Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 137

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 5 years ago by TheJoebro64 in topic Sonic Riders
Archive 130 ← Archive 135 Archive 136 Archive 137 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140

Notability of the concept of a video game franchise

Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Is the concept of a video game franchise independently notable of media franchise? I want to gain some general consensus on this, since my recent conversion of the redirect (which redirected to List of video game franchises) into a stub article was disputed. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of notability, the redirect is inconsistent with other similarly titled pages (here's a full list of examples: Book series, Comic book series, Film series, Radio program, Television show, and Media franchise) As a matter of conceptual context and reducing confusion and inconsistency, it should not redirect to List of video game franchises. If it is not notable, it should redirect to Media franchise. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe it should be an article, unless someone creates a particularly impressive one that stands apart from Media franchise. I think Video game franchise could be a disambiguation, though, linking to Media franchise, List of video game franchises, and sublists thereof (best-selling/longest-running/etc). My second choice would be to redirect it to Media franchise, which has the list in its see also. ~Mable (chat) 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how a video game franchise isn't a notable topic. An article should probably be made in my opinion. However, before an article is made, the redirect to Media Franchise is fine. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • From my understanding of this, a "series" is a group of products within the same medium (like the Harry Potter series of books or the Harry Potter series of films). But a franchise is a series of series. A metaseries, if you will. A series that crosses over into different mediums. So the Harry Potter franchise would include the book, film, and video game series. Thereby making the term "video game franchise" redundant. It should be renamed Video game series.--Coin945 (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been working on cleaning up and sourcing List of video game franchises ever since it survived its WP:AFD, and from what I can tell, sources more or less use "series" and "franchise" interchangeably, and rather loosely at that. They frequently use "franchise" to describe what is basically just a second game in a series of two games and zero other types of mediums. Like Watch Dogs, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd actually say in those instances, they are referring to the game series hoping to become a franchise. I think they referred to the first game as the next big franchise, before any media is released. Arguably, merchandise and other external media to a video game series is common for pretty much any series. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, interpret that source as you will, but the same thing has happened again and again and again with other sources and other game series. I've been using "does a reliable source call it a franchise" as a part of the inclusion criteria for the list, thinking it would wipe out a huge chunk of the items. It hasn't. Journalists use the term far more than I realized. It's trimming out some, but it's used far more than I personally realized. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the phrasing of "it sounds like the company will stick with the franchise" seems to support my suspicions that the article is not treating a two-game series as a franchise, but rather pointing out that the success of the second game leads the company to consider expanding it into a (multi)media franchise. Similar to how people were discussing the Frozen (franchise) barely after the first film was released, due to all the future plans. --Coin945 (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, that's just the wording of one particular source. A short search shows it happening over and over again:
I mean, that's the examples I've come up with and I didn't even finish working through the "A" section of the list that is in alphabetical order... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm not arguing the actual definition of a franchise, I'm just saying the video game industry uses the term pretty loosely, and that's probably why it's currently at "list of franchises" and not "list of series". I don't really care which word we chose - the way that sources use the terms interchangeably means the scope wouldn't meaningfully change the scope of the article either way. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I am personally in favor of changing the general article title phrasing to "video game series". "Series" is more commonly used, and more specific to the concept that is conveyed, based on what everyone is describing above. I have done some search queries (shown to the right) to attempt to examine the usage of "series".
Engine Query
"video game series" "video game franchise"
Google ngram 2.148×10-8% 4.51×10-9%
WP:VG reliable sources search 1,150,000 results 396,000 results
Google search 635,000 results 771,000 results
One always has to take ngrams with a grain of salt, because we're moving into a multimedia society that's not primarily books, but the difference in usage is impressive. Regarding the Google search results (which the WP:VG search is part of), the counts are notorious for being estimates, and can vary between users because of targeting, so they probably aren't that useful. (I think some sites offer more accurate Google search result estimates, but I haven't done any research on it lately.) Wikipedia's chosen phrasing probably also has an effect on the preferred phrasing in the result counts, so the Google searches are not an independent sample.
I am aware that my methodology is a rough heuristic, and I welcome better methodology, but even with just the ngram results, I think "video game series" should be used instead of "video game franchise". E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 19:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The other searches are estimate numbers; VGRS real returns for me are often in the realm of "10^1" even though the number often returned is "10^5". --Izno (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
That's why I said "the counts are somewhat notorious for being estimates", but since you commented, I have revised my comment for more due weight. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 18:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Linking and "Video game franchise" vs. "Video game series"

Maplestrip has suggested "Video game franchise could be a disambiguation, linking to Media franchise, List of video game franchises, and sublists thereof (best-selling/longest-running/etc)." I'm inclined to agree with them, although I still think video game series is a more precise wording for the list titles, and by extension, the disambiguation (see above). What does everyone else think regarding both the disambiguation proposal, and the list titles? (@Lee Vilenski, Coin945, and Sergecross73:) E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Maple's idea. Still indifferent on the name, as both franchise and series seem to be used pretty widely in the industry. I'd be inclined to treat it more like WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN and keep it at franchise if they're both perfectly acceptable. If we can't come to an agreement here, someone could always set up a WP:RM on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I hold by what I said above: that "video game franchise" and "media franchise" mean essentially the same thing, only that "video game franchise" provides the extra information that the franchise began with video games. Then "video games series" would discuss those sub-sections of media franchises that only include the video game portion. As I said above, the whole idea of a "franchise" is that the producers of one medium (e.g. video games) have to franchise/license off the property to other producers to create content in other mediums. So a "video game franchise" should literally be a "video game series" that has been franchised. Regardless of how the literature likes to conflate these two terms, I think this is a reasonable distinction that will certainly help streamline the naming here at Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • See my counter examples above though. We're on Wikipedia. We need to stick to what sources say. Sources do not use that sort of definition for franchise. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have very little comment on the franchise vs series discussion. I think "franchise" sounds better and may be more widely appropriate because of how much franchising happens with video games compared to other media. The disambiguation page I still think is a good idea, anyway. ~Mable (chat) 09:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (3 March to 9 March)

Latest comment: 6 years ago53 comments18 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

3 March

4 March

5 March

6 March

7 March

8 March

9 March

Salavat (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Silent Cartographer

  • Are we really at the point where a single Kotaku piece alone justifies a standalone article, nevertheless with statements like, "It has received critical praise and recognition for its iconic visuals and level design, being called groundbreaking and the best level in the Halo series." Coat racks for trivia... Was the last discussion somehow unclear? czar 15:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If you are at the point where you are trying to "justify" articles with something other than notability, like whether it fits your idea of what is a "good" article, then you are misinterpreting the rules of Wikipedia. If the subject was non-notable, then yes, it would not qualify for an article. A single article alone would also not fulfill GNG. However, I think something being fully detailed and explained in a large article and receiving many smaller mentions elsewhere, is grounds for notability. See also WP:OBSCURE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I would only expect that a single work would be sufficient to justify a topic passing the GNG only if that work was a book-sized volume dedicated to the topic, not a single opinion piece. We look for multiple sources for good reason, to prevent cases of one opinion piece justifying a full article. --Masem (t) 16:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with Masem and with Czar here. That said, list of locations in Halo (list of levels? locations is probably fine) could probably take all of the articles recently created as well as a pointer to the article on the Halo (or even possibly subsume that as well, since the Halo doesn't have a lot of obvious reception in its current article). --Izno (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Same argument applies as the various character articles I did... not all locations in Halo are notable, in fact a very small fraction of them are. Silent Cartographer is widely considered the best Halo level, and The Library the worst. Blood Gulch is its most famous multiplayer map. Those are superlatives and the rest are generally not mentioned that much.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Lists need not be inclusive of everything related to the list title. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Well, it's pretty much inevitable that someone would try to add the rest of the levels/maps. There's pretty much no harm in splitting it up over a list article, but there is the high probability that a list article will become a crufty mess that will eventually be deleted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. Same reasoning as the cruft Sonic characters. Same reasoning as I made at Talk:Luke_fon_Fabre#Notability. - hahnchen 19:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Only other source I can find that hasn't been used is an article about how the level was the "holy grail of speedrunning [Halo]". [1]. Nomader (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree this doesn't meet the GNG and is better covered in the parent article. If you ask me, saying something is notable because it's considered the best is like saying Mnemoth is notable because he was the first villain in Hellblazer. JOEBRO64 20:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Wait, Mnemoth has an article? JOEBRO64 20:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Except the article doesn't "say" it's notable because it's considered the best, it's notable because it has many reliable sources saying that it is the best, which the article transcribes verbatim.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

it's notable because it has many reliable sources saying that it is the best, which the article transcribes verbatim

... what? As quoted in my original post, the lede claims without evidence that the article has been called the best level in the Halo series, which (1) is puffery when it refers to a claim without critical consensus, and (2) isn't borne out in the sourcing. What sources are cited as calling it "the best"? There's the Kotaku piece already under discussion (which disclaims that point about "the best" in its own article) and what, the Entertainment Weekly listicle that says nothing of the sort?
I have no idea where you are pulling your ideas of encyclopedic notability, but coverage in sources does not guarantee standalone articles. If you have sources that assert the noteworthiness of specific Halo levels, cover them in their dedicated game articles (not even a separate "Halo levels" article) until a split is warranted by a preponderance of sourcing and therefore length. Take The Library (Halo), which is 550 words of (1) basic description, and (2) repetition of the same point: the level was designed poorly and wasn't liked. To drag that point out over two cluttered paragraphs gives heat but no light. The sensible way to handle that sentiment: stack the simplified, paraphrased claim with multiple refs in the Reception or Legacy section of the game's article: "Reviewers found its Library level to be tedious, confusing, and detrimental to the game's pacing.[1][2][3]" And if warranted, perhaps a sentence or two of clarifying criticism, but only if needed. We don't just rip every mention of a concept from game review articles and call it an independently notable concept. We are a general encyclopedia, writing for a general audience about general concepts. czar 21:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
My views on these small, independent level/character articles made by Zxcvbnm should be known already, but these sorts of articles should not be done. Place any of the actual relevant information (dev and reception) in the game's main article instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Cortana (Halo) is a Featured Article. What exactly is the difference between it and the articles I created? The Reception section is still primarily just critics saying she is "sexy", with some light commentary about her appearances in various games. There is also no information about any works or characters that she inspired, or outside influence that Cortana made that would "qualify" her for an article, it's entirely focused on her development for the game itself and reaction by game critics. By your standards it should be deleted, not a Featured Article, because it's "puffery". Or do enlighten me about how that article is different and doesn't fall into your criteria.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned that people are suggesting to place critical reception of specific levels in the main article of the video game. I personally think it is very easy to run into undue weight issues when you try to do that. I don't believe these articles are of the level of significance as Cortana (who's "promotion" section and impact on the Windows software makes it more notable), but at least the articles Zxcvbnm is creating have the decency to be completely sourced using realiable independent sources (unlike Cortana's practically unsourced "in video games" section). Moreover, I find it very odd that people are suggesting that Kotaku is the only website to have praised "The Silent Cartographer". Hardcore Gamer, for example, calls it "one of the most iconic missions in the entire series." The lead section, claiming the level "has received critical praise and recognition," doesn't seem out of place at all (though perhaps a bit inflated). Whether these sources are enough, I don't know. I think all of these articles are a bit on the edge, but they don't seem nearly as unnotable as some of you make them out to be. ~Mable (chat) 08:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot of fluff in the article though. It'd be pretty easy to just drop a basic sentence of "Kotaku singled out (level) as a standout location, citing the (atmosphere/gameplay/notalgia etc)" and get the same general sentiment across to the reader just fine, without any UNDUE issues. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly what I did for Psychonauts to highlight the limited commentary on three of its levels (Milkman Conspiracy, Lungfish, and the Meat Circus); all in the main game's reception, a sentence or two for each. --Masem (t) 14:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I've done the same thing for non-notable characters in reception sections too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yet another unnecessary spinout, mostly consisting of clipping out every passing mention found in reception sections. I really don't think these articles would pass Wikipedia-wide AFD/Merge discussions if someone actually set up something formal. I imagine it'd go the same as the elimination of those non-notable Sonic character spinouts that were concocted it much of the same manner. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: @Zxcvbnm: @Masem: @Izno: @Hahnchen: @Nomader: @TheJoebro64: @Dissident93: @Maplestrip: As someone uninvolved in this discussion, my reading of the consensus here is that the individual level articles in question here are not independently notable. There's a clear gap in coverage between these articles and something like Dust II or No Russian compared to All Ghillied Up. Am I misreading something here? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you're right. ZXCVBNM is creating these character and level articles when the vast majority of them could be added to their respective main articles with no missing information. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. I think levels in gaming should only be considered notable if they have some sort of real-world impact (like World 1-1 or Green Hill Zone). JOEBRO64 19:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! I disagree with Joe above in that it's not necessarily limited to real-world impact. I don't think Dust II makes any claims of that nature-- but I think if there are enough reliable sources that are specifically covering a level in an in-depth fashion, it can be taken out and given its own article. In this case though, I think they should be redirected back. Nomader (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer to see these articles, either individually or in small groupings, be nominated for deletion. I think they are all on the edge, and some are notable while others may not be. (Also, Dust II probably has more real-world impact than any other level with an article because esports) ~Mable (chat) 20:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Saying Esports confers additional notability on an article is quite frankly ridiculous, the article already had to have real world impact to be notable enough to be created. Single player games have obvious real world impact; millions of people played said game/level and critics commented on levels and characters due to their notoriety. I guess you should also delete every character from a movie, TV show or comic, unless someone cosplayed as that character and gave it "real world impact". You have the completely wrong idea about what makes an article notable/acceptable. That said, I would much prefer an AfD to a unilateral redirect claiming "consensus" as there has not been a large group of outside editors involved beyond the ones who regularly patrol for these kinds of articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Check your tone. This is exactly how merge discussion go: public forum, wide participation, wider than even any AfD would have. And this discussion is as clear as consensus gets: the opposite of "unilateral". (Also AfD isn't where merge discussions are handled. Noms are required to first find alternatives to deletion and then are speedily kept if the nom proposes an action besides outright deletion.) czar 04:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I would say that no real merger has taken place, as articles like Halo: Combat Evolved and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare have not been edited in any way when the subarticles were redirected. It's a black-and-redirect. That's still considered an alternative for deletion, but is a bit more deletion-esque(?), I think? Personally, I still believe that many of these articles should have been discussed individually, and I hope there will be an opportunity for that in the future when more sources pop up and these articles are eventually recreated. ~Mable (chat) 18:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that these need to start being merged or sent to AFD. They're short spinouts consisting of mundane, in-universe descriptions of things like how they look, and receptions consisting of a few passing mentions ripped out of game reviews. The respective parent articles are short under-developed themselves. There's a place for some of the content being written here, but it's in the game articles, not these flimsy barely-larger-than-stub spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking over the Halo articles added particularly, I don't think there's much of a reason to add the content into the parent articles, which I think drives home how ancillary and unnecessary the articles are. The reception of Blood Gulch or The Library are simply not details that are important compared to the reception of these games as a whole. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we merge Blood Gulch too? It was created around the same time as the others but went unnoticed. JOEBRO64 19:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I like the idea of this content being deleted (while officially "merged", others have stated above that there isn't much content worth merging so it's essentially being deleted). I appreciate that @Zxcvbnm: put a considerable amount of work into these articles and I would hate for it to become in vain. While I agree that the individual level articles do not seem to justify their notability (suffering from failing the Wikipedia:Pokémon test, they might be better served in a new type of level-themed spin-off article, in this case entitled: Levels in Halo: Combat Evolved or Halo: Combat Evolved levels. The total sum of level content would be notable, and offer an opportunity to talk in much more depth than the lead article can allow. Seems like a fair solution.--Coin945 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The easiest way to not work in vain is to work in summary style. Everything belongs somewhere, but rarely as its own article wading in its own minutiae. Before starting a "levels of Halo: CE" article, consider whether those levels warrant individual detail in the parent article. czar 21:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a number of the parent articles for the games themselves aren't all that long and could easily have this contented added there instead. It doesn't need to be deleted whole-sale, just reworked and placed in existing articles. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I will always disagree with the idea that a subtopic has to deserve a section within the main article before it could get its own article. I think that very often, a topic may not deserve a single line in its parent article, but could definitely have an article of its own. I don't think World 1-1 needs its own section in Super Mario Bros. and I don't think Green Hill Zone needs a section in Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game). Levels can be independently notable from their video game, in pretty much the same way that pannenkoek2012 is notable independently from Super Mario 64. In fact, I think going in-depth about individual levels or characters in a video game article is a bad idea and this reminds me of fanwikis. ~Mable (chat) 18:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm compelled to agree with Maplestrip here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No one suggested that each summary style split needs its own section. The point is that the importance of the subarticle should be made within its parent, even if just mid-paragraph. If we can't assert what is generally important about The Silent Cartographer and The Library in their parent game article, then what's the point of calling the split independently notable, especially just so that the article can expound on every mention the level has ever had? Also the examples under discussion aren't even close to on par with the ones Maple mentioned, and the latter are discussed in their parent articles (the Green Hill Zone could be better integrated). pannenkoek2012 is a little different. His content is based on SM64 but isn't some kind of part of SM64. Not sure what you're up against here. czar 14:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Season Pass

  • Season Pass should be moved to Season pass (or something like Season pass (video gaming)), right?--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It's referred to by game journalists as "season pass" but by game companies as "Season Pass", which I'd say is the better version because it's more of a term used to apply to an indeterminate amount of time rather than an actual season. If people think it should be moved to Season pass then I'd think there would be no problem with putting it in the main namespace.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Just like Early access is at non-cased despite the best known version being Steam's Early Access, it should be non-cased "Season pass" even though vendors want to make it a proper noun. --Masem (t) 17:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Decapsing it, I think, without a disambiguating term, would pretty much be opposed given that season pass outside of video games almost always refers to sports season tickets (as the disambig page makes evident). --Izno (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
          • While the capitalization would provide a sufficiently different title, I still think that's not the right approach for the VG term since it's reasonably generic. We'd have to do "season pass (video gaming)". --Masem (t) 18:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Per WP:NATURAL, Season Pass is much preferable to Season pass (video gaming), so I guess my original thinking was correct then. I don't think it should be moved at all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm inclined to think that season pass (video gaming) would be preferred since the topic is about the generic concept rather than any one company's Proper Noun implementation of it. There might be an alternative even to either of those two options, however. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
                • Also agree to this. Or maybe season pass (gaming) due to other similar gaming disambiguation pages omitting the "video" part. (health (gaming), magic (gaming), etc)~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • Yep, season pass usually refers to sports tickets, museums, and other places. Capitalizing the 'P' in "pass" is not enough to disambiguate that we're talking about games. It's not even a proper noun so why is it capitalized. TarkusABtalk 11:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
                    • Season pass is currently a WP:TWODABS, I'd rather say that we should move Season Pass to Season pass and apply a hatnote ("season pass" is just mentioned once in the season ticket article). Lordtobi (✉) 11:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • The "(gaming)" disambiguation is only good when the concept applies outside of video games, so that's why health and magic are where they are at (they are standard tabletop RPG tropes). Season pass in the sense for VGs is only really a video game concept so "(gaming)" is too generic. --Masem (t) 13:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Why isn't this just covered in context at Downloadable content? The SP article requires knowledge of DLC in order to make any sense. This entire article is a subset of DLC marketing. I don't see the use in splitting it. czar 11:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The main article on downloadable content simply covers too much ground for "season passes" to be adequately covered without it being WP:UNDUE. With season passes raking in many millions of dollars and being a primary business model of the AAA industry for many years I don't see the need to downplay/merge it into a wider article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Every source mentioned in the article discusses the concept of "season pass" as a facet of "DLC". The cited commentary calls it a type of predatory DLC practice. It's inextricable from DLC. Cover it in that article first and only worry about the split when warranted by some preponderance of sources. Everything that needs to be said in this current article fits within the scope of the DLC article. czar 22:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (March 18, 2018 to March 24, 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago27 comments15 people in discussion

Presenting: The triumphant continuation of the New Articles of the Week post, or: One Further Step in the Domination of Mankind by Machines. Previously handled by Salavat, who also maintained the New article announcements page it was based on, they retired from that tedious job after the post last week. No one has stepped forward to take on that role of manually cataloging the changes, nor have I; I am willing, however, to write a script that scrapes 7 days' worth of bot-produced changes (at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality log, by WP 1.0 bot), tag whatever authors I could grab from User:AlexNewArtBot/VideogamesSearchResult (by InceptionBot), and generate the result. So here we are!

There are several changes, some of which can be adjusted if people care:

  • Technically, instead of a list of new articles, this is a list of newly-tagged articles; as such, some of them are quite old but only recently given a talk page template.
  • Deletions and redirects are combined into one "the talk page template was removed/changed to Redirect and/or the page was completely deleted", i.e. it's "pages that are no longer in the project's scope for some reason or another". The downside is that it's including a bunch of articles that really just got renamed, or page splits, which a human would be likely to spot. Will see what I can do about that in the future.
  • Names are missing; sometimes it's because the actual page creation was a while ago, but I'm also dependent on the bot-derived data, and I don't know how accurate it is yet.
  • Not a change, but I can include images if people want? I'm not now, to stay consistent with the old version
  • Salavat kept the NAA page updated manually; I'm not going to, as I don't think this automated output should go onto a page that has to-date been manual additions.

Please let me know if there's anything you want fixed or anything added! This script is a local python script with no hooks into the wikipedia backend, which makes some things hard, but programming is also my day job, which makes changes not so hard. And unlike doing this manually, running this thing takes 5 seconds, not hours every week, so that's a lot of un-spent time that can be put into making the script better. Alternately, if you were silently glad that these postings were going to stop and annoyed that they aren't... you can let me know that too! --PresN 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

March 18, 2018

March 19, 2018

March 20, 2018

March 21, 2018

March 22, 2018

March 23, 2018

March 24, 2018

  • Really, thank you so much for picking this up and continuing this. I find it very interesting and helpful to see theses lists, for both good and bad creation/redirect/deletion actions made. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Nicely done. Would be nice if it could exclude pages that were only moved (not created) but might be beyond your scope czar 04:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is awesome thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is terrific! Also props to Salavat for doing this work for so long. Question to @PresN: though-- would it be possible to have this script update the New article announcements page as well? I love to check it regularly and look through it. Nomader (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Echoing others, thanks for both of your efforts. Also agree with Nomader. Why manually update a page if we can automate it? -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's certainly possible- the script isn't actually posting to wikipedia, just generating wikicode output, but I can paste the result to there as well as this talk page if people want. --PresN 15:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Coin945 articles

I feel these stubs with no growth potential are hurting the project more than improving it. Can we even find just one reliable English sources discussing some of these games? How about an article discussing the history of Czech adventure games and place all the info there. TarkusABtalk 22:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually think there was a discussion about this over the summer, if I remember correctly. JOEBRO64 23:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's a recurring issue, for years now. He stops when enough people complain, and starts up again when enough people stop paying attention. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I just want him to stop making Requests on the Request board. He's making the backlog impossible to work on. And he just makes the article ideas he submits. It's counterproductive. GamerPro64 00:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • People complain when he mass-adds requests. People complain when he mass-creates referenced stubs. People complain when he mass-AfDs abandoned unsourced one-liners. Why do people complain when other editors donate a large amount of their time to accomplish a massive body of work? I for one am thankful for the huge amount of content work that Coin945 produces and the invaluable hours he spends contributing to video game articles. He's one of our MVPs. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm going to be on team Coin here- these are a far cry from the copy-paste from metacritic jobs that he originally got in hot water over, these are legit sourced stub/starts on an overlooked part of video game history (Central/East European games). They're pretty amazing to see, video game coverage on Wikipedia and off is really US/Britain-centric, and it's cool to see bits of things that never get mentioned otherwise but must have influenced later developers from those regions the same way their western compatriots influenced US/British designers. Having English-language sources is not and has never been a requirement. --PresN 02:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, I do value Coin's contributions. I just think there are better ways to capture the information than stubs for individual games. How about a page about Polish adventure games, or was there one developer that made many of the games? Maybe about condense the information on the developer's page. Something like that, not stubs that will be orphaned and forgotten. TarkusABtalk 02:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally think that's a good idea, much like CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series, which made a Good Article out of three individuals that probably wouldn't make it on their own. That being said, I haven't reviewed many of Coin945's articles but any consideration of that would probably need to be case-by-case. I do like that we are diversifying our knowledge of video games worldwide here, not solely from one or two regions, and as long as it's sourced, they're good facts to be presented on Wikipedia. The question, then, is simply how best to present them. Red Phoenix talk 02:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, he does do some good work. But he inevitably gets going so fast with article creation that the quality drastically drops off. He seemed content with this creation, which sat there for a week until I prodded him about it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Two lines and a few refs? Good enough for me (WP:PUTEFFORT). Pirates of Black Cove has remained a substub for almost five years now and that's also just fine. As long as it's neither misleading nor unreferenced, a substub is literally better than a redlink for readers. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I do value his contributions, but sometimes I think the stubs he makes are probably not going to be expanded anytime soon. When I create stubs (such as Dark Night: A True Batman Story), I only create it when I know that it's notable and me or someone else will be able to expand it. JOEBRO64 10:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's the thing though, his opening edit to the article was Can't read French so this is the best I can do for now. The article consisted of a few sentences with no references next to them, and a few French websites plastered to the bottom of the page. If he can't read any of the "sources" he used to write the article, that means all the article was, was his unsourced commentary on the game. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It certainly took a bit of time and pushing for this article to get to the quality it is at now. The articles on the Czech games Coin created last week went to this quality without any extra pushing. Could it be Coin has "learned the lesson", so to speak? ~Mable (chat) 14:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, that sort of leads us back to my original statement - he tends to "learn his lesson" when people are watching and complaining, and then slink back when they're not, in my observations over the years. Whether people find it to be a valid complaint about him or not, that tends to be the "Coin Cycle". Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I actually ended up creating Florence because he pinged me to look at the requests section on my talk ([2]). Granted, I ended up creating a request that he didn't add, but I'm actually considering digging into a few of the adventure games he threw up there. I don't think every article needs to be GA quality if the sources aren't there for it, and we should definitely encourage robust article creation if possible. I remember his awful articles and most of these seem to pass inspection (from the limited sample that I've looked at). Nomader (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Czech video games Coin is creating articles for seem to be unrelated to eachother, so merging them would be a mistake. They have little to do with one another besides country and genre. The sources used are reviews of individual games. Moreover, I see plenty of growth potential here, though we'll likely need 1990s Czech gaming magazines for them. I personally dislike short stubs, but as far as stubs go, these look fine. Lastly, I believe we should commend any kind of expansion of non-English-language or Japanese video games. ~Mable (chat) 07:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a little bit confused as to why we are outing a particular user. But, as we are speaking about him, I often come over his articles via WP:NPP, and whilst they are almost always a one or two line stub, they are always tagged as such, and categorized. Wikipedia holds no issues with notable topics being portrayed as short stubs, as any user can edit the article into something more. I did see an arguement before that users would want to create an article from scratch, rather than improve a stub; but most of these articles are ones that wouldn't necessarily be made if not for Coin (Specifically the Polish ones). I personally think they're doing a good job. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Serge already explained why:

he tends to "learn his lesson" when people are watching and complaining, and then slink back when they're not, in my observations over the years. Whether people find it to be a valid complaint about him or not, that tends to be the "Coin Cycle".

Whether the stub is a lazy one-liner is neither here nor there, but the issue is the sourcing. Stub all day if you want, but if you're not at least adequately sourcing that stub to assert its notability, what real work are you doing at all? I don't have an issue with the above article creations I spot-checked, but the issues are the ones that aren't listed—as Serge said, when other editors need to make a point of the mess created for Coin to do anything about it.[3][4][5][6] It should frankly concern everyone that an editor with years of experience continues to sporadically cite patently unreliable sources after having received multiple interventions on that topic. Most Wikipedians do not mind cleaning up the works of new editors who are learning the nomenclature and attempting to be better community members, but after multiple years, it's reasonable to call out smokescreen "work" that often shirks responsibility for making the stub intelligible and dumps a mess of text and unreliable sources for someone else to sort. And then the irony of elsewhere on this page proposing an initiative to have other WPVG collaborate to clean-up random, low-quality articles while pumping out those articles yourself almost daily? How does any of this bring nobility to shovelware or our work? czar 15:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If Coin945 creates articles that they in good faith believe to pass GNG, then I see no issue having them as stubs, as per WP:NODEADLINE. Eventually, someone will get around to expanding them. I don't think any notable games should be merged on the basis of developer country, region, or whatever, as notability is individual. I know for a fact that non-English magazines have tons of coverage on smaller and non-English games, but it's all hidden in unsearchable non-English incomplete unvetted magazine archives. I've myself created stubs for clearly notable games, like Silence: The Whispered World 2, because no one else has. But, for example, I don't have time to write a full proper article, nor do I believe anyone should be forced to if GNG is met and nothing in the article breaks any policies or guidelines. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

File:GearheadsToyStats.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I was wondering if I can get away with using this image in Gearheads (video game)? The article discusses toy statistics in the development section, but would assuming that this is the screen that was used to do that be original research? I'm not sure if it's necessary for understanding, but there are specifications that are not documented in the game's manual. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think original research comes into it in this case, since the game itself is the source in use. We don't need a separate source in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild substantiating that Link is in fact using the paraglider in the screenshot. I'm no expert on usage of images in articles but looking it over I think you're good.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: By original research, I meant is that screen the same as what the developers used and discussed in the article? The game cannot confirm that, and without access to the early prototypes, it's impossible to know. Also, the game design book says that in an early prototype, changes took effect immediately and could be seen even during a game. But when I use that screen to change stuff, a new game is started. This could simply be a revision difference but there's no way to know. Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I had read over the relevant sections of both Gearheads (video game) and the article the image currently appears in and it was unclear to me whether or not the feature is in the final game (though I don't know why as looking at it again now it does seem quite clear), so I assumed that it was.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The feature is in the game, but is hidden and cannot be accessed by normal means. It seems to be a debug screen. Adam9007 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch generation

Latest comment: 6 years ago33 comments20 people in discussion

There has been a slow boil discussion over the generation of the Switch at Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles for the past year. In 2018, it began to be suggested that enough sourcing existed, at least in so far as referring to the Switch as competing against established 8th generation consoles, to mark it as such. I'm not trying to tackle the looming issue of console generations and the cytogenesis involved in their layout, but the categorization of the Switch regularly comes up and is an obvious hole in how we report things. If someone wants to discuss the generation system as a whole, let's do that separately. The focus then is simply this: After a year on the market, is there enough to say the Switch is a part of the 8th generation (As it currently is defined)? Please review (As much as you can stomach) the discussions at the Eighth generation talk page. -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support 8th Gen Sourcing does not appear to be leaning towards grouping the 8th generation hardware refreshes from MS and Sony as an 8.5 generation or 9th generation. Sourcing does talk about Switch in the same context as the existing 8th gen consoles, however. Primary source wise, Nintendo voices it as "current generation" with Xbox and PS4 when announcing sales, and NPD groups them all together as "current generation" for sales statistics as well. -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th Gen It was good that we waited, because it wasn't clear at all, but a year on it certainly seems that sources are aligning that the Switch (and the Xbox One X, and the PS4 Pro) are all still part of the "current" or "8th" generation, rather than representing a new generation. If that means that Nintendo released 2 consoles this generation, then that's what it means. I find it very plausible that we will never have a 9th generation as a distinct concept, to be honest, but that's way premature. (as always, a perennial reminder that we all mostly agree that we should really find a better way of organizing our console articles than by generation, that we however haven't agreed on a new way to do it, and frankly no one is going to spend hundreds of hours rewriting so many massive swathes of articles even if we did agree.) --PresN 20:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th Gen, though recommend we wait till after E3 (June). I have heard no rumblings of new consoles, but it would be good just to make sure they don't surprise us. But the logic to put the Switch as 8th is pretty much sound otherwise. --Masem (t) 21:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • So both WiiU and Switch in 8th gen? Or WiiU being 7.5 (like Xbox One X, PS4 Pro are 8.5)? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • There's been one or two sources that have suggested WiiU was more 7th than 8th, but I wouldn't call that a majority view. There's been a couple other times where a vendor had two releases in one generation in the past. They'd both just be 8th. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Seconded. Additionally, the prospect of these "half generations" primarily exist on the musings of message boards and social media. Most reliable sources and analysts don't recognize them as such a thing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support tackling the looming issue of console generations and their cytogenesis. :), ferret. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I've seen people say things like this since at least 2010, without making any headway. Don't get me wrong, feel free to start and mediate such a massive debate. But I wouldn't let that hold up giving a stance on the Switch right now. Much like I wouldn't let the creation teleportation devices affect the decision making process for buying my next car... Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th gen - per Ferret and PresN's rationales above, which is more or less what I've observed over the last year or two in industry reliable sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th gen per others. JOEBRO64 22:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th gen as well per others. Nomader (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th gen for now, at least. If new consoles come to light, we can always change it later, but there's no signs of a "new generation" yet. Red Phoenix talk 01:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th gen - Is there even valid support for it being 9th gen? Besides of course, the few people on the talk page who consider it one because it didn't release in the same general timeframe as other 8th gen consoles. I'm surprised this debate has even gone on this long. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th Gen - TarkusABtalk 10:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th Gen - I know it's already been decided, but I'll throw my hat in the ring, too. The NPD considers it "current-gen" along with the PS4 & XBO, and they're a reliable enough source for me considering they're essentially the sales tracker for the U.S. It's serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO. There's precedent for two consoles from one company existing in the same generation (the Atari 2600 & 5200), so there's no reason to automatically assume it's a Gen 9 system simply because it follows the Switch. Nintendo does not claim it is "next-gen." Conclusion: There's simply no reason to think that the Switch has kickstarted a new generation, or that it's anything other than a Gen 8 console. JGoodman (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to call this a pretty clear snow and start the ball. -- ferret (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This is awesome that there is a consensus now :) I would have voted support 8th gen anyway but I haven't been feeling well the past few days. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support 8th Gen - the Switch is competing with the Ps4 and Xbone just the same as the Wii U was before it; so to me, the Switch is just the replacement console for the generation, Nintendo had two in the 8th. Osh33m (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but classifying the Switch as 8th gen is stupid. It's clearly a generation after Wii U. So if Sony or Microsoft releases their next console in two years, and Nintendo keeps the Switch going well after that, with possibly only iterating a la PS4 Pro, what then? Are you all gonna backpedal and re-classify Switch as 9th gen console? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.214.254 (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If sources say it is a ninth gen console, then sure. No problem changing that around. We don't have a crystal ball though. Personally, I hope that the 8th generation will be the metaphorical "last generation" and that this way of structuring the history of video game consoles will break down. But we just don't know. We'll see when we get there. For now, it seems we're still in "gen 8", at least. ~Mable (chat) 07:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Then maybe you guys should use "Current Generation" in place of 8th Generation now. At least that way, all consoles released after the Wii/PS3/Xbox360 generation will be lumped in one category until at least you people decide when 9th Generation "really" starts. If all of you are going to wait for sources, then don't hold your breath. Media and NPD will always use the term "current generation" for all major consoles currently active.
Just because a new console is released doesn't necessarily mark the start of a "new generation" we must go by what reliable sources and the console manufactures say and if the reliable sources change where Switch falls then it will be updated here. If you look back Atari released two consoles during the second and third generations while Sega released two consoles during the third generation. In regards to the NPD Group, they do make generational distinctions when there is both current hardware and previous generation hardware on the market being sold. All you have to do is look at reports during the transition from sixth to seventh generation and then from seventh to eighth generation. For example when NPD would report on hardware sales in 2007 the Wii/Xbox 360/PS3 were labeled as "current generation" hardware at the time while the PS2 was labeled in reports as "last-generation" hardware. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
And afaik, there's not much of a significant improvement over the Wii U either. Maybe the Tegra X1 is a tad more capable, but that doesn't put it on a later generation, and neither is the pro versions of the PS4 and Xbox One. The 3DO and most especially the Jaguar (which is little more than a Genesis on steroids by way of the Moto 68K along with a convoluted architecture) are significantly weaker than their later rivals, but are considered fifth-gen. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Group as 8th generation. Sources are scarce to say the least. There are not enough sources to definitively call it 9th (or 8.5th or whatever) generation, that much seems clear. But there are also seem not that many sources explicitly calling it 8th generation. It seems to fall under "current generation". Given that no sources call it anything else, then it pretty much defaults to 8th generation (as much as I dislike categorizing things by default). Up until such time, if ever, that sources begin talking about 9th generation, we should not use it for any console. Other arguments, like timing of release or hardware specs all fall short of WP:OR. Per ferret, Masem and Dissident93. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 8th Gen I've been very vocal in the past that the "wait and see" approach is fundamentally flawed. When readers see that the Switch isn't listed under any generation, their impression is almost never going to be "I guess the editors don't have enough sources and are still deciding what to do." They're just going to view it as an explicit decision that the Switch is not an 8th generation console. You can't "wait and see," you're always making a decision. In my view, there aren't a ton of sources, but the overwhelming majority of them support 8th gen. And even if there weren't any sources at all, we should default to the current gen, which is still the 8th. That's the decision we must make. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is half of your comment complaining about waiting when this is a discussion about taking action, with a clear consensus in favor of taking action, on something we've already taken action on like a week ago? Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Because I don't check this website every single day, and because I think it's important people are made aware of the egregious mistakes that were made for a full year. You should be embarrassed that it took so long to do the obviously right thing. And I'm still not convinced you're open minded enough to ever understand exactly why "wait and see" is objectively impossible in a situation where the decision MUST be one of two options, and never neither. In short: I'm not convinced you won't make the exact same mistake over and over again. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:DEADLINE. We do not have to be "current" particularly if it is not clear if external sources have determined something. We made no mistake, and considering it as such is assuming bad faith. --Masem (t) 18:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No mistake was made in this last year. Its bizarre you supposedly spend so much time on the website without understanding the basic fundamentals like like WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS, which is why no action could be taken right away. Whine all you like, neither you nor anyone else was able to provide sources to persuade people into a consensus on this. (Until Ferret started this discussion 2 weeks ago at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 9th Gen - The Switch is a lot like the Dreamcast. The Dreamcast was released after the Saturn was discontinued. When the Dreamcast was released, the only home consoles on the market were the Dreamcast, the N64, and the PS1. Also, when it was released in Japan, the SNES was still on the market. Despite the N64 and PS1 being 5th gen consoles, the Dreamcast is still a 6th gen console. The same thing goes with the Switch, with the Wii U being like the Saturn and the PS4 and Xbox One being like the N64 and PS1. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    That's a fine personal opinion, but is there any sourcing to back it up? Wikipedia is based around what sources say, not necessarily what we the editors believe. What sourcing exists suggests it's being treated as just another 8th gen console. -- ferret (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    The thing with the Dreamcast was it was promoted as a "next-generation" system by sources. When Switch launched the media was vague and didn't place it anywhere. The sources that have been found places Switch in the same generation as PS4 and Xbox One. That's why Dreamcast is in the 6th generation and not 5th generation. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    And again, the only support from people who say its 9th gen seems to be because it released after most other 8th gen consoles. Where are the sources that back this up? Since everybody is giving their personal opinion anyway, to me next gen would be when the system plays games that aren't commonly ported over from its competitors. For example, the PS3 wasn't getting ports from the original Xbox, but rather the Xbox 360, grouping them in the same generation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding the use of an image in Sonic X-treme

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I just wanted to ask for a second opinion on the screenshot used in the development section of Sonic X-treme's article for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic X-treme/archive1. The image reviewer thinks we need a second opinion as to whether the rationale for the image is valid. I'm currently watching the FAC for the nominator (who is on vacation), so I'm just putting in this request. JOEBRO64 23:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Edge UK issue 214

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all

I give it a try. Does anybody have Edge UK magazine issue 214 ? I'm looking for the pages about TrackMania, called "The making of TrackMania", starting p.110

I'm trying to developp the articles from the first two games in the serie at Wikipédia in french. I've already compiled a lot of informations on these first two games, although the work is in progress.

If I could just point it out, my two cents is, the TrackMania serie here at Wikipedia in English should be better than a simple article on the serie.

In short, if any one has this magazine I am interested in ! --Archimëa (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wayback Machine has you covered. --Masem (t) 15:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Great ! I'm very gratefull for this help. --Archimëa (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Atari Lynx cat's

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

We have Category:Atari Lynx games and it will be limited as there were not many games made, so do we really need Category:Atari Lynx-only games also? Govvy (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's currently set up as a Non-diffusing subcategory; which seems a little weird to me that a game like Kung Food would appear in both categories. I think it should probably be made the same as other categories, so only one is shown. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It just going to copy games already in the above cat so I really don't get it. Govvy (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't there some recent support for deleting all these "platform-only" categories? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I have no idea on a previous discussion about deleting platform-only cat's, but I am for deleting them, is it okay to get rid of the Lynx-only cat? Govvy (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think they should all be deleted at once, but I do support this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose to deleting the single-platform categories. They are massively useful for locating games released on a single platform, and Wikipedia offers no other method of doing so. We would be actively making this encyclopedia worse without them. I have personally been using them extensively while scouring through the database and adding missing categories to thousands of game articles, so for the love of god, don't delete these! And if there's any danger of them actually being removed, someone please preserve the information somewhere! It's way too valuable to dispose of. And even aside from the practical considerations, which are massive, exclusivity is demonstrably and factually a notable feature of games, very often noted in media coverage, to the point that there are single-platform media outlets for just about every platform imaginable. In short, I think keeping the single-platform categories is not only advisable, but essential for effective maintenance of this project. Phediuk (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTCATALOG. "No other place does it" and "it needs to be preserved somewhere" are not really valid arguments. We as a community already voted to get rid of exclusivity columns in game lists for similar reasons. If it matters so much, then it can just be forked into another wiki somewhere. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The impact of removing these categories would go well beyond that of removing a column in a list; the categories actively improve navigation of the encyclopedia, and would be a crippling loss if removed. And since exclusivity is also a notable feature of games--so notable that platforms are virtually always one of, if not the first piece of information disclosed about a game in any coverage--so there is no reason on that front to remove them either. Yes, my argument that they improve the encycopedia from a practical standpoint is the most important reason for keeping them (for if we're removing useful features that exist nowhere else, then what are we even doing?), but it's not the only reason. Phediuk (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Phediuk: I really don't see how they add any separate value, most people will look up a game in a search engine, you don't always know if a game was on multiple platforms or a single platform, as long as the game is categoriesed to a system that should be fairly straight forward for the navigator who are using these features, cat's do tend to be an obsolete system next to how powerful the search engine is, so really, what's the point of cart-only , lynx-only , etc, this really is over-catarization. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
k, I'll wait a bit too see if we rustle-up the other cart-only cat's for Bundle Mania CfD!! Govvy (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but my reasons for voting to get rid of exclusivity columns in game lists don't apply to the platform-only categories. Whereas exclusivity is a term open to multiple interpretations, [platform]-only is specific and clean-cut. The maintenance is much more obvious, as well, since changes are handled in the article on the game itself, just like the listing of platforms in the lead and infobox. Also, I'm pretty sure WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't apply here. First of all, my understanding is WP:NOTCATALOG applies only to articles, not categories. Second, the category obviously does not fall under any of the 7 items listed. Third, if you're thinking of a more general policy about buyer's guides, this category doesn't fall under that since it doesn't allow any of the "company-exclusive" games mentioned in the discussion of exclusivity columns, or even games which were released on one home console and one handheld.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I was using the guideline in defense of him saying that "no other place does it" and "it needs to be preserved somewhere", not the category itself, which is more WP:OVERCAT if you want a more direct guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
My argument wasn't that "no other place does it", it's that the categories vastly improve navigability of platform-exclusive games, which there is no other way of doing on Wikipedia; hence, they're useful. Per WP:USEFUL, "There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." In my experience contributing to this project, these categories have been a godsend; I use them literally every day to aid in finding articles. They've been essential, and eliminating them would be a considerable setback. Phediuk (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. However if this ever reaches a consensus vote, I'm still supporting the removal of it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Latest Humble Bundle with several video game history/development books from MIT Press

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

[7]. These are all MIT Press published, so while I don't immediately recognize any of the authors, the publisher is not likely going to allow nonsense/grossly incorrect aspects through. --Masem (t) 19:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm considering picking this one up. --Izno (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to this! Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I bought it if anyone would like anything from em. Nomader (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Atari Lynx games

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I believe I have discussed this before, the second list Unreleased games , I tried to explain to User:KGRAMR that to be in the list the game needs to pass GNG Notability guidelines, I feel it needs to be stripped back due to these issues. Can I get some help here please, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:LISTN, that seems an excessive burden to meet for inclusion in a list; the completeness of a lot of lists would be impacted if each individual entry needed to meet GNG. A compelling argument could be made that an unreleased game wouldn't qualify for the selection critera for this list. If the section remains, it should have references to show that the game was in the works in some way, shape, or form, lest any item be subject to removal like any other unreferenced information. —Ost (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I can delete the unreleased games list and leave it just as it is already. KGRAMR (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: there's a triple crown for WP:VG

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hey y'all-- just a reminder that there's a WP:TRIPLECROWN award for WP:VG. The current folks who have it are listed here. In order to qualify, you have to have had one WP:VG DYK, GA, and Featured Content (FA, FL, FP, etc.). There's at least a few people around here who qualify who aren't on the list. To nominate yourself, go here. Nomader (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgot I was on there. Does anyone maintain the Triple Crown anymore? GamerPro64 17:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Freikorp has been maintaining it. Nomader (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I started processing all the nominations a few years ago when I noticed nobody was making a consistent effort to do so. Incidentally I nominated myself for the Video Game triple crown a couple months ago but since I'm the only one who seems to process nominations (and since I can't in all fairness process my own) I wasn't holding my breath for someone to review my nomination. If someone else could review mine I'd be very grateful. Freikorp (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Are WebCite links really necessary in video game articles?

Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments12 people in discussion

I have a problem. Lately I've been working on the Wolfenstein: The New Order article, and I've been replacing broken WebCite archive links with those from the Wayback Machine. Suddenly, however, Rhain has reverted my edit on many links, even though a few links archived are dead, and claimed that there was "Nothing wrong with previous links. WebCite is fine." But I tried telling him that Google Chrome says the WebCite links are broken, and all I get is the message "This site cannot be reached", as indicated in this link. But I feel worried. If the WebCite links are broken when Rhain claims they are not, then is WebCite truly necessary? I'm very confused. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The WebCite link seems to be fine for me. Do you have a weird setting on your end that might prevent you from viewing WebCite? I wasn't aware that WebCite links could "break". This sounds like it's worth getting to the bottom of, for accessibility reasons. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
WebCite links don't work for me either, actually. JOEBRO64 23:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok so it seems like there's definitely something going on here because the link is perfectly fine for me and I'm also on Chrome. Is everyone's browser updated? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The Chrome I use is the most recent version and WebCite doesn't work. Archive.is and Wayback Machine work wonders, WebCite sits still for five minutes before I get an error message. JOEBRO64 00:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Works for me in Chrome. This might be a good question to ask over at WP:VPT if there's any known issues why a Webcite link would not work. --Masem (t) 00:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Joebro and Angel, can you post screencaps of what the error looks like? Axem Titanium (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Here you go. JOEBRO64 00:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
In the future, please start a discussion before replacing every archived link in an article, to avoid potentially wasting your time. WebCite works perfectly fine for me, using the latest versions of Chrome and Edge. – Rhain ☔ 00:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Why would they? One archive site is just as good as another; it may have seemed to you as a pointless change (though obviously not to them) but that's not a reason to revert on sight, it's not like it made things worse. --PresN 01:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, Rhain. If you revert the edit, you revert all the links I've fixed to old links, most of which are redirects and some of which are dead. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Editing the links of 122 references on a good article is not a great idea without seeking consensus—those references have already been thoroughly checked while writing, and have undergone spot-checks in the GA review, so changing them can cause issues. Besides, if the only reason behind the change is "this website does not work for me", then starting a discussion can determine if the issue is widespread—if it is, edit away; if not, wait to see if a fix arises. Replacing all the links when the previous ones work fine is rather pointless. – Rhain ☔ 11:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
But Rhain ☔, you ALWAYS change all the new links back to old links that ALWAYS either redirect to new links or are dead links as shown here! If old dead links and WebCite are always the way you like, then I'm not doing the Wolfenstein: The New Order article anymore! Let all the old, dead links stay obsolete since 2014! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Angel, please do not petulantly remove other people's work to make a point. That is not how to build a free encyclopedia. If you have a conflict, the talk page is there for you. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing this is a DNS issue. The site loads fine for me as well, but I ran it through a few DNS check sites and the results were inconsistent. I'd suggest trying Google or Cloudflare public DNS or even just flush your DNS and see if that resolves the issue. Woodroar (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
    • That sounds right to me. It's clearly something on your end that's blocking it, not the website itself going down. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
      Maybe the IPs changed and Rhain's DNS server has not yet caught up with it? Regards SoWhy 09:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • From waht I remember of the WayBackMachine, sites that enabled norobots suddenly lost all their archives plus prevented future ones? That's why I started using webcite and archive.is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That was true for a while, but as of last spring they now ignore robots.txt, both for archiving and retroactively on archives already made. --PresN 12:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend using Archive.org over WebCite mostly because the former is much less likely to go off-the-net. I recall WebCite nearly got shut down until it received an infusion of donations, and Archive.org now does a much better job capturing edge cases that previously required WebCite (robots.txt ignored and on-demand archiving.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been having issues with WebCite links lately as well. The following has happened to me more than once: I click a WebCite link in an article and get a message indicating that the link is permanently dead. Five minutes later I click the same exact link and it works without a hitch.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  • PSA: Automatically archive all of your citations at once with toollabs:iabot > "Fix a single page". It's a waste of time to WebCite archive manually except as a fallback czar 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (April 1, 2018 to April 7, 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.2 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

April 1, 2018

April 2, 2018

April 3, 2018

April 4, 2018

April 5, 2018

April 6, 2018

April 7, 2018

This week's installment!

  • Main outstanding issue with script: page moves still showing up as both deleted and created.
  • Fixes since last week: now gracefully handles the rare occasions WP 1.0 Bot notes that a page was moved. Doesn't explode when the daily list is so long it takes multiple pages to post. Correctly adjusts for new Template and Project pages, which can't use the Aritcle status template. Tweaks to output format.
  • Strange issue of the week (there's one every week): WP 1.0 Bot flipped out and listed every list that got the List project template added to it as dropped from our scope... all on April 7. Hundreds of them. --PresN 01:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I noticed that page moves to new pages have the Special:Tags mw-new-redirect (new redirect). Does that help with your script at all? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on a Sega video game list?

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rotzu3/sandbox

Similar to List of Nintendo games, List of Square Enix games etc. It was reverted, so I thought I gather some opinions if the page is okay to be made--Rotzu3 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts about video games lists, you say! I've got tons (and actually wrote the Square Enix list(s)). To wit:
  • Before I get started, you should not have been reverted like that without an explanation, and I'm going to mention that to them
  • You definately want a wikitable; that's way too many games for a fancier template
  • They need to be a single table. Having them in seperate tables is no better than separate lists. Though, that is going to be one hell of a list. The sheer construction of it is going to be intense- you'd have to group the multiple releases of the same game together, and organize the whole thing by date or alpha... it won't be pleasant
  • Even less pleasent is going to be putting in all the data-you have developer/year/combined region, and unless Sega self-published every/most games they ever made, you'll need to add a publiser column, and you'll probably want to split apart the combine region into JP/NA/EU columns. Ideally you'd want to convert year to a full date, as well.
  • But all of that is a walk in the park compared to sourcing the thing. Let's say no more of that.
  • Ignoring all the work, and eliding how good an idea it is for a new user to take on something so daunting as a first project... is it a good idea? I'm not sure, honestly- the list is just going to be so massive. It's 340kb now, and that's without the extra columns I proposed. It's pushing the limits of usability. I'm not sure how better to split it up than by console; maybe by decade? --PresN 02:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This already exists, but I do question its quality as it was stitched together a decade ago. That being said... I can remember spending days on List of Sega Genesis games, and it was already established when I began work on it. I spent hours on hours grinding out formatting, feeling sick at the time and sick of editing it. It would not be a fun project for anyone to complete. Red Phoenix talk 01:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The page in question, List of Sega video games, had been restored as a redirect for a few times after it was changed to an actual list by Tripple-ddd and their socks. There had been no consensus to make the page a list again as of when I reverted the edit. Pinging The Banner and The1337gamer, I would like to see if anyone is interested in restoring the list. The revision is 835994505. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 03:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • First things first - historically, the only person interested in such a list, over and over again, has been Tripple ddd sock puppet accounts, a user who has been indef blocked for like 40+ sock accounts. While he was indeffed years ago, I'm pretty certain he was trying to come back as recent as this year... Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Was that really years ago? I guess it has been... ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the idea of these massive lists. I feel like it's better spread out based on developer and platform. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It is the long history of sockpuppetry on this article that makes me reject this proposal. To be harsh, I doubt if Rotzu3 is a genuine new editor. And his proposal is complete unsourced. The Banner talk 10:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • His proposed list is just a more complete version of the SegaRetro one Tripple-d has been working on: [8]. He's a Tripple-d sock. Block him. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Blocked. The more I've looked it over and thought about, the more I'm sure its a sock. If you've doubts about my conclusion, feel free to contact me, but with blocking him so many times in the past, there are many signs, subtle and not. Sergecross73 msg me 12:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. As it is clear that the user is evading previous blocks, I have also reverted List of Sega mobile games to prior state. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 16:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Please let me know if any more new accounts make similar suggestions or edits, and I can protect the page. Tripple ddd tends to do this sort of thing over and over again. If someone has a good-faith desire to actually create and source such a list, I'm not necessarily against it. But please be suspicious of any newbies who pop out of nowhere and just happen to have a fully developed draft that happens to replicate Tripple ddd's work and support his past efforts/arguments. Its usually just him again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Why would anyone do this for years (plural) after knowing that they're wrong? Just seems stubborn. Zoom (talk page) 17:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
          • And basically make no effort in hiding who they are either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:VGRS

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, the search tool VGRS doesn't seem to be working at present, giving a google 404, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Thibbs and Czar - the main people who maintain it. It was working as of relatively recently, at least - its used pretty actively by project members. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
These are the fixed links: Reliable Sources for Video Games, Situational Sources for Video Games (please refer to the source code); Wikipedia blacklisting prevents me from saving this page with these links intact, as it does with the CSE's primary pages (WP:VGRS and WP:VGSE). If you are and admin that can get around the blacklist, please fix these links here and on the two pages linked, I inserted respective commented-out versions of these links next to their outdated spots. Lordtobi (✉) 20:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Repaired. Whitelist updated. -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Could use a few more eyes at Kingdom Come: Deliverance

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

A revision of this article seemed to have positive consensus since ~March 22, a compromise that resulted from a lengthy and contentious discussion. I thought the matter settled since it stood largely unmolested for over a week until User:PizzaMan broke 3RR pushing his own version (N.B. he self-reverted his 4th revert and claimed to "disengage" at that time). This week, he again changed it to his preferred version, "per talk page", on the strength of one person's comment on the matter. I think the linked version has broad consensus that represents a solid compromise between competing interests and avoids UNDUE (the prior version was very long in the tooth). But what do I know? I'd like a few more eyes for the next time this self-proclaimed disengaged editor gets revert fever. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was for a version by Pavlor, this is not about that version. Axem added to that a remark which is about the director's political views rather than about the game. Axem's edit accuses the director of spreading (quote) "hate... harassing women, people of color, and journalists" which is in no way substantiated by the sources. The director was previously associated to gamergate, but only the part about journalism ethics. Axem's accusations don't belong on the page on the game and go against BLP.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 08:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow. Isn't it directly sourced by this Polygon game review source? They're a reliable source, directly stated it, and stated it in the context of an article centered around the game, not the creator. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This thing has gone on for way too long. Has anybody even added things about the game itself and not just commentary from a vocal minority? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
No one beyond me. Sadly, I started up an actual reception section weeks ago, because it used to be 100% "controversy" and 0% "game reception" in hopes of getting things started, and sadly no one's even touched it since. Everyone's too busy obsessing over this minor-level controversy. Yes, it happened. And yes, it should be covered. But both sides want to write a giant novel about it; one side about its wrongdoings, while the other wants to stage this big defense and debate in the article. This isn't some massive Hot Coffee mod type situation. We just need a brief "these sources noted these issues with the game, these sources refuted the criticisms of the game". That's all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I saw, and would have helped if I had played the game (helps with setting context). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I'm in the same boat - I've never played it either, nor do I have any particular plans to, and that was more than I really had interest in contributing. I've just been trying to help out here and there since people keep asking for input over there. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The version in question is about 60% shorter than it used to be and is about the same length as the main reception section now (shorter, even). The article was in a place that everyone seemed to be happy about, with adequate coverage of all aspects of the issue, until PizzaMan returned from his self-imposed exile to push his POV again. Personally, I've done all the reading and prose-writing on the topic that I care to, but I won't have it disrupted by someone rolling in and falsely claiming consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Everyone was happy about Pavlor's shortened version, not about Axem's edits on that version. And if his argument for associating the game designer with a bunch of stuff he didn't do revolves around me stepping back from the article for a while, it's not a strong argument. One might equally wonder why Axem didn't step back after a consensus was reached on how to shorten the critical response section. About the "everyone was happy with Axem's version"; just read the talk page: I'm certainly not the only one who was bothered by the smearing campaign against the designer. And about the reverting: it takes two to tango.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 11:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The Order of Things

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Occasionally, I notice video game articles that have the Setting / Plot sections before Gameplay. I tried to do the same on Observer (video game), but was reverted because the editor thought Gameplay "should" precede Setting / Plot. It makes me think, because I just added a Setting to Cyberpunk 2077 and as it makes more sense reading the background before Gameplay, I edited accordingly. For video games with actual lore that lead into the gameplay, shouldn't the Setting / Plot go before Gameplay? Cognissonance (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The order should be whatever makes the most sense for the game at hand. Since games are about gameplay, we've loosely held that the gameplay section should go first. But if the setting heavily influences the gameplay such that it makes sense to introduce that first in order to refer to key concepts later in the gameplay section, then do that. There's no project-wide rule, nor should there be. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
MOS:VG lists the suggested order as with Gameplay first, Plot second. That is a project-wide guideline. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
But again, there are allowances if explaining the plot helps to make the gameplay section clearer, as with something like The World Ends With You; preferred though is generally gameplay first if you cannot otherwise justify a strong reason to have the plot first. --Masem (t) 19:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:VG discussion concerning Metacritic usage in Reception sections

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As info: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#Issue regarding "universal acclaim according to Metacritic". -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

GBA → GBA (disambiguation) discussion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, would just like to notify everyone that there's a discussion taking place to remove the redirect from "GBA" to "Game Boy Advance" and instead make it a disambiguation. ~ P*h3i (📨) 01:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (April 8, 2018 to April 14, 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

April 8, 2018

April 9, 2018

April 10, 2018

April 11, 2018

April 12, 2018

April 13, 2018

April 14, 2018

Bit of a light week, with a good percentage just newly-tagged old articles. Script updates: Now handles page moves that get the 'page-move' tag + minor tweaks. Next update: handle page moves without tag, as well as odd cases where the article moves but the old article becomes a redirect to a disambig page. --PresN 04:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I created a page for Liar Princess and the Blind Prince on 13 April, which is missing. TheLegendaryN (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@TheLegendaryN: You didn't put the project banner on the talk page, which is one of the ways the script finds new content. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. Apologies. TheLegendaryN (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep, it should now show up on next week's list! --PresN 18:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Declined AfC for Cookie Run

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Today I submitted my draft of Cookie Run, but it was declined by @Robert McClenon: under the basis of it being a copy of another article: Cookie Run (video game), which I moved from Cookie Run today to submit this draft. The draft was that of the Cookie Run series as a whole, as opposed to one of the games in the series. When I replied under his talk page explaining the difference, he said that he didn't understand the distinction between the draft and the standing article. I'm still confused why it was declined and how there is no noticeable distinction between the two. Zoom (talk page) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Zzzoom - If other experienced editors familiar with video games concur that two articles are in order and are on different subjects, then I will defer to their judgment. As it is, it wasn't clear to me how the draft didn't duplicate the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
After checking this - there seems to be no need for a series page. You can add the subsequent games at the article for the video game in a "sequels" or "legacy" section. Please do that instead, and Cookie Run should be moved back to its original namespace.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
But the problem is that there are three games that came before Cookie Run, then Cookie Run: OvenBreak (one of the most downloaded free games of last year), and a spin-off. I think the series is significant enough to warrant a series page. Zoom (talk page) 11:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The draft is well sourced and includes info that would be difficult/ugly to cover on a game's page; currently don't any issue in having a series article. Lordtobi (✉) 12:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks to me like the closer confused the series article for the individual game's article. I see they replied "I read the existing article and the draft, and it is not clear to me what the distinction is.", but both pages are clearly distinguishing between "a series of online mobile endless running games" and "an endless running game". That's like confusing StarCraft and StarCraft (video game). Series' notability notwithstanding, I don't see a problem with this being an article, given it covers information about other games that doesn't really fit in the individual game's article. Although I can see that it could be covered in the game's article due not having a lot of content (at the moment). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Since Robert was okay with someone else deciding and there seems to be slight consensus that a series article makes sense, I went ahead and accepted the draft. Regards SoWhy 16:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Steam user reviews

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Hi everyone. I recently protected the article Dynasty Warriors 9 because of a series of reverts that disagreed over whether we should mention that Steam summarizes the user reviews for the game as "overwhelmingly negative". I tried explaining that MOS:VG states that user reviews are unreliable as self-published sources and should typically be omitted, but I was hoping we could get a third opinion/consensus on this so that the article can become more stable again. Pinging Perochialjoe and Pure conSouls, the users involved, to this discussion. Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A summary of user reviews on a particular review aggregator is still not a reliable source, though if reviews are so negative, it is common for secondary sources to comment on the bad reviews. Eyeballing the VG/SE indicates nothing of the sort, so Pure is correct to remove that content entirely. --Izno (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how an aggregate of reviews from users who are required to have bought the game is unreliable. Steam only allows users to write reviews if they have the game bought on that Steam account. Several people seem to have the misunderstanding that just anybody can write a review on Steam, which is not the case at all. perochialjoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems like you have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies. User generated content is generally unacceptable, that include Steam user reviews. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
So the solution is apparently then to just completely ignore public reception to the game? That makes absolutely no sense and it's completely backwards thinking to assume that a collection of ~4,000 reviews from people who own the product is unreliable. perochialjoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
If negative user reception is documented by reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia's guideline of a reliable source, not your personal interpretation of what one is), then it can be mentioned in an article. If not, then yes it should be ignored because it is then clearly not significant enough for an encyclopedia entry. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
User reviews lack editorial oversight. They are also known to be bombarded (sometimes positively for a game; more often negatively). The former issue indicates they are not reliable, period (review WP:IRS). The second issue also indicates a lack of trust-worthiness across the board. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, to the above, we have the issues of review bombs, which even can happen with those that purchased a game. User reviews have too much influnece from only a few people, so its better to have a secondary source to acknowledge if there are legitimate concerns (like No Man's Sky, or just manufactured controversy). --Masem (t) 22:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. I have unprotected the page and removed the information in question on the basis of this consensus. It should not be restored without consensus. Incidentally, perochialjoe has been temporarily blocked for vandalism in his deleted contributions. Mz7 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(Different side question; asking from a friend.) A friend I have, occasionally plays one of the "dynasty warriors" game series. And a while ago he was looking at the page/ article and there was a link/ url in the "External links" to the "steam store". But their last game copy/ or dynasty warriors 8 does not have a link to the steam store. So, he was wondering does the link/ url have to be there? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Links to storefronts should not be in external links per WP:VG/EL TarkusABtalk 19:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Age of Empires III

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Age of Empires III, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The article does indeed need more citations right now in the gameplay section. Looks like it at least borders on WP:OR. I'd be happy to do a reassessment of the article when I get some time, but I feel it might be worthwhile to ping the major contributors to this, as they may want to simply improve the article Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer Lee. I have actually already opened the reassessment. It is at Talk:Age of Empires III/GA1. I sent the above template to the only major editor who is still active, so hopefully they are keen. You are welcome to comment at the reassessment if you want. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that! No worries. There are loads of GA nominees at the moment, so I'll do one of those when I get chance. Personally, I think the article is good, but is of serious need of sourcing for the GamePlay section. It's certainly not GA material of now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Are the Game Audio Network Guild (G.A.N.G.) and its awards notable or not?

Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

I have a problem. I was adding the awards from the Game Audio Network Guild in the Hearthstone article, but then Frmorrison suddenly removed all traces of the G.A.N.G. Awards from the article and claimed that the G.A.N.G. Awards are not notable! Yet these awards are in video game articles like Cuphead, Horizon Zero Dawn, Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, Far Cry 3, and other video game articles that have them through the years! I can't respond by adding the G.A.N.G. Awards back into the Hearthstone article, for fear that Frmorrison will revert my edits and lash out at me! Someone needs to do something and decide whether the G.A.N.G. Awards are notable or not! I thought that these awards should be kept, but what do you think otherwise? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, on what grounds do you want to add them? What is your argument for them being a noteworthy award? Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought that these G.A.N.G. awards should have been noteworthy, as described in these two links. Are you people telling me that I should remove the G.A.N.G. Awards from all the video game articles that have them if they are not notable?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
If you're talking about me, I was merely asking for more information on the awards. I've never heard of these awards or this "www.audiogang.com". You seem to feel so strongly about including it. I was wondering what was leading you to feel this way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Angeldeb82 - Sadly, because another article has it listed isn't a valid arguement for existance in this article. However, you have taken this to the right place. (Although, I would warn against saying someone woud "lash out" at you). Realistically, if you could provide us with a good rationale for the award being notabele, then it should be added, if we can reach a consensus that it isn't notable, then it should be removed from all articles. I'm not familiar with this Guild, so could you provide us with the sourcing to show it's relevance, and notability? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The only links I can provide are in the G.A.N.G. website, their Twitter account, the Game Developers' Choice link and the French Wikipedia. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain, in your own words, why you think it's a notable award that should be included on Wikipedia though? Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
All I know is that the Game Audio Network Guild was founded in 2002 by Tommy Tallarico and other "driven industry professionals with a vision to assist those in the game audio industry to share, continually improve, and evolve their craft, and to inform both the overall game industry and enthusiasts about not only excellence in that craft but fair treatment of professionals." That's all I can tell you. You should check these links to find out more. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Angel, I think you need to step back and reevaluate your approach to dealing with conflict, potential conflict, and disagreements on Wikipedia. I've noticed that you tend to catastrophize when you encounter any resistance to your edits and end up perceiving hostile motivations when they don't exist. You're making the right move by bringing it to the talk page for discussion but you are using highly accusatory language when doing so, which is unwarranted in this circumstance. Please take a moment to consider your fellow editors' motivations and reasoning for doing what they do and you'll most likely get a better sense of what it will take to convince them of your point of view, or at least generate a meaningful discussion about it that advances everyone's understanding of the issue at hand. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
As a follower of VGM culture, I'm familiar with these awards, but I really don't think they need to be added to articles, as its such a niche thing (only game music) to add to already bloated award sections. Do third-party sources ever report on the nominations and winners, or are all your citations coming directly from their site? Also I agree with Axem, you frequently come to this talk page accusing people of bad faith. You should also really branch out of only adding awards and accolades to articles too, but that's just my personal biased opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. And I'm very sorry that I was mad with Frmorrison. I think that all the citations have come directly from the G.A.N.G. site, as I can't find other web sources that state the G.A.N.G. Awards otherwise. Do you think it's okay if I remove the G.A.N.G. Awards from all the video game articles, as Frmorrison has claimed that these awards are not notable? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, there are a few other third-party sources like this one and that one. Does that make it news? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
While the VGMO one is valid, I don't believe "warofawards" is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I'm gonna have to try reverting Frmorrison's edit and put in the VGMO link along with this one for clarity. If he reverts my edit and claims that the G.A.N.G. Awards are not notable, then I don't know what to do. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest inviting the editor to this conversation. You have been WP:BOLD, been reverted, so this is the chat as per WP:BRD. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The first edit about the Audio Guild Award was with a reference from the Audio Guild, which did not prove notability. However, if an award is reported in a website like VGMO I am fine with it. Normally, a 3rd party proves notability to know if something is worth adding, so the Guild reporting about its award is not good enough.--Frmorrison (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm very glad about your good advice about a third-party website providing notability. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Which is a general Wikipedia guideline, not just advice. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Overlink IP

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Keep an eye out for an IP editor who is overlinking video game articles. The IPs geolocate to Venezuela but are a broad range and change every 3-5 edits, difficult to leave warnings the user will see... I've found 4-5 edits each morning just from where they cross my watchlist, over the last week or so. -- ferret (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Any particular topic in video games or no? I don't think I've seen this on any of my watchlisted articles... Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
See 190.206.153.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 186.94.148.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 190.78.40.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 201.210.210.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this ban worthy though? I guess if they keep being reverted for the same type of edits with no response as to why. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I would probably give a disruption block at some point, but due to the IP rotation and ranges, it's not really possible. So just something to watch out for. At least its slow moving. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
None of the IPs above are blocked (or "banned"), FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is sourced misleading and contradictory information preferred over all else?

Latest comment: 6 years ago23 comments14 people in discussion

If a videogame page contains basic information contradicting MobyGames catalog, Steam store page, official game webpage as well as contradicting information presented in general Wikipedia videogame articles, while also being misleading by assigning false information never advertised by the developers, but that information has a source, such being a Kotaku editorial — is such information preferred over the information the game has been published and advertised with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erquint (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the editorial in question and point out what the false information is? Lordtobi (✉) 06:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

- which article are you referring to? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's this one. Forgot to mention: this is about genre. We are having a bureacrat vs common sense argument over at the game's talk page, trying to avoid an edit war.
Pardon me for not spilling the beans upfront — I was quite perplexed by the notion of perpetuating false information in favor of bureaucracy at the time of creating this section.
Erquint (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

PCGamer calls it a MOBA Is this a spill over of the Reddit "It's a MOBA" "It's NOT a MOBA" argument? Without looking into this at depth, is this the Developer/publisher calling a chicken a duck because chickens have got a bad name at the moment? - X201 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally have not been to the mentioned Reddit thread yet but you can chalk that up to controversy.
Who thinks the MOBA genre "have got a bad name at the moment"? I have yet to hear anything of such sort.
Thing is:

  • Nowhere but a few articles online and social media it gets called a MOBA
  • It was never advertised or sold as one since it was not designed as one
  • Games like this existed since long ago the term MOBA entered common gamer lexicon
  • All sources, even the Kotaku editorial describe the game as only resembling a tightly isolated set of simple mechanics(teamfight) which does not hold the complexity of the MOBA genre.
  • This is further illustrated by discrepancy with the description detailed in the MOBA article.

I am still interested in the initial question. Ultimately: is misleading information fine if it is sourced?
Erquint (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To make it easier for others to understand the disagreement here...the game in question is Battlerite, the discussion is at Talk:Battlerite. TarkusABtalk 09:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks TarkusAB - I got very confused by this conversation. Ok, so this is currently a stub article, so I'm a bit confused as to why we have such a chat over the game's genre, when we could easily improve the article in prose. The issue with the genre is that, if I understand correctly, reliable sources call it a MOBA (Which, it resembles), but the game's creators call it a "Team Arena Brawler". I mean, personally, I'd have the infobox have both included, and in the prose explain why there is confusion. The lede could write "Battlerite is a free-to-play team-based multiplayer online battle arena game, described by the publishers as a Team Arena Brawler." It's strictly speaking a Team Arena Brawler, but what that is, is very confusing. The other way to work it, is to have a Wikilink to MOBA, with the name "Team Arena Brawler", since the only other game with this genre I could find was Paragon (video game). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

My bad. This section has gone in a direction I haven't intended. Initially just meant to ask if citation has priority over factual correctness.
I'd restructure it but doing it now with other editor's responses wouldn't be very ethical.
Erquint (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth. If you have reliable sources that describe the game by another genre or that question other publications' classification of the genre, you can present those refs alongside the current ones. czar 09:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:IAR, the rules can be ignored if something has been proven factually incorrect and editors agree that it is clearly and obviously incorrect based on the new evidence. Wikipedia is not somewhere where false information gains credence simply because it has appeared in sources before, even if it currently obviously wrong. However, that's different from something being wrong "in your opinion", or something being unclear.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Except this is a game genre, something that can't ever be objectively wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Especially in the case of genre classifications, we need to go strictly with what sources say. When it something subjective like genre, if you don't go by sources, there's going to constantly be changes and fighting over it, because every has a different opinion and everyone's certain that their stance is correct and everyone else is wrong. Its a constant issue in music articles. The best way to solve it is to use whatever reliable sources say. If they say multiple genre, use multiple genre and cite each source that uses each genre. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that you should go with what reliable sources say, and also try to steer clear of controversies and message board debates as they can cause no end of trouble. If there's any worries about the genre combinations looking odd, you can see what I did with Sakura Wars. I just called it a "video game" in the lead opening and saved its "'dramatic adventure'/overlapping genres" bit for later on, which looks fine. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is how its often handled in music articles as well - often settling on a generic term like "rock band" in the opening sentence, and then later covering every minor genre deviation that reliable sources may call a band in the article's body (alternative rock, hard rock, progressive rock, etc etc). Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem stating it is a MOBA; it is in a similar situation as "roguelike-likes" for games like FTL, etc. where there are clear elements of the genre present, but it doesn't fully implement the genre. I'm sure that having Battlerite called a MOBA is ticking a few of the purists in the MOBA community, same with roguelike, but its hard to deny there's MOBA elements to the game and if RSes call it such, it should be included. --Masem (t) 13:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The term "roguelite" was widely accepted because there's no denying there was a need to distinguish it from "roguelike".
Erquint (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTBLOG Axem Titanium (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There wouldn't be any "constant changes and fighting" if Wikipedia respected authorial intent. Genre is as basic of information as the title, platform and such, and has been forever since even before Internet: how are you of all so blind to this fact?
What exactly is so impossible about accepting primary sources for basic release information?
If some source(s) decides that the developer has no idea what they are doing — why not mention that in the article, but journalistic speculation doesn't belong to the infobox and synopsis of an article except for extreme cases like an article about a fraudulent organization, etc.
Erquint (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. This finally answers my question precisely. You should definitely write that on the front page.
"Wikipedia: The Gratis News Aggregator Where Truth Doesn't Matter". That'll make sure nobody bugs you about pesky facts and truth anymore.
You can't imagine the magnitude of a diametrical change of my views on Wikipedia that just occurred.

Today I learned that:

  • authorial intent doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia, developers are considered unable to design a game of a genre they chose and one can release a Brawler titled "Battlerite" on Steam but if Kotaku reports it as a MOBA released on Nokia N-Gage as "Adventure of Gaba" — then that's what the Wikipedia page for that game will say
  • objective facts mean absolutely nothing on Wikipedia as well as factual correctness, which the editors admit freely
  • reasoning, common sense and argumentation are strictly prohibited
  • words "reliable" and "verifiable" represent the tiniest slice of reality, tailored to shield Wikipedia from any meaningful discussion, while not actually having anything to do with reliability of facts presented by its sources
  • in addition to that, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself reliable
  • contents of a source material are of low import — what's much more important is clickbait headlines and ripping words out of context: if a word exists in a source — you can completely ignore the meaning imparted onto it by the context
  • "Free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" was supposed to mean both gratis and libre but ended up only meaning gratis in the end. Dumbfounded hoops to jump through have been agreed upon by core editors circle to keep strangers out
  • Wikipedia "The Free Encyclopedia" is not in fact an "encyclopedia" but rather an extremely slow, as bureaucrats go, verbatim news aggregator
  • any meaningful explanations, reviews and curation of otherwise echoed data found on Wikipedia are a result of partizan edits gone unnoticed and without them it would be near useless. A very major part of the best information on Wikipedia is unsourced but editors will pretend this isn't the case
  • the bureaucrat core of Wikipedia disregards half of its policies and guidelines originally aimed to keep it in balance and bends the rest, while strictly enforcing the easiest to regulate, since editors are few compared to the amount of pages and get very tired. Dumbing an encyclopedia down to a simple citation book which only permits a handful of the most awkward source types ensures easy edits curation.

So much to learn in one day... You ruined Wikipedia for me. I remember it being free and factually correct.

I used to adore Wikipedia since childhood up until this day for over 15 years, and when others criticized it for being editable by anyone — I always assured them it is reliable thanks to the editors who make sure it is, but turns out the problem of Wikipedia's reliability was never in the randos but rather baked into it being a regurgitation of yellow journalism.

I can't fix this alone. Time to start looking for a Wiki-formatted encyclopedia alternative actually focusing on factual correctness.
I wash my hands.
Erquint (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

All that over a video game stub and what genre appears in the lead. The world will surely grind to a halt from these injustices. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You know, I almost agree with you. No, seriously, I do. I have been frustrated by the desire of some wikipedians to include clearly inaccurate information even if demonstrably false when it is reliably sourced and the confusion many editors have regarding the difference between "fact" and "truth." There is just one teensy weensy problem with your position: genre classifications are not objective fact, but are labels applied by the journalists, academics, etc. that examine the games. Somebody picked the wrong hill to die on today. Indrian (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so if you're going to go off the deep end and make a dramatic exit every time someone disagrees with you a minor genre classification, then just as well, Wikipedia editing will probably not be a great experience for you. It never works out well for these close-minded, self-proclaimed experts on genre anyways - they just get upset that we don't appreciate their "My word is law" approach to genre. Go start a blog where you have 100% control or something. You can call it whatever you want there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Are pinball machines "video games"?

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

I'm pondering where to cover the two Super Mario Bros. pinball machines (Super Mario Bros. made 1992 and Super Mario Bros. Mushroom World made 1994), my first instinct was List of non-video game media featuring Mario but looking deeper into it a lot of places classify pinball machines alongside arcade cabinets more than alongside toys, perhaps especially for pinball machine including visual displays (Dot-matrix displays with a subgame in this case). I've tried to find some precedent for how we cover pinball machine versions of video game franchises but can't seem to find much. Thoughts? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

They'd be arcade games, but not arcade "video games". Just because a pinball machine has a video display and may have mini-games played on it, there's still the significant physical element of the table itself that puts it outside the realm of video games. Eg Baby Pac-Man is a good example of a hybrid arcade/pinball machine that makes that distinction. --Masem (t) 19:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd define a video game as having the action take place on an electrical screen that displays the play area and some sort of control scheme. Since physical pinball machines don't take place in a digital screen, I wouldn't classify them as video games. JOEBRO64 19:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, pinball games are electromechanical games and not video games. That said, WPVG covers them even when they're not linked to a video game character like these 2, because a) they're closely related (as they're "arcade games" though the term now generally means arcade video games) and b) very few of them have articles so it's not a big deal. As to what article to put these two in... I think the one you linked is right. --PresN 19:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I do agree VG project should include pinball games under its scope, as well as any old electromechanical game of the past. Those are the original of many games, so shouldn't deny that as part of our heritgate. Just that there are likely very few that are that notable on their own. --Masem (t) 21:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There is actually a fairly significant number of pinball machines with articles. There is also the mostly dead Pinball WikiProject. I think the few Wikipedians that are particularly interested in pinball machines may not like the idea of that project being usurped by VG, but adding the VG WikiProject template to all of them should be fine regardless. ~Mable (chat) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Just because we consider pinball machines within VG's scope, doesn't mean we're usurping it; we just work collaborative to combine our VG expert knowhow alongside pinball fanatics' knowhow. (eg Rampage (2018 film)]] is a shared concern between film and VG projects). However, if the pinball WP is mostly dead, there's potentially means to officially close it and/or have its content merged into VG, that's a bit more redtape involved. --Masem (t) 20:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm kinda on the fence, personally. On the one hand, a pinball machine is not generally a "video game" because of the way it's built and played. But on the other hand, this feels like a somewhat arbitrary distinction when coming up with a general classification for electronic games built for entertainment purposes. Whether you're wiggling a joystick or pressing buttons that operate physical flippers, the intent of the machine is basically the same: You're playing a game. And one could argue that modern solid-state pinball machines are a form of video game with simplistic direct controls and very complex indirect controls (all the switches and sensors on the playfield provide input to the on-board computer that then gives you video, audio and physical feedback). They've taken a similar evolutionary path to video arcade machines, as well. Personally, I would be inclined to group them under the main VG project and a pinball sub-project - if we don't currently have sub-projects for other classes like console video games and portable games as well, we probably should. (I don't know if that's been tried before.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There used to be an Arcade task force that died in 2012 (and officially closed in 2014) that could have covered pinball games, except that there's WP:PINBALL; it's been a zombie project since 2010 with a post every few years. As always, a task force/subpage may be useful for compiling resources, but is unlikely to work as a project without multiple interested editors, which is why WPVG has basically no task forces any more. The network effects of having all of us here in one place is too strong- a post here gets read by people who wouldn't join a subproject but might have something to contribute (for ex., I wouldn't join but have written GAs on old arcade games), so everything works better if we all stay at one project and chime in on stuff that catches our eye instead of splintering discussions. --PresN 18:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... "video, audio and physical feedback"? I'm suddenly reminded of those ten-pin bowling screens. Could modern bowling be considered a form a video game..? o.O--Coin945 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, laser tag is a form of augmented reality game as well no? I think the defining characteristic here must be "primarily interacted with via a an electronic display" (aka screen)... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the primary interaction with the video screen for it to count towards WP:VG. Keeping track of the score and the multipliers electronically in pinball isn't enough. Slot machines nowadays electronically predetermine what positions to place the reels, and have the option of a mechanical lever or a button press, but I wouldn't count that as a video game unless the slot reels themselves are on-screen as with video poker. Then there's virtual golf, where you use an actual golf club to hit an actual ball against a screen with a golf course. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think in the end it's a bit of an academic argument- we can go round and round on deciding if the line is "primarily video screen interaction" games or electro-visual games or all electronic games that have or are historically linked to video screens or whatever, and put tags on them, but I don't think adjusting the margins of our scope is going to have an effect on what articles WPVG editors work on, or give any real support to people who want to work on pinball/electromechanical/gambling/non-mainstream industry games. A giant shift like upmerging with WP:GAMES and throwing the scope open wide would be interesting, but I'm completely ambivilent to whether pinball games/'gaming machines' are in scope of a 'video games' project or not. --PresN 02:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (April 15, 2018 to April 21, 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

April 15, 2018

April 16, 2018

April 18, 2018

April 19, 2018

April 20, 2018

April 21, 2018

No script changes this week. The 17th had no new articles, just reassessments and new files, while the massive inflow on the 19th and 20th appears to be mostly taggings of tv shows/films that have 'video game' sections for tie-in games without their own articles. --PresN 05:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Suggestion Can these lists exclude newly redirected pages? I.e the page has existed for a while but the page name was changed, thereby technically creating a new page? I don't think those should be included in the list.--Coin945 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Can't they just be tagged instead of omitted? Knowing what was recently moved is solid information, to me anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Are there any on here that were page moves? I usually exclude those, actually; there's a bunch on here where the article has existed for a while and only now got a WPVG tag, but previously-tagged articles shouldn't be listed at present. --PresN 12:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
        • (18 April 2018‎) "Rehman moved page Driver (video game series) to Driver (series): per request" --Coin945 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
        • (18 April 2018‎) "Dekimasu moved page Puyo Puyo Tsu to Puyo Puyo 2: requested move; discussion at Talk:Puyo Puyo 2" --Coin945 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Hmmm. Dropped those two; there's two ways a page move shows up- in one, the article is listed by the bot as deleted/created and the page history of the new title has a line that has a 'page moved' tag; these two got the other way, where the original article doens't get listed as 'deleted' and there's no tag in the page history. There is a line of text 'so-and-so moved page [old] to [new]', though, so I'll need to scan for that. I started writing code for that last weekend, but it had some issues. Maybe next week. --PresN 15:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Aveyond and The Wizard as well. Plus Criminal Case, which was already at that location and only had its talk page moved. Reach Out to the Truth 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
              • Updated the script and re-ran; now catches 'new' articles that have an edit summary that starts with 'so-and-so moved [old] to [new]' and drops them if 'old' wasn't a Draft. It caught all of these except for Criminal Case, which was a weird one. --PresN 16:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review of Wheels of Aurelia

Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Hi again, I recently created an article for Wheels of Aurelia, and improved it to the point where I felt it was of GA level. I have nominated the article twice, but been denied. I have taken on board the review information and improved/removed following these instructions, but as I have never written a GA article, I'm not sure if I'm a million miles away, or if it's suitable for GA.

Would someone mind just making sure my article is worth re-nominating for GA status? I really don't want to annoy a third reviewer with a request that isn't plausible. Many thanks for your help Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • - Ideal, I can never find these development articles. I'll take a gander. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Switch Player" is a considered a reliable source. I think it's just a random fan, unless I'm confusing sources. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but I think it's just a fan run thing they crowdsourced or something. I don't think they have a legit publisher or anything. Might want to bring it up at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • - Oh really? I saw it had a print run, and assumed that would be enough. Strictly speaking, we don't need something to be published to be considered a RS; but I can see why this would be sticky. Metacritic considers it in it's evaluation, but I know it's not the be all and end all, as they do this for things like The Escapist, which we do not. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that's a pickle- it's an indie magazine, that is free online but you can subscribe to the print version (via patreon tiers). An interview with the founder says that they have 11 people, including an editor (and an art/layout guy that seems to be doing a fairly pro job at it). It doesn't say if they're all paid, but putting out a 60+ page magazine every month for a year with a dozen+ reviews in each issue and an actual staff? I'm going to go with reliable on this one. --PresN 19:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I personally agree, but I should really raise it at WP:VG/S as above, as I feel it is a reliable source, and find out if it should be added. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't need to write review scores in the prose when the review scores are already present in the reviews table. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't put reviews in the table that aren't used in prose, but you shouldn't be putting the review scores in prose at all and instead leave them to the table- the article as was had e.g. "Review magazine Game Informer were also positive about the game, scoring it at 7/10", which is no bueno. --PresN 19:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Salvidrim! - I didn't mean removing the review itself from the prose outright, I just meant the numerical review score value.
Current Setup - When reviewing the Nintendo Switch release, Switch Player gave the game a rating of 1.9/5 and calling it "too short to be engaging" and a "disappointing attempt at bringing the Visual Novel genre to the Switch",[10].
What It Should Be: When reviewing the Nintendo Switch release, Switch Player called it "too short to be engaging" and a "disappointing attempt at bringing the Visual Novel genre to the Switch",[10] Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was the way it worked. I'll remove the scores, and expand the section somewhat. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moby Games is not reliable. That was already brought up in a previous review and it's still there. Switch Player and artasgames.wordpress.com don't sound reliable. Too many quotes in the reception section. The article needs a copy edit as well as the prose is spotty at times. TarkusABtalk 14:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd actually mention that this article was recently copyedited. I'll remove that entry of Mobygames, as I thought I had removed them all! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the last review, it also mentioned the use of fair use images-- the second one in the development section really has no good reason to exist and seems extraneous as well. Nomader (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I can remove that. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Consider adding the director/producer names etc. in the infobox. Strange how no one is listed. TarkusABtalk 15:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I've seen and added what I can from online sources. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of the games credits for the rest. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your help. If there is more, let me know. I'll try and put something together with the above. Appreciate your time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your time with this. I very much appreciate it. I think I have fixed all of the issue above (Except finding the credits for the game, which I still need). Is this article worth a nomination for GA, or not? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wayback Machine is broken!

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You've already been asked not to freak out every time this happens. No one here is going to know why its down or when its coming back. Just wait it out. Closing this now, before it spirals into a bunch of other editors telling you to stop doing this again...Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Something's wrong with the Wayback Machine, as it is broken and won't show any archived page at all while I was trying to do the Breach (video game) article! When will the issue be fixed? Here's a link to the downed webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20140612122820/http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/breach/critic-reviews --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

As we've explained in the past, no one on this talk page can fix or tell you when a fix will be done for external sites. Best we can do is collaborate that it's currently down (It is). It'll be back up eventually. -- ferret (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quantic Dream improvement

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have started a draft to rewrite Quantic Dream. With Dontnod Entertainment, The1337gamer suggested a studio profile made by Edge magazine, which added a lot of information and eventually led to its Good Article status. Does anyone know of a website / magazine that has done a studio profile on Quantic Dream? Cognissonance (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I would hold off until the whole sexual harassment allegations play out. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't work on what you like; I'm just observing that I would not pass it under stability (GA5) and comprehensiveness (FA1b) criteria until more is known about the whole situation and it gets through the French courts. I'm not aware of any studio profile pieces on Quantic Dream in English. Maybe from some French sources? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
New news that's new. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter games

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Hi all, I recently looked through the games in the Harry Potter series (there are tonnes), and saw that quite a few were really poor start articles (most notably Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (video game)), which I have improved somewhat.

My question may be better brought up with information from the Harry Potter task force in the film wikiproject; but would it make sense to make a 'series' article for these games? There are 8 main series games (with the first couple having different games per Console), as well as Lego games, new handheld games and more.

The issue I was worried about creating a main article, would be that there is already a series article, simply titled Harry Potter, but the film's have an article Harry Potter (film series), but I dont want to complicate the set of articles.

Would this be a good way to go? There is plenty of information for these games. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Just expand Harry Potter#Games and the individual articles. Are there sources that discuss the series' history, development, legacy, and impact as a whole? If not, then there is no point in creating a series article. A lot of the series articles that we have are really badly written and add nothing upon the individual articles. They just take little bits of information from each individual game and combine them into a giant list-article hybrid (e.g. Call of Duty and dozens more), and this is absolutely not the way to write them properly. A series article should treat the topic as a single entity, not just rehash information from existing articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh good, a meta-list that duplicates the existing navbox. Anyways, yes, this series most severely needs a List of Harry Potter media in the style of List of Mass Effect media - so instead of duplicating all the text scattered over the articles, just have tables of "books", "films", "games", "music", "board games/whatever" to layout straightforwardly "what has been released in this series". That would replace that table at Harry Potter#Games. This would not preclude doing a game series page as well, though like The1337gamer said without sources talking about the series as a whole all you'd be doing there is copypasting bits from the individual articles and combining them; a series article should be about something itself, not just a summary of a set of articles. --PresN 21:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Go ahead, drafts in Draft space or User space are easy and free, it doesn't need to be able to justify itself strongly until it hits article space. --PresN 02:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I wasn't worried about creating an article for this, or suggesting someone else did, but I knew it wasn't a simple yes, so asked the question. I'd be looking at the potential article being titled Harry Potter (video game series), to fit in with Harry Potter (film series). The sheer volume of titled games (eighteen in total), as well as differing platform versions, I believe there is some information on the series, but if we were to create some sort of draft (Let me know where it is too), and we'll go from there. From a quick search, there is information from MTV of all places, JK rowling states she wrote all of the W&W cards for The Chamber of Secrets, and an interview with Johnathan Smith regarding the Lego Harry Potter games. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would advise against titling it "(video game series)" - it is not really one single series, but rather a number of games based on the books/films, mostly independently of the other game adaptations.--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Xbox 360 WP:Listcruft

Latest comment: 6 years ago50 comments13 people in discussion

Games - With 3D support - Kinect - Backward-compatible - Downloadable - Arcade - Arcade Kinect - Xbox Originals

I've been sitting here for a while kinda realizing the number of lists we have for Xbox 360 games have gone overboard. I'm proposing we cut it down and in my extreme opinion it can be reduced to exactly two lists. Let's talk about what we can do with each list.

  • Games: Obviously we don't get rid of this one. (I refer to this as master)
  • With 3D Support: AFD, or merge it's information with the master game list.
  • Kinect: Merge/Tag it in the master list.
  • Backwards compatible: We keep this one.
  • Downloadable: Merge/Tag it in the master list.
  • Arcade: What is the functional difference that this needs it's own list? AFD.
  • Arcade Kinect: See previous answer.
  • Xbox Originals: So isn't this just the BC list but they're available for download? Merge/Tag with BC list.

There are eight lists. With what we're doing with the Xbox One master list I think we can reduce this by a lot. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree with all above points. Lordtobi (✉) 15:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A quick scan shows that the Arcade list is specifically titles that could only be downloaded (never had a formal physical release), whereas the main Games list is for those that had retail releases (but might have also been purchased as a download). I am not 100% sure if these can be combined, but there is cruft on the Arcade list (price?!) that can be removed. I do agree no special callout is needed for Kinect games on either, that can be a column or something in the main table. Otherwise agree on all points. --Masem (t) 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    Should we really differentiate between non-retail and retail games through lists? That does not aid the reader at all, even one table with an extra column "retail release" would make more sense there. Lordtobi (✉) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    We can use a tag system like we do with the XOne list (referred to as addons) for these minor items. How's that? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the bullet-points made by Zero Serenity. I think we should do the same with the ridiculously excessive PS3 themed lists as well. (Wow some people really got out of hand with these 7th gen lists, eh?) Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. There shouldn't be eight separate articles for basically the same topic. Zoom (talk page) 16:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly I don't see a reason for any of the other lists besides the master one. Stuff like Kinect features, backwards compatible, etc. can all be a field in the main list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • These and the PlayStation 3 ones need consolidated, in the style of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 lists. I think @Blue Pumpkin Pie: may be planning to look into PS3 soon. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm looking into how to tackle this huge list. I think I can manage to do it but i don't have a lot of time. I'm only on for a few hours a day and only on weekdays. If someone can do it faster than me, that'll be perfect. TLDR: I'm slow.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Merging the list together would be easy, it's the sorting that would be an issue. Howver, we undertook a similar task over at List of Atlus games, where @TheLegendaryN: found a way to sort by date after merging List of Atlus downloadable games. In this case, we'd just sort by game title instead, and manually clean up any remaining issues (which wasn't much on the Atlus page). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I wrote a small script myself, put the whole table in a file and converted that. I later edited the script from platform to date, which was a bit stupid of me, so I need to partially rewrite it. But that should be done within a day. However, I'm very busy this and next week, so hopefully I can do it this weekend; otherwise it'll be the next one... TheLegendaryN (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
          • No rush, it would be the final thing that has to be done, I still need to merge more. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Cool, I'm happy it's not the highest priority. I hope I can have it ready within 2 weeks. Please notify me when you need it. :) TheLegendaryN (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we also merge List of PlayStation VR games with the List of PlayStation 4 games master list? We could add another "add-on" description for "VR required". We merged the List of Kinect Games with the 360 master list, so maybe this would be fine also? Mordecairule 17:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Consensus

Seven votes yes (including myself) over about 3 hours indicates overwhelming consensus to me. I'll attach the major edit tag and get going with this. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Do PS3 when you're done with Xbox 360 :P -- ferret (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I can try doing the PS3 one on my sandbox. Per my response above, I believe we have a script/bot that could sort them by name all once together, which is the part that would take forever if done manually. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh I didn't know that there was such a thing. In that case it may be easier. if you want to start the draft, that will be cool.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I merged List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc and List of download-only PlayStation 3 games, should any others be included? But as of right now, the (massive) combined list is now live on my sandbox page. It now needs to be sorted by title, so then all the redundant games (which is basically most of the list) would be grouped and easily removed with VisualEditor. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: See Lists of PlayStation 3 games. 3D, Move and Now should probably be merged. Then also List of PlayStation 2 Classics for PlayStation 3... Lists of downloadable PlayStation 3 games should be nuked as well, unnecessary disamb-ish page. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
For 3D, Move, and Now, would they just be dumped into the list? Or kept as a separate section like I have the canceled games? If they go into the primary list, they would need some sort of indication of their uniqueness, meaning a new column basically. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I would add a new column and legend, mimicking what List of Xbox One games and List of PlayStation 4 games do. A column with a few keys is better than separate nearly redundant lists by far. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I can get started on adding the icons to the lists so they can be added with ease, although we would need a new column on the main list for this to happen. VisualEditor can do that, right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes it can insert columns. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
A brief interjection- for lists to meet WP:ACCESS requirements (aka be parseable by non-visual browsers for people with limited sight or be understood by colorblind people) lists shouldn't differentiate things by color alone. I noted in passing that the "kinect-enabled/kinect-only" tags are both just 'K', with a colored border or not; consider, when making these tags for these new combined lists, using different letters instead of just different colors. --PresN 21:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, luckily the three keys would all begin with different letters, so it shouldn't be an issue. We could also change the Kinect keys to read KE and KO still. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I support this however with the X360 Backward-compatible list it needs a major overall and should look similar to XOne backward-compatible list. All the extra columns like NTSC (NA), NTSC (JP), PAL 50hz & 60Hz & Widescreen are WP:OR as Microsoft never went into that much detail. (Official list from Microsoft) Also the Notes column is the same that was on the old List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 that was deleted. It was noted in its deletion discussion that the columns (that listed bugs on PS3 from Sony's old database) were original research. Again, Microsoft never released that much detail on how each game performs on Xbox 360 unlike Sony who maintained a database what bugs were present in PS2 games on PS3 until they revamped their website. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I have four PS3 lists merged now. I'll manually add the Now tags once we clean up the current list. Pinging @TheLegendaryN: to be made aware. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I started to merge the List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 and List of Xbox Originals at my sandbox. I have already fixed the tables and removed unsourced information from them. I'm in the process of trying to find sources for other information from the article that was not in the table or re-write that top part completely. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: got the list sorted (with a script?), now it just needs a cleanup with all the redundant games removed + Now tags for Now-supported games, and it should be finished. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Look down a bit. I just ran the merge program I made with nothing to merge with so it just sorted itself. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Oops, missed that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Progress

  • With 3D Support: Merged. -Zero Serenity
  • Kinect: Merged. -Zero Serenity
  • Downloadable: Merged. -Zero Serenity
  • Arcade: Merged. -Zero Serenity
  • Arcade Kinect: Merged with Arcade to make the next step easier. -Zero Serenity
Great work on this so far. -- ferret (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wii / Wii U lists

Almost all of these lists are prime candidates for merger using the now semi-standardized format from the 8th Gen lists, with legend/keys for features.

Additionally...

If someone who enjoys list work is bored. :) -- ferret (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Largely agree that most of these need to be merged or deleted. I think the List of video games using Miis can be kept though. That ones already been merged several times over - there used to be one for each platform (List of Wii games with Miis, 3DS, Wii U, etc) and I think its a subject separate to most of these game lists. I also think the bare list of "List of Wii games on Wii U eShop" could have grounds for keeping, since the various Lists of PS one Classics, List of PlayStation 2 games for PlayStation 4 etc have also historically made the cut - they're not the trivial "are they download or physical" lists, but rather a different class of game compatibility for a platform. (I'm just noticing that there are 3 separate PS1 classics articles based on region though - they should be merged into one.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Completion and the Merger Tool

Seeing this amount of work as utterly impossible for a human to do with a reasonable amount of time, I instead created a C# program to do it for me. As you can see, the results are pretty spectacular: List of Xbox 360 games

Features:

  • Takes any number of wiki lists with the same column number (or different!) and merges them to a single list.
  • Automatic alphabetical order, even if given a "hidden" name is given.
  • Finishes inside a second.

I am so excited to share this with you...tonight. This will save us so much trouble and time. To prepare, set up lists to use identical columns. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: Great job. Found one more 360 list to look at: List of Xbox 360 System Link games. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I say we add-on tag for these. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep that was my thought. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This is done! Most were already there. I added tags to ones that were missing. Mordecairule 18:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I've been off working and haven't uploaded the tool yet, but should be able to button it up this weekend. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Here it is. Should make those Wii lists much easier. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Separate F2P list

Related to the whole List Cruft above, Xbox One has a section for F2P titles in its game list, while PS4 has an entire separate article. Should these really be separate? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't really understand what the separation is meant to indicate. Seems like a key for F2P would suffice? Separation avoids being able to sort with other games. -- ferret (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see how cost of the game is encylopedic. I understand there are differences for free to play games, but we detail the game, not the buisiness practice Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, generally, per WP:NOPRICE (#5)/WP:NOPRICES, we don't mention specific prices unless its something out of the ordinary. But being free to play can be a defining characteristic for some games, so I commonly add it to the prose, with a source, in f2p games I create or maintain. That being said, I don't think its something we need a separate list for. As ferret says, seems like something that would be easily tracked in the main list. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
F2P is definitely a defining characteristic of a game. Or more specific, F2P-with-MTX. 100% free games aren't generally called F2P. --Masem (t) 19:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
But does it need to be on its own separate list, is the question. I for one think it shouldn't. Games with monthly subscriptions (MMOs), don't get separated because of their different pay model, so why do the same for F2P? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, we were just addressing Lee's statement too, which was questioning its encyclopedic nature in general. Yes, it's an encyclopedic topic to cover in prose in a general sense (that it exists and maybe if reviewers noted it was well done or poorly done, but not actual cost figures/prices) but no, no need to for a separate list. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

3DO Interactive Multiplayer's CPU speed

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anyone look at the edits to 3DO Interactive Multiplayer done by 58.7.177.11 (talk)? He changed the CPU speed from 12.5 MHz (as cited by Next Generation's December 1995 issue) to 20 MHz (either unsourced, or from the datasheet he cited). He added his comments about it at Talk:3DO Interactive Multiplayer#3DO's CPU Speed, then made those changes again; this time it's unsourced. – Hounder4 21:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Source query

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all. I've been working on articles related to CyberFlix, and there's an important newspaper source I'd really like to get my hands on, if it exists. The defunct Knoxville paper Metro Pulse did a big feature on the company's closure in 1999 ("Game Over"), but the Internet Archive version is lost past page 1. There is an intact mirror version here, but I'd rather not try to fight for that source's reliability unless there's no other choice. If any WPVG members with NewsBank or LexisNexis (etc.) access could poke around for this article, I'd be really grateful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not held widely so I wouldn't expect it to be indexed in databases, but I don't have Ulrich's access to verify. fwiw, I'd just link to that Internet Archive version as the main URL in the citation and use monkeyfire.com as the archived URL. I doubt anyone would contest that. If you want the print version, my WorldCat link has some leads but if you wanted an interlibrary loan request, would need the story's publication date since they won't page through the volumes for us. czar 20:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what the exact publication date is (no amount of digging seems to return it), but I do know that the issue is Vol. 9 No. 42, published in 1999. Hopefully that's enough. If that won't work for WorldCat, though, I guess I'll just have to rely on the web version—I appreciate the tip regarding the archive links. I've read that the Metro Pulse archives are on microfilm in Tennessee, so at least there's a chance this one's print version hasn't been lost to time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@JimmyBlackwing, do you believe in magic? czar 18:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: Amazing work finding this—and very much appreciated! I have no idea how you did it, but I can't thank you enough. I'll get to work adding the proper citation to the articles in question. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Look out for Bethesda-related vandalism

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It appears that lots of editors today have collectively decided to vandalize The Elder Scrolls, Bethesda Softworks and articles relating to them. I'm not sure where this is coming from, but quick looks suggest that someone posted on 4chan that it was Todd Howard (video game designer)'s birthday today. It would be great if everyone could keep an eye out for possible targets of vandalism (such as scarcely watched pages) to prevent them from taking too much damage. Also kudos to @Ferret for blocking various IPs and protecting pages they vandalized. Lordtobi (✉) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's primarily from Tumblr, they've had a post going around for months to "set your clock" because last year's semiprotection was scheduled to end today. -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

10 interesting WP:VG stubs (issue #1)

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Extended content

10 interesting games in 10 interesting genres. Based on how successful this is, it may be the first of many. :)--Coin945 (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. A Question of Sport (video game) (1988 quiz game)
  2. A Prehistoric Tale (1990 action/platformer)
  3. Alley Master (1986 ten-pin bowling game)
  4. Anarchy (video game) (1990 side-scroller shooter game)
  5. Angler (video game) (1983 fishing game)
  6. Ant Raid (2011 real-time strategy game)
  7. Anno: Create A New World (2009 city-building game)
  8. Apocalyptica (video game) (2003 third-person shooter)
  9. Aquarium (video game) (1996 puzzle game)
  10. Arachnophobia (video game) (1991 shoot-em-up game)
I'd consider updating the first one, but the article for A Question of Sport is pretty bad in itself, and it's been on TV for like 50 years. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You might have more success convincing people these are "interesting" if you 1) explain why and 2) don't so obviously just cull the first ten entries in what is obviously a massive alphabetical list of stubs of yours. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • To be entirely fair to me, I did my due diligence to find ten articles that not only were classified as a "stub", but also had little to no reliable sources in the articles. For instance, it's not as fun if the article already has a comprehensive table of reviews that needs to be turned into prose. As for interesting? I deliberately chose games ranging in release and genre to have a bit of everything. Maybe it'll be successful, maybe it won't, but there's no harm in giving it a go. (And in fact something like this was suggested to me in the ViGoR discussion. ^_^--Coin945 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I know, I wasn't questioning your right to propose this, just thought I'd throw out how you might attract more people to this. I don't particularly feel like vaguely going "Hey, here's a bowling game from the 80s. Interesting right? Dig in guys!" is going to get you anywhere. But feel free to do it this way if you prefer. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
      • If you have an alphabetical list, you can randomize it using this tool (click "Go back to Alphabetizer" and choose "Randomize"). I'd recommend making your lists be on more interesting, culturally relevant games that happen to be stub-class rather than ten random WPVG stubs. Maybe try bringing attention to stubs that are higher-importance on the importance scale. ~ P*h3i (📨) 12:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
        • 100% agree with the above. I'd work on a random game article if I thought we were all working hard on them. But it should be done on importance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I took the above feedback into account and have revised the ten articles. Enjoy!! :D

Article Info Daily page views Class Importance
1 Video game writing Video game writing is the art and craft of writing scripts for video games. 14 Stub High
2 Doug Carlston Douglas Carlston co-founded Brøderbund Software (Carmen Sandiego; Prince of Persia; Myst). 14 Stub Mid
3 Europa Universalis Europa Universalis is a 2001 grand strategy video game that spawned a franchise. 277 Stub Mid
4 George Broussard George Broussard co-founded Apogee Software and 3D Realms; developed Duke Nukem 3D. 36 Stub Mid
5 Mixed reality game A mixed reality game (or hybrid reality game) takes place in both reality and virtual reality simultaneously. 9 Stub Mid
6 Video gaming in France Video gaming in France is one of the largest markets in Europe. 28 Stub Mid
7 The Art of Computer Game Design TAoCGD by Chris Crawford is the first book devoted to the theory of computer and video games. 10 Stub Mid
8 Fire Truck (video game) Fire Truck, a black-and-white 1978 arcade game, is the earliest title with cooperative gameplay. 15 Stub Mid
9 11 bit studios 11 bit studios is a developer in Warsaw, Poland, developer of This War of Mine and Frostpunk. 157 Stub Mid Low
10 Simtex Simtex is a developer well-known for the first two turn-based strategy games Master of Orion and II. 10 Stub Mid

Discussion

Why don't you try including start-class articles as well? There aren't that many notable topics in stub-class any more. This page is a great tool for finding articles based on importance and status criterion. There's a lot of really interesting pages there. Good luck! ~ P*h3i (📨) 03:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree about start class article, but the above is good for a start! I like it. Certainly the Europa Universalis article needs expansion, seeings the games that followed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we spoke about this before, but would anyone else see sense in merging Video game writing with Video game writer, as they are very similar topics, that are both stubs, we should be improving? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

What should go in an article about a video game developer?

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hi everyone. When I've had time, I've been trying to clean up Sonic Team, and subsequently spun off Sega Technical Institute and United Game Artists from that. I'm shaping up all three to make runs at being GAs. That being said, I looked through the GA list for video games and was hard-pressed to find a GA for a video game developer to know what constitutes comprehensiveness for a developer article. Right now all I have are some basic histories, which I do know is not enough - at this point I'm considering a game library section but I don't have any other ideas at this point. What all should go in a comprehensive article for a video game developer? Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: Rare (company). --Izno (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Monolith Soft. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think all of the below are companies, and most of them are development studios. --Izno (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
(List pulled from WP:VG/GA. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC))
  1.   ABA Games
  2.   Action Button Entertainment
  3.   Avalanche Studios
  4.   Bohemia Interactive
  5.   Bullfrog Productions
  6.   Bungie
  7.   CD Projekt
  8.   Dontnod Entertainment
  9.   Insomniac Games
  10.   Key (company)
  11.   Mikengreg
  12.   Monolith Soft
  13.   Obsidian Entertainment
  14.   PlatinumGames
  15.   Rare
  16.   Read-Only Memory (publisher)
  17.   Square Enix Montreal
  18.   Starbreeze Studios
  19.   Turtle Rock Studios
Outside of general history, it should explain why or how the company is notable. Perhaps a game they developed changed the industry (for better or worse), or something they did was highly controversial. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
We also have 1 FA,   Thatgamecompany. --PresN 17:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism to watch for

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[10] Since its expiration on Weds, nearly any page loosely tied with Todd Howard (of Bethesda) has been the subject of vandalism thanks to a push on Tumblr. WP admins are aware, but as most pages targeted are VG related, we ask you keep an eye out for this. --Masem (t) 01:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

#Look out for Bethesda-related vandalism. ;) -- ferret (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The Death and Return of Superman

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sup guys! I just wanted to ask a question: I recently rewrote "The Death of Superman" and am interested in rewriting the article for the game that's based on the story. This IGN retrospective mentions there was a big article about it in GamePro when it was released on the Genesis. Does anyone have a clue as to which issue this was? JOEBRO64 19:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It was issue 62 and their September 1994 issue. GamerPro64 14:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Tomba/Tomba 2 merger discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all. I would love to get more input in this discussion. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Riders

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

More eyes needed on Sonic Riders, in case IPs keeps adding cancelled versions to the infobox ([11], [12], [13], [14]). Per documentation for {{infobox video game}}, consoles in which the game was cancelled should not be listed; is that correct? The game was released on PS2, GC, Xbox and PC, and there is one cancelled version which is for GBA. – Hounder4 13:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. JOEBRO64 14:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_137&oldid=1137359563"