Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 136: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games) (bot
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,352,404 edits
m Fixing links to archived content. (BOT)
Line 990: Line 990:
== Disambiguation of APIs ==
== Disambiguation of APIs ==


Comments etc sought at [[Talk:Vulkan (API)#Requested move 23 March 2018]]. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments etc sought at [[Talk:Vulkan (API)/Archive 1#Requested move 23 March 2018]]. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


== [[Video game curse]] opinions? ==
== [[Video game curse]] opinions? ==

Revision as of 18:34, 28 September 2019

Archive 130←Archive 134Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138→Archive 140

New Articles (15 February to 23 February)

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

15 February

17 February

18 February

19 February

20 February

21 February

22 February

23 February

Salavat (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Gamezone shutdown

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameZone indicates that Gamezone may have shut down. I've requested to have IABot archive references to the website. --Izno (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Aw, that sucks. I use that one a lot. JOEBRO64 11:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason that GameZone wasn't deleted was that it's been cited by outside sources on numerous occasions and other discussions have established that reliability too. I think it definitely needs to be used for its reviews/staff content instead of the re-hashed press releases, but it's especially terrific for old portable games that I like to write articles on. Also... do you have a source for its shutdown? They just published a new article yesterday: [1] Nomader (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

From a former writer from the site [2]. GamerPro64 00:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
But a month later: [3] czar 02:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Honestly from the sound of it no one really expected the website to come back. GamerPro64 02:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 4 games released on disc at AfD

Opinions wanted here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games exists; most editors are automatically notified of any deletion discussion tagged as video game related. JOEBRO64 01:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
While I'm aware of such a feature, I think editors who actually view it are way lower than ones who just watch the talk page. I know I fall into that group. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should try to feature it more prominently or something? I've been using it forever, but I remember it took me a year or two to find out it existed too... Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there are a lot of resources throughout this project here that aren't really well promoted or placed well for navigation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to address that similar articles like [4][5][6][7][8][9] fall under the exact same criteria. Unsure about these two, but I feel like those also don't belong here. Also what is the use of this article if it only refers to its sub-articles? Instant Game Collection doesn't have one either. Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    Generally, most articles listed at Template:PlayStation are either notable (like the ones on the consoles themselves) or -- pardon my langauge -- utter trash. We should probably take some time to go through all of them for potential AfDs, mergers and redirects. Lordtobi (✉) 18:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    Plus, is Template:PlayStation key press really of encyclopedic value? It is rather unstable (another letter other than those listed breaks it), IMO ugly and it is more of a WP:GAMEGUIDE-y template that is even rarely used on talkpages. Lordtobi (✉) 18:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    I was going to nominate the PS3 ones, but realized that the info there is actually split and not just forked, meaning we'd have to merge the whole list back. As for the others (besides maybe List of PlayStation 2 Classics for PlayStation 3), they should all be brought up at AfD (or just merged without one, if that's allowed), which I will do after the current one ends, unless you do it first. And the key press template thing is really only used for the Konami code it seems. Couldn't we just use an image of it instead? It's not like the buttons themselves are well designed (some of them look off). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    With the current PS4 games on disc moving so strongly towards a delete consensus, someone might be able to bundle a bunch of the PS3 ones together and and allude to that consensus in their nomination, though I'd be more selective on what I bundled though. The ones that just track whether or not games are physical or digital, or what resolutions/displays they play at, are cruft and excessive for a stand-alone list, but some of the others are valid game lists. For example - the "PS2 on PS4 list" - that's different from a lot of the other ones listed - it's not just a "list of digital PS2 games" list, it's about a series of PS2 games that were remastered and given new features for their PS4 release. Its a separate line of releases that don't really make sense to be documented at the PS2 or PS4 game list. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

Does anyone know if major gaming magazines (i.e. EGM, GamePro) covered the 1996 Game Gear game Sonic Blast? Sonic Retro doesn't have any, and the only other sources I can find are listicles and two brief reviews about its Virtual Console release. JOEBRO64 22:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

EGM stopped covering handhelds about a year before Sonic Blast came out, so they wouldn't have anything on it. GamePro had also stopped doing regular coverage of handhelds, though their January 1997 issue has a feature with 10 capsule reviews of Game Boy and Game Gear games... Oddly enough, Sonic Blast is not one of those 10 games. Wish I had better news for you.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It had to have received some coverage, right? Of course, that doesn't help answer the original question. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL


--Coin945 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of these sources are probably not considered reliable. The PocketGamer and NintendoLife ones are good though. And the Kotaku one, while a brief mention, is interesting at least - it could be used to source a statement about its apparently rarity/value in Japan, something I wasn't personally aware of until now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Next Generation #19, though it refers to the game as "Sonic Blast", is clearly talking about Sonic 3D Blast (isometric perspective, platform is Genesis, etc.) I'll fix that in the reference library. That's one of the difficulties with searching for sources for Sonic Blast; as can be seen from searching archive.org, publications more often used "Sonic Blast" to refer to Sonic 3D Blast than to the game which officially used that title. And while the game certainly must have gotten some coverage in contemporary sources, I'm stumped as to where, as it seems like every major gaming publication back then had either stopped covering handhelds or had never covered them in the first place.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - I'd be shocked if there wasn't more contemporary coverage. The GameGear may have been pretty much dead at that point, but still, the game released just after the Sonic franchise was at its peak relevance in the 1990s, and the amount of coverage 3D Blast and Xtreme received at the same time was through the roof. I have no answers though - I read a bunch of print magazines back then, but don't particularly have any memories of reading about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Digitally Downloaded released a review of the 3DS version too. They're not listed either way at WP:VG/S, though I see their work a lot when source hunting, so I may start up a discussion on them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Coin, I appreciate the enthusiasm, but some of these sources you're adding are clearly not reliable, and he probably doesn't really have any need for 5+ sources that do little other than verify it was released on 3DS. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm mostly looking for contemporary coverage so I can find any other development information besides "it has 2.5D graphics", "it was developed by Aspect", "it's on the Game Gear", etc. Thanks for the input, though. JOEBRO64 20:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I didn't manage to find any development info... but surely this improves the sourcing of the article above the current four sources? Hope I've been helpful. :D--Coin945 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
There's also a few development facts you can pull from those sources: --Coin945 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sonic 3D Blast, Sonic Labyrinth, and Sonic Blast were released around the same time.[11]
  • Launched on the Game Gear just as it was on its way out (would be discontinued a few months later).[12]
  • The current graphics section can become part of the development section, and can be sourced by sites like [this
  • Released for the Game Gear as a more traditionally-designed alternative to the Genesis' Sonic 3D Blast [13]
  • Pre-rendered graphics was on par with its contemporary games of 1996.[14]
  • Saw the Sonic & Knuckles team re-headlining after their previous attempt.[15]
  • Had a Master System portage released exclusively in Brazil in 1997. [16][17]
  • Currently available on the Nintendo 3DS Virtual Console and in many Sonic game compilations.[18]
  • Sonic Blast was one of the "experiments" with which SEGA surprised in 1996 , since the company commissioned Aspect to design a Sonic game, but using the pre-rendered graphics, which had become fashionable thanks to 1994's Donkey Kong Country [19]
  • Int this experiment, the developers got rid of one of the house's brands: the speed of the hedgehog --> the small cartridge speed neccesitated Sonic reduceing its speed to the detriment of further exploration. [20]
  • Aspect chose to make the game on Game Gear to bring pseudo 3D graphics to the Sonic game. [21]
  • The title changed the concept and spirit of the previous games, since it required a much slower timing , where ending the enemies required measuring the attack and studying the movements of these. [22]
  • Precisely this console was the one that had received games like Sonic Labyrinth or Tails Adventure , titles that went out of the classic Sonic style in other genres.[23]
  • There's also this nice little assessment you can sneak into Critical Reception: "The worst handheld Sonic game ever. It feels like such a rush job. Thank God they didn't attempt the "3D" aspect of its 16-bit older brother."[24]
  • The 5th game of Game Gear 's Sonic series [25]
  • Features distinctive CG taste graphics.[26]
  • The Australian Classifications Board rated Game Gear titles Sonic Blast and Sonic Labyrinth for 3DS Virtual Console on 7th Mar 2012.[27]
  • The game is not fondly remembered as a classic title in the Sonic canon.[28]
  • last game commercially released for the Game Gear in Japan.[29]
  • 3DS version released in Japan on 18th April, costing ¥300.[30]
  • 3DS version released in North America on June 20, 2013.[31]
  • Was part of a "Sonic's 25th Birthday" digital sale. (I guess making a statement about the game's inclusion in the francise's canon, combating the source above) [32]
  • Sticks to mainline Sonic staples like running, spinning and grabbing[33]
  • Includes double jump as standard feature - only previous game to include this was Sonic the Hedgehog 3 .[34]
  • Coming back on this... the only contemporary coverage I found was a little blurb in GamePro #88 that mentioned the game was coming out that November. I'm sort of surprised that was all I found. JOEBRO64 23:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

How to handle unknown release dates

I've just finished a lengthy rewrite of the Sonic Blast article, but I've run into a bit of a problem. A version of the game was released for the Master System in Brazil; problem is, there are no reliable sources that confirm its release date (GameRankings release dates are unreliable, according to WP:VG/S). So it seems weird to have the Master System listed in the infobox's platforms section, but not in the release section. Anybody have an idea as to how I should handle this? (I've put a footnote saying "only in Brazil" for the time being.) JOEBRO64 23:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

1997. [35], [36] Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Allegedly December 1997, making it the last Master System game, but I can't cite that yet. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've sourced this in the article. JOEBRO64 23:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-English regions are not usually supposed to go in infoboxes, by the way. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean, unless it's the ONLY region, right? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue this is a case where it's necessary. As I previously said, it didn't make sense to include the Master System in the infobox if there was no release date, and it is significant that it was released on the system. JOEBRO64 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I assumed it was released in Japan too. Due to that, I have to wonder if it was actually officially licensed by Sega? Seems odd that it didn't get a home release in Japan as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also, it was reviewed (however briefly) in the Dec.1997 issue #122 of Ação Games (scan of the page or download the whole PDF) so that's further confirmation of the release month (and a cute ref to add too!) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Man, good find! I've added this to the article. JOEBRO64 00:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Nintendo products at AfD

Just posting this here as well, as I noticed that the List of PS4 games on disk AfD has gotten way more traffic after being posted on the talk page and not just listed in the deletion sortlist. (We need a better way to handle this still). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I like that idea. Salavat - Do you usually do your article creation report on a certain day of the week? Might be good to do it at a different time, as for one to not overshadow the other. (If article creation list was done on Sundays, deletion could be done on Wednesdays or something, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We have WP:VG/D from the deletion sorting project. --Masem (t) 14:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but as noted in another discussion, it seems many don't know of it, and/or don't use it, and ones that are specifically posted here tend to get more input. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
People interested in contributing to discussions probably already watchlist WP:VG/AA Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
As above, I had no idea that page existed. I follow the AfD page for Video Games, but didn't realise we had an article alert screen. I personally believe that a weekly post regarding ongoing discussions here on the project chat would be beneficial. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this was my sentiment as well. I was editing for years before I found out about WP:VG/D, and I still don't follow VG/AA, though I probably should start. The core 5-10 WP:VG stalwarts that have been editing here for 5-10 years know about them, but there's a lot of newer or casual editors that just don't go through all of the sub-pages at random to find these things. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that AFDs run 7 days and close, a weekly report will be of limited use. The advice should be that more members watchlist the alert page. Extra step, yes, but otherwise we'll just make the talk page a redundant list of alerts. You don't really need to even read the alert page, as the bot links the AFDs in the edit summary so you can just click through from watchlist. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue that, as AfD's are 7 days long, a weekly report would be perfect. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
On paper yes, but considering that not everyone reads this talk page all the time, waiting for a week for those updates is actually worse. As ferret points out, the AA page is a much better solution. How about we just transclude that page into a box on this page? That way the alerts could always be seen by people visiting this page. If we get AAlertBot to use sections instead of semi-colon headers, we could use labeled section transclusion to transclude only the section we need and we can put that into a box to avoid it becoming too large. Regards SoWhy 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
This is what I had in mind too, but wasn't sure if it could be done. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I've made a feature request at WT:AA. Let's see if it's possible to modify the bot this way. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

GAR

I have nominated Chocolatier (video game) for a Good article reassessment to see if it still meets the criteria for Good Article. Please join the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

GameZone reviews

As noted above, GameZone was recently deleted. This has left hundreds of redlinks, which I believe Username Needed is about to unlink, but I wanted to raise the issue here about whether to keep the reviews. Per the comment in the AfD, I imagine so, but I figured I'd start a conversation to confirm, if only because it looks weird. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to suggest that the reviews are now less notable/important. Hardcore Gaming 101 and Gematsu are both considered reliable sources, but not inheritably notable in the same way. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly this. Websites don't necessarily need to be notable to be reliable. I mean, its fine to re-evaluate it if people want to, but not particularly for the reason noted above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Something interesting that was brought up in the deletion discussion was in regards to a video game site being usable as a reliable source, but not being inherently notable. To me this distinction was intriguing as I'd never considered it before. I was hoping to have a discussion about what this really 'means'.--Coin945 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of sites like that. It's confusing if you think of RS == good site, and good site == the kind of thing you'd write an article on, but reliable isn't the same thing as notable. Imagine if IGN had articles just like it did today, with editorial oversight and so on, so it's an RS. Now image that no other source ever wrote anything about IGN itself- no "state of the industry" posts that mention them, nothing. That wouldn't change IGN's own reliability as a source, but it would make it non-viable for an article, because reliability depends only on IGN itself, but notability depends on other sources taking note. And if you caught yourself a few sentences back thinking "who on earth would write an article about IGN", well, there you go- turns out no one would write an artice about GameZone, or RPGFan, or a hundred other small-but-pro-am websites, and yet they still are themselves reliable. --PresN 04:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Notability generally boils down to whether or not it's covered by other third party reliable sources. Reliability generally boils down to things like if they've got a dedicated editorial staff, editorial policy, writers with credentials, etc. Many popular websites satisfy both. Some only satisfy one or the other. That's all. Sergecross73 msg me 04:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In fact, it just occured to me taht teh best illustration of this difference is the fact that "Wikipedia" has a Wikipedia article. Clearly notable and clearly unreliable. ^_^ --Coin945 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Video game/media list

Resident Evil and Monster Hunter series don't have a Video game/media list page like other big franchises. Some series split their mobile games into a separate list from the main video game list. List of Crash Bandicoot mobile games/List of Crash Bandicoot video games; Mobile phone games of the Breath of Fire series/Breath of Fire; and List of The Elder Scrolls video games/The Elder Scrolls Travels

How many video games does a franchise need to have a video game list? and how many mobile games does it take to make a mobile game list? I checked the WP:MOSVG and I didn't get any help on it. In my humble opinion, Resident Evil needs a media list since there's so much media involved while Monster Hunter just needing a video game list because the main article doesn't list the expanded versions or the ports.204.153.155.151 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the general lists, but I don't think there really ever needs to be a separate "mobile game list" - it should generally just be a subsection of a bigger video game list. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The short answer is that several of those look prime for merging back to their main series article. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They do? which ones specifically? maybe you're right and the mobile game list don't make sense and should be merged back.204.153.155.151 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
All three examples you gave are ripe for merging together. There is no reason why the mobile games should be split from the main list in the first place. They are still part of the same series and not remarkably different enough to justify a split. TarkusABtalk 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I personally think the two Crash Bandicoot lists should stay as they are, but I agree that Breath of Fire and The Elder Scrolls can be merged. ~Mable (chat) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's no hard-and-fast rule; the general rule is that splitting off a list from a series article is a good idea if the full list is oversized for the article, and a bad idea if it's small enough to fit into the article without issue. (Also, in general you shouldn't make a list of less than 10 items without a solid reason.) The on-the-ground manner of handling these lists is wildly inconsistent, though. Sub-splits/scoping is generally handled just based on how large the list would be- List of Mass Effect media gets all media because it fits just fine, while Final Fantasy has both a media and video games list because it's a huge franchise. Also, people often shy away from media lists because its the games they care about, and sourcing non-game media tie ins is hard, leaving just "games" lists.
In general, you should not be splitting off a "mobile titles" list unless you really can't write actual articles about the games and include them in the overall games list- The_Elder_Scrolls_Travels seems to have its own list primarily so that the editors can write some description of the games, but they should really also be included in the overall games list. Most franchises are not so massive so as to need a separate mobile list.
As to RE/MH - RE could definitely stand to have a media list, what with the big, crammed table of games in the series article and the additional film series article, not to mention the comics, etc. It would be a large media list, though I still think it should all be together. MH definitely also needs a list spun out; the series article has two giant tables embedded in it that really don't need to be there. It doesn't "need" to be a full media list, but I'd personally prefer it to be. (I'm pretty much always in favor of media lists over games-only lists.) It'd be up to the editors that write it- you can certainly just do a game list and stop there for later expansion. --PresN 19:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that there is no rule, more of editor consensus on whether to split or merge. RE is more than qualified for a media list, no one has done it yet because it's a daunting task. TarkusABtalk 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Well if anyone starts the media list for Resident Evil or Monster Hunter, I'd be happy to try and help out.204.153.155.151 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
LOL that's the exact reason why it doesn't exist yet, no one wants to start it and carry it through, adding all the films, books, and comics. I built the RE games list. I wish I had half a brain when I wrote it to spin it off into a franchise list. I suppose someone could just split that list off and put "improve" templates on the new page but then it needs sourcing and formatting and a lead and it will still be incomplete and ughhhhhh I just don't want to be bothered :) TarkusABtalk 20:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I can see how it would be a big project. I don't even know all the material for Resident evil. is there a way to have beta-pages before making it. so it can be worked on a little at a time? We would need a RE expert anyways. But how about Monster Hunter? I think it might be a simple copy/paste? Or any franchise that needs a video game/media list.204.153.155.151 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
If you create an account you get your own personal sandbox where you can build whatever you want before copying it over to an article. You can also build a draft: Wikipedia:Drafts TarkusABtalk 21:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep, Draft:List of Resident Evil media will do you as far a draft page goes; you can take as long as you'd like as long as you keep poking at it. It won't take that long to actually build out the list- the templates aren't that complicated (just fill-in-the-blank). It's sourcing that takes a long time on these kinds of lists... (currently slowly sourcing: List of Raven Software games) --PresN 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ok sounds like a plan then.204.153.155.151 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Hello. I just made a profile and I just started on the draft.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Halo: Combat Evolved FAR

I have nominated Halo: Combat Evolved 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. JOEBRO64 19:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Two items. One, the entire article uses the slang names of the alien species. Should there be an inclusion of those names, perhaps in parenthesis? Two, Vox Day's opinion is quoted. He's not in the reliable list at all. I think we could find a better critic to talk about Halo's legacy here. Apart from that, I think the article is full. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dissident93 is always distruptive in video game articles!

WP:VG is not a board you report people to, like WP:ANI. That said, Dissident isn't doing anything wrong here, so Angeldeb82 would be better off asking him for clarification rather than attacking him. If you'd rather not discuss with him, you're free to ask on my talk page too. But this isn't the right way to do this... Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I think Dissident93 is annoying because of his always bothersome disruptive editing abilities in video game articles! He always removes all the websites' personal Game of the Year Awards from awards tables without moving them to prose (see Overwatch, Mario Kart 8, etc.) and ALWAYS changes the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences link to D.I.C.E. Awards! When I try to avoid redirects by creating a piped link or changing it back to Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, he ALWAYS scolds me by claiming that I don't the meaning of the word WP:NOPIPE (always with a redirect) and ALWAYS restores redirects back again, which Wikipedia has forbiddden! This guy doesn't know the meaning of the word "no redirects"! Can someone please teach Dissident93 a lesson?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Bro take a huge chill pill and dial it down. Why do you say "Wikipedia has forbidden redirects", where is that coming from? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTBROKEN (which is the larger WP:NOPIPE guideline): "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect." It's like you've never read any of these guidelines I continually link you to, and just want to feel outraged for some reason. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Dissident93, I think you're the one who believes that D.I.C.E. Awards is the correct article, while Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences is wrong. Are you suggesting that the article's name be changed to D.I.C.E. Awards? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Can someone please teach Dissident93 a lesson?!" What's that supposed to mean? If anything, you're always the one making mountains out of molehills here. With all your freakouts about websites shutting down or archives not working. Have you ever thought that you may be the problem? GamerPro64 21:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's one thing to disagree with another editor, but saying you hate someone and that they need to be "taught a lesson" could be interpreted as a threat which is absolutely not okay. CurlyWi (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize. I changed the first thing I said about Dissident93 a bit. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just a heads up (and ignoring the tone of voice here-- please be civil), I think it's especially important that redirects be kept in certain situations-- it seems like Dissident is making the right decision there. I actually created an article (not video game related) this week because I clicked the link and realized it didn't exist-- I never would have made it without the redirect. From an article creation standpoint, we should always link to the accurate subject. Nomader (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
On the DICE Awards vs AIAS, I do believe they should be split. The individual ceremonies of DICE are not notable on their own (unlike the Game Awards) but they are notable awards, and the winners should be highlighted, but that shouldn't be done on the page about the organization. --Masem (t) 21:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would like to note that WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE have been pointed out to Angeldeb82 multiple times, I've done it at least twice myself. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have gone ahead and done something I've been meaning to do: AIAS now covers the organization and the DICE summit, while I moved the DICE awards to a separate page. I hope I caught all the redirects, but things might be wonky if I missed one. --Masem (t) 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Need other opinions at the GA review for Super Mario Bros.

Seems this has been resolved now. If someone comes here with the intention to provide a second opinion, there are a couple of other GANs in need of review. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Indrian (talk · contribs) claims that adding in unsourced claims of a developer (also possibly WP:OR) with the promise of adding the source that says so "at a later date" is fine, and that me removing it with the WP:BURDEN being on him to source now is wrong and disruptive to the GA process. So I'm requesting additional opinions on the matter here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  • That is a charmingly POV way to put it. Super Mario Bros. is currently being reviewed for Good Article status. As part of the review, I suggested that the nominator add SRD as a developer because this was a separate company that worked closely with Nintendo and was responsible for the programming of the game. The nominator did so and asked if I knew of any sources for the SRD claim. While this review was still on-going, User:Dissident93 decided to come along and considered that info a little fishy, so they deleted it. I am, of course watching the article, but if I had not seen this act I would have assumed the nominator had not responded to this suggestion yet, which I don't find helpful. This was not a big deal, as Dissident did not necessarily know the review was in progress. I therefore reverted and informed Dissident of the ongoing review and that sources would be forthcoming, which is all fine and good. Since then, however, they have decided that the information is somehow not verifiable (it is, even if currently unsourced) and original research (this truly shows that their grasp of the underlying history is lacking, which is fine except that they are making themselves out as someone who can recognize OR in Nintendo articles when they clearly cannot). I told them to take it to the review, which I felt a more proper place to discuss these matters, and was even helpful enough to put a "citation needed" tag on the fact in question. It will be resolved before the end of the review, which is apparently not soon enough for our impatient friend here. So now we have a talk page fight over nothing of any real consequence. Anyway, that's probably more text than the subject is worth, but I do get a little piqued when another editor decides to take part in such unhelpful actions during a GA review. Indrian (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The idea that you are suggesting that unsourced information be added to an article as part of a GAN is.... odd. I consider it a criteria for passing GAN that the article contain no unsourced content, no CN tags. If the information cannot be sourced, it shouldn't be added. Once you find a proper source add it then. Obtaining GA status doesn't mean the article can't be later improved. Adding unsourced content during a GAN though....... If it'll be "resolved before the end of the review", there's no rush to add it either. Wait for source in hand. -- ferret (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This IGN article from the first page of my Google search results should be sufficient on the matter. Pushing an editr war over a GAN is plain unnecessary. Lordtobi (✉) 22:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree totally. Also, its all right here. Its just not cited in the article yet, but its quite verifiable information. Also, the reivew is not finished, so no one is suggesting promoting with a citation tag. That would just be silly. Indrian (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems a little weak for giving infobox Development credit. They did some test work, as far as these sources show. {{Infobox video game}} says to omit such companies (programming assistance, ports) from the infobox. Fine to mention in prose though, and I'd support that with the above sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Umm, Nakago programmed the game. He is confirmed in the article as an SRD employee. Indrian (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
So I just I'll quote {{Infobox video game}} directly and in full: "Individual development tasks handled by different companies (e.g., scenario, programming) and ports should not be mentioned in the infobox but in the article text instead." -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That's fair, but I would point out that Super Metroid is a GA and Intelligent Systems is in the infobox. The situation is analagous: Nintendo designed it and Intelligent Systems programmed it. Indrian (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Super Metroid was promoted to GA a loooooong time ago, and relatively speaking the adjustment to the infobox documentation is recent, prompted by the modern era issues of almost every game having 4-5 developers listed (often in EFNs), which was getting out of control. At least it's now sourced, so I don't feel super strongly about enforcing the nuance of IBVG (Maybe at a FAC). -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That's also fair. We will take it out of the infobox and save it for the article body, but the original objection was to mentioning SRD at all. That has now been resolved. Indrian (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vanity Article?

If anyone wants to try and establish notability and better sources for Smiley's Maze Hunt before I prod it, feel free. But I don't fancy your chances, it looks like a vanity article to me. - X201 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It'll take a full redesign of the article even if it passes WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This one deserves an ion cannon from orbit. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • One more warning flag (to add to the rest) is that on their Facebook page (with only 20 likes by the way), they posted "Also check out our new Wikipedia Page!" the day after User:Sfarjal moved it out of their draftspace and onto mainspace, as if it was a website they had created, implying to me at least that they had some involvement in its creation.--Coin945 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
X201, I've just prodded the article on your behalf as above; hope you don't mind. Looks like something we could seriously do without. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Was just leaving it for a day or so in case anyone fancied the challenge of salvaging it. - X201 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I checked out the articles creator, and his history is this article, and a stream of vandalism. Didn't think it could be saved, as one of the references was a fake link to a mirror article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Manchester United Europe

I was wondering about this game, according to CGV Magazine Nov 1992, they were going to released this on the Atari Lynx, it was already released on the Commandore and was top of the game charts for a good few weeks that year in the UK. I was wondering if anyone knows about this oldie, cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nm, I was told on Reddit that European Soccer Challenge and this game are one and the same game. Govvy (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Splitting Fortnite BR from Fortnite

Given recent news that Epic is developing mobile versions of Fortnite Battle Royale, whereas the main game "Save the World" of Fortnite remains on Windows/PS4/XO only, I'm thinking we need to split the BR version to its own article. This also represents the fact that that game is F2P, and as part of the BR genre, Fortnite BR is talked about as being on par and perhaps surpassing PUGB in player counts. There's enough dev info and release information to do this, I'm just making sure if anyone sees any gotchas with this. --Masem (t) 21:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I fully support it. They are basically two separate games at this point, and I wouldn't be surprised if they go through name changes later in development like H1Z1 did. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • So there is at least one snag in this. "Fortnite" has been nominated for a number of major awards (and just today some BAFTA); except in one case, it is not clear if they are nominating the main game, or BR, but if you read between the lines, the awards are likely meant for the BR mode. If I split BR off, I fear I can't pull the Accolades table with it (OR to assume those awards are for BR), but it seems wrong to leave it for the main game. I'm not sure if this forces the two parts to stay together or not. --Masem (t) 13:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Majority of recent discussion of "Fortnite" is going to refer to the BR mode, I highly doubt any of them are giving awards to the underplayed and generic main survival mode as compared to the one that's overtook PUBG in player numbers. So I'll say that this shouldn't prevent a split. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The problem is, right now, I can't move the awards to the BR article, it is 100% original research for all but one to say the award was given to one. I fully agree they were likely given to BR mode but we can't assume that. --Masem (t) 19:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Then I suppose we leave all of the awards stuff on the main Fortnight article, for now anyway. An independent Fortnite Battle Royale article would still be an offshoot of the main page, so it's not like it lacking an awards section would be seen as a major issue. Wasn't something similar seen with Grand Theft Auto V and Grand Theft Auto Online, at least when both games/pages were new? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Stealth video game category IP LTA

Just a heads up, the sporadic category LTA IP was active in the last 24 hours. They were bouncing between at least 10 different IPs from different ranges, I blocked 2 that had made several edits though. If you're not familiar, this guy pops up every now and then and adds genre categories to games that clearly don't fit (Marking COD as "stealth" games, Age of Empires as "action adventure", etc). I believe he also does it to films, but I don't watchlist many. -- ferret (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Categories

Hi all,

I've seen an established user by the name of User:Kjell Knudde creating a list of categories regarding "cultural depictions" (Such as Category:Cultural depictions of sportspeople, Category:Cultural depictions of British people and Category:Cultural depictions of men) and applying them to a long list of video games; even ones that don't seem to particularly have any real cultural bias to them (Such as Jimmy White's 2: Cueball, and Anna Kournikova's Smash Court Tennis.)

Is this something that we should be doing for all video game like this, or only for those that have a definitive cultural portrayal in the prose? Either way is fine, but I thought it neccesary to find a consensus for addition as these categories are very large, and I'm not sure how these sports games really add to this.

What are your thoughts? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked him about it last month. User_talk:Kjell_Knudde#cultural_depiction_nonsense_categories [37] Video games like this have dozens of historical characters. That's a lot of categories to clog them with. I doubt anyone who plays these games would be curious to what other games would have that historical character in them. They can click the name of the person in the article to link to the article of the actual person, and at the bottom of that person's page have a link to a list article listing where they have been featured at. That'd work out better. Dream Focus 09:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Seems like a violation of WP:NONDEF, at least the broad ones like "Cultural depictions of men", of which literally no specific article should ever be in because it would never be a defining characteristic of anything. This editor is clearly engaging in overcategorization and disruptive editing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
[38] Category:Cultural depictions of American people is being added to video game articles as well, just because the game has an American in it. I agree with what you say about "Cultural depictions of men", so thinking a note should be put there telling people when its appropriate to add an article to that category. Dream Focus 09:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
To be fair to the user, they did add Category:Video games based on real people to the articles, which seems fine, but I think most articles will not really be cultural, especially when its a simple sports sim. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A bunch of the games they've added to these categories are not cultural depictions. E.g. Colin McRae games don't depict or feature Colin McRae. It just a rally driving game with his name slapped on because he's a famous Rally driver. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It should only be if the cultural portrayal is a core prose element. I can't think of any immediately examples, like for example, I would not include the Civ games in this just because real world leaders were used - they're not narratively significant. --Masem (t) 13:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    I'd actually argue the only game I can think of is an article on Wheels of Aurelia, which is actually about historic Italian Culture. everything else is kinda pointless Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Send them to CFD and see if the broader community agrees (it probably will). --Izno (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, in other modes of fiction, I can see value of some of these categories. (eg Darkest Hour the movie easily categorizes into Cultural depiction of British people - it's core and essential). Video games tend not to make historical figures the core focus. That does lead me thinking that this might be where games like the Assassin's Creed titles , or even something like Day of the Tentacle (with George Washington + pals, even if spoofs), would fall into the appropriate cats. --Masem (t) 14:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Worldwide (WW) release date in infobox

I've recovered this unclosed RFC from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 135, in order to close it as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. As there is no guidance as such to influence the weight of arguments, it basically can only boil down to head-counting. And the consensus is therefore as follows:
  • A1 (7-5 in favour) - no WW where a game has a single worldwide release date
  • B1 (again, 7-5 in favour) - no WW where a game has multiple worldwide release dates (date varying by platform)
  • C2 (easiest one to discern, 9-2 in favour) - use WW where a game has differing regional release dates on some platforms and worldwide release date(s) on other platforms

So, essentially, the consensus is to only use WW to provide clarity where a game has various differing release dates including multiple regional release dates on some platforms and worldwide on other platforms. If you have any questions about this close please contact me.

A tip for the future - if someone places the {{RFC|topic=}} template at the top of your request for comment, it will prevent it being auto-archived until the RFC is closed.

Thanks, Fish+Karate 12:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

If a game was released worldwide on a single date, do we use the {{Video game release}} template in the infobox? From what I've seen, the majority of infoboxes use this template even if there's only a single worldwide release date.

If your answer is no, then when exactly do we use the worldwide label (|WW|)? What was the point of even making it? -- Wrath X (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessary. I'd remove it if I saw it. JOEBRO64 12:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The Infobox documentation has in the past suggested using VGR with the release field in all cases, even for single dates. The templates job is to produce an unbulleted list of region/date pairs (Or similar data pairs). When there's only a single universal date, the template offers nothing. WP:VG/DATE was recently tweaked to note this. I wouldn't go around blanketly removing the use of single WW dates, but it's not necessary either. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the template offer the label WW? This explicitly states that the date was worldwide. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
There are cases of where there are staggered platform releases where one platform may have different regional dates, whereas another platform will have one single worldwide date eg Bayonetta. For consistency, if this situation occurs, we shouldn't drop the WW from those platforms that need it. But if it is the only release date needed, then it can be dropped. --Masem (t) 14:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. So basically if there are regional dates present then we also include the WW? Masem could you tell me if I'm correct:
  • For South Park: The Fractured but Whole which only has one worldwide date for all platforms, we don't use the WW.
  • For Mario Kart 8 which has different regional dates for Wii U but has one worldwide date for Nintendo Switch, we keep the WW.
  • But what if there are multiple release dates but they are all worldwide dates? Grand Theft Auto V has three release dates and they're all worldwide. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say the WW could be dropped if all dates for the different platforms are worldwide for that platform. --Masem (t) 14:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
So we don't use WW for Grand Theft Auto V. What about the other two I mentioned? Was I correct about South Park: The Fractured but Whole and Mario Kart 8? -- Wrath X (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion, you describe both cases right when to drop the WW. --Masem (t) 14:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IMO if there is more than one date, in whatever situation, the template should be used, as it also gives a cleaner view (with dates more clearly differentiated from the platforms). I'm not opposed to using it in single-date infoboxes either, as it else, at least to some, appears like we don't know where it released, just when. As such, many older game pages, where the region is unknown, only use the year. Lordtobi (✉) 15:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the regional tags look awful and make the field look overcrowded when there several dates. If there are no regional dates and it's all WW dates, then I don't use it. An unbulleted list for multiple dates is far neater than have loads of WW tags.--The1337gamer (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Unbulleted lists for when there are no regions to mention. When it's just WW dates. E.g. These infoboxes. The left one looks far neater than the right one both in code and in an article. I hate it when people do the right one. It looks awful repeating the same tags over and again. It so inefficient stating worldwide release 5 times. There is no loss of information in the absence of WW tags here. If there are no WW tags then it is fair to assume the game was released worldwide unless otherwise stated somewhere else in the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Video games/Archive 136
Release
  • Windows
  • 1 January 2018
  • OS X
  • 1 February 2018
  • Linux
  • 1 March 2018
  • PlayStation 4
  • 1 April 2018
  • Xbox One
  • 1 May 2018
WikiProject Video games/Archive 136
ReleaseWindows
  • WW: 1 January 2018
macOS
  • WW: 1 February 2018
Linux
  • WW: 1 March 2018
PlayStation 4
  • WW: 1 April 2018
Xbox One
  • WW: 1 May 2018
Well, that's just subjective. I personally like the one on the right because it gives some more context and information to the date and is a form of organizing the information. The one on the left looks blank, as if it's missing something important. That's just my taste. Zoom (talk page) 20:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

I see differing opinions. Some oppose WW, some support it. Can we please form a consensus regarding the usage of WW?

When is it suitable to use the worldwide (WW) label from {{vgrelease}}? -- Wrath X (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

SINGLE WORLDWIDE DATE

A1
Release1 January 2018
A2
Release
  • WW: 1 January 2018

MULTIPLE WORLDWIDE DATES

B1
Release
  • Microsoft Windows
  • 1 January 2018
  • PlayStation 4
  • 1 April 2018
  • Xbox One
  • 1 May 2018
B2
ReleaseMicrosoft Windows
  • WW: 1 January 2018
PlayStation 4
  • WW: 1 April 2018
Xbox One
  • WW: 1 May 2018

REGIONAL AND WORLDWIDE DATES

C1
ReleaseMicrosoft Windows
  • NA: 1 January 2018
  • PAL: 2 January 2018
macOS
1 February 2018
Linux
1 March 2018
PlayStation 4
  • NA: 1 April 2018
  • EU: 2 April 2018
  • AU: 3 April 2018
Xbox One
  • NA: 1 May 2018
  • AU: 2 May 2018
  • EU: 3 May 2018
C2
ReleaseMicrosoft Windows
  • NA: 1 January 2018
  • PAL: 2 January 2018
macOS
  • WW: 1 February 2018
Linux
  • WW: 1 March 2018
PlayStation 4
  • NA: 1 April 2018
  • EU: 2 April 2018
  • AU: 3 April 2018
Xbox One
  • NA: 1 May 2018
  • AU: 2 May 2018
  • EU: 3 May 2018
  • Support A2 and B2, and strongly support C2 - I personally prefer using the WW in all cases. When I see a date without the WW, I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Does it mean we don't know where it was released? Or is it the release date of the developer's country? Is it the American release date (since the US is the most notable English-speaking country)? Is it worldwide? On the other hand, using the WW label will make it explicitly clear that it is the worldwide date. I especially support C2. If regional labels (NA/EU/AU) are present in the infobox then WW should also be used for consistency.
Another reason I support using WW is due to the fact so many game infoboxes already use the WW and it's going to take a lot of energy and time removing them. -- Wrath X (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I personally look at the ones without WW, and think that it's been released on that date; but the information is incomplete. Like there may be other release dates unknown. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for B2 and C2 and support for A2 per my arguments above. Lordtobi (✉) 09:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for A2 and B2 out of personal preference, but not a strong opinion. Basically, it's just what I used to seeing. Strong support for C2 for a consistent display. Once regional display is needed, it should be used for all the dates for a consistent look and view, with the regions/dates all lining up vertically. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1 and B1 -- less is more as worldwide is clearly implied by the lack of indicator. No opinion on item 3, though a slight preference for C1 (for the same reason). --Izno (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1,B1 and C2 - I think WW is needed is cases where other labels are present, to signify what that date means. - X201 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1, B1, C2 If there is zero regional distinction in any of the release dates, the WW is unnecessary. But as soon as at least one regional variation is introduced, that WW is needed to keep consistency. --Masem (t) 16:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for A2 and B2 and strong support for C2 per my previous argument. Also, think about this decision through the eyes of the reader. Would the reader prefer to have this information visible or implied or missing. This is what's important here. Zoom (talk page) 16:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1, B1 and C2 per my points above. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1, B1, C2. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear God, kill WW. 🔥🔥🔥 It's often added as if assumed that a release is worldwide if not specified to a region. How about: If it isn't specified, then we don't need to specify it either. How about: We shouldn't be including the mess of release dates in the C examples at all (keep only the initial release, save the rest for prose or footnotes). We write for a general audience, and "WW" is the most hideous of Wikipedia-generated jargon. (Also I don't buy the rationale that different PS4 release dates automatically means prior releases were worldwide rather than simply unspecified...) A1, B1, C1 and long live local consensus. czar 01:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A1, B1, C2. A1 and B1 are better than their counterparts because there have only been worldwide releases. C1 leaves the WW releases somewhat ambiguous because everything else is labeled. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A2, B2, and C2': I hate that I'm !voting this way, but we are really just asking for confused people if we don't specify that it's a worldwide release. I think just having the date by itself will throw folks who are used to seeing regions on every other site that they look at. I don't think it's necessarily good policy but I do think that it'll save us a huge headache. Nomader (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm having a problem with the UEFA Euro 2012 (video game) article. There are two links for the ShopTo News website: one alive link, and one dead link] that is since archived. I want a new ShopTo link for the story called "Euro 2012 patch arrives, fixes game freezes", but I can't find it among the links in this search link, and Google won't let me find the one link I'm searching for? Can someone please help me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there is no live link; why do you need one? If you have an archive, then that's good enough- you know what the original url was, so just stick the |archiveurl= into the citation with |deadurl=yes and carry on. I'm going to cheerfully ignore the question of if "ShopTo News" is actually an RS; they're citing a forum post by an EA represntative that wasn't even the thread starter it was such a non-story, and honestly I'm surprised anyone bothered to cover a minor patch for this game. --PresN 03:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Manchester United Europe

I wanted to move User:Govvy/Manchester United Europe to Manchester United Europe, but there is currently a redirect on it that needs deleting, is there an admin that can sort it out for me, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPEEDY and slap a DB-g6 on the redirect. - X201 (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
k, done, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

European Soccer Challenge Redirects and merging?

I've been told on reddit that Soccer Challenge and Manchester United Europe are one and the same game, should I merge what I have in my sandbox, User:Govvy/Manchester United Europe to it? Also should we redirect Manchester United Europe to Soccer Challenge? The other problem is CVG magazine say that the game was developed by a company called Krisalis Software, but the release dates for both games are exactly the same, along with the platforms they are on. Thoughts please. Govvy (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

When you say you were told on reddit, that they are the same game, what sources back this up/who told you. It's very possible the games are the same, and have different titles for particular regions (I'd have thought some countries may not be able to license Manchester United for various reasons Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
They're not one and the same. A quick viewing of Youtube makes that hard to swallow. Manchester Untied Europe uses Krysalis's side-on view point and a game engine that went on to be reused in European Club Soccer a few years later.European Soccer Challenge uses a top down view and and engine that was used in World Championship Soccer. There was a lot of re-skinning of football games in the time before Fifa and Pro Evo, it had been happening since the 1980s; with the infamous World Cup Carnival. - X201 (talk)
@Lee Vilenski:, @X201: Please review this Atari Lynx version of European Soccer Challenge, [39], it's been coded by Krisalis Software, so there are two different versions of European Soccer Challenge, but the Atari Lynx version??? Govvy (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Will do. I think it's probably a good time to try and nail down a time line and what is related to what etc as regards 1990's football games. - X201 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Newsletter

Where's the newsletter? Wasn't it supposed to be out in January? JOEBRO64 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Global Game Awards not a notable video game award game site?

I'm having a problem here! In the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article, I tried adding Global Game Awards 2017 in which the game was a winner for "Best Comedy", but Darkwarriorblake keeps removing them from the article and claiming that "it's a non notable award given by a non notable video game site," and he scolds me for putting the Global Game Awards here. Yet all the other video game articles like Cuphead, Mass Effect: Andromeda, Assassin's Creed Origins, Prey (2017 video game), etc. have the same Global Game Awards on the awards table. I'm getting confused! If Global Game Awards is "not a notable video game site" as Darkwarriorblake claims, then should I remove it from all the video game articles? Please help me here. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Isn't this just a user-voted awards on game-debate.com? If so, then I don't think it should be included. Game-debate.com isn't vetted as a reliable source at WP:VG/RS and I think we should generally avoid user voted awards entirely. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it tied to SXSW at all? I'm seeing links to that in the dif above. That would ties some sort if importance to them. Honest question, because I've personally don't recall hearing of these awards before (which probably isn't a good sign considering how much I read about the industry...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, South by Southwest and its gaming awards are notable as well. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, that's why I'm asking about it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No as far as I can see it has no ties to SXSW, it's being confused with The Game Awards and the Global GamING Awards. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (23 February to 3 March)

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

23 February

24 February

25 February

26 February

27 February

28 February

1 March

2 March

3 March

Salavat (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Archiving weblinks on an article

  • Missing archive link: Archiving is not required, but is considered good practice. To archive: Go to IABot's Analyze a page. (Note that if you end up on the "IABot Management Interface", you'll need to find the small drop-down menu that says "Run Bot" and select "Fix a single page"). Type a Wikipedia article's title (carefully) on the line that says "Page title to analyze" Be sure to check the checkbox labeled "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". Run time for the bot can be from a few seconds to five minutes. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an easier way. Go to the article you want to run the bot on, click the history tab, and click the link "Fix dead links". By doing this, you don't need to type in the exact article title yourself.--Alexandra IDVtalk 23:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Chocolatier

Chocolatier (video game), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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) 09:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice on Lumines

Lumines just got a suprise remastered version coming out this year, yay, but the original infobox of this game is so confusing, due to an initial release that got a large # of ports to other systems. "Lumines Remastered" makes no sense for a separate article due to the gameplay being the same. How would ppl approach this infobox to keep it tight? --Masem (t) 18:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, you could try a collapsed infobox in the article body like at Kirby's Adventure#Remakes and ports TarkusABtalk 18:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice for a draft article

An apparent WP:SPA who recently saw his draft, i.e. Draft:Geoff Green, rejected, and proceeded with advising Wikipedia to change rules in favour of accepting blog posts as reliable sources—otherwise the project would "slowly kill" (sic) itself—isn't taking no for an answer. Instead of editing in other fields of interest for some time to acquire experience, as advised, or find reliable secondary sources for their draft, they continue to update their draft with the same sources and resubmitted it. As the subject of the draft is Video games related, I'm looking for input on whether or not that subject is notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article? Please post comments or suggestions at Draft talk:Geoff Green. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually saw this issue from AfC. It popped up on my list to review, but at the time, the conversation was ongoing, so I ignored it. Doesn't look like a notable subject to me. I certainly wouldn't accept the article. He's clearly made the arguement that forums are valid sources, been told that they aren't, and isn't backing down. I'd suggest the article went to MfD. If there is any issues with the user (ignoring consensus), that should be dealth with by raising a grievance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That seems like a job for WP:ANI considering this is an obvious case of WP:COI using their own writings as sources for an article about themselves.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If it's a COI that needs to be sorted, I'd go to WP:COIN first, which I already considered but thought better to ask you guys here first. Why would one go to a dramaboard if there's another noticeboard that's better equipped to deal with such situations in an efficient way? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of the COI, you can try pointing the guy to WP:VG/S and especially the first section about where to find legitimate sources. If he's important enough to be covered in video games news, he'll show up in one of those sources. As it happens, he doesn't. Draft should remain rejected and if he continues to submit it, you can pick either MFD or ANI to take care of it. --Izno (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
His esports name also doesn't show up. --Izno (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I pointed the editor to this project ([40]), reply: Video games is not my main interest ([41]) – after which they continued their pet draft-sourced-to-blogs. So, for a possible next step I see COIN, MfD and ANI. If I'd known which one of these would've been most suitable, I hadn't come here I suppose: and at this point it isn't much clearer. Thanks however for eliminating the possibility that a notable gamer bio would have been at risk of going lost. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

DTBA date tags not working anymore (?)

It seems all the DTBA tags on game lists aren't working anymore. I'm sure someone has a better explanation for it, I just found it odd, haha. In the game lists they used to be shaded blue, which made it easier to tell which items needed release dates, but now it's back to normal style like established dates. Reference the Nintendo Switch, PS4, XB1 game lists. Any ideas? Mordecairule 15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Ferret removed the color yesterday - "Removing stylization. This has a noticable impact on post-expand size. Primary function, sort key, is unimpacted". I don't recall a discussion about this, though this happened the same time that the two Switch lists get merged back together into List of Nintendo Switch games presumably because dropping the color part of the template made the pages small enough to not need to be split. --PresN 15:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably related. He's been working hard lately on trying to fix that whole situation. He has the sympathy I lack towards all the editors whining and complaining that the Switch list is split in two... Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was done to reduce the amount of template post-expand size this template causes, which causes some game lists to have to be split into multiple pages. The primary function, to allow for meaningful sorting of imprecise dates, is not impacted. The removal of the stylization reduces post-expand size by 70-150KB+ on lists that use this template repeatedly. Tables don't really need all these fancy highlights to convey the information, not if the cost is to split the table in two and reduce the ability to sort them in the first place. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Eh, I'm a fan of fancy highlighting and visual aesthetics, but I'm a bigger fan of sortable tables, which splitting over two pages completely wrecks. --PresN 17:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hidden revisions? Scandalous! (Stay civil, guys.) JOEBRO64 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't this section, it was the exclusive column vote up above. --PresN 01:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

small problem

Observer (video game)'s sources say it was released for all platforms on launch day, but others (none look reliable so far) say that it released for Linux and OS later. What to do about this? Cognissonance (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Here you go, from the publisher/port dev: [42]. --PresN 01:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@PresN: Thank you so much! Cognissonance (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete Resident Evil novels

There are two pages for Resident Evil novels. Resident Evil: Caliban Cove and Resident Evil: Underworld, I haven't had any luck finding info on it. But i'm new. I noticed video game novels (with the exception of Halo) have been important enough to have their own pages. Should these two pages get deleted? Maybe someone knows more about these novels than I do and has more info for them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I redirected Underworld to the respective section on the main RE article, since it was literally just two sentences and zweo citations. Wouldn't be opposed to redirect Caliban Cove as well, but that seems more controversial so it should be dicussed. Lordtobi (✉) 20:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The "controversial" one has been unreferenced for half a decade. I see no reason to retain it. --Izno (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok. sounds good to me. Thanks for helping me out.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Atari VCS page/redirect move discussion

There's a discussion on whether Atari VCS should redirect to Atari 2600 or be the title for the article currently at Atari VCS (2018 console).

I'd welcome contributions- you can read it and take part here. Ubcule (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Cloud Strife

I have been finding new information about the character of Cloud Strife set around his origins and also tried rearranging his reception section. I have been wondering if this article could become a FA in a future considering there its use of out of universe information. However, I'm pretty sure I can't do it due to its large size and the fact English is not my first language. I already left a note in the Square Enix project regarding this, but I would also like to hear more comments. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Image crop

I wanted to address a minor disputed I recently had with @PhilipTerryGraham: over the image File:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle.jpg. PTG insisted that the image we present in a game's infobx should match with what the consumer actually picks up at GameStop (e.g.), while I think that, as long as it is available, the full cover art should be shown. I retrieved the former image directly from Ubisoft's channels, while PTG's version is a manual crop of my image, as far as I can tell. In general, how should be proceed for such cases? Should we future-proof the image in case they ever release on another platform (and as such are no longer bound to the Swtich's box ratio), or keep the actually-on-box approach? Lordtobi (✉) 21:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is any rule relating to this. Personally, I prefer a complete art, with no extraneous logos (ESRB, PEGI, platform banners, etc.) where possible simply because it looks nicer and makes the article seem more professional. The purpose of infobox artwork is just identification though. Being cropped slightly or having a fuller image doesn't really matter to much. Basically, if there is nothing noticeably wrong with the image, then don't change it is my stance. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
If we're pulling digital art from the copyright holder (which is good), we should not modify to remove key markings or logos. That could be taken as a trademark violation by the trademark holder. (This is different from stripping console box art markets specific to the console like the Xbox header, that's not integral of the original art). --Masem (t) 22:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not about logos, in this case, as the image provided by Ubisoft already lacks all kinds of them and is a naked boxshot. Lordtobi (✉) 22:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I would go with the version that more closely matches the dimensions of the box art, so PTG's version. I say this because sometimes the cover images are part of much larger render and where/how do we draw the line with what is acceptable there. TarkusABtalk 22:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If a suitable English-language cover art already exists on the subject page, then do not waste time replacing it with a different version per WP:VGBOX. If a preference is needed, then I'd probably side more with the full cover art. If we want to go with what the consumer would see at retail, then we might as well just use a scan of the box itself. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

DLC Stories

What is the project's opinion on adding summaries of DLC stories? Dissident93 brought this up after one was written for Horizon Zero Dawn and I'm curious what everybody thinks. Cognissonance (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I only have a problem with it because from what I've seen, they seem to be as long as the base story's summary (which is often already larger than ideal). If it's concise, I don't have any issue with it, but I wouldn't oppose any efforts to remove them either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • They should be included, because they are part of the game. Of course, they should be given due weight. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I had trouble with that with Final Fantasy XV. But I think I've solved it there, if you want an example. But given the size of the overall narrative, it's highly condensed. Unless everything else is bloated. It's the first time I've done it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a doubt. If the DLC was quite bigger than the regular game, would it gain potential to have its own article? I mean, it would be similar to the Street Fighter games that gain expansions with more characters and balances to the gameplay.Tintor2 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This could be true as well. When I first saw this, I went to check how Witcher 3 handled it, since I recalled it being a GA. And in the end, they didn't handle it, they really just linked to it's stand-alone articles for the expansions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If the DLC is significant story content, such as the GTA IV Episodes, or BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea, where there is significant attention to the DLC as if it were a standalone product, then a reasonably concise plot summary is fair. If we're talking what is really a few extra hours of content but doesn't significantly expand the story, like the add-on for Portal 2, then it can be briefly summarized, but should not be lengthy. --Masem (t) 19:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @Cognissonance: If the DLC is notable, then it should have its own article. However, if the DLC is not notable, then its plot is not worthy of notice and should not have its own section in the article of the base game. Also, per WP:DUE, if the plot is not a significant story content but the DLC is indeed notable, then the plot should be merged into the gameplay section of the DLC article. If you need some examples, I recommend you to check some of the Mass Effect 2 DLC articles. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    However, if the DLC is not notable, then its plot is not worthy of notice and should not have its own section in the article of the base game. Notability does not dictate inclusionary principles in particular article nor does it dictate article structure. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    In a way, yes it does because WP:PRIMARY sources don't establish notability. According to the policy, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Because the article's The Frozen Wilds section is assumed to be sourced to the DLC itself (a primary source), WP:SECONDARY sources are needed to give it WP:DUE weight. As the article currently stands, the The Frozen Wilds section has four paragraphs based on primary sources vs. two sentences in the release section based on secondary sources. In my opinion, that's undue weight. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Then dispute the coverage as WP:UNDUE, not as not-notable, which is entirely unrelated to article content (besides that the topic of the article must have notability which is established by the same sources which tell you that content is WP:DUE). --Izno (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Both policies are related because they are based on secondary sources, but yeah, disputing the coverage as undue (instead of non-notable) is certainly less confusing. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Describe it proportionally to the amount of coverage it gets. A piece of story DLC that does not get a lot of attention in news outlets etc might be best described in a sentence or two, one with slightly more might be described in a paragraph. Spin out as its own article if there's enough coverage+things to say about it.--Alexandra IDVtalk 15:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Simplifying the exclusivity column in video game lists

So user Mordecairule (talk · contribs) says I should have a proper discussion about simplifying the stupidly over-complicated exclusivity columns in video game list articles (mainly the PS4 and XB1), so here I am. Even if not for some of the prior discussions on the List of Nintendo Switch games talk page, which I believe most were in favor of applying to other similar lists, I'm really not sure why Mordecairule is arguing to keep it. We don't need six values (including two redundant ones) to explain something that is either an exclusive (yes) or not (no). His argument that "it's been here for more than five years" is not valid, as one could just look at the mess that is the List of PlayStation 3 games WP:CONTENTFORK bloat to see that something being bad for a long time shouldn't be used as an excuse to keep it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I expressed the same point as Mordecairule on your talk page in January. My proposal was to broaden the discussion to include additional opinion because not everyone is aware of the conversation that transpired on the Nintendo Switch page.
Exclusivity columns are useful to inform visitors which console they will need to have in order to play Mario, Gears of War, or Uncharted. This extends not only to full exclusives but also console exclusives and timed exclusives, which you appear to want to eradicate entirely. An example of a timed exclusive is Rise of the TombRaider or PlayerUnknown Battlegrounds on Xbox One. The language simply reflects that a developer and publisher have stuck a deal to bring these titles to their platform first before releasing on other platforms at a later date. When the deal expires or new, reliable information becomes available, the column is updated to refelct that the game is no longer exclusive. An example of a console exclusive would be Helldivers which was in part funded and published by Sony on PlayStation 4 and PC, or Robocraft Infinity because the developer has explicitly said, in addition to PC, that Xbox One is the only console their game will ever release on.
Perhaps if you could explain in more detail why you think denoting titles in this manner is redundant so we could have a better handle on your position? — Niche-gamer 11:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed that the main argument for keeping this sort of thing (and the physical/digital media column) has been just because "it helps shoppers make informed choices", which should never be used as one, as Wikipedia is not a buyers guide like Serge said. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
"Exclusivity columns are useful to inform visitors which console they will need to have in order to play Mario, Gears of War, or Uncharted. " - That sounds an awful lot like WP:NOTGUIDE content - Wikipedia is not a catalogue or a buyers guide. Personally, I think we should simplify it to "Yes" or "No", or remove it altogether. In my experience, what we've got now is poorly maintained and commonly misunderstood, and isn't much more than console wars type boasting. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Why on Earth would a potential buyer come to the "List of Switch games" article, looking for information on whether a given game was going to be released on another console soon? And not check the article on that game itself? "Exclusive: Y/N" I can see the argument for, since "console exclusives" are sometimes used to indicate the relative popularity/impact of a console, but they are usually unmaintained as well so I'd be open to dropping it altogether. The multi-color "exclusive" or "timed exclusive" or "only on Nintendo consoles" or "exclusive except for PC don't think about it too hard" or "on consoles by more than one company" is unmaintained, unmaintainable console fanboy nonsense. --PresN 14:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
We could say the same thing about many different list articles on Wikipedia. List of Nintendo 3DS colors and styles; lists that denote Move support; list of Iwata Asks interviews; lists of Nintendo Direct presentations; lists that denote PS4 Pro and Xbox One X support. What is the rational for keeping some exclusives but disbarring others? If we are going to apply the rules uniformly then we should scrap the exclusivity column entirely. — Niche-gamer
That's textbook WP:OSE - we're not discussing all of Wikipedia's garbage lists, we're discussing this particular issue. (And no one has specifically voiced support for these otherr things anyway- I certainly don't think we should have "List of color of consoles" articles.) Anyways, I'm fine with removing it entirely, but the point of switching it to "yes" or "no" would simply be, its either exclusive or its not. If its playable anywhere else, then it'd be a no. So itd really only really be "Yes" for your Super Mario Odyssey and your Uncharted 4 type games. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Get rid of it altogether. It's fanboy cruft. - X201 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily knock exclusivity, it is a defining feature of the console wars, but I fully agree than on what is to be a quick reference table, that anything more than "Yes"/"No" (Yes for anything fully exclusive to the console, and not considered time exclusivity or later ports like the recent Crash remasters) is overkill. --Masem (t) 15:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. By the way, this ultimately should be captured somehow in MOS:VG if a decision regarding video game platform lists is reached, which means it needs discussed there. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
For everybody going with yes/no, does that exclude going with the "available on other Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft platforms" thing too? I don't think it's as bad as the others, but it's still technically a "no" if you can get it on another platform, and therefore would help ease of maintenance. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
To me, "exclusivity" is basically saying that the game was purposely designed only for a specific platform (either technical or licensing deals); if it happened later after the typical 2-some-yr life that they opted to port it to other consoles, it was still originally an exclusive title to the original console, which is where exclusivity is important (eg the Crash Bandicoot games still were PS2 exclusives, even though their remasters are for multiple platforms).. This thus should exclude time exclusivity deals. --Masem (t) 21:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that answers the question or not. I think what Dissident93 is asking is, in addition to a straight Yes or No, do we further agree to retain Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony exclusive games. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild would normally be denoted as "Nintendo" exclusive, and not Switch exclusive, because it's available on multiple Nintendo systems. — Niche-gamer 21:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it's exclusivity to the family, not the console, that's more important. --Masem (t) 21:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it's "exclusive to the [Switch] or not", aka "you have to have the console this list is about in order to play this game". I don't think it matters if the "other system this game is playable on" is produced by Nintendo or Sony or [insert massive multinational conglomerate here]; it's not a Switch so it's a "no" for "exclusive to this list's console". --PresN 22:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with PresN. Exclusitivity only matters in so far as "You must have this specific device". Being on two Nintendo consoles has no more importance than being on a single Nintendo and single Microsoft. It's still on two consoles at that point. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Also agree, if it's available on another platform (no matter whose), it's not an exclusive to the platform in question. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
So to be clear, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild would be marked as No on both the Wii U list and the Switch list? I must disagree with that decision. It should be denoted as a Nintendo exclusive. — Niche-gamer 17:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
But why? It's not exclusive to the Switch (or Wii U). It should either be a yes or no (or checkmark/x) in the column, nothing more. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
But the game is exclusive to the Nintendo family of consoles (i.e. you must have a Nintendo system to play it). We can accommodate two type of exclusive game without the column looking unwieldy, surely? It won't require a lot of maintenance either. Moreover, I would do away with the No altogether and just leave the space blank. — Niche-gamer 10:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it is exclusive to Nintendo consoles, but it's not worth sharing on the list. It's a list of Switch games, it's exclusive to the system or not. You can get very gray with it and reliable sources don't usually discuss "exclusivity" in those terms so why should we. TarkusABtalk 11:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but why does this have to be noted? You could be more general and say it's exclusive to eighth generation of video game consoles too, but how does that improve the list at all? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

While we are here can we try and reach agreement regarding the multitude of companion articles and merge them into the main game list? I see little point in having separate lists for Pro/XB1X when enhanced titles can easily be tagged in the main article. Same with PlayStation Camera and Kinect supported games. There is an add-on column for this kind of supplemental info. — Niche-gamer 15:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Going off-topic a bit, but yes I'd support this. They are actually almost always noted in sources, but they really don't deserve their own special list either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the reasoning seems fine as described above. Now that I see more opinions on the matter...so thanks for taking the time to discuss it here. I'm okay with "simplifying" the lists to remove the "console" exclusive designation, but I do also share the same opinion with Niche-gamer that the designation of "Nintendo", or "Microsoft" exclusive should be kept. I believe there is value add in noting that something like Mario Kart, which is available on Switch and WiiU is still Nintendo exclusive and you need a Nintendo product to play it. Mordecairule 15:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's best if the exclusivity designations are dropped from the tables entirely. As excessive as the current system is, it at least lends a degree of clarity to the term, so that we don't have constant disagreements over whether or not a game counts as an exclusive if it is emulated on another platform, or if it's included in a compilation on another platform, or if it appears on one home console and one handheld, or if a manufacturer has an exclusivity agreement for it, etc., as seen in the debating of the last several posts. In short, exclusivity is much too complicated a concept to be addressed with something so crude as checklist columns.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That makes 3 editors who would rather delete the column altogether. Readers can visit the game page to discover platform availability. — Niche-gamer 14:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that a yes or no column does have encyclopedic value, my intention with these discussions was to simplify the six-answer format that's prevalent on these lists, not to remove them entirely. That being said, I wouldn't oppose consensus if this is what we decide to do in the future, but it's going to take more than three people to change that, I would think. As there have been no real support for keeping the current format (besides Niche-gamer, who now apparently wishes to remove the column entirely), I will go ahead and simplify them to the yes/no/company exclusive format again for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I like your idea and have wished it was a long-term solution, but People seem to want to go as far as eliminating them altogether. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking every people here were using the wrong arguments trying to get rid of the exclusivity column from the tables. I have yet to see a direct argument for/against it. First, the exclusivity counting number was the true root cause of "console war" thing. Second, exclusivity yes/no in the table is a convenient data, it allows the readers whether to look any further into the game article for the full list of platform applicable. The article has a chance of not existing on Wikipedia yet, aka redlink. Exclusivity status is a list of platforms in disguise. I'm quite unhappy with that people already went ahead and mass removing exclusivity columns from every game list without giving it a second thought. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 20:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Vote

This block reads messy. Why don't we try a vote please. Support: Keep the exclusivity column where it is. Oppose: Reform the column in some way. Eliminate: Remove entirely. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ranting; worst edits deleted
Constructive??? Y'know this place has really gone downhill fast ever since I started here. At the very least don't leave Unreleased by itself. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Removing

So, after about a week, it looks like we've got a pretty strong consensus to remove. Ferret removed the column from the Switch list, but there's still a bunch of others to be removed. Its pretty easy to delete an entire column with the visual editor, but it always tends to freeze on me when I try doing it on my devices over here? Can someone assist? Other ones include:

  1. List of PS4 games  Done
  2. List of Xbox One games  Done
  3. List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc  Done (Is there really not a list for all PS3 games? I can't find it.)
  4. List of download-only PlayStation 3 games  Done
  5. List of Xbox 360 games  Done
  6. List of Wii U games  Done
  7. List of Wii games  Done
  8. List of PS2 games  Done
  9. List of Xbox games  Done
  10. List of GameCube games  Done
  11. List of PlayStation VR games

Those were most of what I found in my initial search, though there could be more. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

PS4 is done. Niche-gamer had gotten two of them, I got the last one just now. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Using the VisualEditor, it takes 5-10 minutes with no indication of its progress until it's finished for me (depends on CPU I guess?), but I can do the rest. Also, the other half of the PS3 list is in the List of download-only PlayStation 3 games page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Unmarked a few of these, not done yet. VE takes me 10-20 seconds to remove a column, will work on them. -- ferret (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Might be because I use syntax highlighting? I'll let you finish the rest. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Found a bug in the VE method. When a row has a hidden note in front of it, such as the numeric/letter headings people leave in the tables for navigation, it causes the wrong column to be removed. I'm handling it manually. Some notes below. -- ferret (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the ones with the colored cells have to be manually fixed. For the Wii U list, I just used a replace all add-on. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: Xbox One is at 1,871,092/2,097,152 bytes for template post-expand. It will need cleanup or splitting soon. Possibly was broken but has been fixed for now by this removal and other minor tweaks.
Could we maybe remove references from games that have been out for 2-3 years? Not sure if a reference from 2014 announcing a game will be released is really needed 4 years later now that the game has released. This would help remove a lot of unnecessary character counts. Thoughts? Mordecairule 16:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mordecairule: On the Switch list, we removed sourcing for blue linked articles where the sourcing was in place and maintained. Be careful of redirects that appear to go to an article but may not be properly sourced there. A word of caution though, that this isn't 100% acceptable if a list was aiming for Featured status. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Some notes. -- ferret (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I kind of already did this on the Switch list. For any game that had both an announcement source and release date source, I just removed the announcement source as the one with the release date always mentions the platform too, making others redundant. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93:, @Ferret: We might want to split up the XB1 list. It seems really close already, and the more games and references added to help it reach a possible consideration for featured list, the quicker it will cross the threshold soon. Mordecairule 19:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget List of Dreamcast games.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mordecairule 15:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed some more:

  1. List of Atari Jaguar games  Done
  2. List of Xbox games on Windows Phone  Done
  3. List of Kinect games for Xbox 360  Done
  4. List of Kinect games for Xbox One  Done
  5. List of Xbox Live Arcade Kinect games  Done
  6. List of PlayStation Move games  Done
  7. List of PlayStation 3 games with 3D support  Done

Continuing search to ensure all lists are updated Mordecairule 15:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got most of them listed on Lists of video games, but I am sure there may be some lists that were not listed there that may have slipped through the cracks. Guess we can just handle them as they come up. One last one needing to be done is List of PC games, which has a separate page for each letter, so may take a few minutes.Mordecairule 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
PC Games list is  Done. But wow, for as much as people love to add bloat to lists, this is woefully incomplete and basically devoid of any sourcing (besides a column for its Metacritic score which I also removed, hopefully without controversy). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been working really extensively on the PS2 games page which is how I ended up here. I think it's unfair that a handful of users can decide to make such a big change on a page they don't even visit or edit just because they don't like it. For example, one person's reason was that it was a "fanboy cruft". No it isn't. I use the exclusive column to know which of those games I can only get on that console. If a PS2 game is also available on PS3 or PS4, then I would prefer to play it on that system. The exclusive column was simple and informative. I don't have a network of Wikipedia friends to tag in a vote to come support my decision like you guys do. Dilute13 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a characterization of what happened. It's some minor whim by "a handful of users" Around ten people participated in a discussion that spanned over a week. Also, no one "tagged in their friends". Participants were people who frequently edit video game related articles and frequently discuss video game related issues here. No "friends" were "tagged". Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
If you mean the pings I added, note that they all commented above, I was just asking for them to comment again so their opinions would be made clear (as was the purpose of the votelist). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
You could've at least mentioned this on the Talk page for the PS2 games. I've spent a lot of time and effort working on that page. Then I could've come voted and I could've forwarded it to several people I know who also care about keeping the exclusive columns on video game pages but instead you guys kept it in your little inner circle. This is one of the big problems of Wikipedia. I remember reading an article about it a few years. Wikipedia is declining and less people are editing pages because a small core group of people just override everything and back each other up for decisions so casual editors have no power and get frustrated and give up. Dilute13 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you have an argument for keeping it beyond "it's useful"? There's been policy based reasons stated for removing it, and anything can be reversed if the right arguments are presented, rooted in policies and guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
You're asking for the impossible. "It's useful" precisely. There wasn't even a single right argument that'd go against exclusive column, policies used in people's arguments are pretty farfetched as I see. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 11:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be the only person who really regularly maintains the ps2 list, so a notification there would have only lead to a pretty strong 10-1 consensus in favor of removing - nothing would have changed. And you act like we're deleting the whole list or something. A majority of the list (and assumably your hard work) is still intact. But please spare us the "this is why Wikipedua is declining" routine - that's the go-to excuse for people when they don't get their way. True or false, it just sounds like sour grapes these days. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a couple more that still need to be done:

  1. List of cancelled Atari Jaguar games
  2. List of Atari Jaguar homebrew games

I'd do them myself but I don't know the quick-and-easy method of doing so.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • VisualEditor has a feature that can delete columns and leave the rest of the table intact (although it can be buggy at times and requires a manual fix, see above). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Follow up

Something about this needs added to MOS:VG, however it was discussed here rather than at the MOS talk page. I'm thinking there needs to be some sort of section on expectations for VG list, such as no-catalog-like columns such as exclusivity, physical release, etc. Encapsulating it there will go a long way towards the repeated discussions on those topics. -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay

Hi. I don't edit Video Games articles much so am unfamiliar with a few guidelines regarding them. I am running through the {{GAR request}} backlog and have come across Age of Empires III. I know plot summaries don't need references, but what about Gameplay sections. My gut feeling is that they do as some things are open to interpretation. For example Buildings play a big role in gameplay. Given the number of reviews available for a game like Age of Empires it should not be difficult to do find references and some could probably even be sourced to the manual. Note that there are other issues with this article which fail the criteria, I just wanted to double check this one. AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Yeah, they need to be sourced - interpreting and analyzing the workings of the gameplay ourselves is original research. We typically cite reviews, and sometimes fill in with a game's manual if some extra detail is needed.--Alexandra IDVtalk 21:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the super quick reply. I thought as much, but just wanted to check. AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A consideration for game lists

Related to the issue of console exclusivity above, but also to lists like 2018 in video gaming I would like to suggest discussion on the inclusion of (principally) indie titles where the only "news" about them is twitter/social media, or dev blogs, or basically where none of our RSes cover this - this should not be taken the same as notability, I'm sure there's a few major indie games that are well covered but no one here has bothered to make the article yet. But when all we talk about a game is that the dev has announced a date or it is coming, that game is likely not going to be notable, even though that could change in the future. This is probably less a problem for pre 7th-gen consoles where there was no digital store, but between Steam, PSN, Xbox Live, eShop, as well as mobile apps, we have to recognize it is possible to publish a game with a minimal amount of funds and not end up getting any coverage (we are never going to have articles for all 10k+ Steam games)

We'd have to carefully make sure that if we do eliminate such games we stress on the article pages that the lists are not meant to be inclusive, but it makes these lists generally stronger in the long run. --Masem (t) 00:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

So, WP:LSC? --Izno (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
(And we should have some reasonably cutoff so that we don't lose games from some older age where publishing was harder.) --Izno (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I definitely think this should be 7th gen and older, so .. 2005 onward? --Masem (t) 04:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Home-brew games

I didn't think we were suppose to have homebrew games, I noticed in the list above there was one for List of Atari Jaguar homebrew games, does this not fail the notability guidelines? Govvy (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It's a list of unofficial games compiled from unreliable sources. TarkusABtalk 14:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
And a couple of the games on the list I am sure aren't homebrew, like Another World, Govvy (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Retro Gamer issue 26 (June 2006) features a great ten-page feature about the Jaguar which is primarily about its (then) ongoing success among enthusiasts. There are a lot of reasons why the Jaguar fanbase is notable, though this extents beyond homebrew games. The open source status of the console does greatly benefit this aspect in particular, though. Retro Gamer also lists 73 Jaguar games in this issue, but doesn't differentiate between homebrew and published games. Rather than lists, I think an article or two about the Jaguar fanbase may be more appropriate. A list of homebrew games is nigh impossible to source, after all. ~Mable (chat) 19:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
What specifically about the Jaguar fanbase warrants an article? I don't think the level of an article like EarthBound fandom fits with the Jaguar community. What're you suggesting? ~ P*h3i (📨) 21:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
If we were to create such an article purely based on the 2006 Retro Gamer article (which of course we wouldn't be), we would write about how the openness of the system allowed such a fanbase to grow, about JagFest, about the Atari Museum, and about people like Jason Smith, Mickey Murray, Karl Morris, and Curt Vendel. This is just one article, source, though, so if this is all, we should stick to Atari Jaguar#Legacy. Expanding this section and eventually doing a WP:SS split would be an option, though. It mostly depends on if anyone is interested digging up more sources and working on these articles. I'd be happy to share scans of the Retro Gamer article I got.

As of the list of homebrew games: right now, I think the best option is probably to remove all non-notable entries and merge the list into List of Atari Jaguar games, as the source I got here doesn't differentiate between homebrew and officially published games either. ~Mable (chat) 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Except half the links are not exactly homebrew, they are just ports of games there were already developed on other consoles. Govvy (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
So we should remove any game like that and merge any remaining to the main games list. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Characters of StarCraft

Characters of StarCraft, 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) 00:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

LCD Games from The Legend of Zelda

Sorry again to bring up random topics every now and then but this one peaked my interest. Would it be better to show an image of the actual LCD game instead of the box? Like Game boy and Game boy Color?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, probably both. A cover for the infobox, and a screenshot of the gameplay for somewhere else in the article. That's just my 2 cents though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I was confused how it should be treated. A console or a game cartridge/Disc.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
A picture of an LCD game can be treated the same way as these beautiful Evan Amos pictures: a piece of (public domain) hardware. Perhaps a picture like this one could be added to the article? ~Mable (chat) 17:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
That is a very nice picture. Looks like it came out of a catalog.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

understand Polish?

I need some Polish sources mined for info. Can someone help? Just add the most important things in bullet points under each link. To help clarify things that would be lost in Google Translate. Cognissonance (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

http://gamemusic.pl/observer-premierowy-wywiad-z-arkadiuszem-reikowskim/

https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/wiadomosci/artykul/observer-bloober-team-hollywood-zero-gravity,253,0,2394109.html

http://forsal.pl/biznes/aktualnosci/artykuly/1058824,bloober-team-premiera-gry-observer-z-udzialem-rutgera-hauera-15-sierpnia.html

https://gamedot.pl/news,studio-bloober-team-z-paszportem-polityki-za-gre-observer

Hi @Cognissonance:, I've taken a sneak peek at the work you've already done at Observer (video game) and am mightily impressed. I'm more than happy to give you some tips and tricks on how to squeeze those Polish sources for every last drop of info.

  1. I will preface this by saying that I do not speak Polish either so in that respect we are in the same boat. I have circumvented this through a variety of techniques.
  2. Use Google Translate for sources where you can copy/paste the text. Sometimes the formatting comes out a bit wacko so you need to ensure (for example) that no sentences are split between two lines because it will affect the translation.
  3. In general, translations come out quite good and you can work out what the source is saying. In some cases there are a few vague passages, or terms unique to the Polish video gaming culture that lose their meaning because the words are translated literally. (One example particularly pertinent to the 90's games I've been working on is the "Commodity Exchange" - a marketplace of bazaars and such where bootlegged games were bought and sold; this term popped out of the translator as "Stock Exchange". If you are unsure, you can either skip over those passages or to ask a Polish-speaker to check your interpretation.
  4. Copy-pasting a translated section from Google Translate is considered a copyright violation (afaik). So yeah, that's a thing.
  5. It is not advisable to simply take a guess at the meaning, although of course when understanding any translated text it will be a useful skill to use deductive reasoning skills to work out what the word "should have been". An example is in a Polish review that praised the game's "climate" - I worked out it meant the game's "atmosphere".
  6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland (English Wikipedia's Polish Wikiproject) and Wikiprojekt:Gry komputerowe (Polish Wikipedia's video gaming Wikiproject) are your friends.
  7. Where you have a link to a book or a magazine, you can ask those two Wikiprojects if they have a copy on hand. For Tajemnica Statuetki, I actually typed in the Secret Service review and interview into Google Translate word by word to get every piece of info. I wouldn't advise this, but it is a possible solution that doesn't require others donating their time and effort for free.
  8. If it's something audio or visual (a podcast or a YouTube video), then your only shot is by kindly asking someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland or Wikiprojekt:Gry komputerowe to transcribe it for you.
  9. Polish sources aren't really listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. I mean, a few are like Gry Online but in that case I think it is incorrectly in the "Unreliable source" section. It might be worthwhile to list those sources above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to ensure the community acknowledges their reliability.

Hope this helps! I would offer to mine those sources myself, but I'm a bit preoccupied with my own projects. (This is something you will unfortunately see a bit of at a volunteer place like Wikipedia so those points above should help you reach a level of self-sufficiency that will increase productivity while relying less on others)--Coin945 (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Coin945: Thanks for the tips, I'll take them to heart. Cognissonance (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Review Thread 35

No clever subtitle this time.

FAC
FLC
GAN
FAR/GAR

And, as is always important, there is still the Requests board that is always in constant backlog. So if you want an article idea to write about and want to help minimize the backlog, help is always welcome. GamerPro64 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, team "Sega" is really moving out there. About half the GA/FA noms are Sega related! Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Even if you subtract ProtoDrake's Sakura Wars series, it's still just as impressive because a further 4 Sonic articles have marched through GAN in the last 2 months. --PresN 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@PresN: I just hope my Sakura Wars projects come through. It's bloody difficult writing about Japan-exclusive games from that long ago. It was almost as difficult as getting Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love to GA. It's a blessing they were and are still such a sensation there. Wonder if Sega'll ever revive it or port them to Steam? --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The Sonic 4 episodes are coming next, in case people were wondering... 😀 JOEBRO64 00:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll have a look the requests board over Easter. Of course, I might have more incentive to write more articles if my GAN was accepted *hint* *hint* Regards SoWhy 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
On that note as well, I'm still needing more feedback on Sonic X-treme. The FAC has been open for nearly two months and it has supports, but likely not enough feedback to establish itself and pass the FA process. I would really appreciate some more input to make it the best article it can be. Red Phoenix talk 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Red Phoenix:, I'm taking a look at Sonic X-treme. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I really wish these were done in a more natural manner by having the fixes and suggestions done on the fly rather than reviewed, posted, and expecting the nominator to fix it themselves. But I suppose there is merit in that? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Monster Hunter template issues

There is a constant stream of IP editors changing Template:Monster Hunter series to have Monster Hunter Generations in the 5th spot in the main series, despite it being confirmed by the devs that Monster Hunter World is the 5th mainline game. If there are any admins around, I feel it needs permanent semi protection.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've protected it for 3 months, which is a bit of a jump for a first round of protection, but it's long term and slow boil. Ping me after 3 months if it returns. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: Monster Hunter needs addressed as well. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It'd probably be good to document/explain this on the template's talk page though at least. Linking to the source that backs what you say may help a little bit going forward. It doesn't appear that any of this has been fully discussed/explained on the talk page, and it should be. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Here is the source that proves it Why Monster Hunter: World isn’t called Monster Hunter 5. The key sentence is: "And getting that audience meant, for its creators, not calling the game Monster Hunter 5, despite it functioning as the fifth main game in the series." I don't think it was ever up for debate though beyond the vandal's edits, since the title "Monster Hunter: Generations" implies a spinoff, the series has never received a soft reboot until now.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Do take care with the label "vandal". Disagreeing with something doesn't make them a vandal. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not that I doubt you, you don't have to convince me. I'm just saying you need to take the time to better explain it to the people who disagree with you. Since it's largely passerby/IP editors, this probably makes the template talk page the best venue. I agree with Ferret that "vandal" isn't the right term here. There's no reason to believe bad faith is involved here. Again, I'm not arguing with your stance, but there's certainly room for a good faith disagreement with you on this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
There's certainly reason to believe it was bad faith - my rationale for reverting it was totally ignored, and the IP proceeded to revert my edits and do it anyway. So, I would say it's at the very least a disruptive editor until proven otherwise. The onus is not on me to justify my edits, it's on the IP editor who introduced his personal belief on what the games in the series are, which contradicts official statements. I only reverted the spurious edits to a previous version by a respected editor, not introduced new information.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You still need to act in good faith to the user. It's always better to air on the side of caution, and provide sources when you can. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is incorrect use of bad faith/vandalism in the Wikipedia context. Simply disagreeing with you does not by default make it a bad-faith argument. Doubly so when you haven't bothered to explain yourself on the talk page. Bad faith editing would be "I'm deleting Generations because I hate it" or re-naming it "Monster Hunter: Poop" or something silly like that. Not seeing eye to eye on something like "is it mainline or a spinoff" is a good faith disagreement on how to classify something. There's no obvious malice there, and if you can't see that, you're too wrapped up in this to make an objective call. Honestly, you're lucky Ferret helped you - I typically reject requests in which an editor has failed to engage in any meaningful discussion with their detractors, no matter how right or wrong they may be. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry in advance, I made those changes before adding making my own account. the reasoning is that its gameplay is very close to the main Monster Hunter series with small changes and improvements. Monster Hunter is mostly defined by its gameplay. Monster Hunter Generations doesn't imply that its not a main game. I'm also very wary with how developers label main series. Final Fantasy XI is still the "11th entry in the series" even though FFX-2 exist. And in Resident Evil - Code: Veronica is considered part of the main series. Additionally, Kingdom Hearts handheld games continue to the plot of Kingdom Hearts even though theyre not numbered. What I'm trying to get at, even though its not numbered, theres nothing else suggesting Monster Hunter Generations is a spin off. In Japan its called Monster Hunter X (cross). For all we know its 4.5 or so. It would be better to call it a spin off when Capcom calls it one. I understand that Monster Hunter: World is Monster Hunter 5 and intended to be "5" from the developers.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Spin-off should not necessarily be taken to mean "vastly different gameplay", they're just not part of what the developers or publishers would consider the "essential" titles in the series. --Masem (t) 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

i'll go along with what every one thinks is best. my point was there's no evidence that MHgenerations is a spin-off only because its not "MH5".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Either way, could someone familiar with the area tackle Monster Hunter? It's not in sync with the template. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I made Draft:List of Monster Hunter video games like I promised. If it makes it easier for everyone to change the page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be split to a list. The issue is that Generations is listed as main not spin-off on the series article. -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a heated debate apparently in Reddit and GameFaqs. I believe that unless it was announced or described as a spin-off by Capcom in any shape or form, then it belong in the main series. If only we can contact Capcom directly and find out.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Debates on Reddit and Gamefaqs are irrelevant. Masem and Zxcvbnm have provided sources showing that Generations was not considered the fifth game in the main series, by the developers. If its not main series, then its a spinoff. Unless you have a source that counters that, showing Capcom does consider it the fifth game in the main series, then that's that. -- ferret (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The article provided confirms MH:World is MH5 with some references in the game. But that isn't the same thing as confirming MH:Generations is a spin-off or not part of the main series (which could also be two different things too).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll quote the article: "....not calling the game Monster Hunter 5, despite it functioning as the fifth main game in the series." If its the fifth (not sixth) in the main series, then Generations cannot be the fifth game of the main series, regardless of any numbering involved. -- ferret (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of it. -- ferret (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The author of the article confirmed that by his understanding, that's not what Capcom has explicitly said and I was only concerned with what Capcom was saying though. But it looks like you don't want to discuss with me any further, so i'll leave things as is. I don't want to cause problems, I just want to find the truth.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. It's simply that we have secondary reliable sources backing that Worlds is the 5th game in the main series. Not the sixth. We do not have any sourcing that Generations is main series. This can't be countered by "But we don't have sources its a spin-off either". The series article and template should not be out of sync. If you find reliable sourcing that runs counter of this, please share it. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Not the most convincing source in my humble opinion. But I'll keep looking until Capcom makes some form of statement to what it is. The only sources I see is its a 10th anniversary game that brings back previous features of past titles.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Going by such quotes from the article as: "There is still some mention of the game’s place in the series. Your hunter’s platoon is known as The Fifth, as in the fifth group to travel to the new continent, or Fivers, usually by other NPCs inhabiting your base." That's literally something the developers added to the game to allude to the game being the 5th in the series. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
this is just a discussion on how you interpret it. But it was never explicitly stated that it was the "fifth entry" just that the position of the game was #5. And before Monster Hunter World, MH:Generations was considered the next main MH game. Its just now put into question just because the developers intended it to be "5". that's important to me at least because many series use numbering in their game but doesn't mean its not part of the main series. Like all the examples presented before in Resident Evil, Kingdom Hearts etc.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

But I don't want to discuss it any further. I'll look for more information on Monster Hunter: Generations.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

GAR Notice

ZX Spectrum, 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. Indrian (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yearly reminder: GDC + free photos

Once again, the official GDC account at flickr is taking photos of the event this year and posting images CC-BY 2.0 (eg compatible with WP's "free license" and thus can go to Commons as long as any copyrighted elements are minimumized). This is usually a great opp to get photos of devs and other persons of interest in the VG world otherwise hard to get (for example, I know Naoto Ohshima and Hirokazu Yasuhara gave a talk on the origins of Sonic, and both need photos, so watching to see what comes up). The photostream is here [43]. Make sure to categorize them at Commons as "Game Developers Conference 2018" at commons, and if they are known ppl, also include their name as a category. --Masem (t) 00:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the recent changes to Template:Final Fantasy series

Transcribed from SQEX WikiProject so as to gain further input on the matter. It appears to be reaching a deadlock. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about the recent changes to the main FF template here and your feedback is requested. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

PresN has proposed a new format for the navbox, previewed below. Please discuss at the template talk page. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

New parameter on WikiProject template

Just a heads up for everyone, {{WikiProject Video games}} has got a new parameter. We had parameters to request cover art and screenshots, but not one that covered the need for an image of a person, a piece of hardware or a location. |needs-photo=yes now covers that need, adding it to the template will populate Category:Video game articles requesting photos. There's a lot of hardware (especially older stuff) that need photos, ditto our biographies. - X201 (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That does sound like a good addition. Can maybe someone update Template:WikiProject Video games/rater-data.js accordingly? I can't make heads or tails of it. Regards SoWhy 09:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. --PresN 21:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
That is very cool. *thumbs up*Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation of APIs

Comments etc sought at Talk:Vulkan (API)/Archive 1#Requested move 23 March 2018. Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Video game curse opinions?

I feel like this article is unnecessary considering there still needs to be some significant work done at Video game film. The part about a "curse" can be mentioned there without requiring an entire article about it, which is mostly just example cruft. However, I also think calling it a "curse" is confusing to readers, not only because it can be confused with curse status ailments in video games, but because it's more along the lines of "clueless Hollywood execs" and not "angry voodoo witch doctors".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It really should just be deleted. Or create disambig with links to Film adaptation#Video game adaptation, Curse (video game), and Magic (gaming). TarkusABtalk 15:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I really have never heard of "video game film adaptions" having a curse at all, only that VG film adaptions are generally often bad. I agree that as it stands, the title of that article is far too confusing and complicated against other uses of "curse" as a gameplay term. --Masem (t) 15:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with removal. Delete or redirect, whatever. But it shouldn't have its own article like this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Never heard of it referred to as a "curse". Send to AFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

L.A. Noire

L.A. Noire, 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) 23:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ping for WP:VG/Requests

There is a bit of a backlog at WP:VG/R. Help clear out the oldest articles by creating them today!--Coin945 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

September 2015

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

GameFAQs is not a reliable source. However, the game is reviewed in GamePro 99 (December 1996), Next Generation 24 (December 1996), and Electronic Gaming Monthly 88 (November 1996). Mobygames lists several more reviews that we can try looking up, most of them for the Windows version of the game. There's also a one-page preview in Next Generation 22 (October 1996).--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The game was also a runner-up for EGM's "Best Original Concept" award in 1996, as noted in issue 92 (March 1997). It's looking more and more likely that this meets notability requirements.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ric. "First look: Trixter XDream exercise bike". BikeRadar.
  2. ^ MuscleFitNutrition (26 July 2013). "Trixter X Dream Interactive Exercise Bike Review". Muscle Fitness and Nutrition.
  3. ^ "Dave Turner on interactive indoor cycling with the Trickster Xdream - Life and style - The Guardian". the Guardian.
  4. ^ Staff, I. G. N. (14 November 2000). "Rocky Interactive Horror Show". Retrieved 22 October 2016.
  5. ^ "Saturday Crapshoot: The Rocky Horror Show". Retrieved 22 October 2016.
  6. ^ "The Rocky Interactive Horror Show Review by metzomagic.com". Retrieved 22 October 2016.
  7. ^ "Rocky Interactive Horror Show for Windows (1999) - MobyGames". Retrieved 22 October 2016.
  8. ^ "TimeWarp - The Rocky Interactive Horror Show Game". Retrieved 22 October 2016.
  9. ^ "TimeWarp - The Rocky Interactive Horror Show Game - First Look Review". Retrieved 22 October 2016.
  10. ^ "The 10 Most Unlikely Video Games Based on Movies and TV Shows - The Robot's Voice". 4 March 2014. Retrieved 22 October 2016.
  11. ^ "Amazing Learning Games with Rayman for DOS (1996) - MobyGames". Retrieved 22 October 2016.
  12. ^ "Software and CD-ROM Reviews on File". Facts on File, Incorporated. 1 January 1997. Retrieved 22 October 2016 – via Google Books.
  13. ^ "Complete Sourcebook on Children's Software". Active Learning Associates, Incorporated. 1 January 1999. Retrieved 22 October 2016 – via Google Books.
  14. ^ "Children's Software Revue". Active Learning Associates. 1 January 1993. Retrieved 22 October 2016 – via Google Books.

Proposal for project entitled "ViGoR" (Video Games of Refinement)

In the vein of Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement (TAFI) that I co-founded, my proposal is for a daily improvement drive of stubs and starts throughout WP:VG - articles sorely needing attention.

  1. This would be 100% automated, not requiring users to do any of the leg work except improve the articles. I forgot what TAFI used, but essentially they sought help from a Wikiproject who programmed everything to run automatically.
  2. The algorithm will choose a WP:VG stub/start every day and add it to the WP:VG/Vigor page every day.
  3. After seven days an item is automatically removed and archived. (There will be 7 articles listed on the page at any one time).
  4. A table is created ala this one that shows the accomplishments of each individual article.
  5. Rather than posting each update to the WP:VG talk page, or to user's talk pages, there will be a perminent link in the WP:VG infobox and on the WP:VG main page, which community members can click to see the current ViGoR articles.
  1. This will encourage improvement for random stub/start articles, offer something interesting for users to work on if they desire a challenge, and is a topic-specific way of finding such articles (over the "Random Article" button).
  2. This project calls attention to articles in need and offers an opportunity for users to come together to collectively improve certain articles, thereby fostering a sense of community.
  3. This is also a great way for users to address articles that should be sent to AFD by starting that fruitful discussion as soon as they see them at WP:VG/Vigor.
  4. I think this has a lot of potential, so any constructive ideas you have may be added directly to this list (perhaps with your signature for correct attribution) in order to ensure this is the best it can be. You may also refine my statements above.

Please comment your thoughts below.--Coin945 (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

Okay. That sounds fine to me. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no particular objection if it's all automated, but as others have mentioned, we already have multiple efforts related to requesting work from editors (Requests Board, GA Begging, countless ransom threads requesting help) that often go unanswered, so I do y know how much help this will get... Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Im not a fan of how youve refactored the discussion. When I wrote my above comment, it was not in a "Support" section. I'm not sure I'd classify my stance as "support". "Neutral" would probably be more accurate. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment. You're welcome to move it to a "Neutral" section. I just felt that this would be a better structure to see the general trends in the comments in terms of support/opposition.--Coin945 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm all for this, as I feel that articles that are present in this way would be pushed to be improved. We do have some backlogs, but stopping something like this simply because we also have other tasks that need sorting is a bit irrelevant. Maybe we should do a backlog drive for each of those that were mentioned above, where one week we say get people to work on finding screenshots, then logos, etc. Having something in the infobox where we have a "featured article for improvement" can only be a good thing in my eyes. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No harm in trying. TarkusABtalk 22:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see the harm in it, but I wouldn't bet on this being active/popular. I personally wouldn't invest a large amount of time in some Atari Jaguar game that needs a large amount of work for example, as I have no interest in the system. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good idea but instead of a project can it be a task force within WP:VG instead? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Per what I said above-- this could be great, but make sure that this is being brought up each time on WT:VG. Only way I can see any chance of this getting any traction at all. Nomader (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

  • I think that High/Top importance articles might be harder to attack - especially if a community is working on it at the same time. Improving a stub can be as simple as dumping in sources, or adding a paragraph here or there, or adding an infobox. It's not as difficult as copyediting or completely revamping a C class article to make it GA. (AFAIK, most top/high class articles are already pushing the C-class stage). I think it requires a bit more nuance that may not gel with this improvement drive format.--Coin945 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes- Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics. There's ~570 High/Top articles (which is up a bit, historically it's been ~50 Top and ~500 High); 70% are C or higher. 23% are GA+, which is great, but only 1 is a stub, which means any improvement would be the 171 Starts and needs more than adding a couple paragraphs or sources but instead actually taking some time to flesh out something- and High/Top articles tend to be about concepts or bits of history or stuff, which means that it's a lot harder to improve at all then for a fluff video game. --PresN 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is worthwhile. I expect this to be as abandoned as "Today's articles for improvement". GamerPro64 01:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A few things
    1. There is little point in polling for support/oppose as if we're looking for some consensus. If you want to work on something, no one's stopping you. If you want to ask anyone if they're interested in collaborating on low-quality articles, go for it.
    2. I've seen perennial hand-wringing over low-quality articles but I can't say I've ever seen these sort of article suggestion tools move the needle. Edit drives have worked somewhat, but because they engage already active editors in work they already want to do. Turning active editors towards random low-quality articles... doesn't usually sustain much interest.
    3. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement is referenced as some sort of accomplishment, but in the last two years, there have been markedly few instances of actual article improvement. If the goal is to generally improve low-quality articles, this plan has little evidence of being effective.
    4. Before you invest the effort into page setup and bot automation, know that projectspace is littered with stuff like this. Alternatively, you can simply post an article once a day at WT:VG until that either (a) becomes successful, or (b) becomes annoying and everyone asks you to stop. Try to find the path of least resistance to accomplish what you're after.
czar 17:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions and comments from WP:VG

Comments from Wikipedia:Bot requests regarding automation

Targeted stub for improvement

There's some talk in the ViGoR section above about random selection of stubs not being a great way of attracting interest; when I saw that the first thought I had was "well, there's a pretty obvious article to start with if you want more targetted stub selection!"

So, I present to you as an Article for Improvement, the only stub out of nearly 13,000 to be rated as high- or top-priority: Video game writing. It's a weak stub! It can improved to start-class with a half-hour of research! It's a critical component of every narative-based or -inclusive game ever made! I'll admit I'm not holding out a lot of hope- I did actually do a similar past a couple years back about the 5 or so high-class stubs at the time, and the end result was that I personally fixed them up and no one else touched them; I'm interested to see if a smaller sample (that's not, uh, 1960s video games) can get a bigger response. --PresN 01:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I did a little update on it with a Polygon article I found. There are loads of references on the talk page, but they tend to be more on Video game writing. I feel like these should be merged into one article, as they are on the same subject from different viewpoints, and a really good article could be made, in place of two stubs... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an article for screenwriting and screenwriter. Video game development and Video game developer. There seems to be no need to combine the two articles. Either way, I reassessed Video game writer to High importance as well, commensurate with developer.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I also think they should be merged. The two sets of articles you listed happen to both be lengthy, meaning a merge isn't necessary. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
having other media having separate topics as president shouldn't mean we have to too. It may well have been a split as both of those articles are well put together, unlike the two poor stubs we currently have. We have enough sourcing for a good article, but the subjects are very much intwined. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with merge. VG writer and VG writing have identical scopes right now. "Developer" should ostensibly be more about the career and "development", the work they do. But both of those are a mess too and the former should easily be a summary style subset of the latter. (It's like the difference between French people and France, if you have the sourcing.) czar 21:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (8 March to 17 March)

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

8 March

10 March

11 March

12 March

13 March

14 March

15 March

16 March

17 March

This is my last New articles post and I will no longer be updating New article announcements or the New article announcements archive. Hopefully someone else can takeover and continue to bring the new articles into the project. Salavat (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Salavat, thanks for your service! These have been really helpful, if not simultaneously depressing czar 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You're a glutton for punishment if you were doing each of these... thanks for your time. --Izno (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there no way to automate an announcement like this? Perhaps stuff tagged with the WPVG banner plus anything in a handful of categories plus anything in AFC that's tagged as video games? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
There already is, it just doesn't get posted to this talk page so the majority of members here don't read it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that one's manually created, mainly by Salavat who's not doing it anymore. I don't think we're going to get lucky enough to find someone else who wants to do this manually, and it's very useful/interesting to see. There's got to be some tool we can leverage- I know Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality log bot-posts daily "updates" to tagged articles, which includes all assessment changes as well as new tags and isn't as pretty. [55] will generate all articles by timestamp that got the WPVG tag added, but not their class... does anyone know of other tools? --PresN 19:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (March 25, 2018 to March 31, 2018)

Didn't find the chance to update the script this week, so I manually removed page moves from this list. Also, The1337gamer assessed like 300 images yesterday, which made the script hiccup a bit. --PresN 12:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

March 25, 2018

March 26, 2018

March 27, 2018

March 28, 2018

March 29, 2018

March 30, 2018

March 31, 2018


    • I think the Brigitte (Overwatch) breakout from the characters of Overwatch is far far too soon. First, it's essentially the same info from Characters, just broken out into sections. Second, there's little reception about the character at this point, in contrast to most of the other standalone Overwatch characters. We need a higher bar for character notability particularly in a case like this. --Masem (t) 22:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Agree. *Every* new Overwatch character is going to get a deluge of games press coverage simply because it's Overwatch. I think the coverage needs to go above and beyond reporting on mere existence. See Doomfist and Sombra (Overwatch) for examples of new OW characters with more than perfunctory media coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Regional release dates on game lists

In the recent effort to prune "List of games for X console" lists I removed the regional release dates on List of GameCube games. An IP re-inserted them. I'm looking for opinions at Talk:List of GameCube games#Regional dates vs initial date only. TarkusABtalk 16:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we had a discussion about this months back, and there was no consensus to trim out region release dates. I mean, it's completely fine to want to discuss further, but technically, the IP was right to revert... Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Per my response there, I would agree with reducing dates to just the initial one, but I think our view is in the minority and unlikely to change consensus. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Year would be a good idea, the specific dates are in the article and don't need repeating. It would also avoid the list becoming just a North American release list due to the need to always release there first. - X201 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The only reason the PS3 lists hasn't been merged is due to the large amounts of manually work needed to do it all. If a bot can do most of the work, then we can easily clean up the rest. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Redundant lists?

Are these two list redundant:

Or am I missing something? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Although they are probably closely related, "best-selling" ≠ "highest-grossing". While sales may directly impact gross, this is not explicitly discussed in the sources—List of best-selling video game franchises is a list of the franchises that have the most reported sales, while List of the highest-grossing video game franchises is a list of the franchises that made the most money according to sources (which is actually seldom discussed in this industry). Similar, but not redundant. – Rhain ☔ 01:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense. I was pretty sure I wasn't thinking about it carefully, so I appreciate the clarification. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I still think they are redundant. They are close enough in concept to easily be merged into the same article. There doesn't need to be 2 separate lists for this especially considering one of them is pretty short. --TorsodogTalk 02:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Would you suggest merging "highest-grossing" into "best-selling", or a new article entirely? – Rhain ☔ 02:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I feel like incorporating the gross numbers into the "best-selling" list would make the most sense. What are your thoughts?--TorsodogTalk 02:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that would make the most sense, but I'm apathetic. – Rhain ☔ 02:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Free-to-play games can be high-grossing (Dota 2, League, Fortnite BR) but aren't actually sold, so they aren't 100% the same thing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but would you agree that the highest-grossing list could reasonably be merged into the best-selling list as a section in order to have the two closely related concepts on the same page? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of merging game lists...

I meant to post about this here earlier, but I finally got rolling on that proposal to merge the various SNES games lists into one which I talked about here a year ago. All are invited to give their input at Talk:List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games#Merger proposal.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_136&oldid=918449395"