and SpeedTree likely need their own template (I can try mocking this up), but the versioning distinction is something I think needs further discussion, since we don't split up Unreal, Frostbite or CryEngine, for example, but we do split up idTech and Source. Granted, that's a discussion a little beyond just this navbox. I'll try to put something together for the middleware thing and present that, if it works we can probably just remove the existing middleware from this box, unless there's a reason to keep it in there. — seadoubleyoujay [talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ] 14:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

General note of an upcoming Edge magazine issue

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Based on a few articles that GamesRadar is teasing like this one [30] the next issue of Edge has a bunch of Valve-related stuff: General state of Valve, HL: Alyx, Artifact, Gabe's own thoughts, etc. Just wanted to drop note of this here as easier touch point for all possible articles that may want to see this issue. --Masem (t) 18:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Trials of Mana Remake article question

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Just wanting opinions on something. In my sandbox, I've created a draft for an article on the remake of Trials of Mana. Recently there was some debate about whether Trials should revert back to be called Seiken Densetsu 3, but that's beside the point. I thought that since the remake is so drastically different from the original and had a substantial amount of information both current and likely forthcoming from reviews, it deserved its own article. Can I go ahead with its creation, or should I wait until it's closer to release? Also, does the title for the original Trials of Mana change to something like "Trials of Mana (1995 video game)" to avoid confusion with "Trials of Mana (2020 video game)"? --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support the creation of a remake article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Double check my gut here re: DEFAULTSORT

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I have a user edit warring to keep their changes to the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template on articles I'm watching, changing Riven's default sort to Myst II, or Uru to Uru 1 and 2, despite the fact that none of these games are known by those terms. This seems like an improper use of changing the sorting method, no? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would understand why someone would add a numeral to two games that have, apart from the sequel bearing a number, the same name (ex. "Red Dead Redemption" and "Red Dead Redemption 2"). This allows the two entries to appear in the logically correct order without disrupting the category' overall order. However, this is not the case here. Especially with Riven, defaultsorting it with "Myst II" would mean that it appears under "M" on all categories where the key is not manually overwritten. This is poor practice, given that not all categories include all Myst games, and because most people who are actually looking for Riven in these categories wouldn't look under "M", rather under "R". I reverted the change to Riven and invited the editor to this discussion. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
nb. a) I don't understand how two games can have the same name (same WP title = impossible) ; b) I find 'edit warring' an ad hominem term
  1. In fact, all the categories under which Riven is included do include every other Myst game (with the exception of the year of creation and cancelled Atari games cats.)
  2. grouping the games chronologically by giving them similar defaultsort titles would also make it much clearer : within a very wide category (eg. point-and-click adv. video games), users would be able to sift out not only the chronological order, but also all the games of the same series, grouped together (otherwise, some games like Riven would be found separately, under the letter 'r', which is much more obfuscating for the user) --Couiros22 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
As I asked before, can you point to any guideline or policy that suggests sorting in this manner? Otherwise you're arguing "I like it this way". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
David Fuchs, well there is WP:SORTKEY, which sets out what sort keys should be, but there is no formal guideline on what is forbidden as far as I am aware. What we should consider is that categories are sorted, and a game called "Riven" appearing under "M" is not quite sorted. Maybe this discussion should be elevated to that guideline's talk page for wider consensus. IceWelder [✉] 13:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've explained above + the fact that this is a rare case, which just hasn't been addressed yet
- anyway, Riven's position within the Category:Myst_games category (albeit not in alphabetical order) now seems much less of an ambiguity, due to the unnecessity of the alphabetical letter of placement (i.e. whether m or r) --Couiros22 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The article's history shows you are close to edit-warring Couiros22, and that's not WP:ADHOMINEM at all. Per WP:BRD, the sensible thing would've been to start a discussion on the talk page, and not undo David Fuchs reverts twice in a row. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
no it doesn't... he reverted my edits twice & so did I ; we both provided one-line explanations and if the argument had developed any further, only then would I have felt the need to start a discussion page ; so 'edit-warring' is still an inappropriate term ; please address the debate topic itself for more useful implication --Couiros22 (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
...Yes, it does. See, I said "shows you are close to", I'm not saying you are edit-warring, you are close to doing so. Maybe you don't care about BRD, but you're pushing WP:3RR, and that's not helping your cause. I don't know a lot of about defaulsort and the like, so I'd rather help out pointing to Wikipedia editing guidelines, thanks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree in general that we should not force the order of Riven to be second to Myst in some of these cats; the only one where that should be done is in Category:Myst games where it makes logical sense.
But that raises a general categorization question. Taking Myst, it is listed in Category:Puzzle video games, but so is Category:Myst games, and no other Myst game (Riven, etc.) is listed in the Puzzle one. Since the puzzle categorization applies across all Myst game titles, would it not make sense to remove that from the Myst game, letting it come from the series as a whole? (Whereas, for a category like Category:Single-player video games which only apply to some of the Myst games, each game has to be added individually?) Or should it be the case that not only should the Myst games category be in the Puzzle video games cat but each individual game? --Masem (t) 16:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree, as it is done for the Category:Point-and-click adventure games --Couiros22 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Video game release template update

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Plastikspork: just made an update to VGRelease to support "split regions". In many cases, a game is released in several regions at once but not world wide. Sometimes we simply list them out individually, but often times they get combined like {{Vgrelease|[[North America|NA]]/[[Japan|JP]]|January 1, 2020}}. The regions had to be manually linked in these cases, or they would simply be black labels without links.

With the update, you can now use {{Vgrelease|NA/JP|January 1, 2020}} and the template will correctly link the two regions.

  • NA/JP: January 1, 2020

If you see manual piped links in your gnoming, feel free to remove them now. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (March 9 to March 22)

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

March 9

March 10

March 11

March 12

  • (none)

March 13

March 14

March 15

  • (none)

March 16

March 17

March 18

March 19

March 20

March 21

March 22

Covid-19 is affecting everything, including the weekly new article report- catching up now! --PresN 04:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Enter the Gungeon was listed here seemingly because the assessment was changed to include the Indie games task force. The original WPVG assessment was already added four years ago. Is this a bug that can be fixed? IceWelder [✉] 14:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it shows up on the log as an assessment, so bug there- I know they did something with the code because some older books suddenly popped up as well; if it keep happening I'll change my script to check for those bugs. --PresN 14:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC
  • I think there's a mistake up there. Sakura Wars (TV series) is an article first created in 2014-2015, and is hasn't recieved an kind of boost to its quality or status. Currently that article is marked under article's created during March 9. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, I think there is some kind of bug as pointed out above, as John Marston (Red Dead) was also marked as a new article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    Actually I think that article was tagged as being new as it was only recently tagged with the WP:VG project banner on the talk page [31]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, as the box at the top of the section says, "A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date)." --PresN 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I tagged a few drafts on March 17 and those are MIA. Did we nix draft reporting? --Izno (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't currently list new drafts unless they're an article->draft move. --PresN 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Polish translation help

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(also posted about this at WikiProject Poland: link / permalink)

Hello, I do not know if there are any Polish speakers among the WP:VG regulars, but figured I'd post about this here anyway.

As you may know, I've been working on articles for the World of Darkness video games for a while, and today I came across a seven-minute radio interview in Polish with the game designer of Vampire: The Masquerade – Coteries of New York, and would need help with translating it into English.

I understand that it's a big ask considering the length, but I'd be very grateful, and would in return do a peer review, good article review, etc, of an article you're working on (or do a Swedish-to-English translation of something of similar length, if you happen to have any Swedish sources you need help with).

Thanks, AlexandraIDV 21:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Predator: Hunting Grounds

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How comes this is a redirect? Has anyone created a draft yet? Govvy (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Be bold and create it yourself! It's certainly notable enough. JOEBRO64 18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: really... Be bold, I am not Batman! And anyway, I feel it's always good to double check that no one has already started on it yet! :/ Govvy (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ports

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I was working on Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening and was confused at how the reception uses the update Special Edition only. The original version and Special were released around the same year so I wonder if the article has to cover both. However, this year Capcom released another port for the Switch. Should it also be covered in the reception section? When I worked in Devil May Cry 4 I covered its updated port (released about five years after the original one) in another section so I'm kinda lost.Tintor2 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure but the Switch version did include exclusive features such as on the fly weapon switching and a local co-op for the Bloody Palace mode so it may make sense to mention them if the reviewers decided to focus on them when they reviewed fhe switch version.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a guideline for this? I mean, the port was released literally fifteen years after the original game. It's why I wonder why the DMC4 Special Edition has to be covered in the gameplay and plot sections of the game despite being released about five years after vanilla. Kinda reminds me to all Street Fighter game.Tintor2 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Started Talk:Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening#Reception seems lacking?.Tintor2 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Street Fighter

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just asking for a few more eyes at Talk:Street Fighter#Human_Killing_Machine, if nothing else to endorse my decision to remove the content as discussed there. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 05:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

How is this sandbox?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I never created an article like this due to the rereleases I have had not enough content to write some paragraphs. However, Devil May Cry 4's updated version had quite some coverage by the media (to the point the vanilla article was kinda tricky) so I gave it a shot here in my sandbox. What do you think? I think there is enough reception but I'm not sure if it's enough to give Special Edition its own article.Tintor2 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Super Mario 35th anniversary

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Just posting this here so we can be on top of things. It's technicially still just rumors for now, but Eurogamer, Gematsu, VentureBeat, and VGC are saying it's legit based on their sources (which excites me, because I've imagined a remastered 3D Mario compilation for the past seven years or so). JOEBRO64 00:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started a draft for it at Draft:Untitled Super Mario collection, in case anyone's interested in contributing or watching it. JOEBRO64 15:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I personally wanna see definitive evidence that points to these being true, rather than just what appears to be publications reporting on rumor mills. I'd love to see this happen though. Sunshine is still one of my favorite Mario games after all these years, so I'd be all for an HD remake of it. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I mean, a ton of reputable sources are saying it's real. We shouldn't create a mainspace article about it until there's an official announcement, of course, but a draft is fine. That's what we've done with games that they didn't officially announce for a few months even though they were confirmed to be real by multiple sources, like Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle and Team Sonic Racing. JOEBRO64 20:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

My AfDs

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

Does anyone feel like commenting on these two AfDs? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLIB (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multimedia Applications Development Environment (3rd nomination). Thanks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've closed them as soft deletes. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Ferret, you shouldn't have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multimedia Applications Development Environment (3rd nomination) as it had 2 afds resulting in keep. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Jovanmilic97 That was taken into consideration, read my close. The 2007 AFD literally had a Keep that acknowledged there was no sourcing. Feel free to refund and address the sourcing issue. I chose to soft delete with that in mind, but if you prefer, I will change it to an outright delete, which would still be valid. -- ferret (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added some further clarification to my close. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
There's been some chatter elsewhere (I think maybe on Iridescent's talk page) that it really doesn't make sense to immunize an article from PROD if the last PRODs or AFDs or whatnot were over 10 years ago, but that's not policy/guideline of course. I think there is a solid case for WP:IAR here for once given the history, but both WP:REFUND and WP:DRV are available to you if you think otherwise and want further community comment. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In this case as well, both AFDs in 2007 were opened by the same individual (the second with no proper rationale) and had low participation with (literally) weird arguments and zero policy statements. -- ferret (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I see it now, and thanks for the explanation Ferret! There seems to be another of these at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Woman, same case as the two above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  Done After reviewing the sources myself, etc. -- ferret (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ferret, thanks for your help. I was worried that MADE wouldn't be deleted because it was the third AfD. Thanks! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sega Ages

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've noticed a lot of edits on this page recently, all being reverts from random IP addresses. They keep removing the Sega Ages Online/Sega Vintage Collection table with no edit summary, and I'm getting a bit sick of it. Any chance this page could be protected for a bit? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: Doesn't warrant protection at this time. Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:9020:6C00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for disruption. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have the article on my watchlist too, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Honkai Impact 3rd Article Reevaluation

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The ″HI3″ article has come a long way from where it was a few months ago. I think it's beyond the ″Start″ rating it currently has (C or B level, I would guess). Since it is no longer April 1st, I thought it the perfect opportunity to ask, how does an article get re-evaluated? DriftWrench2k (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The quality scales can be found at WP:VG/A. I'm afraid that in a glance it's obvious Honkai Impact 3rd is a mess. There are multiple issues, including insufficient sourcing, incorrect Wiki mark-up and even a "citation needed" in a subsection heading. I'll try to get more in line later today, but it still needs a lot of work. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It definitely does still need work, and after looking at the description of B articles, I would say it's not near that point yet; however, when it comes to content, I and others have pruned a lot, removing grammar errors and etc. If possible, advice on how to further improve the article would be appreciated. It is worth noting that some of the templates may not be as applicable to the article any longer. If it's not yet to the C level, I'll do what I can to bring it to that point, though it's improved significantly since the start-class article it used to be. DriftWrench2k (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi DriftWrench2k, I took out 14K of characters. Besides the minor edits like Wiki mark-up and stuff, the character list is not needed. It was unsourced to boot, but it didn't have anything encyclopedic in nature, i.e., creation, development, reception. It just tells the events from the game from the characters' point of view. The 'graphics and art', 'cinematics' and 'audio and music' were either unsourced, or sourced by YouTube videos. That's WP:OR; for inclusion about the development of those specific subjects, we need coverage by independent, reliable sources. Not a YouTube video of a computer-animated character dancing. Mention that a game hasn't been reviewed by a particular website is not necessary either. User reviews, like those on the Google Play Store or GameFAQs are also not needed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Soetermans; a lot had been pared down to the point that, as a newer editor, I felt unsure of being qualified to make more removals of information such as what you have, so this is very helpful for me to see. Again, thanks for your time. Also, one last thing: is the article worth submitting for review to see if it is C-class, or do you think the article still needs more work before that point (it needs more work, but is it probably good enough to not be wasting others' time to ask it to be reviewed)? DriftWrench2k (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I'm more of a hack and slash editor myself, so this is right up my alley. I think the article is in better shape now, but I definitely could use some more reliable sources. Are you familiar with the WP:VG/RS (that's the curated list of WikiProject Video games' reliable sources) custom Google search engine? If you look up "honkai impact 3rd", there isn't a lot, but you get results from:
Incorporating these into the article might help a bit. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Competitive) video games are sports disciplines on something else?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What do you think? I posted a question @ wikidata. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Predator Hunting Grounds

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if this User:Govvy/Predator: Hunting Grounds is good enough start to move to Predator: Hunting Grounds so others can work on it. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, I think you mixed up the developer and publisher credits. Other than that, you might want to add italics for the name of the game, as well as video game websites, fix the capitalization of "PlayStation", and mention the release date and the genre in the infobox. Also be wary that Metro (per RS/P) and TheSixthAxis (per VG/RS) are considered unreliable and should be exchanged for better ones instead. Our project has a custom Google search engine for just reliable sources, in case this helps. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why the Metro link would be RS, it's just giving the release dates and a bit of background about the game. I changed the dev and publisher around. Govvy (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sega

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To whom it may concern,

Sega is celebrating its 60th anniversary on June 3, 2020. I am attempting to get Sega as the featured article of the day on that day, but so far the article has gone through two FACs and both were closed due to a lack of feedback. Your feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega/archive3, if you have the time to provide it, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 16:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_148&oldid=1083893804"