Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 129

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131→Archive 135

Notability of Linux Installers for Linux Gamers

Hi everyone,

I stumbled upon Linux Installers for Linux Gamers. It has been nominated for deletion a while ago, titled Loki installers for linux gamers. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I don't get any results when I look up "linux installers for linux gamers" or "loki installers for linux gamers", and I get a single one with its acronym "liflg" (all three with apostrophes of course). Am I missing something, or is this not a notable article? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a mention at PCWorld, and that's all I saw in the first few pages on Google. Start with a prod or ship it to AFD. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
As a note, there is a book at Google Books referencing the name (I didn't check to see if it was passing), but the author of the book is a primary source relative to the website. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a second PC World mention. SharkD  Talk  14:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Installers for Linux Gamers czar 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Using an image to show "best" example of graphics

A good example of Pointillism

I want to show this image in this article as an example of one of the best implementations of a graphics technique. I am using this as the source. Would that be appropriate? SharkD  Talk  10:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you would, of course, you'd give it a description along the lines of "person of Kotaku called Shadowrun Returns one of the best looking isometric games" or something like that. However, I personally don't believe this would add much to the article. The most typical examples may be more useful for an encyclopedic article than the (subjective) "best" examples. I think the current CC-licensed images used in the article are fine. ~Mable (chat) 13:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I would rather use a screenshot of Stasis, but there doesn't seem to be one on Wikipedia. SharkD  Talk  02:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There exists no free alternative for "isometric game with visuals that are considered the best," Czar. The question is whether such an image is worth adding to the article, which I don't think it is. ~Mable (chat) 10:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
But there is also no in-text need to illustrate "isometric game with visuals that are considered the best". There's also nothing specific to Shadowrun in the article that would require the particular use of non-free Shadowrun screenshots. Other isometric concepts can be adequately illustrated with free-use images. czar 16:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It says "(Concept Art)" for SR, which isn't the actual game art. I don't think it can serve as example for art. Also, despite the title, it also says "some of the most beautiful", not implying these are the best or are in any particular order. Even without these issues, I would say that just one source is insufficient to establish something as "best". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we necessarily have to say it is among "the best". Calling it a "good" or "great" example might be good enough. I don't think it's so unfounded to include a good example of art in an article about said artfrom. For instance, the article on Pointillism has a picture of Seurat's La Parade de Cirque (1889) instead of some random free art drawn by a Wikipedian. SharkD  Talk  16:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, the image I want to include is an actual screenshot, and the "concept art" looks pretty much like the game itself. SharkD  Talk  16:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
But we're trying to minimalize non-free use here; the Pointillism example doesn't apply since it's a free image now to start. The article on WP that you want to use it in doesn't really seem to go much into artistic merits (how isometric art is made, yes, but that's a different factor than how good it looks), so I really don't see how this would qualify. The one non-free, being Zaxxon as the first known example of isometric art, seems reasonable, but I can't see the need to justify another non-free with the LinCity and user-generated examples already there. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The article actually has more text than Pointillism, and goes into more detail about "artistic merits"; yet Pointillism has a list of notable artists and notable works, as well as a gallery at the bottom. A single example of "contemporary" work (as in, post-2010) is too much? SharkD  Talk  05:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to note that our article on isometric graphics is of far higher quality than our article on pointillism. I'd also like to note that isometric graphics may be a much more technical field, where aesthetic preferences are less discussed. Though, I mean, I agree that a section of artistic movements and thoughts within isometric graphics could be very interesting. I'd say we wouldn't need another non-free image in the article, however, unless we really have something interesting to say about it. The fact that many pointillistic paintings are now in the public domain simply gives us more options there, but it's not like any of the examples in our isometric graphics article are ugly or anything. ~Mable (chat) 11:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Using listicles are a source for anything is usually bad, especially the kotaku nothing article referenced above. There are some very good free isometric examples in Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art#Gallery already. If you would like to include examples from your favourite indie games, just contact the developer directly and ask for a free-use media release, I used to do this when I had more time for the project - it's really valuable. Incidentally, I asked the Shadowrun devs via email in 2013, and they explicitly would not release any materials without a non-commercial license. - hahnchen 11:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Pointillism also uses the word "Notable". SharkD  Talk  01:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Fantasy video games

How is this category supposed to be used? It's currently used as if it belongs to every game. czar 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Could we replace this with Category:Video games with no fantasy aspects? It would be less populated. Snark aside, this category seems pointless to me. ~Mable (chat) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think there needs to be non-diffusive sub-cats in that. Fantasy is a reasonable genre, if we use the definition at Wp's article "Most fantasy uses magic or other supernatural elements as a main plot element, theme, or setting." But I think that needs to be further sub-cat'd per the list at Fantasy#By theme (subgenres). (Not all of them though!) One that caught my eye was the Mario games on that list, but that really should fall under Comic fantasy, for example. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I generally only use "Fantasy", "Sci-Fi", "Historical" and "Modern/Contemporary" in lists. SharkD  Talk  01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do sources call the Mario series "comic fantasy", though (the way it's used in literature, other media)? If we're calling it a common or defining aspect of games, there should be at least one source for each game that classifies it within the genre. Based on my spot check of the category's 835 articles, very few even mention the word fantasy, nevertheless as a defining aspect czar 03:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd be fine with using this category as a non-diffusive category, but Czar is right in that we would need good subcategories first. ~Mable (chat) 10:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
There are good points above, and this represents one of the issues with video game coverage. The gameplay genre is readily covered, but when it comes to thematic genre (which definitely seems something we want to categorize works into as to stay consistent with other contemporary media forms), very few sources go into this detail unless the thematic genre is a key defining detail. I have arguably never seen anyone attempt to classify any Mario into a thematic genre. (Just doing a google search, I came across a passage in "The Medium of the Video Game" by Wolf that explains why we readily take up gameplay genres, since the objective of a game helps to make these clear, while the thematic message is part of supporting that, whereas in film, the theme is a more critical instrument). Perhaps we should default to not including thematic genre if it is not either referenced or clearly obvious. Halo is clearly science fiction, Elder Scrolls is clearly high fantasy, but I'm sure those can be sourced, but maybe Mario just needs to be left unthemed. Either way, I would still insist that we need non-diffusing subcats to the fantasy category to thin that out better. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Professional Super Smash Bros. competition

Please comment at Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition#RFC on inclusion of material in a number of sections. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with former Xbox exec article

Hi there! I'm posting here to see if any editors in this WikiProject might be interested to help with the article for former Xbox executive, Jeff Bell. On behalf of his current company, LegalShield, and The Pollack PR Marketing Group, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted an updated and expanded version of his Wikipedia article, which currently has a warning banner saying it is written like a résumé and needs additional sources for verification. Since I have a COI, I won't edit the article directly, so I'm looking for neutral editors to review this draft. Given he was quite well known in the gaming community during his time working on Xbox 360 games at Microsoft, hopefully some of you may be familiar with him and his career. If you're interested, you can see my edit request on the article's talk page. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Now addressed. Summary of comment on talk page: read through both versions, yours is better with no downsides or policy violations, copied it over with some small changes. --PresN 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That said, while there's no sources linking Bell personally as an representation of it nor big scandals during his tenure there so it's not a big problem to have it lacking, readers should note that his current company, LegalShield, is, if not a scam, a completely pointless company- "legal insurance" is worthless to most purchasers, and they avoid being a get-rich-quick scheme for their sellers by the virtue that none of them get rich at all. --PresN 20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception sections

I'm not a video game editor, but I've reviewed quite a few video game articles at WT:FAC, and talked to several of the editors in this WikiProject about reception sections. I'd like to make a suggestion here for how to write reception sections, perhaps for inclusion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.

Here's an example paragraph from an article currently at FAC, Resident Evil 5:

Reviewers praised the game's visuals and content. Corey Cohen of Official Xbox Magazine complimented the game's fast pace, and called the graphics "gorgeous". It was praised by Joe Juba and Mark Miller of Game Informer, who said that it had the best graphics of any game to date and that the music and voice acting helped bring the characters to life, and Brian Crecente of Kotaku said it was one of the most visually stunning games he had ever played. Adam Sessler of X-Play said the game's graphics were exceptional, and Edge praised the gameplay as exhilarating and frantic. For IGN, Ryan Geddes wrote that the game had a surprisingly high replay value, and GameZone's Louis Bedigian said the game was "worth playing through twice in one weekend".

This is a completely standard reception section for a high-quality video game article; many other FAs could be found with similar paragraphs. Here's a suggested rewrite:

Reviewers described the graphics as exceptional; two reviewers described the game as having the most visually stunning graphics of any game they had played. The gameplay was also praised as fast-paced, exhilarating, and frantic, with surprisingly high replay value, and music and voice acting that helped bring the characters to life.

For a non-video-game aficionado, I think the second version of this is both more readable and more informative. It's far easier to extract the information from the second version of this. What is lost is the details of who said what and where they said it, which is preserved in the citations. When you use direct quotes in a reception section you will often want to keep the reviewers name or publication or both; I think that's fine, but without a direct quote I believe there's rarely a reason to do so. These suggestions don't apply only to video games. I've been working with Carbrera on "Make Me Like You", a music article, and in this section you can see a suggested rewrite. In that case several of the original reviewers are named, because direct quotes are used.

I've had conversations with some other video game editors about reception sections, so pinging them here: Czar, Jaguar, and also Freikorp, who is the nominator of the Resident Evil 5 FAC. I do a lot of reviewing at FAC, and I wrote an essay about reception sections in general, hoping to capture some advice I found myself giving repeatedly. Freikorp quite reasonably replied to my comments at the FAC saying that he had received different advice from other reviewers, so he didn't want to comply with my suggestions. That's why I'm starting this conversation: I would like to see WP:VG adopt some guidelines for reception sections that can be referenced at FAC.

I don't have a suggested formulation for the guidelines; I'm more interested in starting a discussion about whether the rewrite above is actually an improvement or not, and seeing if we can get some consensus first on how reception sections should be written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No real bone in this, as I only very occasionally do GAN/GAR, but what you are suggesting is essentially the reverse of what I see brought up during most VG article GANs. That is, the example from Resident Evil 5 that mentions the reviewer's name and publication is what reviewers often tell the nominator to add. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The publication is useful, but not for a lead paragraph which is what the example shows. I would expect further paragraphs to expand upon that lead, which is significantly more readable than the current version.
Reviewing VG articles, I usually go straight to the Reception section, as that is where the game's real world impact is detailed - and I usually oppose because it's badly written. Very few video game editors seem to care, or are qualified to comment, so I think it best for the co-ordinators to encourage or require non-VG editors to review these articles.
PS - the example above displays one of my pet hates, which is one word quotes. They're needless and are oftentimes read as ironic airquotes. - hahnchen 13:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I try to write reception sections from generic to specific: for each major area I plan to summarize, a lead sentence to give an idea but without necessarily referring to any specific review, capturing elements common to reviews, and then using specific review quotes to help emphasize any points. I do agree jumping to specifically named reviews in the first sentence of the reception is a bit too fast. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned before, I think this should be more of a recommendation for FAs rather than GAs or B classes etc. GAs are designed as a lightweight process and thus the organisation of the reception section would matter less, whereas a FAC can be as intense as an editor wants. It's sad because as far as I'm aware only me and czar write reception sections that read as cohesive prose instead of having a wall of text which consists of an arbitrary list of reviewers themselves. I certainly changed my attitude to writing reception sections thanks to Mike's revelation. I agree with Hahnchen too, one word quotes as well relying on excessive quoting should be avoided whenever possible. JAGUAR  14:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam Goodall of Gameplanet called the graphics "stunning" and said that the game had a "surprising presence" of a pervasive artistic statement. Langshaw said that they showcased the PlayStation Vita's "graphical prowess". David Meikleham of the Official PlayStation Magazine wrote that Wipeout 2048 "brilliantly shows off" the new hardware with its "pretty" lighting effects, solid frame rate and "gorgeous" colours. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) - hahnchen 16:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To suggest this for FA material? Sure, maybe. But to have this be the new norm? It'd never happen. Most editors just don't/can't write at that level, or agree amongst themselves on how to word such things. You may as well make the suggestion of "Hey, no more original research" or "Hey, let's not argue about music genre anymore guys." You can say it all day, but it won't happen on a widespread level. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. This sort of premium writing would only be reserved for FAs as the casual writer or newcomer to Wikipedia would struggle with this. Even I have to spend an hour or so trying to decide how to organise a reception and make it flow cohesively. It's not an easy thing to implement and should be more of a recommendation for FA-level articles. JAGUAR  14:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Mike suggested only that we find consensus on what we'd like to see in our Reception sections, not that we enforce it czar 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
So that we don't have to repeat the same advice at every review. The guidelines have plenty of suggestions that aren't hard lines—it's all advice on writing better articles, and it will only be pursued by the willing (not enforced). czar 17:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I had thought of these guidelines as more as representations of consensus's held at the WikiProject level, which is why I was concerned about the topic of feasibility and enforce-ability. But if you're just talking about writing some optional thoughts on FA writing, then sure, knock yourselves out. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • [looks at Homeworld#Reception (my current FAC), where every opinion is tagged with the last names of the reviewers who had it, as well as the publication the first time. Notes one use of a single-word quote, and swiftly looks away.] I actually first started tagging last names onto review quotes/paraphrases due to a reviewer at FAC itself, though I don't remember who. I do think it's a relevant thing to do, given the large emphasis readers place on the reviewer/publication that give opinions of games. I personally find it really jarring, though, when the sentences are structured "X said Y. Z said A. B stated C.", and I'd feel that way whether X was "Joe Blo of GamePunk" or "Two reviewers"- the reviewer names just make it a bit worse. Which I why I write lengthy blobs like 'Reviewers praised the full 3D nature of the game as elevating it from its otherwise standard real-time strategy gameplay systems; Levine said that the 3D was what made the game unique, and Ryan explicitly termed the base gameplay as "fairly similar to any tried-and-true real-time strategy game" but said that the 3D elements and connected mission structure turned it into a "different breed" of game.', but that's its own issue. --PresN 23:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Mike is encouraging grouping it even more, and I agree. Names are hard to track, especially for readers who know none of them. Every time I read Levine or Ryan, I'm making a mental association with their respective publication. Was it important to note which reviewers said what, or is there an underlying sentiment more important and easier for a general audience to read? For instance, the Levine line duplicates the previous sentence. Sometimes we are too strict with putting reviewer claims as opinions when, if repeated by several reviewers, they can be stated as a common claim (same as would be used in the Gameplay section). Homeworld's 3D environment deviated from the standard 2D format of real-time strategy genre games. While its base gameplay retained hallmarks (which?) of the genre, Ryan of X differentiated Homeworld by its 3D elements and connected mission structure. czar 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The way I assumed reception sections should be written is to split each paragraph into the parts of a video game rather than conflating everything together, per the ludonarrative. Then I would see if the literature leans toward a favourable or unfavourable assessment and that's what I lead the paragraph with before adding the opposing comments below. (I don't often do all these steps, but in a perfect world that's how I assumed it should be done). E.g.--Coin945 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. Writing/Plot/Characters
  2. Gameplay
  3. Art style
  4. Voice acting/music/sound effects
  • I have a lot to say on this matter but I'm not sure what kind of discussion we need here. Does anyone disagree that the revised example above reads better for a general audience? I think the next steps are to add some guidance to the guidelines, which editors can use and/or reference at their discretion. There's nothing holding editors to writing in any specific style, but the guidance would at least be a centralized point of reference for articles and editors going through quality and peer review. Also, is anyone good with SVGs and interesting helping me workshop a diagram? czar 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    I'm no expert, but I can produce an SVG if needed, and would be willing to work with you. Might be better to involve someone who actually knows something about video games, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Generally I agree that the revised example is an improvement, and that's the format I try to follow whenever possible. However, it runs into practical difficulties. You really need at least three reviews before you can begin making generalized statements, and even then, it's not uncommon that three reviews present three completely different opinions of an aspect of a game. Moreover, compartmentalizing the Reception section into each aspect of a game works fine if the reviews are all similarly compartmentalized, but if they are not, you wind up missing the forest while extensively discussing the trees. For example, a review might say "Game A has gorgeous graphics, smooth animation, wonderfully sensitive control, and loads of replay value, but it plays exactly the same as any number of last-generation games which you can still find in bargain bins for $5, and with Game B due out in less than a month, this is really not a wise place to spend your money." Under the above model, you could easily spend several sentences noting the reviewer's praise for the graphics, animation, control, and replay value, while completely missing his entire point. On a final note, I must strenuously object to the use of statements like "Two reviewers described"; among many other problems, it overlooks the strong possibility that there are reviews which are not covered by the WP article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing

In the article Wipeout (video game)#Music there is the sentence, "Notable is the omission of all tracks by CoLD SToRAGE in favor of more established artists, especially given his contributions to the game and its numerous successors, as well as the furtherment of video game music in general.

Can someone rephrase the last part? My brain is not working today. The point I'm trying to make is that the original video game music artist was snubbed in favor of more established artists when it came time to create the CD/vinyl LP that was released a year after the game. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  17:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Use active voice: "The CD featured music by established artists rather that of series composer Cold Storage." I'd be wary of the POV in the rest of the sentence. czar 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I approve of Czar's suggested revision. Personally, I eliminate the word "notable" whenever I find it in an article; invariably it is used either as a WP: NOTETHAT construction, or (as in the above example) as an unnecessary added emphasis on a POV.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 7 April

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

1 April

2 April

3 April

4 April

5 April

6 April

7 April

Salavat (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A better way to display this information?

I'm not the best at timelines on Wikipedia. I came up with this method of displaying all the Carmen Sandiego media but I feel like there must be a better way. Any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
Carmen Sandiego ReturnsCarmen Sandiego: Adventures in MathWhere in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (Facebook)Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? 3 - New Carmen AdventureCarmen Sandiego: The Secret of the Stolen DrumsWhere in the Universe is Carmen Sandiego?Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? Treasures of KnowledgeWhere in the Universe is Carmen Sandiego?Carmen Sandiego's Think Quick ChallengeCarmen Sandiego Math DetectiveCarmen Sandiego Word DetectiveCarmen Sandiego#Book series and comicsCarmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through TimeWhere in Time Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show)Carmen Sandiego#Book series and comicsWhere in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (1996)Where in the U.S.A. Is Carmen Sandiego? (1996)Where in the World of Music is Carmen Sandiego?Carmen Sandiego Junior DetectiveWhere on Earth Is Carmen Sandiego?Carmen Sandiego: Out of This WorldWhere in Space Is Carmen Sandiego?Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (album)Carmen Sandiego#Board gamesWhere in the U.S.A. Is Carmen Sandiego? DeluxeWhere in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? DeluxeWhere in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show)Carmen Sandiego#Book series and comicsWhere in America's Past Is Carmen Sandiego?Where in Time Is Carmen Sandiego? (video game)Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego?Carmen Sandiego DayWhere in Europe Is Carmen Sandiego?Where in the U.S.A. Is Carmen Sandiego? (1985)Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (1985)
  • I'll have another look at that. I remember not going with it because when I put too many entries under the same year the template kept screwing up. I assume you could use a colour scheme for different types of media? (green = video game; yellow = TV series etc.)--Coin945 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there something that allows for both "point entries" (like a video game that was released and that's it), and "period entries" (like a TV series that ran for 5 years)? I'm thinking of those tables of when band members joined and left kind of like this:
Extended content
I don't know of a template that does horizontal timelines like most band pages use. But for vertical timelines, the template above is vastly superior and has replaced most of our manual timelines. -- ferret (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the old style timelines into the newer ones a couple of times, see List of Sim video games and Ghosts 'n Goblins for instance. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I did a few dozen of them as well. It's a lot more compact both in syntax and output. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on it currently, before anyone else does the same. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Yayy!! It looks so good! Is there any way to colour code it for different mediums within the franchise? Like green for video game and yellow for TV series? With, say, "black" for the years without a release?--Coin945 (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't you use local HTML color coding there? It wouldn't be clean, but it should work. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Coin945 doesn't sound possible to me because there is only onw square per year so you can't have multiple colors for a single year where more than one media type released. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Nintendo eShop

Are the subcategories beneath this one useful? It's similar to listing every game on a distribution platform, like every game on Steam, no? czar 00:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that consoles are generally more closed than PC, and moreso for Nintendo, there is some element of discrimination here that does seem fine to have. It would be more comparable to the Steam issue if there were multiple digital stores for Nintendo software where now the eShop just becomes one of several storefronts. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer and Masem, are there any others? These categories seem to be about games that were distributed on a digital platform, which I don't think is a defining feature. We also don't categorize when a game is distributed only in brick-and-mortar retail (by disc). What about Category:Xbox 360 Live Arcade games? czar 17:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I think you're right this category doesn't make sense. The Virtual Console stuff is fine, but the eShop is just a storefront and even if unique to Nintendo, is not much more than that. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Could the word "exclusive" add value to these categories? ~Mable (chat) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't consider the distribution or the way you obtain a game to be a defining feature of a game itself whether its download-only, retail-only, or only available through a specific store. Using the word "exclusive" might cause some confusion for categories like this. e.g. Game releases on PS4 and Nintendo Switch. Nintendo Switch version only available through eShop. So it gets placed in Category:PlayStation 4 games and Category:Nintendo Switch eShop exclusive games. But some people may interpret the latter to mean the game is only available on Nintendo Switch. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Category:Virtual Console games has a similar issue too—is being distributed on a digital emulation platform a defining trait? The category is also partially subcategorized into VC for Wii U but not for other platforms. czar 01:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In the VC case, I would think the category is reasonable; it is basically an idea of forwards compatibility which can suggest how important a game is if the necessary steps are made by Nintendo, MS, or Sony to bring that forward. We should have the same for List of Xbox 360 games compatible with Xbox One. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      Does that mean breaking out VC for Wii separate than for Wii U or 3DS? Or breaking out the original Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360? Neo Geo games released on the Switch? Is an official, emulated release a defining trait? Cats for VC, Xbox Originals, etc. appear to be no different in function from cats for digital distribution platforms. Even our lists of those are just us compiling what is available in a specific marketplace, and especially with emulation, more indicative of licensing agreements than of port development labor or distributor discretion (i.e., digital release on a specific marketplace is not a defining trait). czar 08:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      My understanding, though, is that the Virtual Console category does more than just identify distribution marketplace; it distinguishes between which games were developed for a certain platform and which games are simply emulated on it. To me, the difference between a contemporary release and an emulated retro release is a defining characteristic.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • We definitely want to avoid tracking just a list of products at a digital storefront per NOT#CATALOG, but games that gain official emulation on later system are a different matter, even if the only way to get those games is via a digital storefront. As long as the companies involved are being selective (eg at least for the initial PS3 models, I would not call the PS1/PS2 emulation it supported something we'd catalog), then there's reasonable refinement here. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa and Masem, but we don't use categories to track when games are emulated for release on contemporary platforms: Nintendo, Sega, Atari, etc. Are those not official emulations? If it's a matter of the games being released individually and not in compilation, why is VC release a defining trait but not when released via a similarly selective, emulated distribution service (e.g., Game Room)? The solution of removing eShop cats but not VC does not appear to be consistent. czar 17:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(Note: I'm splitting here and reformatting the discussion, but this is a continuation of the above --MASEM (t) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC))

Only because I have started digging into the topic of video game preservation, the nature of official emulation (either as standalone games as on VC, backwards compat, or part of a compilation) is actually a subject of interest in that field. As such, we should track games that have been "blessed" with official emulation from its publisher or similar deal (such as VC Neo-Geo games) through categories. Yes, for VC games, this is going to mirror its eShop listing but that's merely the nature of how VC works.

This actually may means we need two sets of categories to do this properly: "(Platform) games available through emulation", and "Emulated video games available on (platform)" (not set on the naming but to get the point across). Note that in both cases, this requires the emulation to be an official, legal thing, so just because I have a MAME emulator doesn't mean those arcade games should be classified as such. Now, for Virtual Console games, I don't know enough if something like Category:Virtual Console games for Wii U would be subcat of this hypothetic "Emulated video games available on Wii U" though it would make sense. Similarly, a category "Xbox One-backwards compatable Xbox 360 games" would be a subset of "Emulated video games on Xbox One".

Having these categories helps to alleviate some of the platform kudzo that is happening in this. I just checked Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) and that's a platform mess by our infobox standards: the only two unique platforms that should be listed are the Genesis and the GBA game (as it is more than just emulation, it adds features). All other platforms are emulations with some features of the emulation system wrapped into them, which shouldn't listed, nor should they be classified in the top level of "(Platform) games" (though if we have "Emulated games on (platform)", that would be a whole subcat.) --MASEM (t) 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I completely follow, but how many cats are we looking at adding in the case of your Sonic 1991 example? Emulated releases can come with some fanfare, but I still don't see how it's a defining trait—it rarely affects anything about the gameplay, development, reception, other than that it was released. In that sense, it's like a VHS film being re-released with up-res on DVD, which is to say not necessarily adding anything to the film/game, but a re-release nonetheless. But we wouldn't even think of categories for such releases for film (nevertheless by platform). czar 03:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, for example we do have a cat for video game remasters. Now we don't break that down by platform, but we have that. I would think that a company offering a legitmate emulated version on newer platforms is completely reasonable, even if it lacks the fanfare, is an implicit sign of the game's importance relative to an area like video game preservation.
That said, in thinking of the problem, we shouldn't try to define by the source platform; the existance of the "(platform) video games" category should be sufficient. But we then have an overarcing "Emulated games" with "Emulated games available on (platform)"; these cats would be a subcat of "(platform) video games". This would make something like Sonic come up if one did a cross-cat search on "Sega Genesis video games" and "iOS games", for example. This takes the need to list out all platforms emulation is done on and moves it to the far-less obnoxious category list on an article, as long as editors used the "Emulated" category and not the main platform category. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Masem, are you saying that we should categorize each game for every platform that receives an emulated release? I thought that was what we were trying to avoid. Also want to throw Category:PlayStation Network games into this discussion, alongside the storefront cats mentioned above. czar 18:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
What I think we want to avoid is spamming the infobox and lede with platforms that the game was released for via emulation, but I don't see the problem with doing this by categorization. It's non-obtrusive in contrast to the infobox/lede. I do agree that the categories that are principally storefront lists are problems. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it definitely doesn't belong in the lede or infobox but I don't see emulated platforms as a defining trait worthy of categorization either, whether on a game that was remastered for a single platform, or older games that have been emulated or otherwise released across more than ten platforms. When we get to listing emulated releases, or even later ports, I think we start veering into information more fitting of a database or index than an encyclopedia. I'm more willing to call it trivia based on its non-essential mention in the article and the lack of attention generally afforded to distant port/emulated release info in articles. czar 03:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You are probably right we don't want to go to being that database. I just worry that I think we should be able to document (where documentation is available) games receiving official emulation but distinguish that from being a store front. For example, the list of Xbox One-compatible Xbox 360 games (which when new titles come out, are reported in RSes); it is unfortunate that effectively makes it a one-to-one list with the XBox live storefront issue too. Whether we do this by list or category, I'm not sure (a category, though, makes sense for searching). --MASEM (t) 15:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive.org now archives websites that have robots.txt activated

https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/

🖕🔥💯 Axem Titanium (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Still can't access 1UP.com. GamerPro64 18:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The blog suggests they are still transitioning (they started with US Gov't sites). Also, I would expect if they respected robots.txt in the past and did not cache, they're not going to magically have that cache back just by ignoring the new robots.txt. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hooray! I agree, 🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯. And yeah, sounds like it will transition over some time, but this should hopefully retroactively fix the problem where a site throws up a robots.txt file and it kills archives made before that date as well. --PresN 19:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Please let WP:VPM know. I imagine there are other users that will care about this in the general sphere. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The name "Birdo" is "derogatory"?

The user Ewindisch recently moved the article Birdo to "Birdetta" citing that "it's what the character prefers." I reverted this, citing WP:COMMONNAME. The user is claiming that the use of the name Birdo is "discriminatory and abusive, and supportive of violence against LGBT people by disrespecting gender identity." I haven't engaged in discussion, but I given this remark I already think that a rational discussion will not ensue. I don't know any Wikipedia policies off-hand that can be used to quietly (and inoffensively) bring it to resolution. Would anyone be willing to help out? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm experienced in this field, and as far as I know, Birdo has never said that she'd prefer to be called Birdetta, so this user has no ground to stand on. I'll join the talk page ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 07:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've left a reply also. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Me too. Nice work pretty much already handling things though - I don't think I would have had the patience to so calmly address such a ludicrous argument. I have a hard time believing this was a good-faith move. Regardless, let me know if any further moves (against consensus now no less) occur. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Things get weird when dealing with transgender topics on Wikipedia. At least this isn't as messy as Mr. Garrison was back in the day ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Uukrul assessment, please

I've enhanced the article for The Dark Heart of Uukrul, mainly from the review and interview at RPG Codex. Added box front cover. I'd like another volunteer to read through it, and remove any alert (there's one for the introduction) or VGProject category as they seem fit. Since english is not my first language, fix or reword anything excessively akward too, please. Thanks! Pi (π) 10:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi72 (talk • contribs)

@Pi72: One obvious issue is the lack of sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Associated Press's MOS - "esports" not "eSports"

"esports" is the proper term rather than "eSports" (more specifically, they are treating it like how they have used "email" verses "e-mail", dropping the hyphen). This now makes the term (per AP) different from how our MOS suggests , see MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.

We here at the project should decide some consistency for the term, either staying with our MOS or going with AP's. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't really have a bone in this fight, though I have reverted many efforts to change the article's format since the last consensus, just as part of patrolling. This needs a WP:VG consensus rather than a local article consensus, which has resulted in something like 10+ move discussions over the years. -- ferret (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I really don't care as long as there is consensus. The uncapitalized form is a bit prettier, but I just don't want another huge argument to pop up, because it's just a waste of time... I hope there can be an updated consensus fast, without too much arguing back and forth. ~Mable (chat) 17:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this matter, but more and more publications in the last year or two do seem to be using "esports" now more often than "eSports". Whether that is enough to move the page (again) remains to be decided. That said, having Associated Press-backed MOS helps the move to "esports" a lot. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Might be good to just table the question until another group makes a decision. We don't need or want to jump on the latest change in someone else's style guide to go about changing our own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

To look through the sources a bit more:

From all of this, I'd say there's a good argument to change our MOS. Does anyone have significant recent sources that discuss esports with a capital S? Red Bull seems to be the biggest issue. ~Mable (chat) 09:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer eSports. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want to decide it here, but should we set out to have a formal RFC/equivalent process to set a standard for how we should write eSports/esport in VG articles? We have clearly several data points which can be presented as part of an RFC to help readers decide which is best. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • WP's house style is not AP... Read past the sensation/headline to see that the AP adopts the usage of its official source (Webster's New World College Dictionary). Not exactly a sea change. It's likely a trend, but it doesn't mean it's the common usage right now (nevertheless at this instant). As for the on-wiki standard, we already established the camelcase at the eSports talk page with lots of links. The gist is that newspapers use the older format with hyphen or camelcase, while the younger eSports sites drop the "s" to lowercase. It is patent to see that this is because of readership: readers familiar with "esports" will not trip on the word while newspaper readers who know nothing about pro gaming will better understand "e-sport" from "esport". We're a generalist encyclopedia. We have articles on eSports figures written in really obtuse jargon and we have broader, topical articles—both should be written for a general audience. czar 07:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so in the sources given we have:

  • Four sources that capitalize neither 'e' nor 's': i.e. esports
  • Two sources that capitalize the 'e' but not the 's': i.e. Esports
  • Six sources that capitalize the 's' but not the 'e': i.e. eSports
  • No sources that capitalize both: i.e. ESports
  • One inconsistency

Personally, I've always known it as 'eSports', and I think that the consensus of sources shows that 'eSports' is the preferred MoS. I don't think we really have a reason to change it, because it's the most popular stylization. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Besides, eSports technically stands for 'electronic sports' (like how email stands for 'electronic mail'). Using 'eSports' distinguishes the two words, whereas 'esports' makes it appear to be a single noncompounded word. If we change it to anything, we should change it to ESports and keep the distinguishment. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
But that's not the common name and almost no modern publication uses that style. Although it seems a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL like, I think that over time more and more will be using "esports". That being said, I don't think we have a clear winner here, and should keep the page at eSports for a while longer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me. One question: isn't PR Newswire a press release "bulletboard, so to speak? I don't know if it's relevant in this discussion. But yeah, either is fine, really. I'd like to see it move to "esports" at some point myself, but as long as there is no strong preference among sources, it is more effort then it's worth. ~Mable (chat) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
In January I started collecting sources to convince people here that "esports" is the best way to write the word (and Esports at the start of sentences and in titles). So I made a a google spreadsheet. The ones listed as "Reliable" are the ones video games section of WP had listed as reliable and someone here had made a google news search filter, which I readily used to figure out what those had to say. Since I got the very even 11-11 for esports vs eSports I went ahead and looked at other esports industry publications and outlets, for example what does Riot, Blizzard and Valve use in their publications, and what does "unreliable" news sources use. Here it was much clearer in favour of esports, but there might be more bias on my part then since I didn't use a list provided by someone else. Some of these sources might have changed their usage since the time I collected them, it's been three months but I think it's still fairly accurate. About Maplestrip's list, the four publications that use lower case "s", they're the big mainstream media outlets that have decided to have dedicated esports coverage, not just a one-off article like a lot of other mainstream media has, that surely ought to be weighted heavier than a one-off article in LA Times. Like I said at the beginning my personal preference is esports, being part of the wiki Liquipedia I know how divided both the community is between both spellings and how divided the industry is since there are a lot of teams and organisations within the industry that use one or the other. However, I think I can see that within the community there's still a clear majority for a lower case "s". --salle81 (t, c) 19:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Salle81: - I think that you shared the spreadsheet wrong as I don't have permission to see it; you need to turn link sharing on. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So sorry. Changed it so it should be working now. --salle81 (t, c) 14:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • On the matter of style (and this is one such matter), the AP style book is a reliable source. Usage in reliable sources on video games is not the same as a reliable source on style. This is not a simple headcount of "just another source" but instead a book to which people who are professional copyeditors pay attention when dealing with matters of capitalization, dashes, and what-have-you. (Maybe SMcCandlish can dig up similar in other style books--which went unconsidered in the latest move request.) --Izno (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing that. I'd definitely put more weight on such general-purpose style books. ~Mable (chat) 19:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I find Google Docs easier to make and maintain, and edit confliction doesn't occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Following AP style book, that is "esports", per Izno (Assuming I haven't misread his statements). Additionally, once this discussion decides either way, WP:VG/AG should have a sentence covering the consensus. -- ferret (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    Ferret and others: Just to be clear, I didn't actually !vote because I don't want to base a stance like this solely on a single stylebook going one way. I would guess that there are prescriptions in the other style books on the likes of "email" and others (and by extension, "esports", if those do not cover the phrase "esports" directly). --Izno (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We could really use a consensus here, one way or another. The main article has been repeatedly protected due to constant name/format changing, and I just protected it again since almost every edit following the expiration of the last one in March has been to continue changing the format of "eSports". I have no strong feeling here, but feel the last consensus should be respected till we decide otherwise. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, to me it seems like "esports" is slightly more popular among the various sources, per the Google spreadsheet linked above. Activision, Valve, and Twitch using the uncapitalized version should be taken into consideration. ~Mable (chat) 10:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • CMOS announced a move from e-mail to email yesterday.[1] Likely spurred by (or organized with) the AP release. --Izno (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The Associated Press Stylebook is a style guide for news style, and has nothing to do with encyclopedia writing. WP is not written in news style, as a matter of policy. Our own MoS is based on academic style, primarily from The Chicago Manual of Style and New Hart's Rules, plus Fowler's Modern English Usage, Garner's Modern English Usage, and a few other such works (some of them specialized like the CSE's Scientific Style and Format. But none of them are going to address this topic yet. News style guides have the virtue of being frequently updated, but for WP they remain only a small subset of sources to consider, and ones to take with a grain of stylistic salt. It is also correct that usage in reliable sources devoted to video games tells us very little, because VG sources are reliable about games, not about English usage matters. This "specialized-style fallacy" comes up very, very frequently on Wikipedia ("WP has to write about underwater basketweaving in exactly the same way as the International Journal of Underwater Basketweaving, including rampant overcapitalization of "Basket" and "Underwater", just because it's the most reliable source on underwater basketweaving." Um, no.)

    Anyway, what to do with this article title should be determined by a new review of source usage, beyond newspapers and beyond gaming-specific magazines/site, to the extent possible, with heavy reliance on Google Books (after weeding out any claptrap), and any other way at getting at what mainstream book publishers are doing. It would be preferable for clarity to use e-sports, but the hyphen seems to be dropped in many sources, and a previous proposal to use that version did not gain consensus. The mid-word capitalization is weird, and is inconsistent with MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM (especially since the usage here isn't even a trademark), so dropping that overcapitalization is probably the way to go. It just needs to be done on more of a basis than "one news-style manual says so".
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an esports writer coming in to throw my hat in the ring. :) I think half of esports world is going to throw a fit if that capital "S" doesn't get chopped to size. It's extremely important to a lot of people - the capital "S" makes esports feel like a new-age fad, and not an industry with a relatively prominent history in the last 30 or so years. Semantics do matter. Endemic esports experts that I'm in touch with are pretty irritated that people are still arguing it. (ESPECIALLY Red Bull, which should know better by now.) Wiki users would do good to change it. Riningear (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not the one who created or maintained the use of the capital S. As you can see with some of the examples provided above, multiple publications still use eSports as of 2017, so until the majority use esports, it won't be changed here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    "it won't be changed here" doesn't seem to be the obvious case based on the discussion above, especially in regard to the fact that two English style guides (one news, one general) have moved on this point. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I was going more on that the discussion has existed for nearly a month now, and has died down to the point that any consensus results could be read as inconclusive. If we are going to move it to esports, then why wait? For the record, I do support the move to esports (which I didn't in the past), so let's just do it now and be done with this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
      I concur with Dissident, noting that there is at least a slim majority of sources using a non-capital 's'. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
No way is there an actionable consensus in this thread. There would need to be a whole lot more research than the cherrypicked samples in this thread (especially to make a conclusion about a majority), with much more consideration for (and assessment of) mainstream (non-VG) sources. SMcCandlish hits all these points above. When this does inevitably come back up in the future, it should be a very public RfC. czar 05:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bias in favor of Japanese games and marginalization of western computer game history

Recently, I've began more frequently reading articles on general video game concepts such as specific genres, gameplay mechanics, etc., and I can't shake the uncomfortable feeling that they tend to focus primarily on Japanese games and downplay western games. Articles on Japanese games also tend to be much longer and contain more detailed and varied information.

I assume this is because of the dividide between computers and consoles. Historically, western games came out primarily on computers, whereas console games were primarily made by Japanese developers, until the X360/PS3 generation. Because consoles have always had a much larger audience and consumer base than computers, it would make sense that more people would simply have more knowledge of Japanese games and be more interested in writing about them. That's fine.

The issue comes when these articles falsely inflate the importance of Japanese games and downplay the importance of western games. For example, one article claimed Vagrant's Story gameplay mechanic of aiming at individual body parts was later used in Fallout 3...while completely leaving out any mention of the fact that Fallout 1, which came out years before Vagrant Story, already let you aim at body parts and that Fallout 3 was logically a continuation of that. I constantly come upon instances such as these. It really harms the idea of Wikipedia as a semi-objective source of information. At times, the heavy pro-Japan bias almost feels fanboyish in tone.

I'm not really sure what can be done about this however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.7.191 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Without any specific quotes, sources, or counter-proposals, it's hard to do much to help you. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I would need the IP to confirm as an example, but one area that I have been doggedly trying to avoid is the Japanese game history at Adventure game. (I have had a hand in all the other parts, but I have no idea how to start trimming there). --MASEM (t) 22:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As above, but I will add that a lot of this nonsense was added by a single user named Jagged 85 that was finally banned for his consistently erroneous and biased edits and still comes back from time to time to edit anonmously. He blankets so many articles so quickly that sometimes its hard to catch and revert everything. Indrian (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There might be a balance towards console games on Wikipedia, as the IP mentioned. Of course, articles on general video game concepts are generally pretty low-quality, and are commonly a target for example creep. Allow me to check some of the articles I've worked on in the past: Fog of war rightly focuses primarily on PC games, Health (gaming) is a bit unbalanced towards console games, Video game genre focuses primarily on typically western topics, Warp (gaming) seems perfectly balanced in this regard, and Life (gaming) is totally neutral. Looking at some articles I haven't worked on: Loading screen seems balanced to me, as does Single-player video game. Rocket jumping and related articles are strongly rooted in western gaming culture. Replay value seems fairly balanced to me... Looking through these general-purpose articles, I don't see any issue regarding bias. That's not to say role-playing video game is necessarily properly balanced, but I'm not going to look into such an article here. I also know nothing about articles on specific video games. Do we have more FAs on Japanese or American video games? ~Mable (chat) 11:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

WON2

Hello, I am trying to improve WON2, which has no references but some external links to primary / unreliable sources. I can't find any indication its notable (but it has articles in 2 other language WPs, so I'm guessing it is) and can find no reliable sources to add. Can anyone help me edit the article or point me toward reliable sources? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:VG/RS has a list of vetted reliable sources for video games. Note that having articles in other language Wikipedia's is not a sign of notability, as each language has different notability requirements. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The German articles as well incorporates no sources, only copies an older version of our article, but also adds a trivial comparison between WON2 and Steam (which we, and actually also they, shouldn't do, as we have WP:TRIVIA and the German counterpart). The Swedish version is a carbon copy of the lede from the German article, translated into Swedish. So zero indication of notability there and here, if I see that correctly, there might be false information in the German article. I guess we should just AfD it and merge into World Opponent Network, despite that article doesn't show any signs of notability either. Lordtobi (✉) 12:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ferret and Lordtobi. I've opened WP:Articles for deletion/WON2. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I've done this twice before, but then completely forgot about it. Anyway, here's a list of some stale video game related drafts that you guys may want to take a look at.

Drafts
Alright, turned this into a mainspace stub. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Well, I've made it a pretty decent article, would you be able to proof read it? I'd like to take it to GA possibly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Anarchyte - Oh, I didn't realize it specifically had to go through AFC to be G13'd. I thought it just had to be in the "Draft:" namespace, (opposed to the userspace.) I'll rescind those parts of the comment if that's true then... Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73:Yeah, according to WP:G13: This applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits). IMO it should include all Draft namespace pages without edits over 6-12 months, but after seeing the results of other discussions about this, I don't think the criterion is going to change any time soon. (edit conflict) Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Extremely short stub sourced only to MobyGames. Another one of those articles that probably technically meets the GNG, but all its sources are locked away deep in the 1980s, when the game was released. Unlikely to ever develop into a properly sourced article, in my opinion, but many exist out there anyways, so its a toss-up. It's creator is still relatively active, but hasn't revisited it since its creation in April 2016. G13 eligible. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    This one didn't go through AfC either, so it's not G13 eligible either :/ Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is about a 2015 free browser game - not exactly the type of thing that is typically notable. Outside of the opening 2 sentences, the entire thing would have to be scrapped per WP:OR/WP:TRIVIA. A source was added in January 2017 (so not G13 eligible) but its in a language I can't read, so its hard to make a call on it. No other sources present. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The first couple sources in the reflist look like dedicated, RS coverage, so I think it would meet the GNG...but they didn't really write much of an article. Izno edited it in December 2016, so its not G13 eligible. I wouldn't advocate for its deletion anyways, I feel like someone could work this into a notable stub without too much work... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like the type of esports/youtuber type article that is routinely deleted at AFD. Nothing in the article resembles an RS other than "Wired", but that's merely a name-drop passing mention of his nickname. An editor opposed its deletion in Aug 2016...but it would be G13 eligble again by this point, as there have been no edits since. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A free, browser based game with zero reviews on Metacritic. Looks like the type of article there would be big arguments about - WP:VGers would argue it fails the GNG, while fans of the game would argue that their intense passion and enjoyment would somehow trump that. Izno stated he felt it may be notable back in June 2016, though no further edits have ever been made, making it G13 eligible. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably WP:TOOSOON for an article. A kickstarter game, I couldn't find any RS coverage outside of the article's PC Gamer source, which covered it in some detail. Was recently declined through AFC last month. Should probably stay in draftspace until more previews arise. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a lot of people felt strongly about draftifying it, but no one's touched it since. It kind of looks like the broad, conceptual stuff that users like Masem or Maplestrip would write about. If neither of them show any interest, I'm all for any avenues of deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A spot check shows that "narrative game" is a valid notable topic, but its use seems to be more about games like Gone Home, or the upcoming "Narrative Legos" approach Ken Levine wants to with his studio (among others). This current draft seems more about "games with narrative" (which technically is nearly all of them) and less about this specific genre. I would probably restart from scratch if we were to make an article on that. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to add that checking more, I can't find an absolute definition, but "narrative games" seem to be those where gameplay is only there to augment the storytelling, whereas most games use narrative to augment the gameplay. So this would include Gone Home, Firewatch, That Dragon, Cancer, most Telltale Games since TWD, the various "walking simulators", etc. Completely valid target, but not from this draft. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Digging through the sources listed in this draft looks like it would be a pain. Some of these sources might be worth looking up, but I would definitely understand if someone would want to start over entirely. I know I would. ~Mable (chat) 17:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Created 6 months ago by an editor in one edit - his only edit - and that was it. Entirely unsourced, with just a few sentences defining the subject. I doubt this is notable, or likely to be worked on by anyone here even if it was. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No real claim to notability and no source present. Just vague defining sentences that call him a Twitch streamer. Not touched since created by an editor in May 2016, who never returned. If someone did ever try to create an actual article about him, there's no particular reason for them to start here, there's virtually nothing in the way of content, structure, or formatting here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I exactly understand the content present here, but regardless, its largely a chart ripped straight from the subject's website, and there doesn't seem to be any third party coverage in existence. Nothing to create such an article with, and if there was, this wouldn't be the starting point. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
G13-Postponed drafts

Everyone is encouraged to fix up these drafts or add more to the list. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard Peer Review Gone Sexual?!?!!?

I WANT YOU to help me get this articiple to GA status. Tanka yew. Cognissonance (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ermac

A fellow user nominated Mortal Kombat character Ermac here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Ermac/archive1. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Any way to get this source back from the dead?

So a while back I was researching for a game article and stumbled upon this design document. And about a week later when I was ready to start using it, it disappeared off the face of Google Search. Just wondering if there's a way to bring it back?--Coin945 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 14 April

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

30 March

31 March

7 April

8 April

9 April

10 April

11 April

12 April

13 April

14 April

Salavat (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Installation 01 is clearly being pushed by a game community canvas effort, including edits by the creator. May need more eyes or someone who feels AFD is warranted. I'm on the fence. -- ferret (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a dash of sources. The article may be premature but at worst it ends up in draft space. I'm always happy to cut primary sources and information. I will look some more later today at home. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: Rewritten. Might be some close paraphrasing there or slightly-disorganized stuff, but with a full integration of the RS available, that should satisfy ease-of-watchability for advertising/COI/primary sourced concerns (and other poor quality indicators). The coverage seems somewhat routine, but I expect we'll see an article or three on Microsoft either OKing the game or shutting it down. --Izno (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. It's unreleased, so I doubt there's much more to say right now. They'll have to be satisfied with that, we're not a blog for them to keep updates on. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

When to create an article on a game that just entered crowd funding?

Phoenix Point is a new game that is in initial development and crowdsourced funding stages from Julian Gollop, who was one of the original X-COM designers, and this new game is in that spirit. Hence, there's a good 6-7 articles today (including detailed interviews with Gollop) given that the crowdsourcing just opened today; it's already at 70% of the expected funding amount. However, at this point, I would be hesitant of starting the article on Phoenix Point; at minimum I would at least wait until the required funding is reached, and to be more safe, until the pledge period is over since that assures they would have reached it. Of course, if we have a similar situation of explosive funding growth ala Double Fine Adventure, that is well documented, I would have no issue starting it sooner, but in the general case, if you have such a game that has gotten coverage while it is still in its crowdfunding period, should we go ahead at any point or wait until we're sure the funding is in place? --MASEM (t) 23:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Honestly I'd say an article should wait until there's significant press coverage about the game aside from Kickstarter/crowdfunding stuff. So many projects fizzle out or get delayed for years that it seems like jumping the gun to report on PR for a crowdfunding round years before it will actually appear. We don't normally create articles about unreleased games where all we know are the basic details, after all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been mulling WP:NFF of late with regard to all video games, and not solely those that would be easy targets such as crowdfunding or indie games. Not the exact same with regard to criteria, because I don't know that there is analogous point to principal photography in video games. --Izno (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    Aside: I would hate to adopt some guideline of some sort which discourages mainspacing information that we believe will be notable or which is otherwise covered in another article (as in a sequel or an addition to a series). The film editors aren't quite rabid on the point, but they will write draft articles when they could just as simply write something in the mainspace, in many cases. --Izno (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In theory, I'd probably handle it the same way I handle other games - wait until I've got 4-5 WP:VG/RS approved sources, and enough content to squeeze it out of stub status. But I haven't had much interest in many kickstarters, and almost none before they were actually funded, so it's not something I've had much success/failure with historically. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A good measure is to ask whether the game would still be notable if there was no further sourcing. I don't know the specifics of this case, but it looks like the mentioned sources would be merged into the developer's WP article as part of his history. That's how I'd handle it until the game received coverage as an independent entity (read: independently notable, usually when previews/demos are reported, to Izno's point about NFF, though I wouldn't generalize into a guideline). czar 09:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    The specific case seems to indicate that option as viable, I would agree. --Izno (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • While not a written guideline, a few of us agreed that we should just wait until it was fully funded. This was following some game that got announced, article created for it, and failed (pretty badly) to meet its goal. That being said, if some crowdfunded game got tons of coverage before it was funded, I think it would meet notability standards and could be added. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm 100% behind Czar with this one: "ask whether the game would still be notable if there was no further sourcing." ~Mable (chat) 17:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is enough sourcing to create a Phoenix Point article right now. There was preview coverage of the game from E3 last year [2][3], and obviously further coverage from the Fig launch.[4] Our bar for what constitutes significant coverage is very low. - hahnchen 20:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Er...is that a good example to point to, when it closed as a "merge"? Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Series of bizarre edits

A person named HÊÚL. has made a series of strange edits identifying multiple games as part of series where it does not make sense. For example example they claim The 7th Saga is a series and that games such as Brain Lord and Mystic Ark are part of it. Thee are also identifying Soul Blazer Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma as part of the ActRaiser series which is something I have even heard anyone even remotely suggest until now and find hard to take seriously.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are saying it you probably did not play any of these games. HÊÚL. (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If you can't provide sources claiming that A) There is a series to begin with, and B) that a given game is in it, then the fact that you played it is insufficient. That represents original research. Please also stop linking to company articles as if those articles cover a series, which they neither cover nor even mention. -- ferret (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: this is something that's happened before. A while back, HÊÚL. kept insisting that Final Fantasy Type-0 HD was part of the main series when it's just the high definition release of a spin-off entry in the series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and before that, it was the baffling insistence that Etrian Odyssey was a spinoff of Megami Tensei. HÊÚL., you've got to cut it out with these unofficial connections between games. If you can't back these claims with reliable sources that directly state the connection, ("series", "spinoff", "mainline entry", etc) it does not belong on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

A list for the largest player-base for games

While we do have List of best-selling video games , I wonder, with lots of recent news reporting high numbers of players for games like Overwatch and Hearthstone, to have a "List of video games with the highest player base" (or something similar). Clearly, any game must have third-party sources that make note of the size (twitter and other media directly from the game dev may be suspect, and better to let an RS assert this), and I would have a low-end cut of at at least 1 million players. Does this seem like a good idea? --MASEM (t) 06:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea in theory, but I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. I think the main issue with an article like this would be that playerbase is a vague term, and can be measured in many different ways. For example, Dota 2 measures its playerbase by the number of unique players that have played in the past month. Other games measure it by the total number of accounts that have been created, including ones that no longer play the game. Worst of all, some don't even say how they are measuring it. For example, Hearthstone recently announced reaching 70 million players. What does that actually mean? 70 million registered accounts? 70 million active players? If so, how are they defining active players? Likewise, I see the growing "playerbase" for Overwatch, but is that actually the active playerbase, or are they just talking about the number of copies the game has sold? Comparing these different games isn't actually meaningful unless they are all measuring their playerbases in the same way. CurlyWi (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The wording of the scope of that list would need to be carefully thought out. I'm sure Tetris has a larger playerbase than most MMOs, but if you count that, you'd essentially just be making a copy of "list of best-selling games".--IDVtalk 07:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
If we focus solely on MMOs, I'd still want to see some sources that go in-depth about this first. ~Mable (chat) 08:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I think a list of most popular free to play games would make the most sense, since that would eliminate the issue of overlapping with the best selling list. I'm sure there are plenty of sources about the playerbases for all of the big f2p mmos, mobas, and so on. There's just the issue I mentioned above, that it might be difficult to actually compare the games in a meaningful way since they all give out different kinds of information. CurlyWi (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
In terms of a couple of issues, I do think we need to take company's at their word that , in this case for Hearthstone, that when they say "70 million players", they are talking about unique logins, which may not equate 1-to-1 with unique individuals (such as issues with PC Bangs for example). However, it is a recognized metric - its been put there for HS, Overwatch, Rocket League, and I'm sure there are others; the industry seems well aware this is not necessary unique players, but still a reasonable way to judge the success of a game with a F2P factor (eg while most people have to buy Overwatch, the PC Bangs have deals to play it for free but with unique battle.net accounts; Rocket League was also made free from PS Plus at launch so that's a factor too). So I think as long as the list clarifies that "millions of players" doesn't necessarily equal "millions of individuals", then we're not misrpresenting this data that most companies present. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about this, but I want to point to List of most expensive video games as a cautionary tale, and in particular the years long back and forth warring over Star Citizen being included, the issues surrounding the concept that the only games on the list are either those who's budget became known due to a failure to be successful, or as a form of industry bragging. There's also the issue that the list only survived AFD because it was in an era of leniency, and essentially exists because of an unreliable blog post, that happened to be mentioned by a few semi-reliable (at the time) sources, which lists a bunch of rumored and estimates (I.e. completely unverifiable) budgets. That blog post has since (by myself, in the end), been culled out of the list. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
A key criteria is that the player count would have to be something that, while maybe coming from a Tweet or the like, is re-reported in an RS; if Blizzards says 70M and sites like Gamasutra, IGN, etc. all restate that, that shows that they reasonably trust the publisher is not lying; whereas if the stat is not repeated in an RS, that probably means that there's not a great amount of trust in that number. (That said, I think most games that would be on this list are already well in the limelight of coverage from RSes). We definitely can't use inside information here as well. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't "List of free-to-play video games by number of players", "List of free-to-play video games by playerbase", or "List of free-to-play video games by peak daily active users" be a better title? Any game that has to be bought to be played goes by units sold and not playerbase. That being said, I share some of the issues brought up by others above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Potentially useful references

In fixing up something at spiritual sequel I found this open-access article [5] that defines how to consider terms like reboots, remakes, prequels, etc. etc. among video games, which itself references this book (google book link) that would be extremely helpful to add on to appropriate articles. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries

FYI the Core Contest is open for business for another season, and WP:VG editors can contribute with articles that are either "Vital" or "Core", such as: Video game, Pokémon, Pong, Tetris, Video game console, or the tangentially related Pinball and Wargaming.--Coin945 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

FAC source review request

Since the nomination has stalled a bit waiting for one and it's now 2nd from the bottom, I'm requesting from anyone who's available a source review at my FAC for Homeworld. Willing to do a review in trade, of any type. --PresN 20:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, Ealdgyth ironically got to it just a couple hours later... --PresN 22:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Darksiders (series) and series articles in general

This article was deleted at AfD only two weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darksiders (series). But it was recreated yesterday with the announcement of a third game. Is the announcement of a third game enough for this article to exist now? I think the recreation is somewhat premature. The article still has the exact same problems it had before. It doesn't supplement the existing articles, it just rehashes parts of each of them, which I think is a general problem with many video games series articles. A lot of the bad series articles are not written in a style that talks about the series as a whole collective entity. Instead they are split up into sections that just talk about each game individually summary style, which is kind of pointless in most scenarios as each game has an individual article already. I want to know if we should be stricter or laxer on having series articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

In this particular case, I conceptually agree with you, I still feel like its not really necessary, but unfortunately, everyone outside of you (myself included) regretfully focused on the "there's only 2 titles" aspect at AFD, so I don't think any immediate shutdown of the article could really be warranted, considering the reasoning in the initial consensus. (I apologize for not future-proofing my stance - didn't really see this one coming.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Series articles shouldn't be based on the number of games but the quality of content. It's not Final Fantasy where you've got multi-decade spanning vast differences in terms of quality, charactes, and development. I like Darksiders but it's 3 (potentially) solid adventure games, the second one the only one of import in terms of a complex development history (maybe it was the third?). What does a series page do beyond exist as a bloated disambiguation page? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Series articles shouldn't be based on the number of games but the quality of content - I'd agree in theory, but how do you objectively define that? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd maybe start with coverage of the series as a whole. Can the series article sustain or cover more than the articles are doing individually or is it just replicating information? Is it difficult to follow the series in individual articles because it's all over the place on different formats and has reboots? Has it been turned into films/movies that are covering information from more than one game story so it can't be covered in a single article? Something like Final Fantasy makes sense because its dozens of games of different styles of different formats without really much of a unifying thread beyond being RPGs and that has been developed into massive merchandising, what were considered groundbreaking cgi films, multiplayer games and the like. I don't know much about Darksiders outside of the games, but I personally don't feel it needs a series article to help follow it, and looking at the article as it is, it's just three short summaries. It exists because some fanboy wants it. Like all the individual articles about Fast and the Furious characters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Ha! With the announcement of Darksiders III I was wondering when a new Darksiders article would be created. As the deletion nominator of the previous article, I am leaning to keep this time. THQ's closure, uncertainty of the franchise, a surprise announcement... I think we've got enough for a series overview. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 21 April

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

14 April

15 April

16 April

17 April

18 April

19 April

20 April

21 April

Salavat (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

On the lede sentence for video game consoles vs brands

While there have been other issues on some of our console articles in the last few days (notably regarding abbreviations, but that's not the issue here), one thing of late has been whether to led the consoles off with. I'm pinging @ViperSnake151: since their edits seem to be introducing new ground that we should have larger consensus on.

In general, we have typically used The Xbox One is a home video game console... for the physical product while Xbox is a video gaming brand... is used for the trademark name. This seems consistent when you look at any other product-vs-brand page (eg like for cars or cameras or phones).

It has been argued that since there exists multiple variations on the Xbox One, then language like Xbox One is a home video game console... which to me reads completely wrong, since Xbox One is a very specific product, and needs the "The" to define its "singular" nature.

It has also been argued that it could be worded as Xbox One is a line of home video game consoles... which is technically true, though in considering how the press generally treats hardware revisions in the past, they don't seem to treat such consoles as a product line and instead as one "console product". They know there's a difference, but since games are not normally limited to only one of the products in the line, they get grouped as one. This is not a bad solution but I do want to make sure this is agreed on, and that it is recognized only when there are two or more significant configuration differences; eg the fact there's a 1 TB and a 2 TB Xbox One alone would not make it a family of Xbox One's, but the existence of the Xbox One, the Xbox One S and the upcoming Scorpio would make it a family.

I do note that there is an option I saw at iPhone 6 that we can say The Xbox One and Xbox One S are home video game consoles... (leaving out Scorpio here until we know what's up.). --MASEM (t) 15:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the fence regarding this lead debacle. Thinking about it, the lead for the example here probably should be Xbox One is a line of home video game consoles.... The iPhone 6 example works, but it seems like it would be annoying to have to do that throughout the article. --JDC808 ♫ 19:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Most Wanted (eSports)

Would someone from this WikiProject take a look at Most Wanted (eSports)? I'm not sure if there are specific notability guidelines for eSports teams, but this does not seem to pass WP:NORG. Moreover, there seems to have been a lot of extraneous info added to the end of the article which seems problematic per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTDIARY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, way too many extraneous details, and seems to primarily be sourced to its own Twitter accounts and some obscure blogs and wikis. I haven't looked externally, but if that's all the sourcing that exists, it looks like something that wouldn't survive at AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this Sergecross73. eSports teams seem to be a fairly new type of "sports team" and may not receive the mainstream coverage of more tradition sports teams. I kind of remember seeing a discussion about eSports and notability somewhere (perhaps at WT:NSPORTS?) but couldn't find it. This particular article seems to have been contributed mainly by SPAs (who might have COIs) and the sourcing, as you point out, is mainly to social media accounts and other primary sources. Anyway, if the team is notable, then cleaning out the cruft is something that can be done; if it's not, then I agree about its chances at AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Konami Code lists

Hi everyone,

That the Konami Code (part of yours truly's signature!) by itself is notable makes perfect sense, but are List of Konami code games and List of non-Konami games using the Konami code notable? They're both barely referenced, and a lot entries describe how to enter the code and what it does. Seems a bit gameguide-like material to me. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I would trim anything that isn't discussed by reliable, secondary sources, and merge the rest into Konami Code, preferably in the form of prose. Basically, I would want the merged material to be presented as "notable uses of the konami code" - I imagine you could write about how the konami code is considered almost essential to finishing Contra.--IDVtalk 11:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) List of Konami code games is trivia, basically a cheat list. Non-notable and non-encyclopedic. List of non-Konami games using the Konami code is quite interesting, but still unencyclopedic trivia that doesn't pass GNG. At best, a sourced mention that other games have done it in the Konami Code article. In both cases, the lists fail WP:LISTN by not having multiple reliable sources about the group of the list. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep only those uses of the Konami Code that can clearly be documented by third-party RSes (eg its use in Wreck-It Ralph, the use in BioShock Infinite, etc.) Remove those that cannot be sourced to an RS and merge into the Konami Code. That list won't be that long once that is done. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of the word "multiplayer" in the lead of Counter-Strike:Global Offensive

Hello, there seems to be a small disagreement over the inclusion of the word "multiplayer" in the lead of Counter-Strike:Global Offensive. Is it necessary to include it? I'm of the opinion that it's not, because it's already included in the infobox and there are single player aspects to the game. If it is to be included, should be it linked to multiplayer video game? Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Where is the previous dispute discussion? --Izno (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Inzo: There's a bit of discussion on my talk page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 21:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
How is it that every one who refers to my Izno tag uses "Inzo" when they do so? This is perplexing. Happens also in video games when I'm playing. --Izno (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that a game that was principally designed around multiplayer elements but happens to include a single-player version too, should be noted as a multiplayer game in the lede sentence, if the genre doesn't spell that out already (eg as one would with MMO, or a "team-based shooter"). This is a distinguishing feature compared to games that offer robust SP and MP play (Call of Duty titles) that shouldn't be hidden to an infobox. (Eg most people assume video games are single player experiences, possibly with some MP. Games that are designed ground up for MP are/were the exception though becoming more common now.) --MASEM (t) 13:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. It's a defining characteristic. More can be elaborated in prose. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Alright, cheers. I'll include it in the opening sentence. It's already explained about in more detail in other sections, anyway. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Sims Mobile

The game was announced yesterday and with more information to inevitably come out, the article could use more work from other editors with an eye on The Sims subject area. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Vaporware video games

Category:Vaporware video games was created today via AFC. Who decides what goes into this category? Who defines when a game is vapourware? When does a long/delayed/protracted development cycle become vapourware? I think this category has got problems. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there's IP editors going around moving video games from Category:Vaporware to this new category, and that's about it. Likely in an attempt to mimic the older subcategory Category:Vaporware game consoles. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I was going to say "Hey, we've got list of vaporware, so there must be ways to track", but that list has its fair share of problems itself. For starters, the list of things that were deemed vaporware but the later still came out, is actually longer than the list of vaporware. Not a good sign. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The "things that eventually come out" angle was bothering me as well. It seems wrong to label a game that may have had a valid claim to be called vapourware at a certain period during its development, as vapourware after it has come out. Its akin to labelling someone as a criminal or alcoholic after they've reformed. - X201 (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree this is not really a good category, and while we can have a list, it needs to be handled with explicit criteria for inclusion as we do with the list of games with negative reception (3+ RS sources calling it vaporware), keeping that list curated but avoiding the category. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Open-source video games

Since this category ("Category:Open-source video games") contains other items than video games (like text games, interactive fiction, and maybe audio games, etc...), it should be renamed to "Open-source computer games" or a new category (or categories) should be created. What do you think? --إلياس الجزائري (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What we have works. --Izno (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
IF, text games, and computer games are subsets of video games. Audio games aren't, but the distinction is minor, and if there's a lot of them they should either have their own open-source audio games cat or make up a new parent cat open-source electronic games. --PresN 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should subdivide a category based on the source code copyright by the technical nature of the game product. That's a small intersection of categories and should be handled with an intersection tool, if a user is interested. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we'll ever see an "official" category intersection tool. But wikidata might be able to accomplish basically the same thing. SharkD  Talk  18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
We should keep "video games" for consistency versus minor inaccuracy. We also shouldn't split it up per WP:CROSSCAT as there is no good reason to categorize both by license and by platform. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Automatic URL archives

Glad tidings! A new day has dawned in which you can add |archiveurl=s to all references in your articles at the push of a button (here's an example). Find this "iabot" tool here. P.S. I have several other tools for automating citations but they're locked up in pull requests and jury-rigged code—I'll fix them up eventually czar 22:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

O brave new world, that has such wonders in it. This is excellent news! --PresN 22:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
omg yes. I would recommend that we possible organize an effort to slowly (as to not task the bot too much per its page) go through our FACs and GAs in a methodical manner to apply that. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. If someone wants to create a separate page (like the stubsort), we can divvy up the work (doesn't have to be complicated—we only need to track what has already been processed and could reuse the numbering from User:Czar/VGGF) czar 00:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

So you have you sign up just to archive pages? GamerPro64 02:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The bot interface uses your Wikimedia login (and is quite safe). --Izno (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) You log in with your WP account (you don't enter your password there, just authorize it through your account here) so that when you run the bot on an article it does the edit on your behalf and shows up in the edit history as being by you, not a bot account. --PresN 03:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
THIS IS BRILLIANT. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Calling this out for anyone who hasn't tried it- it's smooth like butter. You hit the login button, hit accept, then just run bot->fix a single page, enter the name and tick the boxes, and literally five seconds later all the refs on the page are archived. It transforms an hour-long, laborious process into a nearly-instantaneous process. It's clear that Cyberpower678 having access/funding from the internet archive and wmf to make this tool has paid off a lot. --PresN 01:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone hasn't noticed. The tool is directly accessible in the page history of an article. "Fix dead links" will take you there, and prefill the page title box on the tool. And with sign in memory, it takes you back to the correct page after sign on.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Well this is a lifesaver. I just tried it with List of accolades received by Nightcrawler, and it literally filled out all 47 references that didn't have archived urls in less than 10 seconds. Seriously, anyone who edits Wikipedia needs to adopt this, it's incredible. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm really considering making this mandatory from now on at WP:FLC, it's just too easy. --PresN 03:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It archived the External Link to IMDB even though it's still live. Is that what you wanted? This means any new changes to the IMDB page are invisible to readers, it's "locked in" at a certain date. -- GreenC 17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous ways for things to go wrong. Soft-404s, bad data in the database. The tool is part of a system: 1. Run the bot on the page. 2. Check the talk page notices and verify the archive links work 3. Fix any discrepancies through the same interface. Take your time learn how the system works, its powers and requirements for human intervention. It's only as good as the database, and the database requires occasional human corrections. -- GreenC 16:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that if you combine a Checklinks run [6] after doing the archive, it will help catch some problems like soft-404s that might have been captured by archive.org. I haven't found a case to check against, but I do think Checklinks can recognize an archived 404. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Well Checklinks is currently disabled from editing. I have no idea if it does link rot work on archives themselves but my experience not. -- GreenC 18:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit felt pretty satisfying. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the end of the diff. It added an archive to the official World of Warcraft website. In other words, anyone who clicks on that link is going to an archive page and not the official website. The question is, why is IABOt archiving external links that are not dead? It's OK to add them for citations where the original URL is still available, but with external links it eliminates the original URL. -- GreenC 18:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
That's why, if you tick "Add archives to all urls", you should also tick "Restrict to references". --PresN 18:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Oooooh, there was a reason to click the other form. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What happens when an archived page does not exist? Does the bot create a link to nowhere? SharkD  Talk  18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@SharkD: No, the bot will add the webpage to Internet Archive. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Is the bot able to sync the "access date" of the citation with the date of the database record? The latest image may not be the best. SharkD  Talk  18:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Check my diff above--it does just that, or as near as it can. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Koji Igarashi

His article is rather small and not well written. I've expanded it a little. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The article as of now does not cover the GBA, NDS, PS2, and Wii Castlevania games he worked on. And the games he did work on get pretty superficial treatment. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Marvel vs. Capcom good topic nomination

Hello everyone. I've recently nominated the Marvel vs. Capcom series of articles for good topic status, and would greatly appreciate any opinions and feedback, whether in support or opposition. Thank you for your time! Wani (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer review request

Is this the proper spot to ask for a peer review of video game walkthrough? It is currently assessed at C-class and I am looking for suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Have a read of WP:PR, if you're seeking a more formal peer review process. – Rhain ☔ 03:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rhain: I was pointed here (first) by Mz7 as WP:PR is apparently suffering from a lack of reviewers. Even a somewhat unofficial review for/with suggestions would be appreciated. It is C class at the moment and I am wondering what improvements are needed to make it B class (at the moment), eventually Good Article class (further down the road). If it is preferred that I go there, I will make a post there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Good point. Peer Reviews garner little attention, so seeking comments here is a good idea. I'll try and take a look when I have more time. – Rhain ☔ 03:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rhain: Thanks! I shall look forward to your response when you manage to take a look. All I ask is that you please do ping me when you respond (thanks for doing so so far) as that way I will be sure to see it a lot quicker than otherwise. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
And of course, I welcome feedback from anyone reading this thread and I shall check here regularly now but please still ping me when possible so I see it sooner. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox video game series with unknown parameters is cleaned out

I have sorted out the backlog located in Category:Pages using infobox video game series with unknown parameters - all 158 or 168 (I forget which) entries. Will start helping with other categories soon. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but if it's a defunct field delete it, even if it has an entry against it, commenting it out just stores up problems for the future. It trips bots and Visual Editor up and means someone else will have to clean it at a later date. - X201 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@X201: Sorry, I didn't realize that. I did that as I thought the information might be useful to editors, I will go through it again. Sorry. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@X201:  Done From what I can tell I have gone back through them all and removed the commented out parameters. Sorry once again about that. In the future I will simply remove them, I honestly thought that commenting them out would be of help, not confuse bots etc in the future. Thanks for letting me know! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: No need to apologise. Good job in cleaning the category. If that's the kind of job that interests you, have a look at WP:AWB - X201 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@X201: I have already applied for it, just waiting for my request at WP:PERM/AWB to be reviewed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 28 April

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

20 April

21 April

22 April

23 April

24 April

25 April

26 April

27 April

28 April

Salavat (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

List of actors who have played video game characters

Thoughts on this list? Looks like a collection of unsourced trivia to me. (Also see 2012 AfD, and the main article's subsequent deletion last January.) czar 15:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Jean Reno and Jackie Chan once said they don't play video games, but I agree this is quite trivial.Tintor2 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This would better serve as a category, but I think it would be considered trivial there as well. It wouldn't pass AfD if brought up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Alien: Isolation

Not sure if this is the right venue to put it here, but more eyes are needed at Alien: Isolation concerning undiscussed genre changes made by IP user. The discussion related to this issue is at Talk:Alien: Isolation#Genre changes. Thanks. – Hounder4 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Archive 129/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Video games.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Video games, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dev bios

I started expanding the Iga article, but I also found that many dev bio pages are very small, and sometimes include out dated information. It seems that dev bio pages have far less importance than the actual game pages themselves. The only one I particularily care about expanding is the Iga article, the rest I just expanded since I had an easy source and the pages were tiny. I won't be working on most of them from here on out. Here's a short list of the pages I've expanded.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There's plenty of sources and interviews. Any of their contributions to the games they work on can be included in their article. Such and such was producer for such and such game, they wanted it to be this and that, and then they wrote this, then was sad when it didn't sell well, etc. That's all notable. It has to tie back into the person's bio and not get too off topic talking about the game. I think it's mostly just because the focus on improving articles is the game articles primarily. Genre and dev bios are less important.
I don't think we've ever gotten any of them to FA status have we? Shigeru Miyamoto would be perfect to bring to FA status. No way that doesn't have enough sources. It's even considered a vital article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Miyamoto's article wouldn't even pass GAN, at its current state. The entire thing needs a complete re-write. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh totally. But it's just an example. There's more than enough sources (even multiple books, documentaries) for Miyamoto's article to be turned into FA status. Inafune and Igarashi probably have enough sources too. Someone just needs to hunker down and write it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
For Miyamoto, definitely, however I don't think you could say the same for Igarashi or Mizuguchi. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd assume if we had more access to Japanese sources and their proper translation, a lot of these could be easily expanded upon. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Whenever there's a new game, the producers often act as spokespersons. They've been in this role for so long, there's countless news stories and interviews. I think there's enough for FA status for a few of them. Also, the site shmuplations has many translated dev interviews, going back decades. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Satoru Iwata is one of my favourite articles on WP, and one of the only that I've seen skip GA and go straight to FA. – Rhain ☔ 01:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Iwata. I ahd totally forgotten about that article. I forgot he was at first a programmer. I knew him mostly as the Nintendo president. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinion saught - appropriateness of a "List of Overwatch events" article?

With Overwatch, there have been four competitive seasons, and several unique events, all which have gained far more than trivial coverage from sources. As such, I'm thinking if it would be appropriate to have a page "List of Overwatch events" simply to document the timeline of these seasons and events, briefly summarizing anything special, as to allow ease of cross-referencing for a researcher. I would see this in comparison to something like the list of expansions that have been applied for Hearthstone (again all which can be readily documented) which we have in Gameplay of Hearthstone.

I know there are many other games that have seasons and continually new events, but for most of them, they get next to no coverage in the media. Only a few like Destiny and Diablo 3 might have something that approaches Overwatch's, so this is more an exception than the rule. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

All major "games-as-a-service" games, which is basically all major multiplayer games now can easily support an "ongoing development" type articles. Dota 2, League of Legends, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Team Fortress 2, Warframe, Pokémon Go, Hitman (2016 video game), are some titles off the top of my head which have significant coverage of updates. - hahnchen 11:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

They can support it, potentially, but OW is clearly leaps and bounds beyond most in terms of depth of coverage from sources. If only one or two sources mention the new events (where I think Warframe falls into) that might not be enough for a standalone, and definitely if its only announcements from the devs (For example, the case it seems for games like Duelist or Faeria) then that should be avoided though mention in those articles that seasonal events happen are appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
There are enough sources for Warframe.[7][8][9] Warframe has had a ton of coverage since its release, yet our article treats it as a static object. Our games-as-a-service coverage is generally quite poor, even our obsessive SquareEnix coverage skimps on the expansions of Final Fantasy XI. The games-as-a-service model isn't even that new, I voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Halo multiplayer maps basically arguing for expanded DLC coverage. At Gameplay of Hearthstone, I made this edit hoping that clear subsections for each x-pac could encourage further expansion. An FA quality Gadgetzan section would reference things like [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
I don't think the in depth OW coverage is leaps and bounds above others - because the scope of the events is pretty light (compared to say, an expansion), the coverage is broad but shallow. Yes, go for an ongoing Overwatch article, be open towards others too. - hahnchen 01:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 5 May

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

28 April

29 April

30 April

1 May

2 May

3 May

4 May

5 May

Salavat (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 12 May

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

2 May

4 May

6 May

7 May

-- what a shame that it was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberix (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what happens when articles don't come anywhere near meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

8 May

9 May

10 May

11 May

12 May

Salavat (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

IP - Xbox One BC is not 'really emulation' so can be in infobox?

I had reverted this once, on the general idea that we do not include emulation and backward compatibility in infoboxes, only ports. The IP inserting has made a new argument in their edit note, here. In interest to avoid edit warring I've left the edit to stand for now. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm, the link the IP provided literally says that X360 games are run in a special X360->X1 emulation wrapper, customized to each game. It's a wonky sort of emulation, but it's still the X360 game itself being played, it's just in a custom emulator version instead of a standard emulator like the Nintendo VC. Should not be in the infobox. --PresN 16:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much my take, but if the IP had been right in some way, it would have affected many articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
That's been my understanding of it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Same with the above - it's not equivalent to the work to make a port nor a remaster/remake, which are cases we would likely list in the infobox. BC compat is definitely something to add to to the article's prose and to appropropriate lists/categories, but shouldn't be in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Wasn't this written down in the documentation too? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-establishing what platforms should go in infobox

Currently the wording at the infobox template says for the platform field The unabbreviated console or operating system family for which the game was specifically developed. This includes dedicated ports, but not games in emulation or services. There seems to be enough confusion that I believe we need better clarification.

To me the platform= field (and subsequently what affects the developer=/publisher=/distributor= and release date fields) should be limited to:

  • The platforms the game was planned for and released on, even if the release came months later (as often the case for Aspyr and their macOS ports)
  • Platforms the game was ported to in an official capacity by the dev/publisher or IP holder, even if not at the time of release (as many of the indies for the Switch are now, as well as games like Bayonetta/Vanquish on the PC).
  • Remakes or remasters of a game, if they don't merit a separate article. (for example, the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus remaster is a separate article, and so the dates of that remaster are not given in the individual article's infobox. However, for something like Bulletstorm's remaster, still in the same article, that is documented in the infobox) (See note below)

What should not go in the infobox:

  • Games run under emulation or as-a-service/cloud streaming; this includes Xbox One BC compat with 360 (and similarly Xbox 360 BC with Xbox Original), Virtual Console games, PS Now service games, and more. Effectively, if there is no significant creative work added to the title to make it run in emulation/service, it shouldn't be listed.
  • Unofficial/fan ports/emulation
  • Games re-released as part of a larger collections (See note below)
  • Reboots (as they will typically have their own page)

Note Considering both the remake/remasters with separate pages, and standalone game collections (ala Atari Vault or The Disney Afternoon Collection), I'm wondering if a field "Related titles" or the like might be useful to include in the infobox to help editors find where the game has been released as to help avoid editors from adding these extraneous releases as part of the separate game. I realize that this might be a bear on some Atari 2600/Sega Genesis games considering how many collects of these their are, but it can also be useful. Obviously, this information should be corroborated in the prose. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sidenote: can we also add something along the lines off that platforms are not synonymous with distribution channels? From time to time I see a mention of PlayStation Network or Xbox Live in the platform field. Availability on PSN/XBLA does not mean it can be played on every PSN-connected console or Xbox 360/Xbox One however. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely this should be affirmed.
I would also affirm that when referring to systems that editors should consistently use within an article the name of the release system at the point of the game's release, rather than the updated name. This is the whole OS X/MacOS situation that I've seen editors updating 5-8 year old games to change "OS X" to "macOS". We can all blame Apple for its stupid naming system but this is the best way for us to handle it. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cat/AWB help

Anyone up for helping with a genre recategorization project? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 18#Category:Nintendo DS games by genre We might be able to automate it, but from my spot check, we'll need to manually check whether the games are in the right subgenre categories. I likely won't have the time for a while—anyone else interested? czar 03:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

FA damaged by robots.txt and site changes

The FA Flight Unlimited III relies heavily on sources from Flightsim.com, which has just rearranged its site and put up a robots.txt exclusion. The sources I used are still online, but in a badly corrupted form. My first question: how would one go about asking Flightsim.com to edit their robots.txt exclusions to allow Internet Archive? I know WPVG has had success doing this with GameSpot in the past, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. If that fails, though, the sources are still online at Archive.is. Which brings me to my second question: has Archive.is become an acceptable tool on Wikipedia since I last checked? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that over time, Archive.org is going to ignore post-added robots.txt to allow access to content it had already cached, but we don't have a firm timeline for this. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, yes, after a final, final RfC, archive.is is now acceptable for use on WP. --PresN 14:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
All good news! I'll contact Flightsim's webmaster before I make a decision one way or the other. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@JimmyBlackwing: Wikipedia:Using archive.is#Copyright and robots.txt may be of interest if you haven't seen it yet. — Gestrid (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a robots.txt added after the fact has much legal weight to be enforced for the entire past history of the site. So it's good to see that Archive.org is going to add past versions. However, I do fear that more sites are going to be using robots.txt in the future, and this may hurt archiving projects as archive.org and other sites become more popular. They will see it as a threat to the control of their material that needs to be stopped. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible article topic

I was thinking about possible article topics for the VG project. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to create an article from scratch (summer classes), but one topic I thought of was Zeldathon. They have received some coverage since they started in 2009. Some (admittedly biased) coverage can be found on the website's press page. Obviously, some of it is from connected sources, but I believe at least some of it is useable. They even got noticed and received some huge donations by Scott Cawthon, creator of Five Nights at Freddy's, during their last marathon, which benefitted St. Jude's. Note that I would be able to help with some editing, but probably not a lot. — Gestrid (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If no one does make an article on it, I would probably create one sometime this year (After all, there is no deadline.), but I would still like to know if you guys think it meets our criteria. — Gestrid (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I did a simple Google search for "Zeldathon" and didn't come up with any RS hits within the first few pages of results. I mean, its possible that maybe one would have to get more creative than that, but I wouldn't recommend making such an article at this rate... Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Reassessment

Role-playing video game is currently assessed as B-Class article. I was wondering if it could be reassessed to GA or FA class. There are still a few "citation needed" tags here and there, but otherwise the article is pretty comprehensive with over 250 citations. SharkD  Talk  13:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not 100% on what you're asking, so I'll answer a few options:
  • Can someone here just declare it a GA or FA? No- see WP:GAN and WP:FAC.
  • Is it good enough to pass GAN or FAC right now as it stands? Not right this second- a couple dozen cite needed tags, an "update needed" tag in Popularity and notable developers, a few spots where it's unclear whether the cite is for the entire paragraph or just the last sentence, there's a few spots I saw when skimming where it seems like you're using terms that may have been invented for the article as if they're standard, there's a few bald-faced statements like "The premise of most role-playing games tasks the player with saving the world, or whichever level of society is threatened." which I don't have a font size big enough to slap a "citation needed" on, which given that's the 4th paragraph of a monster-sized article doesn't imply good things for the rest of the article... etc.
  • Is it within range of GAN (FAC is a whole other level above that in terms of level of effort required) that you could reach there with some work? Yeah, I'd say so. Granted, I didn't more than skim it, but there's a lot of content there, that seems to be organized relatively sanely, and there's just a few holes to plug in that you could probably get through with some (well, a good deal of) work. --PresN 14:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
LOL, I just discovered (and deleted) something worse: "The vast majority of RPG games that were successful were made from Japanese companies, making Japan a dominant country in an entertainment genre in East Asia, along with the Cinema of Hong Kong and the Korean wave, further increasing the prophecy that East Asian products are superior to those of the West." No citation of course. I guess I should read articles more closely, first. SharkD  Talk  19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

First-person party-based "blobbers"

I want to create a new sub-category of Category:Video games by graphical style for games like Might & Magic and Wizardry that are sometimes called "blobbers". Is it okay to use this term, or is the term too new? Is there another better term? Here is an explanation of what the term refers to. (Ignore the bit about D&D in that article. I don't know what he's talking about.) Thanks. SharkD  Talk  03:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are some other mentions of the term. SharkD  Talk  03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Blobber = first-person dungeon crawler; from Wizardry and M&M, all the way to Etrian Odyssey and Legend of Grimrock. I've never seen the term "blobber" but it could be a redirect to the genre page and mentioned there. Sounds like there could maybe be either a subcat of Category:Dungeon crawler video games dedicated to Category:First-person dungeon crawler video games, or an independent Category:First-person video games where "blobbers" could intersect with the dungeon crawler one. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, "blobbers" are all party-based, and the category name would need to reflect this so that readers don't get confused. SharkD  Talk  05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I added a short definition to here. SharkD  Talk  12:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I created Category:First-person party-based dungeon crawler video games. Several games still need to be moved from Category:Dungeon crawler video games, most likely, since I am not familiar with all of them. SharkD  Talk  22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ubisoft San Francisco

I noticed on South Park: The Fractured but Whole there is relink for Ubisoft San Francisco shouldn't that just be a redirect to Ubisoft for now? Govvy (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No, redlinks are good, they encourage people to create articles that don't exist. Most of Ubisoft's development studios have their own articles, no reason why this won't at some point. - X201 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
But until an article is created for it, it makes more sense just to redirect to Ubisoft. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Not really, since the casual reader expects to find information on a certain topic when they click on it, for what reason I actually ran six of such cases through RfD a month ago, with the result being delete, which you seemingly disregarded when unnecessarily re-creating the redirect a few minutes back. Unless we actually find content for that page, I will likely list it at RfD again. Lordtobi (✉) 19:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
k, I was thinking of just linking to Ubisoft, but maybe I should leave it for now. I did notice there are a fair number of Ubisoft articles, maybe someone more local to the area can create one. Govvy (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Red links are only helpful when creation of the article is imminent (within the next few days or weeks). It remaining a red link for any longer (say half a year or more) doesn't help at all. If the studio was notable enough, it would have had an article created by now, so I view that as a bad argument for not allowing it to be a redirect until then. I propose we either create the article within the next few days, keep it as a redirect to Ubisoft, or unlink it all together. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no time limit on creating a redlink. If the Ubisoft article had a paragraph about San Francisco linking it would make sense, but as is it tells the user nothing - X201 (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
A Ubisoft game will always have a link to Ubisoft, but between the different studios if one is redirecting back to the main article you just repeating a link in the article anyway, if you go by overlink rule then really you don't want to have a link do you? Govvy (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Then it's probably best to just leave it unlinked instead of it being a red link for the next two or three years potentially, as if the studio was notable enough by now, an article would have been created. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I think redlinks are okay too, but they tend to get killed on sight by most editors. Kind of like redshirts on Star Trek. OTOH, the type of people who stroll by and see a redlink and decide to write a short unsourced article on the subject aren't really welcome here any more either. These days the standards are higher. SharkD  Talk  17:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"I can't believe those aren't FA articles" articles:

A bunch of articles that easily could be turned into FA articles if someone just hunkered down and worked on them. I'm shocked they haven't been.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I remember an attempt was made to get Deus Ex to FA after Anachronox passed but man Deus Ex is hard to write up. If anyone is interested in working on one of these I would help. The Super Mario Kart article looks to be the most viable. GamerPro64 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
With Mario Kart, the biggest thing would be overhauling the development section, as Retro Gamer just did a nice "Making of" article last month and Shumplations has translated some info from the Japanese strategy guide. Indrian (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
With DX, keep in mind that Spector did a whole post-mortem at this year's GDC [20]. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The Dark Souls article has basically nothing on the development of the game, so it shouldn't be considered a FAC. Instead, I'd replace that with Dota 2, which is pretty much an unofficial FA, which I will try to nominate (for the 2nd time) before TI7 in August. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that Dark Souls article has a lot of improvement tags on it still too, and many single sentences hanging out in the prose (not in paragraph form.) I wouldn't think that ones even approaching GA level yet really... Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Demon's Souls is a much better article that could probably quickly become a GA if somebody were to nominate it. EDIT: Oh, by working on Hidetaka Miyazaki's article, I've noticed that there is much more written about Demon's development than there is with first Dark Souls oddly, as the articles seem to show too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Grand Theft Auto III was in decent shape before I started polishing it for GA last year. I intend to finish the job eventually, if nobody else does. – Rhain ☔ 01:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Valve Corporation video games

List of Valve Corporation video games is up for featured list candidate if anyone is interested in reviewing. Has one support currently: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Valve Corporation video games/archive1. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Tactics merger:

Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions have separate articles, but it's the exact same game. It's just a port, and it didn't even change that much. Plus most of the content in the articles repeats the same information. The Tactics Ogre PSP port actually changed much more but it's in one article. There's a long history of enhanced ports getting placed into one article. Metal Gear Solid 3 had an update titled Subsistance that was initially placed in separate articles before being merged.

This issue should be resolved soon before FFT goes onto the main page as a FA. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it more of an "enhanced port"? It received a drastic re-translation, new anime cut-scenes, and a multi-player mode all not in the original game. I mean, it can be debatable if it needs its own article or not, but saying "Its just a port that didn't change much" doesn't seem like the most accurate overview here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Looking at it closer, even beyond my comment above, its a well-written GA with a well-detailed development section, and a reception that provides RS commentary on the changes, like the re-translation. Nothing needs to be "resolved" here. The article is completely fine as a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - It's more than just a port, but an expanded and reworked version of the original, with extensive development and reception sections. Such an extensive plot section may be a bit much as it's basically the same story, but to merge it outright isn't needed as it's more than capable of standing as its own game. Like the article I created for Final Fantasy Type-0 HD. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's an enhanced port. So what? That's not enough to make it a new article. Lots of ports get new cutscenes and new translations. It's pretty standard. It's just additions to the main game. And the original Japanese still has the same dialogue, so it's not like the actual game was re-written. Chrono Trigger for the NDS has new cutscenes and a translation. Tactics Ogre got a new translation, gameplay overhaul, new cutscenes, etc. Should they get a new articles? I could go on. It can be covered in a few short sections in the original article without going over the same material in a new article. 60-70% of the article is the lede, plot, gameplay sections which are identical to the PS1 version. Take 4-5 short paragraphs from the War of the Lions "Development" and "Reception" sections and put them into the original article and you've now covered all the material in the PS1 and PSP versions in one article. It doesn't matter if it's "well written" or "GA" status. It only matters if it's a repeat article covering the same game that got a port.

I gave the example of MGS3 previously. The Subistance version added:

  • A fully rotatable third-person camera
  • Online multiplayer mode
  • Multiple mini-games and missions and modes

If this version had been made GA should it have been kept? Of course not, as it's just an enhanced re-release. Just like War of the Lions is for FFT. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's different, and received plenty of dedicated coverage about it, that's what. Look, I'm all for merging these back when it's this tiny stub that is nothing but junk like "On date x, the game was announced. On date y, it was released. The game is now HD. Reviewers thought it was good." But that is not the case here at all. There's substantial coverage with substantial content present. Slamming that into the FA isn't an improvement to an encyclopedia. I swear, some of you get so caught up in your GA/FA mania, its like you forget the whole purpose of the website - to build an encyclopedia. Culling down well written, well sourced content from notable subjects like this isn't conducive to that goal. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure this is GA/FA mania, since even by that metric merging a GA into an FA is a net loss. --PresN 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose I could have worded that better. In this particular case, it'd be "FA mania", but in most cases, it seems like people do this sort of stuff in relation to GAs and "Good Topics", with there generally being more editors writing GA-level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You know, I hate the "other stuff exists isn't a justification" argument, because it's too easy to be really dismissive with it, but really. Your example of a counterpoint is a merge from 2006. It didn't get merged because it wasn't a GA- it got merged because it had no sources or solid development/reception sections about the differences. Could it support a separate article? Sure, maybe. You should consider writing it, not merging away existing solid articles. --PresN 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
A comment: I'm a bit concerned that the plot section of War of the Lions seems longer than the original game and does not appear to clearly outline any differences that the text suggests may have been made. Arguably, per NOT#PLOT, the plot section on War should give a para or two summary for sufficient context in that article, dropping the Main template for the original game's plot, and if possible to source, any significant changes made for War of the Lions. (I don't know if there are any). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too. That could definitely use a trim. I don't recall there being any major plotpoints being changed. A few extra characters added, but I don't think they influenced the overarching plot at all really. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a stub or a GA. The criteria is: Can this be done in one article that avoids repetition or are the subject matters so different, and writing about them would take up so much space that there's a need for two articles? I think this is more hesitation to merge a GA article than anything else. But GA articles are not sancrosanct. And the answer is: yes these two articles can be covered in one article rather easily. Also, from a practical standpoint, it means that efforts in improving the FFT articles are divided into two articles needlessly, and it wouuld work so much better if there was one article. That's a lot of wasted and duplicated efforts.

On my sandbox, I've done a really quick merger as a prototype. User:Harizotoh9/sandbox. It's a very quick "proof of concept" rather than what I'd actually suggest as the final merger. I've taken the Development and Reception sections and placed them into the original FFT article. It's not that big, and it's not unreadable. It works pretty well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You're getting too hung up on the GA part of the argument. It's less about the classification itself, and more about the fact of what got it to GA - that there's plenty of content and sourcing specifically about the War of Lions game. Prominence of sourcing and content is frequently used as metrics in merge discussions, so there's really no hope for a wholesale dismissal of that point. As for your example in the sandbox, it's alright, but certainly not an improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Another way of putting it: Why do we have articles that are 75% exactly the same? Why not take the 25% difference and add it to the same article? It's nice that it got to GA status. Why not take the nice new material and put it into one article. That it got a lot of news and attention is fine, but it should not matter. I really want an explanation why it is absolutely neccesary that readers must read two separate articles. I just don't see it. BTW, I've played both versions and the actual differences are barely noticeable.
I feel like if a version of a game was released where the only difference was a character got a hat, and it got a lot of press, there'd be people defending that "Game + hat" should get a new article. Which is just silly. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I really don't know what to tell you if, on Wikipedia, your response to "its received lots of separate third party RS coverage and there's much content present", and your response is "it shouldn't matter". I can't break it down any further for you, because that's so fundamentally irreconcilable from how Wikipedia works. Beyond that, one immediate thing that comes to mind as far as why its better having separate articles, is that your draft proposal makes it far harder for a reader specifically looking for information on War of the Lions to find that specific content. If someone is specifically looking for content about that, they have to wade through a ton of prose. Again, your version isn't so much "bad" as it is a significant step backwards from an already done version, which wassn't broken to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge - The only meaningful metric: did the remake/port/whatever get independent sigcov in RS'es w/r/t to development, release and reception? (Development/release is important, if it is just reception/reviews it should be covered in the parent article like Tactics Ogre's PSP port with dozens of reviews). The answer for FFT:WotL is yes, it has plenty of independent sigcov of its development and release (in addition to reception). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The criteria that has been cited several times is whether it has a lot of RS coverage. That criteria is not mentioned in any way on Wikipedia:Merging. Sources are relevant for deletion vs keeping, but not for mergering. It does mention this rule:

Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap."

Which these do. Significantly. There's no Exception rule for if the articles both have a lot of sources. And no, other articles don't count (I also question whether some of them should get separate articles and think they should be done by a case by case basis).

The FFT article is 4,078 words long. FFT:WotL is 3,890 words. The lede, gameplay, plot of both articles cover the exact same material. Same plot, same gameplay.

The lede, gameplay, plot section of FFT is 2,639 words. Or 64.71% of the article. The lede, gameplay, plot section of FFT:WotL is 2,383 words. Or 61.25% of the article.

So these articles overlap 62.25 to 64.71%, and I would consider that a "large overlap". Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:SIZE are relevant. The former does rely on reliable sources and the latter relies simply on "don't make the pages too big". --Izno (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For size, my test page for the merged articles is 5,514 words, so what I'm proposing does not violate any guidelines for size. The Final Fantasy 7 article in comparison is 9,343 words and the Evolution article, is 10,794. To additionally improve the pages, I would do more than just merging them. The ledes should be expanded, maybe plot/story could be trimmed slightly, and the development for the original game should be expanded bringing that section more to par with the War of the lions development. There are several sources on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with the articles remaining separate. This subject could go either way, and both would have been acceptable. Had it started out as one article, I would have opposed a split. But it has existed as two articles since 2007, so not worth the effort to merge.
That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of redundancy in the gameplay and plot. I mean that plot, what utter tosh. Compare the gameplay and plot details on Halo: Combat Evolved vs. Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary. - hahnchen 10:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hahnchen: I've done trimming and tidying which should deal with the majority of the repetition while preserving its merit as a standalone article. I've also added info and a reference about the studios which animated the game's new cutscenes. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Civilization and table of in-game cultures and world leaders

Hi everyone,

For almost a year now I've been trying to remove this huge list of cultures and world leaders that appear in the Civilization series. It's a whopping 26K characters long table that shows which culture and a world leader appear in what game. To me, this is a classic WP:GAMECRUFT case: it doesn't say anything about the gameplay of the represented cultures and/or political figures, just says they're featured. On its talk page I've had several discussions, now with a anon IP, that keeps reinstating the list. I just accidentally broke WP:3RR on my phone, but I've reverted by last revert. The most recent discussion can be found here. I know that @Masem has chimed in before, any other input would be appreciated. Thanks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Soetermans, with the fact that we only need a few examples in prose of what it means to select a civilization and its leader (and of course, Nukemonger Ghandi ). There have been no third-party sources that describe or comment on the inclusion or absence of a specific civ from a game in the series, making the table clearly GAMEGUIDE and removable. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Soetermans as well. This is the type of thing WP:GAMECRUFT exists to combat. Tell the IP to send it to Gamefaqs or a Wikia or something. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, which is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought it had gone, didn't realise it was still there. - X201 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it. - X201 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Masem, @Sergecross73, @X201, if you haven't already, could you leave a message at the talk page as well? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your input. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata publication date

Our article on Star Wolves says the game was published first in 2004 in Russia. The wikidata page says December 2006. Do we list only English publication dates on wikidata? How should this discrepancy be resolved? SharkD  Talk  01:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We should always list the first publication, and Wikidata is used by several different wikis, so it's not bound by what's relevant to people who speak English. I do not know how this should be done on a technical level, however.--IDVtalk 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The short answer is that Wikidata is just missing the data (Presuming that our Russia 2004 date is sourced). Wikidata does not auto-import any information from different Wikipedias, outside of bots being ran. You can add it to Wikidata yourself just fine. None of our maze of Infobox rules here at enwiki apply on Wikidata, (and Wikidata has its own WP:N and WP:V separate from enwiki) but there's plenty of holes in the data that need filled in. -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The wikidata page does not say "Russia" or "North America" next to the date. How is this usually handled? SharkD  Talk  13:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. I can see from this that there are additional flags for "platform" and "place of publication" when specifying a date. Hopefully, these too are standardized. SharkD  Talk  13:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Most regions and countries will be easy to find. Wikidata does not enforce unique names so there will be multiples to sort through at times, though. Most items will have a description to help with this. Example for a tricky one are things like the first consoles in a brand. That is, make sure you do PlayStation (Q10677) as platform. PlayStation (Q1323662) refers to the brand. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you do about digital online releases? For instance, Final Fantasy VI was released on iOS, Android and PS4, but there is no "place of publication" for these releases. Is there a "worldwide" parameter that should be used in these cases? SharkD  Talk  16:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
If the release is world wide, you can just leave off "place of publication" entirely. Qualifiers are not required per say, only necessary where you need to differentiate two statements with the same value. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried that readers will get confused. I know I am, and then think that maybe someone just forgot to put in the region. SharkD  Talk  14:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, in the case of Final Fantasy VII, there is no company associated with the publication date. How do you specify whether Company A published the game in 1997, and Company B in 2015? Should the company name be listed there as well? The problem is that when you query the record, you end up with 16 results, since there are 2 publishers and 8 publication dates. But there should not be so many. SharkD  Talk  19:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Sorry to lean on you... In the case above, would you add a publisher qualifier to the publication date, or would you add publication date qualifiers to the publishers? -- ferret (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Probably, the answer is: "both"? --Izno (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, in a relational database you should only store a piece of information once. But then we should do this consistently across all articles. And "platform" will be affected as well. I do think the former (adding a publisher qualifier to the publication date) would be better than the latter. SharkD  Talk  21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that later ports of FFVII had different developers involved, too. This could be added beneath "publication date" as well, but the Enwiki article doesn't state which port was developed by whom. Which sources do we use for this kind of stuff? SharkD  Talk  02:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Are there supposed to be links to Wikipedia articles in the Wikidata records? For instance, on Final Fantasy VII there is no link to the article Final Fantasy VII. SharkD  Talk  17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. Wikipedia article links are in the top right corner. There are 37 links for FF7. EN is listed. -- ferret (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Duh. I see them now. But for me they are all the way at the bottom. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The design is somewhat responsive. --Izno (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Should a critic's comment about a game be added to a game's reception even if the game he/she commented on is not the topic of his review? No Complaint, No Care (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source, and it's being presented in the proper context, then sure. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this a hypothetical question or are we talking about an actual situation? The reason being, if we are talking about a real review we can evaluate whether of not the coverage of the other game is sufficient enough to put in that games' reception section.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
To give a hypothetical example, if a review for game X once referees to it a being like game Y in space and does not mention game Y again it should not be covered in the article for game Y. If on the other hand, the review make several comparisons between game X and Y then it may make sense to cover it.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Why? If the source is reliable, then so is the review and the comparison in it. SharkD  Talk  04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with making comparisons, but I don't see any issue of using a review of one game for using in another game's article. But making comparisons between two games is not helpful for the general reader. Say, for instance, that a reviewer considers Breath of the Wild the best Zelda since Ocarina of Time. That is not informative. Even if the reader is familiar with Ocarina, there's still indication of how that game was received by the reviewer. We'd have to explain how the reviewer thought of it and then show how it differs from Wild. But if a reviewer just says that Ocarina is the best Zelda, period, yeah, that makes sense. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
If a game website's article is about a developer, and if the author associates the developer with an unpopular game, and if the author briefly gives his unfavorable views about that game, should his brief unfavorable views be added to the game's reception? No Complaint, No Care (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It could, but I wouldn't say it absolutely should. If it fits, yes, add it, but a reception section isn't a complete list of everything every RS ever said about a game. Do you have a specific situation in mind?--IDVtalk 17:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
As what the others have said, it should be situational. What's the exact example you wish to use? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The Lost Levels

I need some more eyes on Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels. I was prepping the article for FA but another editor continues to edit war all kinds of cruft back into the article even after talk page messages, descriptive edit summaries, etc. czar 22:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit war? I'm trying to help, like I said. You continue to revert my edits that AREN'T filled with cruft, like the GameRankings score. Your assessment on WP:VGAGG was incorrect: it clearly says that GR is fine for use on older games, and there's no Metacritic score on the game. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm in agreement to keep the Game Rankings score on there. The other review scores are used for the aggregation score anyway. GamerPro64 00:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
It's misleading to have the scores at all. This is a game from 1986 and all of the "scores" are from the modern/emulated release twenty years later. Another example of shoving GR in an article just because it's there. But the edit issues are the stuff that came before that, for the last month. czar 01:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
And it appears to be based out of line only 6 or so reviews? At the very least, the extremely small sample size of reviews should be noted, if it's included at all. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree that if the initial release was not scored then we shouldn't be forcing the score review table -- it is fair to summarize in prose what the modern release of these levels have but we shouldn't force that in a table where that fact is not very clear. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

VII Victory Pose In Order!

@TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, Sergecross73, Deckiller, and Brayden96: After all these weeks/months of dedicated work, it's happened! Final Fantasy VII has been officially promoted to a Featured Article! *FFVII Victory Fanfare* I think we can all pat ourselves on the back for bringing this project to this point in one of the best collaborative efforts I've seen for any video game article to date. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Congrats guys, and especially the "leader" ProtoDrake for starting this big project.Tintor2 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice work, everyone! I'll continue to monitor and maintain it forever too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Very nice! A landmark title like FFVII really deserves to have an article of this quality - really glad that you guys made it happen.--IDVtalk 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah congrats to everyone. Didn't think I did much to be a named person for getting the article promoted but I'm always for collaborations. GamerPro64 00:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hooray, thanks for all your hard work on this one ProtoDrake! TarkusAB 08:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Regions to include in console price list

Our video game hardware typically use the {{Infobox information appliance}} for the infobox, which has price fields, but that infobox (generic not to just video games) doesn't give any advice on regions to include for costs.

Because this field can attract pricing kudzu ("My region's not included, let me add it...") I think we need guidance on which regions should be included in price. To that end, I would say the following should only be used: US (largest consumer of video games), JP (second major market for video games), EU/UK but not both (Euro pricing is preferred but not all consoles have this standardized so the UK price works as a substitute) and AUS (as this nearly always reflects the high tariffs of shipping to that region). MASEM (t) 18:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I've never been thrilled with the idea of launch price as an infobox field. Though it is sometimes possible to sum up a console's price placement with just a couple figures, consoles often have price drops early in their lifespan, in some cases dramatic ones (e.g. 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, Nintendo 64). In such cases presenting launch price in the infobox can be downright misleading, and as the template documentation itself states, 'Under WP:NOPRICES, "product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention". Use of the "price" field should therefore be the exception rather than the norm.'
All that said, I have no objections to the set of regions you propose using.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

PC =/= Windows

Please stop putting PC as the platform when you mean Windows. Mac's are a type of a PC, as are Chromebooks, but none of them are Operating Systems or can run all the same programs. Platform should be one or more of:

Sorry if I missed a platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.252.196.215 (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think most people who watch this talk page are aware of this already - it is mostly a problem with older pages that haven't been fixed, and edits by well-meaning new editors who don't know about this yet.--IDVtalk 10:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. 77.252196.215, when you write a message on this talk page, you're mostly talking to the core, experienced people, many of which have written the video games guidelines itself. You don't need to tell us about this. We're the ones frequently fixing this sort of thing ourselves. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a comment, I watch this page (and other project pages) so that I can learn more about the right way to do things. It might be in the guidelines but, personally, I don't mind people occasionally pointing out the obvious (providing that they don't spam or get aggressive), because there are people like me who aren't completely clueless but definitely haven't memorised the guidelines or absorbed all the best practices that are out there. Scribolt (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I definitely agree, its just that, this particular sounded less like a friendly reminder, and more like a lecture. I could be wrong though. Regardless, I was just trying to convey that they were "preaching to the choir" when informing much of us here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Never mind PC, is OnLive a platform? ;-) - X201 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No, at least in terms of the infobox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
A big part of the problem, though, is that even reliable sources don't necessarily make this distinction. Next Generation, while it does use the term "Windows", lists all their reviews for PC games under one of two headings: "PC" and "Macintosh". GamePro, in turn, catalogs both Windows and Macintosh games under the label "PC". So even though I know that the term "PC" doesn't just mean Windows, if I'm adding information about a PC game from GamePro, I see no other option but to refer to the platform as "PC", since I can't tell whether they're talking about Windows or Macintosh.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
As a worst case scenario if no RSs mention Windows or whatever directly, you can cite the packaging of the game itself - game boxes say what the system requirements are, including what OSs are supported.--IDVtalk 20:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Platform for RPG Maker games

I came across Alpha Kimori. This is an RPG Maker game. For platform, what do I put? I think RPG Maker is multi-platform these days. SharkD  Talk  12:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because RPG Maker is multiplatform doesn't mean every game made with it is released multiplatform. Stick to the list of computers that the game actually was released for (The list of retailers needs to go in that article though). --MASEM (t) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I have no idea what platforms it was released for, however. SharkD  Talk  14:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
So look for sources. Platform is such a basic fact that it should be easy to find for any game.--IDVtalk 17:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
This is Web 2.0 shovelware. I can guess at some of the platforms, but there's no way to tell them all. SharkD  Talk  19:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think RPG Maker was Windows-only at that time. SharkD  Talk  19:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The Steam page for that game says it's Windows only (or rather, that Steam only offers a Windows version). If you find no other sources detailing other platforms, just cite the Steam page and call it a Windows game.--IDVtalk 20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds fine. SharkD  Talk  22:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_129&oldid=1143717278"