Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 142

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Masem in topic Famitsu's website:
Archive 135←Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145

New Articles (December 9 to December 15)

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v2.0 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

December 9

  • (Nothing)

December 10

December 11

December 12

December 13

December 14

December 15

Earth Defense Force 5 is a pretty mainstream game with a billion reviews, so making a draft and getting it approved wasn't really needed. It currently has no article and is stuck in the draft phase twilight zone. Can someone just publish the draft or make an article? Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it’s notable, but the draft is written with only one source in it, and is largely unsourced, so the “just publish it” approach isn’t really appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't really be just promote articles simply because the topic is notable. Slap on some more references before you promote at least. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You both do realize that WP:IMPERFECT is policy and WP:NEXIST is a major guideline but "leave it in draftspace because it currently has few sources" is not backed by any policy or guideline? Regards SoWhy 11:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
In my defense, I hadn't checked out the article. I just read that it only had one source. Whilst this is fine for mainspace, I'd argue against promoting an article in our field; as being a little lazy, when the sources do exist. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
In it’s curent form, an article with only one source doesn’t meet the WP:GNG, and as such, should not be published. You’ve got the know-how on how to fix it. You’ve got the knowledge of supposed existing sources needed to fix it. So if you’re so bothered, stop wasting our time arguing semantics and go fix it yourself. Yeesh. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Topics are not required to have sources in their articles to demonstrate notability and as such he doesn't need to fix anything. The article can be sent to mainspace as is. There's no guarantee that it wouldn't be AFDd, but that's neither here nor there. "Yeesh" is right. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
No sourcing has been presented at all at any point, outside of a single flimsy Gematsu source already in the article, for the record. That means we’re currently operating on a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument at this point. If that doesn’t float at AFD, I don’t know why it would float for draft promotion. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
If you took the time to check, it's not a "There must be", it's a "There are" sources, they just aren't in the article. WP:N has as one of its sections WP:NEXIST. Please go read it and verify for yourself that the sources do not need to be present in the article for a topic to be notable. --Izno (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It’s not my job to verify there are sources. Its the job of the people wanting to publish the article to prove this. This hasn’t happened. They’re too busy arguing to prove their own point. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
A gracious third party has added a variety of reliable sources. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Date columns in video game lists

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed extraneous release date columns on List of Game Boy Color games ([1]) and List of Game Boy Advance games ([2]) because these columns duplicate the "Date released"/"Year(s) released" column the lists already had, the dates are formatted in a non-MOS:DATES compliant manner, and the columns were added earlier this year, without any discussion I could find, by an IP editor who has been problematic for a very long time and is currently blocked. Assuming the project does not actually want these additional columns (if it does, the date format used for them needs to be changed to be MOS-compliant), other video game lists need to be checked for their addition and they need to be removed when present. I can do this work myself if that's what's wanted, but I thought it best to bring the issue to the project's attention when I realized it affects multiple lists instead of just one. While I will check in on this discussion, I'm not actively following this page, so if my attention specifically is needed for anything, please ping me to ensure I see in a timely manner. Thanks! 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 07:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Region-based dates have been discussed before with consensus saying to keep them (per the Switch games talk page). Nobody AFAIK has ever cited MOS:DATES as a reason to get rid of them either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Region-based dates are already present in those lists, using {{vgrtbl}}, in the "Date released" (GBC games) and "Year(s) released (GBA games) columns. The columns I removed were added very recently, duplicated those already-present columns, did not use any formatting template, and using a date format not allowed by MOS:DATES. As I said in my opening comment, it may well be that you guys decide the removed columns are actually the way to go on these lists, but in that case, the dates need to comply with MOS:DATES, and the original date columns should probably be removed instead, as duplicated information. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 06:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer to the Switch list, btw, though skimming through its talk page and archives, I didn't see any relevant-looking discussion. That being said, I will note that the list itself does format dates in a MOS:DATES-compliant way; my MOS-related complaint was simply that the columns in question were not MOS-compliant, and if they are added back using the same date format as the Switch list uses, I won't have any complaint on that front. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 06:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to find it. If it wasn't on the Switch page, it might have been on here because I know for a fact we discussed simply going with the first release date (regardless of region) to avoid release bloat. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello WikiProject Video Games, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
JOEBRO64 13:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

New Articles (December 16 to December 22)

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v2.1 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

December 16

December 17

December 18

December 19

December 20

December 21

December 22

Changelog:

  • Article "creations" that are actually moves from Draft space to Article space will now list the original draft creator as the author, not the page mover
  • You shouldn't notice because I was fixing it manually, but a bug relating to counting page moves as new redirects now fixed. --PresN 03:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems like the page move fix might have broken the attribution for Lightning II above. --Izno (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, the script's never been able to tell that someone was writing an article on top of something created as a redirect, and Avalikarvamus~enwiki was the user who original created that article as a redirect in 2008. Thanks for the report, though, it does help. --PresN 07:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Was there anything usable in the ICEY draft? An article about this game has been requested at WP:VG/R. Reach Out to the Truth 00:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Reach Out to the Truth You can have it restored and then decide if it's worth improving or if a brand new base should be written. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Rumor has it that Black Mirror is set to air an episode called Bandersnatch next week, and that it is tied to the the Bandersnatch game that ended up being Brataccas due to photos from production shots/etc. (Bandersnatch (video game) redirects there.) Given the popularity of Black Mirror, this might cause that page to see a few bumps and editing issues. --Masem (t) 16:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

👀 Bandersnatch (Black Mirror) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The episode is currently listed as a film on Netflix itself. 🤔 Secondary source. Lordtobi (✉) 18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, and Netflix's official twitter briefly had a tweet mentioning it before it was removed. It's all but confirmed in name and date at this point. Content-wise is still a mystery but again, if it is about the video game, expect some interested edit to the vg page. --Masem (t) 18:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Noting that this has been confirmed, and does involve video games. --Masem (t) 15:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

wow

incredible experience Ben · Salvidrim! ✉

Video Buddy VHS console.

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ok, I know most of the gaming community likes to ignore the existence of educational consoles, but hear me out.

I've been creating Stub pages for some really obscure consoles/handhelds, because they didn't have articles and they need at least something to come back to and improve, but some weren't even listed on the List of home video game consoles, so I've been searching on the internet to see what else is out there.

I found the Gakken Compact Vision TV Boy wasn't listed, so I created a page for it. I know we're supposed to look at external sources when deciding what generation some consoles fall under, but with such a rare japan exclusive system, nearly no one talks about them or mentions a generation. So I looked at the hardware, it had only 4 colors, resolution of 128×192 pixels, and the processor was on the cartridges just like the Epoch Cassette Vision, so I placed it on the Second generation of video game consoles, according to it's list of features.

Now my newest problem, I found an educational VHS console, the Video Buddy, Interactive Video Play System, (pictures of the box and console). Now, in the late 80's, there were many VHS systems, the Action Max, View-Master Interactive Vision, Terebikko, Video Challenger, Videosmarts and the Sega Video Driver. They are all lumped into the third generation which seems appropriate, but the problem with this new one to add to the pile is that it came out in 1999. The last one cataloged to be released in that generation was the Commodore 64 Games System in 1990, and the generation ended in 2003 (I'm not entirely sure why that date was chosen, was it because of the Game Boy?).

This relatively recent thing is obscure because no one cared about it then, and certainly don't care about it now, so I could only find a handful of people talking about it's existence, but not much else.

From what I can tell, this thing came out November 1999, and stopped being sold in 2001 (If the website archive is to be believed), so placing it in the third generation wouldn't be altering the end date, but it would be the last of it's generation to be released, and 9 years after the last.

So what generation does this belong to? Talkkaris (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, the generations, as much as they have a purpose and as hard as it to do sometimes, are intended to group consoles that competed with each other and had comparable abilities. This console, as you note, does not have comparable abilities to its temporal peers, and as an educonsole was not intended to compete directly with the, say, PlayStation- it was in a different submarket. As far as the template goes, this is where things fall through to the "other" generation- {{Video game consoles|Generation=Other}} gives you educonsoles that have the specs of systems 5-10 years older, and retro consoles, and this kind of "VHS educonsole released after DVDs were a thing" feels like it would go there, especially without a source to give better guidance. I'd do that for the template, and not mention a generation in the article/infobox at all. --PresN 01:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Morgan (character)

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Could someone look at Arthur Morgan (character), and prune the "events" section. It looks like a full on plot summary of the game. I only recently got the game, so I don't want to copyedit to avoid spoilers. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Dito for John Marston (character). Lordtobi (✉) 16:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Both are crap and shouldn't exist. Doesn't help that they were created by sockpuppets of a vandal known for creating bad articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Should we consider AfD? Lordtobi (✉) 17:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
We should. I thought character articles needed the character to have appeared in multiple game series for inclusion in stand alone articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not necessarily about appearing in multiple games. It's about the character's real world notability and significance. Characters like Mario and Pikachu can be written from a real-world perspective because they are known globally even amongst people who have never touched a game. These fictional characters are icons that have some significance in modern culture. We don't have to mention their detailed, specific actions in each appearance they've made; we can write about them very generally because there is enough coverage for that. Arthur Morgan (character) and John Marston (character) are written entirely from an in-universe perspective. It's just crappy overlong plot dump of everything these characters have done in the story of their 1 or 2 appearances. Doesn't belong here. Anything about the design of Morgan and Marston or how they were received by critics in relation to their games can and probably already should be summarised in Red Dead Redemption and Red Dead Redemption 2. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh and it will probably be kept after AfD anyway. There's always a set of editors that vote to keep rubbish like this. They'll just make the argument that "plenty of sources cover this character" when really these sources don't talk about character's real-world significance at all but rather their actions in game. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
This is actually not correct. We want the real-world perspective so how a character was developed or how the character was received is part of this and sufficient for a standalone article. (We do want to avoid those cases where there's zero dev info and the reception is "(He) was list as the 9th Most Badass Character by (weak RS)" aka listicals). We do need to be "blind" to a bloated bio or plot section - that's a fixable problem, but if there's dev and reception info, that shouldn't be a reason to deletion. --Masem (t) 18:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I know not everybody agrees with me, but I tend to use WP:TNT on those kind of plot sections. So I did. It was a whopping 19,000 characters long, or more than 3,200 words. Usually a plot description should be between 500 and 800 words. A quick copy-paste into Google Docs shows that, in normal font, it equated to five and a half pages. Nobody will read that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Need opinions

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

So this is about an article Airport Simulator 2019, formerly Airport Simulator. Airport Simulator was a 2011 game which did not get much coverage (the title does not help either) and was in a really bad shape as per https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Airport_Simulator_2019&oldid=864329750. So I PRODed the article which got declined with added sources of Airport Simulator 2019, another game in the series by a different developer to expand on. I cleaned up things, added gameplay part, release date, proper category tags, and 2 foreign reviews (one coming from a reliable GameStar).

And what I need help for is to assess whether these 3 sources can be considered reliable to count in WP:GNG.

I am not sure if they are, so I came here. Gave it my best here, but if it's not enough, then it just isn't. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • WT:VG/RS is the go-to spot for video game-related source discussion. That being said however, truegamers.it doesn't seem to have a staff page; gamepitt.co.uk looks more like a fansite with one person's reviews (looks can be deceiving, but I don't see why this would be considered reliable any more than better looking sites that are already considered unreliable); and while thexboxhub looks like the most reliable one of the three at a glance check, their staff page basically just consists of bios that say "I've been a gamer for years" and say nothing of professional credentials or why we should consider them credible. So maybe I'm being too harsh or looking at things the wrong way, but I'd say that none of the these sites are reliable. Somebody else (more experience with this) needs to check. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

PlayStation Classic heavy discount photo.

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

I think it’s safe to say that the PlayStation Classic was a massive flop, reviews were mostly 5/10 or worse, with people saying it was rushed to market with the bare minimum of features and games, and many emulation and presentation problems. Apparently it was so bad that stores all around the globe started to sell it with a $40/€40 discount right after Christmas day.

I was visiting a store that had a few NES and SNES Classics at full price, while there was a clearance bin full of these things. I took a picture of it and want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons for the public domain to use in the sales section of the article, but since this is a picture taken at a retail store with the box-art of the product I’m not sure if I can publish it under that license.

The image in question. Talkkaris (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't be free, and there are now several articles on RSes that talk of the price drop to make a hundred photo to show that inappropriate. --Masem (t) 12:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too sure on if it could be considered free, you'd better off asking someone on Commons. I'm not sure it's appropriate, regardless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not free. If your intention is to illustrate the price drop, then use a reliable published third-party source. Citing your own picture is OR. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Many sources covered it, and thus isn’t particularly something that would require an image to illustrate the concept in an article, so just stick to what the sources say. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Lee Vilenski in that I am not sure if it could be licensed properly, but it is indeed an edge-case at best. If there are indeed multiple reliable sources affirming the price drop, including this image wouldn't be WP:OR and could actually be quite nice. If there was only a source or two covering this fact, it would be much less worth including, honestly. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, just because a lot of people talk about something doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a photo to better illustrate a point, you can have a text list of each component of a motherboard but having a picture helps a lot. The reason I took the photo is because all of the articles that I've seen talking about the $40/€40 discount only show the official stock photo from Sony. And searching on Google for photos of the discounted unsold stock in stores doesn't yield anything. I've gone to several stores in the past 3 days after Christmas and all tell the same story, a pile of boxes with a discount. So knowing how badly some video game history gets preserved, I wanted to take a picture to illustrate this event for the public domain before it disappears. Heck I live in Portugal where most retailers usually don't discount stuff way after it's supposed to happen, so I was surprised to see them affected here as well, the sales must have been abysmal. I still intend to upload the picture, where in Wikimedia Commons can I ask if this needs any special licence? Talkkaris (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I will just note that I've seen at least 4 sources that confirm that there was a multi-retailer price drop, so we have the "record" of this. It might be possible that a photo taken from far enough way to make the box art a de minimus application would be possible okay as free. What we have to be careful is to try to use the photo to compare what is left of NES/SNES classic stock vs PS Classic stock, that's something that veers to OR territory. --Masem (t) 18:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Do what you will, but I’d likely like contest it’s implementation at the PS Classic page. Images, much like direct quotes, are meant to be used sparingly, to illustrate things difficult to convey with text alone. We don’t need a image to illustrate the concept of a price cut for a commercial product. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is needed or wanted. It could just be a large sale at random (they happen), and us attributing it due to its critical reception is WP:OR. However, I think this could be used in the future once it goes out of print and we have retrospective articles that connect the two or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Until then, it may be cool if one could take a picture on which the boxes are more obfuscated than in the one suggested. The top box here in particular looks too much like the primary focus. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you have a spare moment to pop over to Disney's Animated Storybook and copyedit my work?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Regards, --Coin945 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

From experience, there are several users, a mixture of accounts, IPs, and members of WP:GOCE, who follow Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and will go out of their way to make whatever copyedits they deem necessary on the article. If you don't get any luck here, I'm sure there will be other editors on the encyclopedia passing by.   Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Always best to try at WP:GOCE first Coin945, especially as this is quite a long and complicated article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One more Featured Picture until 2019 arrives. And today the picture goes to the Sega Game Gear. No better way to close this year than pulling out your large, six AA battery requiring, handheld from the 90s. GamerPro64 06:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

[3] JOEBRO64 14:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, please help bring Playstation Portable to FA status. In particular the citations need work for consistency and completeness and more sourcing couldn't hurt. JC7V (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it already failed its FAC. GamerPro64 01:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Can someone help me do what the reviewer suggests here, before I take this to Peer Review?? I fixed some things, but a lot of things I am weak on so I need help. I can't do it all myself. Thanks. JC7V (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
For anyone interested in helping out, I recently did a GA review of this article, so there will be some things that are still relevent to this peer review at: Talk:PlayStation Portable/GA2 Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to wish everybody on the WikiProject a very Happy New Year. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Same to you!! (And everyone else.) Sergecross73 msg me 05:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Bonne Année to everyone :D Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Happy New Year to all! As a New Year's Resolution, how about working on the WP:GAN#VG backlog?   (It's backlogged to August now.) Regards SoWhy 10:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Would you kindly let me access this source?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Regards,--Coin945 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You are more likely to get help by asking at WP:REREQ TarkusABtalk 17:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I did this. :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't have access to that archive... --Coin945 (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

My New Year's resolution challenge

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

For the better part of a decade I've been doing these yearly New Year's resolution. Every year, I try to challenge myself in some way, to learn more about me or change my behavior. It started out with not eating meat for year, to experience what it would be like. In the year that followed, I didn't have any cheese (that one was a lot harder than no meat). I've tried not having an alcoholic drink for a year, but I caved after five months. This year, which ends in eight hours or so where I'm at, I haven't played any video games. I did show Sleeping Dogs to my girlfriend, when she went to Hong Kong for her work, but that's it.

The reason why I'm telling you this is because I've decided that in 2019 I'm not going to edit Wikipedia. It's not that I don't want to. It's very much a part of my daily routine and I enjoy it a lot. But like I said, it's to challenge myself and see what it does to me. I sort of was hoping to end the year at 40,000 edits, but I'm way passed that number. I'll occasionally keep an eye out on my talk page, and if needed I'll reply of course. I won't be editing articles, be involved in XfD's or respond to reverts.

I figured it would be polite to let WP:VG know, since I consider myself to be a very active member here. Ferret, Czar, Salvidrim!, Masem, Dissident93, Hellknowz, Lordtobi, PresN, Rhain, Sergecross73, Mable and everyone else, have a great New Year's. You probably see me back on January 1, 2020. I'm going to prepare my PS4 for tomorrow. I've got some catching up to do. Knack 2, baby! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Good luck soetermans, and thanks for your hard work with VG based articles over the years! I'll see you in a few days :P. I could never manage to stay away personally. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Take care Seb, one's own wellbeing should always come before volunteering thoughttime to some website. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
^ JOEBRO64 16:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Have a good experiment and year! See you next January! --PresN 16:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Good luck and have a wonderful 2019. We'll hold down the place until you return! TarkusABtalk 16:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanls for letting us know. At least we’ll know you weren’t scared off, burnt out, or any other bad scenario like that. (Side note: Im personally not a fan of the idea of abstaining from things that don’t need to be obstained of. I don’t say that of judgement, but quite the opposite actually - no judgment from me at all if you decide to drop this part way through and return sooner. I’d welcome it.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So what I'm hearing is tempt you with lots of juicy articles, cheese, beer, and video games, and see you in three months, yes? Am I doing this right?   (Or... this just a trick so you don't have to explain why Knack 2 is your first pick?) But really, we'll miss ya! See you on the other side! czar 03:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks indeed for letting us know, Soutermans. We'll miss you, and I hope you (as well as everyone else here) will have a great 2019 ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Sniper video games

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Is this a defining genre? Is it really distinct from Category:Shooter video games? czar 22:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it meant to distinguish difference between light gun games (like House of the Dead) and FPS’s like Halo and Call of Duty? (Honest question - I cant really tell based on the list it has populated. Looks like the main criteria is having “snipe” or “scope” in the title at this point.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Just seems like games that has the character primarily use sniper rifles, so stuff like Sniper Elite and such. I'd vote to delete this in a CfD. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the fence for this one. Sniping is significantly different as a mechanic compared to regular shooting, and there seems to be a fair number of games that focus specifically on it, warranting the grouping. I would oppose expanding the scope to "any game with a sniper rifle", but I think it is possible to narrowly define this category and have it be useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this more of a story style genre description than gameplay? Sniper games would be games where the player character(s) are snipers.~ Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 39: 2019 clean up time

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Its 2019. We got a lot articles in the backlog so lets deal with that:

FLC
FTC
GAN
Peer Reviews

And, most importantly, we have still have a backlog at the Request board. Five requests remain for 2016 so if anyone wants to contribute to the backlog it would be very helpful. GamerPro64 18:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll go try and tackle some of those requests but I hope some experienced reviewers will deal with the review backlogs, especially GAN. Regards SoWhy 08:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Rolo to the Rescue help

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone have any old video game magazines that cover Rolo to the Rescue for Sega Genesis? Its one of my personal favorite games.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie, Sega Retro's got you covered: https://segaretro.org/Rolo_to_the_Rescue/Magazine_articles and https://segaretro.org/Rolo_to_the_Rescue JOEBRO64 16:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thank you!Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's some links:--Coin945 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

References

  1. ^ Anfalmyr. "Test: Rolo to the Rescue". Jeuxvideo.com. L'Odyssée Interactive. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  2. ^ Carter, Chip and Jonathan (June 18, 1993). "Fun for little kids -- and big ones". The Orlando Sentinel. p. 101. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  3. ^ "Back To The Nineties: The Latest News From December 1992". Retro Gamer (77): 20-1.
  4. ^ Carter, Chip and Jonathan (June 18, 1993). "Ducks bring joy to kids". Santa Ana Orange County Register. p. 131. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  5. ^ "Hobbies on VIdeo: With or without gore, Mortal Kombat a hi". Nanaimo Daily News. September 17, 1993. p. 10. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  6. ^ "Games: Appealing to children". Santa Maria Times. June 18, 1993. p. 9. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  7. ^ "Hotshots: Rolo To The Rescue". Computer and Video Games (134): 108. January 1993. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  8. ^ Anglin, Paul (February 1993). "Review: Rolo to the Rescue". Computer and Video Games (135): 36. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  9. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". Score (in Czech) (4): 45. April 1994. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  10. ^ "CES '93 Report: Gaming on the Horizon". GamePro (45): 124. April 1993. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  11. ^ Matt and Ade (February 1993). "Rolo to the Rescue". Sega Force (14): 98-9. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  12. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". Mean Machines Sega (5): 78-9. January 1993. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  13. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue (unable to access page)". Svenska Hemdatornytt. 1993 (2): 41. February 1993. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  14. ^ Mansour, Anthony (June 1993). "Rolo to the Rescue (unable to access page)". MegaZone (28): 52-3. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  15. ^ "Preview: Rolo to the Rescue (unable to access page)". MEGA (4). January 1993. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  16. ^ "Pro Review: Rolo to the Rescue". SegaPro (in German) (6): 39. April 1993. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  17. ^ "Rolo". Joystick (in French) (35): 188. February 1993. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  18. ^ "ゾウ！ゾウ！ゾウ！ レスキュー大作戦". BeepMD (in Japanese): 21. March 1993.
  19. ^ Dyer, Andy (February 1993). "Rolo to the Rescue". Mega (5): 48-9.
  20. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". PlayerOne (in French) (28): 76-7. February–March 1993. Retrieved 31 December 2018.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  21. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". Mean Machines Sega (13): 37. November 1993.
  22. ^ "Game Genie Tips: Rolo to the Rescue". Mean Machines Sega (8): 22. May 1993.
  23. ^ Jarratt, Steve; Ellis, Les; Leach, James (February 1993). "Rolo to the Rescue". GamesMaster (2): 66-7. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  24. ^ Dan (the Man) (April 1993). "Rolo to the Rescue". Electric Brain (33): 18. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  25. ^ "Game Genie (Mega Drive)". GamesMaster (6). Future Publishing: 107. June 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  26. ^ "The Hard Line: Rolo to the Rescue". Sega Power (46): 98. September 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  27. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". MegaPlay. 4 (1): 36. February 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  28. ^ "Rolo, der Retter". Video Games (in German). Markt & Technik: 15. February 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  29. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". Video Games (in German). Markt & Technik: 82. March 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  30. ^ "Sprite des monats". Video Games (in German). Markt & Technik: 36. April 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  31. ^ "High Scores Charts". Video Games (in German). Markt & Technik: 62. May 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  32. ^ "Mega Drive Zapping: Rolo to the Rescue". MegaForce (in Spanish) (11): 66-7. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  33. ^ Karlsson, Jinn (May 21, 2018). "Dev Talk: What're Your Earliest Video Game-Related Memories? (Part 1)". iFanzine. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  34. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". Supersonic (in French) (7): 22. February 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  35. ^ Weiss, Brett (July 9, 2018). Classic Home Video Games, 1989–1990: A Complete Guide to Sega Genesis, Neo Geo and TurboGrafx-16 Games. McFarland. p. 184.
  36. ^ Slaven, Andy (2002). Video Game Bible, 1985-2002. Trafford Publishing. p. 265.
  37. ^ Semrad, Ed, ed. (August 1993). "Rolo to the Rescue (unable to access)". Electronic Gaming Monthly (49). United States: Sendai Publishing: 82. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  38. ^ Cheshire, Sophie (September 7, 2004). "Rolo to the Rescue". Sega-16.
  39. ^ Houghton, Carl (February 3, 2016). "Hidden Gems Vol. 6: Rolo to the Rescue (Mega Drive)". Funstock Retro.
  40. ^ "News: Rolo to the Rescue". Mean Machines Sega (3): 20. December 1992.
  41. ^ Davis, Ashley (March 4, 2009). "Games time forgot: Rolo to the Rescue". Destructoid. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  42. ^ Retro Gamer Team (March 18, 2009). "Rolo to the Rescue". Retro Gamer. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  43. ^ "Hold Onto Your Wallets: The 16 Bits Are Back!". GamesMaster (47): 11. October 1996.
  44. ^ Hill, Julian (June 23, 2017). "Mega Drive Review - Rolo to the Rescue (Game 136)". Boxed Pixels. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  45. ^ "Interface: Rolo to the Rescue". Video Games (in German). Markt & Technik: 76. August 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  46. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". Mega Sega (16): 84. August 1994. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  47. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". Power Play (in German): 124. April 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  48. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". GamesMaster (3). Future Publishing: 87-8. March 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  49. ^ "Fast Takes: Rolo to the Rescue". Sega Visions: 96. April–May 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  50. ^ "Electronic Arts: Rolo to the Rescue". Classic Gaming. 1. 2016. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  51. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue: El sucesor de Dumbo". Super Juegos (in Spanish) (12): 30-1. April 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  52. ^ Sega Genesis Manual: Zou! Zou! Zou! Rescue Daisakusen (in Japanese). Electronic Arts. 1992.
  53. ^ "Rolo to the Rescue". Games TM (6): 132. June 2003. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  54. ^ "Rolo ot the Rescue". Computer+Videogiochi (in Italian) (28). Gruppo Editoriale Jackson. July 1993. Retrieved 1 January 2019.

Thanks again, everyone.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I know that noone asked for those completed citations above, but since I went ahead and did that I hope they will all be used to buff up the article rather than gathering dust here. :D--Coin945 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

sorry for not responding so fast. thank you for your hard work. I'm currently not on the best PC to add these in. but once I am, I'll add them to the article. unless someone else wants to.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So on the List of fiction set in Chicago and New York City pages, there appears to be many false video game-related entries included on there. (I just removed Resident Evil 2, Sonic the Hedgehog, and Team Sonic Racing, but if you check you will find a lot more). I'm not sure what's going on here, but it appears a single user has been adding this sort of stuff unchecked for months. Maybe this isn't the best place to bring it up, but I know we have a number of admins here who could help. EDIT: I just realized that the user changed the format and scope of both before going on this spree of adding unsourced, false, and out of scope entries on both, so I've just gone ahead and reverted to the last good version of both. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Would someone be able to re-add We Are Chicago to the Chicago list? My addition of the video game to that list was somehow reverted along with the removal (maybe some other good faith additions too.) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
You can't just add it back yourself? TarkusABtalk 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  Done Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about removing any valid entries, but that user had added so many false ones that it was the only real option. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sony Interactive Entertainment franchises

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This category Category:Sony Interactive Entertainment franchises was created yesterday. It's contents look like "franchise" has been confused with "intellectual property" and assumed to mean the same thing, when they obviously don't. There are entries that are obviously not franchises; one single game does not a franchise make. - X201 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s the same problem we have at virtually every “x video game company franchises” template I’ve ever come across or maintained too... Sergecross73 msg me 11:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Can we not simply change the cat name? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
To what name and scope would you propose though? Whether the scope is actual franchise/series, or every game IP Sony’s ever touched, it’s still wrongly applied. On the templates, we just handle it by (constantly) removing items that aren’t actually a series. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say to delete the category entirely, but I'm harsher on WP:OC than some, as well as categories with flimsy & unclear borders. SnowFire (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Arc should be added to Software distribution platforms and content delivery networks template

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arc should be added to Software distribution platforms and content delivery networks template --> Active --> Personal computer. Here is its official website: https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningwolf2 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

While we appreciate the request, the company needs to have a Wiki article before it can be added. See WP:NAVBOX. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Col and Rowspan to reduce list page size

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This came up on the list of 360 games but it could apply to game lists more broadly. Lists are getting very big in the bytes department, should we institute the liberal use of Col and Rowspan to reduce the payload size? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The suggested use is not accessible. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of putting a nail in it, could you point out where that's covered? This link makes no mention of colspan, rowspan, cell merges, etc. -- ferret (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Recent discussion here. Row and column spans can be used (and even in the same cell), but should be avoided where the row or column span would be larger than some span to the left or top of the table. --Izno (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, 2 general rules on rowspans (e.g. joining 2+ cells vertically):
  1. As you scan a row left to right, you should never go from unspanned to spanned. This not only violates ACCESS rules as per Izno, it's really, really visually confusing. The example on the linked talk page is a patchwork of arbitrary connections that's really hard to parse out into individual games.
  2. Things should be spanned because they logically go together, not just because they happen to have the same cells next to each other due to the way the table is sorted right now. That is, if you have a year column as the first, and the table starts as sorted by year, it can make sense to span the same year together. But in the X360 table, it makes no sense to span "Sports" across three rows just because, as of today, those 3 games when sorted alphabetically happen to be next to each other. It creates connections where none exist, and make it a pain if you need to add another row in the middle that's not a sports game.
The only thing to do for it is going to be to split it into multiple lists, probably by letter (the PS4 lists are e.g. A-L / M-Z) --PresN 03:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 outtro for video games on Wikidata

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Take a look at Commonists blog. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This is fascinating stuff but boy do I not have the mental bandwidth to grok the whole Wikidata thing, now or soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks! I’m the author of that blog-post. I hope it raises some interest here, and if you have any question about it, don’t hesitate to ask (to me directly or on the Wikidata VG project talk-page). :-)
Jean-Fred (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Article title of Project M

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I’d like some more input about the article’s title being discussed at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Project_M_(Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl_mod)#Moved_to_...(Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl_mod) - I’ve given some input, but “mods” aren’t really my area of expertise, so I thought I’d pose it here. Please comment there Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Crash (magazine)

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Looks like this recent GAN skipped mention in {{WPVG announcements}}. At a glance, looks terribly over-reliant on primary/affiliated and unreliable sources for a GA... Anyone have time to dig deeper? czar 17:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: See the DYK nom and feel free to leave a comment there. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I might be a bit biased on this as I was a big Crash fan back in the day (as was The Rambling Man) but as I've said elsewhere, I can't find much else in the way of sources. However, as far as "unreliable sources" go, I refer the honourable gentleman to User:Ritchie333#Zen and the art of Wikipedia Maintenance point 27, and I stood up to those editors who were most upset about not closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitty (cricketer) as "delete", and they came armed with reasonable arguments too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that your "point 27" is about people quotes WP:RS at newbies without explanation, and given that you've been an editor here for 13 years and the reviewer has been for 12, I'm not sure it applies... and I really don't know what an unrelated AfD from 4 months ago has to do with anything? In any case, glancing at the article it looks like half of the refs are to Crash or Crash Online (21/42), but this is a bit misleading as ref 1 (non-Crash) has 16 citations, 6 of the Crash citations are for the table of reader awards, and a lot of the rest are part of multi-citation sets for short sentences, rather than trying to support entire paragraphs. I don't feel that it's over-reliant on primary sources, though I didn't evaluate it for unreliable sources- there are a few that look sketchy from the url but I'm not an expert in the area and I know some of the places of record for Spectrum stuff are at odd titles. --PresN 18:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Simply put, people throw around random slightly insulting phrases like "that's an unreliable source" without qualifying it with anything. For example, "that's an unreliable source for citing that Sabre Wulf was based primarily on David Attenborough's wildlife documentaries - nobody else has said that anywhere, and it doesn't doesn't seem realistic", or "that's an unreliable source for saying there's a trailer in Lunar Jetman - Ultimate never said one way or the other, and there's no proof", or "that's an unreliable source for saying Phil Collins has died - none of the broadsheets have said it". Anyway, you get the idea - sources are only reliable (or not) for a specific claim and only then to some degree of it. Policies are not dogma. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hm. I can't conceive of any scenario in which this Gremlin Archive source should be treated as trustworthy for a claim. That's what we mean by "unreliable source" (or if preferable parlance, "questionable source", but tomato tomato). czar 02:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
These deleted sources were far more prima facie reliable than "Gremlin Archives" and its ilk. czar 11:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking based entirely on the sources cited in the article, I'm not sure if it's passed GNG yet. I'm not saying the subject does not pass GNG guidelines per se, but just saying that based on what's in the article currently. You have two Eurogamer articles and that's kinda it for third party sources. The rest are just primary sources. It's well written for what it is. I've noticed that GA mostly focuses on the quality of the prose and the size of the article and just assumes the subject passes GNG as a start. One possibility is to trim the article and merge it into the publisher's article. I've noticed that once an article gets GA status, people treat it like it's sacrosant to merge or delete it though, and there's lots of resistance. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, I recall the dispute at Talk:Tom Petty/Archive 2, where something really was unreliably reported caused absolute havoc and mayhem, including near wheel-warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to review my DYK nom?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regards, Coin945--Coin945 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

They usually get done in the order they were created/uploaded. Yours will likely be done today, as far as I can tell.The only issue would be if the hook was deemed not interesting enough, but that's up for interpretation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek: Starfleet Command mobile game

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is there an article for the new mobile game released in December or not, was trying to find if we had one but couldn't. Govvy (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It was made by Scopely, but didn't see a link there, maybe nothing been created yet. Govvy (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Its only mention is at List of Star Trek games#Mobile. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, as there didn't seem to be an article I have made a start on Star Trek Fleet Command (mobile) hope that's okay for a start, article needs some categories. Govvy (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Toontown Online

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am taking charge in fixing the article Toontown Online I believe there is simply not enough information for people to be properly informed about this game. If others could help as well I would really appreciate it. The only thing Im slightly worried about is that I have a highly favorable bias to the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3mmaqwe (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

as far as I can see with a quick scan of the article, the article needs a severe reception section update, and the gameplay section that needs to fit with the WP:VG/MOS Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A tool for Google searching within Newspaper sites?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, is there an available tool that searches your keyword with "site:nytimes.com", "site:thewashingtontimes.com", and all the other major reliable newspapers?

These don't often show up in a Google search and can easily be located via a search their own websites. Therefore this tool would come in extremely handy.

Regards, Coin945--Coin945 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

We do have a custom video game source search engine, of which you can find more information on this page, but here's a direct link: [4]. That being said, I would personally stick to Google News and use my own judgment, in part because non-video game news websites (like potentially the New York Times) might not pop up on there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you for the tips. However I just don't find GoogleNews to be all that useful. It skews massively toward modern buzzy articles, and seem to excise all the juicy articles that pop up when using the "site:____.com" format in Google Proper. By the same token that custom search engine is nice, but it misses out so much. Particularily for the educational gaming genre when they weren't taken as seriously by the gaming space but were picked up in more traditional newspapers in the content of education--Coin945 (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
One other thing I sometimes play around with in order to find articles of a specific type is the date range, which you can affect in Google News. Other than that, I don't think there's much more I can help with myself. It sounds to me like the optimal situation for you would be if you could pick the exact set of websites you search yourself. I don't know if such a thing is possible unless you have the technical know-how to set it up yourself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In my experience Google News has gotten much worse about exposing historical articles than it was when I first started using it. No idea why that is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For that specific case, I have a custom Google search engine that searches major periodicals and other reliable sources. I could potentially open it up? Alternatively, major database providers like ProQuest/EBSCOhost give the option of searching across multiple newspaper archives, and remember that many of those articles are no longer or were never on Google. For obscure stuff, you're best off using library resources and learning to prowl the paywalled databases. czar 18:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Mode parameter in the infobox

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion here, would like more opinions from VG members. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Template split

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Doing this here as Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pokémon is fairly dead.

The Template:Pokémon is getting fairly big and might need a split. Juxlos (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the video game series, television series, and film series could each have a template of their own. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Basing an article on foreign-language sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I have noticed a pecuilarity about the game that I played a lot in my youth – Ignition (video game) (giant bomb). The pecuilarity is that this game went completely unnoticed with English-language reviewers, but was extensively reviewed by non-english ones. For example: Game.EXE - 1; Strana Igr – 2; Game World Navigator – 3. However, only Game.EXE is considered reliable by project's standards. But I'm not sure if the article can be based on these reviews. Is it?

Tangential to that – what do you all think about expanding prose of some review parts of some game articles basing on non-English sources? I have a review of Klonoa: Door to Phantomile (that's GA nominee at the moment) in Strana Igr on my hands, and I'm kinda tempted to go and add it into prose. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because a source isn't listed yet on our list of known reliable sources, doesn't mean it isn't reliable. We'll just have to discuss these two sources in particular and see if they hold up to our standards. If so, of course you can use them. Their foreign-language status isn't an issue, and could actually be seen as an advantage in ways. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
the language that sources are in have zero bearing on them not being reliable. A quick machine translation should be plenty to see if it's a mention, or in-depth. Reliability is the other concern, but they don't need to be listed to be reliable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It can be tricky if the source is a non-OCR scan of a printed page – it means that the verification may be kinda difficult. However though – I'll see what I can whip up in the article about Ignition. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Shove the document into a "pdf-to-text" website, and shove the output into Google Translate. Not perfect but often the best alternative.--Coin945 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
We do need to bring up Strana Igr for WT:VG/RS, since it is definitely reliable. I brought some other Russian magazines before, but I just don't have the time to review them.
I know there are a bunch of games that were never reviewed in English sources that are notable. Same redlinks pop up in the reference library, especially for ~2000 and earlier games. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (December 23 to December 29)

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v2.1 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

December 23

  • (none)

December 24

December 25

December 26

December 27

December 28

December 29

Welp, the datasource I've been using has been down for 2 weeks, but I managed to get a single response from it today, so here's Dec 23-29. Which is small, because it was a holiday week. --PresN 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Great, glad to see it back! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Great to see it. It's a shame it sometimes doesn't present as it should do.
Surprised there were this many articles created on Christmas day... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Time zones mean that it may have been the day before, but either way, people stuck in relative's houses? --PresN 13:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I get how Coin got credit for that December 27 item. He did do work on that area in this timeframe but not that exact article. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Coin gets the credit because he created the article (September 12, 2016‎). It's on December 27 because it got assessed then (by Lee Vilenski). It's because someone turned it into a redirect on December 1 (and updated the tag), it got un-redirected on the 26th (and then the tag was fixed), but then re-redirected on the 28th. It must have just missed the cutoff to make it onto this week's list of changes, or else it would have been elided altogether. --PresN 13:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to put a date limit on 'creations'? Anything like a basic sanity check of 'within the last year' or 'within the last month' or similar. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is "creations" that are like this one- they were a redirect prior to this week, and during the week it got changed from a redirect to a "real" article. The script doesn't have a good way right now to determine who "created" it, as there's no standard way to indicate that beyond the removal of the redirect tag, so it just uses the original page creator. Maybe I should just drop the creator name in that case until I put together a way to get the un-redirector. --PresN 16:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Usually, the edit history tells you right away who created an article over a redirect. I believe it's under the tag "Removed redirect". Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
That'll work. I'll get that fixed then! --PresN 20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Anons adding stuff SNK articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In the past months anons have been adding information about how Bandai Namco are developing KOF articles instead of SNK. I have been reverting the edits, but they always show up in another account to do the exact thing all over again. In need of help here.Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You mean like this and this and this? It seems to be a pattern on fighting game articles. Is there any truth to it or is it vandalism? I'm not familiar with the scene. TarkusABtalk 16:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with those, but I mean they keep adding that Namco Bandai developed the latest KOF games when it was SNK only. The only different stuff SNK did for the English releases is having another publisher, Atlus USA and Deep Silver. I don't get the anons obsession with these edits to the point so I have been questioning myself about it.Tintor2 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I’ve deal with some LTA IP-hoppers over the years who just add hoax developers/publishers all day long until I catch them and block them. Some seem like vandalism, while others have had a COMPETENCE problem. There’s been a few over the years who do mostly the same thing though, so I can’t tell if it’s them or not, but either way, if you notice it, you can report them to me and I’ll take care of it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Unisonic Champion 2711 console Generation.

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The First Generation of consoles is a hodgepodge slime pool of samey consoles, missing information, confusion, and is overall the one in worst condition when it comes to archiving and preservation. This also means that 90% or more of the consoles released in this generation are so obscure that it's hard to find anything about them, or even people talking about it.

The rare and obscure Unisonic Champion 2711 is one of them. This one is lumped together with all of the other 1st gen consoles, including the other dedicated consoles Unisonic made, but this one is different. It is very much a 2nd gen system, one that was obsolete the second it hit store shelves like the RCA Studio II, but still.

Now, as stated previously, this thing is super rare and super obscure, meaning there aren't sources directly saying it's from any generation. It's in times like this that we have to decide where to put them according to our guidelines. I added the also not-talked-about rare Gakken Compact Vision TV Boy to the second generation according to some of the specs and release dates in the Second generation page.

Sylvain De Chantal has the most information on this thing, so this is where I'm getting all the info from.

  • It has 4 built in games, just like the Fairchild Channel F has 2.
  • It has the General Instrument CP1600 CPU, same as the Intellivision.
  • It can accept ROM cartridges, 4 were made and many more were planned to be released.
  • It was released in 1978, in the beginning of the 2nd gen.

These features are enough to place in in the second generation in my opinion, it has a proper CPU and has cartridges that aren't the processor of the console like in the Philips Tele-Spiel. Talkkaris (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree; Gen 1 is pretty much just the Odyssey + dedicated Pong-clone consoles. An actual CPU with ROM cartridges would put it in 2nd gen, in the absence of sources. --PresN 20:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Based on that info and having recently worked on the second generation article, I would agree. As PresN said, it has more in common with the 2nd gen than first by far. CrimsonFox talk 23:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Deus Ex

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi there. I know this may have come up during an earlier now-archived discussion, but I feel the question deserves to be asked. Recently, I've been involved in improving articles within the Deus Ex series, specifically Human Revolution, Invisible War, Mankind Divided and The Fall, the latter two being GANs. I'm also in the process of improving the article for Project Snowblind, originally a Deus Ex title. But looking at the series as a whole, there is a definite problem with any efforts to bring the overall topic to FAC/GAC.

First is the character articles created for original protagonist JC Denton and new protagonist Adam Jensen. While Jensen has a sizeable amount of information about his design, but there is little to no commentary regarding his reception. As for JC Denton, we barely have anything at all; little to no reception, and no development commentary. It's a similar situation to that of Parasite Eve heroine Aya Brea, who has lots of information about her but little to no critical commentary to make a proper article.

The second is an article for something called The Nameless Mod. As far as I can see, there's no independent commentary that says much about the Mod, and the article as a whole is woefully lacking in independent sources. In fact, it's lacking in sources of any kind to cite its gameplay, narrative, "Music", most of its development section and its miniscule reception section. It looks more like something summarised in a paragraph rather than what looks to me like something copy-pasted from the series Wikia.

The final problem is something which is fixable. The original Deus Ex is currently a GA, but I see multiple issues with it. There are multiple uncited statements, the Development section has yet to be condensed following the creation of the article for the game's development, and a general lack of care and attention given its status (which, I note, is ten years old). If it's to keep its GA status, it needs a serious fix.

My personal approach would be to merge the character articles and Nameless Mod into their respective parent articles and tidy up the Deus Ex article, but this is a major move that could cause consternation, and for something like this a consensus is needed. Input on this issue is a necessity, as Deus Ex is an important series for this topic due to its cultural status and continued relevance as a franchise (Mankind Divided not withstanding). Sorry for the long post, but I think it needs to be talked about. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with merging Denton and Nameless into the original video game's article. I'd be a bit more hesitant to merge Jensen given the design weight. Some of that could be split between two or three articles it looks like. --Izno (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
For as popular a character as he is, I'm sure there's more reception to be had for Adam Jensen SOMEWHERE, whether that's inside reviews of the game or otherwise. Also, the "I never asked for this" meme might be worth a mention. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
There's enough reliable sourcing for The Nameless Mod to stand alone. Further sources.[5][6] - hahnchen 02:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
We're not talking just "stand alone", we're talking GA/FA here. --Izno (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. It's still looking more like a paragraph (or two, maybe) than a whole article, even with the sources from those sites. I really want to see this series as a Topic, and Nameless Mod isn't anything that can be raised unless there's a sudden surge of interest from multiple independent sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts III

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. If anyone wasn't aware, Kingdom Hearts III will be releasing in about 2 weeks time globally. I've been working on the article pretty regularly over the past few years (somehow becoming the top contributor to the article) so I'm hoping to avoid the article (and other parts of the internet) until I've completed the game. I was wondering if anyone who might not be as invested in this game as I currently am, would mind throwing the article on their watch list for a bit? The article does have indefinite semi-protection, but I'm just looking to make sure a bunch of unsourced content doesn't make its way onto the article. And one of the reasons I'm reaching out here is since the article's contributions have been very lopsided to mine, I wasn't sure who else some of the current watchers may be. Also, some what related, throwing out an informal peer review request, if anyone would like to look it over. Thanks in advance! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with source

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. While expanding visual novel character Shirou Emiya I found this source that speaks a lot about changes to his characterization which might help the creation section be expanded. However, I can't enter into my reddit account. Can anybody with access to Reddit ask for the original source? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Here: https://imgur.com/a/wBhjK#YdTWhoJ Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I think Tintor wants to ask where the scans came from. The reddit post is archived so no one can comment on it and the user has not posted anything for a year. TarkusABtalk 13:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I googled a quote from the interview and this pastebin site came up which says it's from "a booklet bundled with the soundtrack found in the Fate/stay night [Unlimited Blade Works] Blu-ray Disc Box I, which was released on 2015/3/25." TarkusABtalk 13:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Google can do that? Nice. Thanks for the help guys.Tintor2 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help with cleaning up

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This game Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception is certainly a notable game (found lots of reviews by searching), but the article is in a horrible state with full of unsourced WP:OR. I have no idea how to fix this wall of text, really. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That one's not so bad. There are two ways to deal with something like this:
  1. Stub and rewrite from scratch.
  2. Add citations from the reviews into the text already present, which is not out of the realm of the manageable.
--Izno (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

First Generation in dire need of work.

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've been trying to list all of the first generation consoles, turns out it's extremely hard because there's hundreds of them. .

This is extremely hard to catalog, there isn't a page online with a complete list of these things.

So I tried to make a list with all the pictures I could find on Wikimedia, in case someone needs it. I'll be adding more when I find them, even if there's no free use pictures yet, at least they're listed.

There's a lot of pages that need to be created and edited, so hope this helps.Talkkaris (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that at least for first gen, I would expect it near impossible to make a complete list since everyone and their brother was jumping to make a home console. There were definitely a couple dozen clear leaders, but there's probably consoles with production runs in the hundreds to be effectively obscure. --Masem (t) 01:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Talkkaris: Impressive work! You could also index them on Wikidata − currently only 23 items are linked to first generation of video game consoles (Q129781) but that could change ;-) I made an auto-updating list at User:Jean-Frédéric/First generation video game consoles − hope that helps :) Jean-Fred (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: Thanks, most people just look at this gen and say "wow that's a lot of stuff, no thanks it's just pong" so a lot of other dedicated games get lost in the middle. But if we want to understand this gen and see the extent of the glut of consoles, we have to start somewhere. Also, I haven't got the slightest clue as to how Wikidata works or how you even create new entries on it. By the way I added a counter to your list, not sure if it will be removed next update.Talkkaris (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yandere Simulator

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I have a bit of a question/request. Years ago, in 2015 I'd created the article on Yandere Simulator. I'd anticipated that the game would be forthcoming relatively soon and that coverage would improve. At the time, the coverage was very thin and notability was somewhat in question, as a lot of the coverage tended to be of the 1-2 paragraph type or a few lines accompanying a video. I'd asked previously on here about notability and the general consensus was that it was likely notable and that I should move it live. I know that notability isn't temporary, but I kind of have to question whether or not the game passes notability guidelines. I know that unreleased games can be notable, but I'm kind of questioning whether the coverage is in-depth enough now.

Basically, my question is whether or not this is notable enough for an article and if so, my request is that someone takes this under their wing to prevent the article from becoming too much of a soapbox or promotional piece. I know that the guy has become Encyclopedia Dramatica and KiwiFarms famous (trolling sites) and that he's also taken a lot of steps to promote his game. I have to question some of the content that's on the article, especially the addition of primary source content that focuses on the whole trolling content since I don't think that there are any secondary, non-primary reliable sources out there that cover this. I personally don't like including content about someone being trolled unless there's secondary coverage since then it can turn into a lot of "he said, she said" type of stuff and one or both sides can come out to argue for their viewpoint in force. (I got burned on that with the Goodreads article, trying to keep the peace there at one point.)

I just wanted to get some feedback. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Even from the references provided, it's a notable game. The article needs to remove a lot of the twitter references; but it's definitely notable.
Heck, this source from Metro from two days ago is even more proof. (It's not exactly about the game, per se, but definitely helps towards WP:GNG Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Isn't Metro unreliable? It's a tabloid operated by the same company that operates the Daily Mail, which is banned from use on Wikipedia because they frequently publish exaggerated, inaccurate, and false stories, and have been known to violate copyrights. JOEBRO64 20:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I see tons of Metro reviews in game articles, so if it's unreliable then we have a lot of work to do removing it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It's listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP, and I agree that's exactly where it should be. It's obviously not as bad to use for video game articles as WP:BLP, but I still wouldn't trust it for even rudimentary fact checking. I would consider a statement sourced only to Metro to be about as reliable as one with no source at all. I think that a quote from here most accurately sums up my opinion: "As with the Mail, if nobody except Metro has covered something one has to ask why nobody except Metro has covered it." Lowercaserho (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

sure, that would be fine if only metro had covered the game, but a google search shows lots of news articles about the game.

Sure, a lot are about it no longer being streamable on twitch, but still notable.

As for not using Metro, it's a weird argument, as with tabloid newspapers. Sure, BLP articles would be in big trouble if these sources were considered reliable; but for any of these to even mention a game, it's unlikely the game is completely irrelevant. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I didn't make myself clear. I'm not trying to argue against the notability of this particular game, just against the use of Metro as a source. My point is that if there are other sources (as there are here) then we should be using those; if there aren't any other sources (not relevant here, but in the more general case) then we should start asking questions. That said, a game that had significant coverage on Metro but wasn't covered anywhere more reliable is probably going to be rare enough that it could be considered on a case-by-case basis. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

VG and Charity page started

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Based on the activity around H.Bomberman's stream this weekend, I have started Video games and charity, a page I had been intending to create for some time. Please feel free to add significant charitable efforts to that. (Significant should be somewhere > $100,000, otherwise, any random twitch streamer could self-advert their $50 charity stream...) --Masem (t) 17:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think he needs his own article now. The press over this one event is massive, probably passes notability. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Not yet, keep in mind WP:BLP1E means he should not qualify. --Masem (t) 18:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Too late. (Not my start) Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (December 30 to January 5)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v2.1 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

December 30

December 31

January 1

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

The database has smiled upon me, and I now have data for the last 3 weeks. Rather than overwhelm everyone, I'm going to post a week every couple of days until we're caught up. I have not made any code changes yet, so if this lists a newly un-redirected article as created by the original editor instead of you, sorry. --PresN 02:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the Infobox video game template!

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Something's very wrong with the Infobox video game template! When I go to Papers, Please, the infobox has a long string of text that says, "Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'find' (string expected, got nil)." When will the issue be fixed? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It's been fixed. A vandal found an unprotected module used by over 22,000 articles. Reverted and protected. -- ferret (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on using the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, for review aggregators

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?. A permalink for it is seen here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (January 6 to January 12)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v2.1 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

January 6

January 7

January 8

January 9

January 10

January 11

January 12

Needing help

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was browsing through the list of the 2006 games, and I saw Air Conflicts. The only reference seems to be a Gamespot listing (not a review or article) and on my search I fail to find any sources or reviews for the game except this foreign valid one https://www.sk.rs/2006/09/siop07.html. Apart from that it seems like the games in the franchise that came after it seem to have more notability. The only reason why I did not PROD this is because the page views are surprisingly okay for a game for which sources cannot be found (per https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Air_Conflicts). So I came here to see if someone is able to find better sources for it or if I should just go on with PROD.

Also Izno, I have updated the Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception with references and cut the unsourced/fancruft parts per your advice, should be looking a lot better now than the unsourced WP:OR and gamecruft mess. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Pages can get hits because of Other Things. It looks like to me we have a number of questionably notable items on other games in the series, so the probable reason it is getting hits is the followon games. If this game is itself questionably notable, and if the others are as well, it can be turned into a series article page and/or the followon games could be merged as appropriate for WP:WEIGHT to this article, in preference to PRODing or AFDing the page.
I don't see where I made a comment about Ace Combat. It does not look like the article was recently submitted to AFD and I'm not about to trawl through the WikiProject archives. Is that where I made a comment? --Izno (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Game List Splitting

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

So I was going through some of my watch lists and some game lists are getting split by letter (Xbox 360 got the treatment). Have we discussed this somewhere? Are we going to update the count templates that are now broken everywhere? Have we come to a consensus on where and when this should be done? After spending tons of time fusing the lists, it feels kinda...backwards, I think. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Zero, this is almost always being done due to the list being about to surpass the post-expand template size limit. If the limit is passed, the page stops rendering templates. The most visible result is that reflist itself will disappear, as its one of the last templates on the page. In short, these splits are for technical reasons. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
And yes, it has been discussed on the list of the Nintendo Switch talk page many times. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
There's also a difference between splitting a single list alphabetically due to size, and having multiple redundant lists that cover the same data (I.e. the stuff we merged over the past year) -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Game clones

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Whats the rules on noting clones of a game in an article? Govvy (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Does the fifth item in the Exceptions section of WP:VG/POP help? - X201 (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
So a clone needs some sort of notability to be added to an article? So you can't just mention a clone with a primary source? Govvy (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
A primary source doesn't give any way of judging if its even known by anyone. Importance is demonstrated by a secondary source. This also prevents people from flooding their clones in by linking to their own project pages, etc. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This. Same would apply to fan remakes, mods, open source versions, other homages, or the like. If there's more than enough third-party or secondary sources, then perhaps a few primary sources to talk about the game can be added. --Masem (t) 18:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You can potentially mention a clone with a primary source, but you'd want to exercise some judgement. Was it a commercially released clone, like quite a few games in the late seventies and early eighties, or is it homebrew or a fan remake as in that exception? --tronvillain (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Rami Ismail

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I finally got something started for Rami Ismail, who was someone desparately lacking an article (he does a lot more than just Vlambeer, particularly in the last few years). Please feel free to help expand. --Masem (t) 19:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles by JalenFolf that could use expansion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So Masem actually gave me an idea to post something like this. Those of you that know me already know that when I create articles, I tend to create articles based off what I could find for sources and that's it. Afterwards, I tend to stay in the backseat in hopes that someone else can see some sort of potential for expanding the article to at least C class, and in some cases, even going as far as expanding to GA or even FA. So with that said, here are some articles of mine in this WikiProject's scope that I hope can expand beyond what is already there:

Where applicable, see each page's Talk page for refideas. Thanks in advance! Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protection for Knack II

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I've found that the article for the PlayStation 4 game Knack II receives constant vandalism from (mostly) anonymous editors, through referencing the YouTuber "Dunky" and his sarcastic review of the game. It's extremely annoying because it happens on an-almost weekly basis, and currently makes up the vast majority of new edits. Can we implement protection for the page? I'm honestly surprised no one has requested this before. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I’ve temporarily protected it. Leave me a message on my talk page if it needs extension after it runs out, and I can add a longer one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
But I thought Knack 2 is the greatest game of all time. Knack is back, baybee! Axem Titanium (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a mastapeece. It's family friendly, unlike Bayonetta, because that woman is a fucking whore. (Please note these are Dunky's words, not mine) JOEBRO64 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (January 13 to January 19)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v2.1 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13

January 14

January 15

January 16

January 17

January 18

January 19

Discussion of the Game Data Library at the reliable sources noticeboard

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion of the reliability of the Game Data Library at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Game Data Library. — Newslinger talk 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Attack Retrieve Capture

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your comment is requested at Talk:Attack Retrieve Capture#Merge discussion. Please comment there. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Amy Rose with List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I thought I'd let the project know about this. The discussion is here. JOEBRO64 23:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Table formatting questions in game studio lists

Latest comment: 5 years ago34 comments5 people in discussion

So on the Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development article, me and @Arkhandar: have been having discussions about how to format the games list table. He thinks that dedicated ref columns should not exist, with all citations instead being placed after the game's wikilink, as well as going with fixed width instead of auto. I argued that both of these don't help the table (it only hurts it, IMO), and that many featured lists are formatted this way, as well as most other game studio lists. I understand that this is more of a MOS issue than purely video games, but I think these game list tables should all be standardized in one way or another, just to avoid this sort of edit warring in the future. EDIT: Since this is relevant, I'd like to also bring up including/excluding things such as regional checklists and year/exact release date styles, both of which can be seen on the FromSoftware and List of Atlus games pages. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Thanks for starting the discussion. For reference, regarding the ref column, I'm going by what's on WP:HEADERS in that "title headers are often suitable places for reference citations (e.g., to source a specific row or column of data)". Regarding the fixed column widths, I argued that having percentage widths makes it easier to define column importance, especially on small screens/windows. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 01:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
And like I said on the talk page, the MOS part you keep bringing up is simply suggesting that it's fine to do that in the case that an established, dedicated column doesn't already exist (which it does here). There is nothing beneficial gained from removing a ref column otherwise, as we don't have a need for screenspace, which ties into the fixed/auto width thing here too. "Column importance" is 100% subjective, there is also no benefit to doing this, as having the table scale automatically is preferred in the majority of cases. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Sorry, but I don't agree with that interpretation. The way I see it it's pretty clear that the MOS states that references should be put on title headers; unless there's a good reason not to. I don't think yours is: just because most other video game articles are not following the MOS it doesn't mean that all shouldn't. As for the widths thing, my opinion is still the same, but I'm honestly neutral to it. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 02:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
pretty clear No. No that's not. (For reference, the text in question is Title headers are often suitable places for reference citations (e.g., to source a specific row or column of data).) Suitable is not preferable or any of a slew of other phrases that the MOS will use to indicate more than a suggestion. --Izno (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As for whether the practice is specific to video gaming, it's not. You're welcome to survey the multitude of other lists available to you, but I'm not sure I've ever seen that particular MOS item implemented, anywhere, except to indicate a footnote (not a reference footnote) for the line in question. --Izno (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
For original intent of that addition (SMcCandlish), Yes, citations are permitted inside them. Not exactly a "thou shalt put them there" but more a "thou couldst put them there". --Izno (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
And just to put the nail in this coffin, the current WP:MOS has this to say, which is a rewrite from the text prior: However, table headings can incorporate citations and may begin with, or be, numbers. in WP:MOS#Heading-like material. Decidedly "can", not must or should or shall. --Izno (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: Thanks for clearing that up. Either way, the MOS has no formal guideline, or even suggestion for the matter, that references should have a separate dedicated column. So without a valid good reason for there to be one, I see no point in its existence other than personal preference and waste of space. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 15:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It can reduce WP:SEAOFBLUE types of header columns to have a separate column for the references. It's a bit neater when more than one reference is necessary for a table to have all of the fairly-similar-in-size-and-sense in a single column rather than inconsistently displayed after the row 'title' in the first column. I suppose you can call that personal preference, but those seem like pretty reasonable personal preferences. In the end, I have a personal preference for a separate column. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: While it can reduce WP:SEAOFBLUE in some (extreme cases), it's my opinion that the dedicated Ref. column should be an exception rather than the rule. As is, most tables (specifically the gameography tables that have started this whole discussion) only have 1 reference per title, save for some exceptions here and there. As such, I'd go for something in the lines of this: in cases where most of the rows need more than 1 or 2 reference, than a dedicated Ref. column would be strongly advise; otherwise title headers would be enough. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 16:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As for fixed widths, those should be avoided generally. You do not know what kind of device your table will be displayed on so you should not attempt to control those widths. --Izno (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: I'm okay with that, it makes sense. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 15:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Now that this is settled, I see a few more issues. 1) is there a reason to use the plainrowheaders format over the default Wikitable class, and 2) shouldn't the highlighted column be reserved for only the first one? The way you had it formatted was strange (games in the second column were highlighted), and I'm pretty sure I've seen the MOS say something against this somewhere. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Having the table header in the 2nd column is also somewhere in the realm of unsemantic HTML and inaccessible. (In general, the title should come in the first row.) Plainrowheaders is again a personal thing. @Arkhandar: You should review WP:STYLEVAR in the future prior to performing changes like you have. --Izno (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Seconded- the "header" column should be the first one. If you don't want the year to be the highlighted one, then move it out of the first column, and un-rowspan it. --PresN 03:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@PresN: I didn't want it to be interpreted as MOS:VAR. If it was, it was totally unintentional. I checked some featured list candidates and there was a lot of talk about scoping columns and rows, so it was done in good faith. As for the plainrowheaders, I remember reading a few years back that in some cases it could be used to improve readability, but I'm not sure where however... Either way, I see that it makes more sense for the row to start in the Year of first release, so it doesn't make sense to use plainrowheader anyway since a year is only 4 characters long. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 13:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, glad to see we're all on the same page now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Izno:@PresN:@Dissident93: I'm glad we've reached a consensus, but.... (I didn't want to ruin the party, but I have to bring this up) I've been looking around MOS:TABLE and came across the Filmographies example. In this example, the table styling and formatting is exactly what I was proposing regarding the plainrowheaders and row formatting. Is the MOS wrong, or are we? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 21:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the MOS is wrong here, actually. It does not explain why it was done like this (unless I missed it), and goes against the reasoning discussed above. And even if it is allowed somehow (perhaps for a different case than the one used on EPD's page), the fact that the majority of tables (included ones in featured lists) don't seem to follow this formatting could be enough for the MOS to be changed to reflect how it is actually used in practice. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw that yesterday while I was looking around for a different reason. I considered a bold change to fix that as an example but just didn't feel quite stoked to do it. Suffice it to say that it's really really bad practice. --Izno (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dissident93 and Izno: I've started a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Filmography example. Feel free to follow it. I'll post major developments here . ~ Arkhandar (message me) 11:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dissident93 and Izno: Hey! Just got a response regarding the rows issue and it looks like there's no problem whatsoever in the MOS filmography example. It also argues that our rationale might be wrong since, like I've mentioned in the past, we're dealing with "lists" of games developed and not "timelines", so the subject should be the title and not the year they were released. Take a look:
Semantically/logically/abstractly: I think the relevant docs are https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H43.html and https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H63.html - If I understand those correctly, then it is acceptable to use different columns (not just the first) as a heading row. The intent of the markup is primarily to make things clearer to people using screen-readers, especially when they're navigating through a very complex table with many colspans/rowspans - i.e. we should use the heading column to denote the primary info that applies to each cell. So for the "List of games developed" the primary information is the game title, not the year, because it isn't a timeline(?). Aesthetically/subjectively: I can understand the concerns about this being non-standard, and looking 'odd'. It looks a bit odd to me! But when in doubt, I usually check recently Featured items, and List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1995 was recently promoted with that styling, as was List of longest-living members of the British royal family, so I guess it's debatable! Hope that helps.
— Quiddity (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC), Filmography example, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables
Please let me know what you think. It would be really good to standardize this and make a guideline for all gameography lists. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 01:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Please don't have the conversation twice (see WP:MULTI). One place to discuss the topic is sufficient. Also, don't add spaces between colons as you did in your edit. That also is inaccessible. --Izno (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't buy the idea that a dedicated column for refs is preferable here. We usually do that when there will be multiple refs per entry and when trying to do them inline results in messy output. However, this table has only one ref per row with few exceptions, and is already using inline footnotes in the content for other purposes, so all such "neatness" arguments are right out the window. That said, the existing footnotes, in the form [codeveloped 5] are obnoxiously long, and should just be reduced to single letters like [e]; this can be done automatically with {{efn}} and {{notelist}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Thanks for the input! I think it would just save a lot of everyone's time if there were actual formal rules on this, like I proposed earlier. Otherwise, there's always going to be someone editing for one way or another based on personal preference. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 10:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Should we be including producers in the Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development page or not? I say no because it clutters the table, and AFAIK we don't do this in any other games list. Pinging past responders @SMcCandlish, Izno, and PresN: ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
As a note, in the other game lists User:Dissident93 is mentioning the producers are off-scope and unnecessary. However, in the Nintendo EAD and Nintendo SPD articles they are an integral part of the article's prose and, in some cases, are more or just as notable as the article itself. As such, they are integral to understand how these divisions work, hence they're inclusion. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 20:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
But I don't think they are an "integral part of the article's prose". You could argue this for every game's list too, so why are these Nintendo pages the exception? Whoever originally formatted this page included composers too and had it split by producer, which is a relic from the past when we had less clear guidelines and standards for these sort of lists. You basically wouldn't see this format if we created them from scratch today. Just keep the producer's involvement in prose and keep the table free of it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dissident93: No, you can't. Most other video game developer articles have no mention of its internal structure, either because its missing or it's just not notable. Prove their notable enough and I don't see why they shouldn't be mentioned. And yes, it also used to have a directors and composers columns, but we came to the conclusion that it was out of the article's scope. The producers are a different case though. I don't see why we should omit notable information just because it's not "standard". That way you're just doing more harm than good. That's why exceptions exist. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the producers really work well as tabular data. They're not the sort of thing anyone's going to want to look up in (and sort by) in a table. Most of that information is very repetitive, and is already found in the prose, either of this article or of the separate ones on the table's entries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: If this were any other small video game developer I would agree with you. However, due to the nature of how EAD is structured (having multiple development groups lead by a producer), the producers column is actually handy to sort the games with. And the information is not repetitive. While up until 2004, most games were produced by Shigeru Miyamoto, after the split there were a total of 7 different groups developing games independently. So we can either split the tables by group or keep it as it is. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 13:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
But sorting by producers isn't sortin gby development group, just a weak and potentially confusing approximation of doing so, since the number and makeup of these groups has changed over time. If our readers are not familiar with these subdivisions and not likely to need to become familiar with them (for 'real life" purposes, or to understand our material), then the rationale for sorting that way – even if we were doing it properly – would be weak at best.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Then we should just divide the list by development group and get rid of the producers column. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 14:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to add mention of esports arena at Full Sail University

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello again! I've been working with Full Sail University to suggest improvements to the Wikipedia article. I've submitted a request to add mention of the esports area under construction here, and hope project members will contribute to the ongoing discussion. Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Masters of Doom" ebook dirt cheap

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Masters of Doom" the book about the creation and impact of Doom, is $2 for the ebook version Amazon, Google Play, and BN today (only?). Good ref book for this area. --Masem (t) 02:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if you don't plan on working in the areas it covers (founding of id through 2002/Quake 3), it's a really fascinating read on its own, and I highly recommend it- I've never found another book in video games that managed to go that deep in everything that was going on in a company and the people involved over 12+ years). --PresN 02:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Souls (series) problem

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I just noticed Souls (series) article. I know fans collectively call DemSouls, DarSouls, and Bloodborne as "Soulsborne" series but is there any evidence that Demon Souls and Dark Souls are officially part of the same series? From what I read, Dark Souls is a spiritual successor to Demon Souls and Bloodborne is a spiritual successor to Dark Souls, but officially they're not connected or part of a shared universe. The article doesn't have a lot of information, so maybe Fromsoftware retconned them to being part of one series. Does anyone know?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Spiritual Successors" are usually games that are made either by other developers, or original devolopers who no longer own the rights. IMO, we should follow what the RSs say. The series should be the Dark Souls (series), with mentions of both Bloodbourne, and Demon's Souls. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing that limits a spiritual successor by the original creator. Dark/Demon Souls is given as a key example "Demons' Souls" was signed by Sony to be exclusive to the PS3, so when FromSoftware wanted to get the same concept to other platforms, they had to change its name. --Masem (t) 16:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Re-hash #31 on this topic. Yes, we have sources where the game director refers to them as being related, including the fact that reliable sources group them together (Dark Souls and Demon Souls) regardless of any official canon. Note that the series specifically lists Bloodborn as a related topic, not a part of the series, which the director has affirmed. In short: We're already following what RS's say. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing that they are related, but that could mean anything. that doesn't mean that they are part of the same series. Demon Souls article classifies Dark Souls as its spiritual successor, not as a sequel. Even if reliable sources group them together, we shouldn't ignore facts by the actual developers too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, feel free to add sourced commentary from the creators, but ferret is spot on here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
So all i have to do is prove that its just a spiritual successor and not part of a single series? Does this interview suffice? [7]Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if you didn't read my message or just decided to ignore it: We have literally already had this debate 4-5 times, see the talk page archives of the series article. The reliable sources group all four games as being a series, even though they are not canonically such. We go by how sources report things. -- ferret (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I’m just saying you can present what the creators say too. Like you can present both sides content-wise (if you’ve got the sources). But overall, we need to go by what sources generally say. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry ferret. i'm not ignoring you comment. But you're not really trying to clarify. I'm not going to go through archives, i think i could add more to the discussion that previous ones havent. For example, Canon is not my concern. Officially they're not part of the same series, not because they don't have the same universe or connected by story, but just because Fromsoftware separates them as two separate series. If reliable sources choose to ignore that, then maybe instead of being recognized as an official series, its just a group of games that the community has accepted to collect them? Shouldn't that be something the article needs to reflect? Reliable sources also says these games aren't part of the same series. Isn't it forcing a narrative that these are officially a single series by ignoring the reliable sources that say they're not connected or related?

(edit conflict) I see what you're saying. and i agree. i'm not saying Demon Souls should be removed. But i've also seen reliable sources call "Souls game" as a genre more than a series.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Now, there is a whole separate issue with the "Souls-like" genre which is very very very loosely defined, and why we don't consider it a real genre (but discuss that term on the Souls page). --Masem (t) 03:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I'll just drop it. So long as all info is allowed if its backed up by reliable sources, then it shouldn't be a problem. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensive source for VG Industry market revenues for last 3 decades

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I finally found a good source that has all of the VG industry's market performance from 1971 onward, with data that can be directly read off: from Bloomberg. I have already adopted this into a chart in Video game industry but I can see segments of this being used in other articles (1983 video game crash, mobile gaming, etc.) --Masem (t) 20:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (January 20 to January 26)

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v2.1 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

January 20

January 21

January 22

January 23

January 24

January 25

January 26

Alright, all caught up with the present, so no more postings from me for a week. Note that there was a lot of redirect-recreations this week. Also the PSVita lists are now in 5 chunks, where A-L is 1 chunk and M-Z is 4? That's weird. --PresN 03:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
There's two articles for characters in Max Caufield and Chloe Price. Do we usually create these types of character articles? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Could you clarify the question? We have hundreds of character articles so I don't know what you mean. Either way, Caufield just got marked Keep at AFD, so it stays. No comment on Price. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
PresN, thank you for posting this! I have reverted the redirection of MX vs. ATV: On the Edge. Irresponsible from the user to merge a video game article with 6 different WP:VG/RS reviews into a parent article without gaining a AfD or merge talk consensus. Not that AfD would ever result in a merge since the PSP version is obviously notable. Seems that ATV Offroad Fury: Blazin' Trails, also a notable game, suffered from the same thing. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating source about game preservation

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

JOEBRO64 14:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Useful list of game anniversaries for 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[8] I have not crossreferences this with our articles to see what's in Featured state or what's close as to potentially get a Main Page entry (at least, for any game 10+ years ) but might be worth a look. --Masem (t) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wii Shop Channel

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'd like to ask the project to stop and take a moment of silence to honor the Wii Shop Channel, which as of today has been shut down. Its music will forever live in our hearts. JOEBRO64 22:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Part of me really hates this - someday I’ll be crushed when they inevitably do the same to the Vita - but part of me feels like there really wasn’t much in the way of worthwhile games on the online Wii Shop (and this is coming from a big Wii fan, I’m not trying to talk trash or anything.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: What about transferring your purchases to a Nintendo account (both Virtual Console and WiiWare)? Even if you can't download and play them anywhere right now, you'd still have a record of your purchases for possible future use in a future backwards compatibility service. Nintendo's just paving the way for you to re-buy all the same stuff years later for full-price or god knows what subscription service they'll come up with. Don't get me wrong, I love Nintendo's products, but their business practices... In this day and age this kind of behavior is 100% anti-consumer, which is just sad. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I said SILENCE! The Wii Shop Channel is dead! Don't disrespect it! JOEBRO64 01:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't forty JoeBro, I pressed F. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Redline is not in AllGame!

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I was searching for the review for the video game in the Redline (1999 video game) article. I read that it was published by Accolade, but to my surprise, there's no Redline in this AllGame link. In fact, Redline is not anywhere in AllGame at all, and I can't find it! Not even in the PC link for AllGame. Can somebody please find Redline anywhere in the AllGame website. Otherwise, the game is gone for good. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Your indefatigable efforts to instill a sense of panicked drama into any benign situation never fails to astound me. Redline was not covered by Allgame. So what? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I don’t understand why it’s such a problem, or how “the game is gone for good”? Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
There are tons of games that can't be found in any given games database, be that AllGame, IGN, or other. It's a huge pain for sourcing dates and stuff, but it's also just... Wednesday. --PresN 18:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Beyond Games is on the back of the box art. So it shows they were involved in the game somehow. I never played this game before.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes? You seem to be responding to something but nobody even mentioned Beyond Games :/ Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, the game is not in the "Developed by Beyond Games" link either, last time I checked. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps AllGame just missed it? Not the end of the world. MobyGames lists 16 other reviews that can be used instead. – Rhain ☔ 00:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I misread it. I was also reviewing the article and got lost on the research.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata and infoboxes

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Is it preferred to use Wikidata to populate the infobox or to hardcode the information onto the page? SoWhy (talk · contribs) is using Wikidata to populate the infobox on Unavowed, but we ran into some formatting issues with the genre, mode, and publisher fields in the GA review. He claims that he heard somewhere that using Wikidata is preferred to hardcoding it. I have not heard that. Does anyone know how we can fix these inconsistencies? TarkusABtalk 23:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: I don't know about a "preference" for Wikidata, but it should be acceptable in most cases. Part of the issue here though is an oversight at {{Infobox video game}}. When the template was updated to it's second Wikidata version, some functionality was lost. This is why the genre and mode are displaying with long names.... What issue is there with the publisher? @Mike Peel and RexxS: When IBVG used the Wikidata module, the genre and mode fields were using getValueShortName. Does WikidataIB module have this? We need to fix if possible. These two fields also wrapped the returned value in Module:String2|sentence, which was lost as well. -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the publisher is that if developer and publisher are the same, MoS dictates not to wikilink the second instance but with Wikidata the link cannot be avoided. Regards SoWhy 07:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a massive expert on Wikidata, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not really a fan of it changing details on the main article. Is there anything stopping vandals just changing the Wikidata entry? There are bots on the main Wikipedia, and articles like this would also be on watchlists, but does Wikidata have the same scope? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The watchlist can show Wikidata changes. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ferret, TarkusAB, and SoWhy: In Template:Infobox video game, I've wrapped the genre call and the modes call in a call to String2|ucfirst, which capitalises the first letter. If you want to use a short name, you can add |shortname=yes to the getValue call from WikidataIB and it will display a short name if there is one:
Example: country (P17) for Washington, D.C. (Q61) gives
  • {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |fwd=ALL |osd=n |P17 |qid=Q61}} → United States  
  • {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |fwd=ALL |osd=n |P17 |qid=Q61 |shortname=y}} → USA  
I've done that to the genre and modes fields, on the assumption that those are the ones you wanted. Diffs are: [9], [10], [11] if you need to revert or modify them.
In tables, the MOS accepts that an item may be linked more than once (because of sortable tables), and generally where the overlinking doesn't detract from valuable links, it is tolerated. An infobox is, of course, a table as well, but I wouldn't Wiki-lawyer that; merely make the point that the technical issue with links made from Wikidata may be sufficient to render the overlinking acceptable in these sort of cases. If not, just add |linked=no to the WikidataIB call for the publishers, and you can suppress the link for all publishers. A linked value can always be added to override the Wikidata by supplying the |publisher= in any given article anyway. HTH --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: Perfect, thanks. Unavowed looks better now. I personally don't think the overlink on publisher is a big deal. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Rayman mergers discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a discussion for merging Rayman Activity Centre and Rayman Junior in the main Rayman series page. Talk:Rayman#Merge Rayman Activity Centre and Rayman Junior to Series article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Using Apple store game icon logo's?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed on Star Trek Fleet Command that User:Alamosurfer uploaded and added the icon File:App Store Icon for Star Trek Fleet Command Mobile Game.jpg to wikipedia. I didn't think you were allowed to do that, I am assuming all icons have copyrights, so just asking peeps to double check. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Govvy, App Store icons apply to the same copyright concepts as other video game covers do. So as long as it complies with our NFCC, is uploaded here and not on Commons, and is the primary visual representation for the subject (which appears to be te case here), it should be fine. Lordtobi (✉) 12:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, however for iTunes app store it clearly says All text, graphics, user interfaces, visual interfaces, photographs, trademarks, logos, sounds, music, artwork and computer code (collectively, "Content"), including but not limited to the design, structure, selection, coordination, expression, "look and feel" and arrangement of such Content, contained on the Site is owned, controlled or licensed by or to Apple, and is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws, and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Except as expressly provided in these Terms of Use, no part of the Site and no Content may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, publicly displayed, encoded, translated, transmitted or distributed in any way (including "mirroring") to any other computer, server, Web site or other medium for publication or distribution or for any commercial enterprise, without Apple’s express prior written consent.
Well to me, we shouldn't be using any icons from the Apple store. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That's pretty standard copyright jargon. Thanks to fair use laws, we can use the content within reason (see WP:NFC). TarkusABtalk 16:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiplayer game merge at RfD

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_1#Multiplayer_game as info. Note that multiplayer was redirected from the primary topic multiplayer video game in January without discussion, at the same time multiplayer game was merged. I have reversed that retarget, and also created a probably long overdue multiplayer (disambiguation). The RfD should therefore be focusing now on whether multiplayer game was correctly merged.

Note also that regardless of the merge of multiplayer game, we have a lot of infoboxes linking to it. They need updated to multiplayer. The link to multiplayer game was never quite right. (Is the overlap of terms confusing enough?) -- ferret (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge Othello (2009 video game)?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking for third-party opinions:   Talk:Arc System Works#Proposed merge with Othello (2009 video game) czar 01:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merger for Zeus: Master of Olympus

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see this thread in regards to possibly merging the article about this game's expansion into this article. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Opinions for a discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#4 sources discussion: Cubed3, Gaming Age, Digitally Downloaded and Select Button.. A discussion about the reliablity of some video game sources has been opened. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Apex Legends

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

And the game is out. I have very little real information since I'm at work right now, but this could use some beefing for those of us not having to work today. Especially on its Titanfall connections (or lack thereof). Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Titanfall without the name. And without everything that made Titanfall fun, no mechs, no traversal. I feel bad for Respawn. Another casualty of Electronics Apocalypse. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
He said that the move was “part of a bigger culture change” that had been taking place when Electronic Arts fully acquired Respawn in 2017. He added that the change was “kind of harrowing,” and that Apex Legends was “a very different game for us.” Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I have expanded the article a bit, and after doing that, I think there's some hope for it. (battle mechs don't really work in a battle royale game...) --Masem (t) 01:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Most would've told you the same about TDM games before Titanfall 1 and 2 ;) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on articles for games on Roblox

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looking for feedback and opinions on Talk:Roblox#Revisiting_articles_for_Roblox_games. A previous discussion was held in November of 2018 about creating articles for Roblox games, but it was decided that there wasn't enough media coverage in most cases. Since then, there has been more secondary coverage found. Zoom (talk page) 20:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to wait till there's more even more coverage. It seems likely given using the Roblox platform is becoming more and more popular among children and devs by the day. Right now I think there's too few games covered as their own thing, and more spoken of within the platform as a whole. The only game that could possibly have enough coverage would be Pokemon BrickBronze. I suggest focus on working on the main Roblox article more, because right now it could use more improvement(there's a lot of remnants of old sources that don't reflect the current-version of the platform.) Piklies (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Adjustments to categories for early video games

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Over in the wikipedia Discord chat (which y'all should totally join if you're not there) we were having a discussion about the categories for early video games- specifically that we extend the general "[year] video games" and "[decade] video games" backwards in time through to the 1940s, even though prior to 1971 almost every year is empty, with a scattered handful having a single article in them. For example: Category:1940s video games, which has (in addition to the Early history of video games article, which spans 4 decade cats) no other articles, and exactly two year subcategories, each with a single article. Given that, and given that for most of this era is debatable if these research/demonstration "protogames", despite contributing to the evolution of the medium, are actually "video games" and thus get a year like a modern commercial release, it was proposed that we combine all pre-1970/1971 year/decade categories into the existing Category:Early history of video games category. Note that we actually do this in article space already- we have 1971 in video gaming plus, but all prior years don't get their own articles but are instead redirects to the "Early history" article.

Normally in the early history space I just do whatever, but since this would involve deleting a few dozen recently-emptied categories, I figured I should move the discussion on-wiki first. Pinging @Maplestrip, Salvidrim!, Ferret, and CommissarPat:, who were in the discord chat this morning/last night. --PresN 16:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  • "Normally in the early history space I just do whatever" - because you're trusted and competent af, you're the beacon shining a path for us through the dark medieval history of gaming. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree that any "game" before 1970 should be classified as an "early history" rather than by decade or year in this broad manner. Broad but fleshed out categories are better than narrow but sparsely populated ones. --Masem (t) 16:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Years categorians can be weird about this kind of stuff. I support upmerging generally, but you should file the CFD with a discrete plan and see who pops up to contest it. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would suggest simply leaving Category:1940s video games, Category:1950s video games, and Category:1960s video games, with no subcategories. This would allow these three categories to grow as well, if PresN ends up writing about different early video games no one has ever heard of. That being said, I am completely happy with the three being upmerged as Category:Early video games as well. Anything to get rid of the individual year categories in this area. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • How are those expected to grow? What few effort to make computer-driven games are pretty strongly documented with articles already so I doubt there will be any growth in this area. --Masem (t) 17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It's possible though unlikely for them to grow- Turochamp, for example, was created in September 2018, though it was the first new pre-70s article in many years. I certainly don't plan on making any more, nor do I expect anything else to have enough sources to be creatable, but I could certainly be wrong. I don't think we need to leave the categories around in case something shows up years from now; we could always recreate in moments if we needed to, after all. --PresN 17:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
        • General query, do you (or User:Indrian or possibly User:Hahnchen) have any sort of list which documents the feasibility of further articles in the pre-70s timeframe? I.e. the complete set of video games are blue linked or red linked (if the former, likely to be a redirect; if the latter, should probably be a redirect)? Companies? Individuals? Etc. --Izno (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In this particular case, I would err on the side of "leave it as it is because it minimally aids navigation and isn't hurting anything". The alternative of deletion and upmerging is that it will (very minorly) damage the navigation experience of readers who are exploring the category tree in search of related articles by reducing their ability to see release years at a glance. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also prefer to leave these categories as they are; lumping "early" games (made 20+ years apart) under the same category, when literally every other game is in a specific year category, would hamper navigation of Video games by year in an awkward way. If I'm on that page, I want to see how many games have been released in a given year at a glance, and the proposed merger here would hinder that. For reference, the equivalent categories for other media, such as Films by year, Novels by year, Board games by year, and Albums by year do not lump early works into one category; standard Wikipedia practice is to assign all works to a specific year category, and I see no reason to make an exception for video games here. Phediuk (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Takashi Iizuka pics

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone know if there are any free images of Takashi Iizuka of Sonic and Nights fame floating around on Commons? All I can find is stuff about the wrestler. JOEBRO64 01:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The new Famitsu is doing away with all the game searches and the scoring!

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Non-issue debunked. Sergecross73 msg me 05:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

I have bad news that the Famitsu website is doing away with all the game searches and the scores altogether. When I got to the front page, I noticed that the search and game schedule bar went missing, so I can't find any scheduled games at all! Even worse, when I got to the schedule page where all the games are listed, all of the old scoring in the game links like this one are replaced with the same games with no score like this one! It's pretty terrifying! If we don't archive all the Famitsu game links that have all the scoring, pretty soon they're all gonna vanish altogether! We need to archive all the game links labeled on Wikipedia articles now, before it's too late. Here's an archived link for this game.--Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Famitsu is archived at wayback. There is no pressure here. Also this could be a temporary thing with a site redesign. Should not panic yet. --Masem (t) 19:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
My worst nightmare has come true! Famitsu's website has completely done away with all the old games and their reviews! Now I'll never find the Famitsu score for the PlayStation version of V-Rally Championship Edition 2, which was released in Japan on January 27, 2000, as shown in this link, but removed from the article itself! What a sad day for me! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
They are not completely gone. If you go to the game's new page you can click the button that says 「旧ページへ」(Go to old page), which takes you here. Tadaaaa turn that frown upside down. TarkusABtalk 04:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Now I can see the scoring. I'll remember that from this time onward. Thanks again. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2019 (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.

Edit request for Full Sail University article

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello again! I've posted on this WikiProject talk page a couple times before about edit requests for updating and improving the Full Sail University article. My request here about distance education is not specifically related to video games, but the university has a video game program. No one has replied to the request over the past week, so I wanted to reach out to WikiProject Video Games again to see if someone can review the request and update the article appropriately.

Thanks for any help in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Using a timeline for tracking studios within a larger publisher

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Been working on fixing the Xbox Game Studios (formally Microsoft Studios) and here's a case where I think a timeline (not so much in height but in format to Template:Timeline of English monarchs) to track when studios were acquired and then shuttered or left. Similar could apply to the big publishers , like Ubi, EA, T2, Activision, etc. There's probably a few dates that might be hard to document, but an approximate can be used. This overkill or would be helpful for the larger companies? --Masem (t) 22:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

My quick thought is "extremely useful" but I'm skewed in favour of more structured information instead of prose, which doesn't mean my thought is "right" or aligned with consensus necessarily. I think the first step to discussing it would be to draft one as an example so everyone can look at the same thing instead of all picturing it on our own. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Masem and Salvidrim: Why not both (prose and timeline)? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I should say the timeline would be in addition to prose, not replacing. Sometimes you can tract the vector a distributor /publisher is going on (as with Take Two) so the prose is more interesting to follow, but you still have the fate of smaller studios within it. Sometimes there's seemingly little rhyme or reason as reported by sources as the case with Xbox Game Studios, so that ends up reading more like proseline, and the timeline can be seen as to move some of that away. But the timeline would not exist without prose. --Masem (t) 01:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Review Thread 40

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It's the 39th one, no? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, we've got quite the backlog of articles needing review. I've noted when some were nominated if it's more than 2 months old.

FAC
FLC
GAN
PR

Also the Patriots are the best football team don't @ me. JOEBRO64 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this is Thread Review #40. GamerPro64 03:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I kinda had that feeling but this was the most recent one I found in the archives. JOEBRO64 11:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope, here is #39, from January. --PresN 12:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Well I feel stupid now JOEBRO64 13:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Word is that this Monday (Feb 11) Activision is going to announce a major restructuring and layoffs. Obviously we should update our articles once the details emerge but as I have some in-my-bones concerns that this is going to hit fan-loved Blizzard hard, I have a feeling we'll be seeing some potential vandalism on these related articles if that comes to pass. --Masem (t) 18:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Electronic Arts

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a new discussion on the talk page of Electronic Arts on whether one of the sections should be split into a new article called Criticism of Electronic Arts (currently a redirect as of this post). I thought maybe I could spread the word here since I have not received any comments yet.

Also, I apologize for my past behavior and drama years ago. It will not happen again. From now on, instead of being aggressively do-everything, I will request peer review after peer review before getting serious on good and especially featured articles. Gamingforfun365 17:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Bomberman

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, since almost nobody edits the Bomberman article, I'd like you to check if it's correct to say the first game was released in 1987 (supported by a primary source) or in 1983 (supported by most sources on Internet). I ask this because there was no consensus about this subject and no other user except me and an anonymous user opposed the 1987 debut statement. See my section on the talk page. 200.59.159.162 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is literally the only source this 1987 starting date is based on, I don't see why we would use it. It seems clear to me that the franchise began in 1983. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the explanation may be right at the start "Originally launched in the US in 1987". US company in lack of worldwide view shock!. - X201 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:The new Famitsu is doing away with all the game searches and the scoring!

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

More bad news: The "Go to old page" button doesn't work anymore, because all the links to the old game pages like this link always end up with a 504 error after all the loading that seemingly takes forever! The only new game scoring now is limited to only the seventh and eighth generation consoles like this one! Famitsu is so unfair! It's completely gotten rid of the old self and all of its game pages from 1996 onward. No more adding Famitsu scores from its website for me. Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Famitsu just overhauled their website so it seems highly plausible they are in the middle of a database reorganization. I don't think they plan on purging all their old reviews. They put the "Go to old page" button there for a reason and it worked as recently as four days ago. Perhaps the old pages are being moved to other servers and will be back shortly. In the meantime, you can copy the link into the Wayback Machine and see if it's archived (example 1). If it's not archived, try removing the "&redirect=no" from the URL and searching again on the Wayback Machine again (example 2). Also, the sky is not falling and the Earth will continue to rotate around the Sun. TarkusABtalk 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you're right. Also, I'm gonna have to wait until the old page to this one gets fixed... possibly in a few days. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be working fine for me User:Angeldeb82 CrimsonFox talk 09:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Seems I was right. Crisis averted TarkusABtalk 12:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that it has finally worked since last night. Thanks for your advice. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Are we really going to do this every time a website is down or gets revamped? I’m about at the point where I auto-archive every new discussion with the message “Please be patient and/or give it a more thorough search” because every time it either resolves itself automatically or someone does a low-effort search to find the info is still available somewhere. 9 times out of 10 that’s your answer right there. I don’t understand why you can’t just tell yourself that at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 00:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The next Newsletter

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd be interested in contributing to the next issue of the Newsletter. Is there a template to work off that automatically includes the updates to GAs, DYKs etc.?

I'm keen to put my interviewer cap on and get some interesting voices from around the project.

Can't promise this will bea recurring thing but I'd love to give it a go to experience a new aspect of WP:VG!--Coin945 (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed at Gran Trak 10

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Amakuha‎ and I have a disagreement on the merits of including an RS-backed statement that Gran Trak 10 (arcade, 1974) was Steve Wozniak's favorite game in the article. Since that's a little-trafficked page, I'm inviting comment from here to break the deadlock; please discuss at Talk:Gran Trak 10. Thanks! --PresN 16:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for discussion close

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can an admin or experienced editor review and close the merge discussion listed here? Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have done so. --Izno (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Stream sniping

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Right now if you want to go to the stream sniping article it will redirect you to the video game live streaming page. I am contemplating on to make stream sniping an independent article as it is a pretty major thing. But I am afraid it might get deleted for not being notable enough. Should I make it? AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Full Sail University and Wargaming

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On behalf of Full Sail University, I've submitted a request to add mention of the university's collaboration with the video game company Wargaming, if any project members are interested to review and update the article appropriately. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. Erm, this is partly a question for Hahnchen. Why has Deus Ex: Mankind Divided apparently been promoted to GA without any warning or review? This is highly irregular. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What? Talk:Deus Ex: Mankind Divided/GA1 Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Salvidrim: It wasn't there when I wrote the above question. Edit: Plus, if you go to the article's talk page, the review page link is a red link. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. The GA template and its bluelinked review have been added to the talk page about 12 hours ago. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That is odd. For me, it's still a red link. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be a very odd way of doing things. Hahnchen seems to be saying that he immediately promoted the article to GA, and the (apparently on going review) are comments for taking it to FA? Note that doing things this way seems to have circumvented Legobot's normal GA promotion duties..... Either way, I see blue links, no red links. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Ferret, I've solved the red link problem on my end. The GA promotion code was put in without the "oldid" value, causing an error. I put it in manually, and that fixed the issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I posted the draft review as I promoted the article on the talk page. If it was a red link, it would be due to cache issues. I consider GA a quick process and not one where one has to go back and forth through nitpicks, being held hostage by a reviewer's subjective quirks. And in this case, the author is clearly already familiar with what a GA is, and the standards expected. - hahnchen 00:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hahnchen: Yeah but the process switcheroo means the article itself still isn't tagged as GA, as the bot doesn't/didn't recognize the close. -- ferret (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Likely it's a bot error. Look at this edit, that's not typical behaviour. - hahnchen 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

4A Games, Metro Exodus

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion on Talk:4A Games that needs more eyes. The dispute is essentially over whether to use English names as seen in several English sources, or direct transliteration of Ukrainian names. The dispute also crosses over to the Metro Exodus article. -- ferret (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Can Companies have a reception section?

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I think I asked this before. Sorry in advance if this was already answered. but are companies able to have reception sections? And what kind of reception would we be looking for that can be added in for companies? I'm trying to rework Imangi Studios.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's rare for a company itself to be reviewed but I can think of instances where a "Controversies" section is justified. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
What I was able to find was PocketGamer.biz reviews developers and they make a list of TOP 50 Developers of the Year. Are those allowed in Wikipedia? Also, if there's normally no reception section. What do we use to prove notability?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't looked but EA must surely have some reception section regarding regularly being seen as an evil company. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It might be difficult if the company produced dozens of games (like Capcom) but I wonder if PlatinumGames could be an example to follow.Tintor2 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll try to make the articles look as close to PlatinumGame's article as a start, see if that would be enough.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Companies aren't "reviewed" in a traditional sense so a reception section like we have in games articles does not really apply. You might have a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section if its warranted, or if there is lots of good publicity, maybe "Recognition" or "Accolades". TarkusABtalk 20:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You can write a reception section on any subject if you’ve got reception sourcing available to you. That said, as people have noted, that sort of sourcing may be hard to come by, though I’m sure there are cases where it’s possible. (Negative publicity around mega-corporations like EA or Activision, the more progressive culture at Monolith Soft, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Consider carefully the value of such sections per WP:CRITS. --Izno (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My two cents would be that companies generally release a large array of games, and paeticularly with publishers they published games from different developers so it would be impossible to have an overarching statement on their entire work. That said, there are some companies that have released the game type of game over their history, or who at least have a brand (compare Disney to other major film players). There's a company called Cryo Interactive that I've read lots of critical commentary about that I feel would make a fair critical reception section. At the end of the day, any interesting commentary on a company's history or impact could go into a legacy section I suppose.--00:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am absolutely sure that I can write something akin to a reception section for Activision based on the yearly release schedule and their overkill (eg death of guitar hero) from RSes on the matter, just trying to figure if that's more an Activision Blizzard or an Activision Publishing thing. I wouldn't describe this as controversy however, it's just opinion. --Masem (t) 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Diffusing Category:Cancelled video games?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've managed to diffuse as much as I could of the category by removing offenders or diffusing them into the sub-categories, however, I am unsure of what to do with the remaining four articles listed on the page. The pages don't seem to list specific platforms. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Cant they just...be there as it is? Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Breakaway was a Windows game. Chrono Break's designation as "cancelled" is iffy but I get why we portray the topic this way. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for gameographies table formatting

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
  Being worked on

@Dissident93, Izno, PresN, and SMcCandlish: Following the recent problems regarding gameographies table formatting in video game developer articles such as Nintendo EAD, Nintendo EPD and Intelligent Systems and stalled result from the last discussion regarding this, I propose adding formal rules to MOS:VG. As such I propose the following rules:

Proposal for gameographies table formatting

Proposed rules:

  • Class should be "wikitable sortable plainrowheaders";
  • Caption should be "List of video games developed by" followed by the developer's name;
  • Have the following columns in this order (properly scoped with scope="col"):
  • Year - The column header should use Template:Abbr and describe "Year of first release". In content cells, years should be added with Template:Vgy, properly rowspaned and aligned to the center;
  • Title - In content cells, cells should be properly scoped as rows (with scope="row"). A title should be italicized and wikilinked to its respective articles if it exists;
  • Genre(s) - The column header should be wikilinked to Video game genre. In content cells, genres should be wikilinked. If a title has multiple genres use Template:Unbulleted list, ordered by importance;
  • Platform(s) - The column header should be wikilinked to Video game console. In content cells, if a title was developed for multiple platforms, each platform should correspond to a different cell, properly rowspaning other columns.
  • Publisher(s) - The column header should be wikilinked to Video game publisher. If a title has multiple publishers use Template:Unbulleted list, ordered by release;
  • Ref. - The column header should use Template:Abbr to describe "References". Content cells should include references and aligned to the center.
  • Note(s) - Content cells should include notes, such as major codevelopers, and aligned to the center. Codevelopers should by grouped in "co".

Proposed exceptions:

  • If the article is from a first-party developer (ex: Nintendo EAD) the publisher column can be omitted;
  • If there are no multiple references, for example if an aggregator is referenced it my placed in the tittle column header;
  • If there are no notes, the notes column must be omitted.
  • The references and notes columns can be omitted provided that references and notes are inline in the title column and doesn't violate MOS:SEAOFBLUE.

Proposed example:

List of video games developed by X
Year Title Genre(s) Platform(s) Publisher(s) Ref. Note(s)
2017 Game Title 1 Genre A Platform A Publisher A [citation needed] [co 1][a]
Game Title 2 Genre A Platform A Publisher B [citation needed] [co 2]
Platform B
2018 Game Title 3
  • Genre A
  • Genre B
 Platform B Publisher A [citation needed] [co 1]
Notes:
  1. ^ a b Codeveloped with Y.
  2. ^ Codeveloped with Z.
  1. ^ Remastered version of Game Title 0.

What do you guys think? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 21:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposals to change MOS:VG need to happen at that talk page, not here. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Spider-Man (2018 video game)#Proposed merge with Spider-Man (Insomniac Games)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Talk:Spider-Man (2018 video game)#Proposed merge with Spider-Man (Insomniac Games) could use more participants. czar 05:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

🤔 Shariff Ismail (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Project

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I'm a bit on the new side but I am mostly interested in books and computer games. I don't like violent computer games and prefer fun kids games to violent grown up games. I want to help out with this project. I've had a look at some of the games from when I was growing up, where can I find the rest of the pages particularly kids games? Kerouac's socks (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't really keep a full list of target audiences like this, but if you are looking for articles to work on, best bet is to take a look at the categories. Something like Category:Children's educational video games will likely pull up some articles you might be interested in. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see🤔 Do u have any projects on psp games for android 

Shariff Ismail (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Offline TV

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone take a look at Offline TV? The article seems super crufty and pufty, has a quote in the lede, and just seems like a mess. I've seen some work has already been done, but I know very little about streaming. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A mess 🤔 Let me have a look Shariff Ismail (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: Proposal of layout for consoles

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Work in progress; comments welcome

I've opened a discussion about article layout for consoles in the Manual of Style/Video games talk page. Please head over there and leave your feedback. Thanks! ~ Arkhandar (message me) 00:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ok Shariff Ismail (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

bar codes isbn?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I was curious, why we don't add the code number details on articles? Govvy (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an easy source for such a thing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
No, because there's no such thing as a universal video game id number. ISBN is the international standard book number; the barcode on a video game is just a number reserved by a publisher for that product- there's no guarantee that there's only one per type of game release, different releases have different ones, and digital releases don't use a barcode at all. Besides all that, what benefit does it give the reader? ISBNs can be looked up in multiple databases to find additional details about that book, handily linked automatically; barcodes can't. --PresN 14:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
It was just a thought, I thought it be helpful to a reader if they wanted to find that game in another database. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Even if it did, this is a better fit for Wikidata than Wikipedia articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Need help with dates

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm having a really hard time finding release dates and discontinued dates for the arcade version of Temple Run does anyone know any reliable sources that have both release dates and discontinued dates? i added info on the arcade machines, but not much else.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Also looking for Temple Run 2's arcade release date. I'm not familiar with arcade machines and how to source them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Got a press release (from October 2012) saying November 2012 ([12]) and an arcadeheroes post (might be pushing it) saying that it was announced in October 2012 and would be first displayed at some arcade trade show the following month ([13]). Nothing on discontinued dates, those aren't usually advertised. --PresN 04:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me with this, i'm still not an expert when looking up info. Everything has been just a google search. I'm trying to see if i can get it GA status since there's so much coverage already. It might be a stretch, But i'm going to email the original producers and ask if they can include release dates (and possibly discontinued dates) for their products on their websites. Its crazy to think they'll listen to me.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Don’t feel bad, there are some surprising holes in the coverage of video game release dates. Polygon or IGN or one of the major video game websites did a whole story about how it’s hard to determine the release date for Super Mario Bros., one of the biggest games of all time. It’s not always as obvious as you’d think. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the G-Zay situation

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just recently, I've updated the G-Zay evidence page with a few new socks that were blocked back in July 2018. So, if this occurs again, should we semi-protect the articles that G-Zay edits (as listed here) to prevent further disruption and also, are there any other sockpuppets that were missed in this update? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

European Soccer Challenge

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I created Manchester United Europe a while back which is much improved to separate two different developer games apart. However I think in my actions I may have left European Soccer Challenge vulnerable as there are no citations and just one external link. Also google likes to bring up the Atari Lynx version, so finding sources seems to be a bit of a tough call. Maybe someone else might be able to help the article. Govvy (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

commodore Format review Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I hope that's the same game, I added the cite to the article even know it just says European Soccer on that little article. Cheers btw. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident it is the same game. The typography of the title for these games read 'european soccer' and in written font 'challenge' - it could be very easy for it to be mistaken. Everything I've seen suggests it's referring to this game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Famitsu's website:

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Heads up, Famitsu's site is doing some kind of refurbishing for their game archives section (cominy). If you go to a Famitsu game archive page now, it'll redirect to a new page that has a lot less information. I have no idea if they're planning on phasing out the cominy pages, or what. The older cominy pages include which issue of famitsu it was reviewed in, the review score, an excerpt from that review, basic game info, and the Japanese release history of the game. All pretty useful stuff. The old cominy pages still exist. I've personally tried to archive them in case they're removed later on. Is there some means of telling an archive bot to archive 100% of the famitsu site?

Example of the old page and new page for Magical Pop'n

Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

On the new pages, click the button that says 「旧ページへ」, this will take you to the old page. I take this as a sign they intend to keep them live. TarkusABtalk 19:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
And even if they don't, a regex AWB run (say (?<!\/)https?:\/\/(?:www\.)?famitsu\.com\/cominy\/[^ |}]*title_id=([0-9]+)[^ |}]* → https://www.famitsu.com/games/t/$1/) could fix this. Lordtobi (✉) 20:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest adding this over to WP:VG/S as a footnote for Famitsu (Both the on-page button and the url regex conversion). --Masem (t) 21:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_142&oldid=1137359500"