Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 108

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110→Archive 115

Any authority for the concept of a video game "generation"?

I appreciate the convenience of referring to video game consoles by "generation", and it appears to be a pervasive concept on Wikipedia, for example the article Video game console presents the concept as fact with no explanation, and e.g. History of video game consoles (second generation) makes a pretty clear assertion of where that generation starts and ends, presented as a simple fact. The concept seems to shows some weaknesses: it's revisionist and can show a significant US-centric bias (for example in Europe and Japan the 70s and 80s played out very differently and the lines could be drawn very differently).

It's jarring to be informed that a particular piece of hardware is "8th generation". Says who? 8th after what? There's some assumed consensus here.

I know there's no chance of changing this but I'm curious as to whether there's any authority or if it's been discussed at any length (have to assume it has been many times).. moogsi(blah) 06:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

OK on further reading the danger of it being biased towards the US is baseless - it's not that bad, really moogsi(blah) 07:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It's been the commonly used terminology in journalism on the subject since at least History of video game consoles (fifth generation), though I believe the first several generation marks were defined retrospectively. --erachima talk 17:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
When I was looking at this about a year or two ago, my personal research suggests that the term of generations is partially attributed to us, meaning , though more formalized by others since. Our use, prior, was likely from userbases calling them in such manners. However, we're past the point where CIRCULAR becomes an issue as the terms are readily adopted by the industry. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The "generation" term is used to define a batch of systems that are manufactured in loose, primary competition with each other and started showing some use at the start of the 90's as a way to identify "pre-crash", NES era, post NES... In short time the pre-crash period then was split between the pong years and cartridge based gaming. I've never seen it as a "U.S.-centric" concept. There is generally a large window of a few years between each burst of manufacturer advancements. The systems involved in a generation will also have some general commonality of CPU or GPU advancement combined with their time frame for release. Historically there has always been bleed over where the first to market the "next gen" console is still competing against the previous generation (Geneses vs NES, PlayStation vs SNES, etc...). Keep in mind that this all is focused on the console market. Handhelds on the other hand have to wide a range in technology at any given time so they tend to be placed into the generation that is prevalent during their active production. (eg, GameBoy, GameGear, Lynx and TurboExpress are considered to be the same generation (4th) even with their radically different range in capabilities based on the fact that they were all in direct competition with each other). BcRIPster (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As for the comment about "fact", it is common use and has been common use for a good 25 years now within both the American and Japanese markets/industry. It's not something Wikipedia invented. As for other regions. Again, not revisionist. At this point ~70's falls under first gen, pre-crash 80's falls under second gen. NES globally marks the start of third gen. BcRIPster (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The formalization, identifying which was specifical "1st gen", "2nd gen", etc. has some attributions to Wikipedia. Yes, the idea of "generations" was already in place, but actually blocking them in the manner partially was inspired by WP, as best as I could tell. There is certainly no authoritative source where the numeric blocking is spelled out otherwise. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would support that statement and I think it's giving Wikipedia too much credit. At best I might agree that Wikipedia helped formalize the use of the words "1st", "2nd", "3rd", but even then you can't really formalize those kinds of designations until you have a larger set to work with. These concepts of generations were already happening by the time the SNES was being released and Wikipedia was far from existing at that time. I would posit that the use of these terms is co-incidental to the presence of Wikipedia and would have developed regardless. BcRIPster (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, no, I'm not trying to say WP is responsible for the blocking concept, but our use of it (specifically, "1st", "2nd", etc.) clearly popularized to have more reliable sources to stick with that to call out to other generations. I know people would call things like 8-bit generation or the like, but the change to a standard order is, to some degree, is due to our approach to that, but certainly we are not 100% the source. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked into this a while ago. You can dig in the talk pages of the articles to find more. From what I recall, I found (in books) that the term "generation" was used prior to Wikipedia and there was some reliable source precedent for the first and second gens. After then it got a bit more vague, and then Wikipedia's determination likely set the bounds of the later gens. The generation-based organizing scheme for the history articles has been contested before (especially with handhelds and consoles that don't fit into the trajectory of the major console competition), but I haven't been able to think of a better solution myself and it works enough for our purposes. czar ♔ 18:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've researched this a lot and can say that what Masem is saying is true. It's referred to all over the industry, but rarely, if ever, fully defined by a reliable source. That's why there can be so much fighting within Wikipedia about it. There is not one accepted definition. Everyone's got their two cents on what it is, but whenever it begins to be discussed, you'll find there's many unanswered questions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling all reviewers!

While I'm not too keen on doing reviews, it doesn't mean no one else can't. So let's see what we have in store this time around:

On the plus side, this is a reminder that we are an efficient group of individuals on this site. Go us. GamerPro64 04:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As for the FACs, Squall's is the most urgent: it doesn't have a single review and I don't feel I'd do a good job as it's on a character. Development of GTAV's sitting pretty at 4 supports, Thief and Sonic: AtS are doing alright with 2, and Secret of Mana and Lost Luggage only have 1, while Ancient Trader has an oppose while Hahc21 hammers things out. Sonic X's peer review I think is the least urgent; I mainly need someone to look over the sources and tell me how (I assume in some way) the Plot section should be condensed. The other two need attention more. Tezero (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If Hahc doesn't come back from his wikibreak soon, Ancient Trader is probably going to be archived. For efficiency's sake, it would probably be best to focus on other articles. I'll hit GTAV with a prose review today or tomorrow, and anyone with experience in character articles (i.e. someone besides me) should review Squall ASAP. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd hate to see Ancient Trader get archived when the issues are so clear-cut (as opposed to the frequent "get a copyedit"/"find sources that are better in some way"/"read my mind because you're not worth my full attention" comments), so I've done some of them and can keep going if you're okay with it. Tezero (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Go right ahead. I don't think there's any guideline against it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Where's Hahc? It's been a few days since he supposedly left for Wikimania or whatever. How long does that take? (I can't fix some of the points because I don't know the subject matter or sources like he does.) Tezero (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's safe to consider AT a dead nom. I expect it to be closed shortly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to get some feedback on List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V's FLC, seeing as the peer review was such a roaring success. It's a goal of mine to one day make GTA V a featured topic. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't usually do lists, but why not; I'll try to take a look tomorrow. (For now I want to finish writing a chapter of a story and then it's off to bed.) It's worth noting that GTAV isn't far from FT status now, so "one day" may come quite soon for you. Tezero (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am taking a look at all the video game articles at FA since I nominated mine, just to make things fair. I will be doing After the Sequel next. Taylor Trescott - my talk my edits 15:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take some of those GA reviews. If anyone has any requests I can always review them? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take on the Development of Deus Ex. I need a break from doing article revisions. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

More reviews of Thief II would be greatly appreciated. I know lengthier articles aren't the most attractive review projects, but the nom's sitting with just 2 supports and a comment after almost a month. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Lost Luggage just needs a source review and it is good to go. Indrian (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sonic: AtS has a cool four supports with zero opposes or remaining comments, but it does still need an image and source review. I'll take a crack at Lost Luggage's. Tezero (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: Sonic: AtS needs a source review, Secret of Mana needs that and an image review, and Sonic X has a second peer review open after the first closed from inactivity. Anyone need assistance elsewhere? Tezero (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll do a source review on Sonic:AtS. GamerPro64 19:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Also, Dota 2 needs two more copyeditors before its next FAC. Tezero (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wii U Pro Controller article

I made Wii U Pro Controller. It is largely copied text from other articles, but the controller has been needing an article for a very long time now. Please make any contributions that you can. Thanks~ Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No issue with having a separate article, but if you did copy content from other articles, you should use the {{Copied}} template on the talk page to indicate where material came from as to keep the chain of contributions from the other articles. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ada Wong's GAR

Ada Wong, 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.

I would like to note that I didn't nominate this article but am notifying the proper projects and editors on it. GamerPro64 20:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link... I think you've been linking to the original review, rather than the reassessment? Niemti (in sub-par, biased article about female game character shocker) is also GA topic banned and blocked, which may complicate (or perhaps simplify) things. bridies (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Darn GAR template. Linked the wrong review. I'm on a phone right now so I can't change it. But besides that, I think this being Niemti related might turn people away. GamerPro64 15:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it for you. --PresN 16:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Using Archive.org for a reference with multiple pages

I thought since my work involves this project, it would be better to ask this here than at the help desk. I've been working on a draft on Dwarf Fortress in my sandbox and have at least four references with multiple pages, which it heavily relies on. They're Gamasutra, PC Gamer and The Escapist.

PG and Escapist both have around three pages each and I found using the Wayback Machine on all those pages a bit tedious. For future reference, I'm not even sure where to put those extra pages archive links, in an article comment (like this) or on the talk page? Is there any better way to do this? What is normally done in cases like these?

I discovered a trick for Gamasutra though: On Grim Fandango, reference "Happy Action, Happy Developer: Tim Schafer on Reimagining Double Fine" ending its address with '?print=1' gave a full single printable view (like this) of all the pages combined. I used this trick on my Gamasutra refs and it worked. But any better ideas for the other two? Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I usually do this either of two ways: (1) just make a reference for each page of the article using |page= for each page. This makes it easier to verify the reference instead of digging through a long article. E.g., Fez ref 11 and 12. (2) Don't use the archive parameters and manually format the "Archived from the original on ..." sentence with your own external links. E.g., Deathrow ref 3 is formatted "Archived 2 3 from the original ..." In retrospect, I prefer the former, for verifiability's sake. czar ♔ 15:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I like both those ways, better get to it then. Thanks once again, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Website alerts

This is just a note for people using Siliconera, including myself. Over the past day or two, when I have tried to access the site, have been redirected to a dodgy page that tries to install malware onto the computer. The archive references for the site are not affected with this problem. This problem will probably have moved on after a week or so, but be careful. I've encountered similar attempts at invasion on other sites like Gematsu. There is a thread about it here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Famitsu review score sources (June 2014) (reposted from RLTalk)

Reposted from Reference Library Talk per suggestion of Thibbs.

Taiko no Tatsujin: Don to Katsu no Jikū Daibōken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reference to this: [1] (not exactly RS so would not use for now). Does any have the official Famitsu source for the 8/9/8/8 score for the game? Thanks in advance!

Note: The post says "June 17 2014", but IMO better stretch to the whole June? 野郎院ひさし (t/c) 03:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

As some of you already know, I've been working on this article, taking it from A to B. I've exhausted my resources now, Google fails me, I follow the pages to the end but I know it is hiding useful sources from me by prioritizing forum posts. Pretty much everything in the article is sourced now and it's ready for a copy edit but I need sources for the following, or evidence that it's false and can be removed.

When Troika had not completed a playable Santa Monica hub with combat and discipline usage that met Activision's satisfaction after more than two years of development time, the publisher took several steps to bring closure to the troubled project. First, Activision increased the budget to add Troika's second development team to the project in March 2004, after they had completed work on The Temple of Elemental Evil. Next, it sent the game's Activision producer and two testers to work on-site at Troika's offices until the game was completed. Finally, it set a deadline of September 15 for Troika to produce a Code Release Candidate. Troika delivered the Code Release Candidate on the required date, though it left the development team in low morale. Due to the game's size and complexity, the Code Release Candidate took three weeks to test, but on October 4, 2004, Bloodlines went Gold as Version 1.0. Since contractual obligations with Valve would interdict Bloodlines to be released before Valve's debut of the Source engine in Half-Life 2, Activision did not publicly announce that the game had gone Gold and instead gave Troika an additional week to polish the game, after which Bloodlines Version 1.1 underwent another three weeks of testing.

and

After Bloodlines was released to the public, Activision compiled a list of problems customers were reporting to its customer service department and on various Vampire websites. It then authorized Troika to spend a week creating a patch to address the most serious issues. However, Troika's inability to find revenue from another project had already forced the developer to lay off all its employees in two waves, except for the three owners: Jason Anderson, Leonard Boyarsky and Tim Cain. Despite this, several employees continued to work without pay on the Version 1.2 patch, which after three weeks was released on December 22, 2004

If anyone has any information that backs these up, it would be much appreciated as the article is close to finished and ready for a GA nom, and these items of information while not essential, seem interesting enough to be included. Parts of them exist like the team stopping work on the Temple of Elemental Evil, but the date specifics are not. Additionally, any info on digital sales and/or digital release dates/impact on the game would be useful, as would marketing. I only ask because I genuinely cannot find anything else now.

Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • First paragraph dates back to August 2006, and it was added by User:Primogen, a retired user who may have been David Mullich. That version is supported by a now-dead link to a post on Mullich's MySpace blog. Wayback Machine can't retrieve it, and Google brings up no coverage of it elsewhere, so I think it can be classified as a lost source. The second paragraph was added in July 2005 by a different retired editor, with no source. The two-wave concept appears in this GameDaily article, which is available only on archive.today because of robots.txt. (Seems like a key article for Troika coverage, particularly because it contains sales figures for all of their games.) Other pieces from it may be found in this Escapist article. From the looks of it, the information was taken from Troika's site, which is hidden behind robots.txt. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jimmy, I too found that archive.today link which is the only source that provides the evidence of the dollar sales figure, hopefully the RFC regarding the archive site will allow for future additions. I'm reading through the Escapist article now, thanks again.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Group of articles requiring cleanup

I just came across the Nancy Drew game articles. There are quite a lot of them and most seem to contain excessive WP:GAMEGUIDE material including easter eggs and bugs. If someone's in the mood for some cleaning up they could certainly use it. Sam Walton (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty terrible. Most of it appears to have been added by User:Blackmoor beast, who only edits articles on these games. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, just something to watch in the the future. I'll cut the articles back a bit. Woodroar (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Should P.T. have it's own article?

By now, most of us probably know that P.T. was announced as a demo at Sony's Gamescom presentation and is ultimately a viral teaser for Silent Hills. The game is apparently not representative (at least in the first person sense) of what Silent Hills will be, and the coverage it has received is fairly widespread. It seems notable enough to receive its own article with its own reception and coverage rather than a subsection in the eventual Silent Hills article. Opinions? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would keep it as part of Silent Hills but give it its own section. The demo for The Stanley Parable has gotten similar coverage but it makes no sense to have it separate from the game in the longer range of game coverage. I would have redirects or any disambiguation for it, "PT" is a reasonable search term for it. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what Masem said. Also, just as a point of reference, Rise of the Tomb Raider doesn't have its own article yet, either. It is just best to expand from the parent article, first, in my opinion. Chambr (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Clone" designation bias

I've noticed the "GTA clone" category being added and removed from several articles, and wanted to voice my opinion.
Wikipedia should not re-enforce bias by calling similar video games "clones". While the term "clone" should obviously apply when speaking of Chex Quest being a Doom clone, it is preposterous to label all games in the same genre as "clones".
Curiously, "Doom clone" redirects to First-person shooter, so obviously logic has already prevailed in that case, so why does Grand Theft Auto clone still exist? The answer is simple: it's one of the best selling series in the world, and has more fans than any other game in the genre, therefore it is easy to find biased sources and for it to win consensus here. The only reason that the "First-person shooter" article is not named "Doom clone" is because Doom is no longer the king of the genre. Had Wikipedia been around at the time it surely would have reflected the bias of the time and used the title "Doom clone". Since that term is now recognised as poorly chosen, it is clear that the term "GTA clone" will also eventually fall out of favour, so let's just skip the wait, and rename the "GTA clone" article and category.
To maintain neutrality, I think the issue should be decided by users who have never edited any article about "open world crime games", so-called "clones" included. (As I've previously edited such articles anonymously, I'm ineligible, but will still state my opinion for others to consider.)
It seems like Wikipedia:Systemic bias may apply here, although it seems to be primarily about the inclusion of content rather than the use of biased terms. I've thus far been unable to find anything more specific about the use of biased terms, but it's logical that "No matter how common a biased term is, Wikipedia shouldn't re-enforce bias".
While GTA remains queen of the genre, I don't really expect wikipedia's bias to change any time soon, but I'll be back in 10-20 years to say "I told you so". -VideoGameClone (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The industry took a while to go from "Doom clone" to "first person shooter". However, the industry still uses "GTA clone" to the open-world sandbox games that feature comparable elements to GTA; and if you use your comparison to Doom not being the "king" anymore, GTA still reigns those styles of gameplay. Once the industry hits on a better term that is widely adopted, we can switch over, but we have to follow the sources and avoid neoglisms. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I could see Angry Birds clone or Pokemon clone...--Coin945 (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It's original research unless a source makes that designation for us czar ♔ 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the tidal wave of stuff that went through my watchlist I'm wandering that too. - X201 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in 10-20 years there will actually be another WP:Verifiable WP:COMMONNAME which we can use. Someone reverted the Doom clone (again, the prevalent term for that genre throughout the '90s) redirect recently, funnily enough. bridies (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I just noticed it odd that the FPS article doesn't mention Doom clone in the lead, which it should since it is a very reasonable search term that one could search on that for., and fixed that. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My problem isn't with the intuitiveness of the meaning of the term "sandbox"; it's with its nonspecificity. Those games are all the same genre, yet we have first-person shooters, third-person shooters, tactical shooters, and role-playing shooters? And in the same vein, Fable and Golden Sun are both RPGs, but Golden Sun is just a regular RPG and Secret of Mana an action-RPG? I'm gonna need Penn Jillette to help me with all this trash... Tezero (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"GTA clone" actually has specific elements beyond just a sandbox - typically a main/side/collectible mission structure, typically multiple ways of traversing the open world, and typically a story about questionable morality (eg crime elements). That's why the term has held on so for so long, there's no easier way to describe it safe "It's like GTA". --MASEM (t) 18:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I know, I agree. I was just complaining. Tezero (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the first post, while It's very well possible that in the future this term will be replaced by a less biased one (ie Doom clone to first person shooter) It's not Wikipedia's job to try to advance that goal.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This, basically. And for the record, when I hear the term it's not usually used in a pejorative way, but as a concise, neutral descriptor like "Metroidvania". Tezero (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Also probably worth pointing out that it might have started as a "cone of shame" genre name ("you're a clone? ha!") but now has become a neutral descriptor, and last I checked the article covers this transition accurately. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the OP has forgotten that the reason that modern day shooters isn't label as a "Doom clone" because the genre has changed so much since 1993. We not calling these games "Grand Theft Auto clones" because of the series fanbase, we calling them "Grand Theft Auto clones" because how the games are designed in similarity to the Grand Theft Auto series. As what Masem stated that Grand Theft Auto is a unique series to the whole open word third person shooter genre, that the genre unfortunately hasn't changed very much since Grand Theft Auto III in the way of design with only a few games doing something different. That's why many games in the open word third person shooter genre is label a "Grand Theft Auto clone", the only series that made significant changes to the genre is the Grand Theft Auto series itself. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And besides titles like Watch Dogs, although the latter case is more of a glorified case of using the E or "use" key for contextual items in the world. I told Dalekmaster in his talk page that the reason for Mafia II being included in the GTA clone category was that not all games with the same basic premise is necessarily a clone of one another. As mentioned earlier, what were labelled as "Doom clones" branched off into similar yet distinct sub-genres. Similarly, not all racing games play like Need for Speed or Asphalt, and not all sandbox/open world games involve guns or Italian-American gangsters. There's this category covering organised crime games, but not all of them take place in an open world; some of them are first or third person corridor shooters, or perhaps even point-and-click games. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for contributors who would be interested in the creation/development of an Esports WikiProject

Hi there! I've put up the proposal for the creation of a WikiProject with the goal of covering all competitive gaming topics, teams, players, competitions and more. I feel as if there is little to no coverage for these topics on Wikipedia, and would like to develop this section of video gaming culture. Thanks! I would like to know if anyone else would be interested in helping this become a reality or if you have any feedback regarding this topic. Solomonarius (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ESPORTS exists. Jump right in! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

HMV Charts

I've been going through issues of Sega Saturn Magazine and found each issue lists a "Top Ten" Saturn games from HMV. I was immediately skeptical of the significance of these charts, because they're compiled weekly. Still, I figured at least the #1 spot on each chart must be notable, so I've been adding that info to articles, like so.

But I've been having second thoughts. For one thing, the HMV charts cover only the United Kingdom, where the Saturn wasn't very successful. And again, there's the fact that these charts are compiled every week. As with most consoles, not many Saturn games came out in the UK each week, so by my guess close to a third of all UK Saturn games were #1 in these charts at some point.

What do you all think? Should I keep on adding this info, or is it just trivia?--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that it'll lead us way down into the trivia weeds. For example, the next step might be to include each game's path by week to and from the #1 spot, etc. Perhaps there's an easier way to simply point readers at the general existence of these charts, maybe with a See also, and let them figure things out, rather than do all their research for them....?? jxm (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Can't do that as I have no idea where people can find the chart archives. All I have access to is those select chart listings which were reprinted in Sega Saturn Magazine. I really wish video games sales charts compiled each game's lifetime chart performance (peak position, weeks in chart, etc.) the way musical recording sales charts do.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion

There is an AN discussion which may interest this project, as it discusses one of its important contributors. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black has now been indef topic banned from all articles relating to Japanese entertainment, broadly construed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
A closure review is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Freedom Planet

Hey, everyone, I have an issue I've never seen a definitive answer on: Are voice cast lists for video games expressly forbidden, or is there some way they can be permitted (parenthetically in Plot, or in a new Characters subsection, as opposed to in a separate table)? The reason I ask is that the article for Freedom Planet, which I created a few months ago, has been edited at some point to include one, and I'd feel bad taking it out, but at the same time it may not be considered notable information. Tezero (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Did you know this was added to the guidelines a while back? See item 10 in WP:VGSCOPE - X201 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not. Tezero (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My short opinion: it is appropriate to mention voice actors when they are otherwise notable (example: God of War), but generally a "cast list" format is not the best solution and it should be integrated in prose. It is not appropriate to list non-notable cast members for the sake of listing them (as is done in Freedom Planet). So: mention Patrick M. Seymour when you introduce his character, but don't list the non-notable cast. On a side note: damn that plot is huuuuuge and disproportionnate! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict):They're not forbidden, it's just that 1) working that material into prose is preferable, and 2) video games rarely have so many notable voice actors to justify a separate section. Look at The Last of Us, for example: names in parentheses and no list, and that's a game that actually could support a section. I think you're justified in removing or working it into prose. (Pretty much exactly what Salvidrim! wrote.) Woodroar (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll do that. I wish there was a dedicated wiki for it that I could link readers to, though. (For the record, I didn't have any hand in the current Plot section; I created the article as a short Start-class ditty before the game was released and haven't touched it much since.) Tezero (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry Tezero, I was just expressing general dismay, not specifically criticizing your work. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tales (series)/GA1

This article is currently under review. The reviewer has a notice on their page saying that they are very busy at the moment. Can anyone else who has not been greatly involved with the article take over if necessary, so the review doesn't simply close due to lack of input? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing guide

I've written a guide to sourcing video game articles, so I thought I'd post it here to get outside input. What do you guys think? And did I miss any research tools? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty good at showing ways to source in our area of articles. Though I do think that some parts of it, like the "Fake It" section", will prove to be controversial. GamerPro64 18:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I've Faked It before. You might add using the table of contents in a Google Book or the Metacritic snippet of a print review as examples - I know I'm not the only one who's done this. Nice job, though. Tezero (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't possibly imagine that more than a few dozen (dozen) prolific VG editors have ever "faked it", or left in a pre-existing reference to a source they've never seen in an article they're rewriting, or surreptitiously downloaded scans of magazines. Anyways- great guide! As far as adding to it- for some articles (companies, hardware products) some google scholar searching or lexisnexis/highbeam can turn up some arcane sources- I would have been SOL on List of Sega video game consoles without it. --PresN 21:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that downloading scans of magazines or manuals does happen quite frequently. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I've used Sonic Retro tons of times. If it's not considered too specific, that'd be a helpful resource to mention. Tezero (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The stuff about scanned games is really great for older games. Not been able to find anything about Vampire the Masquerade sadly, but it's a really great bunch of resources of hard to get material. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, guys. And yeah, Sonic Retro, LexisNexis/Highbeam and Google Scholar are great. (Actually, they're all mentioned in there already, in one form or another.) As for Vampire, it would definitely be in the CGW Museum, and the reference library search engine says that User:Thibbs has a PC Gamer cover story on it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep I see that there's a feature on Bloodlines. I also have some coverage of Redemption in Games Magazine and there's more of both games in NextGen too. I'd be happy to make what I have of these materials available. Nice guide, by the way, JimmyBlackwing. -Thibbs (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • An addition to the sourcing guide that you may or may not want to include- since most people don't have a program that's capable of opening CBR/CBZs, I found a web-based solution that seemed to work well for the two magazines I tried it on: kthoom. You just select the file and it reads the images into your browser. --PresN 21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest

I have a feeling some of us may need to keep an eye on these. Almost reminds me of what happened to Anita Sarkeesian's page. But not as bad for the time being. GamerPro64 04:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be prudent to add notices to the tops of both pages that Quinn and Depression Quest have been involved in recent controversies and that reliable sources and neutrality are important tenets of Wikipedia. (Personally, I've fallen too far into depression too many times to want to play a game about it, and I think this is just the latest boxcar in the SJW-sphere's endless train of turning all Internet jerkishness into white hetero-patriarchy, but I'm glad people like me aren't able to just add our opinions in article mainspace.) Tezero (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the tags, though I think it's more that that particular boxcar ran into the latent-misogyny boxcar of the anti-SJW train. An unpleasant wreck that has more light and noise than substance. --PresN 05:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to keep everyone up to date: The Zoe Quinn article has been locked to admin only level. - X201 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there's an ANI up for the Zoe Quinn page. Why not voice your thoughts on the whole thing? Discussion GamerPro64 13:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

May want to add Phil Fish and Polytron Corporation to this, as their accounts/servers appeared to just got hacked tonight in association with the "quinnspiracy"/SJW attacks. (well, polytron got hacked, but revealing Fish's personal information). --MASEM (t) 04:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of Anita, we just recently threw an FAQ at the talk page. Perhaps it could be helpful for this? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 05:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I like that idea, now done. --PresN 05:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
...which I've disputed because putting a FAQ on a currently 'hot' issue is not acceptable, as it leans towards one side in the dispute. FAQs have a place, and it's not until all the discussion has been exhausted and consensus is clear that they are added. Tutelary (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
How is it leaning towards one side or the other? The FAQ says that you can't add potentially libelous information to a BLP without an RS backing it up. It says nothing about one side or the other being right or wrong. --PresN 05:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Because the statement about there being -no- reliable sources is false. It was already been stated that Daily Dot and Vice already covered it rather thoroughly, and that there are other sources for it (but those are the two indisputable ones) and it's ticking me off that people are saying that there are only 'blogs' about this. No, there are not. It's also rather offensive that people want to cover up what was being done to her. It deserves at least a sentence mention and of course with a NPOV and BLP in mind. Tutelary (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I resent that you are accusing me of trying to "cover up what's being done to her". If you have sources for "what's being done to her", then add them. The FAQ was intended to be there to answer the questions posed by the hordes of people who want to copy-paste in unsubstantiated libelous rumors about "what she's done", not to prevent any mention of the controversy. If you don't like the wording, change it. I don't know what sites on the internet you're reading that are just filled with hordes of people trying to defend her and not hordes of people attacking her without proof, but I seriously doubt they're representative of the people trying to edit the article this week. "It deserves at least a sentence mention" - it has one. What more are you trying to add? --PresN 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for that, but what I was hoping for would be an elaboration of how vindictive the Internet sexists are that they question and bring into her own personal affairs and her infidelity, going as far to doxing her information and calling her house. Right now, there's a single mention of a 'sexually explicit phone call' which is not representative at all of how much harassment she received for just trying to publish her game. I would be perfectly alright with you restoring the FAQ with the first question (stating that there are no reliable sources) removed. I've no problem with the other two FAQ questions below that.. There are some difficulties on the talk that people are using primary sources and Youtube videos to attempt to argue their points, and I believe it would help with that. Going to be heading to bed, just letting you know so you don't need to wait for a watchlist notice of my reply. Tutelary (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted, FAQ restored with Q1 removed. I agree that the current mention is vague and strangely worded. --PresN 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated to the immediate problem I think there way more than enough information to have an article "women and video games" (or something), not only to highlight the plights here for Anita and Zoe (and subsequent impacts on others), but also things like gender trends in video games, etc. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is. Tezero (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

StoryBundle 4

FYI StoryBundle 4 is out, if you're looking for some new sources. I haven't checked each for reliability but wanted to put out a PSA before I forgot.

$3 :

  • Chrono Trigger (Boss Fight Books series) by Michael P. Williams
  • Delay: Paying Attention To Energy Mechanics by Zoya Street
  • In Play: Tales Of The Gaming Netherworld by Neils Clark
  • Gamers at Work: Stories Behind the Games People Play by Morgan Ramsay
  • Piranha Frenzy by Colin Campbell

$12 :

  • The Anatomy Of Super Mario Vol. 1 by Jeremy Parish
  • ZZT (Boss Fight Books series) by Anna Anthropy
  • Year One: Reloaded & Change (6 full magazine issues!) by Five Out Of Ten


And back into the archives, czar ♔ 05:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Welp, I just bought this. Thanks, Czar. It all looked super interesting. Let me know if you need me to look up a source or something from these and I'm happy to help! Nomader (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I did a quick check of our FLs after seeing a number of deadlinks, and it was pretty bad. I took a random sampling of five of our lists and I came up with the following stats:

It looks like GameSpot deprecated a ton of links sometime in 2013, and we haven't updated them in most of these lists. Unfortunately, GameSpot was our go-to for a long time for video game release data and it means that all of these articles' links need to be updated. Is there some sort of semi-automated process we could use to speed this up? Nomader (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm vaguely recalling that we stopped using GameSpot release data since it pulled from another user-contributed source. Does that ring a bell for anyone? czar ♔ 15:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes- we're not supposed to use GameSpot game landing pages to source release dates any more, since its the same database as the user-generated GameFAQs. So no, there isn't an automated way to do it since we need to replace them with different sites. --PresN 15:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Just use archived versions of the GameSpot URL, from before it went user contributed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that CNET (owner of GameSpot) bought GameFAQs in May 2003; the database merger happened sometime after that. --PresN 20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review request

Can anyone pop over to the Secret of Mana FAC and give it a source review? It's not hard- just verify that there aren't any non-RSs used as sources (and ask if there's any you're not sure of), and optionally spotcheck a few statements from the article to make sure they're supported by the source cited. I'll owe a favor back, if you'd like. --PresN 21:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You only have to spotcheck a few statements? All that love I sunk into Deathrow was for nothing! Hah, but yeah, I'll do it with the assumption that you'll hop over to Sonic X at some point. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Your love was appreciated, if not required czar ♔ 21:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
<3 Tezero (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Will do! Yeah, don't know that it's still the same but as far as I remember the more FAs someone has the less the directors care about spotchecks- back in the day it was entirely optional for some people and essentially mandatory for new nominators, and now they've just standardized on a few spotchecks for everyone unless a problem is seen. It's not like most people are falsifying or plagiarizing sources, so the RS check is seen as more important. --PresN 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The more FAs you have, the less they care about spotchecks? I'm not entirely comfortable wiith that practice. GamerPro64 22:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's still the case, but when spotchecks were started it was due to some FAs slipping through with falsified or plagiarized content (one of each, I think- the plagiarized one made it to the main page, and the falsified one was part of a massive scandal involving tons of GAs and other articles by one editor). So, spotchecks. They weren't mandatory, though- they weren't required in any review guide, but at the time Sandy Georgia was really the only person doing promotions, and essentially running all of FAC, and she refused to promote an FAC by a new submitter that didn't get a spotcheck. She admitted at one point that she actually kept a spreadsheet of editors that she trusted due to having passed several spotchecks previously, and if you weren't on the list (or especially were on the alternate list- people who had failed a spotcheck) she wouldn't promote the article without one. Time moves on, Sandy stops being the coordinator, and now we have a system where every article needs a spotcheck to get promoted, but what that entails isn't written down anywhere. And without guidance, it certainly appears that if it's not your first nom, the spotcheck doesn't need to be quite as robust as for first-time nominators. --PresN 22:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs

Hey, is anyone available for helping me with the Sleeping Dogs (video game) development section? I need it to be like GTA 5, that means, the entire production summarized in 5 paragraphs. If yes, the draft is at User:URDNEXT/sandbox, and I recommend using this because the main article is under a GA review, so major changes to it could quick fail the review. I plan on taking the article to FA with Tezero in a week, so any help is appreciated! URDNEXT (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the prose quality needs significant work before it's nominated for FAC czar ♔ 21:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you available to help any time in the future? Czar URDNEXT (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already done some cleanup, but yes, I am. My timeframe is more like the next two weeks than the one week you mentioned above—I'm particularly tied up with a move this week. czar ♔ 22:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As I'm moving in two weeks, I think that idea sounds better, since that could significantly help with the FA, as you have more experience than I do on the site, Czar URDNEXT (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Typically, URDNEXT, I get a peer review before FAC. Helps with little issues I might not otherwise have noticed and that might otherwise lead to an Oppose vote. Tezero (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Tezero How long does a FAN take before getting promoted? URDNEXT (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
URDNEXT, typically a month or two. The time can be decreased by having it as ready as possible beforehand. (Theoretically, it could be over in a couple days if you got three supports, an image review, and a source review just about right away, the remaining time coming from the coordinators looking it over and waiting for additional votes ("forever hold your peace"). Tezero (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I got someone for the source review, image review, and support could come from you (Tezero), Czar, and Rhain or Snuggums. What do you think? Also, do you think my development draft looks (or promises) to be ready for FA? I've been pouring my time and heart in it. URDNEXT (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
URDNEXT, this wouldn't be for a separate "Development of Sleeping Dogs" article, would it? If so, it'll need to be much, much longer to merit being its own article. (Even Development of Fez wasn't uncontroversial in its suzerainty.) Either way, I would not recommend including the text "Rai Ping Yu" or "holy shit, this is easy!" in a featured article. Aside from that, though, I think it looks pretty solid. Tezero (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Lol, those texts are just for fun, I'll remove them later on. And the thing is just small because I'm trying to get it to 6 paragraphs in order to fit in the main article, not in a separate one. By the way, what is your scale for measuring the quality of an article? Like, pretty solid could be an 8? Sorry, I'm asking this because I'm a number score guy. Tezero URDNEXT (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • URDNEXT, eight paragraphs wouldn't necessarily be too long (as I've said, Wikipedia pretty much lets you go as nuts as you want with information as long as it's focused on real people instead of silly fictional characters); rather, the issue is that the text doesn't get redundant - it doesn't look that way to me, really. I don't like committing to a specific score because there could be issues I don't notice, but if 10 is a perfect FA, 8 is a GA, and 0 is a botched translation of the entirety of Time Cube into Klingon, I'd give it a solid 8.5 at least. I do spy a few grammatical and spelling mistakes, which I'll edit accordingly. Tezero (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice! I was actually expecting less, so this is good news! I plan on structuring the section according to Batman: Arkham Asylum's development section as I fits the game more than GTA. It's also good to know we can take how many paragraphs we want with the development as the game has a lot to cover. I'll take my time with the draft and will only put it in the article once the GA review is over, that way I can focus in achieving better quality. As Snugumms just finished work on Katy Perry, he'll probaly take a little day long break, then start taking notes from the article tomorrow. This is just an educated guess, I could totallybe wrong.Tezero URDNEXT (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

BioShock FAR

BioShock is in pretty dire shape, particularly with regard to its sources—as User:Tezero pointed out on this page just a few days ago. It should probably be sent to FAR. If no one else wants to write the pre-FAR list of problems on the talk page, I plan to do it myself soon, although I don't have a lot of experience with the process. (Looking back, I see that my last go at it was in 2006, when I nominated the truly horrible bishōjo game.) Is anyone from WPVG interested in saving this article, if and when I nominate it? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I helped FA it but back when it was out, but it would be helpful to have the FAR-type list from someone else to know what to clean up. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) One problem I see that you might not have noticed is that Reception prioritizes number of sources over depth of each one - I mean, look at it. Most of the review comments are about how great BioShock is in general, not about specific aspects. Even if the reviewers in the table were the only ones covered, 11 would still be on the large side. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
While we're talking about possible FARs, you may want to look at Diary of a Camper, Final Fantasy X-2, and Donkey Kong: poor sources, massively over-detailed Gameplay and Plot with more citations needed in Gameplay, and tons of problems all around. Tezero (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If anyone plans to take FFX-2 (or any other Square Enix FA) to FAR - please post your concerns at WT:SE, and give the Square Enix project (likely me) a chance to fix them before advancing to there. Much quicker and easier. --PresN 05:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what's wrong with Diary of a Camper. TKD was an excellent editor, and his copyediting abilities were top notch. Barring the inexplicable reference to "Psyk's Popcorn Jungle", the page appears largely to have stood the test of time. FF X-2 is in pretty bad shape, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My bad on Diary; Australian Centre seems to be good and a couple others that looked iffy are, as I didn't notice, from universities. I really think Donkey Kong is by far the worst of the three, though, and among our worst standing FAs. I mean, Story and characters doesn't really need to exist outside Gameplay; it's just an almost promotional narrative about Donkey Kong's significance in the game industry (and I don't know what the heck is up with "The Lady is instantly recognized as female from her pink dress and long hair"), and the sections after Development contain kind of an odd organization scheme. There are also a number of unreliable-looking sources (e.g. Donkey Blog, Dadhacker, Don Hodges, Twin Galaxies) and, less importantly, widespread inconsistent and incomplete citation formatting. Tezero (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to post a list of problems on Donkey Kong's talk page to prepare for a FAR, I could probably do one for BioShock here in the next few days as well. Maybe we could clear out that pre-2008 backlog a little. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll put it on my to-do list. Tezero (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference question

I want to know something about using a reference for the release date for an episode of Final Fantasy Agito. Can the Livedoor blog be used as a reference in the article (which could become GA in the future) or is it an unreliable source? I have been having trouble finding a reference for one particular episode. All the others currently available are sorted. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what sort of blog y're using. A professionally-written/edited blog may be okay; see WP:NEWSBLOG. However, self-published material would generally not be considered reliable. But since y're only looking for confirmation of a single release date within the series, then an annotation in a footnote might be ok. Perhaps state something like "Release date unconfirmed, but reported as dddd in bbbloggggg". Just a suggestion. jxm (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought self-published material would be allowed per WP:SELFSOURCE. I mean, as long as it falls onto requirements of that rule. GamerPro64 21:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Tnx fr that. I imagine that it's quite okay as a source if someone connected with FFA has posted the release date on Livedoor, maybe for marketing or public relations purposes. OTOH, if it's just a game fan providing the info, then it could well be seen as unreliable. But I wouldn't worry about too much - let's just go for it :-) jxm (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Update: the blog is a fan-run affair, and thus unusable. Instead, I used a post from the Square Enix-run Twitter feed for Final Fantasy Agito. I am planning to use sources such as 4Gamer, Dengeki, Famitsu and the Square Enix Support Page for the game to help with release dates and chapter names. Hope it isn't this difficult with the English release. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Roger Craig Smith

Roger Craig Smith - Can I get some eyes/help at this page? This page a while back had a laundry list of roles for him without sources, and it was removed for BLP issues. Some IPs have decided it's time to bring that back. I reverted a few times, again stating the need for sources, but they continued on. Some have sources (have not check reliability yet) but it has been a few days since this list addition again, and not many more sources have appeared. Thanks in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

PC1'ed. Thanks for your vigilance. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think length is necessarily an issue, and sources should be stupidly easy to find. Tezero (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No the length wasn't the issue, but these IP add a long list with only a few items sourced. So that was the issue (content to source ratio). And per WP:BURDEN, it should not be up to a user like you or I to go in and source the content others add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Could you maybe consider semi protection? The IP is very persistent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

RESCUE discussion notification

As a heads-up, I've started a discussion at WP:ARS about Dancing with the Stars (video game), since it is, in my view, at once an article on an interesting topic (see the ARS thread for details), and also an aricle that risks being deleted if nominated for AfD. Please feel free to join the discussion there if you have any thoughts. It Is Me Here t / c 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Multiplayer and single-player video games

You might have seen this new category in your watchlists recently. I'm not so hot on the title, but I don't have the time right now to really think about it. Wanted to bring the recategorization to your attention since it will undoubtably affect thousands (a sizable minority) of our articles.

Discussion at Category talk:Multiplayer and single-player video games czar ♔ 17:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This was also added to a video game on my watchlist that's exclusively single player.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential FPCs from commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar

Seeking potential featured picture candidate (individual and set) ideas from my collection of free use uploads, including hundreds of videos, screenshots, logos, sprites and character assets, and animated GIFs.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar czar ♔ 04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

List of exclusive games articles

Articles like List of PS3 exclusive titles are excessive, right? A few of them have popped up, in about 90% incomplete form, in the last few weeks. I was about to redirect it or something, but It seems like I'm always the bad guy around here lately, so I thought I'd get input on this one first. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 3 games already documents this already too, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. It is completely redundant. Chambr (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Also completely agree with you Sergecross; I thought about proposing the same thing here but I guess you beat me to it :) They are nowhere near complete, not to mention redundant, and they should all be redirected. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, redudant to the full list of games by platform. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention List of horror games, a needless duplicate of List of horror video games. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
To add to this user's list Comparison of gaming platforms seems debatable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, it's good to see editors working on vg-related lists, but it's important to get them right from the outset to avoid redundancy and work being thrown at dead-ends. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me or is ja:WP does not have a grudge with primary sources?

A bit inspired to try fixing up Puyo Puyo Tetris article. Went to check ja:ぷよぷよテトリス to see if any sources can be paralleled across, and found that they can have 3 out of 6 references (Nos. 5-7) being primary sources from SEGA while not gaining any tags like {{primary sources}}. I note that there could be policy differences, and understand that Puyo Puyo can easily achieve notability easier in Japan with its popularity, but is that simply bad form unchecked, or I just misunderstood some fundamental thing about primary sources and it's totally OK? Thanks for your answers in advance.

PS. Docking some sources here. If any of them are not WP:RS please do advise.

野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 09:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

4Gamer and DengekiOnline are reliable sources. And all that they're doing at ja.wp is pointing out obvious things in the text that don't need 3rd party stuff like gameplay details, I'm guessing. Honestly, the same thing flies here. Third party sources are needed to establish notability and support critical reviews and such. Not gameplay details, unless there's some sort of metagame that only gets touched upon in third party sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The Japanese Wikipedia has completely different standards and is almost universally obsolete in references, sourcing and "encyclopedic content" by English Wikipedia standards. WP:VG has done a much better job in covering the content than our Japanese counterparts. However, much of plot and character details exist undisturbed there when they would be removed on English Wikipedia because they comprise the entirety of the article. JA is a good starting point, but not every page is going to be equivalent, useful or a undisturbed gold mine of sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
As others have noted, other language Wikis may have different rules/standards. But on the other hand, a lot of that is similar to what can be found on here when hitting the "random article" button or browsing pop culture/fiction articles; it wouldn't be surprising to see it at least as prevalent on smaller WPs with less manpower. bridies (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and sometimes it all boils down to if there's anyone there to enforce things correctly too. For example, in 2008 when I first started, there was all sorts of in-universe, garbage fancruff across all the Sonic articles. It's not that it was okay, it just that it was overrun by fans who we're writing it more like a Wikia or a fansite. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Mostly this. If there is no admin/dedicated by the rules user(s) around what can happen is that articles become tripe. In the foreign Wikipedias this happen a whole lot more, as there is just not enough dedicated man power. It's one of the reasons why I mostly do not visit the dutch Wikipedia anymore. I do not see a point in struggling with certain articles if there is no hope for improvement on the long term. NathanWubs (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but you also see the Japanese Wikipedia deleting pages wholesale where we'd just revdel stuff out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the biggest issue here is WikiProject populations size. jp.wikipedia is a volunteer project just like en.wikipedia, and with something like 5x fewer editors at ja.WP:VG and 30x fewer subpages (this was covered in WP:VG Newsletter Q1 2013), the sourcing in their articles and the enforcement of their policies are bound to be less rigorous. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem with jawiki is partially that there are too many content pages and active users (including both IP and registered), and disproportionately fewer people cleaning the usual trash up. As a result, jawiki has accumulated all sorts of trash and fancruft since no one's there to attend to it, and now it's essentially become a norm there to have lots of cruft in articles. If someone points out that an article is full of cruft, another person would probably say something like "but so and so article is also like that!", leading to a never-ending cycle of more inaction. The cruft simply accumulates, and no one is motivated or interested in cleaning it up. If someone breaks the status quo, they would probably face opposition against the old norm. This is not just for videogame articles; even country articles and articles about historical scientists are full of unencyclopedic tripe, and there is a huge ton of articles on the Japanese Wikipedia with zero citations, inline or otherwise. No one bats an eyelid, because nobody cares. Keep in mind that jawiki is one of the larger Wikipedia projects, despite being smaller than enwiki; there's still a large amount of content involved.

The English Wikipedia has 1,400 sysops responsible for covering 4,588,506 mainspace articles, and 130,663 active users. This amounts to a ratio of 3,277 pages per sysop, and 93 regular users per sysop. Meanwhile, the Japanese Wikipedia has one of the largest sysop-user and sysop-article disparities among the larger sized (500,000 ) Wikipedia projects, with only a figure of 53 sysops covering 923,564 mainspace articles, and 11,655 active users. That's a sysop-article ratio of 1:17425, and a sysop-user ratio of 1:219. No one is there to clean up all the unencyclopedic shit on jawiki, because there just simply aren't enough admins to handle such a workload.

On the English Wikipedia, we see sysops as glorified janitors, not people of power or prestige. As long as someone is able to demonstrate that they are willing to have professionalism and competence in contributing to the project, we hand out the mopbuckets on a regular basis. Over on the Japanese Wikipedia, however, the community is shy about handing out sysop privileges, because these positions are still viewed as holding power. The amount of bootlicking and asskissing for sysops on the Japanese Wikipedia is far greater than what we have over here. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input. Cleaned up the article some and will continue into the future. Should also try to read the policy text for ja:wp because I foresee myself having to parallel quite often. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of fancruft, ja:wp's coverage of Puyo Puyo has full pages of character info for even the most minor of characters and very disproportionate size of sources. Just saying though, not going to incorporate into any en:wp pages. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The largest group of video gamers are adult women. Could you feature an explanation?

There are groups like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force who give Wikipedia an earful because of a gender gap in our participation and coverage. But I was just floored to read [7] which says that there are substantially more adult women than teenage boys who play video games. Clearly neither our coverage nor the image in the media gives this impression - the article mentions that advertising is generally targeted to the young boys, not so much why.

I think it would be useful for your project to identify something to feature which gives people more of an understanding of what the women are playing and/or what the state of art in its development is. I'll add that I've never personally been fond of featuring single-product articles, so my wish would be that you can feature an overall category or type of game that gives us some insight into "how the other [larger] half plays." Wnt (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This'll get really dirty really quick but I'd just like to quote what the article says about it; The spike in the number female gamers is likely tied to widespread smartphone adoption. In addition to traditional PCs and the Nintendo Wii game console, women were more likely to game on their mobile devices, So rather than playing 'heavy' games, they're playing games on their phones more than boys who would traditionally use a console/PC gaming machine. That's my understanding of it, anywho. Oh, the article also mentioned 'in app purchases' which would be indicative of mobile gaming even more so. Flurry found that on average, women spent 31 percent more money on in-app purchases and 35 percent more time within mobile games as compared to their male counterparts. So yeah. Tutelary (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Id agree with that explanation as well. Wii and Smartphone games expanded the audience, while games like GTA, and the general aging of the NES/Genesis era of gamers has skewed the demographic as older in general as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's already been pointed out, but again - that stat (and similar, like the c. 50% of all gamers now being female stat) includes all the various simple games being played on smartphones, tablets and social media (tactile, Wii-type gaming may also account for some of it, but probably increasingly less so as tablets have gotten more popular). If you're able to get stats for people playing games on consoles and especially desktop computers, and even more especially games that cost a significant amount of money (say, more than $10), I'm sure it will still be male dominated. Even if tablet/phone/facebook games are nominally "video games" and "gaming", IMO there's a real dichotomy between that and the more trad games we tend to cover, and am not really bothered by any lack of coverage on our part. bridies (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Women and video games would be the obvious article, in reference to the latter part of your question. bridies (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a welcome article to have, currently listed as B-class. I think it would be exceptionally welcome for the readers to see your project work this up to featured status. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean "exceptionally welcome"? We work on whatever we want. If for someone here that happens to include the Women in video games article, so be it, but we're not obligated to get any specific page up to a certain recognized status just because others want that. Currently, FA video game articles don't represent visual novels, traditional sports games (Madden, MLB, 2K, etc.), The Sims, Tetris, etc. at all; what's so special about representing middle-aged women? Sure, they're an important demographic that the industry could probably do a better job advertising to, but FA status doesn't make a given topic any more important, and this article in particular would be difficult to because of its massive, nebulous scope and strongly controversial nature. Tezero (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Take it easy. He didn't say "Do it now, or there will be consequences!" He's saying it'd be nice if it happened. If you don't want to do it, then don't. But it's nothing to get mad about. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As someone who has spent time improving the "Women and video games" article I'll note that those of us who have worked on the article would always appreciate further improvements if you are interested in helping, Wnt. -Thibbs (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, as evidenced by my surprise here, I really don't know the industry, and honestly, I haven't focused on getting even an article on a familiar topic through the featuring process in years. I was just hoping someone here would think it was an interesting thing to do. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks for the suggestion. There's actually been a bit of attention on the article recently so we may see some improvements soon. There's no obligation to assist of course, but often I find that the more participation the faster the improvements take place. So no pressure, but feel free to join in. -Thibbs (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None FA

Taking upon a pre-2008 FA review, I have serious concerns with Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None's status as an FA, noted here. I have an inkling that this is unfortunately destined for FAR. What's a good time to wait for responses to my comments before moving to the next step? If anybody has further concerns with the article, please feel free to add to the discussion. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Its undergone a lot of changes when it was promoted in 2007, until now. I know FAs aren't preserved in aspic, but this is a different article. - X201 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think even the 2007 version would have passed by today's standards. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I wrote down those initial comments at the pre-2008 FA page. While we're at it, have you had a look at BioShock's sources lately? Tezero (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sent to FAR. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Early access/beta games

Do we categorize early access games as released or upcoming? My edit was reverted at Spacebase DF-9 and was told that other articles like Hack 'N' Slash use this format. But there are articles like Dota 2 and Minecraft that use the official release in the infobox and category. It would be nice to have some consistency in these kinds of articles. --Mika1h (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I say they are not, based on the fact that most of our review sources do not review Early Access games - if they do they are clear it's not a final review and tend to not give scores. Once the game is out of Early Access, then it's released and fair review game. --MASEM (t) 04:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, reviews help to determine notability, but they really don't have a bearing on encyclopedic content. If a game is available for sale, and is playable upon purchase then in encyclopedic terms, it's not upcoming, but released. JenniBees (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It's "released" to be played but not released in its final state for regular player consumption. A current concern in the video game field are early access games that are never "finished" (even Steam/Valve warns of this [8]) --MASEM (t) 23:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic. Whether a work is finished or not, does not change the fact that it can still be notable, and thus if it is deemed notable by wikipedia standards, it's release to the public should still be listed in an encyclopedic article. There are plenty of unfinished creative works on wikipedia that have the year of the public release associated with them. JenniBees (talk)
Well, of course. The date of early access release should be mentioned in the prose, no matter what, and I'm fine with it being in the infobox under the header "Early access release". Minecraft doesn't have it's alpha/beta release dates in the infobox, but it did prior to full release and they're still mentioned in the development section. --PresN 15:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And that, is exactly how this should be approached. Chambr (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Masem. A game is released upon the official release date. It is still upcoming for the general populous. Chambr (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. I've always considered a "Release date" to be the day that its released to the general public without any "Early access" tag on it. - X201 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If early-access counts as a release, Minecraft is five years old. Tezero (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't have to be at our discretion. Do the reliable sources list or refer to a "release date"? There's the answer. Sometimes the early access is the release date, and if RS change their minds later, so changes the article. czar ♔ 00:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Xbox One (XONE, XBONE, etc?)

What is the project's preferred short hand for Xbox One, especially in say infoboxes and release date lists? I've got at least one article on my watch list were a couple editors are changing from XONE to XBONE to Xbox One, etc. -- ferret (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think "XBONE" is a fan name. Most of the articles I've seen where it applies use "XONE", but that's only in the review tables. In the main text, it's referred to by its full name. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we should stick to XOne or the full name. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I've yet to see a consistent abbreviation for the console, and agree that XBONE is a some negative fan name that's stuck from its reveal and should be avoided. I would keep spelling it out for now until we find some consistency in sources. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wanna know what I think? I think neither this WikiProject now Wikipedia should "decide" this. We should go with whatever is commonly used in reliable sources. Xbox One is not unmanageably large, so not abbreviating may be the best option if we can't determine what is the abbreviation generally favored by media. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Certainly, but the project can help narrow down and "decide" what the majority usage in reliable sources is. I myself don't know so this is the best venue I think to figure it out. Somewhere along the way we settled on X360, even though "Xbox 360" is no longer than "Xbox One".. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of users quote the Infobox guideline for the released field (Platforms can be abbreviated to fit in one line, and should be listed as bolded section titles without colons, separated with commas (e.g. PS2, GCN, Xbox).) when changing the platform names in the release date field. I think "Platforms can be abbreviated..." is being read as Platforms must be abbreviated..." because the changes are happening in articles that don't need it.- X201 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Sal that "Xbox One" is hardly unwieldy, although no issue with XONE being an appropriate abbreviation when called for (such as in tables). "XBone" is right out. --McDoobAU93 14:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Funnily, I tweeted about this over a year ago, cheekily suggesting (in French) "X1" or "X-One". I haven't seen any of these used in the media though, so we should either abbreviate to XONE or avoid abbreviating altogether. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
X1 is also a content delivery system from Comcast's Xfinity cable operations, so maybe best to avoid that one. Personally, I've taken to calling it "the One", but that's hardly encyclopedic. --McDoobAU93 15:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
XBO might be my favourite, it's only 3 letters and doesn't sound like a joke. Although it's only 1 letter from becoming XBOX which might be confusing. --Mika1h (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there one the company or the video game industry has adapted yet? Part of the credit to abbreviations like "PS4" and "360" is that they're used in video game publications. What does the industry use, if it uses an abbreviation at all? Red Phoenix let's talk... 15:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering that I see most media calling it Xbox One, I am for just keeping the full name. If it really needed to be abbreviated probably would be Xone. As XBone ifor example is just a plain weasel word which we should be avoid almost at all cost. NathanWubs (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Elysian Shadows Unsalt

  • The game has been successfully funded on Kickstarter.
  • It has received national coverage by WHNT News.
  • It has set the record for highest funded Kickstarter from Alabama.
  • It has also set the record for highest funded game from Ouya Free the games fund.
  • It has also been on the August cover of Indie Game Magazine.

Elysian Shadows reality series AiGD has also earned a partnership deal from YouTube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cube_b3/Elysian_Shadows All of this information has been updated to the page in my sandbox.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who salted the article, because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Shadows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Shadows (2nd nomination). Still uncertain if it's WP:TOOSOON or not, and tired of being the bad guy all the time, I suggested it be brought up here, to let the community decide. (EDIT: Nevermind, I didn't salt this one, I was thinking of Heaven Sent Gaming, another article that was being repeatedly recreated around the same time. I was merely a recurring proponent for this article's deletion in the past.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why you're concerned with "being the bad guy". You're only enforcing policies; it's not your fault that there's a strong correlation between experience on Wikipedia and deletionism. I don't involve myself in notability discussions anymore, but if they want to plaster up the article and it's not to your liking, as an admin, tough beans. Tezero (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with WP:TOOSOON. Their kick starter has not even ended yet. I do not think It has set the record for highest funded Kickstarter from Alabama. is all that notable. Unless you could show that there are a lot (higher the average) kickstarters to start with in Alabama and I suspect that is not the case. Would still make a nice detail in the article once it can be created. NathanWubs (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the Ouya free the games fund exponentially more notable than anything else. That is a video game industry milestone in general! Additionally the biggest problem with Wikipedia is that no Ouya specific website is on the approved list. Not even Ouyacentral.tv
Also note the game has received significant coverage from all notable indie websites including the ones on our list.
Lastly 801 projects have been Kickstarted from Alabama. That is a significant number. EIGHT HUNDRED AND ONE. Reference is on the page.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
One more thing that the admins are not keeping into account is that the development of the game is actually more important then the actual game. You know the old saying it is not the destination, it is the journey that matters. Well that is exactly what AiGD is and it is a series that has been on for 7 years.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
http://whnt.com/2014/08/20/two-madison-county-engineers-leave-jobs-to-make-video-game-close-to-funding-their-dream/

http://kotaku.com/a-16-bit-rpg-that-promises-a-modern-twist-1626228329 http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331672688973/elysian-shadows-kickstarting-a-new-dreamcast-game

These are all websites that are main stream, reliable and notable. Please let's expedite this process. I have been working on this page for months and I really want to move on to some other articles.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why it's the projects fault that there are no known RS's for dedicated to the Ouya. Is it our fault that the system apparently hasn't generated enough interest to have one arise? Is it our responsibility to create sources? Or ignore RS guidelines because there aren't any yet? What exactly are you suggesting with that? Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest you evaluate the Ouya scene. The system has made national headlines and it has fundamentally redesigned game development, distribution and financing. Given it's business model it has changed the way a video game platform is supposed to interact with the community. I think Admin's need to explore the Ouya thoroughly and prioritize an investigation on how that community is ticking because it is a significant part of video game history and notable anyway you look at it. You are an admin, spend some time on Google and do your own research. When you do you will find that Elysian Shadows has been covered on every Ouya website official, professional or fan sites.
Coming back to the subject of Elysian Shadows please explain how the following things are exempt from notability?
  • 1) It has set a record on Ouya on Free the Games Fund.
  • 2) Record holder for Alabama's highest crowd sourced project on Kickstarter out of 801 projects.
  • 3) Secondary news coverage from main stream media outlets on national television such as WHNT News (owned by CBS).
  • 4) Original secondary coverage from main stream gaming outlets from the approved list of secondary references such as Destructoid, IndieGames.com (owned by Gamasutra) and Kotaku. You can use Wikipedia's own custom search engine to find a whole lot more.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 1) Admins have no special responsibility to do research on what OUYA sites are notable/reliable over regular editors. They have a mop, not the keys to the car
  • 2) Yes, OUYA is notable. That's why it has an article. That does not in turn, however, mean that any in-development game for the system is de facto notable prior to release.
  • 3) The guidelines for what is a reliable source have nothing to do with a specific site being the largest in (insert niche here). If Ouyacentral.tv is reliable then it is, if not then it is not- what the site covers has nothing to do with it.
  • 4) As to your points- #1 isn't the FtGF just a matching program? So that's just another way of saying it's made a lot on its kickstarter, #2 is meaningless trivia unless there's something special about Alabama vs the other 49 states; there's likely been 1000 kickstarters from Seattle alone so 801 isn't really impressive, #3 WHNT is not national news, it's local Huntsville news, though it could certainly go in any article about the game, #4 sure those are RSs, and I'd be fine with those supporting notability.
  • 5) No, the development journey is not more important than the game itself, especially when its just a minor youtube channel that wouldn't support an article on its own.
  • 6) You're allowed to work on multiple articles at once, you know, so this certainly isn't blocking you from working on something else.
  • 7) I'd be fine with unsalting based on the references, but I don't think it should have an article regardless- this really seems like some minorly notable kickstarter that managed to get 2 or 3 sites to pick it up. It's importance to the OUYA scene aside (since that doesn't actually matter), there's nothing special that separates it from a dozen other kickstarters that look kinda neat- Heart Forth, Alicia still doesn't have a page, and it's at a comparable level, though missing a tiny youtube channel or a desperate console fanbase
  • 8) Really, the biggest issue here is that you're approaching this whole thing from the mindset of an OUYA fanboy, not from an editor who's genuinely interested in documenting a notable game. This is, incidentally, exactly why the article got salted after the last AfD- your attitude pushed people away, and made them want to keep the topic from coming up again anytime soon (like, 1.5 months later...) You're twisting notability to support every detail you find interesting, and pushing sites based on the content rather than their inherent notability. All that's going to result in is one more stub/messy start packed with detailed trivia that no one will ever clean up, and we're always leary of that around here. --PresN 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the insights. Some things have been misunderstood and I should offer some clarification but let's start with what we agree with.
  • 1) Please use the Custom search engine, I can not share the link here. You will find several websites that have written original articles covering the game. You will also find international coverage in foreign languages. So you can go ahead and unsalt and we can call it a day.
  • 2) I have approached this article neutrally and made my original article based on technology but it was all primary references it got deleted and I actually understood the rationale. My second attempt was to make a case of notability via Dreamcast and secondary references. As a professional journalist who frequently writes for Sega websites I automatically view something for Dreamcast with the utmost notability maybe i'm biased but I have successfully created articles on all indie Dreamcast games released in the last 5 - 8 years years without running into any problem. I assure you none of those projects have attained the level of publicity or notability then Elysian Shadows.
  • 3) I have OCPD and this article has significantly effected my mental health I can not work on another article until this issue is permanently resolved.

Writing here is a labor of love, not as a gamer but as a Wikipedian it is my duty to spread information. I believe in reciprocity I learn a lot from Wikipedia and I believe in positively contributing. This has been a rewarding and relaxing experience I would edit articles to unwind from a stressful day and now this has become a source of stress.

  • 4) I am being driven insane by the double standards refer to Ghost Blade's talk page. Once I am done with ES I would like to go in and fix that because despite all high and mighty none of the admins have taken positive action to wikify that article.

Best Regards--Cube b3 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a mistake to automatically view something for Dreamcast as having the utmost notability. The term "notability" on Wikipedia means something rather different from what it means in common speech. It's a term of art that describes significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources. As editors we are not allowed to make claims of notability based on personal opinion of a topic's significance or real-world importance, and we're not allowed to use Wikipedia as an original publishing venue to cover topics until the rest of the world takes notice. You can read more about the topic at WP:N. -Thibbs (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Thibbs' points, a few points of order that you seem to still be missing:
  • It is not the responsibility of other editors to find the sources you are talking about- we know how to use Google and the VG custom Google search as well. If you have reliable sources, include them in your draft you posted. Simply stating that they exist does not actually prove that they exist.
  • It is not the responsibility of the "high and mighty admins" to fix every article you come across. Admins don't get special editing tools, and with 30,000 video game article alone there's far too many for anyone to jump whenever you point out a poor article- I could find 10 video game articles just as bad in under 60 seconds. Everyone just works on what they want to work on, and may help if asked nicely- I don't expect anyone to jump in and work on Legend of Mana just because I've taken an interest, so why would you expect people to jump in on an article that you've taken an interest in?
  • In general, you seem to misunderstand what admins are: we're editors who can protect articles and block users. That's it. If we enforce article standards, it's only because it's the job of every editor to enforce standards- we don't have any special power to make the rules that were formed via consensus stick, and we don't have any special mentor powers beyond any other long-term user.
  • TL;DR: if you have reliable sources, use them in your draft. Don't just tell us that they exist. Don't just tell us that the article's subject is important to a niche field without proving it with reliable sources. Use the sources and show us. --PresN 04:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Thibbs: My point exactly that was the whole point of approaching the article from multiple perspectives.
@ PresN: I already have. Please check the article. I have not included every reference just for the sake of including it for example Kotaku doesn't really share anything that wasn't already covered on the page. I could include it just for the heck of it would you like me to include references from a Russian or German website just because they are on the list of approved websites? I try to include references that actually reveal new information.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah I didn't realize this was your third attempt. Regarding whether or not you should include coverage in German and Russian RSes, I'd say go for it. See the third bullet here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I keep trying to tell you people, Wikipedia sucks for comprehensiveness about most things "low-culture"; there are plenty of other ways, as most gamers already know, to learn about their industry of choice than through Wikipedia. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort to fight the tides. Tezero (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Thibss: DONE. Added 2 German and 1 Russian reference. I just took the results from the first 2 pages. In my last search I did find Italian and French references as well. So can we unsalt the page now.
@ Tezero: Yeah man, it can really break your spirit fighting with mods but overall I did learn a few things so that makes me a better Wikipedian.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked over your 21 sources and here's what I see:
  • Explicit non-RSes: 3 (Niche Gamer, seganerds.com, TwoDashStash) - These are on the WP:VG/RS list as non-RSes so they probably can't be used in the article.
  • First party sources: 5 (kickstarter.com, twitter.com, and the 3 press releases on Gamasutra, MCVUK, and GamersHell) - These could perhaps be used in the article, but they can't be used to demonstrate notability.
  • Sources of unknown reliability: 7 (GamingEnthusiast.net, retrogamingmagazine.com, socialblade.com, igronews.com, the two dreamcast-scene.com sources, and nexgam.de which was previously discussed unfavorably/neutrally here) - Hard to say without further evidence that these can be used in the article let alone to demonstrate notability.
We can split the remaining 6 sources into clear RSes and situational or quasi-RSes.
  • Situational and quasi-RS sources: 3 (Destructoid, University of Alabama in Huntsville, whnt.com) - These may be able to demonstrate notability.
  • RSes: 3 (Game Revolution, IndieGames.com, gamestar.de) - These are at the heart of the notability question. Of the three, the coverage by Game Revolution is probably going to be found to be insubstantial and thus unable to confer notability. The other two do look plausible to me, though.
So what's my conclusion? I see notability pretty clearly demonstrated in 2 third party RSes (namely IndieGames.com and gamestar.de). The minimum threshold is "significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources." Two sources is multiple sources. So I think it meets the minimum threshold. I'd remove the 3 listed non-RSes and carefully examine the reliability of the first party sources and sources of unknown reliability to clean it up a bit, but otherwise I'd say it's OK. I don't have the power to unsalt anything though. I'm also sympathetic to the WP:TOOSOON argument as this may not be more than a stub for a while until the game is close to release or until some time post-release. -Thibbs (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Which 3 references would you have me remove? I have not used any primary references in the article. We are actively discussing the notability of SegaNerds in WP:VG/RS.--Cube b3 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've suggested that you remove the 3 listed non-RSes. See my above comment on "Explicit non-RSes". And you have clearly used primary sources as references in the article. Press releases are primary sources because they are issued by the company who are close to or directly involved with the work. You've used three of these press releases in your article. See above. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This should just be unsalted. There might be COI issues and it might not be that notable, but it's notable enough and whatever they come up with is sure to be better than the majority of unreferenced/cruft/bullshit/substubs that populate Wikipedia. - hahnchen 12:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and unsalted, since a few people seem to be in favor. --PresN 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm fine with that. If people could help keep an eye on it though, I'd appreciate it. I have a feeling I may be back here soon if he's as difficult with the content as he has been with the notability discussions. He seems to be having a hard time with recognizing what constitutes a reliable source, and has been slow to remove them from his drafts, as Thibbs pointed out... Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I've already followed this through two AfDs and lengthy conversations whereof (and apparently we're back where we started), I'm going to request that someone else address the cavalcade of unreliable sources in the new article you just unsalted. czar ♔ 22:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I plan on doing a bit. There's still some unreliable sources in there, and it's organized weird (bullet point list that reads like the back of a game box, weird section titles, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and moved the page out of my Sandbox and removed 3 press release based secondary articles from MCVUK, GamersHell and Game Revolution. I am done with the page for the time being. Who knows, maybe in a month or so I would like to work on it again but now it is time for actual fans of the game to work on it. I have been working on this article for over 2 months and I really am itching to move to something more exciting. Maybe my next article would be RedBull Games or something more fun and exciting.--Cube b3 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo archive

Is there an archive of Yahoo games articles somewhere? Once in a while I run into a http://www.videogames.yahoo.com/ article and it redirects to a special 404 page but I've never looked this in depth into recovering them. I'm specifically trying to access [9]. czar ♔ 17:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's anywhere, it will be in the Wayback Machine. That particular print-view link brings up no results, but another version might be available. I really couldn't say without knowing what's supposed to be at the other end of that link. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
[10]. (Assuming this is coming from the Earthbound 64 article) --MASEM (t) 22:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's the diff Edit: I think you got it, Masem. Looks like the later edits messed with the citation. Thanks! czar ♔ 23:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not, at least for that Iato quote. I don't see it in the IGN article that appears to be what was original at Yahoo. Where it's cited in the reception it appears correct, but not for that quote. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dog series

I recently redirected the Sleeping Dogs (series) article because (1) there is no series, (2) there is no coverage of a series, and (3) anything that needs to be said about a potential series can fit easily within the parent article. My edit was reverted (history). If you'd like to weigh in, go for it. czar ♔ 00:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't we gotten one single comment on the peer review? @Czar URDNEXT (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
URDNEXT, sometimes it takes time for comments to come. The WP:VG to-do list is kinda out-of-date, though, so maybe people just aren't aware of it. Tezero (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Tezero Alright, let's see what happens. URDNEXT (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, have you heard the news?

World of Warcraft is not part of the Warcraft series: Talk:List of best-selling PC games#WoW_and_WarCraft. It's true. See for yourself. Bye. --Mika1h (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sega Pico and how to handle its issues

Hello, fellow project members. In going through my quest here to complete reworks of all of the Sega console articles (and eventually maybe all of the "console" articles), I've decided to take a look at Sega Pico and Advanced Pico Beena next, just to get them knocked out. I've already done some source work, and there's a lot missing, but I can see that as its definition as a "video game console" is sketchy at best. It's referred to as one in a few sources and sites like Allgame have listings for it, but really it's more like a Leapster. In any regard, I could use some second opinions on a few things as I try to redo this one. The following are my questions I'd like some consensus on:

  • The games list in the article is incomplete; Allgame shows 20 or so games in North America/Europe, but the article indicates almost 300 games in Japan. I couldn't find that reliably backed up, but Sega Toys' website in Japanese indicated at least 170 titles, and I've seen games lists on unreliable sites which list a bunch, possibly close to the 300. Should this be separated out into its own list of games, given this? There's no way 300 games will fit in this article if the list is expanded.
  • Does Advanced Pico Beena really warrant its own article? A search for coverage has been light at best; I'm of the opinion it may be best to just make as a subsection in Sega Pico.
  • What's the necessity of having technical specifications for it? I'm also having trouble finding those reliably sourced; everything I'm finding came from us and ultimately from some fan site in Japan.

I appreciate all thoughts and opinions. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, why isn't the Leapster a video game console? Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably because it was strictly an educational tool, and no sources refer to it being part of any gen. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I've said some of this before at WT:SEGA when I was making List of Sega video game consoles, but to try to consolidate it here: 1) Pico is definitely a console; it's a stand-alone device that plays games (in the form of cartridges). The fact that those games are meant for children and that the hardware for the device has always been way out of date is immaterial. We don't need an RS assigning it to a generation to make it a console. 2) Beena can totally be merged into Pico; it was clearly meant as an upgraded version of the Pico and while it's still a separate console there's no law that says that it must have its own article if it can't support it cleanly. It's up to editorial discretion. 3) 300 games might not fit into the article, but I don't think you even need to list them out if you don't want to. If you wanted to I'd split it into its own list, but if you don't want to try to source a complete list of crummy edu-games, you don't need to list them anywhere. Just slap a link to a list of them in the External links section. --PresN 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Merge Beena and let it expand out summary style (if it gets to that). Support not having to source entire lists of questionable value—external link to something comparable should be fine. Don't let your fine wikiwork become drudgery. czar ♔ 01:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool. I took care of all of my major rewriting today with these in mind. Thanks, guys. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Should this be an article?

Should this really be an article? I haven't much experience in nominating articles for deletion, but this seems really unnecessary. Chambr (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

...Maybe. It doesn't augur well when an article cites itself, but there surprisingly are a few usable sources that aren't present: Escapist (I can't remember; is this the blacklisted one, or is that The Guardian?), Kotaku, Pulp365. I find PC fanboys to be some of the most obnoxious, unlovable people on the planet, right up there with Brawl-bashing Melee fanboys, but they certainly do have a documented presence. Tezero (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I AfD'd the article (before seeing this discussion, FWIW). I also think it might be time to take a proper look at Wikinium's other articles following the section above and this one discussing their importance. Sam Walton (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Draft-Class video game articles

I think that this category should probably be looked at. This project doesn't normally use drafts anyway so maybe there's a chance that whatever is part of this, there's already an article made for it. GamerPro64 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"This project doesn't normally use drafts anyway" - Where do you gather that? I have seen and used many VG Drafts. Your statement surprises me greatly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay fine. I guess that comment was strictly opinion based. I apologize. GamerPro64 17:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No, don't apologize. I was just surprised that maybe there was consensus not to use it and I was unaware! Most VG-related AfC submissions are methodically moved to Draftspace and tagged with a project banner these days, and incubated drafts also are. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the rest of the discussion, I think it may be worth going through the category and cleaning it up- looks like there have been a few drafts that got moved to mainspace but left the talk page behind- Draft talk:Civilization: Beyond Earth jumped out at me, for one. --PresN 02:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Video games featuring female antagonists

Hello. Apologies for spamming this talk page, but I don't see instructions for how to list categories on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games (despite it having links to CfD), as it seems to be AfD & MfD specific. Anyway, there is a discussion of possible interest to this project at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_2#Category:Video_games_featuring_female_antagonists. Input would be appreciated. Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Samsung's Gear VR

Today, Samsung announced Gear VR. I am not sure if this is within the scope of this WikiProject, but I am sure games will be releasing on it, being as it is powered by Oculus. Feel free to help out. If not this WikiProject, which should be tagged? Chambr (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've boldly added ours; I really disdain seeing articles that aren't tagged in any WikiProjects. Tezero (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I know, right? Every article should fall at least under one WikiProject. I haven't yet found one that doesn't. The "rater" gadget is great for banner-tagging. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Chambr: The subject already had a stub at Samsung Gear VR, but your latest version was more complete and there was no overlap, so I histmerged it under Gear VR. I added half a dozen categories, a couple of WikiProject banners, added a stub template (hopefully a patroller will stubsort it properly), and an oprhan template until there are more incoming links. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Chambr (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Sims 4

I think we may need a few eyes on The Sims 4 in a while, looks like its not going down too well with the public. - X201 (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the usual "User Ratings" type activity. I'll watch the page. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Revenge of the Colons

Currently we have Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Justice for All and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Trials and Tribulations but also Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies. I, personally, think the double colon is a bit tacky but don't have a strong opinion on the matter, other than we should pick one naming scheme and stick with it. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I'm glad it's the custom to defer to the sources. Good riddance. Tezero (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok I did a bit of research and my conclusion is that Capcom doesn't really know or care which is correct. It has used all combinations of colons/dashes/lack of colons for each location. See [11] [12] [13] among others. Basically, we should pick one we like and stick to it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Eh, Colon Cancer happens. Personally I'd prefer just omitting the first of the two colons, as replacing the second with an en-dash or something seems to imply that "Revenge of the Colons" is specifying "Ace Attorney" specifically, when really it's more specifying the entire "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney". Actually, descending in specificity as would be natural, it would go "Ace Attorney: Phoenix Wright: Revenge of the Colons". I have been stricken with a deep sympathy for British date ordering. Tezero (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Clue Chronicles: Fatal Illusion sources

Have started collecting links in the article Clue Chronicles: Fatal Illusion based off the Cluedo franchise. I am struggling to find anything useful on the internet. Can anyone send me links?--Coin945 (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, I would like to be given acces to this Highbeam article and well as this one.--Coin945 (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I can email you the highbeam article if you turn on email for your account in your preferences. The second article has a free trial associated with the site, so if you don't see that I can get one and then email you that article too. --PresN 15:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind offer. I have decided to do my best with what I've got first, and see what it looks like afterwards.--Coin945 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Addition to infobox

Could someone edit the video game infobox so you can add closure dates for MMOs like some of the closed MMOs listed here. I feel that it is information just as important as the release date.Kringe1 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

To note, this idea has been suggested before [14] but I think the concern is that some may use the field for non-MMO games where the online play series have been shut down (eg a common thing with EA games of late) though the game remains offline playable. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't see how that concern should override the usefulness of displaying both the start and end dates of online service for an online-only game. Most video games can be played indefinitely, given operational hardware; MMOs are different, absent special considerations, and the termination of the online service is as significant a milestone in their histories as their launch. Powers T 12:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I was only stating what I read. I think that as long as it is specifically limited to MMOs where the game is 100% unplayable due to no online servers being around, it's reasonable to add. We just have to make that clarity, as well as to make sure people don't use it to push for stupid cases (eg "since this game has a online DRM check, and the DRM server is down, clearly the game is shut down" attitudes). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I'm thinking that shouldn't be any more of an issue than other infobox fields are. Powers T 19:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
What purpose would such information serve? Whether or not an MMO is currently active is not important information that belongs in the infobox, anymore than support ended for any other game. There are also technicalities that arise when these games are resurrected by fans such as what is attempting to happen with City of Heroes. There is no necessity for such a field. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I would consider it information worth adding to the infobox - the article itself would presumably say "X was an MMO" and contain prose about the closure and the game not being playable anymore. My concern would be when the game is still technically playable - private servers exist for many MMOs, allowing them to carry on past the official servers' shutdown. As such I'm not sure either way on this. Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we need it due to the possibility of them never being truly dead. If we must have it in the infobox rather than a new field, wouldn't a bit of clever template programming be a better option? A vgrelease style template could be used for the finish date, in combination with the infobox it could be set to only work if the game is also in the defunct MMO category. - X201 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some of the concern regarding overuse of the template could be assuaged by naming the parameter something like |onlinegameclosedate. It's a little lengthy but it makes it clear that we're looking for a particular date. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we cite games to source the Gameplay section, or only their manuals?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Sourcing_Gameplay_sections czar ♔ 09:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends how it's being cited. Citations are used to back up claims. Citable claims can be either textual or verbal, but they can't be implicit claims. So elements of the plot from Doom can be cited to the game because it is printed on the screen as intermission text. And the fact that the US annexed Canada in Fallout can be cited to the game because the speaker in the intro says so. But a claim like "Mewtwo is twice as tall as Popo from Ice Climber" could not be cited to SSBM even if it's based on a measuring tape or counting of the actual pixels of the game. An explicit claim is the only thing that can be cited and any explicit claim made in a video game is fair game to cite. -Thibbs (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
So regarding the gameplay section, the game would have to make gameplay-related claims. I can imagine citing the game itself in some situations like citing claims made in the omnipresent FPS training missions. But the game probably couldn't be cited to support the claim that Half Life is an FPS because that requires the player to evaluate the game and conduct OR. An important caveat, though, is that not every sentence needs to be cited. All claims must be verifiable, but citations are only needed for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. In the case of Half Life there is probably no need to find a source claiming it's an FPS unless someone challenges the claim in good faith. -Thibbs (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
With manuals going the way of the dodo, I would say that if the game gives a very specific claim that can be made (which is stated by a narrator/character or printed on the screen so there is no interpretation whatsoever) which needs to be cited somehow, then yes, the game should be cited for that. I can't think of a good example of this offhand, but I'm sure there is something. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I've cited the game itself for Sonic: After the Sequel (an FA) and Freedom Planet (a GAN). These are both (the second only in origins) Sonic the Hedgehog fangames, so naturally there are no manuals and they don't get a whole lot of third-party coverage to source every detail. I agree about citing that Half-Life is an FPS to the game would be OR unless it describes itself as a first-person shooter at some point, but you could use the game to cite that it involves shooting enemies with guns in first-person. Tezero (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A good hypothetical example that came to mind:
Appropriate use of game to source: "The player can activate a temporary shield generator that reduces damage they take."
Inappropriate use: "The player can activate a shield that lasts for five seconds that halves the damage they take.", assuming that "5 seconds" and "half damage" are not directly mentioned by the game's instructions. While any player can experiment to figure out those timings, that's editing into WP:SYNTH territory. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would really only use material as back-up for actual claims (textual or verbal) requiring no interpretation at all. Not even obvious-to-the-world interpretation. It's simply too easy for strange misinterpretations to creep in otherwise. If in the intro to a game, the voice-actor explicitly says "In the 21st century, ... China would invade Alaska, the US would annex Canada, and the European Commonwealth would dissolve..." then the game could be cited for the on-wiki claim that the game is set in a future time when the US has annexed Canada. If in the in-game weapon description the words printed on the screen read "10mm SMG: A medium-sized SMG, capable of single shot and burst mode." then the game could be cited for the on-wiki claim that the 10mm SMG can be used in single shot or burst mode. But I don't think it is appropriate to cite the game for the claim that the game offers the player a variety of weapons. Even though simply playing the game will allow the reader to come to the same conclusion as the writer of the Wikipedia article, it's still an interpretation. Maybe it's a really obvious interpretation. In that case I'd argue that it needs no citation at all. If it's so obvious then it is not likely to be challenged. But if it were challenged it would need a better source than the game itself because ultimately the game really makes no such claim. An element or aspect of a game is not the same as a claim regarding the element or aspect of the game. -Thibbs (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Purely desciptive material (gameplay descriptions), or bits of dialgoue, say, can be cited to the game, I believe; if it starts to get subjective (difficulty, strategies etc.) it needs a secondary source. There's arguably also a concern over detail: if there's no secondary source for something, maybe it's not necessary to understand the game. I think basic descriptions sourced to the game are less of a headache, though, and fine at least until FAC. bridies (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree as long as the basic description appears as an articulated claim in the game. Citation is appeal to authority. If a claim requires an actual citation then it's perfectly acceptable to point to claims made by the game's creators wherever they appear (in-game or out) and to cite them as authorities on the topic of the game. But a citation is not intended to act as an invitation for the reader to engage in interpretation and to (hopefully) come to the same conclusions as the writer of the article. A properly used citation has the effect of saying "And these are not my own claims, but the claims of an expert. And that can be verified here." An improperly used citation is one where the effect is to say "That's what I'm claiming and if you don't believe me then you can judge for yourself from the original source which can be found here." In the second case the authority (such as it is) derives from the editor's interpretation of source material in a (hopefully) common sense way that (hopefully) converges with the reader's interpretation. We as editors should never be putting ourselves in the position of authority even if the claim is obvious and intuitive. Anyway that's my view on it. And if it's obvious and intuitive then it needs no citation. It really depends on the specific case. What was the claim for which you were thinking of using the game as reference, Czar? And how would the game provide authority for your claim? -Thibbs (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ideally that'd be the case, but challenging uncited claims is as easy as placing a "citation needed" tag. You don't even need a reason to actively disbelieve. Citing to the game is an easy and functional, though logically null, way to prevent this. Tezero (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well a challenge must be in good faith otherwise it's just disruption (simple trolling or a WP:POINT violation). I doubt that citing a game could possibly settle a good faith challenge to a claim if the game fails to actually make the claim that is challenged. Again, the reason a source is cited is for the authority behind the claims it makes, not just as a common reference point between editor and reader to both conduct a bit of WP:OR. -Thibbs (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you. I'm only saying that giving some citation makes the claim less likely to be taken up for sport - assuming, of course, that the citation is made in good faith. It's an uncomfortable truth that sometimes - not very often, but sometimes - there's an important fact about a game that you can't find explicitly stated even in a primary source, like the character Milla having a health bar four hearts wide in Freedom Planet. Tezero (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I had another thought abut this question. I think walkthroughs and game guides would be perfectly fine to cite as well for gameplay issues. Many of them have a general gameplay tutorial at the start. The WP:VG Reference Library has a growing collection of such guides from Brady, Prima, and other sources. I pick them up whenever I see one for ~$1 at the used book stores. -Thibbs (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I used a game guide for, of all things, a development point in the Pokémon Colosseum article. Unfortunately, every game I have a guide for is at least at GA status except Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness. (For some reason I own the Final Fantasy XIII guide even though I've never played any main-series FF past VIII.) They're great, though. Tezero (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
While published strategy guides would be valid sources, something to keep in mind is if that is the source you have to turn to to justify something about gameplay, you're probably getting a bit too much detail, per GAMEGUIDE. That is, our gameplay sections for games with significant reception should be at a level of detail that may be even slightly higher than that presented by the reviews. There are exceptions of course, but remember what we're aiming for here. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning, though, that some reviewers may not bother to explain everything important about the game because it's so obvious (or it just doesn't relate to a point they're making about it). This is particularly true for typical entries in series that have gone on for a long time, and especially fangames. I had to use the manual pretty extensively for Sonic Advance 3 because the reviewers were just like, "it's Sonic; it's kinda fun; the characters team up; I dunno, I only played the first two levels; this is probably enough; let's go get baked." Tezero (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair reason for what you say, when third-parties are lacking. As long as we're self-aware to avoid getting too far into the details that a non-gamer will find boring. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Review update

The old review thread is pretty out-of-date, so I thought I'd take a turn creating one.

  • FAC:
  • Squall Leonhart has been nominated since July 4. It has one support and an unaddressed source review. It's almost certainly going to be archived unless the nom sees activity in the next few days.
  • Flight Unlimited III has been nominated since August 19. It has two supports and no outstanding objections. Currently not a high priority.
  • Sonic X has been nominated since August 22. It has one support and no opposes.
  • Fez has been nominated since August 25. It has no comments whatsoever.
  • FLC:
  • GAN:
I would like to please urgently request further input as the nominator. It definitely needs more input, but the reviewer is, according to their talk page, busy with college work. They have not been active on the site since August 19. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Peer review:
  • Deus Ex has been nominated since July 31. It has received input from three editors, none addressed.
  • Andrew Sega has been nominated since August 7. It has received input from one editor, none addressed.
  • FAR and GAR:
  • Midtown Madness has been nominated since May 1. It has two delists. Thanks to improvements during FAR, the article isn't in terrible shape and could probably be saved with a little more effort.
  • Ada Wong has been nominated since August 14. It has one downgrade and one neutral. The article dates from Niemti's GAN-flooding period, so the nom could definitely use more input.

As always, there's a lot to do. Most pressing noms are Squall Leonhart at FAC, List of Bleach video games at FLC, Enter the Dominatrix at GAN and Midtown Madness at FAR. Please give them some love if you have time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, anyone who can help, please show these articles some love! Ceasar (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me throw Payday 2 at it since I just revamped quite a bit of it. At least change it out from "Start". Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Updates: I've given some comments to Squall, put Mikengreg on hold, supported the Bleach list, and given the GTAV list a source review. Might change priorities a little. Tezero (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Hey, everyone. There's a discussion as to whether two overlapping lists (List of freeware video games and List of free PC titles) should be merged. I think more opinions are needed on this matter, as there's a bit of deadlock. Any opinions on the matter would be welcome. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • There's no doubt that some entries overlap, but these lists are too dissimilar to be merged. Not all freeware is for computers and not all free computer games are strictly freeware. I think these lists should cross-link each other though. They're both excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.238.96 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Article on Gamergate?

As this article from the Guardian [15] appears to be the first major non-game related source to cover the whole recent issue of Zoe Quinn/Anita/etc., I wonder if we should consider an article on it. It would clearly need to be under BLP-levels of scrutiny in sourcing, but there's enough from the traditional VG press that describe the basic end results without going into opinion on who's right or wrong. A more minor issue would be on the naming as "Gamergate" is a term in biology already and I would dare not say ours is the more common version. "Gamergate (video game controversy)"? --MASEM (t) 17:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If there are enough third-party references demonstrating notability, and that the cites used balance out between different sides so that the end result is largely impartial and neutral, I don't see why not. What I fear, though, is that most games news outlets are not impartial on the matter; just like many previous game industry controversy cases, these sites tend to be apologetic, for fear of reprisal from certain parts of the community. Writers often take the side that gives them the moral high road because they don't wish to alienate readers who ultimately give them ad revenue, and this skews the POVs written on these topics (in fact, saucy tabloid headlines mixed with apologetical opinions lead to even more ad revenue). As an example, it's very rare to find a piece that's critical of Zoe Quinn or Anita S., and the overall majority of news articles paint them as victims. Ultimately, the proportion of articles available online dictate what viewpoint is and isn't undue.

If anyone feels bold enough to venture into this whole thing, I'd welcome an article created on this topic. I myself definitely won't be contributing, because my opinion on the whole matter is a highly partisan and unpopular one. I'm sure it would be in the best interests of everyone if I don't get my pre-existing biases involved. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't recommend it. The Zoe Quinn article is a constant source of heated arguments, NPOV and BLP violations, and a constant fight with people who don't understand Wikipedia or the concept of an RS. It's a constant mess, largely resulting in nothing ever moving forward because there's never consensus for anything, and it seems that it would spill into this article a lot. There may be enough coverage, I'm not sure, but it's something I wouldn't create or maintain until all that crap settles down some. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm against as well. After skimming the article, it really doesn't seem to say much apart from gamers seem to be eating themselves. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
So would the scope of this article be confined to the Quinn and Sarkeesian incidents of the last month? Or would it be about women and video games more broadly? Or even video game controversies? If there is sufficient coverage of the August events (which I guess compose the whole "#gamergate" thing so far) then an article could be created and linked to from the broader articles I listed. It might be better to start out as a subsection of one of these articles, though, and then split off if it gets too long. -Thibbs (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There may be something to add to the Video game controversies article, with strict limits placed on reliable sources ... based on the subject matter involved, could gaming sites be considered reliable? It should be sourced with articles in standard broad-based newspapers and news sites (CNN, New York Times, etc.) to minimize potential for impropriety. --McDoobAU93 18:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Another option: I could see a proper article on sexism in video gaming (currently that's just a redirect to "Gender representation in video games"). The stuff from last August seems more like it will be seen as a historical footnote whereas the larger topic isn't really covered in one place on Wikipedia. But certainly the gamergate incidents would fit well within "sexism in video gaming." -Thibbs (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There are two angles to the controversy, one is about sexism but the other is about nepotism in the video game news industry, such as the DoritosGate which is connected to this incident. An article about gaming press controversies with a wider scope should be able to cover both angles. Diego (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
A large part of it also relates to sensationalism and tabloidism in "video game journalism" and how the internet affects the videogame industry today. Writers write clickbait articles knowing that people are drawn to them, and often fact-checking and being neutral isn't the first thing on these people's minds. Take the Phil Fish incident for example - practically 99% of news articles state as a fact that he was "hacked", despite all the objective evidence pointing towards the entire thing being a self-made false flag intended to gain public sympathy. Only Fish's side of the story is told, because it allows for a saucier story that guarantees hundreds of thousands of clicks, and potentially a social outcry movement. Social media propagates these movements (had these taken place in the 1990s, there wouldn't be any attention at all), and the more attention a "controversy" gets, the more clicks these sites get in the long term, which makes it beneficial for them to spin stories to become as saucy as possible. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think based on above, holding off on a Gamergate article makes sense until we see what implications it may have. However, I do recommend that that Guardian article being a source for any of the people/articles mentioned (as a non-VG source high general RS quality). --MASEM (t) 01:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There are enough sources for a Gamergate article. The whole thing is a farce, it raised a few minor points that could be covered in Video_game_journalism#Ethics, but the collateral damage is so much that, like Paste - we might have to write about it even if we don't want to. - hahnchen 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact the FBI is now involved suggests its more than just a "farce", however, I am still going to hold off for now on a standalone article; if criminal proceedings should result from it, that might suggest a standalone at that time. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic but I'm curious. Has Gamergate caused any vandalism to articles on video game websites (e.g Kotaku, Polygon, Rock, Paper, Shotgun)? GamerPro64 17:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I've seen some vandalism here at Wikipedia for what it's worth, but that's hardly noteworthy. :) -Thibbs (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
We've had had to protect Zoe Quinn but I think it's less from outright vandalism and more that some editors are having problems with meeting BLP issues - eg , all on the Wikipedia side of the matter, not the Gamergate side. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Does being nominated for CEDEC Awards attributes to notability?

Nomination List Because that would be (kinda) crucial for me to start the Puyo Puyo!! Quest/Puyo Puyo!! Quest Arcade articles. Emphasis on just nominated and not won because Kantai Collection took that in this category. 4Gamer report 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 00:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

PS. That could also be material for SOFTIMAGE, Unreal Engine, Hideki Sakamoto, PS4 Share, Koichi Sugiyama and that book, which also won awards here.

  • I would consider it a good indication for potential but if that is the only coveragr you can find I would consider the claim to be weak. If it was me I would be looking for more critical reviews from established publications/sites.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
On top of my head there is Dengeki's exclusive interview with executive producer Daisuke Taka when Quest reached its first anniversary of running. Also the Sweets Paradise live event a while back got some coverage also IIRC but I have to look. I admit it can be hard because like many mainstream mobile puzzle card RPGs they let out a monstrous amount of press releases. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 06:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
PS. Just found that enwp did not have article(s) for Chain Chronicle, arguably SEGA Networks' most successful IP to date. That's a downer.
For later reference, zh:鎖鏈戰記, http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/7/5876957/sega-gumi-chain-chronicle ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sal, will note. I do not play Chain Chronicle personally so I am slightly less eager to create its article. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I listed it at WP:VG/R. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

GamesTM 108

Would possibly someone own the 108 issue of GamesTM? I really hope so. It has a "behind the scenes" about the original Guilty Gear that I'd like to have access to. It would be very helpful. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I do, but it is in storage and might take me a month to get it. Please send me an email at Special:EmailUser/Hahnchen. If you're short of patience, you can buy a digital copy at http://www.greatdigitalmags.com/view/gamestm/1533/gamestm-issue-108 - hahnchen 19:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Amazing! No hury, at all. I've made my first edit on Guilty Gear in 2013 and didn't finish it until now. What's a month for someone who has already awaited a year. Glad that people here are so responsive. Thank you very much, Hahnchen! PS: I've sent you the email Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Netcode

If anyone has time, could probably use another set of eyes. A major problem I have with editing the article further is the simple lack of sources and difficulty in finding more (and note that my changes are probably partially original synthesis). I raised concerns with the little content the article had previously talk page; I had almost thought to AfD it, but I figured it might have potential for merit. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As we know, 1UP.com links have been dying quite a bit lately. I've had the good fortune so far to find mirror sites of some of their articles and make archives with TextMirror, but while going through a few, I happened to stumble across this. It looks like the robots.txt file doesn't apply to all of the features there, and what the Wayback Machine does have helped me replace a couple of URLs so far. Thought this might help out to have, as 1UP's robots.txt has been a pain for our sourcing for quite some time. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WebCite, which czar introduced me to, is helpful for archiving pages that happen to be up, if only temporarily. Tezero (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I happen to favor TextMirror myself, but the problem had been that previously there was a robots.txt preventing Wayback Machine from working. While I can find the archive links for now, I've been frantically trying to get 1UP links archived in the articles I've used them in. Only one did I not succeed because Wayback didn't have it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Shadow the Hedgehog a spinoff?

Sergecross73 and I disagree on whether Shadow the Hedgehog should be grouped in the "spinoffs" or "main series" section of Template:Sonic games. We've argued back and forth about whether there's a consensus for its current grouping as a spinoff as well, but since I'm asking here to gain input on the issue itself, this is largely irrelevant. To summarize in few words:

  • Serge feels it is a spinoff because it doesn't have Sonic as a playable character and his name is not in the title, which he thinks are the defining traits of the main series.
  • I feel it is a main-series game because, unlike many other games in the series in which Sonic is playable and his name appears in the title, like Sonic Battle, Sonic Shuffle, and Sonic Chronicles, the gameplay is fairly typical of the other main-series entries: collecting rings, platforming, and getting to the end - though there are, of course, guns. In addition, the plot is connected to Sonic Heroes, the most recently released main-series game at the time (Serge counters this by suggesting that plot is of little importance in this series).

Tezero (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur with User:Sergecross73 that Shadow the Hedgehog is a spin-off, and IGN labels it as such: [16]. More details found at Template talk:Sonic games. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I've responded there. Tezero (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that reliable sources should be used to really determine this: do reviews call it a spinoff or a main series game? That being said, I happen to personally be of the opinion that it is a spinoff in the same way that a game like Tails Adventure is - in a plot sense. After all, we do that in mainstream media such as TV shows (such as Frasier being a spinoff of Cheers), even if its plot can be contiguous in some way, shape or form. Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
How is Shadow a spinoff in a "plot sense"? And I'm not sure Tails Adventure is a spinoff - I mean, sure, it's a forgotten title for the Game Gear, but so are Sonic Chaos and Sonic Blast. The main thing is that you don't run fast. Tezero (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
As for reliable sources, this IGN review categorizes it as one of the "sequels" along with Adventure 2, which is not disputed to be in the main series. Meanwhile, this GameSpy review compares it to Heroes, also not disputed as main-series, in deviating from the series' traditions in different ways. It's not standard to see reliable sources specifically identify games as "main-series", but I'm certain these help for that end. Tezero (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
But there's many more that call it a spin-off. Like I've been saying, calling this game a mainline Sonic game would be the equivalent of calling Luigi's Mansion or Yoshi Story a mainline Super Mario game. It's missing the title character in both name and as a playable gameplay mechanic. It's a spinoff by definition. Sergecross73 msg me 10:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW further comments should be made at Template talk:Sonic games#Shadow the Hedgehog and not here. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Video Game Bible, part 2

Hi guys. I happened to have found this in the archive. Video Game Bible. Someone had inexplicably posted the Hong Kong site, and in Chinese. But the link is now dead, and the book has no linkable contents. I thought you guys were saying that the book's contents were included, so I guess Google deleted it? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Super Review Thread 3: Super Review Thread Advance 4

Like any proper print encyclopedia, the last review thread is painfully out-of-date by now. This is no fault of its creator, but here's an update on the reviews and stuff that need addressing now.

FACs:

GANs (unaddressed):

PRs:

Other:

If you've got any more tasks, even small ones, that you'd like help with, just add 'em. Tezero (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Flight Unlimited III should be good to go after it gets an image review. It has three supports and a source rev already. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Budget range re-released date in Infobox VG

Hi, everybody. Many titles were re-released under Budget range labels (e.g. Greatest Hits), I noticed much (if not all) of FAs didn't list these releases dates in {{Infobox video game}}. So, shall (or couldn't) I list them in articles? --D2F0F5 05:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't note re-released like that in the infobox. I would say that if third-party, non-vendor sources note the release date, it should be okay to add in prose (typically under Release, if not, under Development). But if no one else notes this, it might just be better to categorize it so that a reader can find their way to, for example, that greatest hits page. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
In my experience it isn't common for the date of that budget-line appointment to even be available on the Internet. Typically you just see that the game is on the list. Tezero (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a few eyes on Minecraft/Mojang/Notch

MS is rumored to be buying Mojang for $2B. As such, I expect Minecraft, Mojang, and Notch's article to be targets of vandalism over the next few days. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added the news to the Mojang article, but only as being reported. Chambr (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TMNT page move

I put a request to move Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1989 video game) to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (NES game), since that game and the arcade game were both released in 1989. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agatha Christie FAR

Can we get some input here regarding Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None's FA status? I've raised some pretty major issues there and would appreciate input from the project about whether it should be delisted. Pinging Tezero and JimmyBlackwing: the c/e is over but I think there are still major problems there. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

CR4ZE, I agree that the article's still in need of major work to rightly merit FA status - as said on the FAR page, I'd prefer the copyedit to have been done last as a lot of the content will need to be changed - but keep/demote votes aren't supposed to come until the FAR becomes an FARC. Tezero (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Articles move to FARC when there's no consensus to keep or delist at FAR, so if we reach consensus here we won't need to move to the third step. Wuzh, the only active major contributor, indicated here that they gave up trying to improve it, so unless somebody else besides the GOCE editor steps in and cleans it up, it isn't likely that the content will change enough to keep it. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Destiny: Single-player or Multiplayer

Internet Connection is always required for the entire game. But at the same time it has a single-player campaign which you are allowed to play by your own or by co-op. Do we count that as a multiplayer exclusive? Some conflicts is happening in that page. AdrianGamer (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. That doesn't make any sense. --Mika1h (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The infobox template makes it clear what should be in the field. Single Player, Multiplayer or both of them, nothing else, including the explanatory note that I removed earlier. - X201 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Mika1h, you posted this on the Destiny Talk page yourself: "From what I gathered reading those articles and seeing some YouTube videos, the game is single player in the same vein as other MMOs in that you can solo it, but there are still other people running around on the same server. That would make it multiplayer-only game, no matter what Bungie claims. --Mika1h (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)". Bungie's vague wording about "game could played solo" doesn't change the fact of what you said earlier. In your own words, "there are still other people running around the same server. That would make it multiplayer-only game no matter what Bungie claims." As I mentioned in an earlier post, Destiny was never billed as a single-player game and more like an MMORPG.Dibol (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
A required internet connection doesn't make a game multiplayer automatically... Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, we don't treat Diablo 3, Driver: San Francisco, or Silent Hunter 5: Battle of the Atlantic as multiplayer only because of Always-on DRM so I don't see why this should be any different.--76.65.41.36 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note with concerning the infobox and notified them of this section, after the same edits was made to Diablo 3 and multiple other articles. -- ferret (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, except Destiny was never billed as a single-player game. If you're required to be online, you're not exactly playing the game by yourself, especially with the Always-on DRM. If someone were to apply that type of logic, you might as well label every MMO as Single Player or multiplayer.Dibol (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: The way I'm seeing this is "Single-player" means "being able to play by yourself, no strings attached." The problem is certain games with Always-on DRM heavily conflicts with this. I'm proposing that we have have an extra heading stating whether or not a video game has DRM. The current mode is VERY unhelpful if someone is on the fence about buying a video game or not. As it stands with games like The Crew Diablo III and StarCraft 2, no one can play single-player out of the box without an internet connection, despite saying "this could be played single-player." Dibol (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem, then, is that your understanding in fundamentally wrong. The player section is just meant to designate whether its played "alone" or "with others". It's not commentary on DRM or required internet connections. Your other comments about "not being helpful" aren't really a concern either; any games with noteworthy or obtrusive DRM/internet requirements are going to have sourced information in the article's prose, which would be a lot more easy to understand than what you're suggesting. Basically, no one's objecting to the information you're adding, they're just objecting to where you're putting it. Just like it doesn't belong in the "genre" or "release date" sections either. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Also requiring an Internet connection does not suddenly mean that the game does not have a single player mode. The fact that you need an Internet connection to play Diablo 3 does not suddenly mean that you are not playing the game alone. In other words, an active Internet connection is not a second player by any definition.--76.65.41.36 (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the user in question decided to remove single player entirely from the Infobox. I've readded it but we should keep an eye on this user since I can see no way based on this discussion that they could have thought that the removal was acceptable.--76.65.41.36 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"From what I gathered reading those articles and seeing some YouTube videos, the game is single player in the same vein as other MMOs in that you can solo it, but there are still other people running around on the same server. That would make it multiplayer-only game, no matter what Bungie claims. --Mika1h (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)" - Dibol (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, it's fine to put it in the article, just put it somewhere else. Not in the single/multi-player field. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this source usable?

I have an interview here with producer David Mulich at GameStakers. The site itself takes user contributions which is a downside, but this is an interview in which Mulich has deliberately mentioned some items of information as a result of e-mail correspondence with myself. Is it usable or not? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Link, please. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Me being derp Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Interviews are typically considered reliable unless there's a reason to actively believe otherwise. In what areas does the site take "user contributions"? I've had interviews hosted on fansites and even forums make it into FAs. Tezero (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yea, the relevant policy is WP:ABOUTSELF, which is pretty much common sense; unless there are suspicions that the interviews may be fake or the interviewee being untruthful, then it's fine as a factual primary source. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero, the about page says "To write a review for a game, no rank is necessary, just an account which is free! Once the review is submitted, it is checked to make sure quality is present and then it is made public.", so there is some kind of oversight. @Salvidrim! Thanks for the info. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The video game release regions are not appropriate

Okay, this has been bothering me for a loooooooooong time, but as no body else has brought this up (kidding me guys?) I created an account just to do this. As you know, the vgrelease template is separated into four regions, Japan, North America, Europe and Australasia.

This is a major problem because Europe and North America are CONTINENTS, with DIFFERENT countries speaking DIFFERENT languages and obviously their video game release dates are DIFFERENT. Treating Europe as if it was one country is nonsense, or are you telling me that the English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Greek, Turkish, Ukrainian, Russian, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish, Swedish, Belgian, Hungarian, Slovakian, Croatian video games where all released on Exactly the same date? Or the same with American (I mean the USA here), Canadian, Mexican, Cuban and Jamaican release dates?

See what I mean here?

This is DISCRIMINATORY and treating the USA and UK as if they represent their entire continents.

Its equivalent to changing the "Japan" region to "Asia", as if it was appropriate

See what I mean?

I propose changing "North America" to "United States" and "Europe" to "United Kingdom" to solve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stranger with no soul (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We are more interested in the first English release date (save for Japan, which is a significant country where many video games originate from), so the North American release and the European release dates make the most sense. It is not discriminatory because this is how most sites already report release dates. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually WP:VG/DATE states that Japan should be treated the same as other non-English countries. --Mika1h (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There's also a {{Video game release}} template, which allows more flexible customization for regional releases since it accepts all ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes, in the case where it is absolutely necessary (however in not all cases should this actually be done). Alternatively, additional countries can be manually entered using {{vgrelease}} anyway, for example:
  • ABK: December 35, 2017
is displayed using {{vgrelease|[[Abkhazia|ABK]]|December 35, 2017}}. However, keep in mind that neither of these two is an excuse to add 70 different country release dates to game infoboxes. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, the release regions are based on the PAL/NTSC regions of yore, as seen here- File:PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg. Video games from NTSC regions (NA) could not be played in PAL regions (EU) or NTSC-J regions (JP). Australia/Australasia isn't it's own region, it's just another PAL area. With the advent of digital games, they still continued to be region-locked into those areas, so you couldn't play NTSC games on a PAL PS3. Nowadays, games on Steam or PSN are region-locked to specific countries, so the PAL/NTSC divide doesn't matter so much. Instead, we just say "what was the first release in NA? in EU? in JP?" regardless of language, and leave it at that; just like we say "what was the first PAL release?" regardless of language. If the first PAL/EU release was in France, then that's the date. I don't know why you think we're using the UK as the standard for Europe. --PresN 05:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyeditors wanted for Fez

JimmyBlackwing has expressed disapproval at the state of this article's prose. I thought it was good enough after a few fixes and I supported accordingly, but he feels that "a thorough working-over by at least one outside copyeditor" is needed, so that's what I'm here to ask for. Can anyone spare some time to fix it up? Here's the FAC; scroll to the bottom. Tezero (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional developer(s)

I just wonder which is the best way to list additional developer in the info box section, using a collapsible list like in Far Cry 3 and Call of Duty: Ghosts, or using efn like in Watch Dogs and Grand Theft Auto V. AdrianGamer (talk)

Don't know, but I wish we'd standardise on something. - X201 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Template: Activision

I have made a template for Activision, but it told me that the page doesn't exists. can someone help
Link: Template: Activision. AdrianGamer (talk)

Fixed - hahnchen 11:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. AdrianGamer (talk)

Comments needed

Could you have a quick look at the Remove alternative field name (Mode) discussion over on the template talk page please. I think its an open and shut case, but some comments would be helpful, thanks. - X201 (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Some AFDs for your attention

Old video games are notoriously hard to source as most of the sources are print media (magazines, documents etc.), or the websites that had all the web info are now lost to time, so the current state is not reflective of the notability of the game. For this reason I personally oppose these AFDs. To be fair I am also the creator. But yeah, please check these out and cast your objective vote.--Coin945 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, all video game related articles nominated at AFD are eventually tagged and listed at WP:VG/D. Much of the community monitors that. So you don't need to alert us here. That being said, I'll try to loon into these some. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:VG/AA is my alternative of choice, if WP:VG/D isn't complete enough for you. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Scottish independence

Given the possibility of Scotland becoming independent, have we got a precedent for something like this? My own thoughts are that any game created in Scotland while Scotland was part of the UK should stay as a "Developed in the UK", with a possible addition of a "Developed in Scotland" category. Only games made in Scotland after independence day (24 March 2016) should be regarded as a solely Scottish game. Obviously this is hypothetical at the moment and we'll know the real answer in a couple of hours, but it's worth thinking about. - X201 (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this not a bit too soon? Especially if they will not become fully independent till 2016. We also do not know the results yet. So it can become a full none-issue to begin with. Not to mention it could even be that as the independence is announced that there will be a major exodus of the game developers that are in scotland moving to England. So I can say. I do not know and I do not think anyone knows yet what will happen. So I think its too soon. NathanWubs (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Trust me, the edits will start tomorrow if its a yes vote. - X201 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
You are right, for one moment I thought that all IP editors would be sensible. If the vote is yes then I agree with your suggestion. NathanWubs (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia didn't exist when the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia split up, though games were probably being developed there at those times, and on the other hand I doubt the South Sudanese game industry has produced much of note, so I don't think there's much of a precedent there. I'd recommend not creating a Scottish game category until shortly before the Kingdom actually gains its sovereignty so articles aren't added there in the meantime - in all common sense, games that aren't far into development before independence but are from notable publishers and likely to be finished will probably still be being developed in Scotland after independence, but technically we don't know that. Saor Alba gu brath! Tezero (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
They said no, so we are save for now. NathanWubs (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So much for trying to be proactive on Wikipedia :-) - X201 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank god they voted no! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 10:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought

Avoiding getting off topic, did any of you guys have a bad experience with the reddit gaming subbreddit? Their community seems incredibely harsh. URDNEXT (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been on Reddit much except r/atheism and r/spacedicks, both profound experiences. If you don't like Reddit's community, though, avoid 4chan at all costs. Tezero (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Funningly enough, 4chan seemed better. I guess I'll just stay on the Twitter camp. URDNEXT (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
4chan is ok because there are no users or down/up votes. The people there are more toxic, but the community as a whole is less circlejerky. KonveyorBelt 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't gone there either. I mostly just read stories from websites from RS's. That way, if I read something interesting, I can add it to Wikipedia. I do read a lot of Neogaf though. Their "New Thread" Twitter account commonly breaks stories before anywhere else does. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I actually don't read RSes much of my own accord; most of my gaming news comes from my forums, RL, Facebook, and VG Cats. While I'm not inclined to start because my instinct is usually that anything I find is already on Wikipedia unless I sought it out, it makes sense from an admin/maintenance perspective. Tezero (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
/r/games and /r/truegaming are infinitely better. Sam Walton (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Have almost no experience with Reddit, except for vods of gdqs. That is about it and sometimes finding them in random browsing. NathanWubs (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been officially promoted yet but with Flight Unlimited III, this project has now reached the milestone of 250 FAs/FLs. As a bonus, the topic its apart of, Looking Glass Studios video games will become a Featured Topic. Thanks go out to JimmyBlackwing for his contributions. GamerPro64 02:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Two-hundred and fifty FA/Ls is quite an achievement; it's been a long time since that progress bar was first installed. Everyone at WPVG deserves credit for this milestone. (And I find it hard to believe that the LGS video games FT is finished after all this time. I gave up hope for that project on many occasions, only to come back to it months or years later. At roughly seven years in the making, it clearly wins no points for speed.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Are AMA's reliable?

A lot of times, developers will release a bunch of new information in these sessions, but I'm not sure if they're reliable to use as references. Maybe if the page is archived, is there any chance it's more reliable? URDNEXT (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK Reddit doesn't delete old stuff. You can also directly link to a specific comment... Do I would year it like any other interview: WP:SELFPUB, which means reliable for facts about the subject itself, as a primary source. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
AMAs should be good, if they're validated (this usually involves the person posting their username on their twitter or similar, or calling Reddit directly). Reddit doesn't delete old pages, though archiving is always good; they just turn off comments after 6 months. --PresN 17:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

1UP Is Down Thread XI: Invasion of the Tinysauruses

So, I know this has been discussed to death over a number of threads, but I remember hearing a while back that the long-infamous 1UP.com was in the process of restructuring its archives such that old reviews and such would be accessible. Has this ever materialized? Have there been any other updates lately? I ask because of Tony Hawk's Underground, which I can't in all good conscience take to FAC with a dead link. Tezero (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You can try pulling up a archive.org backup of the page(s), and then archive that archive with webcitation, so that it's immune to robots.txt shenanigans. --PresN 23:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd already tried that for the original link (the PS2 review) and the Wayback Machine hadn't snagged it, but just to humor myself I went through a prefix list of similar titles and found that the GameCube review had been archived, so I WebCited that. Thanks for the extra push, I guess! Tezero (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What the hell is this section title supposed to mean? Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Heh, it was just supposed to be a joke about how many of these threads there have been. (It's the subtitle of the eleventh Land Before Time movie.) Tezero (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Brave Frontier

Well I am having a problem regarding the article I created, which is Brave Frontier. IT seems that the page I wrote lacks a lot of things especially first party sources and anything else. If someone can cover this thoroughly please do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackgaia02 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 August 2014‎ (UTC)

September 2014's TFAs

So this week, not only did System Shock become the Featured Article on the main page for the 22nd, but on the 26th we will have School Rumble there as well. Its mostly known for being a manga series but since some games were made based on the series, it falls into our spectrum. GamerPro64 00:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We have lots of un-mained FAs, so if you're interested in seeing yours, everyone, post at WP:TFAR for a date in, say, mid-December or later. Tezero (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice re: RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects?

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cockpit Manager '14 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cockpit Manager '14 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockpit Manager '14 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DH85868993 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Open world games task force

I'm thinking about creating it. Who's willing to join it? Also, what is the process of creating a task force? URDNEXT (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'd be there helping with Japanese iterations of it, like Xenoblade Chronicles X or Zelda Wii U, though I probably would be helping much with the American/Western based ones, which would probably be the bulk of the project... Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 Do you wanna found the force with me? I'm not sure how to do it myself. URDNEXT (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't know either, but I bet someone will post some guidance soon. I'd just be more of a "along for the ride" type in this endeavor. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 Alright, I hope to see you at the force then. Meanwhile I'll just wait till more people come into the discission to get the approval of the project. URDNEXT (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone out there know how do we get an approval from the project to create the force? URDNEXT (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't imagine you'd need much, if any. If a task force isn't active, it can just be closed as usual. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you join it? @Tezero URDNEXT (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I tend to edit what I'm interested in, and I don't play a whole lot of Western-developed games in general barring indies, Valve, Tony Hawk, and the BioShock series, but I suppose I could help out with particularly dire projects as needed. Tezero (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

TurboGrafx-16 cleanup

The TurboGrafx-16 article is in need of a major cleanup. I've started up a discussion thread on the best way to do this here. Any input is welcome.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange

Why is the {{WikiProject Video games}} template suddenly displaying three random citations? (For example, File talk:The Legend of Legacy logo.png shows what I mean, and the problem seems to appear on every talk page where that template is transcluded - such as this very talkpage Note:Issue has been temporarily fixed). Though to be honest it's really late at night where I live and I'm too tired and sleepy to bother to figure out why it happened, but I'm just posting this here to let everyone know. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 13:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I believe this works as a temporary solution but I don't have time to dig deeper right now. The problem has to do with the Secrets of Rætikon entry at Template:WPVG announcements which is transcluded in the WikiProject Video games template. -Thibbs (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. I can't help solve the issue right now either, as I'm off to sleep... Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 13:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
OK I had another quick look and I found the source of the problem. This is the fix. Probably a good thing to be aware of because this has the potential to cause annoying problems project-wide. -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor's reception

Can someone help expanding the reception part of Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor and keep it safe from troll. Some people keep removing the critic score.. --AdrianGamer (talk)

It seems like it's all new editors and IPs blanking the info, so I've semi-protected the page. Hopefully that helps some. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect SNAFU

While surveying the "Metal Gear media" topic, I stumbled across this article: Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance - Vocal Tracks. I checked the talk page for the assessment, but found only a weird redirect page, which didn't even list a WikiProject. Clicking on the redirect link at the top took me to a double redirect that (apparently) led back to the same page. And clicking "article" from this page redirected me to Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. I have no idea how to solve this problem, so any help would be appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there was an article at MGR (hyphen) VT, and also one at MGR (mdash) VT. The talk page for hyphen was redirecting to the talk page for mdash, but the article for mdash was redirecting to the game article. I've just gone ahead and tagged the hyphen talk page with the proper tags, slapped a redirect tag on the mdash talk page, and adjusted its redirect to go to the album article, not the game. --PresN 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't even figure out what was going on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Milestone discussion post #5: Kilometer Edition

As GamerPro64 noted above, we've once again reached a milestone: 250 Featured Articles/Lists! This was one of the first milestones we declared back in February 2011 (when we had 177 pieces of featured content- 135 articles and 42 lists), and now we're at 184 FAs and 66 FLs. Since it's done... we need to replace it! We've got Start, C, and GA-class covered already, so my vote is for something featured-related. Any suggestions? --PresN 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

10% B-class or higher? I'd kinda like to crop-rotate article qualities rather than jumping straight back to FA, plus I think B-class is a solid general threshold for articles being good enough for the average reader. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we should aim for 500 featured articles, or at least 400. URDNEXT (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with URDNEXT. Four- to five-hundred FA/Ls is similar to what MILHIST tried for when they hit their goal. Looking at their milestones, though, I see that they've added a fifth one related to featured pictures. Perhaps we could increase the FA/L milestone to 500 and add some sort of goal for FPs? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of stepping on a few politically important toes, I'd rather not prioritize featured pictures. I feel that articles, first and foremost, are what users come to Wikipedia the most for and benefit most from being featured. MILHIST does seem to be a rival for us, so I'm fine with the 400-500 FA goal. I'm considering partaking in the GA Cup, in which case at least some of my work will be in video games, so that'll ready a few targets. Tezero (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Only thing I'm worried about in setting a 500 FA/L goal is that it took us 3.5 years to get 73 FA/Ls - another 250 would take 9.5 years. We're moving faster than we used to- 4 FACs at a time is a lot more than we use to have- but it's still a very, very long-term goal. We can shoot for it anyway, though, if that's what we want. --PresN 05:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That seems high. If we escalate our activity somewhat and push some of our GA projects to FAs (which usually isn't a whole lot of work), I think it could be done in three years. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would also prefer something like 10% B-Class - I think destubbing articles serves the reader better than taking a GA to FA, or something similar; there's much more crucial improvement from bad to good than from good to great. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. (But of course I do - that's pretty much a centerpiece of my editing philosophy in general actually. But you guys care about these milestones far more, so its not like you need to cater to me or anything.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll be honest and say that I don't really care about GA and FA qualifications for my work other than (1) to formally cement that I made a difference and (2) to get GAs and FAs for topics that don't really have them (for example, I took the Czech language page there because there are so few recognized language articles, and before I started with Sonic the Hedgehog articles there was, like, one GA and one FA). Does this mean I don't value the quality upgrades on their own terms? Of course not, but all things being equal, I'd rather one of our project goals be tailored to the reader rather than to shiny things. Tezero (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If there's a consensus for the B-class milestone, I won't stand in the way. I only worry that removing a goal for top-quality content could make the next 250 come even slower. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it would. Is that a problem, though? I don't know that there's an easy answer. It depends what our goal is: to have a few articles that look great or a lot that look good. Tezero (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the current two proposed options look like:

(382/500)
(4480/4179.1)

Since I mentioned the rate for FA/Ls above, I'll add that in February 2011, we were at 4.095% B , and now we're at 5.16%. That said, it's only 1500 articles away, so a concerted effort could make it- right now I think most people don't push an article to B unless they plan to take it to GA. The other way to help is to merge together the many, many series of sub-stub articles we have, so that the needed article count gets smaller. --PresN 19:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't go B without GA in mind, either, if for no other reason than that it's usually close and I might as well. (Actually, I think most B-class pages could be posted at GAN right now and wouldn't fail outright. I only quickfail when there are, like, whole sections unsourced, with the rest being badly formatted or unformatted citations to Ahmed al-Aṣūlī's Totally Objective Freewebs Hub for Islam and the like.) The GA-to-FA push is where the ratio of utility to effort seems the lowest, though; nominators have to spend a great deal of time slaving over minor gripes about wording and paragraph spacing that I can't imagine the average reader will lose sleep over. That's why I typically only bother with FA when there's a topic I'd really like people to learn about as you don't see it on the main page often. Tezero (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
For example, most of the 18-article Fifa Manager series has infoboxes longer than the actual content- merging them all into the series article would be the work of a moment, and chop 16 crummy articles out of the pool. --PresN 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus decides here, but I did want to point out that there is a fundamental difference between a targeted percentage (e.g. 20% C or better, 75% Start or better, 10% B or better, etc.) and a targeted number (e.g. 250 FA/Ls and 750 GA/AA, etc.) because a target number is pretty much reached in a steady linear fashion while a target percentage has two ends to be considered. For the number-targeting milestone that project just reached (250 FA/Ls), every FA/L that was promoted brought WP:VG closer to its goal. If project members promoted only 1 FA/L each year then progress would still slowly be made. That's obviously true for all number targets. When the target is a percentage, however, each improved article (e.g. C->B or Start->B, etc.) brings the project closer to the goal but at the same time every new article that is created at the lower (e.g. stub or start) levels brings the project further from the goal. To put this in perspective, the 3-month stats from WP:VG/NAA are: 182 new stubs, 178 new starts, 48 new drafts, 29 new lists, 9 new C-class, and 9 new B-class. So for WP:VG to simply maintain its current completion stat for the 10% B-class or better milestone would require the promotion of 23 articles to B-class within the past 3 months. If this last 3 month period is regarded as about average, then to make progress toward the goal would require at least 8 promotions per month. Each month. Slacking off on a goal would mean that only the denominator was growing without the numerator keeping balance so it would be even harder to catch up later. This is not necessarily a problem, but it's something that we should be conscious about. Only 1 of the 5 MILHIST milestones indicate a targeted percentage of the total while the other 4 all indicate a specific number. Of our goals we currently have 1 number goals and 3 percentage goals and we're talking about changing to 4 of 4 percentage goals. -Thibbs (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple facts to add, though I agree with the facts you're stating: according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics, in the past 3 months we've added 53 B-class articles- which is to say, while we have only 13 more B-class articles at the start of September compared to the start of June, we have 30 more GA and 10 more FA articles. We're not going backwards on the B percentage metric, thankfully. Additionally, VG/NAA doesn't reflect deletions and merges- I went ahead and merged almost 20 articles today into parent series articles/lists, shrinking the denominator a bit, and that doesn't show up there. --PresN 23:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's encouraging. Again I have no objection to a percentage-based goal, it's just a little more to think about with them than with straight number goals. Whereas past number goals are still complete today because we generally promote FAs faster than we demote them, past percent goals continue to adjust downward as new articles are added. So we have to continue to work to maintain those goals even after hitting them or our past percentage-based milestones will slowly be undermined. The stats seem to show that this isn't a big deal, though. The previous "10% of articles C-Class or better" goal is currently at 114.8% completion and the previous "50% of articles Start-Class or better" goal is currently at 104.6% complete. So we're not slipping on either of those stats. -Thibbs (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think percentage goals should be maintained rather than reached. So for example it should be worked out what percentage of video game articles are start-class or better (approximately 60%?), and the goal should be to keep the bar near complete.--Coin945 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's right. So a percentage goal is a little more work than a number goal, but as the stats show it's clearly doable provided the wikiproject doesn't grow faster than it can be maintained or lose too many maintainers. I don't think there's much need for concern on these two aspects just yet. So far all percent goals that have been set are either still ongoing or have been changed to increase the percent (e.g. 10% C-Class or better has become 20% C-Class or better; 50% Start-Class or better has become 75% Start-Class or better) but if the decision is ever made to replace one of these with a new unrelated goal then something should be set up to track the old goals. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I think goals should be both reached and maintained- as we have been doing. I don't see the point in setting a goal to "stay where we are" instead of "get better", as long as that's possible.
Anyways, it looks like we're converging on the "10% B " goal, so unless there's some disagreement or another good idea forthcoming, I'll swap out the bars on the project page in the next couple days. Remember that you can make up crazy goals if you can get people to agree, like "clear X problem category" or "get all top-importance articles to C-class". --PresN 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Goal now set: 10% of articles B ; currently at 1597/3093.5 (51.6%)

Glossary

Reminder to all that Glossary of video game terms is a thing that exists, and is a great place to list video game terms and merge in stubs that are only a couple of paragraphs long so that they don't sit adrift in the Wiki, alone and unloved. --PresN 01:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that this page is classed as mid-importance. For something that's this central to the concept of videogames, shouldn't it really be high importance? --benlisquareT•C•E 04:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Lists suffer a huge debuff; only a few are even mid-. If this informal restriction were lifted, it would naturally be top-. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of our current importance standards, but that one especially doesn't make sense... Tezero (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Heh, debuff. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
H-hahaha...? *clicks on page* Oh. Hahaha. Tezero (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The informal restriction has been lifted, by the way- it used to be that all lists were "low", but that got dropped a few months back. If you think this should be higher, go for it. Same for other lists. --PresN 05:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Outro"

The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Sexual harassment in video gaming

I came across this page at AFD during the GamerGate fallout. I've suggested it be moved to Harassment in video gaming which would also enlarge the scope of the article, but I'm also aware that editors may wish to keep it as a pure sexism style piece. Input welcome here. - hahnchen 16:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it might be worthwhile to have a separate article that addresses specifically sexual harassment in video game culture, since it is overwhelmingly based on gender. That article could use some more development, though- there's no shortage of events to discuss on the topic. Maybe there should be a broad "harassment in video game cultures" article that touches on the different kinds of abuse, which can touch on sexism but also discuss racism and so forth. It might be worthwhile to have a discussion about the place of sexuality-based harassment- that is, harassment focused on people who are homosexual or generally non-hetero-normative. Should that be a part of the Sexual Harassment article, or a part of a broad harassment article, or a separate space? Sothewind (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Students

Some of you might know that I've been running a Wikipedia class this semester at a local school. I thought you'd be interested to know that at least two students will be working on video games-related stuff (likely starting with TotalBiscuit and one of the WPVG requested articles, perhaps an indie game). It's not common for this project to get love from the Education Program, so I thought I'd make a point of asking whether anyone would be interested in doing some on-wiki mentoring as they build and expand their first articles (wouldn't entail more than just some gentle edits in their sandboxes and encouragement with the same patience you'd give any new editor). If your curiosity is sufficiently piqued, drop a note on my talk page. czar ♔ 02:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_108&oldid=1136046630"