Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 103

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Splitting Rockstar North and DMA Design pages

Hello everybody,

I would like to put forward the motion that the current Rockstar North page should be split into separate DMA and Rockstar North pages due to the fact that Rockstar North has always been a studio under the ownership and management of other companies.

In other words to make the distinction between the studio and the company that owned/owns it. I think at the moment that Rockstar North the studio is being confused as the same thing that DMA the company was.

This would create an article about Rockstar North which has always been a studio, first owned by DMA and then owned by Rockstar Games and a separate article about DMA Design and its history.

I would suggest that Rockstar North’s history starts at 1999 when the studio was created and as the studio still operates continues until present. DMA Design’s history would start in 1998 and end with the final game that it was involved in producing which was GTA 2 with only the name remaining until 2002.

For example: Just as Rockstar North is a studio of Rockstar Games so it has a separate page from the Rockstar Games. So should Rockstar North which began as a studio of DMA have a separate page from DMA.

I think this points out the separation and why it is needed here: If you simply Google “Rockstar North” on the right hand side of the page you see, “Founded: 2002, Edinburgh. Founders: David Jones, Steve Hammond, Mike Dailly, Russell Kay”. These facts are taken from this page but are untrue; the people mentioned left the company at least three years prior to this date and it was not them that set up the studio. The distinction between the studio and the company that owned it are not being illustrated.

No consensus was reached on the North page so thought people would engage with the discussion here. What does everybody think? A good idea? Juno.808 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the same company. Just because its been taken over by someone else and has two distinct phases of life isn't an ipso facto reason for splitting. The article is hardly large or comprehensive as it is. Rockstar North WAS founded by the people who you say it wasn't, its the same company; DMA Design is now called Rockstar North and Rockstar North was DMA Design, they are one and the same. Just because the new owners changed the name doesn't stop Jones, Dailly et al being the founders. If the article were massive and needed splitting you would have a case for splitting it along DMA lines, but the article just doesn't warrant the split as it stands. - X201 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide some evidence that these two studios should be viewed as exactly the same thing and not as separate studios?

These are some of the reasons that I feel DMA’s Dundee studio and Rockstar North should be viewed as separate entities:

1. Their website only refers to productions created by this studio and refers to nothing created by other studios and stating they were founded as Rockstar North in 2002. This would suggest that the name Rockstar North only applies to the Edinburgh studio and not the DMA Dundee studio.

2. DMA in Dundee and the Edinburgh both existed at the same time, although some staff moved over, they did not whole sale move the Dundee studio to Edinburgh however they were briefly part of the same company. The Edinburgh studio opened as a separate studio in 1999 then the Dundee studio was closed a while after.

3. There is evidence that some of those that were heavily involved in DMA consider the company closed and that the Edinburgh studio, although a continuity of sorts, was something that should be considered different from DMA:

“DMA came to an end in 2001…for the original DMA, the real DMA, the story was over.” Steve Hammond – DMA Founder - http://www.dmadesign.net/about/

DMA “…ended on a high in 2000 with Grand Theft Auto 2.” – Mike Jones, DMA Founder http://www.dmadesign.org/

Also “Our tour of the studio takes us to Andy Semple next. He has been with Rockstar North since its founding in Edinburgh, as studio operations and director.” Develop.com - http://www.develop-online.net/studio-profile/inside-rockstar-north-part-2-the-studio/0184061

Especially considering that the Rockstar North website only includes information about the Edinburgh studio would that be grounds enough to show that Rockstar North refers to only that studio and not to the company DMA based in Dundee and therefore when we say Rockstar North we should only be referring to the Edinburgh studio? Juno.808 (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of companies that choose to use their website for current information. Not carrying information from the past is nothing unusual and doesn't imply that something that happened in the past is disconnected from the current time.
Companies change locations regularly. You seem to be claiming something along the lines of; because Tesco no longer own the location of their first store, they're not really Tesco any more, and stopped being so when they moved out of the store. Changes happened, DMA made the decision of starting the Edinburgh studio, and the decision to close Dundee. Its still the same company.
That's just their personal opinion. If we split articles based on someone's opinion of a "golden period" ending or, major corporate change altering the feel of a company, we'd end up splitting most company articles.

What Rockstar North choose to do on their own website doesn't change history. If they want to deny that DMA is the company's former name, that's their choice. Wikipedia is here to explain to readers that DMA and Rockstar North are not separate companies, but in fact the same company.

There's no consensus for the split. You did a bold split, another editor reverted it, since then neither that editor or myself have been swayed by the arguments for a split. - X201 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back with the above points.

1. I take your point about the website.

2. That wasn’t my point, I’ll make myself clearer. I was saying that there is a clear distinction between DMA Design in Dundee and their studio in Edinburgh. That the studio was a part of the company but not representative of the whole company, and does not make it representative just because the studio in Dundee closed. The studio in Edinburgh has always been a studio – owned and managed by DMA then Rockstar – and it didn’t become the same thing as DMA Design in Dundee when DMA Design in Dundee closed. It didn’t inherit that company or history or that studio.

3. I take that on board about this as well.

Just because the studio was called DMA Design doesn’t make that automatically the same thing as the company in Dundee and the studio there. When the Edinburgh studio was set up they were part of the same company but when sold the studio became Rockstar's studio. At this point the studio didn't take on the history of a different studio, it was still founded in 1999 and Rockstar North was the renaming of that studio (and was actually renamed Rockstar Studios very briefly before changing to North) and I don't think should be retroactively assigned to DMA Design in Dundee, I see no evidence with that taking place. That studio wasn't renamed Rockstar North - the studio in Edinburgh was renamed Rockstar North.

When they (they being company DMA which had two studios) were purchased by Rockstar there were two studios in Scotland called DMA Design and they were both owned by Rockstar. When the Dundee studio was closed it was not moved over to the Edinburgh one, they did not then become the same thing as both combined. So why should the Edinburgh studio be considered the same thing as the company in Dundee?

There is some continuation but not I believe enough for the studio to be considered the same thing as all that was built in Dundee. There are strong links and those should be acknowledged but it doesn't make sense to me to call them the same studio. Juno.808 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, waiting on a response from the user who was against this split to my above statements. Can we not archive this? Any other input from the community would be greatly appreciated thanks Juno.808 (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Then it would help to ping X201. Conversations here are automatically archived after a period of inactivity. There appears to be no consensus for a split. czar ♔ 19:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we establish that the Dundee studio set up in 1988 and the Edinburgh studio set up in 1999 were two different studios, (worked on different projects, had different managements etc), that were part of the same company DMA Design. They were two distinct studios within that organization while they were both operational at the same time.

Once we can establish if these two studios existed we can then talk about whether DMA Design Edinburgh studio's rename to Rockstar North should be applied to the closed Dundee studio.

Any input from anybody else here on the project page would be very welcome as I think we tend to split pages by studios rather than by grouping more than one studio together. Even when studios are merged (which didn't happen in this case) the closed studios usually retain their identity? see Rockstar Vancouver merging into Rockstar Toronto Juno.808 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Just another quick thing before I end up talking to myself here:

I think this is a simple miss understanding caused by the fact that both the Dundee and Edinburgh DMA studios shared the same name.

It is true to say that the Rockstar North studio is the same thing as DMA – But only of the DMA that was in Edinburgh.

It is not true to say it is the same thing as the DMA in Dundee. They were two studios operating under the same company DMA Design but were still two different studios none the less.

If the DMA in Edinburgh and the DMA in Dundee were two different studios then the DMA in Dundee and the renamed DMA in Edinburgh (Rockstar North) are two different studios. Again any thoughts on this from the community greatly appreciated, just trying to clear up a common misconception I see a lot of online. Juno.808 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Spelling on Infamous (or InFamous?)

Hi guys,

I noticed that Dell9300 (talk · contribs) took it upon themselves to change all Infamous (video game series) related articles and mentions to InFamous. I am wondering whether or not this is the right thing to do, with WP:MOSTM in mind. --Soetermans. T / C 14:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In a WP:VG/RS search, it looks like Sony and Metacritic are the only sites to use CamelCase and the rest use "Infamous". Per consensus through editing, the existing spelling should be treated as having consensus, and unless it has already been decided on the talk page, the right course of action would be to revert (BRD) if you disagree with the change. Once someone disagrees, burden is on the editor to make her case. czar ♔ 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a move discussion on the same issue in 2011 (Talk:InFamous (video game series)#Requested move) and Dell9300 should've followed the same procedure. --Mika1h (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOSTM allows CamelCase where it's better for reading. I don't really see this here, if anything I find extra capital letter more distracting from reading/pronouncing the word (which is a real word). Coupled with previous RM, I think this was an incorrect course of action. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Also the stylised version is inFAMOUS which isn't true camel case in the sense that MOS:TM means it. Normal capitalisation should apply (Infamous). - X201 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As with everyone else, I agree that normal capitalization should be used here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
If the person in question does want to use InFamous they should make a new move request. The existing consensus from the previous request was to use the current spelling and so far no evidence has been provided that there has been any change sine then.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting everything, Czar. --Soetermans. T / C 10:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well the reason it is spelt with a capital "F" is simply because the title is not the word "infamous" (meaning well known for negative reasons) but rather a merging of "famous" and "infamous" and should be pronounced as two words "in" and "famous". The game is not about being evil or infamous, its about the choice of good or evil. With the naming of the articles as "infamous" this confuses the subject matter, portraying it as only evil, when in fact the majority of publicity material is "good Cole". The official style is "inFAMOUS" which of course is unacceptable for encyclopedic purposes. The European cover art for the original game spells it as "inFamous" on the spine, as does the trophy list on the PS3. Again, a non-capital "I" is not acceptable either which leads to the most suitable title in terms of correctness and Wikipedia rules being "InFamous". In response to most sources using "Infamous", well they are simply wrong as can be often seen with PlayStation being spelt incorrectly with a lowercase "S". Another reliable source with the use of a capital "F" is GameSpot, as seen here. —Dell9300 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:TM we don't play around with "fancy" casing or styling, and instead opt for the version of the word that is readable in English to avoid confusing the reader. So while the box art is clearly "inFAMOUS", we are going to call it "Infamous" because that's easier to read in running prose. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You clearly did not read my comment. I said "inFAMOUS" is NOT acceptable. As for "Infamous" not "confusing the reader" again missed the point. "Infamous" does confuse the reader because it is portraying the game as something it is not. —Dell9300 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

InFamous is equally "not okay" as "InFAMOUS". Masem is correct. General rule of thumb is just to use standard English capitalization, ignoring stylizations. Just treat it like a normal proper noun. It works that way across the project. Note that it's Kesha, not "Ke$ha", Korn, not "KoЯn", etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that but in this case it changes the meaning implied (from both famous and infamous to simply infamous). Your examples don't really apply since they use either a non-letter or a non-English letter. How about BlazBlue, not Blazblue? —Dell9300 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The implications of the title styling as used on the box art (that Sucker Punch wanted to emphasis the "famous" vs "infamous" concept) is something that can be discussed in the Development section if there are reliable sources that point to why this is why they chose that style. As for CamelCase words like BlazBlue, we do allow that (that's still readable), if this was "InFamous" (which it is not), we could have used that instead. But its clear they wanted the stylized title to be "inFAMOUS" which simply doesn't fly for our style guide. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well the logo styles it as "inFAMOUS" as it is a design concept, but the manual for the first game, for example, does indeed style it as "InFamous" in sentence case. —Dell9300 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think there's much of a change in "implied meaning", but if there's anything directly from the creators in that regards, it could be covered just fine in the prose (with reliable sources.)Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well implies only an evil storyline when in fact it is actually both good and evil depending on player's choice. If it were simply the word "infamous" as the title it wouldn't be a choice but rather only evil. —Dell9300 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As Masem says, because "infamous" is a real word that doesn't need extra capitalization to read out comfortably. There is no pause between "in" and "famous" in the game's title and it doesn't have to be read like that. In fact, "in-famous" and "infamous" is even pronounced differently. So there is no need or reason to camelcase. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said in the first place: "should be pronounced as two words "in" and "famous"". The game's title isn't simply the word infamous but "in" (from the word infamous) and "famous" so should be pronounced "in-famous". —Dell9300 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We have nothing from Sucker Punch that says this is how the game's title is to be taken. And there's a lot of ways we can read that title and why it is stylized and the implications to the game's story - but that is all original research. If they really wanted "in-famous" they would have had the dash. As such, we have to treat it as one word "infamous", and go by how MOS:TM prescribes. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our reliable sources don't pronounce it that way. For example, IGN, GiantBomb, GameTrailers, etc. There is no "should be pronounced", when it isn't pronounced so as backed by sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since reliable sources do not pronounce the game as in famous nor has the person proposing using InFamous provided any evidence that the title is pronounced that way we should keep the status quo. It should also be noted that infamous is an actual word which is pronounced in·fa·mous not in-famous) so the game's title could be a stylized version of that word meaning that it could very well have not have been meant to be in-famous to begin with.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be consensus that typical English/MOSTM should apply here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

How did Driv3r slip through the net for so long? - X201 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I started a requested move for Driv3r. --Mika1h (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Side note, not that really interested in either way, just thought it might be worth mentioning: the games' cases, on the side, read "inFamous" and "inFamous 2". These are in plain text, unlike the cover's title. This trend continues in the documentation (like the manuals and one "redeem this code for a 50% off" thing). – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable interview sources

I've just started working on the article Don't Starve, and it currently has no Development section. To remedy that, I've scrounged up a few interviews. (There were more in the form of videos, but I don't like those as sometimes sites change their layouts and structures and then web.archive.org is useless.) These are text-based, and I want to know which, if any, would be considered acceptably reliable sources in the event of a GA nomination so I don't waste my time:

Thanks. Tezero (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at them, the only source I know that is reliable is Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Not sure about the other three. GamerPro64 15:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Technically interviews are primary reliable sources (unless there's reason to believe the reporting website to be untruthful), so no matter which source published the interview, it's a reliable source for content, I guess. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

IndieGames is a sister site to Gamasutra, they share content a lot. I've used them before in GA/FAs. Never heard of the last two, though. --Pres N 16:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

We need to have some assurance that the site holding the interview hasn't made it up, and while one or two interviews from normally non-reliable within a good set of reliable ones is going to be fine, we don't want too many of these overwhelming reliable sources for development details. And of course, you something have to ask if there's credence that some unknown site manages to get an interview with a huge name in gaming if that's a legit interview. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

RPS and indiegames.com are generally okay for interviews, I guess; the other two I don't know about. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless the interview is edited (or made up), there isn't much difference who hosts it. Granted, reliable sources tend to have more meaningful and non-leading questions. But it's still a primary source, so I wouldn't put interviews in reliable sources that much higher up in "reliability". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I ended up using the second and fourth entries here as well as one I found by Edge, just to be on the safe side. I do remember interviews from non-reliable sources being a problem during the FAC of Shadow the Hedgehog. Thanks, everyone. Tezero (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad, and the Bogus

I interlibrary loaned this (apparently scarce) book, The good, the bad, and the bogus: Nathan Lockard's complete guide to video games. It covers SNES, Genesis, and Sega CD reviews, if you'd like a lookup for an obscure title on your to-do list. The linked Google Books page lets you do a search for the book's contents. I'll have it for the next week or so, so let me know if you can use a ref or two. czar ♔ 22:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category: Video games about wish-fulfillment

Would this be a good category? For video games about wishes, like the Mario rpgs and legend of Zelda games? Please feel free to name any more examples, I'm sure there are plenty. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it could be a useful category, but I'm not certain whether roguelikes and high-level D&D campaigns (such as Pools of Darkness) would qualify. They use wishes as a game mechanic, but they're not about wish fulfillment. Dark Sun: Shattered Lands has a wish-granting genie as a major plot element, but the theme is more about slavery than it is wish fulfillment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A-Class Review request

I'm notifying the project that I have put the article Grand Theft Auto V up for A-Class review. ACR doesn't appear to get a lot of love these days, which is why I'm prompting reviewers here as well. CR4ZE (t) 02:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see A-class as particularly useful. Unlike GA and FA status, A-class isn't really recognized outside individual WikiProjects. It also conveys a bitter air to me of "I tried to get this article featured, but they weren't having it, so here's a consolation prize" such as I know happened with Necrid. Tezero (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviving the Valve Task Force

Hi everyone! I've been working on a redesign of the Valve Task Force and just pushed it out today! We're a project dedicated to articles relating to the Valve Corporation, who are the creators of the Half-Life series, Portal series, and Steam (software), among various other products. I wanted to post here to see if anyone else was interested in contributing and to ask if we could get the "Revived!" tag on our task force in the sidebar? Thanks, --Nicereddy (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You can click here to add Revived if you want. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Need some help establishing consensus at PCSX2

I could use a little bit of help at PCSX2, an article about a PS2 emulator for the PC. There's a dispute over whether we should include a section about the performance of Intel vs AMD CPUs, which is tangentially related to the performance of the emulator itself. The issue was originally raised by an IP editor on the talk page. After discussing it with the IP editor, I came around to his point of view and attempted to implement the consensus. However, a rather determined editor has reverted my edit and declined to join in the discussion on the talk page. Perhaps with more people discussing the matter we can avoid an edit war and form a clearer consensus one way or another. Thanks for any input on the matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I left a reply on the talk page. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Espio the Chameleon and Blaze the Cat

I think this thread has been derailed long enough and as an uninvolved member, I'm closing this discussion. If you want to continue bickering about notability, start a new thread. GamerPro64 21:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

So, I've been feeling kinda lousy lately about Espio the Chameleon and Blaze the Cat, which I created, being changed to redirects shortly after I brought Espio's article all the way to GA status a couple years back. However, I'm considering bringing one or both of the articles back and cementing a case for their notability. To do that, though, I'll need to add some sources. Would the following be enough so that re-merging into List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters isn't a realistic possibility?

[1] - author from UGO names Espio as the 39th best "kid" in video games and claims that he should appear more often
[2] - author from Blistered Thumbs names Blaze as the 9th most under-used Sonic character
[3] - author from Kotaku wishes Blaze (and Rouge) had gotten a figurine, not Shadow
[4] - another author from Kotaku says "who the hell is Espio" regarding inclusion of strange characters and general mediocrity of Mario & Sonic at the 2012 Olympic Games

This is in addition to the few pieces of reception that were in the articles at the time of their merging, most of which were centered on the original games they appeared in and thus apparently didn't show that the characters were notable overall. Tezero (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two quick notes: can anyone find why Espio was delisted as a GA? And also, "Top X Lists" are historically weak when it comes to establishing notability for fictional characters. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, it was delisted as GA by Gimmetoo on May 29th, 2012 (citing a March 6th, 2012 date), but I cannot find discussion of this DGA/merge either on Espio's talk page or on the list's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so Gimmetoo only updated to talk page with the merge/DGA statut after Kung Fu Man decided to merge/redirect without apparent discussion to the list of characters. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand by it too. The reception section didn't look at it as a character but instead as a game element. It would be like several sources stating that "Peach is the best driver in Mario Kart" and building a wikipedia article around that, even though it builds nothing on what her weight as a fictional character is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The first source isn't like that, which suggests that Espio could be notable. Tezero (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant more in the sense of the original articles, which had reception sections made up entirely of that. While it's not the strongest source yes that one you posted could work towards notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't the right thing to do; I just laid out what happened to the former GA. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about Sanic, but "historically weak"? Btw, articles don't even (necessarily) need reception sections, they, re just nice to have. And [5] looks okay. --Niemti (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support the redirects. Having read through the previous versions, the two characters read as minor and make more sense in an ensemble article. However, I believe we owe it to the OP to have an actual merge discussion before boldly redirecting their work (even if the bold redirect happened two years ago) if the OP wants such a discussion. And at the very least, Tezero can userfy the pages for incubation and future consideration. czar ♔ 14:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I support the redirects too. They're all just passing mentions. I remember weeding out a ton of bogus reception back in the day, because they weren't actual reception. They were comments like "IGN said 'Boy, that Espio sure is fast!'". These articles are actually some of the reason why I don't care to bring my projects up to GA status, it kind of shows how arbitrary it is. One mans "GA" is another mans redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, what about Big the Cat? With the first two, admittedly I was mostly trying to look for sources rather than already being knowledgeable about the characters' reception, but Big is actually an infamous character I've seen on a lot of lists. Looking now:

From the list page: "In a preview of Sonic and the Secret Rings, Nintendo Power praised the exclusion of Big from the game, referring to him as a "dim-witted, morbidly obese feline". However, Big later made his way into the game."
[6] - #2 on Top 10 Sonic characters that need to retire - Blistered Thumbs
[7] - Big made it to the top 8 on the "worst video game characters" tournament
[8] - In the top 10 "lamest" game characters (unranked list) by CheatCodeCC (not sure if reliable source, although this does appear to be a real article rather than something a fan wrote)
[9] - #1 on "worst Sonic friends" list by GamesRadar (which also puts Blaze somewhere on the list, if that matters)
[10] - #1 on "worst Sonic characters" list by Official Nintendo Magazine
Not reception, but this information about his conception and creation

Basically, I'm looking for something to do while my two GANs, Pokémon Channel and Don't Starve, wait for reviews (I'll be damned if those aren't notable...), so why not Sonic characters? Tezero (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend taking the list of Sonic characters to featured list-quality, if you're interested. You appear to be invested enough to make it happen. I think the main issue surrounding the dedicated articles is more about independent notability than a dearth of sources. Once the list article is completely sourced, we can always discuss breaking out one of the items summary style. czar ♔ 16:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never thought about that; I'll look into it. (Actually, maybe it should be an article rather than a list, in the vein of Characters of Kingdom Hearts and List of Pokémon (1–51), because it's set up more for paragraph format than for a table-style list.) Regardless, I feel that the sources I came up with for Big are genuine reception that establish his notability as one of the worst-received video game characters; would you support making it a standalone article, regardless of whether I make that step right now? Tezero (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion recently about whether vg character lists (while mostly prose) go through the list or article nomination processes. I'd take a look at the GAN talk page archives to see how that went. If I were you, I'd boldly move the redirected pages you want to work on to your userspace, incubate them, and introduce them when you feel ready, but be prepared to have a final discussion about their notability. From where I stand, unless the characters begin getting significant, dedicated coverage (not just mentions on a top ten list, but dedicated articles), the notability argument will be weak. (I wouldn't support standalones yet, even with the new sourcing.) I think there are bigger fish (Big pun intended) to fry and you could do a great job with the Sonic characters article before potentially spinning your wheels on the contentious topic of these relatively minor characters. If the overview article shows that there is clearly more to say about a topic than there is room, we'd all have a different conversation. czar ♔ 17:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we reached a consensus on article vs list, since we have both GA and FAs for character list articles, but also FLs for character lists. It really seems to depend on: can you get enough development and reception for the character groups as a whole to make it an article, or is it just a series of short 2-3 paragraph chunks on each character individually. It's a bit of a mess, overall, but it's perfectly doable. --Pres N 18:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm doing a Big article in my tempspace. (It has a more decent reception section, rather like those of existing character articles, than the sources I've posted would imply. Nevertheless, there may be more work to do.) And PresN, I could see that going either way. Tezero (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You guys sure Sanic. This article is/was surely better than Robotnik's (for example), but let's arbitrarily redirect GAs everywhere. --Niemti (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, it was partially my/the GA reviewer's fault for getting the Espio article to GA without realizing it didn't quite fulfill the notability criteria. I do find Wikipedia's notability guidelines overly strict, but they're still there and I have to obey them. Tezero (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It did fulfill the notability criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability It basically overlaps with V and RS. The word "reception" is not even there, at all. --Niemti (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, but significant coverage is at WP:N, and it basically failed that. Most of the refs were passing mentions of whatever came up if someone were to "control F" on "Espio" any review for a game he's been in. For instance, ripped from the article " IGN's Travis Fahs opined that "the Chaotix crew was a hoot", highlighting "aerial maneuvers" such as Espio's trademark wall-running.[9]." That's not significant coverage, that's a passing comment about him. In fact, upon closer inspection, if you check the source you'll see it doesn't even mention him by name, but rather, just lists off some of the moves the player can do in the game, and one happens to be one of Espio's moves. That's the problem, his "notability" hinges on "coverage" like this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And there's significant coverage alright, because it's not the only ref used for the article. But hey, keep defending completely undiscussed uniliteral redirect of a certfied GA-class article in direct violation of actual, not WPVG make-believe ("reception"), rules including the proper procedure as explained at [11] --Niemti (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

He left an edit summary explaining why he did it, and it went unopposed/unchallenged, as far as I can see, for almost 2 years, until now, in which there seems to be a general consensus that it was the right move. It'd be one thing if he was breaking WP:BRD and edit warring, not using edit summaries, breaking civility rules, etc, but he didn't do any of those things. He made a policy-based action, explained why, and calmly joined in the discussions once they started. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe actually read these really existing and completely clear rules and compare with this policy-breaking unilateral arbitrary redirect that you keep on defending. And yeah "joined in the discusions" only merely 2 years after redirecting, GOTTA GO FAST. --Niemti (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

These characters are better merged. Listicles do not confer significant coverage on the lists' constituents, only the subject of the list as a whole. Same thing with snipped sentences from reviews and previews. The bulk of Blaze the Cat involves copy like, "She appears to stop Captain Whiskers, a robotic pirate, from stealing the mystical Jeweled Scepter". No. - hahnch e n 16:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Listicles do not confer significant coverage on the lists' constituents". Citation needed. (No, i don't mean someone's 'wikipedia essays'.) --Niemti (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you knock yourself out with 10 notable subjects without articles from IGN's Top 10 Mega Man Robot Masters? I'm sure this, and UGO's 39th best kid character in video games is exactly what 'wikipedia essays' like WP:N were referring to when they request significant coverage. - hahnch e n 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. - as I said, it pretty much overlaps with V/RS/OR, and there's nothing about any "reception". Would you guys kindly actually read the various policies and guidelines, instead of assuming things, believing each-other, and/or coming with your own OR-style interpretations? And no, WP:N isn't an essay. --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Significant coverage is more than a passing mention" - multiple passing mentions is not "significant coverage". --Pres N 17:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Hello. Are you able to try and comprehend those 2 rather short and easy sentences clearly defining what this dreaded concept of "Significant coverage" actually means on WP:N that so many here love to invoke but hate to actually understand? Instead of taking parts of them (the sentences) out of their context. --Niemti (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what WP:N says, and then there's what WP:N is in practice that is impossible to codify. Many passing mentions do not make for notability across the board. We want to have an article that allows the reader to understand the importance of the character to the world of video games at large, and passing mentions do not do that, so that for nearly every fictional character, one needs a reception section to establish that. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please cease this original reasearch / synthesis, seriously. It says what it says, in very simple and clear terms, nothing more, less, or else. I know people like Presn are capable to understand what is written there, so excuse me while I can't keep on assuming good faith after having Wikipedia guidelines actively misenterpreted by taking a part of a part of a sentence out of its immediate context just after I've cited the whole relevant paragraph in its entirity (even highlighting things with bolding). That's just basically a falsification attempt, and in a really obvious and just silly way. And even for no reason at all. Btw, what is probably not notable? Well, I recently tagged this for example: Claude Speed, because it's mostly unreferenced trivia shit of wikia variety (possibly also forking wikia, but I didn't check) for a one-shot character-less character. --Niemti (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Come on, you must know by now. Wikipedia is a combination of policy and consensus. You'll see its a pretty common consensus that a subject with plenty of trivia, but no significant, detailed coverage, doesn't pass as the significant coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe you guys should stop falsely invoking some random completely-out-of-context parts of WP:N and present some real arguments. (No essays please.) And what, do I really need to once again cite you the WP:N definition and meaning of the phrase "significant coverage" for to stop this neverending "significant coverage" mantra? It's posted by me above. Twice. I know you're smart enough to understand what's written there (in the guideline), and you know that I know, so let's just stop wasting our time for some stupid games, okay? --Niemti (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP:NOR clause in the "significant coverage" is not an exact quantifier of what constitutes significant coverage, or the following sentence would not be required, which too is inexact. I've made a judgement call that the sources for our character articles do not address the topic directly and in detail, you disagree, this is why we send things to AFD. "Lei defeated Bruce, who escaped in an airplane, but it crashed. He discovered that the crash was staged and doubted on Bruce's supposed demise.", I think that would be considered trivia shit of wikia variety. - hahnch e n 19:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

All parties: this isn't going anywhere and the thread's topic has been addressed. Might I suggest either dropping it or taking it elsewhere? czar ♔ 20:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Niemti's qualms are bigger than WP:VG, its an interpretation/approach found throughout the whole Wikipedia Project. It'd be better if he searched elsewhere for his answers, we've already given our stance... Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What's "our stance"? "Lalala, can't hear you, will continue play pretending"? The thread's topic sure has been addressed. I don't even care about Sanic in the slightest but I hate this precedent, and so I'm going to probably restore the article after some cleanup work on it (dat overlinking). Btw no, I didn't have a hand in Lei's bio so I don't know why you come with it at me (bro). --Niemti (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And here you go. I even placed a stub tag in absence of a new rating, and an expansion tag for every hardcore fan of reception sections. Happy expanding. --Niemti (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's WP:POINTy behavior and potential grounds to be blocked, should someone feel like following on that. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed." Nope you guys. I happen to be fully okay with WP:N (and its section WP:GNG specifically, yes, and somehow without a need to select random phrases out of their in-sentence and in-paragraph context which is completely clear) and don't want it discredited, or changed, or anything at all. But I think maybe you'd like to have it changed. Hey, you like wikipedia essays? I don't, but here have the essays on the subjects: [12], [13]. Feel free to write your own alternative Wikipedia essay. --Niemti (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

While I don't think I'm going to participate in editing the Espio article right now as its state of existence has turned very quickly into a heated argument, I'd like to point out that consensus that only articles with "significant coverage" should remain on Wikipedia does not say anything about the general idea of "significant coverage." As stated earlier, one man's GA is another's redirect, and Espio appears to lie on the fringes. (I also resent that comics [and to a lesser extent, live-action TV] characters seem to have a much lower threshold for notability than video game ones, but that's neither here nor there.) Tezero (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'll tell you what's deal with "significant coverage". It's when you write up anything, the cited source about such "verifiable facts" has to actually say just this, "so that no original research is needed to extract the content" for this particular part (or any other part in needs a citation, and no, not everything needs - it's for things that are likely to be or actually were challenged and all stuff like statistics and quotes, elsewhere citations are only optional). There are also other bullet points there at WP:GNG, just read it what this thing is about (or just read all of WP:N as you're at it). The whole thing in short is that any subject of an independent Wikipedia article needs to covered by some independent reliable sources in a way they can serve as proper refs, if it is then it's GNG green-lighted. --Niemti (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The part you're omitting when you quote WP:N is the need for secondary sources - ones that analyze and critique a subject. For fictional characters, that translates either into information on how the character was created and developed, or in-depth analysis of the character (not simply mere listed on a Top X list). We're not a fan guide, we're an encyclopedia and are supposed to be covering topics at a level that the average reader (importantly here, not a video game player) will appreciate the importance. This can only be done with significant coverage in secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is information on that article about Espio's creation and, separately, his incorporation into Sonic Heroes and Sonic Rivals 2, and the reception section doesn't even contain any top-X lists. I thought top-X lists were what it needed; if it's the other way around, I don't see what more you could ask for. Espio is openly mentioned and critiqued by several sources, as stated in his Reception section. Tezero (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If the Top X list goes into depth (more than a single sentence or paragraph, which tends to be more often the case) of why the publication put that character on the issue, that's secondary coverage and a decent source. However, particularly with many of the character articles that have come up before, they are lists like "Top 10 Bad-ass Heroes" and give only a sentence or paragraph that gives little depth as to their selection reasoning. This latter type is more common for video game characters than the other type, so why this should generally be avoided. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is all just an unrelated opinion. Unless you bring some actually relevant policy/guideline. --Niemti (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's straight from applying the definition of a secondary source WP:PSTS to those types of list. We need analysis and transformation of information. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Show me the exact direct quotes you think are supporting your position (and I'll check their context). --Niemti (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" --MASEM (t) 00:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And so any list is an author's own thinking containing an "evaluation" and making "evaluative claims" alright. There's nothing there or around about how deep such evaluations needs to be for a source to count as a source. Anything else, or was that all you got? --Niemti (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, because if all they are doing is dropping elements into a list without commenting why they are on the list, that's not analysis, that's just making a list for purposes of making a list. Compare with something like this from GameInformer where there's enough discussion about each entry to understand why they were placed on the list and in some cases why higher than others. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me: can you understand "or" in "analysis, or evaluation"? And in "analytic or evaluative"? Because I think you actually can, and I really think you should stop playing. You're just giving me some second-hand embarassment now my main man. --Niemti (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's also this: "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Also: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. Masem pls stop. --Niemti (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and for "secondary sources": We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. Seriously guys, please stop this play pretending. It's super nice that you have your own vision of superior Wikipedia, but seek your arguments elsewhere instead of abusing this poor innocent guideline with your own "translations" or what not. It's somehwere between silly and sad, depending on whether or not you're doing it on purpose or do you actually misunderstand it somehow. If the latter then WP:WHYN (aka "Why we have these requirements"). --Niemti (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The core of the problem, and what you're missing despite thumping up and down that somehow it counts as significant, is that there wasn't significant coverage discussing a character. There was cherry picked discussion talking about an element of a game. Again with the Peach's car example: if a thousand articles said in a thousand different ways how Peach's car is the absolute best in Mario Kart, does that count as grounds to make an article? Of course not. We're not an encyclopedia of game elements, and an article about such would have to discuss it as a character. If the article is discussing a character as a piece of fiction and what makes it work as a piece of said fiction, the reception needs to support that. We need to know why this character as a fictional entity matters more than others in its franchise that lack articles. And trust me, there are still MANY articles that are failing on that front.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And you're missing what "significant coverage" means. Let me repeat for you: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. (...) We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. And now you know. Voila. But you know, I can blame the guideline authors, they coined-up a potentially (very) misleading term for what they wanted to communicate. Also, an existence of "the reception" is not necesserily needed by, as far as I know, any Wikipedia policy or guideline. At all. (As much as I do like reception sections, and boy I wrote some massive ones, it's just something that I need to break to you.) --Niemti (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK guys, I wasted enough time and my eyes are tired of all that rolliong. It was, um, so enlightening I guess. Or something, good night. --Niemti (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, not only a Niemti tirade, but you undid the redirect against consensus too. What a night. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me bring things to a brief halt here. Just to introduce some facts as someone who's debated this subject before, the Sonic characters list and getting rid of the lesser character articles was discussed at least twice in the past by itself here and here, all of which were semi-controversial but resulted in the merged list. Plain and simple, what's missing here? Real-world information. In-universe fictional perspectives have always been difficult, but it doesn't make any sense to let a character have an article without saying why that character matters or what relevance it has outside of its fictional material, which is bound to have an article already. This coincides with WP:N's guideline that notability is not inherited - just being part of a notable subject on the whole doesn't mean it automatically inherits notability as well. That's why development and reception are so important in these articles, to establish notability independent of the broader subject. And yes, sometimes we get proven wrong that there's not: czar proved me wrong on Menacer having independent notability from Sega Genesis a couple of weeks ago, but the burden is on the editors to establish such independent notability. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that real-world information is necessary; in fact, I don't know if Niemti does, either. The argument is over how much, and how strong of, real-world information is enough. Tezero (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course articles need "real-world information". Which is why, for example, all or practically all of 42 OZ characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oz_(TV_series)_characters need to be redirected. Because they're only in-universe bios, with the only non-fictional info being about their actors. Now you can compare the random three ones: Simon Adebisi, Supreme Allah, Miguel Alvarez (A-names) to Tezero's fine article Espio the Chameleon to see what's it about (and the real difference between Wikia-type quality and Wikipedia quality). Btw these OZ articles (and that's just an example), I've attempted to redirect them. Including by "being bold" (very bold): like that, but it doesn't seem to work well with TV community, and I don't have time and patience for bureaucratic routes. I'm here for editing, and not for things like here, hours spent playing stupid games with some admins pretending to not understand the meaning of the English word "or" in the Wikipedia policy quote of their own choice and assorted sillyness. --Niemti (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is evoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There's probably hundreds if not more characters articles that are fictional bios and nothing else. Just existing is not a means to gauge appropriateness. We have to ask: have they survived review by a larger consensus - whether GA, FA, or an AFD? I am pretty positive that 99% of those characters that have survived those points of review are not just character bios, while characters that have been only bios have been merged to deleted. All that we care about at the video game project is making sure video game characters fit the expected notability requires for articles or otherwise merge to list of character articles. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and "notability is not inherited" is not in WP:N. About inhertitance WP:N says only this: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. And by now you should known what this "significant independent coverage" means there, and why's all that. (Why am I even still have to keep explaining such a short and simple guideline is really beyond me.) --Niemti (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Significant coverage, in practice, means detailed, not just mention in passing or the like. That's the problem with the Espio article - the name's there in sources but at the fringes, and arguable as part of the Chaotix gang (which, itself, could probably be the article instead of separate ones for the three characters). --MASEM (t) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And before someone jumps into "independent" in "significant independent coverage", it's not about (using this example) Espio being treated as an entity independent of the games or anything. It's about using the sources ("at least one", but it's better when it's "multiple") other then the games themselves or SEGA: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] (...) We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. That all's of course only the basic WP:N requirements and nothing fancy, but this is how Wikipedia works according to the consensus. And so now I'm really done explaining WP:N to WP:VG, and if you still can't (or pretend to be unable, whatever really) grasp a basic guideline that's only your problem and I don't even care. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll just note one thing regarding this "WP:N!" thing, something that you probably didn't realize: an actual problem, also about this article. I know many of you guys sure love using direct quotes from the games for the articles. Espio's article uses quotes a lot too, and I'm not saying it's really good or anything. In fact, it's not. But it's only one that is guilty of that, and in fact most GA articles of its kind are full of such quotes. Now, you see, the thing is such quotes are not independent sources. So how to do it better? See what I did with, for example, Sniper Wolf. Look ma, no quotes! At all, because I based it all on independent sources. Some quotes are okay, of course. (Also, hardly everything even needs to be sourced. There are other guidelines/policies explaining that.) If you want you can tag it for a rewrite, as to comply with it to reduce the use of SEGA sources and increase the use of independent sources. It can be done in a variety of ways - reviews, features, lists, guide books, etc. Sniper Wolf's article was written by me entirely, I plan to do one for Psycho Mantis too, buit it will be more lazy, something like what I did with Meryl Silverburgh (where there are quotes used, but I've retained them from the list). And that's really all folks, play safe. --Niemti (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing a more fundamental point here. The vast majority of people aren't going to make a distinction between a list of top tens or an essay on a character as long as what's being quoted has some meat for the article. Yes, you've made plenty of GA's, so have I. Great. Super. Excellent. Even got two FAs under my belt if we're going to compare the size of our internet wangs. In time standards though are going to go up, and many articles aren't going to be up to snuff. That's going to happen. I could give less of a damn what particular section of WP:N you want to throw back but the point is there's a consensus amongst wikipedia and this project that unless the coverage is significant, unless it is talking about the character itself and not solely about it as an element of a bigger game, it doesn't fly and would be better served on a list or an article itself. In time I'm going to guess we'll see a push for "X sexiest character" articles to go to bunk because of the overabundance of articles that solely rely on someone getting an erection over seeing a female lead's bare bottom. But the point now is two fold: being a GA at one point is meaningless, times change. And general consensus here is going to trump your ego, because like it or not we do need to work together for the greater good of the project.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And how's this anything to do with the widespread gross misuse/misunderstanding of WP:N (and now also WP:RS, Masem above) here? I think people should present real arguments in any discussion, not some completely bogus stuff like that. Also I think it's really funny/sad how it's some Wikipedia admins who don't even know/understand/follow basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, turning them into some sort of a meme that no one ever really checks in the primary sources (the pages on Wikipedia), and even cherrypicking random phrases and owrds of it out of any real context. And you know, you too just said "the coverage is significant", how many times do I need to explain the real actual true meaning of "significant coverage"? Sometimes I feel I'm the only one here who's really read all this stuff, these guidelines, after all who cares about them, essays are so much better, but really is no one even reading what I write here, again and again? General consensus, I heard it somewhere... oh, I know, it's in this very WP:N: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. Yeah, this is "general consensus" of entire Wikipedia. Or maybe now when I've explained what's this Wikipedia Notability thing is actually about, it will be now (not-so) "occasional exceptions" from it for all video game related articles. Which would be especially ironic since this WP:N (in its misunderstood version) is/was trumpeted so much as an unbreakable thing, but now might going to be ignored after I pointed out it can be (in "occasional exceptions"). I can totally see it coming because I know some people here and how they roll. And no, it's not about any sort of " a damn what particular section of WP:N". It's about the entire WP:N. It's right there. See the link? Click it. Read it. EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS WHOLE DAMN THING. No, seriously, do it. I'm not even going to discuss it anymore, just go and actually read it yourself. --Niemti (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the people participating in this discussion are either multi-year editors, and/or Admin. Its ludicrous to yell at us, (in all caps and bold no less) to "read the whole thing". We're all very well versed in it. We've read it. Is it really that inconceivable that people disagree with your interpretation? Please, get ahold of yourself, calm down, and think this through. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not my "interpretation", it's just what's there. You can go and read it. The whole entire thing, slowly and with comprehension, from beginning to the end. But hey, I can't force you. --Niemti (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I already have, thanks. Anyways, why don't you go another venue to discuss this. It's not secret that you resent many of us regulars here. Perhaps if you talk to someone outside of the project, you won't get so enraged? Maybe hearing it from someone else can get through to you? Or maybe you're right in the end, and you even change how its interpreted on the project? Like I said earlier, this isn't a an issue on the WP:VG level. Its the generally accepted interpretation in other areas, like music/albums, as well. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's truly astonishing how in literally every single disagreement you've ever had on Wikipedia, Niemti, it somehow in your opinion boils down to that you're the only person who really understands the guidelines/policies while every single other person- newbies, admins, people who've been here for 10 years- is completely misguided. You've never once ever admitted that you were wrong about anything, no matter how minor, and you've never once been persuaded by anyone else's arguments. You may think it's because you are always right, but here's a hint: the reason is actually more related to why you're banned from the GA process, why a lot of editors wanted to ban you from VG articles in general, and why you're on a permanent probation for when you (inevitably) flip out and start screaming/cursing at people (again). --Pres N 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's even more astonishing that you don't understand the meaning of "or" when you see it, or not noticing or thinking I'd notice or whatever. I seriously don't known what to even think about it. And oh yes, I've been persuaded. Like I was persuaded by Satellizer to after all not merge back Sheva Alomar after my own de-merge: [14] (and a sock of A Nobody came to edit war to keep it). Actually I now subscribe to Satellizer's Article has numerous reliable sources and thus is notable enough for an article because I now understand this is true and I've been wrong. --Niemti (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But speaking of "working together", and splitting stuff, for some time I've been working on Falcon (video game series) and it needs to be split. I can never get myself to actually do it but someone should. Also simulation games need to get more attention altogether, because I feel like I'm the only one who works on them regularly. --Niemti (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You'd probably gather more attention if you start new sections regarding those things. You've probably lost a lot of potential readers through this being a very long discussion, and having a section title absolutely unrelated to that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's distraction, Niemti does this every time he starts running out of arguments or wind. "Hey, you guys should totally work on these things over here because they should be worked on but I'm far too busy".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, arguments against what? I finished repeating myself, now WP:N WP:N WP:N WP:N WP:N WP:N WP:N WP:N read it (or not, your loss). THE END. (This time, for realz.) --Niemti (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You're just not getting it. Significant coverage has to cover what the article is *about*. The significant coverage must support the content of the article, not just a facet of it. If a lot of articles do nothing but point out something is useful in a game, but the article itself is speaking about the subject as a fictional entity, then nothing has been satisfied. That significant coverage should and has to be the foundation for the article in question, and all of the article. These articles are being written detailing characters backstories, appearances and gameplay. If the reception is in bulk only discussing gameplay and not the character design or fiction, then it isn't supporting the article. And I think everyone here can agree if you're going to call something 'significant' it needs to be more than a passing remark or observation. And if you haven't noticed for all your thumping, you're not seeing a lot of established people here going "hey, Niemti's right!" are you? Even the person actively wanting to restore the article is questioning it's strength.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

OverClocked ReMix and its issues

Since I'm not going to touch WP:GAR with a ten-foot pole until it gets its act together, I thought I should bring up OC Remix's issue here in hopes someone would be able to fix the problems it has. And as shown on the the tag the article has on top of it, its that a large chuck of the references used in it are primary sources. I also question the reliability to some other websites like "thasauce.net" and "vgfrequency.com". GamerPro64 20:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I remember GAing that one. Wow, that did not age well, did it. --Pres N 23:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh... what's wrong with WP:GAR? Tezero (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The main issue, I have at least, is how unmanaged the process is. Especially the Community Reassessments. I would do an Individual Reassessment but whenever I do those, I usually get few to no responses. I just mainly think someone should be keeping an eye on the process like they do at FAC or the like. GamerPro64 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a village pump discussion about WP:GAR is warranted at this point. I happen to share your same sentiments, GamerPro. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The way the GitS GAR has dragged on for 3 months without any resolution has persuaded me to never touch the process- individual GAR is much cleaner. As to this article- I GA'd it originally, I'll try to fix it up this week. If you have any other concerns, just lay them on the talk page and I'll see what I can do. --Pres N 05:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Armed with Wings nominated for deletion

I've just nominated Armed with Wings, a series of flash games published at armorgames.com and a number of other similar sites, for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armed with Wings. Marcgalrespons 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sold-in

Just checking; what is everyone's opinion on the meaning of the phrase "Sold-in"? I think it's a contraction of "Sold into stores" which in itself means the same as "shipped". The context for the question is the following "To date, Grand Theft Auto V has sold-in more than 32.5 million units." Opinions greatly received. - X201 (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And the first website I go to after writing the above, starts with the following line: "Grand Theft Auto 5 publisher Take-Two revealed in its latest financial report that it's "sold-in" (i.e. shipped)..." :-) - X201 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm no stranger to gaming and yet I've never heard of the phrase "sold-in" before. Therefore, at first glance the quoted sentence didn't make sense. I think "has shipped more than X-number of units" might be more suitable. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I support sixtynine. (I also agree with the comment over this one.) Tezero (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for neutral editor input on Batman games

Hi there. I have a conflict of interest on Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City in that I work for the publisher and developer of the Mac OS X editions of both games. As this company (Feral Interactive) is a developer/publisher I would like to update these two Batman pages to include Feral Interactive in the list of developers/publishers in the info boxes (with "Mac OS X" in brackets, and under a drop menu if required, so there is no confusion as to Feral Interactive's role). However, this request is being argued on the Talk page for Batman: AA. I'd appreciate some extra input, especially given the latest update to the Talk discussion which has gone unanswered by others in the discussion for almost two weeks. Many thanks. Eeeeeb (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is in the process of being pruned of data extraneous from the original release, though the publisher at hand may be worth mentioning in the prose. In short, I don't think it's wise to push for this. czar ♔ 13:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: I was involved in the discussion on the article talk page, but to answer Czar, they are mentioned in prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As Favre says, the studio is mentioned in prose, Eeeeeb's issue, which has been freely admitted, is that he works for FeralInteractive and is unhappy they are not more prominent within the article.DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

While the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Field_review centres on removing ports from heavily ported titles such as Doom (video game), I don't think the infoboxes at the Arkham games are bloated, even with the addition of Feral. In the articles I write, I generally credit the port teams in the infobox, it's pretty standard. - hahnch e n 21:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration?

While I wait for GAN reviews, anyone want to collaborate on an article with me? Preferably something whose notability is not in question, and that isn't already close to GA status. Other than that, I'm up for about anything. Tezero (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Tempting. Did you have something in mind? I've been thinking of writing an article on The Castle Doctrine now that a load of reviews are out. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively I received feedback during a failed GAN for Make Something Unreal that I haven't got around to fixing. There's a fair bit to do and help would be appreciated in getting it up to GA! Samwalton9 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in The Castle Doctrine. Go ahead and create the article if you'd like; I'm a little burned out for now from creating Pyongyang Racer a couple hours ago and staring at my screen since then, but if you don't want to, I'll do it later. Either way I'll work on it with you. Tezero (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Awesome :) I think I'll take a look at creating Draft:The Castle Doctrine tonight then if you don't get there before me. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, put article drafts in your userspace. But yeah, I'll get there later tonight. Tezero (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DRAFTs are a new thing; unlike userspace articles they are findable by other users. No comment on how useful/thought out they are at that, though. --Pres N 00:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry about that. Tezero (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're working on The Castle Doctrine, note that Rohrer releases all his work into the public domain. You can browse the source and documentation (including images) at Sourceforge. If you'd like any supplementary media released, Jason is responsive on email. It's the reason why the only other article for his games, Diamond Trust of London, is also one of the best illustrated games on Wikipedia. - hahnch e n 23:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little late on this, but how about video game development? It's not a new article, but it was a FAC a while back. With a little work, it could be a featured article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a "little" work :) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Also "a while" = 9 years ago :D Samwalton9 (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Having been on the 'pedia 11 years, all my activity here seems to be in the near past to me. :) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of collaboration, I hear of some Flappy Bird game that is growing in popularity. I bet thee are plenty of new sources for this app. --Bananasoldier (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Guilty Gear and Computer and Video Games

Working on Guilty Gear (video game), I'm finding difficult to source its "Gameplay" by entire due to the lack of more deeper reviews. A game manual would be helpful, but the one who would provide it to me was blocked. Thus, I decided to come here for asking if someone owns a Guilty Gear's manual (now, I'm looking for the first game's manual, but any game in the series's manual would be great). Also, Computer and Video Games did a review on it in the July 1998 issue, but I don't have much more information such as the page and the score given. I was wondering if someone could help me on this. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of being unhelpful, what about the reviews? After briefly skimming the IGN and GameSpot ones it looks like you could use them to some extent. Tezero (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I've used them as much as I could... I gues... but you can prove me wrong. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Most manuals have scans that can be downloaded. While I wouldn't recommend doing so because I've frankly no idea how it stands in the context of copyright, if all you need is to read the manual to then use it as a reference, then it should fulfill that purpose. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I only need to read. I searched for it but I couldn't find any manual (except from Guilty Gear Isuka, which I already used as a source). @Salvidrim!:, are you saying I can find manuals in a general way or are you specifically saying you know where I can find GG manuals? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've got a few sites in my bookmarks but won't be home before Sunday. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I can wait. Thank you in advance. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Emailed you czar ♔ 22:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Help regarding a name change

Dragon's Crown was recently moved from Dragon's Crown (video game) however the talk page is still at Talk:Dragon's Crown (video game) with talk:Dragon's Crown being the talk page of the dab page which was replaced by the game's article. Can someone please fix this?--174.93.163.194 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I tagged it for a move and pinged the admin. I'll keep an eye on it. czar ♔ 23:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank, its been fixed.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Bravely Default image disupte

Hi everyone. I was wondering if I could get any additional input about which cover art to use at Bravely Default. It would be great to get more policy-based arguments going. Discussion here. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Anachronox's Reception section

So Anachronox is in the middle of a GAN and one of the things brought up is that the "Reception" section is "overly detailed and difficult to navigate for the average reader". I will agree that the section is obnoxiously long and can use a trim but I have no clue what should be taken out of it. By any chance someone can throw their two cents my way? GamerPro64 02:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of sentences that just repeat things from prior paragraphs or just add minor details that don't matter. For example- "The Scotsman's critic appreciated Ion Storm's attention to detail in designing field map, menu, and battle graphics.[65] The Adelaide Sunday Mail and London Express joined in praising the game's "amazing" weapon effects.[131][132] Critic Paul Ward concurred: "excellent use is made of lighting and the weapon and magic effects look stunning."[110] Another review joked that the special effects were "worthy of a Jean Michel Jarre concert", and warned gamers subject to motion sickness.[125]" I'd honestly pull everything that I just quoted out, and be just as harsh to the rest of the section- at least half of the text needs to go in the first pass, and you might need another pass to cut some of the remainder. Zeality always wrote his articles as love letters to the subject, with an absurd amount of detail, but in this case he went over the top even for him. --Pres N 04:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd start with killing the long quotes, especially the ones that could have been written without quotes. Then I'd kill the stuff from questionable sources unless they provide some necessary perspective not available in the other sources (doubtful). I'd take a swing, but I have a feeling it'd be a swing at a hornet's nest. czar ♔ 05:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Up to the end of the Technical section would be bordering on the limit of too much, having another section of equal length is ridiculous. I admire the passion of whoever wrote it, but serious overkill. You could probably reduce a lot of text by trimming or removing quotes outright since we're not a film poster in a newspaper, and not namedropping every single publication. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 13:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

List format

I know there is no standard for game lists. From what I've seen, editors generally come up with whatever format suits them and slaps it in an article: sometimes it's a simple list of bullets, occasionally it gets really intricate, such as with the List of Square Enix video games. Initially, this is fine. Whatever format an editor comes up with matters little, as long as the information is available. But occasionally, one format is adopted by an article and changed wholesale by another editor without any sort of discussion. Neither editor can claim their format is "right" because their is no standard. It really comes down to one editor prefers one format over another. Take these two snippets of game lists as examples:

First format

Title	Year	Platform(s)	Publisher
Ravenskull	1994	Acorn Archimedes	Superior Software
	1986	Acorn Electron	Superior Software
	1986	BBC Micro	Superior Software
	2003	Microsoft Windows	Superior Interactive
Ballistix	1989	Amiga	Psygnosis
Ballistix	1989	Atari ST	Psygnosis
Shadow of the Beast II	1990	Amiga	Psygnosis
Shadow of the Beast II	1990	Atari ST	Psygnosis

Second format

Year	Title	Platform(s)
Year	Title	Ami	AST	DOS	PS	Sat	Win
1989	Shadow of the Beast	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
1989	Ballistix	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
1990	Shadow of the Beast II	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No

The first format shows the year each version was published for each platform and the publisher of each platform (not an issue for most games, but is for some older games). It's easily sortable by any column. The second version, while clearly more colorful, is completely unsortable and is missing the publishers, which it can't include because each platform may have different publishers. And the Platform(s) columns, well, I'll let you make your own judgement.

Even if it's neither of the two presented above, can we come up with a standard for such lists so editors have something to refer to? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if a standardize table would work in all situations, and sometimes might not even be necessary. The second format is preferrable but not required (say, for a series which only has been out on 2 platforms). --MASEM (t) 15:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like the second forma,t it doesn't look helpful and just confusing. especially when there's multiple consoles and making a table of all the possible consoles it can have, and the inclusion for it is just one makes it difficult.Lucia Black (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't need a standard; one of the consensus positions on en.Wikipedia is that first major contributor gets to decide (at least with citations and spelling). If that doesn't resolve the issue, the dispute resolution process should be followed. I don't see a reason to add to that…. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't even like having a standard per-editor; the massive sortable wikitable of List of Square Enix video games works well when you have a large body of work that spans multiple regions/publishers, but {{Video game titles/item}} works better for lists like List of Final Fantasy video games where you have fewer games but they were each released on like 10 consoles, while in turn {{Video game table item}} works better for lists like List of Chocobo media where there's only a few games and each one was released generally once in multiple regions. I've never cared as much for the {{ListEntry/VG/A1}} type of templates, as used on List of The Elder Scrolls video games, but it works well when you have a small-to-medium sized list of games that were generally released on a few different consoles in one region. The second wikitable you have replicates that a bit, though it loses the sortability and has harsher colors. So really, I don't think we can make one template the winner by default- each one is good for different things. The article you're talking about is Ubisoft Reflections, right? I don't think the new tables work for it- you lose the publisher, and you lose sortability. It should at least use the ListEntry template from List of The Elder Scrolls video games, or back to the old one, and there's also no reason to split it up into three sections. Depending on how big you want the tables to be the Video game titles/item templates might work well, though each game would get 5x the vertical height. --Pres N 16:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input and especially the thorough and in-depth analysis, PresN. Yes, I was discussing the issue in general, but it was the list in Ubisoft Reflections that prompted me to bring it up. I reverted to the first format and finished out all the entries. I concur we don't need a "standard" since every list has its own needs. This will probably be moot when Wikidata starts generating all the lists anyway. Again, thanks for all the input. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of listing out various table formats, I just saw this: Myst (series)#Games, which is a pretty form of a short list that focuses on description rather than individual releases. --Pres N 21:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The two prevailing considerations with lists are, in my opinion, sortability and detail. The longer the list, its more likely that sortability will trump detail. Obviously the second table accounts for neither. However, depending of the scope of the article, there are other considerations, such as length. Sortability and detail require lots of space and when the scope of the article is not just a list, the length may be a problem. – Zntrip 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with "Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening" as a Featured Article:

I looked up this article today as my first choice for reading one of the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs. I am not a fan of the Devil May Cry video games, but I just read this article because of "Reviewing pre-2008 FAs" and found it to be below Featured Article (FA) standards. Before explaining the issues here, I thought of the article as a whole compared to the contemporary FA. I checked the article again, just for verifying if I was right on the flaws I identified. My earliest findings on this article, "Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening", are that it needs additional references/soruces, has prose issues, and must be expanded. And the lead does not talk about the development of the game. The article also sometimes gets into mediocre grammar.

I am not the first user to report the problems with this article. Tezero created "Devil May Cry 3: Just telling you", a section on the talk page of Caribbean H.Q. (who was known as "Dark Dragon Flame" back when he developed the article into an FA in 2007) in which Tezero asserts it needs sourcing, has got to have a screenshot, and is "among the most likely WP:VG articles to get nominated for an FAR." He also says: "The second and third paragraphs of Gameplay are particularly glaring." So indeed yes, "Devil May Cry 3" needs an Featured Article Review (FAR).

I've copied this text from the article's talk page, so that more people are aware of this. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 04:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening 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. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 06:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cover art of Star Ocean (video game)

Should I use the original Super Famicom cover art or the PSP release? --George Ho (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Original. If you make a second infobox for the PSP remake, it can have the boxart, if the remake has enough independant coverage, but not for a standalone article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(For what its worth, I wrote much of the article, and at one point, I was going to try to split it off into a second article, but didn't. The PSP one gets plenty of coverage, probably more in English sources, considering it was the only one that was officially translated into English, but there's not really much to be said in a second article. The PSP version has improved graphics and a new player or two, but its ultimately the same game, the overall gameplay, plot, and character sections would all pretty much be the same. I felt it was better to have one complete article than 2 short, incomplete and/or redundant ones.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

First English-language cover arts or first cover arts of original platform versions?

Naturally, English edition of the video game is generally used for Infobox purposes. However, there should be some exceptions. Final Fantasy III's Famicom cover is an example. If one game in first console is released in only one country, and then subsequently re-released in other platforms, should either first English-language edition or original edition be used? Ace Attorney: Phoenix Wright is an example where the Game Boy Advance cover should have been used, but English DS edition (albeit atrocious cover) is used instead. --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I would go with the first English release since there is nothing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Cover art that even remotely suggests that we should not use the cover art for the first English release if that release is a port. Also, regarding Phoenix Wright specifically the cover art for the first game was at one time replaced with the Japanese GBA one and while the discussion was small the consensus was to use the English DS one Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 95#Ace attorney aticles. The Final Fantasy case is a bit more complex since several games did have English releases under different names and several had their first English releases as part of compilations, however, this is not the case for Final Fantasy III (unless you count the English version of VI which the existing hatnote can easily deal with) so I believe that one should use the DS cover art as well.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

~~Ōkami no longer uses the Wii cover. Instead, platform heading is omitted. Can the example in the guideline be replaced instead?~~ I also replaced the Dragon Quest IV image with the old NES one. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

the platform isn't just the difference. The only version NA got was the remake, not the original. I say if there is a large gap between the releases (perhaps 3 console generations such as final fantasy III's case) and only the original foreign cover art illustrates the original version, then it can have the original version. However this does not include recent expanded editions that came out recently. For example: God Eater only in japan while the expanded version, God Eater Burst is the one NA and EU received. And of course, Bravely Default for the sequel and the original Bravely Default (flying fairy).Lucia Black (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As a note, Okami never used the Wii cover as the identifying image. It is used to point out a notable issue with that cover, so the guideline is still right in that aspect. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops... my mistake. I assumed that the infobox image is the only image. I overlooked the Wii port section and ignored the cover. --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cover arts of Tales of Eternia

If we can't use the original Japanese PlayStation edition, there is also the PSP cover art used. Or, we should use the North American PlayStation edition? --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Namco US and EU consider the game to be Tales of Eternia, so it shouldn't use the American PS edition which uses the title Tales of Destiny 2. I think the PSP one would be best. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But... wasn't PSP market bigger in Europe in 2006-7 than PSX was in America in 2001? There were some gamers buying PS1 games in 2001, at the time PS2 was new. --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I would go with the PSP version since it would not make much sense to have the article name and the name on the boxart as being different.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

Hi all, I've relisted a move discussion at Talk:Mushihime-sama Futari because there have been no contributions to the discussion. If anyone would be able to contribute that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New game list

Just a heads up: I just added the game list to the Spectrum HoloByte article. There's lots of opportunity there to create new articles. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Added some sources to BreakThru!, since I've created and done most of the work on that article. Supposedly there are a number of other releases for it as well, though there's been some trouble sourcing them. (I personally first played it on the Sega Channel on the Sega Genesis back in the day, but I've never been able to find a source to back that up. Supposedly there were also Sega Saturn and PS1 Japanese only ports too, but it seems like we were having a hard time finding any source to truly back that up.) EDIT: Actually, found a source for the Saturn one at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Template:StarCraft Timeline

Template:StarCraft Timeline is only linked in one place, StarCraft (series), which is generally frowned upon and were I to send it to WP:TFD it would probably be deleted.

Anyone want to comment on what should be done with it? It seems like overkill as I think a normal wikitable in the games section would probably be sufficient. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD, should just be hardcoded in the one place it's used. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hardcode?! How hard is it to explain the release order of a mere five games in prose? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

^This. Tezero (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question of explaining in prose, but pulling out the relevant dates and games is a nice summary of releases. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The information looks fine like that. Whether its in that article, or in a template linked to it, doesn't make any different at all. Dream Focus 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

THis has nothing to do with if the information is appropriate, but whether this should be in template format. Final Fantasy has there own Time Line release and so do several others without making a template but rather using a template. I vote for speedy delete.Lucia Black (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I opened a TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 12#Template:StarCraft Timeline. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User adding dates

There's another new user adding dates en masse. I've had a quick check of a handfull of the dates that User:Kevieman94 has added, and they all seem to be wrong, by a day or two. May be worth others having a more thorough check. - X201 (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm on my way to work so I can't do it myself, but this probably needs to be reported here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NYCSlover. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Shit, I thought someone had taken care of this. Blocked and reported. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games

Hi, guys. I think the section "Video games" in the Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games is becoming too long (there are 447 so far). I'd suggest to split it into subsections divided by period of time like "Albums" and "Songs" in Wikipedia:Good articles/Music and "Films" in Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama. What do you think? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Its an interesting notion to make but I don't think its our call to change the format. You should probably bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. GamerPro64 16:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Either an (A-L)/(M-Z) or Console/Handheld seems like an option. Maybe (1971-2001)/(2002-2014)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Some games are on both console and handheld, though. May I suggest generation of first release? (Maybe separate sections for 1-3, 4-5, and 6-8?) Tezero (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

GamerPro64, I will later bring this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles, but we can discuss here. I think the alphebetical order or the first release are the best alternatives so far, tending to prefer the Tezero's suggestion. More ideas? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer not to use the generations, partially because they're not really understood that well outside of the fanbase of video games (or at least not to the degree of something like, for instance, the difference between "albums" and "songs") and partially because we have such a hard time objectively, definitively, defining the generations. I have no issues with alphabetical, or a chorological one based around years instead of generations. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I could swing genre, generation of first release (what about the PC games of the past 2 decades which don't generally get a generation assigned?), or decade of first release. Decade or genre might be better than generation, due to other concerns plus the PC game point. --Izno (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, generation is a bit confusing. Decade of release seems the best idea; it will be like the films division; see. The alphabetical order will be used to sort the games in each sub-section. Anyone disagree? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would separate games by generation. Trying to place games by genre would be too painful (lots of games, especially newer ones, incorporate multiple genres), alphabetically or by decade wouldn't be as informative as other sorting methods, and console/handheld is a false dichotomy. PC games do fit nicely into the generation mindset, at least early on, because we're still taking about bits, but if it makes things easier, sorting them by groups of years that correspond to the generations is also an alternative. All that being said, this isn't urgent, so it might be good to let this concept air for a week or two and get a consensus before rushing in to fix this. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly discourage sorting them by genre, since there are both games like Katamari Damacy and Flower that don't fit easily into any genre and ones like Knights in the Nightmare that fit into several. Tezero (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think that in some games, especially KITN, that could get kind of messy. I'd rather not do genre either, that would surely lead to future arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 21:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest by the decade they were released in. You know 1980's, 90s, 00s, etc.Lucia Black (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I could do decades. Tezero (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree too, and I think its the only option that hasn't been overtly opposed by a user so far... Sergecross73 msg me 03:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Decade isn't a bad option. Although upon looking over the page, I was surprised consoles don't have a separate section, either. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

By console could work just as well. Either one is my vote.Lucia Black (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with sorting by years or decade; by console doesn't really work for multiplatform titles and generation is far too debatable for my liking. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Since 'by decade' seems to be the winning option, I've started a user page at User:PresN/vggoodarticles for us to start sorting the articles into groups, if anyone wants to help out. --Pres N 18:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a bot if we make a category base don decades? (assuming there isn't a category already).Lucia Black (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but no need- I'm almost halfway through already. --Pres N 19:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And done! Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games now split by decade. --Pres N 20:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the new list, its very telling on what decade this project focuses on the most. Not sure if its because of interest or that later decades had better success research-wise. GamerPro64 20:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's probably because 2000s and newer it's very feasible to write a GA with only online sources; 90's and earlier and you have to do more than a Google search to find everything. --Pres N 20:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. Even 80s and 90s consoles are tough unless there's a ton of retrospectives. SG-1000 had next to no available online sources worth using. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also keep in mind, video games were just hitting into the mainstream. But i still suggest we get a bot or something so that we dont have to manually rework through the GA list just to add in a game.Lucia Black (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? If there's a new GA, just stick it in the decade section like normal- each section is still alphabetical. --Pres N 21:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OR we could have a bot add them in for us so we don't have to care about the page now that we manage it so extensively. I'm just saying we could make things even easier for us.Lucia Black (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The trick with having a bot is twofold: One, someone has to be able to program the bot, which takes a lot of time; and two, the bot has to be approved for that function through Wikipedia's bot approval, including trial periods, etc. That's a lot to throw down. Someday, yeah, I'd love to see a bot able to automatically add GAs to the right section on the right subpage, but there has to be someone willing to program one, go through the bureaucracy of approval... it'll be quite a while before that can happen, in other words. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, lets not act like its a bad idea.. just someone has to be willing to work on it. and also, there are other wikiprojects that have their own bots too. i dont think it would be so diffficult to et approved after the trial period. but hey, like i said, its not a bad idea, just an idea most people wont invest in. but if it does get invested, it will be a time-saver since all we need to do now is just rnominate them, and pass/fail them.Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Lossy JPEG screenshots of games

They bother me. Some (like the one used for Super Mario World) aren't obviously compressed. You have to specifically be looking for the compression in an image editor to notice. There's a screenshot from Pokemon Gold (that probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place) that was converted from JPG to PNG, and it doesn't look great. Is there a Wikipedia policy on fair use of lossless screenshots vs. JPEG screenshots?

For games I like a lot, I'm willing to replace bad screenshots with re-created lossless copies (which in most cases result in a smaller file size than the JPEG version) but I wonder if Wikipedia has some kind of policy that says since JPEGs result in a lower quality, they are more ideal for fair use. If there is no such policy, I encourage uploaders to create or seek out lossless files, especially in 2D sprite-based games in which a PNG results in a smaller filesize than a lossy JPEG. I suggest uploading lossless files even for 3D games or graphically complex 2D games, and letting Wikipedia's servers handle temporary lossy compression. I guarantee anyone reading this that in 20 years, JPEG compression will be a thing of the past. Anonymous-232 (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a requirement that non-free images are low resolution, but for many older games, the native resolution is low resolution. I generally upload PNGs screenshots if I take them myself, but unless the current screenshot is ridiculous, like File:Castlevaniaorderofecclesia.jpg, it's not really productive to replace existing screenshots - when there are many games which are not illustrated at all. And file format crystal balls are never that reliable, the most prevalent format for animation has somehow regressed to GIF over the last two years. Painful. - hahnch e n 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an argument for lossless PNG for images which compress well: sprite-based games, or other images which large regions of few colors. But for 3D games I think jpg is fine or preferable, since it results in lower file sizes and if proper compression is used, the difference should not be noticeable. Sometimes HUD elements have artifacts, so I'd leave it to the uploader to decide which to use. Regarding the longevity of the format, if at some point JPG losses favor for web images, the Wikimedia techs will write a script that will convert all the JPGs over to the new format, so I wouldn't worry about the future of JPG. Besides, these are all non-free images anyways, so they're not really useful for a historical archive. When the games fall out of copyright, forecasted for sometime in the next millenia, we'll want to retake all the screenshots anyways to upload higher quality ones. Other sites have better quality archives. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My point about the future of JPEG is that it's a lossy format - converting it to PNG or any new format means it would still have artifacts. PNG has no such longevity problem, and can be converted to any format without any data loss forever. If our fair use screenshots are good enough, they wouldn't even need to be replaced when the games in question went out of copyright. "Other sites" usually just have JPEGs, which obviously are lower-quality than PNGs. Hardcore Gaming 101 is a notable exception.

I'm not saying that editors should pro-actively replace existing files, just that if they create new files that they should be lossless. Anonymous-232 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"If our fair use screenshots are good enough, they wouldn't even need to be replaced when the games in question went out of copyright." This is where the problem occurs. They can never be good enough on Wikipedia because they must be low resolution. If a video game were to fall out of copyright (which has never happened except perhaps by strange flukes) we would definitely want to retake screenshots since they could be high resolution. Using PNG instead of JPG won't change that. For free games, like GNU GPL or CC-BY-SA free, it does make sense to use high quality PNG files and uploaders should definitely consider PNG instead of JPEG. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This was just asked at NFC effectively. Low-res, lossless images of games are just fine, as long as it is "low-res" (to meet minimum use). Replacing lossy-JPGs where there is clear artifacting going on is completely fair. --MASEM (t) 07:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014's TFA

Coming on February 17th, Cave Story be will on the main page as that days Featured Article. Probably would have been better if it was on December 30th, its 10th anniversary for the original version, but we can't win them all. GamerPro64 03:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Cave Story article lists the original version release date as "December 20, 2004", not "December 30, 2003" or "December 30, 2004". ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 04:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Was trying to add a little light humor like I normally do when I make light on the upcoming TFAs. But yes I did make a date error in my comment. My mistake. GamerPro64 05:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening needs rewrites/cleanup to maintain FA status

Can you please rewrite this article because it no longer meets the FA criteria even though (as of this edit) it's still an Featured Article (FA)?

I, known as Mr. Gonna, did a massive copy-pasted comment about the Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening article and the problems against its FA status on this page a few days ago, and so far since then little improvement has been done. I found plenty of issues in it – including unsourced statements, a lack of screenshots, and poor grammar/prose – and some other users like Tezero, TGilmour, and Spillik did the same thing before me. I started the FAR after seeing no easy response/collabration from other users, which is why Dana boomer put it on hold.

It's hard for me to find someone who is VERY interested in maintaining its FA status through rewrites, and more people have desires to write a new GA/FA than deal with an old one (I updated Asteroids (video game) to GA status back in January 2014). The FAR did see response from Czar, but only since it's been on hold I've discussed the article's issues with igordebraga on both our talk pages and the article talk page, all while trying to improve it. There's an article talk page notification about the article and its issues plaguing its FA status, and I listed a request for the Guild of Copy Editors (GoCE) to copyedit the article. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 20:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

2 days ago I notified User:PresN of the article and its issues, as well as my efforts to maintain its FA status, then he responded that he did not edit article before, nor he played the DMC3 game, and he was unsure of why I told him to improve the article. I like his comments about it. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 20:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want my opinion on this, I say just wait for this article to be back at FAR and don't look back. I've been on this site for five years and have done enough reassessments to know when an article will not be salvaged mainly on account of lack of interest. Let's just let sleeping dogs lie on this one. GamerPro64 23:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Should we just refrain from FAR-ing it because no one will fix it? If it doesn't fit the criteria, it doesn't fit the criteria. It's not like anyone's relying on it for a featured/good topic. Tezero (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I think he's saying go ahead and FAR it and don't spend a lot of effort trying to get people to fix it- which I agree with. As I said on the talk page, most people are much more interested in writing a new GA/FA than fixing an old one, especially one with as many problems as this. Trying to get people to fix an article heading to FAR that's this bad is an exercise in frustration, because it's very unlikely that anyone will be willing- if they were, they would have already fixed the problems. --Pres N 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Same thing has happened with List of Virtual Boy games; I ended up taking it to FLRC with no one touching it at all after I tried there. There's just not enough Wikipedians around who are interested in all of these subjects anymore. It's a shame, but if we were to really want to be able to keep up with all of the reviews, assessments, etc., we'd have to have our membership multiply several times over just to have enough editors interested in doing it. Everyone's interest is different, and that's a neat thing, but we have to have enough editors with different interests in order to keep everything functioning at top level. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 03:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I read DMC3 because it is one of the articles listed at the "Reviewing pre-2008 FAs" page. 2008 was a big year for featured content, with a bunch of users involved in the reviewing process (even in FAR), people making efforts to upgrade Wikipedia articles within days, weeks, and sometimes months, and Tony the Tiger spending time on articles about baseball and art. Devil May Cry 3 was released by Capcom in February 2005 and the article about it was promoted to FA back in April 2007 after Caribbean H.Q. (then "Dark Dragon Flame") and other WP:VG members had a few months improving it. Today, many users aren't interested in maintaining the article, and more users prefer writing/reviewing new Good Articles (GA) and Featured Articles (FA) than those who deal with old GAs/FAs, causing problems that users like Red Phoenix seen in FARs/FLRs of old content like the aforementioned "List of Virtual Boy games" (especially if the article has several issues). Red Phoenix, I see that your FLRC of that list is ongoing as of this edit. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 04:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see it. I prefer to bring articles that are lower-C-class or worse up to GA/FA to actually further public encyclopedic understanding of the topics rather than polish up doomed GAs and FAs that, while not fulfilling the criteria, aren't horrible reads. Tezero (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've gotten back on the pre-2008 FA page and checked out the Age of Empires articles. The series one is decent, but there are some serious issues with Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings and Age of Mythology, as I've outlined on the pre-2008 FA page. Giggy, who seems to have been their most active contributor, is no longer active on Wikipedia. Tezero (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you listed some examples here. Another article listed on the pre-2008 FA page is Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki (promoted to FA status on February 9, 2008). The article has 43 references, some of them dead links like "parodius.com". The lead has poor prose and includes an unimportant sentence about Radical Dreamers' "planned" release at Akihabara. The lead's fourth paragraph is unsourced and includes facts not mentioned anywhere else in the Radical Dreamers article. "Characters and story" contains poor grammar. The "Development" section is too much quotes and too little original text, and it has only 3 references ("Music" has 2 references, 1 less than "Development"). "Biohazard" is not italicized in the section's first quote. The sentence "A reviewer for Home of the Underdogs lauded the game's excellent writing and the "superb" English translation patch, noting that the "interesting plot" would appeal to fantasy fans if they could stomach the limited interactivity" WP:NPOV-wise seems unbalanced, although Home of the Underdogs is a notable website. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 07:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully, Zeality is actually active. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 19:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon looking again, Age of Mythology has already been demoted. That said, I've read Empires: Dawn of the Modern World and found some issues, so I'm gonna write those up. Tezero (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne (promoted to FA status on June 28, 2007) is in need of copyediting and cleanup. It is badly written with choppy, short paragraphs, poor grammar, and WP:BALANCE problems. "Intelligence Management System" consists mostly of quotes. "Development" has poor prose. The "Reception" table is too long. "Differences with the novels" is an underdeveloped and unsourced section. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 19:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Note to all those reviewing 2008 FAs: It would help to have your comments duplicated on the talk page (for people who come to the article in the future and aren't aware of the WPVG conversations or reviews). czar ♔ 19:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADevil_May_Cry_3%3A_Dante%27s_Awakening&diff=595769539&oldid=595705465 ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 19:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done it for mine, too. Tezero (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit game articles as much as I did, though I've always kept Metroid Prime tidy after getting it to Featured status (though some concerns have been raised, and I even put it on the GOCE backlog) and last year I saved The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap from GA demotion. But yes, many times it's hard to take over other people's work that used to be top-notch but is clearly lacking nowadays (I know it pretty well for always postponing to work on The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker). igordebraga ≠ 21:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You're known for doing alternative rock articles and a Good Topic (GT) about Pearl Jam's studio albums, and your most recent GA is Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album). I wish I can get all articles about the studio albums and singles of industrial bands Nine Inch Nails (except for Year Zero (album), Ghosts I–IV, and The Slip (album)) and Skinny Puppy (except for Mythmaker) up to at least GA standard. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 22:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

My first GA is Asteroids (video game) (promoted to GA status on January 11, 2014), and I hope I get to work on turning Breakout (video game), Atari, Inc., and Quake (video game) into FAs. Quake and Breakout are almost 18 and 38 years old, respectively, and there are still people who are interested in editing such articles, but both the Quake and Breakout articles have never been brought up to GA status before. Doom (video game) was promoted to FA with plenty of collabration, and by the time it was demoted, less people were interested in maintaining its quality. PresN is a prominent member of the successful Square Enix WikiProject, and its Final Fantasy featured article was kept after an Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) in 2009 thanks to the WikiProject's activity and power. But I've never done maintaining the FA status of an old article through FAR before February 10, 2014. There used to be a group of people interested in the Devil May Cry series, but the task force is now largely inactive. I know both WP:FAR and WP:GAR, and I spend most of my time on Wikipedia improving articles, reading articles, and seeing how things are going. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 22:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make, Mr. Gonna. Tezero (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sort of with you on that Tezero. Kinda have half a mind to close this thread because I just don't think there's anything else to say besides, "Hey. There are FAs that need to be improved. Let's go do that.". GamerPro64 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not understanding what I mean, Tezero. Let's make explanations easier:

In the "alternative rock" paragraph, I said to Igordebraga that he is known for writing alternative rock music articles, including ones about Pearl Jam studio albums, and that I wish I can improve articles about songs and albums by Nine Inch Nails and Skinny Puppy.

The "video game" paragraph starts by mentioning Asteroids (video game) as it's my first Good Article (GA), and I said that I will improve three articles to FA status: Breakout (video game), Atari, Inc. and Quake (video game). The second sentence includes the ages of two video games (Quake and Breakout), then it states there are editors interested in improving two Wikipedia articles to GA status (Breakout (video game) and Quake (video game)). The third and fourth sentences describes the FARs of Doom (video game) and Final Fantasy. In the rest of the paragraph I say I never did an FAR before (although I know WP:FAR and WP:GAR already and roamed around Wikipedia improving/reading articles and seeing how the website works), and there's an largely inactive Devil May Cry task force.

GamerPro64 just got right the overall meaning of whatever we discussed in this section. In his words, the meaning is: "Hey. There are FAs that need to be improved. Let's go do that." ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 00:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand what I mean now? ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But it serves no purpose with the discussion at hand. One could argue that we're going off topic at this point. GamerPro64 00:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I started this section because I wanted anyone to improve the Devil May Cry 3 article because it no longer meets the FA criteria, then we talked more about improving old FAs and how things happening within Featured Article Candidates (FACs) and Featured Article Reviews (FARs) changed. We later discussed dealing with featured content and good content, including Red Phoenix's role on the "List of Virtual Boy games" FLRC. That's my summary of this section. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 00:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

I don't mean to gripe, but does anyone in WP:VG actually care about peer reviews? I can understand Pokémon Channel not having any comments, since it's only been a couple days, but Mega Man Powered Up has been up there for much longer. I don't think commenting even takes that much effort... Tezero (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Review areas of Wikipedia tend only to appeal to certain types of editors, and for whatever reason those editors tend to prefer things with national and historical significance, or (oddly enough) things like British actors, less notable structures.... it's somewhat strange, and it's part of why a lot of FACs get archived and others draw comments like crazy. Also why certain areas of GAN are blown up: this project keeps up on it pretty well, but look at the film or athletes categories and they're always ridiculously long. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 23:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V has a Peer Review up now so that should be looked at as well. GamerPro64 15:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
It may be a lower priority than the others, but Drakengard 2 is also up. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I've gone and peer reviewed Grand Theft Auto V and Pokemon Channel, hopefully that's helpful. --Nicereddy (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic game rankings up for deletion

The AfD in question. --Soetermans. T / C 07:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Twitch plays pokemon

Do you think twitch plays pokemon is worthy of its own article? There has been a lot of coverage over the past 5 days and the game is nowhere near finished; I assume the coverage will only continue. Alternatively, where would it best be added? Samwalton9 (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Created a draft; Draft:Twitch Plays Pokemon. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Eah, there's been a lot of coverage but it probably warrants a more in depth discussion as to whether it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). Яehevkor ✉

Turns out it's already been created here. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool thing. Once you're all merged, you should submit it to WP:DYK. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that how much this is getting covered does make it on the right side of a notability test, though I would be prepared just in case this is challenged to merge this to Pokemon Red or Twitch. But its in no immediate danger for notability. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games-specific WikiLove

I recently created a custom WikiLove for someone who's been doing some work on Pokemon articles and had a thought: What if we made specific WikiLove for specific projects? Here's what I created:

	The Game Boy of Appreciation
	Thanks for ...! ~~Ash Ketchum

Any thoughts? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, that's a bit obnoxious even for WikiLove and not such a good composition/design. Plus, we already have a Template:VG Barnstar (and even SVG version of it). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I rarely use the existing WikiLove and almost always make custom ones when I hand them out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't even be bothered with that, usually, I just use the "thank" function on the edit diff viewer. --Pres N 22:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thought a weaker form of a barnstar might be nice, maybe not, thanks for the input! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests

We have a bunch of articles and reviews that need to be looked at but I think the requests board should get cleaned up and taken care of. If anyone is interested and would like to do so, that would be much appreciated. GamerPro64 02:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, you mean going through and reviewing the requested articles and not redesigning the page, correct? I'm probably just reading it strangely. Anyway, I can go through and review some of them when I have some time later. --Nicereddy (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely the former czar ♔ 03:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I meant go through and review them. Apologizes if I was unclear. GamerPro64 03:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Got through the backlog! --Nicereddy (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Emulation project

I am going to keep this brief, several article found on the Emulation template are delete, most notably Project64. Consensus regard WP:GNG are hard to match when dealing with emulation topics. This program simply will not get the coverage other program may get. Does this mean they lack notability?

Absolutely not! Most of the programs are notable especially Project64 which from my research is the only remaining active N64 emulator. Let's try to extend notability guidelines for emulators. Emulation zone and certain forums are sometimes the only sources. What can we do to get PJ64 back up. Need some help here. Thanks! Valoem ^talk 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the WP:GNG is the standard for the entire Wikipedia site, not the things that fall under the just emulation or video games. Meeting the GNG by writing articles about what can be verified by reliable sources is the foundation of the entire place, so you're not likely to gain any traction on changing that. "Forums" are never going to be acceptable because they violate WP:SPS, that is, anyone can write them without any sort of editorial oversight. Additionally, what constitutes a reliable source is pretty well defined too. Your efforts would probably be better put into doing research to prove that there are indeed reliable sources that help it satisfy the GNG, or proving that certain emulation websites should be considered reliable by Wikipedia's definition. (Much discussion and info is held on this at WP:VG/S and its talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In terms of Project64, it remains the only actively used emulator for N64. The sources such as Emulation-Zone are WP:RS when it comes to emulation (Neutral/unbias). I am looking for some additional source for pj64 could you help possibly. Multiple sources exist on the history of the redirect. Let me know what you think and if more can be found. Valoem ^talk 16:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how Emulation-Zone even remotely meets those linked RS standards. No editorial oversight. A good place to start for sources is WP:VG/RS. czar ♔ 04:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Andriasang alert (positive)

This is an alert to video game and Square Enix wiki-projects. Andriasang is working again, for how long I don't know. If there is anything there you want that's not archived, archive it quickly before the site goes down again. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Another chronological template up for deletion

Assassin's Creed this time. --Soetermans. T / C 14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014's TFL

Coming up on the main page this Monday is not a Featured Article but a Featured List. That's right, we have List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series being one of two FLs shown on there this week. Get some Hot Coffee ready for when it happens. GamerPro64 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Famitsu Schedule/Community pages

VG articles aren't something I edit for various reasons but as I need sources for game sections of Anime/Manga articles some cross over does occur.

In looking for a reliable source for Japanese release dates I naturally took to the Famitsu site. Rather wonderfully they have a schedule for releases on the site that goes back to 1987 at least. However some digging reveals this may actually be automated by scraping the data for all games and then generating a schedule based on those results. The links for each game take you to the community area of the site (/cominy in the urls) which naturally caught my attention.

The question is, can we ignore the user reviews and take the release dates, maker and Famitsu score (listed in a info box) as reliable? For example here is the page for a random entry - Dragon Quest II : japanese translated. Famitsu's own score is multiplied by 2.5 to get a score of 100 for comparison to user reviews, but the original score is separate from this display. There doesn't seem to be any way for users to submit data or corrections, so I'm not convinced the release data is community edited or corrected and the community features seem limited to user reviews and tags which we can of course ignore. I don't see a problem in using it, but it has enough potential impact that I'm not going to make the call myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Assistance at Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout (series)

There is a bit of an edit war brewing here regarding the status of past Fallout 1 & 2 developers working on the New Vegas, any assistance would be appreciated as I'm having difficulty getting any headway here. Яehevkor ✉ 17:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Link to discussion: Talk:Fallout_(series)#Minor_edit_war czar ♔ 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Video games notable for speedrunning

The article seems to be in a bit of a state. I think interested editors would be valuable in creating a "standard" for what gets included and expanding what is. - `New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure much of any of what's there has demonstrated notability. I mean, there are few to no reliable sources anywhere. Tezero (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, though there is some coverage I saw with a quick search of "speed run" in the reliable sources custom search engine. It might be better to delete/redirect this and focus instead on improving Awesome Games Done Quick and Speedrun. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the expansion of Lets Play-style videos, I think this list is not really appropriate anymore, and whatever is there should be merged to the speedrun article instead, with that article mentioning notable speedran-games. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Proteus FAC

I have nominated Proteus (video game) for WP:Featured Article. The candidacy page can be found here. Thanks, Samwalton9 (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Any updates on testing WP:FLOW?

I was wondering if there were any updates on volunteering WP:VG to test Wikipedia:Flow in our Project's Talk Pages? I discovered this archived conversation about it, but it hasn't been commented on since October and has since been archived. I would love to help test the new system since our project is larger than WikiProject Breakfast and WikiProject Hampshire, which are currently the only English Wikipedia WikiProjects involved, but they may not be good for testing the scalability of Flow.

Just wanted to know if there had been any progress on getting involved with the project? I very badly want it to work well, as I really hate the current Talk page system :P --Nicereddy (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll be interested in three Archive 102 sections, in order: (1) Flow invitation to kick-the-tires, (2) Are we ready to Flow here? News and a request for confirmation, and (3) An update on Flow. czar ♔ 22:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Flow just flat out isn't ready. I'm fine with beta testing software, but Flow isn't near feature complete. There's no search. - hahnch e n 17:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Channel copyedit

The backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests is incredibly long and it will probably take months for the article to get copyedited. Is there another way I can get input on its wording before then? Would anyone in WP:VG like to take a look at the article before I FAC it? Tezero (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with Twin Galaxies AFD

The AFD ib question has been heavly vandalized in the past few minutes. It has been blanked and replaced with Twin Galaxies is dead (several times) Ruddy Ruddy etc. Can someone please keep an eye of this and revert this obvious vandalism. I have tried but it keeps changing before I am finished correcting the previous issues.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave it another shot and fixed it for now, however since there are several IP addresses and and a person calling themselves Twingalaxiesisdead involved in this I doubt that this will be over so soon so I would still request that someone keep and eye on the page as I will be away for several hours soon so I can't keep an eye on it for much longer.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism was limited to a single IP and that named account, both have been blocked. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully this will bring this issue to a quick end.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I briefly considered semi-protection but that requires exceptional levels of abuse at AfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Twingalaxiesisdead should be indef username blocked. - hahnch e n 23:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

History of Video Game consoles, Eighth Gen

Hey guys, a poll has recently been opened here. Feel free to add input. Thanks, MrAdaptive343 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Game Arts RS?

I was wondering if this site http://www.gamearts.co.jp/ is considered reliable. It looks professional.Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the developer's official website. It's a primary source, so it'd be reliable in certain circumstances. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok nevermind, that helps alot. wasn't so sure.Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Halo be described as a military science fiction franchise?

There is currently an RfC going on as to whether the Halo franchise should be classed as "military science fiction" or not. Comments are requested and needed on this issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for additional eyes at Kantai Collection

May I request a few extra eyes watching Kantai Collection? I've seen multiple occasions within the past month of IP editors from Japan blanking all negative criticism from the "reception" section and only permitting positive information regarding the game. Thanks. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you thought of requesting semi-protection? Tezero (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not necessary at this point, since the edits are considerably few in number. If, however, these edits become more frequent, then of course RFPP would be the most suitable action to take. I'll wait for a bit and see how things turn out; hopefully the page remains calm and we won't have to take any drastic action. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Twitch Plays Pokemon

I and another editor have concerns that the Twitch Plays Pokémon article currently has a lot of out-of-scope information. I and the other editor have attempted to remove what we see as the out-of scope information. Another editor disagrees and has reverted both of us.

I am seeking feedback on the issue. Please leave your comments at Talk:Twitch Plays Pokémon#Parentheticals. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Psi 5 Trading Company

I'm working on a draft for an article on the early Accolade game Psi 5 Trading Company. But I have a problem: no one can agree on its correct name. In all the online sources, I've seen it referred to as Psi 5 Trading Company, Psi-5 Trading Company, PsiΨ5 Trading Company, Psi5 Trading Company and PSI-5 Trading Company. No one use seems predominant. The use on the game cover is ambiguous (it's hard to tell if there is a space between Psi and 5 or not), but then the game's manual uses Psi-5. And some other game covers use the Psi-5 variant as well. Some versions of the game's splash screens use the PsiΨ5 usage. The German Wikipedia uses PSI-5. Any idea how I should name this article? And, second question, should I list all the variations on the game's title in the article? (see draft) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with "Psi-5", as it seems like a good "average" of those names and conforms to Wikipedia's standards about naming (e.g. "Korn" instead of "KoЯn", "Daughtry" instead of "DAUGHTRY", "AC/DC" instead of "AC☇DC"). Tezero (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'm still on the fence about listing all the variants in the article or not. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

Gamespot unreliable?

I was recently told that gamespot is considered unreliable. I dont remember this, but i just wanted to verify if this is true just incase i start going on a massive removal campaign.Lucia Black (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If GameSpot is unreliable, many of WP:VG's GAs and FAs will instantly go to shit. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

God help us all if we decide GameSpot is unreliable. Many of the articles I've worked on recently rely a lot on either them or IGN for references. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Who told you this Lucia? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

GameSpot's database is considered unreliable because it's shared with GameFAQs and is user-contributed. Staff-contributed features are okay, though. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey all. It's been awhile since I last posted on WPVG, but I noticed this conversation and I thought that I should point something out. GameSpot's database has not always been user contributed, and it should be considered a reliable source as long as you use an archived version from before GameFAQs and GameSpot merged their databases. I don't know when the merge took place, but it was probably in the last year or two. Archives from before that should be fine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this was about GS for release dates in specific: WTVG 101: Release dates sourced GameSpot and RSN 106: GameFAQs and Gamespot shared database. So where we left off was that GS is not reliable for release dates and it should be used situationally for articles based on the reputation of the author. Eh? czar ♔ 01:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. Their articles in general are fine, but they're database entries (release dates) and user blogs are unusable. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working on Cardcaptor Sakura can anyone help me verify what is considered database and what isn't? I'm not familiar with gamespot.Lucia Black (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to confirm individual links if you wanna post a list on my talk page. Generally, for Gamespot: authored reviews are fine, game info pages aren't. I'd also be willing to help finding sources if the only release info you can find is from Gamespot, lemme know on my talk page for which games you need a reliable source. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, don't use the release dates/developer/publisher info pages and check the authors before you use them. If the names more like "John Smith", it's probably usuable. If it's more like "FallOutBoyFan2377", then it's probably non-staff and unusable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

EGM 39

Hey all—I'm trying to squeeze one final source for Menacer, but I can't get my hands on it: Electronic Gaming Monthly #39. I don't think it's necessary for the article, but I wanted to take a peek since it supposedly has some coverage. Does anyone have a copy or know someone who might have a copy? I tried all the usual leads. czar ♔ 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked to see if it's on EGM's official app? I'm not sure how much is on there because I don't tend to use EGM for much, but it's worth a look if you have an iPhone or iPad. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The app's iPad-only, so I can't check it. (It's a free app, if someone else can check for me?) As far as I can tell, it only has the issues from the new EGM incarnation and not from the 90s print-only mag. czar ♔ 07:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Flappy Bird GA

Hey all, just saw that Flappy Bird made it to GA, but while the game isn't very complicated I don't think the article is up to GA standard. It's a mess of single-sentence paragraphs and single-paragraph sections. Does anyone else have an opinion on it? I'd take it to GAR but that process is such a mess that I'd rather get other opinions here instead. --Pres N 22:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too. I was thinking about straight-failing it when it was at GAN, but since it had just been nominated I didn't want to be a jerk and slam it back right away, plus Big the Cat was (and is) on the backlog and I didn't want anyone to quick-fail it out of spite. Tezero (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The article really isn't up to GA standard right now; the lead doesn't summarise all points for another reason. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? I was the reviewer and I didn't see any problems with it, I read through the prose carefully to make sure everything was kosher. If needed I can re-review it. -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

The article is definitely not GA class. I would personally rate it at C class. The lead is too short, and the "prose" reads more like thinly veiled Trivia lists. It's all jumbled and there isn't much substantial content. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to being this up here but we can't all be first. But yeah I can agree that this article is not GA material. GamerPro64 22:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Flappy Bird will stay GA forever. It will be demoted from GA soon. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 23:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkadam, the thing about the prose isn't that it's poorly written; it's the way it's organized and laid out on the page. Tezero (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, this article's quick communal reassessment encouraged me to look back at my own GAs. Turns out Mew (Pokémon) was in disrepair, with numerous short paragraphs and questionable organization, until I fixed it just now. Tezero (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have passed it either, to be honest. Development is totally inadequate, the sections are unbalanced so much as to be ridiculous, the lead does not even come close to meeting MOS:LEAD... and that's just skimming without getting into sources or section prose. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 05:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is my response as nominator. I knew this would either pass for its conciseness and verifiability or fail on brevity. There is not really anything lacking on "Development", by one man in two days. The lead is short in the context that it is a short article, to avoid repeating too soon. And I'm sorry if this nomination looks like a waste of your time The Almightey Drill (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not discouraged on principle for a short article to get a short intro. (I think Voyager (video game) leans too far in the opposite direction.) However, Flappy Bird's intro isn't comprehensive; there's nothing in it in the way of Development, Legacy, or Nguyen's reasons for taking the game down. I do see that the intro's been improved, but it's not there yet. Tezero (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just another person chiming in saying that, if you compare it against other recent GA's, it falls pretty short. (No offense, but this is another reason why I don't really bother with making any of my projects to GA status - find two like-minded editors, and you can deem just about anything with sources and no typos to be one.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read it and I, for one, thought it was pretty good. He touches on most aspects and where information is lacking, well, it's possible there just isn't any more to say about it. For example, perhaps the developer didn't actually say anything more about its development. While I didn't promote it to Good, I do think it's pretty good. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've tackled two sources of concern - the lead, and the development. They're not much longer, but improved by taking in your suggestions. The Almightey Drill (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the main remaining problem is the Reception section. It's a few tiny paragraphs about individual reviews. While it seems comprehensive, it'd look and flow better as a couple of paragraphs about individual issues of the game, such as its addictiveness and difficulty. Tezero (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Advice heeded, I'll get my teeth into that The Almightey Drill (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I've done it now. Quite short but less of a swamp of unsorted quotes The Almightey Drill (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The article should be demoted for now. It shouldn't be rated GA if it is still in the process of getting there. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See here's the thing. I appreciate the very good work in the last few days to improve the article, but there is more to be done. It's almost a B at it's present state, but it can't stay GA with such a brief Development and Reception section. A game like this should probably have a video game review chart, my opinion. Also, there have been several in depth looks at the gameplay of the Flappy Bird and why it's so addictive, but the mentions of this information is sparse. Really explain to us what the appeal is, it's one of the most interesting aspects. As for Development, this was based on an older game, what do we know about that? Can we see a screenshot in the development section if there is one? What specifically was borrowed? Dig into this, and you will have something GA worthy. Keep going! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a screenshot. I didn't see it at first, either. Tezero (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did mean of the game that Flappy bird is based on, to see what the source material for Flappy looked like. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Agreed. Tezero (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Per this http://www.thechocolatelabapps.com/how-to-make-flappy-bird/ (Source 14) in the article, the only "element" from his former game was the bird itself, and he only says that he "drew" the bird, never that this was ever in a stage of digital development. I've corrected the lead The Almightey Drill (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So is Flappy Bird staying a GA or not? Tezero (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)\

Compare this revision to the current one. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 17:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I know it's improved, but that doesn't mean it's up to the task yet. Reception is still really short, for example, considering that there are a few reviews. And the screenshot's way too small. Tezero (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it needs a new full GA review, especially considering the article has changed so much. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories for deletion/merging

Category:Fictional American Jews in video games and Category:Fictional Hispanic and Latino American people in video games are both proposed for merging which would result in their deletion. If you have an opinion on this, pro or con, please make your voice heard at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 28. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014's TFA

Coming up on the main page tomorrow, March 5th, Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri from the sadly defunct Looking Glass Studios will be on there for all to see. GamerPro64 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Forest draft article opinions wanted

I've created a draft article for upcoming game The Forest and am considering moving it to article space. My concern, though, is that it's entirely based on news articles which discuss screenshots, trailers, or are interviews. The coverage would suggest the game is notable but the in-depth coverage isn't really there right now; should I publish or not? Samwalton9 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the sources' reliability push it into the okay zone. Tezero (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the Firefly Online pushback was a fluke. My personal litmus test is whether I can get 1500 B of original prose on the topic. With the addition of a sentence or two, I think it'd be fine in the mainspace. (And if not, I'd have your back.) czar ♔ 01:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

On second look, the prose could use some cleanup and concision. If the text is shortened to omit needless words, it might come up too short. This said, if you trim the excessive words and add a few more sentences and it's over 1500 B, I think it'll be fine. Also no harm in leaving it in draftspace for now. czar ♔ 01:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

VG external links templates

Hi everybody,

This has come up once before, but I'll try once more: should we or shouldn't we keep using the templates intended for use in the external links section? I'm talking about these ~~three~~ two:

{{MobyGames}}. WP:VG/RS says: Game synopses, credits and aggregate review scores. Relies on user-submitted content. While it demands reliable sources for all contributions and all contributed information undergoes scrutiny by experienced users before publication, its info has been shown to be often erroneous and the sources provided by contributors are not publicly displayed.
{{GameFAQs}}. WP:VG/RS says: Walkthroughs, cheats and release dates. Relies on user-submitted content with no apparent editorial oversight.
{{StrategyWiki}}. WP:VG/RS says: Wiki websites such as StrategyWiki and Bulbapedia can be openly edited by anyone, and they do not have sufficient fact checking or editorial oversight in place.

The last two are essentially gameguide websites, that we link in a template form no less. At the same time, other gameguide websites (and fansites and the like) are discouraged (see WP:VG/EL).

WP:VGSCOPE on External links: (...) Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of sites to be avoided. We've established that they are in fact not reliable, so why are they still around?
WP:ELNO No. 12: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors (...) Even if there is stability and that there are a substantial number of editors working on StategyWiki, the template links one game, not to the entire wiki. Besides, how do we even know that the information presented is helpful at all?
WP:VG/EL further states: If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, a video game's page at MobyGames, Allgame or the Internet Movie Database may be added on a case by case basis. Considering that MobyGames and GameFAQs aren't considered reliable and StrategyWiki works as a gameguide website, I don't see how the information on those websites is relevant. --Soetermans. T / C 14:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about the last two, but MobyGames has valuable content, even if it's not perfect. For example, they often have numerous screenshots, something Wikipedia seems to hate. There is no standard stating that external sites we link to need to be infallible. I don't think every game article needs to link to MobyGames, but if it has additional information, I think it's a boon. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that the entirety of WP:VG/EL seems to be conflating policy about external links used as reliable sources and policy about external links used as external links. This is problematic to me. Example: Whether a site is self published should not mean that the site is banned or strongly discouraged from being used in an external links section, only that it should be used cautiously as a citation, and nothing more. Quite frankly, that section looks like scope creep and additionally appears to be at odds with the sitewide guideline of WP:EL. I would nominate the entire section for deletion....

On the point of ELNO, that seems like an article by article use problem. As it is, the template is actually useful because we can point to references to an a particular external web site trivially.

On the point of "Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of sites to be avoided", I'm not even sure you read the cited sentence. That plainly states that I am permitted to link to an external web site of a particular quality (with caution). The templates exist because I am permitted to do such. QED. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:Frecklefoot, thanks for your input. Concerning screenshots, a dedicated wiki usually has those too, not to mention the internet itself... I'm not too familiar with MobyGames, is there something else that really makes it worthwhile to keep using it? And you said you don't care about GameFAQs and StrategyWiki, does that mean you don't have an opinion on them or that you could see them go?

@User:Izno, I appreciate your input and respect your opinion, but I have some trouble with the tone of your response. "I am permitted..."? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort so that should be "we are permitted". And understand I am trying to come to consensus, I'm not dictating the rules here, I'm asking whether or not these links and templates are useful. "I'm not even sure you read the cited sentence." I don't find very friendly. I assume you didn't mean to come of that way, but remember you could've said whatever you wanted to say in lots of different ways. "I disagree because...", or "I think what that says means..." or even "I think you misunderstood", which still doesn't say I didn't read it.

Anyway, back to the discussion: I'm not disputing that we could like to websites that offer "substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature", such as dedicated wikis, developer blogs or ARGs. But the link should relevant, and I have yet to be convinced that these three actually are relevant. StrategyWiki works solely as a gameguide, which there are hundreds, if not thousands of websites that do the same, and we don't allow those to function as ELs either. GameFAQs functions as a gameguide and a forum, but we've already established that as it is user generated it is not reliable. Forums as ELs aren't allowed either, even when they are official. MobyGames is a video game database, but is also user generated. --Soetermans. T / C 11:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Soetermans: First off, I don't think Izno was being particularly hostile. And his use of "I" versus "we" is just semantics. Of course this is a wiki and we're all contributing. When I say, "I wrote this article," I mean, "I started this article and the community helped bring it to where it is now".

Now, that aside, I find MobyGames particularly useful in some cases because it has screenshots with accompanying text explaining what I'm seeing (e.g. "Opening video with Ziknorf talking to Wamboom", "Tactical screen of a battle between The Kingdom of Zimloff and the forces of Beelnord"). It bridges a huge hole in Wikipedia: most articles about video games--very visual subjects--have few to no screenshots. This is not because editors aren't willing to contribute them, but because of our incredibly restrictive policy about image use. But I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. The Internet at large, as you state, may have numerous screenshots of gameplay and other information. But I prefer MobyGames rather than just Google Images, for example, because it is moderated and usually pretty reliable (but not perfect, as I stated earlier). And their moderation is pretty good. I contributed information about one game to it (because I was the Lead Programmer on it), but they required evidence that what I was contributing was correct; they didn't just take my word for it. That seems pretty responsible to me, and what we strive for here on Wikipedia too. FWIW, the discussion of whether or not to link to MobyGames comes up every so often here on the project, and the consensus is always to allow links to it, but makes sure it has additional information (or content, like screenshots) that's useful.

As for the other two sites, I don't have an opinion. Sorry, mea culpa, I wasn't clear. I don't normally refer to them or use them. I really don't care whether we allow links to them or not. In general, I don't think they should be banned, but I don't think we should link to every single entry they have either. If they're used extensively, then having templates for them is useful. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That part was and still is meant for Izno. I appreciate your effort to help out, but I didn't say they were hostile at all, I said I had some trouble with their tone. Maybe you don't agree, but if someone suggest I didn't read a sentence I don't think that's fair to me or helpful in a discussion. Maybe I should've switched the two bits around, because that's what bugged me the most.

Thanks for elaborating on MobyGames. You've made a good point and you're right, in that case it is worth keeping. I'll strike out MobyGames. --Soetermans. T / C 14:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Template layout and double asterisks

Hi guys,

I noticed that on editing video game templates we've yet to establish a commonly agreed way to list games, in case of DLC, subseries or compilations. I've seen that some editors prefer using the double asterisks method to list DLC (see {{BioShock series}} and {{Elder Scrolls}}. On {{Metal Gear}} and {{Lego video games}} however, they are used differently. MGSV consists of two entries: Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain, but they are then shown in brackets. Yesterday I edited the Lego template and removed those asterisks for this reason, but that was undone by @User:Izno. I think that most readers will understand that if we list Harry Potter: Years 1 - 4 followed by (Years 5 - 7) that Harry Potter: Years 5 - 7 is meant. But would that be the same case if we show Batman and its sequel Batman 2: DC Super Heroes as Batman (DC Super Heroes)? --Soetermans. T / C 10:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Or Lego The Hobbit, sure, it's part of the Lord of the Rings franchise, but the game is based upon The Hobbit film and not just a sequel to the Lego Lord of the Rings video game. --Soetermans. T / C 14:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Channel

I'm thinking of just taking the article to FAC in a few days if no copyediting is done per my request at the appropriate page. (I don't mean this as a threat or passive-aggressively; I'm just impatient.) Is this a discouraged behavior? Tezero (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no requirement that you get a copy-edit prior to FAC, it just tends to cut down on the long lists of grammar issues reviewers bring up, and makes it less likely that someone will oppose over poor prose. I've gone both ways, especially if I'm impatient to get the review started. --Pres N 00:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I know it's not a requirement; I've gone through several FACs before. It does help, though. Maybe I'll just run through the prose myself. Tezero (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll just do it now and see how it goes. At the very least, if this FAC fails, it'll probably be over more quickly than it'd take to get a thorough copyedit in the first place. #yolo Tezero (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Gamezone spam

Sockpuppet investigation started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.60.143.188. I've recently been seeing Gamezone pop up in reception sections of recent games, they're an WP:VG/RS, but not a particularly prominent gaming website. Taking a look at page histories, it looks like we have a sock campaign to promote the site. It doesn't look too widespread, but you can see the behaviour in accounts such as Special:Contributions/Wizcheeson, Special:Contributions/Wakawikiwaka & Special:Contributions/Leetlbeetl. Block/warn/revert away. - hahnch e n 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait. Should we revert this, even though its a reliable source? Would seem counter-productive in doing on. GamerPro64 22:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Depends. I submitted the SPI to get the socks blocked. If they were legitimate edits, there's no need to hide behind a sock wall. Edits like [15] add nothing to the article, but some others might be useful. We might value the message that this behaviour is unacceptable over the value of the edits. I've not reverted any, wouldn't oppose it though. - hahnch e n 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.60.143.188 - 20 socks blocked. No confirmation on the IP though. - hahnch e n 15:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't gonna be a popular opinion, but who cares? In a way, my editing career here has for several years been a promotion of the Sonic series (and to a lesser extent some other games): I like the games and want people to learn more about them. If these IPs are adding constructive information, why does it matter that it's all from one site and they appear to be the same person? The info looks to be formatted correctly (aside from the somewhat familiar "GZ") and the IPs don't seem to be using their status as multiple entities to effect a consensus. I guess I don't see the problem. Tezero (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - until it's unconstructive I don't see a need to revert the edits. The sockpuppetry is a different matter. --Teancum (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, even that I don't mind. They're just a bunch of edits to add GameZone reviews. It doesn't look like the ringmaster is using the accounts to feign communal agreement on a controversial issue or anything; hell, all of the edits have been in mainspace and none have been vandalism. Why not let them continue? Tezero (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

These were single purpose accounts using socks to evade WP:COI oversight. I spotted the behaviour because I came across one too many Reception sections quoting Gamezone, and my first thought was, why does anyone care what Gamezone have to say? And it turns out that we don't, their prevalence on Wikipedia is artificial. - hahnch e n 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, why do we care what IGN, GameSpot, Game Informer, Destructoid, or GameSpy have to say? GameZone's an established reviewing agency as well. As long as GameZone isn't being quoted to the point of drowning out the other sources or making redundant points, I don't see the problem. Tezero (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Never mind; I thought you were going after GameZone rather than the editors. Nevertheless, the edits don't look problematic to me and I don't see any reason to assume that the users are going to head into non-encyclopedic promotion of GameZone. If that happened, I would support blocking them. Tezero (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing spam behaviour since 2010

This isn't the first time that Gamezone have been caught spamming Wikipedia, in the sockpuppet investigation I initiated above, I noted that User:SisterSister00 exhibited the same behaviour in 2011. I just came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DarkBlade4658/Archive, in that case, the sock admitted to being Michael Splechta - editor at Gamezone. Despite blocking 20 socks in the most recent investigation, spamming persists, every single big release has a GameZone quote and the only people adding these quotes are single purpose accounts. I've not initiated another checkuser yet, because I'm sure more accounts will come out of the woodwork once Titanfall hits. - hahnch e n 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not if I can help it czar ♔ 18:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

YouTube series up for deletion

Hi guys,

I don't like to canvas, but I've nominated I Misteri dell'Area 51, an Italian language YouTube machinima series for deletion. It uses Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for its material, and I guess that's why somebody thinks it should be included in the {{Grand Theft Auto}} template. The article has no reliable sources and with six videos in total, I don't think it is notable in the slightest. --Soetermans. T / C 13:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not really canvassing to let the project know that you AfD'd something; in fact, I think that's what you're supposed to do. Thanks for letting us know!_{Sorry, this is too late for that AfD, but thanks anyway and let the project(s) of future AfD's know in the future!} Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Video game series leads: include country/state/city of origin or not?

User:69.165.246.181 recently did an edit defining the Halo series as an "American multi-billion dollar military science fiction video game franchise". I reverted the edit as I felt, and still feel, that such an addition is not needed, at least for a video game article. The user has just contacted me, asking why I did the revert. I responded, citing multiple video game series that did not have such an addition, but I also found and cited for balance's sake video game articles which did. That has got me thinking: what should be the general rule about this? Or if there is one, can someone enlighten me? Should we include the franchise's state/country/city of origin as part of the article's lead or not? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First: is it notably American? Secondly: it can cause confusion: was the game made in America? By Americans? For Americans? Does it happen in America? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In response: it doesn't seem to be notably American, and there was no definition beyond what I copied and pasted for people to see. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unlike films or TV Shows, Video games don't have nationalities, but their developers do. The example is better stated as "Hallo is a multi-million dollar first person shooter video game franchise developed by American studio Bungie." (Yes, note we place more weight on the gameplay genre over the thematic one). --MASEM (t) 23:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Salvidrim. Unlike film articles, which do state the country in the lead, that is done based on the location of the production studio, if there is one studio. Otherwise, the country is not included. But in the case of video games, I think it is harder to classify. Would all Nintendo developed games be Japanese, when they have strong claims in North America and Europe? Or, with Assassin's Creed. Would that be Canadian when it also has a strong global reach? I think if anything, if it were to be adopted, we should look to the Film project and follow their classification, and adapt it to by developer. But that still introduces the issues Salvidrim stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think games are as nationalized as films. Film's are identified by their famous directors and cast and crew, games by and large are not, and a lot of games are international projects, either by location or talent. Mentioning the studio nationality I don't see as a bad thing but for body prose, in the lead it is far less notable that it requires mentioning. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While I largely agree with this discussion, I do believe an exception would be mentioning if a role-playing video game is "Japanese" or "Western". That goes beyond just "location", its literally a difference in genre, game development philosophy, etc. It definitely seems noteworthy to state that, for instances, a Tales game is a "JRPG". "American FPS" isn't really terminology that's typically used/articulated, but something like Japanese role-playing game, is. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the Japanese label really only applies when talking JRPGs because that's how that genre has come to be known. For example, Mario is not a "Japanese platform game", it's just a "platform game". That is, the way to read "JRPG is not as a "Japanese" "role playing game" but a "Japanese-style role playing game", though we do add that the developers need to be from Japan too (Anachronox may be a JPRG at its core, but we don't call it as such, for example). --MASEM (t) 01:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's really the only exception I'm arguing for. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Sergecross. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it, I also agree with Sergecross' point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be called American. Microsoft is an American company. Besides it's not just a video game, it's a franchise that spawned out of a video game and as PD pointed out some video game franchises have nationality attached to them such as hitman, so we should not be selective. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the majority opinion that the dev/publishing company can be mentioned as American/whatever, but the franchise itself shouldn't be- Halo is an international franchise that isn't set in America. I also agree with the JRPG exception (reluctantly) - both western and JRPGs are covered at role-playing video game, and the line gets a little blurry sometimes. (I guess we have history of Eastern role-playing video games as well). I wish we collectively had a better term for RPGs with a linear, story-driven gameplay than "Japanese" RPGs, since they're more and more cropping up in western releases, even as JRPGs borrow ideas from western RPGs. --Pres N 22:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, by all means, if a better term exists/arises, I'm all for using it. I don't have a particular love for the term JRPG, in fact, sometimes, it has a negative connotation for being unoriginal or unpopular in current days. But right now, it seems to be the only appropriate term. I support using it because that's what its called, not because I feel the need to delineate all subjects by their origin country or something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, yeah, I didn't mean "I wish Wikipedia had a better term" I meant "I wish the video game community at large had a better term". It is what we've got, though. At least we've stopped also calling them "console" RPGs- that got really confusing, really fast. --Pres N 05:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In GA standard, the gameplay and plot section should be provided refs?

"Cite the plot, cite the gameplay, even if it is to primary sources.". And Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niemti. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

If do not compare with other video games, the two sections usually don't need any refs, because "the source is the game itself, and GA do not need in-line citation"?--Darkness607 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific criteria for GA, but external references are always a good thing. Usually there's websites and player's guides and all kinds of other stuff dealing with the gameplay, so shouldn't be that hard. If it's an in-game thing like the Pokedex, there's websites and sometimes books that have the entire thing right there. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviews normally provide most of the gameplay analysis. Plot is commonly sourced to the game, its manual, or other official primary materials. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay definitely has to be sourced. With Plot, it's more or less up to you. Tezero (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I generally try to source gameplay with recent previews of the game, general gameplay impressions, accurate interviews with the people behind the game, and reviews if that is necessary. For plots, I don't tend to bother except when it's something rather large like an RPG or (one I haven't worked on much) Asura's Wrath, in which case a few book, quote and external references references are very handy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay sections absolutely require references, there's no exemption for that. Unsourced plots are acceptable for any fiction work, but sourcing is good if you can. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a coincidence that Niemti was blocked on March 5 for complaining that citations should not be necessary in plot sections and a completely new user with no Wikipedia experience registers on March 7, goes straight to WT:VG and asks about exactly the same thing. Cite the plot, cite the gameplay, even if it is to primary sources. - hahnch e n 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Niemti was blocked because he's topic banned from the GA process, yet took it upon himself to jump into a GA review and extensively argue with the reviewer. Lets do try not to feed his persecution complex by pretending he was blocked for his opinions on editing. --Pres N 16:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Here-here, for all our sakes. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

The Da Vinci Code (video game)

Hi all. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a quick look at the reception section in The Da Vinci Code (video game) article. This is how it existed after I did an overhaul of the article a few months back. And this is how it exists now. The number of reviews in the review table has jumped from 12 to 28! Now, I was under the impression that the recommended number of reviews was around 5-10. Certainly by looking at some VG FAs, I don't see any with more than 10 or so. The 16 new reviews have been added in the last 24 hours, and I'm somewhat loath to simply remove them, but 28 reviews seems ridiculous, and the table has also been collapsed, which I think is a really bad idea for people who only scan pages, as it's easily missed. I'm going to leave a note on the article talk page in a few moments, so if someone could comment there one way or the other, that'd be great, as it would avoid two people just arguing back and forth. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Without even looking, that's far too many. A key point is that every review listed in the table should be discussed to some degree in the text about the reception; if it is included and only used in the table, that's a bad use of the review. You can include other reviews in the prose that aren't in the table, that's fine (we have the aggregators for the big listing), and this is even preferred since the table should not be a crutch to a properly written prose section. There never should be a need to collapse the review table for a single game. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And now looking, yes, cut the crap out. Stick to: IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, Eurogamer, Edge, Game Informer, OPMUS, OXMUS, and PC Gamer (the last three for platform specific), since the platform differences in scores are negligable. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. That's pretty much what I thought. I've left a note on the talk page, so I'll give the user a chance to respond before I delete anything, for the sake of diplomacy. Cheers Masem. It seems strange to be talking to you about something other than images and fair use :) Bertaut (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This issue has already come up about this user. Judging by the recent edit history and articles like Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Terminator Salvation and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, the advice given at that time was not heeded. I also note that since Bertaut has added a comment on the talk page of The Da Vinci Code, more scores have been added to the table. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notifiying User:Angeldeb82, you really should comment on this. - hahnch e n 16:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. But I want other things too, like Nintendo Power, GameTrailers, GameZone, Game Revolution, Allgame and 1UP.com. As for non-videogame publications, like The A.V. Club, Detroit Free Press, The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Sydney Morning Herald, do you think these are okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

They're fine in the actual text of the reception section, but the reviews table should never be that big- as said above, it should be 5 to 10 reviewers. I usually shoot for 7. If you're only doing 5-10, then you have to pick the 5-10 most relevant- the biggest names, the ones with outlier scores, ones that give you platforms not otherwise covered, etc. Masem's list is a good one to start at, and then you can swap out reviewers- like GameSpy for 1UP.com. But no, it's not really cool to have a table of 20 reviewers. --Pres N 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To restate - the review table should not be a place to slot in reviews - instead, the reviews should be selected to allow the reader to see at a glance how the review scores break down from a representative selection of sources. For 90% of games, the score variance is going to be small, so the list I put above is generally the best and highest-reliable sources. However, there will be rare cases, like Space Giraffe where there is a huge variance from reliable sources, and that is what the table should highlight, possibly opting to omit a source like IGN or Eurogamer which may have an unremarkable mid-point score in favor of one of the less-common but reliable sources that put the score at the extreme. Now I do note that DaVince Code's scores have variance, but most are middling scores. So definitely trimming can be done to capture the distribution with maybe 7-8 entries in addition to aggregators. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Metacritic. It is not an exhaustive list of all coverage, but an overview. Because the reviews table at The Da Vinci Code (video game) is so ungainly, it is hidden, so that I didn't even spot it the first time around. - hahnch e n 18:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So does that mean that I can't use GamePro too? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've trimmed down the reviews on the chart to 14. Do you think this one is okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken Sword's GTRC

The Broken Sword topic is currently a Good Topic Review Candidate. If anyone is interested in voting in the review, you can go right here. GamerPro64 04:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Expanding "Portrayal of men" section and other issues

I have issued a Request for Comment concerning the issues above on the talk page of Gender representation in video games. The article needs a thorough sort-out, but I don't want to just barrel ahead on an article like this. Comments and opinions requested, needed and appreciated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You should propose changes to the structure to help guide the conversation. As an aside, do we really need an RFC to discuss the possible restructuring of a C-class article? --Odie5533 (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Nihongo foot usage in articles

Discussion is here. It is a template which is used for Japanese game articles with related media (Tales of Symphonia, Tales of Graces, and Tales of Xillia), so opinions from this project would be helpful, though I could be in the wrong place. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) merge discussion

I'm requesting that editors come in to resolve the discussion about whether or not to merge Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) into Grand Theft Auto V. I have the article up for FAC and want to make sure we don't have this active discussion going in the middle of it; editors have been voting on it in dribs and drabs for nearly two months now. CR4ZE (t) 06:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Channel's FAC

Anyone want to comment on the FAC? It's gotten very little attention so far. Tezero (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: I was avoiding doing so as I had contributed to the peer review and other parts of the article and didn't want to come off as biased, but seeing as this hasn't gained any traction in the past few days I'll see if I can find some time tomorrow to look through and leave some comments on the FAC. I'm not sure how fruitful it'll be, considering I've already gone through the article a few times before, but I'm happy to help. --Nicereddy (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Anything's appreciated; maybe you'll find something new. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Gamification of learning page

Hello all. I am new to Wikipedia. Last month I started a page on the gamification of learning, and it was classed as "within the scope of WikiProject Video games." I was very excited about this! I have worked hard to add a lot more content to the article, and hope some of you will have time to check it out. --Heatherjsb (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Heatherjsb: Just skimmed through the article a bit. I find this concept really interesting for its potential in getting kids more interested in learning, I'll have to take a longer look at it later when I have more time!

As for comments on the article, I'd see if you can add some images to the page, as it's lacking them at the moment. Maybe you can see if there's a relevant image in Wikimedia Commons' Category:Classrooms? Unfortunately it's a somewhat specific topic, so pictures may not be found as easily as they could be.

The citations are really well-done, although I do suppose I have a thing for good formatting. It looks like you've put a lot of work into the article, nice job! --Nicereddy (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Heatherjsb: Very nice initial article! Most editor's first attempts tend to be soapboxes for their personal agendas, but you've created a well-written, clear, balanced, neutral, well-sourced article from scratch. Really nice work! I made a few edits, but nothing major. I nudged the opening sentence a bit and changed all the direct extern links to refs (direct extern links in the article proper are discouraged, and their subjects are fine as redlinks since they encourage new articles). Really nice work! I hope to see more valuable contributions from you going forward. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrating cite AV media notes (aka cite album notes) to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

Please comment regarding the migration of {{cite AV media notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here: Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are similarities, your thoughts regarding the migration of {{cite DVD-notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here: Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stubs Checked

After almost 2 years, the increasingly-inaccurately named 2012 Stubcheck is now finally done! At least 15000 stubs were skimmed through since April 2012, resulting in thousands of classification changes to Start, C, Redirect, and Disambiguation. Thanks to all who helped out over the years! --Pres N 03:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wish I had had time to do more, especially I was helped in the creation of it. The least I can do now if give it a more appropriate title. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the articles listed here were meant to be reassessed as Start but that was never done? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we never went with that, as far as I know, and instead manually changed the ratings. --Pres N 04:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That someone followed through with this is amazing. Good work. I think it'd be more productive in future to have a bot do some of this work, if a page is at a certain size, and contains no stub templates - then it should automatically be marked as start. This might result in errors, but is probably worth it in terms of time saved. - hahnch e n 14:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@PresN: Yea, but the ones that were put on the list by MuZemike were never actually changed as far as I can see... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How exactly do we even determine the ratings? Stubs are pretty obvious and it takes a review for GA and FA, but what about all the in-betweens? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the list with the requirements, etc. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal of GameStats references

I wanted to get wider input on this before doing anything. ASOTMKX removed about 150 links to GameStats pages a few hours ago. I don't see any previous discussion, and it seemed like a pretty big swath of changes to make all at once. Some of the articles with the links contained archived links, and some contained multiple uses of the reference, which a bot went back and repaired afterward. I personally think a better solution would be to undo all the changes, and try to get archived pages for the links that don't already have them. I haven't undone any of the edits yet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed their edits too, but I don't have any problems with these edits because I don't see the purpose in having GameStat mentioned any longer. GameSpy or a magazine of yesteryear might've had impact on a game's reception when it came out, but since GameStats was pretty much the same as Metacritic and GameRankings (that is a video game review score aggregate site) it didn't have any substantial impact on the reception of games. --Soetermans. T / C 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Same as Soetermans. Its a ranking site so no massive loss. But if they're breaking named references they should take more care, or stop. - X201 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I understand the logic in removing GameStats references. Are they now considered unreliable or something? If they were acceptable at the time, then they were an indicator of average reception. There is absolutely no reason to remove old references simply because the site is defunct. If that were the case, we'd be removing half our references. So if Metacritic or GameRankings closes down, we will go around and remove all those entries? Then why are we adding them to begin with? We should be archiving the urls instead of deleting them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Gamestats was just an aggregrate review site, so it was not offering anything new in criticism or the like. Further, its use on VG was far far less than that of MC or GR, and in both of those cases, we have good ideas of what's going on behind the scenes with their aggregation system (for better or worse) so we want articles to have these. If it were the case MC or GR were going down, I am sure we'd make an effort to archive their pages due to their widespread use and importance, compared to the small number of cases GameStats has been used. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a question: did GameStats aggregate reviews that Metacritic or GameRankings currently exclude? For instance, say that a game came out in the first year that Gamestats was in operation and the site aggregated reviews that came out the same year. Would Metacritic or GameRankings, which came out a number of years later, create aggregate rankings that included those older reviews? Put another way, is GameStats a subset of Metacritic or GameRankings, or a completely different set? -Thunderforge (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed in some cases if I need Famitsu scores, that would be the only place to look. Annnd its gone. [16]. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's no good. While I might be able to agree that the VGR template shouldn't support the aggregator scores anymore, ASOTMKX should not be unilaterally engaging in mass-removal of links to those sites. If there's a consensus to pull the fields from the template, then someone can AWB them away, but removing references is unquestionably bad. This may merit a trouting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, something about this edit and this edit suggests that he might be doing this in a semi-automated fashion (that and he goes in bursts of about 1.5 articles/minute). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove GameStats, Game Ratio and GameTab from Template:Video game reviews aggregators

I first proposed this in 2009. None of these aggregators have any kind of relevance or importance in the video game industry. Metacritic is the standard, and Gamerankings is our fall back. GameStats is so irrelevant that we're just removing the links without any archiving. GameTab is so irrelevant that we didn't even notice it go down. - hahnch e n 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In 2010, we actually had consensus here to remove these aggregators, but we never carried them out. Can we act on that previous consensus now? - hahnch e n 02:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Screenshot

I've come across a few pages for MMO's that want screenshots and I can take care of that, but what sort of CC license are we bound to by doing that? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless we know the MMO's publisher has given us a free license, we assume that screenshots of video games are under a normal copyright license and fall under non-free images, and should be licensed as {{Non-free video game screenshot}}. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Alright, thanks. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You can still include a screenshot on these articles if you have sourced discussion about its gameplay to describe the interface and the like, but I'd recommend using the "Upload file" link in the left menu to get you to the upload wizard that helps you guide all the information you need. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, got Supremacy 1914's logo on. Doubt I'll be doing any other site, tho. Thanks for all the help! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced/unnotable mention of composer at Warlords of Draenor

Could someone visit World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor and review the talk page section about Jason Hayes? Jason Hayes originally worked on World of Warcraft, left Blizzard, and later returned. There are no reliable sources or any real notability attached to his involvement with the new expansion, as he is not the lead composer or any such. It was removed after a short talk page. The original editor who inserted it returned today and re-added it. I cannot violate 3RR, but an IP has just added it back (I suspect the same editor, logged out, attempting to circumvent 3RR, based on contribution history). The latest edit rationale is that it would "boost sales" ... which would make the edit promotional as well, I guess? -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)