Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 143

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

→

Archive 150

Opinions needed

I have a very hard time with 2XL Games franchise of 2XL ATV Offroad, 2XL Supercross, 2XL Fleet Defense, 2XL TrophyLite Rally and X Games SnoCross. While all of these seem to pass WP:GNG, neither of these had any signs of lasting notablity, resulting in this lack of pageviews mess [1] (note that the 60 views instance was basically me adding new sources to ATV Offroad and gameplay info due to REFUND). I thought about possibly merging (likely with some text cuts) these to 2XL Games (now a redirect) where the info would be better reserved. Coverage of these all likely happened thanks to the times when iOS and Android were the next big thing (similiar to so many reviews now for Nintendo Switch games), no such thing nowadays where it is more selective in those terms. To no surprise, their more recent releases like 2XL Racing, 2XL MX Offroad for example failing GNG completely by my searches. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there's sources for 2XL Games that can add on to what's already at these pages as well as the current redirect's target? Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think your idea of making a list of games with background info at 2XL Games is sound. Be bold! czar 23:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Games in 1994

• The page lists Master_of_Orion as being released in 1994, but Master_of_Orion gives 1993 as release year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulSchulz (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Be Bold and change it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Savage Warriors

A chunk of gameplay info was added to Savage Warriors (see [2]), most of which is unsourced, and a lot of which includes what looks to me like WP:OR. I tried to remove some of it, but this was reverted. Opinions? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is no rule that a reference have to be a web link. You can use the game for referencing.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 12:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It may be fair to say that you can write "this happens, then this happens, then this happens" without including a source, but do you honestly think we can include things like "the game manufacturer promised this would happen in the game, but you can clearly see it's much more like this" without including a source to avoid at least the appearance of original research? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Piranha Plant merge discussion

Could use a few opinions; discussion is here. JOEBRO64 19:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Original models sold

Not sure

 – The infobox sales issue is still unresolved. However, a discussion to merge Nintendo 3DS family into Nintendo 3DS has started. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 14:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Why do the original 3DS sales not need to be portrayed on the infobox? Same goes for the DS and the GBA. For the PS4 it's different because the PS4 Slim and Pro do not have their own articles. The GBA SP, DSi, 2DS, etc. however do have their own pages. — EzekielT ^Talk 00:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• To give some much needed context to the situation above.

1. Ezekiel removed the total 3DS sales from the Nintendo 3DS article and replaced it with sales for just the original 3DS model.
2. I reverted him, saying that the scope of the Nintendo 3DS article is all models, and as such, should show the cumulative sales of all models. That’s how it’s handled at Nintendo DS, Game Boy Advance, and ever console I spot checked.
3. He then went and added the 3DS cumulative sales and the original models sales to the infobox.
4. I reverted this as well, as it both cluttered the infobox, and was puzzling to just single out some models in the infobox. As per every console article I could find, we just put total sales figures in the infobox, and place more detailed figures in sales/reception sections in the prose. We similarly don’t put regional, yearly, or quarterly figures in the infobox either.
5. Ezekiel was warned to get a consensus because he keeps on getting caught trying to re-add it back into the article without consensus every few weeks. He refused until this attempt above.

• Now that you know the context, input would be welcome. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be saying those things about what I did to discredit my opinion...? And the summary of what happened seems to be slanted towards your favour, rather than being neutral. I could say the same thing about you, you also continued to remove it every few weeks, and you were the only one who opposed my edits. And also the way you said “Ezekiel was warned to get a consensus” makes it sounds like a whole lot of people warned me when it was only you. And notice that I did not revert ferret. If it was more than just you who disagreed with my edits I would’ve tried discussing on the talk page. Also I didn’t really read WP:BRD before. And when you reverted my compromise, showing both the original and total 3DS family sales, it wasn’t very considerate and showed you’re uncompromising about the issue. And I don’t see how one sentence “clutters the infobox”. Also, we’re now discussing to change not just the 3DS but also the DS and GBA to include original models. So the consistency problem won’t exist anymore, and by the way we’d only do it to consoles whose revisions have their own pages already. That leaves out the Xbox One, PS4, etc. And “the scope of the Nintendo 3DS article is all models” - I kindly disagree, the 3DS page is clearly (at least mainly) for the original 3DS; the infobox even shows an original 3DS. The article for all 3DS models is Nintendo 3DS family. As the Nintendo 3DS page header states:

This article is about the Nintendo 3DS and its larger model, the Nintendo 3DS XL. For the current revision, see New Nintendo 3DS. For the budget model, see Nintendo 2DS. For the entire 3DS series, see Nintendo 3DS family.

Thanks. — EzekielT ^Talk 17:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I had to explain because your original comment above makes zero sense to anyone not involved in our arguments. That’s why you had zero responses after like 12 hours. You did a terrible job of describing the situation, so I did it for you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just skimmed through the discussion but everything Serge has said makes sense. We shouldn't use the infobox as an all-encompassing datadump. Generalize the info (as long as it doesn't cause ambiguity or confusion), and write everything else in detail in the sales section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: OK, for the original Nintendo 3DS page why don’t we just remove the total 3DS family models’ sales and replace it with the original 3DS sales. That won’t take any more space than it is currently. The total 3DS family models’ sales are already shown at Nintendo 3DS family anyway. Same thing with the original GBA and the original DS, we already have pages that show the amount of all models sold: Game Boy Advance family, Nintendo DS family. — EzekielT ^Talk 19:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t particularly think those “family” article spinouts need to exist at all. They’re redundant to the main articles, and don’t get many views - they neither serve a purpose nor are they comparatively seen much. The main DS page averages over 1700 views a day, while the family article is in the 300s (Which makes sense, things like “DS family” aren’t commonly used.) To be clear, since it seems to continually confuse you: the main and primary page is Nintendo DS, not Nintendo DS family, which is a sloppy spin out article largely for housing stats and comparison points. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To be fair we do already have individual, separate pages for all GBA, DS, and 3DS variants (which some of them further contain their own variants). We have individual, separate pages for:

• Game Boy Advance
• Game Boy Advance SP
• Game Boy Micro
• Visteon Dockable Entertainment System
• Nintendo DS
• Nintendo DS Lite
• Nintendo DSi (contains DSi XL as well)
• Nintendo 3DS (contains 3DS XL as well)
• Nintendo 2DS
• New Nintendo 3DS (contains New Nintendo 3DS XL as well)
• New Nintendo 2DS XL

And the Game Boy Advance family, Nintendo DS family, and Nintendo 3DS family pages. (Just giving a full rundown). — EzekielT ^Talk 19:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Serge, we just had a bunch of edit conflicts and things became confusing. — EzekielT ^Talk 19:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you’re confused, Serge. I think the family pages are actually created with the intent of covering all of the models while the Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, and Nintendo 3DS pages are meant to be for the original models. Especially considering we already have separate pages for the variants. It is a confusing subject and I don’t blame you for it though. — EzekielT ^Talk 19:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

For example, the Nintendo DS header actually says “This article is about the 2004 Nintendo DS game console. For the entire series, see Nintendo DS family and Nintendo DS (disambiguation)“. — EzekielT ^Talk 19:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you’ve tried to suggest that “I’m confused” in the past too. It’s ludicrous. I’m one of the earliest and largest contributors to some of these articles. Not that this gives me some sort of special status, but come on, common sense would dictate that I understand the scope of an article I’ve been writing and maintaining for almost a decade... Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you tried to look into what I’m saying. — EzekielT ^Talk 19:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

All those tangents aside, the main point is that infoboxes are meant to be kept simple. If you want to do a sales breakdown, just do it in the sales/reception section in the article. I only object to its placement in the infobox. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do we have individual pages for the variants if the Nintendo 3DS page is “supposed to cover all variants”? — EzekielT ^Talk 20:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Nintendo 3DS covers ever single 3DS variant. Some of the variants having their own article doesn’t change that. It’s no different anywhere else. The Xenoblade series article still covers every Xenoblade title. It doesn’t exclude Xenoblade 2 even though it has a separate article. Album articles still cover every song even if a song has its own article. I don’t follow your concern at all. All you have to do is read the Nintendo 3DS article. Every form of its existence has covered all of its variants. Just...read it...? Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Note how all of the Xenoblade titles have their own page, including the original game. Think of the Xenoblade Chronicles page as the Nintendo 3DS family page, and Xenoblade Chronicles (video game) as the Nintendo 3DS page. — EzekielT ^Talk 21:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And? Where are you going with this? Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We already have Nintendo 3DS family, which covers all the variants, and as the Nintendo 3DS page header states:

This article is about the Nintendo 3DS and its larger model, the Nintendo 3DS XL. For the current revision, see New Nintendo 3DS. For the budget model, see Nintendo 2DS. For the entire 3DS series, see Nintendo 3DS family.

The Nintendo 3DS family page doesn’t just feature comparisons, it also has summaries of all of the models, sales data, and even accessories. And note how “For the entire 3DS series, see Nintendo 3DS family” implies that the Nintendo 3DS page is not for the entire 3DS series while the Nintendo 3DS family page is. — EzekielT ^Talk 21:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I already explained that. It’s a crappy article someone threw together after the fact that probably doesn’t need to exist, it doesn’t change the scope of the parent article that has existed for almost a decade. We’re just talking circles again. You’re never going to get more input if you keep rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact it exists. And as long as the page exists, it will serve as the page for the entire 3DS series, as the Nintendo 3DS header states. The page has been here for over 5 years since 2013. Also, multiple editors have worked on it: Nintendo 3DS family revision history. The Nintendo DS family and the Nintendo 3DS family articles were both originally created by @Arkhandar: the someone you are referring to, while @Ozdarka: was behind the Game Boy Advance family article. Maybe the users should join the conversation. BTW: I'm not advocating for a sales breakdown in the infobox. All I want to add is the sales count for the original 3DS (26.25 million), original GBA (35.52 million), and original DS (18.79 million). — EzekielT ^Talk 00:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, "Nintendo 3DS family" is the official name for the line comprising the 3DS, 3DS XL, 2DS, New 3DS, New 3DS XL, and New 2DS XL: https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/landing/p/430. — EzekielT ^Talk 00:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know what else to tell you at this point, other than that’s not how it is, and I think it’s telling that in the many years of maintaining this article, you are literally the only person who has had this objection or proposed these changes. A simple skimming of the Nintendo 3DS counters your argument and supports mine, no matter how far someone digs into the page history. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I also don’t know what else to say at this point, you aren’t understanding anything I’m saying, and I’m not understanding anything you’re saying either. I do know however that it’s silly to have an entire discussion over just one, reliably sourced sentence with some pretty good information in it. What’s to lose by having it there? It’s way too small to call “clutter”. Hopefully the two editors I pinged will give their thoughts. — EzekielT ^Talk 03:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Here’s a tip - if you want others to contribute, stop giving these massive wall of text responses. It scares other people away from jumping in. Sergecross73 msg me 04:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and EzekielT: I agree with Serge here, in that we should consider merging the "family" articles into the DS and the 3DS articles. I do have some reservations though. Although the DS and 3DS terms refer to their respective line rather than "X family" (more often than not), they also refer to their respective original models. So that should be pretty clear in the article, instead of lumping everything together and absorb the original models notability. As such, I don't see why infoboxes shouldn't discriminate sales models. For anyone not knowledgeable in the matter, it might come across as if the original DS 150 million units, which is not the case at all. To me, total sales numbers should be at the forefront, with a collapsible list with model discrimination. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 10:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: actually I think you had a good idea when you created those family articles. Since we already have individual articles for the GBA, DS, and 3DS variations, we should have an individual article for the original model too. It only makes sense. If we move the 3DS family page into the 3DS page, then the original model would not have a page of its own. Maybe we should rewrite the 3DS article a bit to make it slightly more focused on the original model and keep the family articles. — EzekielT ^Talk 10:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EzekielT: The thing is that both the DS and 3DS articles are small enough (31KB and 50KB respectively) to focus on their original models and touch upon their respective families. There's no reason to have a separate "family" article for the sake of it. Even for comparison's sake, we already have the generation articles, so why bother in having yet a dozen other articles to maintain? ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: It’s a bit difficult to put into words, but here it is: Since all of the revisions (e.g. the GBA SP, DSi, 2DS, etc.) have their own pages, the original models should have their own pages too, for the sake of consistency. — EzekielT ^Talk 10:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EzekielT: And they do. But right now, it's not justifiable to have separate "family" articles when the main article is small enough to be merged. Couple that with the fact that sources often refer to the the console's family by its original title, and you have a pretty good rationale for merging. Note: Avoid splinting a reply in multiple paragraphs. It's not accessible and breaks ping and reply notifications. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: I guess I didn’t do a good job explaining. The “main article” is the original 3DS page. And by merging the family article into the main article (the original 3DS), that means the original 3DS will be lumped in with the other models, and thus the original 3DS will not have an independent page of its own, unlike the revisions. The original model’s notability would be absorbed, and the original 3DS page would have reduced focus on the original 3DS. Instead, the page would focus both on the entire line and the original model, diminishing the original 3DS. — EzekielT ^Talk 12:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EzekielT: No, you've explained it quite well. The problem with your rationale is thinking that every given subject has to have it own article, which is not the case on Wikipedia. I see no problem in merging articles as anemic as that. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 13:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: the 2DS has its own article. The DSi has its own article, the DS Lite has its own article as well. So does the New 2DS XL. And so on. Each one has its own article. So one not having its own page while all the others do is inconsistent. Not to mention the original 3DS is of greater importance, as it was... well, the original, the first, and (by far) the best selling 3DS model. — EzekielT ^Talk 13:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read the long thread above. The fact that pages exist for some models but not others is not justification to create an article. Each model must be examined independently for article necessity. Is there commentary about the original model 3DS that cannot be summarized accurately in the current 3DS article? That would justify a split. TarkusAB^talk 13:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: Exactly. At this point he's just repeating himself. I'll make a merge request in the 3DS family article and based on its result we can analyze what to do with the others in the future. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 14:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: you misread. No split is being suggested. Pages currently exist for all models (except for the XL variants). However, Arkhandar wants to merge the family pages into the original models, lumping all the models into them and thus making the original models not have independent pages anymore, while all the others do. — EzekielT ^Talk 14:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a merger. I would never support that idea, never. It’s a terrible idea, and I’ve only been repeating things because you don’t get it. I would rather keep things the way they are now. — EzekielT ^Talk 14:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EzekielT: Please take a thorough look at Wikipedia:Scope. I'll make it easier for you: Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view. Accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t get it... And did you read what I said...? The points I made...? Gave them some weight...? Just a little...? — EzekielT ^Talk 14:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would rather we just delete the family articles than move them. Not like they have much content that’s not shown elsewhere. — EzekielT ^Talk 14:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop with the constant questioning on whether or not we’re reading what you say. We are. We just don’t agree with you. It is possible for people to both understand and disagree with you. Especially considering you’re rarely citing anything other than your personal opinion, rather than any sort of policy, precedent, or guideline. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

OK then, most people don’t agree with me anyways... And I know things aren’t gonna go they way I would’ve liked them to. Rather, the opposite. Sigh... Like always. Sorry, I’m not really feeling myself right now. The pages will be merged, and we’ll end up keeping the all models combined figures, while deleting the original models’. I’m feeling these weird tremors in my heart now. That’s how much this means to me. I shouldn’t have started the discussion or reverted you in the first place. You have over 65,000 edits. You’re very popular here, not to mention an admin, everyone will take your opinion (most certainly not mine)... — EzekielT ^Talk 14:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EzekielT: No encyclopedic content will be deleted, that's not how a merge works. And the infobox issue has no consensus yet, so calm down. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 14:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Right now, the infobox issue is 0.0001% of my concern, and the move is 99.999% of my concern. — EzekielT ^Talk 14:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar and Sergecross73: Sorry for my excessive defeatist speech... I guess that’s what happens when you’re extremely tired. — EzekielT ^Talk 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Assistance with Edge (video game)

Could you assist me with Edge (video game) Its currently under GA review and addressed most of the issues. the main concern I have is the reception section. I originally added scores and some quotes but that wasn't enough for GA status and had to be revised. I revised as much as I could but still need some assistance on it. I'd appreciate any help really. :) ( I already requested assistance from Masem and Sergecross on their personal talk pages as well). I'm was asking anyone with GA achievements under their belt but anyone who has experience with Reception sections can help. Its really close to GA in humble my opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blue Pumpkin Pie - I did some general fixes to the article - MDY update, tidy citations, and archived the references. This should alleviate most of the date issues with the links (as seen here).

Looking through Czars points, there's a few things he's brought up that are easy fixes.

• Infobox dates are ridiculous. Take out the "second version" release dates, same with there being two steam release dates worldwide. Use the earliest (unless its a beta) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reception sections rarely contain the actual review scores. In this case, I would literally say "Edge received "generally favorable" reviews, according to video game review aggregator Metacritic, with the iOS version recieving the best aggregated score." - The reason for this, is because these scores already exist in the table, and stating them again is irrelevent for good articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reception sections are kind of like the meat and bread of GAs and a lot of people are better at writing them than I am. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is very helpful. It's important that this section isn't just "this review said this, this other review said something different". The way forward is to split the article into themes. For instance, the first paragraph could be regarding the game's simplistic but strong gameplay, the next on it's score, and maybe a paragraph about the viewpoint of the game, and the expansion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Your quotes in the reception section are too long for my liking. It borders on copyright. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reviews are generally not written by publications, they are written by a person at a publication. For instance, you've written TouchArcade gave the game a perfect score, praising it for being "an incredibly fun game" and a "brilliant platform game", whereas, it's better to write Troy Woodfield of TouchArcade gave the game a perfect score, praising it for being an "incredibly fun" and a "brilliant platform game".
• The authors name (such as the one above) should also be in the citations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope some of this is useful to you. As an aside, any idea why the GA Review isn't transcribed? I know legobot doesn't always work (it has a lot of tasks), but it's usually pretty good at transcribing the review in my experience. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you for making it easier to understand what I need to do to fix the reception. I did notice two common themes in the reviews. Websites keep calling the game "Minimalist" and "retro" and another for complimenting music.

I included two versions in the infobox is because for smartphone there is "Edge" and "Edge Extended". Edge Extended isn't the original game with added levels. They are new levels, new features and a new engine with none of the original game's levels or features. Mobigame wanted it to be considered a stand-alone expansion for the original but for the released separately for smartphone, which means its technically a sequel. The ports from Two Tribes did include Edge Extended as DLC on PC versions and was already included in the console versions of Edge. I personally think it merits being kept in the infobox. But if you still disagree, then it will be no issue for me. I just wanted to be clear that Edge Extended isn't a "final mix/remix/plus" edition of the original.

There was one release on steam and another released on the mac app store. I don't know anything about Steam, or if it was compatible with Mac computes at the time. But after doing research I noticed that Steam runs on Mac, so its pointless to put the Mac App Store release on infobox. I apologize, I should've done better research on that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Your main issue might be that - if these are indeed two games, there should be two articles. We don't really do series articles for two games. Otherwise, it should be interpreted as a single game, with a section on the new release. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: This complicates things. it was released separately for the smartphone platform. The PC port has it as free DLC and the consoles ports developed by Two Tribes are already included in the original. SO its both expansion and sequel (I'm soo sorry for making this complicated).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you may struggle with an article being a GA without at least having a clear view of how the games are related. Personally, I'd treat it as one game (with one release) and explain the differences between the releases in the prose. However, it may be wise to get other people's opinions on the matter, as I'm certainly no expert. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, the fault is all mine. I'm am not good explaining. If you read the Gameplay/Development/Release sections, they explain it better. only the smartphone are technical sequels as they are released separately. but edge extended on all other platforms that it was released on is either DLC to the original or already included in the original title in later ports. So its a literal expansion on the other platforms, but it was originally released separately.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Massive JP magazine source

While doing some source scrounging, I found this BlogSpot website once run by someone in Japan who transcribed a lot of information from various Japanese publications about video games from Square; included are the magazine, its issue, and page numbers. These range from their big Final Fantasy titles to more obscure offerings including Another Mind, Live A Live and Soukaigi. There's loads of info on Xenogears, titbits for the earlier SaGa games. This resource shouldn't be missed! --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Good find. If you haven't already, I'd show this to WP:SQUAREENIX, they might be interested! CrimsonFox ^talk 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair use images?

In articles for huge games like PUBG, Halo, GTA, etc., the total number of screeshots is, urm, zero. I understand that screenshots are not fair use, but the game review websites that we link to for refs all have screenshots. I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, but can WP get images in the same way the game mags / blogs do? I see 6,975 articles have requested screenshots. --Cornellier (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a high bar for screenshots--they should be illustrative of multiple gameplay elements. Series articles don't have gameplay, so that's why they don't have screenshots. As for PUBG, that's probably because no-one has gotten around to it yet. The game mags/blogs probably just rip the images from the games directly, and aren't necessarily looking for many-aspects-of-gameplay like we are. --Izno (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:VGMOS#Screenshots and cover art. --Izno (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, you can fair use 1 screenshot on an article, provided it is warranted (shows different gameplay sections for example). Screenshots are a bit harder than cover arts, as the ones found online might not show what is needed, and therefore you might need to take one yourself and upload it. This is quite a labourious process, and is why we have such a backlog. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit harder to defend screenshots for series articles when you're less likely talking about specific gameplay features or elements versus an overview. All the individual Halo games have screenshots for instance even if the series article doesn't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Re VGMOS and linked templates, is there a definition for "low resolution"? Izno what is a "high bar for screenshots"? I've added photos to WM, it's not that hard, but not trivial either; I don't want to take a screenshot, upload it, fill in the form, link it into the article etc. all to have it reverted. BTW, I'm surprised more effort hasn't gone into showing and talking about graphics. The pubg article goes into excruciating detail about the release history on every platform but doesn't really talk about the graphics (or sound, at all, which is crucial to gameplay). Most games have their own aesthetic style, relative to other games and that should be pointed out, e.g. Halo vs. CoD, pubg vs. Fortnite. --Cornellier (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Low resolution is approximately 100 megapixels. You should have a pretty good reason to use a larger screenshot.

High bar is all of the mentioned items: We need to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 among others (feel free to peruse that page for the criteria your image needs to meet when the file of interest is non-free).

I don't want to take a screenshot, upload it, fill in the form, link it into the article etc. all to have it reverted You should be fine just to proceed with the PUBG article if you can find yourself a satisfactory shot that meets WP:NFCC.

I'm surprised more effort hasn't gone into showing and talking about graphics. We can only write on topics covered by reliable sources. (See also WP:VG/RS.) If no-one is talking about the graphics, then we don't cover it. It is also possible that we are not covering it at this time because no-one has gotten around to it. To add a screenshot typically requires a good chunk of material dedicated to discussion of the graphics or UI of the game. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Covers for SSI games

Hello! Would anyone be interested in helping to add cover images to any of these articles, for games developed and/or published by SSI? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Computer Conflict (1980)
• The Warp Factor (1980)
• Computer Baseball (1981)
• The Shattered Alliance (1981)
• Torpedo Fire (1981)
• Epidemic! (1982)
• Galactic Adventures (1982)
• Knights of the Desert (1983)
• Gemstone Warrior (1984)
• War in Russia (1984)
• Colonial Conquest (1985)
• Kampfgruppe (1985)
• Gemstone Healer (1986)
• Gettysburg: The Turning Point (1986)
• Phantasie II (1986)
• Battles of Napoleon (1988)
• Questron II (1988)
• Typhoon of Steel (1988)
• Archon Ultra (1994)
• Renegade: The Battle for Jacob's Star (1995)
• Steel Panthers II: Modern Battles (1996)
• Wargame Construction Set III: Age of Rifles 1846-1905 (1996)
• Soldiers at War (1998)
• Luftwaffe Commander (1999)
• Warhammer 40,000: Rites of War (1999)

User:L ke, do you see anything useful for any of these? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:L ke, thank you very much! :) 208.47.202.254 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Done :) L ke (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! 208.47.202.254 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Only five left, if anyone can find them! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:40, 14 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'll try and find them Shariff Ismail (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Anything you can do would be great, Shariff Ismail! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Found 3 for Epidemic! and cropped them down from Retromags if that's of any help? CrimsonFox ^talk 09:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Crimsonfox, yeah that would be great! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Any preference to which you'd prefer? Personally the third is the best quality and is the most clear but is the PC cover instead of the Apple II one CrimsonFox ^talk 12:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded and added the one I mentioned above, you're welcome to use the others though if anyone prefers. CrimsonFox ^talk 13:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

attention - Just for reference Category talk:Video game articles requesting identifying art exists, and might be a better place to bring up these sorts of requests. We have a tonne (just over 2500 articles) in need of cover art, so it would be great if any editors helped with the backlog. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Computer Conflict done. Note: Ignore "File:ComputerConflict Cover.png", I accidentally uploaded to Commons, should be speedy deleted shortly CrimsonFox ^talk 09:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The Warp Factor done. CrimsonFox ^talk 10:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Galactic Adventures done CrimsonFox ^talk 11:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! All done! Thanks to L ke, Crimsonfox, and Lee Vilenski for helping out! :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this Copyvio?

I mean, it sure looks like it, but can anyone check to make sure?[3] 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, 8.37.179.254. This turns out to be a copyright violation as seen by this report. Thank you for spotting it out! I'll mark the pages as such, and we'll see what we can do about it. Thanks again! –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 23:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You got it! They did add a review from CGW so they might be acting in good faith, but unaware of the Copyvio policy. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Quit that "stylized as" already, just use the actual titles

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.

---

As in https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Nier:_Automata#Proper_title_(NieR:Automata_vs_Nier:_Automata)

Just as there's no "Id Software (stylized as id Software), "Iphone (stylized as iPhone)", "Bell Hooks (stylized as bell hooks)", "Ar-ab (stylized as AR-Ab", and so forth, so stop this renaming practice for video games. (And speaking of id Software, the actual title was always DOOM.) --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TM. This isn't something the project decided, this is a Wikipedia-wide policy. The edits to Nier: Automata were not proper. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

id Software and iPhone are also "trademarks". SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TM says:

In the article about a trademark, it is conventional to give the normal English spelling in the lead section, followed by a note, such as "(stylized as ...)", with the stylized version (which may include simple stylization, like capitalization changes, decorative characters, or superscripting, but not colorization, attempts to emulate font choices, or other elaborate effects),[c] then resume using an alternative that follows the usual rules of spelling and punctuation, for the remainder of the article. In other articles that mention the subject, use only the normal English spelling, not the stylization.
However, if the title of the article is the stylized version of the name (e.g. iPod), it should be given in the boldfaced title recapitulation at the beginning of the lead (i.e., without a "stylized as" note), and used throughout the text (and, in most cases, in other articles that mention it). The lead may also have a note (e.g., "sometimes also written ...") indicating the unstylized version if it is also commonly attested in reliable sources, especially if any confusion could result from its absence.

Which should clear up the matter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Most independent sources use the correct spelling, despite Wikipedia's pushing of the wrong one: https://www.google.com/search?q=nier+automata&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The MOS clearly mentions that it would only be the case if the title of the article was this boldface. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Only because the article's title is wrong, and so needs to be moved. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with the article's name, you can make a move request. If you disagree with policy, you can bring it up on the policy page. But changing one of many video game articles that follow the policy is not the way to go. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Articles should follow the MOS. If any other articles aren't right; there's an argument in regards to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd potentially support a move request however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"The policy page" says not to use "nintendo", which is weird since the official name is Nintendo and always was so (https://1000logos.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Nintendo-Logo-history.jpg), and LittleBigPlanet and not LittleBigPlanet™ - in such case, it would rather ask to use "Little Big Planet (stylized as LittleBigPlanet)", but it doesn't. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And also, in an odd reverse case, Wikipedia insists (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:DotEmu#It's_Dotemu_literally_everywhere) on using the "stylized" DotEmu despite they having renamed themselves as the simple Dotemu (http://www.dotemu.com/, https://twitter.com/Dotemu). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

DotEmu SAS is still their legal name and the version they trademarked, as well as the stylization they used for years, suiting the guideline cited and quoted above. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 12:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And even if they offically went from DotEmu to Dotemu across the board, we'd use the same approach we use for macOS vs OS X naming - what was in place at the time for the topic. --Masem (t) 14:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• MOS:TMSTYLE clearly advises against this. If you disagree with it, then it needs to be sitewide consensus that goes beyond the scope of video games. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:44, 14 March 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.

It 'clearly" does not. As /i already showed you, there's nothing about it, and in fact it "clearly" insist on the use of stylized names such as LittleBigPlanet instead of the plain English Little Big Planet. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternatives to cover art

Hi all, just want an opinion on what should be done when cover art cannot be found. I've taken a look at WP:VGBOX but it doesn't say anything specific. I've been looking for some old covers for TRS-80 games so the issue is cropping up quite a bit. There's some that either never had cover art made or it cannot be found. What's the best alternative? Title screen, photo of the media (disk/cassette etc), instruction manual, advertising material or nothing at all? All but the last seem to cover the idea that the image is there to identify the game so it'd be nice to be consistent if there's already a loose rule. If not, maybe we need to add some guidelines to the MoS? Thanks! CrimsonFox ^talk 17:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Any of those work. Arcade games are often shown by their adverts to arcade owners, so if the only good work that shows the game is that, then that's usable. However, I would at least try to isolate something that shows the game's logo/branding by itself as best as possible. That will more likely come from the title screen, instruction manual cover, or game cart/disc. --Masem (t) 18:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Thanks a lot Crimsonfox for your help finding infobox images. :) Boxart is the easy go-to in most cases obviously, but the purpose of the infobox is to provide some form of visual identification or reference for readers, and I firmly believe in cases where boxart is a challenge to find (or non-existing), perfectly valid alternatives include digital store/icons, logotype (especially for series), booklet covers, intro screen, or even main gameplay screen. Of course, if eventually proper boxart is found it can always supplant what was previously in the infobox. Some of my recent examples while helping cleanup Category talk:Video game articles requesting identifying art: Swordquest (logotype), Android Nim (intro screen), Starfleet Orion (rule book cover), Terrorist (intro screen), Citadel of the Dead (main gameplay screen), Tower of Despair (cassette inlay art), Crown and Council (digital store front art), Freefall 3050 A.D. (an actual picture of the whole box). Could these be improved with actual boxart? Of course. Is the current image providing acceptable visual identification (particularly: better than no imagge)? I'd say yes, absolutely. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Free 148-page ebooks from GamesRadar+

For those interested, GamesRadar+, Future Publishing and Golden Joystick are offering free 148-pages ebooks, one each on the Assassin's Creed, Halo and Metal Gear Solid series, upon subscription of GamesRadar+'s newsletter (info page). The ebooks are distributed via direct URLs though, so they are available here:

• Golden Joystick Presents... Assassin's Creed – Ultimate Series Guide: 2007 – 2015
• Golden Joystick Presents... Halo – The Ultimate Guide to the Halo Universe
• Golden Joystick Presents... A Hideo Koj!ma Book – The Ultimate Guide to Metal Gear Solid

Lordtobi (✉) 10:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I was a bit concerned that these might be full of lazy circular sourcing of Wikipedia, but thumbing through the Halo one it looks like they're distinct and would actually be useful sources. So that's good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

These are all published by Future Plc, and at least on the MGS book, I see familiar names (eg Simon Parkin who does stuff for the UK Telegraph). There're more heavy on gameplay and lore (which is still good to source), but like, a decent 4 page (subtracting out photos) history on Kojima in the last. Absolutely all useful and usable. --Masem (t) 18:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiplayer listed at Redirects for discussion

As info: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_8#Multiplayer

This redirect is in use by thousands of our infobox, so depending where this goes action will be needed and perhaps tweaks to infobox documentation and MOS. -- ferret (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

List of role-playing video games: 2018 to 2019

List of role-playing video games: 2018 to 2019, which is currently a redirect to List of role-playing video games, has been nominated at RfD - see the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#List of role-playing video games: 2018 to 2019. For other pairs of years (e.g. List of role-playing video games: 2016 to 2017) there exists list of such video games, but I can't find there has ever been one for 2018-2019 which I find surprising. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to use screenshots?

Having an argument with someone at Talk:Tifa_Lockhart#Advent_Children_image about whether an article for a fictional video game character should have a picture of them from the CGI film they are in, instead of a random model or "gravure idol" dressed up like them to advertise cell phones. Dream Focus 13:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe we had a consensus going that these random cosplayer pics generally shouldn’t be used unless there is RS commentary on the picture/cosplayer. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Translation anywhere?

Hello, a fellow Russian editor motivated me to work into creating another Fate article, Sakura Matou. While I think my sandbox passes wp:notability, it still lacks creation information. The user passed information from a Japanese guidebook which apparently explains a lot about her creation. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Where to search for old games reviews?

So I have started to clean the Cabela's Big Game Hunter series and I am very surprised to see that I actually can't find much for the original game Cabela's Big Game Hunter (video game) except that one review in the article (nothing much on Moby or GameRankings). The sequel that released the same year Cabela's Big Game Hunter II passes WP:GNG clearly (I added 3 indepth sources about it). So I am confused and would look to know if there are other places to search for reviews of the older games? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: Try checking websites for magazines that existed back then in the Wayback Machine and see if you can find any reviews there. I did that for the Warcraft III expansion which worked quite well. It's a bit of work though. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources has a useful overview of reliable sources including dates since when they existed, so you can specifically check those that already existed in 1998. Additionally, you can ask here and at WP:REX for people to check their old magazines. Regards SoWhy 14:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank you for this advice! Appreciated. Guess I will take a look into it. If nothing comes up, I am not sure what to do except an AfD of sort. Would be quite controversial to just WP:BOLD-ly merge the original game that started all, into the game series article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

South Park the Fractured but Whole FAC requires further comments

This is a neutral notice regarding the above FAN which has been up for a month, as it is in need of more feedback. All opinions welcome. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoop, whoop, alarm, alarm. Anyone else available to feedback here as it's gonna end up going nowhere through lack of involvement. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rename of a VG article

See Talk:PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds#Requested move 17 March 2019. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Name change discussion; Sōkaigi

There's a discussion ongoing on the talk page for Sōkaigi, which I'm currently planning to rewrite and perhaps bring to GA; I initiated the discussion after finding that the spelling Soukaigi is both attested in more sources both journalistic and semi-official (1,2, 3, 4, 5), and easier to type and read. Sources for both spellings are provided in some of my comments (a mistake, I admit, as I should've looked for and provided them from the start). I'd like as much input as possible on this issue before the discussion closes, as there's been little attention so far. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Free ebook for C64

"The Story of the Commodore 64 in Pixels" is free for a limited time. A few steps to get it free, but it's still free. --Masem (t) 14:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Review thread 41: The next insult

Time for another review thread, the most beloved thread series this side of the internet.

FAC

• South Park: The Fractured but Whole (nom)
• Deactivators (nom)

FLC

• List of Bandai Namco video game franchises (nom)
• List of Relic Entertainment games (nom)

GAN

• Yu Yu Hakusho Makyō Tōitsusen (nom)
• Gunstar Heroes (nom)
• The Bureau: XCOM Declassified (nom)
• Deadly Premonition (nom)
• Traitors Gate (video game) (nom)
• Ezio Auditore da Firenze (nom)
• Two Point Hospital (nom)
• Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King (nom)
• Shirou Emiya (nom)
• The Crystal Key (nom)
• Spider-Man (2018 video game) (nom)
• Yoshi's Safari (nom)

PR

• Nintendo 3DS (rev)
• Empires of Eve (rev)
• Console game (rev)
• Electronic Arts (rev)

And once again I recommend going through the Requests board to help minimize the backlog and to create new articles for Wikipedia. GamerPro64 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We could probably remove/cancel the 3DS one. It was requested by an editor who was recently Arbcom blocked, and was never a significant contributor to begin with anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No kidding. Yeah I'll pull that. GamerPro64 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Contrarily, Fuchs gave it a good look. I'd guess someone could incorporate his comments with a bit of effort. --Izno (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed that Empires of Eve is also the same editors too so that will have to pulled as well. GamerPro64 21:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Will anyone have beef with me if I remove the Street Fighter V nom? The nominator hasn't made a single edit to the page, and from just a quick glance I can see lotsa problems that would prevent it from being promoted. JOEBRO64 21:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I support it. I’ve watched over it for years strictly due to recurring issues and vandals there, and I don’t believe it’s GA ready at all. Nor has the article historically had a dedicated person who would be pushing it through the review process either. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Quickfailed JOEBRO64 00:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to create article "Creeper (Minecraft)"

The Creeper from Minecraft is iconic, and has undoubtedly had enough impact in the real world to be considered notable. Creepers aren't as notable as, say, Pikachu, but still notable enough to warrant an article. InvalidOStalk 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It could well be. I'd suggest getting sourcing together first, and then judging if it meets WP:GNG. I think it probably does, it surely has tonnes of popular culture impact, but it's all about the sources. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a user of the Dutch Wikipedia and can say this: The Dutch Wiki HAS an article about the Creeper and since you contribute to Wiki for about a year now, you should know that there is nothing to stop you from creating the article. "We" think it's relevant enough for its own page so I'd say: Go ahead! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The different languages of Wikipedia all have different levels of notability guidelines. The Dutch one is most likely a lot more lax on inclusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That’s not a very good rationale for creating an article. Just saying another languages Wikipedia has an article on it by itself doesn’t necessarily justify making one here. We honestly haven’t even confirmed the Dutch one is justified. You’ve just established it exists. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as a guy who has written a lot of video game articles and dealt a lot with character articles, I think while the Creeper is undoubtably notable enough for an article, I’m not sure that’s still the best editorial decision. Standalone articles are magnets for cruft and I have to ask what a general encyclopedia reader is going to get out of an article about the creeper that can’t be summarized in a paragraph or less in the main article (that it’s a mob, that’s green, that it explodes, and that it’s a recognizable symbol of the game.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Don’t forget a brief “Reception” section with every inconsequential mention found in a Google search. IGN said creeper was “cute” but “deadly”. GameSpot called it “a force to be reckoned with.” Complex named it the 187th best video game character of 2018. etc etc. Plenty of pointless content like that as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Streaming services as a platform (Yes, yet again) aka Google Stadia

So, bearing in mind the decisions we made regarding OnLive, Gaikai, PlayStation Now et al that they are cloud services and not platforms, and that Google Stadia is coming over the horizon (it's already being added to articles - Doom Eternal), is the status quo still the status quo? On the subject of platforms, the Infobox VG template says to list "The original platform, not PlayStation Now or OnLive" which reads to me as "Don't list cloud services". The last major discussion on the subject I can find resulted in a consensus that the following should happen "List OnLive in the Platform field, but as a subset of Cloud computing. An example would be to list it as Cloud (OnLive).". Which seem to contradict each other. With Google putting money into their own development team and also the possibility of them giving someone a wad of cash for a "play it on Stadia first" exclusive, do we need to ponder how we handle cloud services again (sorry) - X201 (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking on the same issues - my gut would say that until we have a Stadia-exclusive game (which is wholly possible, but nothing yet given) - we should not yet acknowledge cloud gaming as a platform for a game, and treat Stadia as a storefront, unless there were specific interesting aspects to Stadia - for example, AC:O and Doom Eternal being some of the first games for it. When we get to that Stadia exclusive, they we'll need to talk again. --Masem (t) 13:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it’s at least worth listing when it is a specific, designated release. For example, I don’t think it’s as important to note that Sonic Generations is on PSNow, because it’s really just the PS3 version. But I do think it’s worth mentioning Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, because it’s not just running the PS4 version over the cloud, it was actually made for Stadia. (That’s my understanding of things so far, at least.) I’m not saying we have to draw the line there, but I do feel strongly about listing Stadia as a platform. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

it reminds me of Netflix. I don't think its important listing them if they're just streaming original re-runs but if it made its debut in Netflix, then we list it in.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Per the others, we should only list it as a platform if it's exclusive to it (meaning you can't just buy it on the PS Store/Steam as well). Otherwise it's just another form of distribution. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's already begun: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Doom_(franchise)&curid=22364401&diff=888581968&oldid=888545184 -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

To me the germane point is whether it’s being streamed on a single platform versus being a platform-agnostic (or relatively so) streaming-first service. Stadia (man, it just sounds like a sugar substitute) would merit mentioning by that metric. Basically, if Stadia has exclusive games, what would we put in the 'platform' field? The obvious answer would be Stadia as the umbrella for all the client hardware, so I think that follows for non-exclusives as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There are "Steam exclusive" games out there, but we don't put Steam in the platform section because the platform is actually PC (Linux, Windows, MacOS). The platforms Steam can run on.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of this until now. Question - even if we had games that were only sourced through this service, on what devices would it be available? Would it only be PC/iOS/Android, or otherwise? I'm not sure I'd be comfortable listing a service as a platform at all, regardless. The physical hardware is the platform, surely? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"Strictly speaking", Stadia's platform is anything that can run Google Chrome. -- ferret (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

So, would browser game not be smack on the money? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Just came here to say that, and got an (edit conflict) trying to post it, haha.--Alexandra IDV^talk 19:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :p We already list games like Agar.io as browser games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"Strictly speaking", Stadia is not a game, but an extension/site/service that runs in Chrome to provide games. One could (i'm not), argue that all games on Stadia (including the new Doom?) are therefore browser games? :) -- ferret (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with the Unity (game engine) article

Hi editors, I am here as the representative of Unity Technologies on Wikipedia. I've submitted a request at Talk:Unity_(game_engine)#Updated_draft for editors to review part of an improved draft about the Unity engine, which is saved at User:Matthewpruitt/Unity_(game_engine). Can a WikiProject Video games member please take a look? My first request focuses on the history section, but ultimately I hope editors will review the entire draft. Thank you! Matthewpruitt (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Cadence of Hyrule

I'm a little busy, but I really wanted to write this article. Anyone wanna help chip in to expand it? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Fate (franchise) page

See the discussion Creating a Talk:Fate/stay night#Fate (franchise) page for a discussion about it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Apple TV

Apple TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Another good article with a GA request pending is Seventh generation of video game consoles. I have left a comment at Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles#GA Request. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

GDC week = free images!

As always the Official GDC account at Flickr pumps out lots of free-use images (appropriate CC license) which provide us with images of devs + other important people. This can be uploaded to Commons, just make sure to add the "Game Developers Conference 2019" category there. --Masem (t) 19:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Isn't there a bot that goes around and automatically uploads Flickr images to Wikimedia that have the proper license? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Flickr2Commons is my go-to for uploading. --Masem (t) 17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

    These days you can also used the UploadWizard if you prefer :) (see commons:Commons:Upload_Wizard/Flickr). Jean-Fred (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Uploaded a bunch in commons:Category:Game Developers Conference 2019.

(and if you’re really motivated, you can also create the Wikidata items for the devs (eg Charlie Cleveland (Q62127621) or John Salwitz (Q62127784) ^_^)

Jean-Fred (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. GTRC

There is currently a Good Topic Removal Candidacy for the Super Smash Bros. series topic due to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate not being a Good Article. GamerPro64 20:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates for game lists

I have been pondering this for weeks but unsure where to ask. So, the general idea is creating templates for the tags associated with video game lists. Using Xbox One as the example, we have addons for crossplay, the Kinect and Enhancements, but they're all put in as raw HTML. Would we template this and possibly do it so its compartmentalized to the page itself instead of clogging up mainspace? Would this kill over if the list gets any bigger? I'll open the floor. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Switching to templates runs the risk of hitting the limit on template data inclusions, which forces page splits. That said, that isn't necessarily a bad thing on some of these giant lists either. But also that said, there's question on whether we even want those indicators. They were born out of the effort to merge the 4-5 duplicated "xbox one games with XXXXX feature" lists, but they kinda run afoul of the general NOTCATALOG consensus to not indicate things like physical releases. -- ferret (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

World Series Baseball

World Series Baseball (series) - per the World Series Baseball disambiguation page, nearly all of the games in the series have articles, but the series itself has no article. Would anyone be able to start a page for the series? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:6442:2BCD:4A39:5395 (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It could be done (see World Snooker Championship video games and Football Manager). Are you knowledgeable on the series? Why not attempt to create an article yourself? I'd be more than happy to help, but it's not a series I'm familiar with. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Need help with an aritcle

So I have started expanding Buffy the Vampire Slayer video games by adding 2 games that don't pass WP:GNG to it. Should it be left like this or some reorganization needs to happen (table included)? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be good to have a brief summary of the other 4 notable games with the {{main}} template to point to the full article.

However, do note that you can't use the cover art on the non-notable games in this list. that fails WP:NFC policy. --Masem (t) 19:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Masem Thank you for the suggestions! Removed the cover arts for both of them now. I know about the main article thing, which is what I did with Cabela's Big Game Hunter recently, but didn't have the time to wrap that up, will add summaries in few days or so. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Kirby for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Kirby is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kirby until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with the Unity Technologies article

Hi editors, I am here as the representative of Unity Technologies on Wikipedia. I want WikiProject Video game members to know about a request at Talk:Unity_Technologies#Updated_draft to update the history of the company. Can an editor please take a look? Thank you! -- Matthewpruitt (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• In order for them to be properly categorized and responded to, don't forget to tag your edit requests with {{Request edit}} -- I've added it for this one. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

IGN redirects listed at RFD

I've listed a few redirects to IGN over at Redirects for discussion here. Editors here are welcome to provide their input on these nominations. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Tetris name changes

Should these name changes happen for these Tetris game articles?

1. Tetris (Atari) → Tetris (1988 video game)
2. Tetris (Game Boy) → Tetris (1989 video game)
3. Tetris (Electronic Arts) → Tetris (2006 video game)

I didn't find any guidelines for the naming but I'm basing this off of God of War/ God of War (2018 video game) and Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)/Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game). If its better to keep them the way they are, then I can understand. I'm not making any push for the change.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Devil's advocate: Tetris (1989 video game) is ambiguous between the NES version (covered in Tetris (Atari)) and the Game Boy version (covered under Tetris (Game Boy). Additionally, the current scheme disambiguates by publisher, platform, and dev/publisher. I wonder if a better uniformized proposal might be:

1. Tetris (Atari) → Tetris (Tengen)
2. Tetris (Game Boy) → Tetris (Nintendo)
3. Tetris (Electronic Arts) → Tetris (Electronic Arts)

The first game is commonly called "Tengen('s) Tetris" in sources as well. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think the Game Boy version should remain where it is, as being on the Game Boy is perhaps the most notable aspect of it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• What if we tried it by platform? Tetris Nintendo can cause it to be confused by the NES version. And Tengen only ported the ARcade version made by Atari.

1. Tetris (Atari) → Tetris (Arcade)
2. Tetris (Game Boy) → Tetris (Game Boy)
3. Tetris (Electronic Arts) → Tetris (mobile phone)

Is this a good option? Would like more opinions, don't know what this project would prefer in this case.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with this topic, but I would think naming by platform would be more descriptive. Benjamin (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Technical question

I tried to add a review score for the Saturn version to an article, but could not figure out how to get it to show. Any ideas how to fix that? BOZ (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. _Score is not used in the multi-platform format, so rev1_Score_Platform won't work. It's just rev1_Platform. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the part that was throwing me off. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@BOZ: That said, you don't need rev1 for Nextgen. Use NGen. -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, no kidding, I had yet to see that in use, and I have looked at that template on quite a few articles. I have added it as an add-in to the template on many games. How have I not seen that before? LOL BOZ (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Could there be some bot that crawls through articles and alerts us to publications being used in rev# when they already have a custom entry? Not sure if this really matters though. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a service which runs on the monthly page dumps: [4]. --Izno (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have begun the (very long) process of going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Next Generation Magazine and fixing the template for NGen reviews. I noticed that Tempest 2000 has a custom review template instead, so I did not mess with that. BOZ (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: Did you mean to do that? Almost looks like the table was subst'd.... -- ferret (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ferret: Yes, i'm the one who entered that custom review table, which is based on the one featured in Street Fighter II. Reason being is that when i try to apply the other review table by entering JAG for Atari Jaguar, it doesn't recognize it. BTW, i'm not done in regards of finding contemporary reviews for T2K so, thanks for the reminder. Another reason for the custom review table is due to the current review table not featuring support for foreign magazines from other countries. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: The template supports custom reviews (i.e. those without a specific code) with revn + revnscore. That is, rev1=The Reviewer, rev1Score = The score, rev2=Another, rev2Score, another. Side note, the Street Fighter II article is a perfect example of how terrible the "multiplatform" table layout is. Giant swathes of empty scores. I'll have to see about converting both if no one gets there first. (An IP was resposible for substing the street fighter II table years ago, shouldn't have happened) -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ferret: Well, anybody's welcome in rearranging the review table section for T2K though. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: The template now supports JAG and DOS for multiplatform, and I've converted Tempest 2000 back to it. If there's missing platform feel free to ask. I'll tackle SFII later. -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thanks a lot man! Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Street Fighter II has been re-templated. -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ferret! I have gone through a few dozen articles to fix the NGen part of the template (and add it when it was missing), and as I suspected I have yet to see an article that was actually using it the right way, so I wonder if people are generally aware that it is available for the template. Anyway, I will get back to this little project when I find the time for it. Meanwhile, if there is a way to automate it that would save me some time. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again ferret, for pointing me in the right direction. I stand by my earlier assertion that I think few people are aware that NGen is available for that table; I fixed it on a few hundred articles today as I went down the list I linked above, and I only found two that were already done before I got there, The Punisher (1993 video game) and Golden Gate Killer. I added it to a few dozen articles where the template did not already have the NGen review listed, but I did not add the reviews template to any articles. I was unable to fix it on Aero the Acro-Bat 2, so I am not sure what to do there. I found more custom templates on Zool 2, Double Dragon V: The Shadow Falls, Head-On Soccer, and Zoop so I did not mess with those. I will continue most likely tomorrow and Friday, until I reach a point in the NGen review list where I want to stop. Whew.  ;) BOZ (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@BOZ: Fixed Aero the Acro-Bat 2. Important to note that the parameters are case sensitive, so if you quickly type Ngen versus NGen, it won't work. I'll have to check the others later. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Innocent minds wonder why the parameters are case sensitive. :^) --Izno (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL, is that what I did? :) BOZ (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't write this particular module so I cannot say :) -- ferret (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@BOZ and KGRAMR: I've converted those four back to the template (Added CD32 to template for one of them). -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

ferret, thanks once again for your help identifying this issue and fixing up a few of the tougher cases for me! To summarize, I went through Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Next Generation Magazine and fixed the template for NGen reviews and added NGen to existing templates wherever it was missing for issues #1 – 36, which is where I decided to stop for now. I did this for, by my estimate, roughly 600 articles over the last five days, and I found a grand total of two articles (mentioned above) where someone had already used NGen rather than Rev1 before I got to it. That said, there are probably still many articles still using Rev1 rather than NGen, so if there is an option for someone to set up some kind of bot or other automated process (rather than spending hours of tedious fun like I did) to get the rest, that would be truly wonderful. I may come back to pick up any remaining ones at some point in the future, but right now I have more fun things to do like watching paint dry.  ;) BOZ (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion of the reliability of Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Dexerto. — Newslinger talk 03:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

eSports in cats

I noticed that every child category of Category:Esports players by nationality, except for Category:American esports players, uses the eSports capitalization rather than esports. Given that there is an established consensus that eSports is incorrect, all of these categories need to be moved. However, I don't know how to move this number of categories (plus recategorizing the pages), and I'm unsure of how to list them at WP:CfD. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You can just move the categories and put {{category redirect}} in the redirect from the current name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

List them as WP:C2D at WP:CFD#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here and ask someone to tag them as {{Cfr-speedy|New name}} (substed) with WP:AWB or something at WP:Bot requests or at WT:CFD. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, the full list is this one. --Izno (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A lot of them are move protected or I would have done this myself. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nintendo franchises discussion

I'm holding a discussion on the talk page of the Nintendo franchises template on what articles should be included on the template. Please offer your input if you can. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving Indie Built → Access Software

Hey all. Right now, the company Access Software is covered at the article Indie Built, Access's last name before its closure in 2006. The thing is that this is far and away not Access's primary name: it was founded as Access Software in 1982 and released all of its best-known games—the Links series, the Tex Murphy games, Beach Head, etc.—under that moniker. It spent less than two years under the Indie Built name before it was shuttered. I'd like to propose a move of Indie Built to Access Software, and would be more than happy to do it and handle the redirect-fixing myself if there's a consensus. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• I support this move per the above reasoning and because the name "Access Software" was in use for seventeen years, and after the Microsoft purchase, the company spent just over seven years under three different names. Lordtobi (✉) 00:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not necessarily against the move , but I am seing more to expand out the article. There's more to say from the Retro Gamer article (it is online if you know which archive organization to look :) about their games, but I did expand as much as I think I can about their period under MS and T2. --Masem (t) 01:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for those additions! It was a 7-year period where Access had all those other names, so it makes sense that there'd be stuff to add. That said, I'd still argue "Access Software" is the company's primary name given the reasons that Lordtobi and I mentioned above. If no one else objects, I'll start the moving process in a couple of days. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with that move. If we know a company with multi-named history is "dead", then we should use the name they were best known for in their history. But for an active company, we should use their current name. --Masem (t) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please start a move request at the article talk page if you do not think there is an obvious consensus. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• There hasn't been any objection yet, so I think it's in the clear so far. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronbot

Ronbot misfiled off a task due to some category going weird, so it added broken image tags to many VG articles from (0-9)-C . Ronhjones said that once it is fixed, the bot will remove the broken image tag when it next runs, so there's no need to rush off to fix that (see WP:ANI thread on this). --Masem (t) 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

More article information on Knack II

Hello! I am participating in a Digital Rhetoric course where I am meant to edit a wikipedia article. I found that this article has minor edits in comparison to its predecessor's article. I have drafted multiple sections within my sandbox for Knack II: plot, multiplayer, lore, and have added additions to gameplay and reception. The additional edits are minimal, but the most extensive draft is of the plot. I have also seen the discussion over Dunkey. But considering that people will reference it regardless, I felt that it would benefit everyone to mention him as a cultural reference. This would acknowledge his signficance while also keeping the fans at bay for mentioning him. I have also copied and pasted this message on the Knack II talk page. Let me know what you guys think before I post soon later on! DiosXMachina (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't need our permission to edit Wikipedia. I have no strong opinion about including/not including Dunkey in the text, but I will advise you that referencing his video directly as a primary source does not establish the notability or verifiability of his impact and relationship with Knack/Knack II. You want to find a reliable second or third party source that comments on the phenomenon to warrant inclusion. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Deactivators at FAC

Usually not a fan of doing this but, if anyone here is interested, could you please review the Deactivators FAC? Its starting to pick up a bit of traction now but I do not want this to be failed due to lack of activity. GamerPro64 02:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ohmygod: The Nomad Soul

I'm trying to rewrite The Nomad Soul, but I can't find sources to confirm all the different release dates. Could anyone help? Cognissonance (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what I could find:

• PC, US: 2 November 1999[5][6][7]
• PC, UK: 5 November 1999[8][9][10]
• DC, UK: 31 March 2000[11] (note: published by the game's publisher a few weeks prior to release)
• DC, US: 22 June 2000[12][13] (might have shipped 27 April,[14] but GameSpot has several broken timestamps from around that time)

Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 17:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate it, you always come through. Cognissonance (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Dangerous Driving

"Dangerous Driving (video game)" was previously a redirect. I have changed it to a stub. Please expand it as you see fit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A page for federal (or higher) government involvement in video game matters

After reading today that the EU is looking into Valve + other publishers for geo-pricing issues, and that Sony's new policy related to rebates on pre-orders is also an EU thing, I am wondering if a page to list notable government oversight or attemtps of oversight or similar actions can be made. I would limit this to federal or higher attempts (no state attempts, at least as a first pass). This might also incorporate case law established by key court decisions (eg Brown vs ESA). --Masem (t) 15:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• A related topic that could be covered is sales tax on digital video game sales, it's different per country and per storefront. WP:OR for Quebec: Nintendo has been collecting sales tax as far as I can remember, Steam does, PSN started Jan.1st 2019, Google Play doesn't, iTunes doesn't, Humble Bundle doesn't (but charges in USD), Facebook doesn't for game IAPs, etc. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• The problem I see with this is OR when choosing what info to include and SYNTH when combining it into the same article. I'm not saying it's not an article worth making, but I am not sure how it wouldn't just end up like so many other indiscriminate lists of news reports of "Belgium banned this" and "China regulated that". I guess I can see how it can be an extension of (hypothetical) "Regulation" section of Video game industry. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat character table

There has been some discussion in regards to removing the character table at Talk:List of Mortal Kombat characters#Table Suggestion. Please join the discussion considering a recent revert. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

New ebook bundle

Humble has a new ebook bundle of Boss Fight books [15] each book generally covering one game. I have previously gotten the one for Katamari Damacy and it was pretty good. --Masem (t) 19:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate these FYIs. TarkusAB^talk 19:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Same! –xeno^talk 20:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what to think of that series. Some seem to be just essays. Others seem like actual investigative journalism. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Japan - English translation

Hello

Does Wikipedia in English have someone abble to translate text from Japanese to English? I'm looking for a way to romanize this 3 web pages of N.O.M. 54 (jan 2003) about The Legend of Zelda The Wind Waker => [16].

Does anyone know a solution other than the Google or Bing or other machine translation engines?

Regards --Archimëa (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I have responded on Archimëa's talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me ! --Archimëa (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy eligible for a standalone article?

What the title question says. It has already been covered indepth by a large number of reliable WP:VG/RS sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25][26] [27] and if we merge 3DS and Android versions in it, even this [28], [29], [30]. Considering it is the first time the series comes to Playstation, Xbox and Windows platforms, it should give it a huge claim of significance over the other remasters. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the test isn't about quantity, it's along the lines of it being more than a port, i.e. new development work. - X201 (talk)

That is why I came here to ask, since "first time on Playstation, Xbox and Windows platforms" thing is very much a huge thing for a decade year old franchise, and this is not a pure port either but a remaster of the old games with new art and interface. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably see if I had enough content for a stand alone. The information could easily be simply at the Ace Attorney article until it needs to WP:SPLIT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. I found this as well [31]. [32] and un updated Destructoid review at [33], it is actually insane how much coverage it got. Guess I will leave this for more opinions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Metro and Daily Express are depreciated as sources. WP:VG/RS doesn't list either, but WP:RS has them both down as unreliable (for the same reason as tabloid). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there really much in the way of things to be said about it specifically though? My understanding is that it’s just a straight port with no actual changes. (It’s not even the first HD release - that’s be on mobile, or the first release as a trilogy - that’s 3DS.) If all there is, is release dates and a few more modern reviews from some new sources, it’s best to just be added to the existing articles. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, like... there are plenty of reviews for this collection, but it's the same games, with the same gameplay, and with the same art as in previous collections. I too think it would be best to add information about the reception of the porting work in the articles for the three games, and not make a stand-alone article unless we have a lot of information about the production of the port itself (which we don't afaik).--Alexandra IDV^talk 13:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• For me it depends on three things: (1) if there's a nicely documented development period, (2) if there are any substantial gameplay changes/revisions, and/or (3) if the reviews are substantial enough that it'd be unwieldy to condense them into the main article's reception section. (And as an aside, I feel like we need a better consensus on how to determine if remasters/ports are notable for standalone articles; I personally find it puzzling we have an article for The Last of Us Remastered when there were very few changes to the gameplay or critics' opinions about the game, but we don't for Sonic Adventure DX when it was far more different from the original in comparison.) JOEBRO64 19:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sega and History of Sega need a new GA reviewer

Hi all, could someone help complete the GA reviews for Sega and History of Sega? I have been very patient with my reviewer because of his personal expertise in the field, but it's now been over six months that both reviews have been open. At this point, I'd really appreciate it if someone from the project can help to finish the job, with the hope I can have either Sega or both articles through FA in time for a June 3, 2020 Today's Featured Article posting (Sega's 60th anniversary). Thank you. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Piranha Plant#Proposed merge with List of recurring Mario franchise enemies

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.

---

This discussion has been open for nearly two months without any real consensus, so I'm posting here to get more opinions. JOEBRO64 19:03, 10 April 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.

Merging Sandy Beach (video game)

Looking for opinions on a merge proposal located at Talk:Frozen Codebase#Merge proposal. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinions regarding sources on older games

Hi all,

I started a GA review for SkiFree yesterday and got stuck on something: 9 sources, all from 2010 or later, about a game from 1991. The nominator expressed, effectively, that a good faith search for older sources was unsuccessful. I have no great access to such sources myself (putting aside that it's not the role of a GA review to find the necessary sources), but as this is quite far from some obscure game that would only receive attention well after its release (the opposite seems more likely). I always appreciate GA reviews that work to pass an article rather than fail it, but it just seems really far to me. Thought I'd reach out here to get the opinions of those with more video game review experience. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I found the Computer Power User coverage (it is not linked in the article, only cited) at [34], so that reference should be updated in the article. Sadly it isn't much in depth from what I can see. I found a review from 2007 [35] from a sources that is situational to use per WP:VG/RS and offers info that it was called "Vax Ski" at first. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

For this particular game, I think it's fair to take their word that a good faith search for older sources was attempted. I say that because it seems unlikely that a minigame released in an edutainment bundle in 1991 would have received much journalistic coverage. For an FA review however, I would go a step further and request a list of magazine issue #s that were searched. I would not call contemporary reviews a requirement but they are certainly desired. TarkusAB^talk 22:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think broadly that GA criteria would have an issues with this sourcing. It absolutely would be an issue with the higher criteria at FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

My issue isn't that I want it to be comprehensive, and isn't even just the number of sources, but that I want to see evidence that it's broad in coverage. How can it be considered broad in coverage if all of the coverage is in the form of "hey remember this one?" retrospectives 20 years after it came out, removed from the time when it was ubiquitous on Windows 3.1 computers? If it had been unreleased or unnoticed at the time, that would be one thing, but -- if I may get anecdotal for a moment -- it seemed like a touchstone of gaming/computing culture at the time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems unlikely there's much contemporary coverage. Google Books and Archive.org have digitized most of the major computer magazines of the 1980s and 1990s. So, when it comes to researching PC software from the 1980s and 1990s, performing Google searches is a bit more rigorous than it sounds. Plus, I would honestly be surprised if there were more than trivial mentions. Lemmings and Civilization were released in 1991. That's what most gamers were playing. Except me – I was playing Pools of Darkness. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinions on a source

I'm trying to improve the Tetris article, and one of the problems I have is how much it relies on a bit of interpretation on the sources used. For now, I'm specifically looking at the source: Lockjaw and was wondering if it was reliable or not. I can't tell but I have a suspicion that its not reliable. talk:Tetris#Lockjaw reliable source?. Could someone share some insight on this source?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Featured Articles stagnation

Noticed something rather concerning about the projects Featured Articles. While waiting for one of my articles to get done with its review, I decided to check the Article statistics page and noticed that, factoring one FA being demoted, the project only had a net gain of four Featured articles. Starting 2018 at 226 and ending at 230.

In addition, The last article promoted to Featured Article status was in June 2018 with Oxenfree. And with only two article nominations to FAC this year (both failing), its been nearly ten months since the last Featured Article promotion. Not sure what else could be done with this information besides suggesting people nominate to FAC more and take part in reviewing fellow project members reviews. GamerPro64 01:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably hitting a natural limit of the pages that are popular enough to get people to want to edit them to FA status. It takes a lot of work and someone has to specifically dedicate time to do it. Though, there's a lot of big games which could easily be FA like Super Mario Bros 3. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

How is that compared to the Good article process? Good Articles are being promoted normally. GamerPro64 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

GA is a lower bar that people often trade reviews on. It has more reviewers, less scrutiny, less stress. And in many cases is over far quicker. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ve got a bunch of potential FAs I’m working on, but time is precious, and I find I end up spending a lot of my time these days doing reviews for other people’s stuff and general backlogs at PR/FAC/GAN than rewriting and writing stuff. Oxenfree was a rather easy article because it's a smaller indie game that you can cover in a few thousand words. Bigger games take a lot more time and require much more post-release effort as well. There's also the usual cleanup of old articles; I've got more article 'debt' I've got to address than ever.

(This is also to say nothing of writing the essential general articles about video game genres, etc. that are a perennial problem with Wikipedia's coverage.)

In other words—this doesn't seem like something too concerning. Best thing I can suggest is making sure you help out at FAC with all articles, not just video games, which helps speed things along and draw more participation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I love nominating/reviewing GAs but never nominated an article for FA. The process seems too stressful for me. You need to beg others to review it, all while you have this constant fear it will amount to nothing as the FA coordinators continue pushing back the goal posts. In particular, I think the multiple failed attempts at promoting Jill Valentine to FA demonstrated a failure of process and scared me off. That said, I may push myself to suffer through the process just once to put an article I mostly wrote on the front page. TarkusAB^talk 15:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say the issue with Jill Valentine specifically is a lack of eyes, whereas the subject matter in general is tough—character and fictional subjects are among the hardest types of articles to write, especially with regards to gaming. If you feel put off by the process, I suggest sticking to a discrete piece of media to dip your toes in. As an aside, when I do have time to review FACs I'm invariably more inclined to chime in on articles by people I recognize from the process, so a good strategy to getting eyes is to pay it forward and review other articles yourself. That will also help sharpen your eye for what meets criteria. Remember too, at the end of the day it's a star on an internet article. Some people could do better about making the process friendlier, but there's absolutely no need to stress over it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

FAC is really slowed down in part that editors there rightfully want more quality assurance and the like. A lot of that involves higher qualities of writing, but they walso want better source checks etc. And it is hard for volunteer editors to get this done. (This is related to why GAC now are using a quid pro quo system to help that) It has stagnated the whole FAC process not just for video games, so this is nothing much to worry about. --Masem (t) 15:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It really requires a lot of tedium, and there's just a lack of volunteers who want to handle that. Source reviews nowadays pretty much require spot-checks, which can take hours in a longer article. Couple that with the high standards, and it's natural for people not to go for it. Anymore I'm very selective about what I'll take to FAC, and it has to be well-covered in sources and explores as many facets as possible or I may not be able to defend it. For those that can't do that, GAN is a good cap of quality that hey, at least it reads well and covers the sources well, even if it doesn't fully exhaust them. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

FAC has gotten a lot stricter more recently, and video games aren't really topics that interest the reviewers too much. I'm considering nominating Banjo-Pilot sometime in the future, even though I don't have high expectations. JOEBRO64 19:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In what sense has it been getting stricter? Only change I’ve particularly noticed is actually making sure articles get checked properly for references. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, in the past year we've added 117 GAs to the ranks. Clearly there is content creation and curation ongoing. :^) --Izno (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the most impressive feat I've seen in Wikipedia. i haven't seen any project reach this much success. The only other projects might be FILM and MUSIC. I barely made one article into GA, and it took me a longer time than expected. JUst out of curiosity, what kind of features do FA articles have that GA don't? and whats the common reason why FA articles get demoted?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

FAs tend to require heavy prose reviews by multiple editors as well as a review with spot-checks of sources to avoid close paraphrasing and ensure cited sources cover what's in the articles. FAs tend to get demoted from simple decay; standards have gone up over the years while maintainers of articles go inactive, and articles then no longer meet the criteria because they have become outdated, poorly maintained, or recognized that said work would not be an FA by today's standards. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Our contender for most-active, largest WikiProject, WP:MILHIST, claims over 1k FAs and over 4k GAs. I think they have quite a bit more quality content than we do on an absolute scale. :^) --Izno (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Point me to a FAC, especially if it's for a really old game (like, pre-1985, but honestly, I'll help with anything). I will see what I can unstick. Ping me. --Neopeius (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Shocked no one's taken Castlevania: Symphony of the Night to FA or even GA status. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you want to nominate it for GAn? GamerPro64 23:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've considered taking Symphony of the Night to GA, in case anyone was interested in helping. However it needs a lot of work, lotsa cruft and unsourced stuff. Also some sections like Reception need complete reworks. JOEBRO64 00:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I can help out with the work, Joebro. GamerPro64 00:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll start up a draft when I finish up rewriting Super Mario All-Stars. JOEBRO64 00:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I have done a lot of cleanup on SotN over the years, but never pushed it for GA. It still needs some work. A lot of good info in there but it's a little messy. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64:I can help by finding reviews of Symphony of the Night from back in the day if that's what you guys are looking for. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If there are deadlinks with no archives, will that hurt its ability to become a featured article?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

I want to write articles in here and can I join the edit? EnochLi (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. DannyS712 (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's for good article reassessment

Five Nights at Freddy's, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JOEBRO64 22:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

PS5 opinions sought

Please see Talk:PlayStation 5 -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Wars

So, since Project Sakura Wars is going to be released later this year, I was thinking about reorganizing the List of Sakura Wars characters article using the Final Fantasy character lists as starting points. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That article needs a complete rewrite (and severe trimming as a lot of the characters there barely feature at all), and using a Final Fantasy character list seems a reasonable idea. It might be best to group most of the notable individuals under a larger banner using bulletpoints, which will simplify the contents without sacrificing relevant information. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(Are Sakura Wars characters at all notable outside Sakura Wars?) TarkusAB^talk 09:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

TarkusAB Good point. At one point, I was considering merging it with the main article at one point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

At one point back in 2008, I was considering a WikiProject dedicated to Sakura Wars, but it didn't work out. Maybe we can contact the Sega task force for some help on polishing up the articles for a possible FA? And of course we should at least mention the soundtracks and their release dates. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'd look for sources before you start, because as Tarkus and ProtoDrake noted Sakura Wars characters might not be notable and could be merged into the main series article. JOEBRO64 14:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• The series is substantially more popular in Japan, so it could also boil down to how much access and understanding of Japanese sources there are too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Of course, but - and I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, because I haven't checked myself - Japanese RSs seem to write about characters way less frequently than English RSs do. I don't have much hope in there being significant coverage of the games' characters.--Alexandra IDV^talk 17:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting, I didn’t realize that. I suppose Japanese-only sources rarely factor into all these VG character redirect/merge discussions, now that you mention it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify some points per Japanese sources for Alexandra IDV and Sergecross73... That's the problem. I know there's lots of info on characters, because there were voice actor interviews, developer interviews, and other bits. But it's all either in rare or non-accessible stuff (radio stuff for voice actor interviews which I found due to pure luck, a Sega Saturn fan disc) and guidebooks that never saw either an English release or any reliable fan translations. I managed to scrounge together enough for the main articles. But for individual characters beyond what I've already managed? I seriously doubt we'd find anything to make a descent character article. Music's different because there's been more attention given there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I created a sandbox on the first game's music not long ago. It can be found at User:Sjones23/Music of Sakura Wars. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've just asked Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, for his thoughts on the sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If sources can't be found for the individual characters, I think trimming the list down to just the main characters (I think there are only about 10-20 total across all the games and anime) and merging it into the main article is fine. If more sources can be found for the main (and other) characters, I think having a separate list is good, split into "Main characters" and "Other characters". The main characters could have a paragraph or three about each of them, and the other characters could simply mention where they appeared. There are plenty of character lists here that list minor characters with a brief comment of where they appeared. It gives more ways for people to find the articles. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'm guessing we should also find sources for the music since I plan to create discography articles for the series (i.e. "Music of Sakura Wars"). Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the following new sources for Project Sakura Wars might be useful: [36], [37], [38], [39] Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Wars project

I would like to propose a task force or a WikiProject for Sakura Wars. It will be a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the series. It will be descended from this project, WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Film. Among creating articles relating to the series, the scope will include making all six main games and the anime series FA, FL or at least GA status, as well as making the Sakura Wars series a good or featured topic. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

New Game Boy sources

Since it's the Game Boy's 30th anniversary this year, a bunch of sites are publishing articles about it/its industry impact. This Polygon one in particular could prove useful across multiple pages. JOEBRO64 20:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Also ones from PCMag, The Verge, Nintendo Life, CNet, and two more Polygons [40][41]. JOEBRO64 12:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

PSN+ releases

So as I mentioned above most games don't have info on that and someone needs to volunteer to go through the lists (List of Instant Game Collection games (PAL region), List of Instant Game Collection games (North America)) and add it to the articles. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Somehow I knew no one will. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

So you realized that telling volunteers what they “need” to do wasn’t going to work, but did it anyways? That puzzling approach aside, normally I’d tell you to do it yourself, but I’m not certain this is particularly necessary to be done in the first place. And even if it is, it hardly seems urgent. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to be rude, this is a volunteer project. Your question was abrupt and worded poorly. I didn't understand what you were asking and I'm sure others didn't either. Now with an attitude like that, I'm not sure I'd want to help you in the future. TarkusAB^talk 14:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What I asked for: Most games don't have the PS+ release info and so it needs to be fixed by adding the PS+ releases to these articles. Maybe at least remember to do it if you just come across at one, or in future. Of course it's not urgent (and really nothing here is). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ours is there. Inactive. :( Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey if anyone wants to get it back up and running I can oblige in volunteering again. GamerPro64 03:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Have y'all considered turning the VG newsletter into a single, occasional update for the Signpost instead? The collaboration could become less about producing an issue and more about producing regular pieces on elements that concern enwp as a whole. czar 13:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure how to approach the Signpost on that. GamerPro64 04:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fighters Destiny

Fighters Destiny has an unusual, apparently homemade reviews table on it. Is there an easy way to substitute the standard table? I wanted to add "NGen = " to it. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Izno (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Are these sources considered adequate for notability

The refs directly in Draft_talk:RPG_Limit_Break are generally not independent, but I posted some additional links to Draft_talk:RPG_Limit_Break#Possible_sources_for_Notability. I'm not sure if those gamer websites are considered Reliable. Could someone from this wikiproject take a look? Thanx. Alsee (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Character articles and the possible overuse of cosplay images

I know I'm not here as often as I was before, but I've noticed a great deal of character articles now have a free-use cosplay image squeezed into them, namely by user ‎SNAAAAKE!! (talk · contribs). I'm going to be direct: these feel more like padding than actually adding encyclopedic content to the articles, especially with how mainstream cosplaying has become, and do feel unless there's a particularly unique reason for cosplay (such as an early example of the genre or frequency of it), I think some restraint would be better here. What's everyone's else's thoughts on the subject?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, they don't really have a place here unless its notable in its own way. Example: Voice actors cosplaying their own characters might be more notable. And this is coming from a cosplay photographer. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's game promotion, not "mainstream cosplaying" (which is a hobby and not job). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• A single cosplay picture is reasonable; more than one is generally unnecessary. --Masem (t) 15:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It was about "a single image". (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ivy_Valentine&action=history) Also really - cosplay is a type of a leisure activity, not employment for promotional purposes. It's not a fancy word for "dressed up as character". SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Kung Fu Man. They’re generally overused, and often feel a bit forced, like a bit of promotion. I only favor inclusion if there’s particularly noteworthy third party coverage on the cosplayer. I thought we already had a loose consensus on this somewhere... Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess I need to repeat myself perhaps because apparently I wasn't clear: THEY ARE NOT COSPLAYERS AND YES IT IS EXACTLY PROMOTION. Like see Soulcalibur#Characters? It's not a play, they work, on promoting the game, as contract employees of Bamco. On a more important note, most games don't have info on the PS Plus releases for PSN subscribers, someone must go through the releases and add it to articles. Other subscription or sometimes even just free releases too. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay great, sub in whatever word you want for “cosplay(er)” and you’ve still got my stance on how to handle this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The word is model, and more precisely promotional model (who don't even need to be dressed as anyone in particular). I don't understand this "like a bit of promotion" at all, I thought your problem was it being "promotion of a cosplayer". There are actual cosplay pictures too, like for example Chun-Li has one (near the model employed by Warner Bros) and Evil Queen (Disney) has really also just 1 (the others ranging from Disney entertainers to celebrities dressed for events). A reminder these images (from Commons) are free to use as anyone likes. Also: again hijacking the thread for the PS+ releases, someone needs to do it. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with kung fu man and sergecross. also it may not be promoting the game but it could be promoting the cosplayer. and cosplaying is a profession too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been hanging around cosplayers (and models) for near 20 years and I really know what is and what isn't cosplay (the notion that just cosplaying on the scene is a profession is absurd, unless it's about making costumes and selling them - for example usually even winning prizes at a competition won't even bring you back the money invested, the girls who make money from their thirsty fans are something else and it's more like booby twitch streamers and such). Anyway usually a cosplayer in the Commons is being unidentified, if it's really your pain for some reason I don't understand but hopefully might somehow alleviate. PS+ RELEASES. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• If we have freely-licensed images of real-world quality official depictions of fictional characters, you can be goddamn sure we should encourage their inclusion in articles, not discourage it. They're a blessing of high encyclopedic value, especially for this topic area where we constantly tout our need for "real-world perspective" instead of "in-universe". If we were talking about hobbyist cosplay or low-quality depictions then value would be debatable but that's not the case. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  I got to agree here. A person in real life dressing up as a character from a video game is a good example of that character's real-life impact. Regards SoWhy 18:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and there was also just that recently at Talk:Tifa_Lockhart#Advent_Children_image about https://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/星名美津紀 as employed by Sony - the badly outdated article doesn't even mention many/most of her more recent game appearances but somehow the problem was an image of allegedly "cosplay" (in pejorative sense). And the things like this conflating gravure idols with cosplayers (also originally only Japanese phenomenon) leads to such effects in Wikipedia as https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_queen where only a few people who evidently had no idea about the Japanese culture surrounding race queens deleted the article, and which ironically happened not long before the "grid girls" issue hit big time when F1 banned them and there way were more English sources than needed from only that. And what is especially telling is that if they found the Japanese version (which is レースクイーン) and tried it they would find literally almost 100,000 Japanese sources indexed on Google News alone. So now there is a "virtual race queen" Reiko Nagase from Ridge Racer who has the article while the real ones don't. Congratulations, Wikipedia. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think cosplay is equivalent to a non-free image of the actual character. any cosplay would be in addition to the non-free content, not replace. But I like what sergecross said, if there's coverage on how cosplay works. I treat cosplay like fanart. what's stopping us from adding those in if they are free content? it just looks like 5 seconds of fame to me.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about cosplay or fanart, we're talking about official promotional models. And I don't think anyone is proposing replacing digital/in-game art with promotional model pictures altogether, the inclusion of these freely-licensed pictures are indeed in addition to existing article content. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the misinterpretation. the primary topic was about whether the inclusion of cosplay images is warranted in articles. I think the WP:VG/MOS should be updated for when we should use cosplay images.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I think the discussion got confused because KFM removed a freely-licensed file depicting Namco promotional material from the section covering promotion and merchandising, and then raised a thread here about cosplay pictures. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Well there is also the matter that by Snake's own admission he's not sure if it is an actual promotional material or not (to quote, the exact edit summary is "it's an official model (I think)"). In cases like Mai Shiranui or Kasumi_(Dead_or_Alive) it feels even more excessive, especially in the former where you have two images in rapid succession.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact looking up this particular instance it's not clear if this is an actual Namco promotion or not: IgroMir 2011 is the source of the event, but other than being listed as a gaming exhibition it's not actually showing any ties at all to Namco; in fact this nor any of the other shots even show Namco related products, and I can't find any evidence it was sponsored by them as a promotion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

She was a model for the local distributor https://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/СофтКлаб (http://www.gamer.ru/igromir/devushki-igromira-2011). There was an official Ivy for SCVI at IgroMir last year, too. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes a bit more sense, she's the model for 1C-Softclub, Russia's Sega Distributor. So it's at least still valid in this case, though not so much a direct Namco one. Was the SCVI model also for them or a different distributor? EDIT: Closer look, looks like this wasn't used to promote them distributing the game, but actually for a Soulcalibur V tournament they did.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

And Sony's. 2018's Ivy worked directly for Bamco (Ловите у стенда H5 Bandai https://www.instagram.com/p/BobF2fEAGf2/). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

But aren't images suppose to supplement the text? They should only be included when they are truly needed. I think they are perfectly fine for character articles because it may be useful in showing their real-world impacts but using these images in a game's promotion section doesn't seem appropriate given that they are not quite related to the article's content. They are solely there for decorative purpose, which is against MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. For instance, the image in Rise of the Tomb Raider#Release shows a Lara Croft cosplayer at IgroMir but the article neither mentioned the event nor Square Enix using promotional models or cosplay to promote the game. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Adriangamer. i will go one step further. cosplay culture is hard to say an impact. One cosplayer can dress up as hundreds of characters in a single year. shouldn't the text in the article reflect cosplay impact if we're going to include cosplay images? Is this a form of original research if we show an image of cosplay to show how much of an impact there is if theres no sources supporting it?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Famitsu Heisei survey:

• [42]

Famitsu has commissioned s survey of 7100 people on the best games of the Heisei period. The list will be top 20 games and they've already released the top 3: Chrono Trigger, Nier: Automata, and Breath of the Wild. They're also doing a 74 page booklet on gaming in the Heisei period. Once the print edition drops, English language gaming sites will likely leak the full 20 list. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (video game)

More eyes needed for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; I don't time to handle this myself. EverettTheUrban (talk · contribs) added a review from the Angry Video Game Nerd, and I reverted the edit telling the editor that AVGN reviews (and the Cinemassacre website for that matter) are not usable as sources. However, he added back the review, along with other sources that aren't reliable (including IMDB). His response is somewhere here. – Hounder4 17:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed AVGN review from that and about 18 pages total. However for Jekyll, it was immediately added back by an IP editor. Huh. Anyways, if you want a fun task, pick an e-celeb's article, and then click "what links here". Often you'll find their reviews added to various pages. I went through and trimmed them. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

AVGN is a notable early e-celebrity. This doesn't mean his reviews are necessarily appropriate to include, unless a third-party has made note of that review. But there are factors beyond being an e-celeb that make his name added to certain non-game articles appropriate, as long as reliable 3-rd party sourcing makes that connection. EG the mention of AVGN's movie for the Atari video game burial is noted by several mainstream sources, so that's fine to keep . Same with noting AVGN's attention to some games caused renewed attention and why they became games notable for negative reception. IF it was only AVGN's opinion on those game, then no that wouldn't be appropriate. It's via the third-party RS observation that makes the inclusion of what AVGN has said to be appropriate. --Masem (t) 20:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

So there are some users who insist on misinforming readers about the titles of DOOM and DOOM Eternal

By erasing any (all) information about the actual titles, all while inconsistently using the stylized "id Software" alright. I just realized I shouldn't be edit warring (further) and thought I'd bring here instead. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

id Software has a local consensus to use the lower-cased name because that is the one used most frequently by reliable, secondary sources (WP:COMMONNAME, in reference to note C on MOS:TMSTYLE). Doom and Doom Eternal should bow to MOS:TMRULES where in we encyclopedia-fy the title. Any notable stylization should be included in reliable sources at least semi-frequently (the box art does not suffice, as there would be a discrepancy for Doom Eternal's stylization, which is given as "DOOM ETERNAL" in the logo). Cf.: How would this "true title" serve the reader in any way? Lordtobi (✉) 07:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It is used "at least semi-frequently" despite the obvious influence of Wikipedia (which is for example how "#GamerGate" was commonly turned into "Gamergate controversy" in mass media just because someone on Wikipedia wrote it once, and in similar the blatant English Wikipedia hoax "Second Battle of Donetsk Airport" has been repeated by some clueless journalists despite it's being simply a continuation of the Battle of Donetsk Airport that never had ceased in reality: https://uk.wiki.x.io/wiki/Бої_за_Донецький_аеропорт). See https://www.google.com/search?q=Doom_3:_Resurrection_of_Evil&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X It's never "DOOM ETERNAL", no - not officially and not unofficially: https://www.google.com/search?q=doom+eternal&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Your examples are confusing; while you claim that there was only one battle for the Donetsk Airport, yet the Ukrainian-language article you linked clearly lists two separate ones, and the article title is in plural. The "blatant English Wikipedia hoax" here is that they are split into two articles for clarity. Gamergate hashtags had a variety of capitalizations, including "#Gamergate", "#GamerGate" and "#gamergate", becuase most hashtag systems are case-insensitive, thus the article title is normalized to the standard English-language casing. Requested moves to "GamerGate" were turned down (if you oppose this, it would be better to open a new RM instead of complaining under an unrelated topic). Your Google query for Resurrection of Evil does not answer my question. Your Google query for Doom Eternal only shows that a handful of sources (of which not all are actually reliable) use this casing, but it still conflicts with the casing seen on the game's logo, which is actually the stylization you would expect to be listed in the lead note (per TMSTYLE examples). Lordtobi (✉) 10:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

King's Bounty needs to be turned into a series article

The first game moved to King's Bounty (video game). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Maybe an article on the 1C King's Bounty games as a series, sure, but they're quite different from the original New World Computing King's Bounty, and only loosely some sort of grand series. SnowFire (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles needing improvement

Thread retitled from "IMPORTANT: Many most popular multiplayer games of the 2010s / all time are in just absolutely pitiful state and VERY BADLY need work ".

Examples:

• World of Tanks, World of Warplanes, World of Warships, War Thunder - I added/restored some content and also added illustrations, they're still not well and worst of all terribly outdated (years behind now)
  • is Warface even popular, too? I have no idea, not from Wikipedia (but added some pics too and just thought about it)
• Wangzhe Rongyao - possibly THE most popular game ever (anywhere) for which I made a quick article months ago and no one picked up it since (okay, few people did to be fair), but still there's not even a logo
  • and the other extremely Chinese games (most of them) don't have articles at all (America/West-centrism is a huge problem with Asian gaming on English Wikipedia in general)
• Fate/Grand Order - relatively no so bad but not good
  • many very popular Japanese games don't have articles as well

and so on. At least someone did work on LoL since I checked it last time, a big improvement at first glance because I was about to add it but it's okay I guess (didn't read at all).

On a sort of related note, I just worked on the Metro novels to some degree, as they used to be just shit, and The Witcher books are still generally very poor stubs. It's source materials of some of the most popular single-player games and no one works on them. Too. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact I only just presumed the popularity of Warships because also there's nothing there (there's at least a mention of 2 million beta testers for Warplanes). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

These are the games that should be top priority of everything here. But even at Talk:Wangzhe Rongyao it was changed to "mid importance", despite it seemingly being played more than any other single game ever was. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Most popular seems like original research. Of all of those I've only heard of World of Tanks. I realize I'm one person, but that just furthers the point. --Teancum (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

MOST POPULAR sounds like and so forth. Literally hundreds of millions of players and making multiple billions of dollars every year for years. Which apparently makes it only "mid importance". That you didn't even ever hear of it is just a part of the problem, of how the English Wikipedia almost entirely ignores games from the country of almost 1.4 billion people. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Yeah League of Legends has been cleaned up a bit, but it still needs a lot of work. And I'm saddened there's absolutely no discussion of the characters considering how famous some of them are - not even a List of League of Legends characters... Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Satellizer: Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions (2nd nomination) happened, so if you want to re-create that List, it'd be good to make sure the sourcing is solid first. I do agree that a number of its characters are discussed in reliable sources and are influential / popular, but there's been pushback against the more "gameplay" oriented lists. SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, another extremely popular game, and yet most edits since September 2018 was some dude vandalizing and being reverted: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=League_of_Legends&offset=&limit=500&action=history SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, there’s nothing wrong per se with starting discussions like this, but most participants at WP:VG don’t really need ideas on things to work on. It’s a great place to come to for input or questions, but most of us are working on our own projects. (Not to mention, the whole complaining, “I-can’t-believe-you-guys-arent-working-on-this” type approach to volunteers probably isn’t helping motivate anyone either.) I mean, feel free to try, but I feel like this approach is just going to leave grumbling like before, when you commanded the project to fix the Playstation Plus games or whatever. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

When I said about PS+ nothing is urgent I take it back, it's actually urgent to work on the most popular games with poor articles to no articles. I think if you got something like (let's say) 20 most popular games from the 2010s they're played more than all the rest games combined at least during that decade if not ever (more people playing them every year, and China in particular having seen an explosion of popularity die to Chinese mobile games (and speaking of these, for example that one game that Diablo Mobile is allegedly a reskin of, Crusaders of Light, has no article still at all even as it's been released in English in 2017 and in China just Wangzhe Rongyao alone had 55 MILLION daily players in October of that year: [43]). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Another issue, but somewhat related: Not nearly that popular individually but there's a genre of games that is massively popular among women and almost completely ignored both by Wikipedia and "games journalism" that is supposedly oh-so concerned about female gamers, as mentioned by Adrian Chmielarz 4 years ago, to quote: "The media prestige thing is basically about how games are presented to the general public. HOPA games can sell an insane amount of copies, in 2008 the publisher reported The Mystery Case Files franchise has sold more than 2.5 million units to date — and that was seven years ago. Top titles easily sell a few hundred thousand copies, making 99% of “core market” indies jealous. And yet you will not find any of these games grace the cover of Game Informer. Actually, you will most likely never read about HOPA in Game Informer at all. Or any other core gaming magazine in the world."[44] This is all of these (many many many) games repesented on Wikipedia - the total of only 38 out of hundreds/thousands: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Hidden_object_games But really knowing some of you guys, you will more likely rather jump to delete most of even these few for being allegedly "not notable" rather than work on them and/or add more. The whole genre as such is covered by Wikipedia in literally 7 sentences and there's no mention of it whatsoever anywhere in "Women and video games". SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We have to go with what reliable sources say, not what we know. For example, right now the biggest sector in VG is the mobile market, and most RSes rarely touch that area, unless its about the "perversion" of a beloved franchise now on mobile. There are dozens of F2P along the lines of World of Tanks, but again, those rarely get touched by RSes. We're in a bind to try to cover these topics in any more detail. --Masem (t) 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is something we will have more and more problems with as time moves on because video game media in general is shifting towards video and podcasting to provide content. Amwisdx (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

For so-called reliable sources for hidden objects and such: Chmielarz's linked to the archive of Casual Connect mag, here's an archive of the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150326182415/http://www.casualconnect.org/education.html#magazine (scroll down). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is only one magazine that covers a topic, that's probably not going to do much for notability. Its great that exists, but if there's no coverage outside that magazine, that makes it a niche topic. --Masem (t) 14:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean for the sources such as interviews Chmielarz (https://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,27880/ - Adrian Chmielarz is a very weird article that is about his dwelling life in the 1980s-1990s and covering his actual, international career in 2 sentences) used (linking https://medium.com/@adrianchm/women-and-video-games-f0eb7a7d75fa again) to write about what dedicated games women really play (and make, for themselves).SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I’m not saying these things aren’t important, I’m saying “Angrily berating volunteers into action” is a terrible approach that isn’t going to work. It looks like you’re dead set on trying though, so good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I still want to take a crack at fixing up a lot of our character articles and getting more of them to B or GA status at least. Too many are just honestly messy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

One thing to note, I suspect that single player games tend to make more of a connection with a player, to the point where they are motivated enough to want to improve the Wikipedia page for it. A lot of these multi-player games tend to be more pick up and play style. It leaves less of an impression. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hero Shooters (Cat this time)

Category:Hero shooters has been created (or more densely populated) with quite some questionable entries. I'm fairly certain the category can probably survive, but anyone who wants to review some of the newer entries.... Borderlands for example has been added. I can see the case, but it pre-dates the typically-multiplayer-team-based aspect of the "modern hero shooter" and I really doubt any reliable sources refer to it as such. -- ferret (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can understand the argument that Borderlands are kind of "single-player hero shooter RPGs" but as you say, unlikely to be found in reliable sources. I removed Paragon (video game) as that's clearly a MOBA. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• I wasn't even aware of any other notable hero shooters besides Overwatch and Team Fortress 2. And a series like Borderlands is not a hero shooter, in my personal opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You've seen how big Overwatch got, how could clones not pop-up? ;) The Hero Shooter clones bridged between the "everything's a MOBA" era and "everything is a BR" era. I'll admit I preferred Paladins (video game) to Overwatch... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Entries like Borderlands or COD do not belong in the category unless the claim can be reliably sourced. There is no mention of "hero shooter" anywhere in the articles. It's just another case of categorization OR. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've reverted the additions of Borderlands, COD, PvZ. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

From the few articles that try to deliniate what hero shooters are, they try to stress that team-based PVP is a seemingly essential feature (the synergies between heroes being important). I've been trying to see where the stance is on L4D or Vermintide sits for this, but I'm not seeing much since these are PVE than PVP. I would definitely say that we need sourcing in each article included that says "this game is considered a class-based/hero shooter". --Masem (t) 19:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Overwatch and pornography

There is a dispute about the non-free files used on the page. The dispute is over whether one of the files needs to be the complete video or if a single frame from this video sufficiently illustrates the given points. There is also a smaller point about whether or not both non-free images are needed and/or justified. The discussion currently involves two editors, myself and the file's uploader, so more input is needed. The discussion is at Talk:Overwatch and pornography#Animated video again. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Been watching this but not sure how to respond. Still on team "This should probably be merged and significantly trimmed" in regards to the article as a whole. -- ferret (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I need to wash my eyeballs JOEBRO64 20:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've actually just suggested that no images are required, as they only seem to serve titillating the reader, which is absolutely a no no. --Masem (t) 20:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to extend a formal apology, Joebro. RIP. Among the most infamous of the Overwatch topic, for sure. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's OK. Now that I think of it Sonic stuff is usually worse. JOEBRO64 21:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Are these images suitable in the first place? As they are non-free images (and also likely have copyright issues regardless),they should be devalued. The article is about fan made pornography of video game characters, so really any images of this should really just be of the character themselves from official media. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Lara Croft infobox image issue

Talk:Lara_Croft#There's_no_infobox_image - all parties welcome Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, it slipped my mind as soon as I had the idea. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 14:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is an RfC on the reliability of Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Dexerto. — Newslinger talk 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

B-Class assessment checklist

Back in April 2013, I proposed a possible B-Class assessment checklist, using the WP:FILM assessment guidelines as a model, but it didn't go through. So, maybe we should revisit it if it's absolutely necessary? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a use on a checklist for B-class. GamerPro64 19:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen the point of the B-List checklist. They exist on a few wikiprojects, but B class is a bit irrelevent. To me, it's just a way to display which articles are close to being suitable for GAN. The ones that do have this, often cause articles to simply all be set at C class, as no one wants to review for B class ahead of GA or FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That sounds logical enough to me; maybe the assessment proposal wasn't needed after all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to think that non-GA/FA assessments aren't really worth it in that if a user is out for active reviews they can do a peer review and be proactive, or else the processes themselves vet the articles. I've never seen a real issue with bold B-class assessments causing issues so it seems like an unneeded additional source of friction in the editing process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In short, David, you’re saying the B-Class checklist for this project isn’t worth it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Essentially. If other people think it's of utility I wouldn't protest, but it seems of limited utility (I'd take a similar issue with WP:FILM's honestly, but that view may be colored by my own editing experience.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, you could be right. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the B-class checklist generally. It standardizes the expectation while remaining a one-person assessment activity. --Izno (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this. I feel it'll introduce more arbitrary bureaucracy over something that, at the end of the day, is immaterial - FA and GA are the only two article classes that actually somewhat matter. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unity Technologies

Hi editors, I am here as the representative of Unity Technologies on Wikipedia. An editor has reviewed my {{Request edit}} at Talk:Unity_Technologies#Updated_draft and offered some feedback, though some of their responses make me wonder if it might be helpful to have someone who knows more about the game industry look over what I've proposed. I'm happy to update my draft as needed to improve the Unity Technologies article. Thank you! -- Matthewpruitt (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Gamekult

Please check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Gamekult for a discussion about the reliablity of Gamekult as a source for video games. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Colonial Conquest

Colonial Conquest has a weird review table on it like I have never seen before. Any idea why it is that way, and how to fix that to the normal review table? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, it has been that way since User:Hippo99 created the article in 2015. No big deal, I was just wondering. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Converted to standard template. -- ferret (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

too many images for 0 A.D.

0 A.D. (video game) has a lot of free content for very little text. I believe we should cut down the content to what is relevant to what the text offers. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well if it's free use then is there really any downsides to having them, besides bloat? Also, is there any reason why you can't do it yourself? WP:BEBOLD and all that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Very well, if there are any issues i will update here.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Game design program rankings for Full Sail University

Hi again! I've just posted a request to update the "Awards" section of the Full Sail University article. I don't edit the main space directly because of my conflict of interest, so I'm seeking editors who are willing to review my request and update the live article appropriately.

The proposed updates include rankings of the university's game design program, so I thought WikiProject Video games members might be interested. Thanks in advance for any help reviewing and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Denuvo

Denuvo likely needs some views from experienced editors. Reddit is involved. -- ferret (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue they’re brigading over? Looking at the history it’s an issue of bad citations being used to add stuff to the list of games? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of a "cracked" column is what they want, but my position would be that it fails WP:NOTCATALOG, nevermind the weak sourcing issues. Their (loosely, not all of them by any means) argument is that unless you show that most games are cracked it somehow isn't correctly illustrating Denuvo's failure as a DRM. Which of course isn't our purpose either. -- ferret (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's suitibility, or lack thereof should be from RSs commenting on it, not a list of games that hackers have managed to get around. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I know Ars Technica has on occasion posted about games being cracked, but the sources being used as a rule don’t seem like they should be used. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• 615 comments and counting – https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bjfuk7/wikipedia_user_has_edited_out_most_citations Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving. --Izno (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should axe these entire lists and try to stick to the most notable titles using them or the most notable crackings? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) +1 to just removing the entire table. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC) We should just remove both tables and enprose games that notably used Denuvo (such as the very first title, or the game Just Cause 3, which led a Chinese cracking group to give up on the game).[45] Lordtobi (✉) 06:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Bin the lists (or at the very least fork them) and prose it. Include the first use, the most controversial use, the most faulty implementation, the most successful implementation, notable removals of it by the developers and any high profile cracking of it (all previous suggestions dependant on reliable sources obviously). - X201 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC) I'm in favor of that approach in theory, but in practice the only one of those you could source right now is the first use. There just isn't a lot of secondary analysis out there. Just for example: by one metric, "most successful" might mean "oldest uncracked," but 1. apparently we don't believe any of the good-history-of-accuracy-but-anonymous sources for "is there a crack" are reliable enough at this moment, and 2. that's probably some oddball game no one cared about. So maybe it's "the high-profile game that stayed uncracked the longest?" That sounds good to me, but now you need to find a secondary source to tell you about that, and you're also going to need to keep revising that paragraph on a regular basis. (That's kind of a hidden advantage to the table approach: it's easier and more obvious for some rando editor to add new entries to a table rather than attempting a wholesale revision of the "most faulty implementation" section of a prose paragraph, not to mention the judgement call involved...) Giving a table lets the reader make that assessment for themselves even though we don't have the sourcing to spoon-feed it to them. It's not ideal, but I think it's better than nothing. Zabieru (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Removing the tables outright would be my favored endgame as well. For the record, I was the one who removed the column after another user had merely emptied and edit warred over it; my chief intention doing this was to initially quell the controversy coming in from Reddit, as it's a lot easier to justify the lack of a column rather than justifying why a column is filled with empty cells and a few strewn "yes" here and there (which will, of course, imply that every cell that's not a "yes" is a "no"); at least when you're justifying to a mob that's assuming some employee shill is getting paid to sit around and edit Wikipedia articles. I have since defended the removal of the column on the article's Talk page with many of the same arguments as above, chiefly that it isn't (or shouldn't be) Wikipedia's job to keep readers informed about the status of illegal software cracks. A good compromise that was proposed on the Talk page was removing the column and adding a section that specifically talks about the effectivity (or lack of it) of Denuvo to "make up" for the lost information of "every game is cracked" that the table provided earlier - I'm thinking that would indeed be the best thing to do, as it would placate everyone, except that I'm of the opinion that this new section should replace the entire table, not just the cracked-or-not column. I would, however, not be in favor of removing the table with no "replacement" for it, if only to not conjure up yet another typhoon in a bottle from Reddit or wherever. --ThePaSch (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC) For a little background: the article had that list for years. It was frequently updated and mostly well-maintained, aside from the latent question (never, to my knowledge, actually asked previous to this current scuffle) of whether scene NFOs are reliable sources or not. One editor decided to axe the column because he felt the sourcing was no good. Oddly, he made no attempt whatsoever to find better sources or discuss the issue beforehand. He got some pushback and decided to keep on reverting (five times!) complete with snide commentary in his edit summaries rather than take it to the talk page. When he finally did, it turns out some people agreed with him and some didn't. Ferret was in the latter category (though unlike the original editor, Ferret's been reasonable and willing to discuss the matter appropriately.) So in this case, in as much as anyone's "brigading," it's in favor of a long-functioning status quo and in defense of wp:consensus, etc. I don't love it either (can't stand most Reddit VG communities, personally) but I think Ferret's suggestion that "reddit wants a cracked column" is a little dodgy in light of the actual history. One problem here is that there is a significant lack of good analysis in secondary sources, but there are decent and reliable primary sources for a lot of the basic facts. For instance, secondary sourcing on what games use Denuvo (or how many, or where one version leaves off and the next begins, or the like) is spotty and hard to find, but someone has made a consistent effort to use Steam pages (which are, for this narrow purpose, reliable primary sources IMO) to keep the list up to date. So the question is less "should we put in a summary with a few notable examples and some analysis or should we have an itemized list" than "should we have an itemized list or nothing." There simply isn't an appropriate source, to my knowledge, for the sort of generalizations and summaries you'd want to put in a subsection like that (and deriving it by counting Steam pages yourself is, of course, original research.) We do have decent data to let the reader do their own simple analysis, though. To my eye, that seems like the better of the two choices. Zabieru (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Side note: While I left a message here, I did intent it more for editors to contribute at the talk page :) The discussion here is currently split from the discussion at the article, and going down seperate paths. Interested parties should probably join there, especially in regards to pushing for the table to be removed entirely. -- ferret (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC) For me, the only reason to keep the table is if it serves any value. They didn't create the game, so I'm not sure why we'd give similiar to developer credit Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC) It seems pretty easy to verify which titles have Denuvo, and (at least at this point) it’s not so unmanageable in the main article (which is preferable to a fork.) I’d agree with removing the ‘cracked’ column wholesale and going through notable examples and summaries from reliable sources, as the sourcing for doing that properly for the entire otherwise easily-verifiable list is pretty thin. A certain segment of gamers gonna’ get their jimmies rustled no matter what, but I don’t think ‘it makes Denuvo look more effective than it is’ is a very compelling argument, especially given the article as written. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC) IMO the whole list must be removed for WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:TOOMUCH, it makes the article huge for no real reason. About the reliable sources, there can be no reliable source on if a game's protection was cracked because the people doing the reverse engineering are highly secretive and don't even like those cracks leaking most of the time. News/gaming news sites are definitely not reliable sources as they can't know too, they simply are informed usually by a 10th hand source, ie reddit that a game was cracked, reddit itself in that regard is more reliable than gaming news sites. The only reliable and easily web-facing accessible way if a scene release exist and is approved by the scene (not nuked) are pre websites that are known to provide that kind of information. Again, this shouldn't even be the point of discussion here. -- Hacker?pcs 19:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've done an arbitrary break to try to get the discussion focused, please see Talk:Denuvo#Reorganizing the discussion (Please reply there, not here) -- ferret (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Bandai Namco task force - potential task force idea?

withdrawn

I directly apologize if this isn't the right section to have something like this at, to start off. Anyway, something I've thought up for a while now (I'm talking about a year and 1/2 at this point) is a potential "Bandai Namco task force", in order to do major, heavy-duty cleanup work to all pages relating to Bandai Namco and everything in between, whether its subsidiary companies, games or other products. I'd imagine most people would ask why Bandai Namco/Namco, of all companies, would feel deserving of a task force - here are my reasons for it: Bandai Namco is a very high-profile video game company, and many of their games are extremely note-worthy, so it's not like they're a niche subject matter to have an entire task force dedicated to. Like their name suggests, they also have Bandai under the same roof, a very notable toy company, alongside Banpresto and a slew of other companies, which I'd imagine could help increase the number of potential members should this go through. Many of the pages written on their games are quite shallow in terms of content - although I myself have tried my best (and still do) to fix these, there's only so much one guy like me can accomplish - a group of members would be more than helpful in getting these articles into shape, and I hope to see more of their games and related works reach Good Article and/or Featured Article status in the future. There's plenty of content on Wikipedia about Bandai Namco that could be helpful for a task force - I'm referring to pages in the triple-digits. The amount of subsidiary companies, developers, products and especially video games relating to them would be perfect for a task force. The task force would simply be named "Bandai Namco task force", in order to enforce the idea of improving everything regarding the company. I would like to gain a strong consensus before starting this thing, obviously. I think it would be extraordinarily helpful if such a thing were to be created, as it could greatly improve these articles, making them from short stubs to full-length pages, almost enough to gain them either Featured or Good Article status. If others are against the idea, whether it is deemed "niche", "unnecessary" or anything else, I will also understand and not proceed onwards with the idea. Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing opinions regarding this. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC) In my eyes, you'd have to prove two things for this to be viable. There would be enough people dedicated to the project. There is enough pages that would be a part of task force to make it worthwhile. How many articles are we talking about here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC) What exactly is the gain for the task force over simply being involved with the project at large? Almost all task forces inevitability end up inactive or 1-2 people and get folded back in. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

History of the Electronic Entertainment Expo is extremely poor for the 1990s and 2000s

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.

---

They much have less content altogether than each of any E3 since 2009 has in their own articles, and 2 editions literally have nothing about them at all. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

While History of PAX (which I cleaned up) has the exactly opposite problem, that is less and less content every year even as the event only grow. And History of the Tokyo Game Show has always had basically nothing for each edition. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And Gamescom has always been only marginally better (and doesn't even have "history of", it's that poor). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think a better way to start this conversation would be to say “Does anyone have sources for E3 from X year to Y year. I’d like to expand this (article/section) etc.” Constantly creating new sections here complaining about the quality of articles (that were written by ordinary joes like you and me) is not going to endear you to anyone in this project. Starting with negativity is rarely the best tack. –xeno^talk 00:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm really only informing - there are just so many essential articles that simply no one works on (either anymore or never did), possibly becuase everyone thinks they must be good already as they're so important, just as I did. So I guess you should quit your negativity, you know. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Basically every single thread you have posted has been laced with negativity. If you have a issue with the quality of articles, FIX THEM. If you need help with sourcing, ask. But just bashing volunteers over the head with wide ranging demands to fix articles is going to make people tune you out. –xeno^talk 00:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with sources. (I'm in possession of literally tens of thousands of video game magazines, for one.) I'm just signalling, see - certainly I'm not the only one who expected the most popular games ever or the greatest game events to have proper articles and was surprised they don't. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to your improvements. If you want help, try a softer tone, offer solutions not problems. –xeno^talk 00:36, 7 May 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.

Question about titles

Hello. I have some questions about moving titles on relevant game articles in general (i.e. Final Fantasy III and Final Fantasy VI). The original game that was released in 1994 has the VI title, while the original SNES localization has III in it. Given that, and per the relevant policies/guidelines on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLE, what's the best possible option: should we keep the original titles or move them as Final Fantasy VI is well known than its first US title, Final Fantasy III? Just wondering. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, to use Final Fantasy VI as an example, my understanding is that we changed the name because the official name changed, but also because it reduced confusion - rather than having two Final Fantasy III articles, we just have one. Can you provide an example of an article you feel may need to be changed? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I was just asking; I agree with your understanding on the titles (maybe we don't need to move Final Fantasy VI to Final Fantasy III after all). Also, regarding the Sakura Wars series, I can't see how if Sega titled Project Sakura Wars (the working title of the game, with the official Japanese title New Sakura Wars) "Sakura Wars 6: Spring Has Come", and retroactively renamed the first game "Sakura Wars 1: Blooming Maidens", that the article for Sakura Wars would be renamed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming it will depend on how much coverage there will be based on the official English name (and consensus). Technically Mother (video game)'s official name is Earthbound Beginnings but that didn't warrant a change. Unless I opened a can of worms and that should be considered to be changed. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. In any case, we'll have to wait for the official English title for Project Sakura Wars to be announced, which is sometime later this year, before we can move it to that title. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Age of Empires II

I have nominated Age of Empires II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sega development studios discussion

There's an important discussion regarding a potential GT/FT plan for the Sega development studios article and making its other developer articles (i.e. Sega AM1, Sega AM2, etc.) GA status. The discussion can be found at Talk:Sega development studios#GA plans. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo and Sony Interactive Entertainment as possible GAs or FAs?

Hello once again. Now that Sega is a GA, I'm thinking about getting Nintendo and Sony Interactive Entertainment to GA and eventually FA status. The main goals are to feature Nintendo as a potential TFA on September 23, 2019 for its 130th anniversary, and Sony on November 16, 2019 for its 26th anniversary. Any thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Nintendo article needs a lot of work. It has an awful lot of unsourced material, and some tags for things being unexpanded. With fixing these things, and a copy-edit it could be close to GA, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I've started a discussion at Talk:Nintendo#GA/FA push. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

In my experience 4 months is an aggressive timeline to get an article through FAC and TFA. That's not to say you shouldn't do it just to make the article better, but to warn that TFA has an unspoken bias against newly promoted FAs so don't take it as a failure if it doesn't go through. 130th anniversary is a big one though so it might cut through that issue. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

DLC in Mortal Kombat 11

See Talk:Mortal Kombat 11#Shao Kahn is not DLC, less so Frost. There is an ongoing discussion in the section about whether or not Kahn is DLC but I think more comments would be appreciated. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Myst III: Exile is Todays Featured Article

Almost forgot to give a heads up on this but Myst III is on the front page of Wikipedia right now. Congrats to User:David Fuchs for getting it and the other Myst articles to that status. GamerPro64 14:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, 2019 and 2020 marks a lot of influential games 20th anniversary, so if they are FA then make sure to run them. I have Wipeout 3 marked to run on Sept 8th. And, TFA missed the 20th anniversary of Brendan Fraser's The Mummy on May 7th. Both of those are David Fuchs article incidentally. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They were talking about The Mummy but I want to give it more TLC so I'm glad it was missed :) Thanks for the heads-up on Wipeout, I had no idea! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Wars (video game) for FAC

Heads up, everyone: Sakura Wars (video game) is up for a featured article candidate. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. I Hope it's successful.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The ultimate goal is to get this article up on the front page by September 27 of this year, or at the very least its 25th anniversary (September 27, 2021). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)