Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 97

Archive 90

←

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

History of VG Console articles - possible solution

Everyone knows that we have had trouble in the past with these articles as people want to add consoles to the various generation articles, or how we include/incorporate handhelds, and so on. One thing to remember is that there is a parent article to all this History of video game consoles which all the generation articles break out.

I would like to suggest and get input on the idea of at least three major considerations:

1. For the "First generation", etc. articles, strictly limiting it to those consoles that are universally included in those generations and compared against. For example, in the Seventh Generation, we would only include the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii, since those three are universally grouped as such. Sixth Gen would be DC, PS2, Xbox 1, and GC, and so one.
2. For all other consoles, like the Evo, we would either mention these within the main History of video game consoles or have a second article of "non-mainstream consoles".
3. For handhelds, which are not usually grouped within the same generations as the console, we can have separate articles like History of video game handheld units (YYYY-YYYY) where the years are chosen appropriate to keep roughly the same groupings already used in the various console generation articles, but without tying those to the generations.

The key to remember on the console generations is that they primarily feature common hardware elements that define that generation, and the comparisons between the major hardware players of those generations. Thus making the non-mainstream consoles and the handhelds extraneous information.

I'm just tossing this out before suggesting a full proposal since this would require some destruction of a large number of articles. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it, though who knows how others may feel about it. I think it's worth doing a full-on proposal at least. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

regarding the seventh generation there has been a past consensus to include Zeebo that at both the generation talkpage and the seventh generation template. At tge very least there should be a specicic discussion about removing that console since there is alrady an established consensus to include it.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wholly opposed to this proposal as it is. "We are only going to have the big three and that is it" is certainly not inclusive enough and serves no decent purpose. -Kai445 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Eighth Generation Consoles

I'm looking for additional outside opinions into the inclusion or exclusion of Video Game Consoles into the 8th Generation article. I have started a new section here and am requesting outside comment. Talk:History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation)#.22We_need_hardware_comparisons.22. Thank you. -Kai445 (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

requesting comments on Crusader Kings II

Hi guys, I was wondering if folks could chime in on a discussion regarding a "mods" section on the article on whether or not it's appropriate. daintalk   15:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Planescape: Torment

Could someone check to see if this is an appropriate addition to this article? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering a number of the original game designers could be making that game, I think it can work, but it needs a rewrite, and I don't think it needs its own subsection. The "future releases" section could be renamed "legacy". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding use of "Open world" as a genre.

Hello all. As far as I am aware open world in terms of gaming is a design method but not a genre. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency between articles concerning the opening sentence even among the higher rated articles which sometimes exclusively use genre (They all use genre at minimum as far as I can see) but also combine perspective and game modes. I am not sure that Open World should be something that appears alongside genre but something that should be explicitly discussed in the lede alongside gameplay (same with perspective and mode if necessary, though i think stating "Single Player" is unnecessary, all games at minimum support at least one player). Does anyone have any opinion on this? I ask because I reworked some of the Assassin's Creed openings to move the open world part into a gameplay focused part of the opening instead, but a user disagrees about that particular aspect and I don't want to spend time fighting about it, would rather have a larger input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's basically correct. I've been working on Starflight on and off for a while. I just checked, and I mention that it's a sandbox game in the third paragraph, after most of the plot and gameplay description. I would think that the concept of an "open world" needs some context to understand in what way the game world is open. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Torchiest. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mario Kart (series) article discussion

Hi, just see if people would be interested in giving their two cents at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mario_Kart#Charts_and_Gamecruft -- Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks everyone. Lots of quick feedback and clear consensus. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Settlers: Heritage of Kings

I have been doing some extensive maintenance on the said article and have found that the Czech article is ranked as a GAN and have thus put the appropriate message on the page. These are the pages in question: here is the English and here is the Czech. I would do the translating myself, but I am more than a little inexperienced in that area. Could someone else help me get the article into a fit state? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

• Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

I've done some cleanup in the article. With some work it could become GA status. The Development section needs expansion. I split that section up since it was mostly just discussing the releases. Any other suggestions? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"X-only games" category and "Y games" category in video game articles.

As far as I know, "X-only games" category can be used in "Y games" in video game articles, so I believe that it it is logical that "X-only games" categories such as Category:Nintendo GameCube-only games, Category:Wii-only games and Category:Wii U-only games should also count as GameCube, Wii and Wii U games. Does anyone have an opinion on this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe X-only should be a subcat of X, but I don't have very wide experience with categories. Salvidrim! ✉ 23:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

X-only is a subcategory of Y, but I think there seems to be some concern with the recent removal of such categories that have Y categories (in this case, Wii-U games from Wii games). Per WP:DUPCAT, normally we would not include a parent category into another one. However, per DUPCAT, categories "sometimes provide an exception to the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory: there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory. (Of course, if the pages also belong to other subcategories that do cause diffusion, then they will not appear in the parent category directly.)" and "it is useful to identify non-diffusing subcategories with a note on the category page." I think that we would include both Wii U-only and Wii-U game categories, as well as Wii-only and Wii game categories. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem here with the game not appearing in the parent category? It's obvious that Wii-only games are Wii games, so what's the benefit in duplication? Diego (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If I were to go to the page Category:Wii games, and was looking for a title but I didn't know was Wii-only, I would need to check the Wii-only subcat to find it, and doesn't make the categorization system that helpful. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and it seems that Niemti was behind the mass removal of the Wii-U game categories from the Wii-U only games as pointed out in my differences above and here in this set of differences from several articles among a few others, but I am listing a few examples: Wii Fit U ([1]), The Wonderful 101 ([2]), Game & Wario ([3]), Game Party Champions ([4]), Pikmin 3 ([5]), Rabbids Land ([6]), Sing Party ([7]), and Rayman Legends ([8]). Oh, dear... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a brief issue with Niemti yesterday on BioShock categories but it was amenably resolved, and hopefully the discussion I had with him pointed out the same thing here. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I'm hoping for as well. The earlier two differences as described before I posted the rest of them are from New Super Mario Bros. U and Nintendo Land, the latter of which Curtaintoad restored the category in question. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And while this is going on, just to let everyone know, there's still an ongoing RfC about Niemti at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the subcast should be tagged {{Distinguished subcategory}} and the parent tagged {{All included}}. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Featured Picture candidate

Letting everyone know that there is an video game related picture that is up for Featured Picture status. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Splatters. If you think it meets the criteria, go and Support it. GamerPro64 21:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• There's also another one for a picture of the PSP-2000. GamerPro64 21:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo Franchises template

So, lately I've been trying to clean up this template some, ever since I came across it a few weeks back and saw a bunch of entries that didn't seem to apply to the terms "Franchise" or "Nintendo" for that matter. (Like Kameo or The Last Story, for example.) While I have gotten some more clear cut ones removed, I'm still running into a lot of opposition when I try to trim it down further.

I've come up with some inclusion criteria and put them on the talk page, but it seems like they're still too lax. I wanted some extra input, if possible, because I'm having a hard time articulating why I feel some entries, such as Famicom Detective Club or Art Academy (video game), don't really strike me as relevant "franchises", even if they do pass the inclusion criteria. I can't of anything beyond a relatively subjective claim of irrelevance. Or conversely, maybe you think I'm in the wrong, and entries like that do belong. That's fine too; I'd like some reassurance either way. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we define 'franchise', exactly? It might be easier to change the name to 'Nintendo series', which is at least half clear-cut. Then, cull any 'series' that doesn't meet both of the following requirements.

• A series that has at least two games
• A series that is originally published by Nintendo in all (or nearly all) major cases.

I'd agree with the first part, but I'm not sure about the second. Do you have an example of a franchise that meets the first but not the second? --Odie5533 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, renaming it to "series" was something I proposed on the talk page, for the same reason you gave above, but only got feedback from the same IP(s) that challenges me on everything else. As far as series that fit criteria one but not two, the IP(s) and other various editors have added series such as Dragon Quest, the Xeno (Xenoblade, Xenosaga, Xenogears) series, or the Fatal Frame. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the template for Nintendo-owned franchises (thus including ones they bought like Fatal Frame) or is it for franchises based around Nintendo consoles? By having a 3rd-party section, it leans towards the latter, meaning Fatal Frame should not be included. I would say change criteria one to "A series that has released at least two games for Nintendo platforms" to make it clear that series recently bought by Nintendo aren't franchises based around Nintendo platforms, and change criteria 2 to "A series that is originally published on Nintendo platforms in all (or nearly all) major cases." --Odie5533 (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet another user is an administrator

FYI, I would like to announce, on behalf of the WikiProject, that Salvidrim is now an administrator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahem... not yet. Salvidrim! ✉ 09:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops...! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And people need to start spelling my name right... jeez ;) Salvidrim! ✉ 09:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Fixed spelling error. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's like Dewey defeats Truman all over again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As of January 14, we can now confirm that Salvidrim is an administrator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel a great sense of meh. --Izno (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As we all should. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 01:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats Salvidrim! —  dain- talk   01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Praise praised praised praised praised praised praised praised

Video game publications have commented on the game, giving praise and criticism. Jason Porter from GameChronicles.com and Louis Bedigian from GameZone praised the interaction with stages as one of the best parts of the game, commenting that it adds more strategy to fights. Both praised the return of "classic characters", commenting on their new designs and how different their attacks are. Porter noted Noob-Smoke to be "arguably the coolest fighters in Mortal Kombat history". Gaming Age writer Brian Peterson commented that Deception was the best game from the MK series since Mortal Kombat II. He praised the characters designs, noting them to be fluid and detailed. Like Porter, he praised the interaction with stages. Jeremy Dunham from IGN said that it is the best game from the Mortal Kombat series. He also stated that the removal of special move buttons, which caused too much damage to an opponent, was one of the developer's best decisions. As such, with the special moves removed from the fights and the addition of Breakes, players are now able to stop any combo. However, he noted that character designs were "robotic" in comparison to other video games such as Dead or Alive or Virtua Fighter 4. The soundtrack was also criticized as having "basic sound effects". GameSpot reviewer Greg Kasavin commented that the fights have been highly improved with the addition of new fighting styles which "is clearly inspired by kung fu movies". Although he stated the fights were not perfect noting they could end in a few seconds due to the interaction with the arenas, he praised how painful and funny some moves looked. TeamXbox reviewer Dale Nardozzi praised the characters' animations and movements. He also noted that the soundtrack "sets the tone perfectly for your basic, disembowelments, decapitations, and impalements".

Plus 4 more "praised" in the same section later.

STOP WRITING LIKE THAT.

Oh, and it was in a GA. --Niemti (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

1. You'd probably have more luck if you wrote this on the talk pages or the article, GA nominator, and GA reviewer. If you already have done this, then see point #2
2. You'd probably have more luck if you addressed people sensibly, rather than in bolded, ALLCAPS demands. You're just asking for opposition, or people completely tuning you out. Most of the time when I'm personally addressed with ridiculous section titles, or all-caps/bolded demands, it's usually the rantings of some child who doesn't know what they're talking about, and I don't take them seriously. I'm not saying that's you, quite the opposite, you're an experienced editor. But that's how you're presenting yourself, and it makes people concentrate on that rather than the point you're trying to make. If you're going to take the time to write things like this, you may as well write it in a way that people will react to it positively. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it was less a personal attack for one article and more a public service announcement to write better(or less lazy) prose in general. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize that, and that's why I wrote point #2. Quite frankly, I think that makes it worse. We don't need someone scolding the general project over his personal grievances on an article, especially considering it's a volunteer project. One of the most common thing I hear people complain about in their lives are how their bosses are complaining jerks. What would make anyone think this would go over well, a general user with no authority over anyone else randomly sharing their scathing remarks over something no one has particular responsibility over? Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. A polite note to the editor(s) who wrote that would be a lot more effective than this message, considering I'm certain many of us struggle daily with the work of trying to mix up the language in reception sections. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaming Hitler

Gaming Hitler, a redirect to Robert Kotick (CEO, president, and a director of Activision Blizzard) (an article tagged as within the scope of this project) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 13#Gaming Hitler. Your comments in the discussion would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Last Story: What's the story?

I'll keep it simple. There's no story in that article. The reason? Overly complex or a need of web references? Anyway, I need some help in writing and the word, simplifying the story of this game on the Wii. As well as come clean ups and maybe having a hard time to find more web references if there's anymore that needs to be resolved. I'm overexerting myself. So help with the story and article would be worth the trouble. It doesn't have to be right away. That would be all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at writing the plot, as its source should be self-referential since it's a game. I left out all optional chapters. My writing is probably too detailed and needs wikilinking, but it's a start at best and revertable at worst. —Ost (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If I had the time, I'll use the sandbox to help me out. For now, good work Ost316. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Arcade game infobox

There is a proposal (currently at the Arcade Task Force talk page) to list ports/rereleases/remakes of old "classic" arcade games as a group in the affected articles' infoboxes rather than omitting them from the infobox as is the convention at several articles. This suggestion is intended as a compromise for editors who wish to retain an emphasis within the article on the original version of the game, while still using the infobox fields according to their original purposes. The proposal needs a few more eyes. Please weigh in if you have an opinion on the matter. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

FACs in need of reviews

Hey all, my FAC for Journey (here) is languishing without supports/opposes after a few weeks; would anyone mind coming by to review it? To be fair as well, the fifth Broken Sword FAC, the God of War FAC, and the Arkham City FAC could also use some attention. --PresN 20:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already supported God of War, but I'll try to do some reviews on the others this week. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Sinclair

I have started a proposal to group together related articles about the works of Sir Clive Sinclair. Please take a look at the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Sinclair and see if you support it. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback on Halo 4's plot section

Hello everyone, a few editors including myself are working on improving Halo 4. One section we feel is a bit lacking or needs some work is the synopsis section; the plot to Halo 4 is far more labyrinthine than those of its predecessors and some extra eyes would be very much welcome on suggestions for improvement. You can leave comments here or on the talk page (I believe there's already an applicable thread.) Helpful participants may have bribery privileges for getting their own articles peer reviewed in the future, if that serves as an incentive :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

DragonSpires

Could someone take a look at DragonSpires? The game was (apparently) a DOS MUD that was abandoned, but not before a trivial writeup in Wired. Then it got ported to JAVA by some players—supposedly with the blessing of its original creators—but that part is unreferenced. I looked but couldn't find any quality sources. I removed material about the port and subsequent sequels in December because it was unreferenced, and I probably should have sent the article to AfD as well, but at the time I'm not sure I realized how trivial the Wired source material was. Anyways, an anonymous editor added the port material back and wants to continue work on the article sans references. The editor asked that I get outside opinions before acting further on the article, which is a fair request. Opinions? Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment, and I plan not to after this, but that is a quite biased write-up. I urge anyone considering this issue to take a look without taking into account the slant of the above. For example, I did not say I wanted to work on the article "sans references". I merely spoke of rewriting it to make it better, and Woodroar has now inserted "sans references" of his own accord. Amid the thousands upon thousands of results for pages mentioning DragonSpires, I'm sure some can be found for reference - but I don't know if anyone expects this to be a speedy process as I haven't been compiling links in case someone came along and moved to erase the long-standing article. Also, to over-simplify and say the game was "ported by fans" when I specifically, repeatedly told Woodroar that was not the case is quite misleading. (View his talk page.) Saying they were simply fans is an assumption on the part of Woodroar and seems to be coloring his entire decision process. Adam Maloy was the protege of the original creator, Dr. Cat, and Chris Wolf worked with Maloy on other projects. To say they are are just fans porting a game reads as a veiled attempt to influence your decision. This is a move to eliminate information on one of the first Graphical MUDs to ever exist, which was written up by Wired, one of the biggest names at the time, to serve a user's need to delete something, against the spirit of Wikipedia if not the strict letter of the law. I don't plan to comment any further and probably won't check back except to see if the page is still there. Thanks for your consideration. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the port is and whoever made it, it's not been shown to be covered by what Wikipedia considers to be "reliable sources", so it's hard to see why it should be mentioned at all. That's the issue that you need to fix - you can't just put material into Wikipedia without specifying a source, and the ones you gave as links are primary sources. Ideally, an expert in the field would've looked at those, said "this is worth writing about", and referenced both of them while writing a piece analysing the situation, e.g. "Maloy grew discontent and in 2002 shut the game down due to disputes." This isn't the place to do that - if you feel capable of doing so, it'd be best to go to Wired or the like and ask to write a feature about it. Speaking of which, I've looked at the Wired "write up" - it's not a dedicated article, but two paragraphs in a regular news tidbit column, coming right above "Random ASCII Art o' the Month". Arguably it does more to establish the notability of Dr. Cat, seeing as it mentions his team in a familiar way. It's great to have, but if you want to secure the article's position here you might do better in the short term looking for articles about Furcadia which give some substantial coverage of DragonSpires. There might also be print coverage. And for what it's worth, I don't think anyone's rushing to delete this. If that were the case, it would be gone already. But it does risk being merged into, say, the article about Dragon's Eye Productions, at least until more complete sources are produced and integrated into the prose. GreenReaper (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed a minor BLP violation and tagged the article for notability. I'll give it some time and hopefully someone will turn up additional sources. If anyone else would like to chime in, please feel free. Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the reply here and on my Talk page, GreenReaper. It was late and I needed to go to bed. (And now I need to go to work.) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just when I think I'm out... :) There are a lot of incorrect assumptions made, chief among them that this is a "port". It's one single game that simply changed languanges and I don't know why that can't seem to get through to anyone. How many times do I have to say it before people drop the misleading, "original research" style of labelling a single game's change as a simple "port"? Usage of the term is misleading, like there was a game. Then that was ported by some people. In reality a new team took over and continued the same project, which is not correctly served by referring to it as "a port".

What's more, please stop behaving as if I created the article. Using terms like "the ones you gave as links". It paints my complaint merely as that of someone trying to keep their own article, when in actuality I contributed and even removed content in the past, among other editors, and I did not create the article nor did I give it the tone or references you're mentioning. This is one of the first Graphical multiplayer games of its kind, and it affected many people's lives. Again, I have to repeat, please do not paint this conversation as if I did everything.

Delete it if necessary, but no matter how much "rule creep" you cite, it's wrong. 4.153.14.57 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether we call it a port or a continuation of the same game by a different team, the article is still largely based on original research because there are no substantial, reliable, third-party published sources as we require here. I'm assuming that you're now editing the article as User:Boogersandsnots, in which case I see that you've added some sources, but they're frankly not sources that are particularly helpful to us. If anything, they point towards the notability of Dragon's Eye Productions, but they won't help us write a good article on DragonSpires itself. If you're interested in the sources that we find valuable, please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, or we can continue the discussion (here, on your User Talk page, or on the Article Talk page, it's up to you). Please also keep in mind that, by its very nature, Wikipedia is a social project, and hit-and-run comments, uncivil edit summaries, and complaints about editors being wrong doesn't further that goal. If I have contributed in any way towards your irritation, I'm sorry, but I'm sure that if you take a moment and read through the policies and guidelines we've linked you'll understand why the do things the way we do. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of what I'm getting in this entire conversation is a lot of assumption, mistaken notions, and misleading behavior. For example, now I see on your talk page GreenReaper mentioned rewriting the article with no mention of the original, which nobody has even mentioned or alluded to. This is kind of insane, and it's clear from your statements that you'll do whatever you want either way. Right now you're pretending all the links are just Dragon's Eye info, which they are not. It's silly to claim that just because the company name is of course going to be mentioned whenever someone speaks of the game. So do whatever you want, as planned, and don't pretend you're in a position to give lessons on right or wrong behavior. This is Wikipedia, and you are a random person editing it. You hold no position of moral authority, and should not dictate how others express their frustration with your treatment of Wikipedia as a game of search & destroy rather than a place 'anyone is welcomed to edit regardless of what random users banded together and wrote out as "rules". If it was the law of the land, the website wouldn't allow edits from anonymous and new users without agreeing to the laws you cite. Again, you're not working in the spirit of the resource, but rather are exploring your hobby of finding things to delete and manipulate for no actual reason. "Because rule creep says I can" is not an actual reason. 4.153.14.57 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you misread what I was saying. To paraphrase: "It may be that the article you seek to write cannot be hosted at Wikipedia because it is impossible to back it up what what Wikipedians consider to be reliable sources." (It may not be, too, but it's up to those contributing material to find those sources.) That Wikipedia's policies rely on the consensus of existing editors does not make them illegitimate; indeed, it is hard to see how things could work otherwise on a site which everyone can edit. If you don't want to follow them, you're better-off creating your own website, as I did. It's a lot less stressful. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article is in serious need of more reliable sources. Google Books returns some results, so those should be incorporated into the article if possible. I removed some the original research from the article and replaced it with a primary reference. I'm not entirely convinced the article should even mention the Java version. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  I did a quick Google Books search and didn't find much. Do you believe the results you found are sufficient to justify a separate article or should I add a proposal tag to merge to Dragon's Eye Productions? The only current reliable reference about the game itself is Wired and it's trivial. The remaining references are either unreliable or about the company rather than the game. Woodroar (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  The book Interactive Internet: the insider's guide to MUDs, MOOs and IRC seems to have many pages devoted to discussing the various features of the game. I don't have the book, but the index on google books shows pages 59-61, 26, 49, and 54-55. That's pretty impressive to me. The game is one of the first graphical MUDs. It might not fit the letter of the GNG, but it should probably be mentioned on a History of MUDs article, and by that reasoning should probably have an article to itself. If you aren't convinced, I would not object to you nominating it at WP:AfD. The case is not clear cut and could be argued either way. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'll see if I can track down the actual book somewhere. I have to admit that I did a Google Books search, saw the sentence "is quickly gathering serious backers, according to the designer" and tried to find other results. It just didn't scream "reliable" to me. :) Woodroar (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability of both DragonSpires and Dragon's Eye Productions

I was going to propose a partial merge of the sourced content from DragonSpires—which could fit in a sentence or two?—to Dragon's Eye Productions, and found that article similarly unsourced. Now after the drama above, sources that are more properly about Dragon's Eye Productions were added to the DragonSpires article, but they're all extremely trivial. Putting the sources on both articles together, we've got trivial mentions in Wired, IGN, and GameSpy; primary emails and interviews at the MUD Dev Archive, Furcadia.com, and SourceForge; and the unreliable MPOGD. I looked for sources and found more of the same. At this point, I'm reasonably sure that both articles would fail an AfD. Ideas of what to do at this point? Woodroar (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Furcadia? GreenReaper (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of what I'm thinking. Woodroar (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I proposed a merge from both Dragon's Eye Productions and DragonSpires to Furcadia. The discussion is at Talk:Furcadia#Merge from Dragon's Eye Productions and DragonSpires if anyone is interested in commenting. Woodroar (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

YDKJ - disambig title

You Don't Know Jack (Facebook game) was fine but now that they have introduced an equivalent iOS app and working towards an Android one RSN, I don't think "Facebook Game" applies any more. The mobile apps are the same game - the game networks with the Facebook details to have you play in the same asynchronsis manner with the same sets of questions, the only difference being keyboard/mouse verse touchscreen. So it doesn't make any sense to call the mobile versions under a new article. With these apps, its also hard to call it a Facebook game, and trying to disambig by year doesn't work. I'm considering naming this "You Don't Know Jack (social game)", given that the title won this category at the Spike VGAs this year, but considering other suggestions. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What would be the problem with using the year of the Facebook release? It's apparently the same game, just with a new port to new devices. So I'd say it's whatever year it initially appeared in, and the mobile versions just get added to the new article. I know there are much older versions of the game though. -- ferret (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since the mobile versions are still tied to Facebook, it could be left as is or changed to (social network game). I would say leave it as it is, because the mobile versions still use Facebook and I think the title makes it plainly clear which game is being discussed. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Community GAR for Development history of The Elder Scrolls series

I have brought the article Development history of The Elder Scrolls series up to community reassessment of its good article status. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

SteamPlay category

I've been slowly adding categories based on Steam functionality (Category:Steam Workshop games, Category:Steam Greenlight games), and just realized we also have Category:SteamPlay games. I've just made the category but unlike the above two examples, where the # of games to consider I can count on fingers and toes, there's a lot of SteamPlay games. I'm not going to try to rush to populate it completely, but want to make sure editors are aware it is there so that if they know they have a SteamPlay game, to add it to that category. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the category should probably be deleted. We don't even have an article about SteamPlay. It seems like a neat feature, but I don't think it makes a useful category. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Steamplay is a part of Steam, and it makes no sense to have a separate article about just one feature of a software program. However, it is an significant feature (even when games are cross-platform, compatability of saves or cross-platform multiplayer play is not always assured) of games offered by Steam. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure people navigating to an article about a video game will want to find other SteamPlay articles. We could as well have a category for games which save to controller packs, since you can then take them to your friend's house to play. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Controller packs are not cross-platform however. SteamPlay is more akin to a controller pack that works on both an XBOX and a PS3, which is a more significant advantage. However, SteamCloud (Steam's "controller pack") support can be independent of SteamPlay and may only work for one platform, i.e. "Windows only". SteamPlay is where it gets interesting as you can move from Windows to OS X to Linux. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bang! (arcade game)

The article Bang! (arcade game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:N - no mention of notability -- nonnotable arcade game

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aquarium (arcade game)

The article Aquarium (arcade game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:N - no mention of notability, non-notable arcade game

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion needed at Talk:Lemmings (video game)/GA1

Hello. Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) has posted a second opinion request at Talk:Lemmings (video game)/GA1. Would anyone be willing to give another opinion on this GAN? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, on a different note, there is a move discussion for Anita Sarkeesian at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#Requested move. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

An ANI about the RM has now been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Andriasang

Around four months ago, website Andriasang - a pivotal reliable source for many niche game articles - decided that it would stop providing new content. They said they'd keep the website online, but in the last few months today's been the only day I've actually been able to access it.

Online or not, I think it may be a good idea to archive all usages of the website within Wikipedia articles. Even if the information is technically online, it's probably not a good idea to have sources that can only be accessed 'every now and then'. Curiously, I think it's actually gone down again since I started typing this, so it might be self-aware... but it's still sort-of alive, and we should get what we can from it when it is! Emmy Altava 22:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We had a bot op do web-citations of all in-use articles on.. gamepro? I can't remember but it was when they did say they were going to black out the site. This seems like another task we can ask the bot-operators to do just in case. Dunno how many links there are for this though. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I archived the Andriasang links on the articles I've worked on, and any found should definitely be archived. I recommend trying http://archive.is for Andriasang, it seems to do a better job than WebCite. Probably any links not available in the WaybackMachine should be archived, because you never know when a site will go down. It is very, very annoying to have written some of an article based on a source, and then the source dies and is not even available in the WaybackMachine. Gone for all time. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Release Dates Sources

Hi!

I've noticed that lots of people use gamefaqs or mobygames as sources for release dates, but I don't consider them reliable sources since anyone can send in release date information (and gamefaqs/mobygames never reference). Video game magazines from the time when the game was released often differ with a couple of months. The games of today may be easy to find release date information straight from the source, but what about older games? So which source does most of the gamefaqs entries use?

--Bergakungen91 (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Both GameFaqs and Mobygames rely on user-submited content, and per WP:VG/RS neither one should be used as a source for anything. For finding the release date of older games, a lot of times you just have to go with the most reliable source you can- be that GameSpot, IGN, AllGame, a magazine, etc. A lot of times you can't narrow it down to more than a given month. What game's in particular are you looking for dates for? --PresN 15:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Gamespot shares the same release database as Gamefaqs, but everything else I second what you say completely. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking for the release date of Fun 'n Games. The game was not covered that much in media. These are the sources I've located this far:

Genesis
Gamefaqs: 1993

Mega Drive
Mean Machines Sega #24: October 1993
Gamefaqs: 1993

SNES, North America
Nintendo Power #59: February 1994
GamePro #60: July 1994
Gamefaqs: 5:th August 1994

SNES, Europe
Gamefaqs: 25:th May 1994

Does someone know if Nintendo of America, Sega of America or any similar organization keep release data? Bergakungen91 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I've noticed that several GAs and even recent FAs like Resident Evil 2 and Drowned God don't source release dates or use Gamespot/Gamefaqs... --Mika1h (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Heureka! This link: http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/oldergames.jsp points to lists with release dates for North American games released on Nintendo consoles from NES to N64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergakungen91 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@Mika - in my experience, it seems like people agree that sources like gamefaqs shouldn't technically be used, but typically are anyways, or aren't replaced, simply because there's not anything else out there. (IGN's dates are good for current games, but I found them to be wrong or unlikely several times when working on game articles from the 90's. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think GameFAQs is probably OK in limited cases, such as non-controversial release dates for obscure games. In the case of controversial issues, such as the North American release of the NES, for example, it wouldn't be. --McDoobAU93 19:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is Good Article status a requirement to make any VG-related article an A-Class?

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

---

I know that the earlier discussion about the A-class assessment did not get resolved, but now, we want to resolve this issue once and for all: should Good Article status be required to make a video game-related article an A-Class? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Before replying, these past discussions may be of interest:

1. RfC about A-Class usage at WP:VG
2. A-Class priority
3. A-class

Salvidrim! 07:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• No. The A/B/C scale works differently from the GA/FA scale. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Not exactly. We cannot require an article to be GA before reaching A status, but it is highly encouraged that it meets the GA criteria before reaching A status. As you have seen, most A candidates are already good articles; but although it is common practice, I'm afraid we cannot make it a rule. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think we could decide, as a project, to make it a requirement just for WPVG, precisely because our assessment is independent of those two Wikipedia-wide scales. I'd prefer that we did that (requiring GA before A), but it wouldn't bother me if others disagreed, and I'm fine with whatever the result is. The important thing is clarity. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nope. Note that different projects may have different standards for A-class; part of the utility of them is they allow projects to best tailor ratings to the subject matter. I don't see any reason why we should burden GAN with reviews if the articles don't need them to reach A status; if people want to, it's a useful side avenue for vetting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm standing my ground and saying no, per all the reasons I have given previously. (Someone should link to the previous and many archived topics on this, presumably from most recent to earliest topics.) --Izno (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• This might actually be a good way to motivate us to improve and bolster our A-class assessment, which in my opinion is fairly thin. It would be cool if we could mimic the MILHIST project's very thorough process of A-class reviews. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Is A-Class even useful to have? I'm not sure we even need it. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I think it is even useful to have here at this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think A-Class is useful. I can say that it was the fact that this project having A-class is the main reason why I'm part of this group. GamerPro64 01:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  How is it useful? --Odie5533 (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  It is an area for review which encourages subject matter experts to give their review, which may catch more errors prior to either GA or FA (where there are not necessarily SMEs commenting). --Izno (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong No - A, B, C-class assessments use project-specific guidelines. GA/FA are project-wide assesment guidelines. I also added some links to previous discussions. Salvidrim! 07:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Re: Lord Sjones23, is your question here "is Good Article status required" or "should Good Article status be required"? Because I don't think you need an RFC to answer the former. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  I've rehashed the wording, as it should actually say "should good article status be required". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  What is your opinion? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  As the original poster of the RfC, I think that my opinion on having GA status as a requirement for A-class is a no, as A, B and C-classes are project specific guidelines and GA/FA are project-wide assessment guidelines per Salvadrim and Masem. The A/B/C scale works different from the GA/FA scale. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• No. As noted above by others, the project-specific assessment is different than the site-wide assessments. --Nouniquenames 05:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Nope - Per above, assessments by VG and WP are different from each other. ZappaOMati 05:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Electronic Sports

I have proposed a new WikiProject focussing on creation and improvement of articles related to electronic sports, which would be a child project of WP:VG. If anyone is interested in joining the discussion, the proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Electronic Sports. —Entropy ^(talk) 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Revival of eSports Task Force

The Pro gaming Task Force has been revived, and part of that involved renaming the project to eSports Task Force. If anyone is interested in helping out with that task force now that it's back up and running, we could definitely use the help! —Entropy ^(talk) 08:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Revival of StarCraft task force

I am planning on reviving the StarCraft task force of WP:VG and would appreciate and help and/or suggestions for doing so! —Entropy ^(talk) 01:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Joint collaboration idea

I've been dabbling this idea for a while but I think its a reasonable one so bare with me. If there is one bane on this project, in my opinion, its the fact that up at the Bounty Board, there is a bounty to have Wario achieve Featured Article status and has been up there for five years. Not only that up if it does reach FA status, the offerer has stated that he/she will pay $50 US dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation. So I want to ask if there is anyone who wants to assist in taking down this thorn in this project's backside and help the community as a whole. More can be found here. GamerPro64 03:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that still active? DocSigma hasn't been active for months. $50 is not a lot of money. - hahnchen 16:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not the fact that its not a lot of money, its the principle that we're helping with the financial support of Wikipedia if this is accomplished. And I do admit there may be some issues with DocSigma's activeness on the site. I'll see if I can contact him. GamerPro64 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I check with the guy and he said here that he would still pay the $50 if Wario is promoted to FA status. So if anyone wants to help out with this collaboration, let me know. GamerPro64 17:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I am indeed not active, but I want to see Wario returned to FA status. I tripled the bounty to $150 -- still not a lot of money, but the idea back then was to get people's attention, and I guess it still is.  Doc Sigma   ^{wait, what?}  18:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why Wario? --Odie5533 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why Wario what? GamerPro64 00:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I imagine he wonders why it's so important that Wario in particular is brought to FA. Something I've wondered myself... Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason why DocSigma wants it to reach FA is because he wants it to be part of the small list of article who were former Featured Articles reach that status again. Personally for me, who has been updating the to do list for nearly five years, seeing that on the bounty every day just becomes an eyesore after a while. Besides a collaboration is usually a great way to work together. Like the Beyond Good & Evil collab for example. GamerPro64 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda (Wii U game)

The said game does not seem like an article that should exist at the moment. There are no references, hardly any information for those references to contain, and hardly any text. I think it should be deleted, but I have never quite understood how to put up a request to delete the article. It might be that it has potential, but I doubt it. Any thoughts? --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, the game does exist apparently [9]. But I have no idea what to do with it at its current state. GamerPro64 20:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Redir to series article including a blurb about it. Not enough content to crystal ball much info about it. Patience, folks... :) Salvidrim! ✉ 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dang it, Salvidrim! You beat me to it. We EC'ed making extremely similar redirect edits! But yes, I obviously support such a move too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the redirect. Maybe we should recommend somewhere that you should only break an article out after significant press previews or something to fill the new article with… Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. There is virtually nothing that we can add to that article. It is no redirected and should stay that way for the time being.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also support the redirecting. Basically, it's simply not enough content to speculate information about it per WP:CRYSTAL. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We already have guidelines about dealing with remakes. They should only get their own article if there is distinct information about the game and its development. Otherwise it should go in a section in the original game article. - X201 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it was the original, unnamed game that was being referred to, not the Wind Waker remake. Especally since Nintendo did mention the unnamed game during the same announcement, but that it was still in development. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On a different, but similar note: something is wrong with the release timeline that someone has put into the main The Legend of Zelda article. On my computer, at least, it is reading "Invalid image map generated by EasyTimeline" and none of the links work now. I have tried to fix it, get it back to a timeline that worked, but someone reverted it and then made it worse by putting in the Wind Waker remake and not doing the various symbols properly. I fixed that, but the text is still there. What can be done? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoDrake (talk • contribs) 12:26, 24 January 2013‎

Try it now. - X201 (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Right have found the problem, it doesn't like the & in the A Link to the Past & Four Swords article title. I changed it by accident, but when you reintroduce it, it breaks the timeline. - X201 (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Have created a redirect at The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and Four Swords to get around the problem for now. Needs code monkeys to fix it properly, will probably need timeline code altering. - X201 (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Platoon video games

We've got another problem here: While the RFC is still going on, Niemti has split two video games, Platoon (2002 video game) and Platoon (1987 video game), from the main film article. Satellizer (talk · contribs) merged the two video games back to the main page, citing that it was "not enough content for an individual article", but it was swiftly demerged from the main page. I am opening a centralized discussion here and I do not want to get involved in this content dispute, but I just wanted to notify the WikiProject of this matter and I hope that I am not doing anything excessive here. Any thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And I was just about to do the same thing and ask whether the games meet the GNG or not here. I personally believe that they don't, which is why I merged them back,The 2002 one does, unsure about the 1987 game. Thanks, Satellizer talk contribs 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think both games meet the GNG and should have their own standalone articles. Niemti should have supplied an edit summary with a reason for the undo,--actually, it's probably better he didn't supply an edit summary--but I do support his undoing of the merger. Large content splits usually require discussion and consensus, but here not much content was split, and the two games warrant their own articles (in his opinion and in mine). At this point, if someone thinks they should be merged back I would ask them to AfD one or both of the game articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, after searching on the internet I've found that the 2002 game definitely meets the WP:GNG, and I've added two reliable sources to it. It seems unlikely that many online sources can be found for the 1987 game though, due to the date when it was published. Satellizer talk contribs 00:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty unlikely, so shall we nominate the 1987 game for AFD then? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Is AFD really necessary? If he did it w/o discussion, it seems like, if people are challenging it, it should be merged back, discussed, and only broken out again if there's consensus to do so, per WP:BRD. Am I missing something? Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he did the split without proper discussion taking place and we should hold a discussion here per WP:BRD. I don't know if the AFD might be necessary in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Because the split was of such small content, I'd consider it more the creation of a new article and not simply a content split. A content split would require discussion, but creating a new article does not. If the question we are asking is does the game meet the GNG, then AFD is the best place to form that consensus. Here are dozens of reviews for the 1987 game: [10] [11]. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The 1987 games had tons of mainstream coverage. People made a big deal out of it because it was a war game that was not simply about killing. I remember vets being on Entertainment Tonight talking about it. How much of this can be sourced now is beyond me. It should have plenty of coverage if people can find it though. Ridernyc (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List_of_Castlevania_media for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Students

Are there any specific areas for Games Student? Sarah x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlgameruk (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Wikipedia really isn't a community in the sense of being a place for groups of people to meet and discuss topics, like a forum. This talk page and the project it represents (And all other such projects) exist in order to improve articles within their respective scopes. If you need assistance in editing Wikipedia or advice on how to create or improve articles, there's many resources available. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Leon S. Kennedy

There is a discussion about adding an external link to the Resident Evil Wikia to one of the Resident Evil articles. Outside input would be appreciated. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello, Please note that Wii (video game series), which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

God of War FAC

Hello all. God of War (video game) is up for FAC again. If anyone could spare some time and look over the article and leave some comments, or even copy/edit if you see something odd (particulary areas that received opposition on the FAC), it would be appreciated. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A good title for "Video games as an art form"?

There is some confusion in the area of titles for articles about the overlap of art and games ("Art game", "Video game art", "Video games as art"... see for yourself). We've just moved Video games as art to Video games as an art form, and we'd like to hear some ideas for other changes. Diego (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Silent Hill discussion

Hello. More eyes would be needed on Talk:Silent_Hill#Protection_of_Silent_Hill_Articles_from_ELABORATE_THEORIST_Descriptions_Requested_.28UPDATED_AGAIN_AND_IS_MUST_SEE.29. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of VergeGameStudio

The article VergeGameStudio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet general notability guideline, per discussion on article talk page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This week on the Main Page

It seems two of the project's Featured Content is going to be on the main page this week. The first on will be List of songs in Guitar Hero II on Monday as this week's Featured List and then on the 30th, Bastion (video game) will be that day's Featured Article. GamerPro64 17:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed!

Can a WPVG admin please delete New Super Mario Bros. (series), which redirects to Mario Kart (two completely different video game series). Nominated for speedy deletion twice and declined both times by admins which have presumably little experience with the Super Mario series. Thanks, ~satellizer~~talk~ 03:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though the reason to delete makes perfect sense, the fact the speedy was declined means that we have to delete through proper channels - in this case, I've started the RFD on this. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected to an appropriate target and replied to the RfD. Salvidrim! ✉ 03:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

NHL series soundtracks

Recently, an editor (or editors--3 or 4 related IPs) has repeatedly been making unreferenced additions to the soundtrack listings of NHL series games, affecting all the articles from NHL 2002 through NHL 12 (excluding Arcade and Slapshot). I'm not myself any kind of video-game expert, so I asked an editor more knowledgeable about the games to look at the sketchy edits, and he confirmed that the added songs were not part of the games' original soundtracks and helped me clean them up. But these additions are ongoing and, although I have continued to revert them, I'd like other editors with more familiarity with the games to take a look at the articles and, especially for the soundtrack sections that aren't referenced, make sure that the lists are in fact accurate and confirm whether or not these recent additions belong. Regards, --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone close this discussion?

There appears to be consensus at Talk:Development history of The Elder Scrolls series#Merge to merge (or maybe delete?) the article. Can an uninvolved editor assess and close the discussion? I'm posting it here because there's a big backlog at WP:ANRFC.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Done and done. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks!--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion sought - stand alone articles on fictional elements of video games prior to release

To be specific, I'm working on Bioshock Infinite, which one can tell already is long in the tooth, if only due to a good amount of coverage of the game. I am anticipating that articles on the character of Elizabeth and the city of Columbia will be easy stand-alone articles by pushing most of the development information into those -- however, at this time, there's no reception really for these (maybe a few snippets for Elizabeth but really they are snippets that aren't really usable). I'm 99% confident both will gain attention on the release of this game, but that's CRYSTAL right now.

In the past, I've only split off fictional elements when I'm sure about reception (eg the Portal 2 characters, and I'm looking to do Aperture too soon, helping to offload some detail from Portal 2's article) and thus after a game's release and subsequent review. But does anyone see a problem with splitting off ahead of time before a real reception section can be made for this? Is the development information sufficient for what we would consider a stand alone article on a VG fictional element or is the reception necessary to do this? (Note, I doubt I'd have any issues if notability was brought up given the sourcing available, so this isn't the focus that I'm worried about). --MASEM (t) 19:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

CRYSTAL need not apply if sources are already covering the development of the character and city and discussing them in detail. It sounds like GNG is already comfortably met. I don't see a difference between creating an article for the game itself well before it is released, and it follows the correct summary style process. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You might see pushback outside the project for CRYSTAL reasoning, but I think I would agree with Torchiest otherwise. --Izno (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would personally wait. The reception is what's most important for demonstrating notability of the character. While I'm fairly certain as you that it will be generated for a game like Infinite, I think it's best kept in the relevant section for now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the right way to go - knowing past experience with fictional elements, reception is nearly everything, and while I do expect to have no problem filling that in when the time comes (and its doubtful that Infinite will never release), I think I might just userify versions of these until I can drop in the necessary reception elements. It's not like the article on the game will grow much more until it is released, upon when these other articles can then be implemented and original text removed for these. I appreciate that there's agreement the GNG is met though, and know that I wouldn't have a hard time trying to defend these should they go to AFD before that point, but it doesn't feel right to create them before we can talk about how the respective elements were received. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Need an opinion over at Talk:Sewer Shark

No arguments going on over there, but I have a question for the project. :) I posted a fairly long monologue of production details about Sewer Shark on its talk page, and I wanted to ask for some help on either locating sources for that info or otherwise making it meet verifiability. The problem is, aside from Tom Zito, my father (who was the lead programmer for that game) or myself, there's almost nobody still around who knows these details, yet I think they're of interest to the article and the community.

Obviously, I am not a reliable source by myself, and nobody's asked to interview me about this, so I'm not expecting us to just put my info into the article without having it properly cited. What do people here do in situations like this? It's sort of like a conflict of interest or being a self-published source. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How about pimping your dad out to Edge for one of their "The Making of..." series, if they can grab Zito as well it would make a good article for them. And we get information that has been through a reliable source. - X201 (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Additional note: I'm amazed Tom Zito is a red link. We need to fix that. - X201 (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice idea. Unfortunately, I haven't talked to him in close to a decade. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Japan researcher needed

I wonder if Nintendo of Japan has any list with release dates similar to those available here. Since I don't understand japanese, I wonder if someone could help me locate such a list, if there is any. Google research as well as mail contact can for instance be used. Preferably it would be at the domain www.nintendo.co.jp. If any list is found, it will be posted in the Reference library. Bergakungen91 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Furcadia merge proposal

I started a proposal to merge content from Dragon's Eye Productions and DragonSpires to Furcadia 10 days ago and it's been 4 days since the last comment, so I'm wondering if anyone has further comments or if an uninvolved editor would like to close the merger? Woodroar (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to close this? Woodroar (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I closed it. I also sent Dragon's Eye Productions to AFD. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Add a site to the reliable sources for this project.

I'd like to look at adding Behind the Voice Actors as a usable source for voice acting in games in the guideline, at least under certain conditions. I contacted them directly, and they do not use user-submitted information like IMDb, they use the credits, sourced info like ourselves or directly contact the actor/their representative. Images with a green tick are confirmed, as explained in this e-mail conversation I had with them:

• • • • • Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.
        • Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:
        • http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Batman-Arkham-Asylum/
        • The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.
        • Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.
        • We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.
        • - BTVA Admin Team"

I think they're a reliable site and while I think a lot of the unticked information is solid and not contested and could be used for a regular or Good Article, the ticks are checked and often, as I've found with some games, this site is the only place to cover cast fully and without user editing being involved, so I'd like to officially enshrine it in the project references. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We have an awesome subpage for discussion just like this. Please check out WT:VG/S. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Legend of French vandalism

Help! An unregistered user is substituting the word 'Zelda' for 'French', three times. I have tried to change it back twice, and they were most offensive. Someone help! --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the IP editor has stopped editing but if they continue to vandalism pages, revert the edit, then add the appropriate template warning to their user talk page: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. If they vandalise after a level 4 warning you can report here: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Also bare in mind if it is blatant vandalism, you're not at risk of edit warring if you revert it more than 3 times, see: Wikipedia:Edit_warring. As for personnel attacks, check here: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. The1337gamer (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lemmings GAN second opinion

We still need someone to provide a second opinion at Talk:Lemmings (video game)/GA1. If anyone is willing to step up to it, please do so. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists and Indexes

I was wondering because (List of Atari Lynx games) this is also an index should there not be a redirect from Index of Atari Lynx games? And shouldn't the same apply for all other lists to have redirect from Index of.. ?? Govvy (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This concept of "indexes" is, frankly, silly. A list is a list is a list, no matter how one tries to dress it up as something else. There may be better or worse ways to present that list, but it is still a list. In other words, I see most "index" articles as being WP:CFORKs... --Izno (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

At the same time I was wondering if anyone ever uses Indexes, searching for an item that way, but then they are becoming redundant, it was useful in old library systems, but I guess with more advance data searches you can find what you need without the use of the index. But still, the way I see it, a list is an index as well. I was trying to determine if it's applable to have redirects for those few people who might type Index of video game system... Govvy (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, so feel free to make them, but Wikipedia-wide we don't use the term 'index' for anything, and I've never seen redirects like that used (not that I've really looked, mind you). --PresN 17:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes... yes we do. WP:WikiProject Indexes. Much to my own personal frustration. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The hunt for index pages that aren't called "Index of"... Facepalm :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a facepalm for that is in order. Shrug. Nothing we can do now, not that I would want to expend the effort. --Izno (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Single-player games

Some video game articles have been placed into this category which seems mainly intended for board games. Should Category:Single-player video games be created since there is already Category:Multiplayer video games? --Mika1h (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds a great idea. It would certainly help in navigation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Aren't all games inherently single-player unless stated otherwise?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to play Go Fish by yourself ;) I agree with Mika1h's suggestion for Single-player video games. -- ferret (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Single player only video games be a more descriptive category? If we had Single Only and Multiplayer Only, that would mean that anything not in those categories would be a hybrid single/multiplayer game. - X201 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a better idea I think. Precisely the names would be Category:Single-player-only video games and Category:Multiplayer-only video games. And then we would have to delete the current multiplayer category. --Mika1h (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Knight Technologies

I started to write User:Govvy/Sandbox/Knight Technologies in my user space, but after realising that they might of only ever been contracted to do four games! All of which I have found, I am now considering, should I just forward to few links of Knight Tech too John Smedley (developer)? As it appears it was actually his company he started and probably ended. Thats according to MobyGames, [12]. Govvy (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot find enough sourced information about the company to make up a whole article you should probably do as you say. Bergakungen91 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding Reviews To A Game Entry

Hello everyone,

Firstly let me apologize if I'm doing this all wrong, I'm never worked with Wiki before so I'm a bit confused. Basically I would like to know what warrants a reliable source for video game reviews? My website posts reviews on a regular basis, we're not the biggest but they're of good quality and honest, and I'm wondering how we'd go about adding snippets to Wiki articles?

Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Space_3

"Polygon gave the game 9.5/10 saying, "Visceral hasn't just avoided screwing up its game with co-op — it has made it feel natural and at home, and has done it without impacting the single-player experience in any negative way. That alone would be enough to make Dead Space 3 an achievement. But the new crafting system and bigger, more open level structure join co-op to make Dead Space 3 one of the best action games in years."[30]"

Is there a certain list of requirements a website must meet?

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamers Heroes (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:VG/RS could be a place to start. ZappaOMati 00:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a huge wall of text :D I'll take a read, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamers Heroes (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I believe it's usually considered a conflict of interest for you to be using your own personal website as a source, partially because it'd give you the power to put whatever information you wanted to into articles, since you could create/alter the source info, and partially because there are so many people out there who try to spam their website over a bunch of articles in shameless self-promotion. I'm not saying I accuse you of this, it's more like one of those "the few bad ones ruin it for everyone" type things... Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to echo Sergecross in his comments of conflict of interest. Please avoid introducing review material from, or links to, your website in articles. If you wish, you may provide those reviews on the talk pages of the articles of interest, but you should leave others to include them if those editors so desire. --Izno (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Good Topic up for review

Letting everyone know that the Halo media topic is a removal candidate. So please Support or Oppose its removal of its GT status. GamerPro64 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Prince of Persia issues

I've been looking through the article and it needs a concerted effort made on it to turn it into something equal to Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Halo and The Legend of Zelda. The sections are confusing, the table for the game platforms is unhelpful, the number of references for such an article is pitiful, there is no reception section for the games, the infobox is practically the opposite of its name and, in general, it looks more like something from a bad dedicated wiki than something that belongs on Wikipedia. I can't really give much time to the amount of work it needs, since I've also got personal commitments that must not be ignored. Please could other editors have a look and see what can be done? I will still contribute when I can, such as I did with the article for The Two Thrones, adding an entire reception section. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article a bit. I think now it needs expansion and more references. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check fr:Prince of Persia (série), it looks fairly advanced. Maybe some sources you could reuse.Jean-Fred (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edge Games

Can you keep an eye on Edge Games please. I've just reverted the edits of a new user who edited the article to remove all criticism of the company and the owner, as well as the sourced court case material. They left it looking like a nice PR puff piece with zero references. They left a note on the talk page where they seem to be the most well informed source on the companies history that I have ever read. Its stretching my adherence of the assume good faith rule to the point where I feel the need to shout "ITS A DUCK" at the top of my voice. - X201 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, ducks are delicious and go very well with teriyaki sauce. I would love nothing more than to roast this one if the problem persists. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Webcite

Not sure if anyone has noticed but Webcite, has announced that it will stop accepting new entries at the end of 2013 if they don't reach their fundraising goal. I find this site extremely useful and im not sure if their any substitute other then hoping the wayback machine achives the page you need. Anyone know of any other sites? Salavat (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to broadcast this to VPP, since it affects the entirity of WP. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Some free images on Wikimedia Commons

Hi folks,

French user fr:User:Sylvhem successfully had screenshots from Blocks That Matter released under a free license − see commons:Category:Blocks That Matter. In case you would like to use those.

As usual, you might want to check commons:Historical_and_commercial_video_games where we try to curate all the free images we get.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I added some of the images I've obtained to commons:Historical_and_commercial_video_games#2010s. They should be in use on enwiki, but hopefully other projects can use them as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this really helps.

I must say I am quite often disappointed to see how little freely-licensed media of video games are actually used on projects, especially on the English Wikipedia.

Jean-Fred (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I had to remove some non-free images and was able to replace them with a free one on Turn-based tactics. It usually takes just a quick email to an independent developer to get some free images licensed. For corporate franchises, though, I wouldn't even bother trying. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Mike Dailly fact or fiction?

A user has removed every reference to Mike Dailly from the GTA and RockStar articles. Stating that he had nothing to do with GTA. Now either its a good catch at a spoof, or its someone with a grudge, or some misguided editing that has confused a fan website call dmadesign and the company of the similar name.We have sources to say Mike Daily was a key member of the GTA Rockstar team, but its always possible they could have been spoofed as well. - X201 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Additional: After a little bit of digging it seems the user is misguided or malicious, there more than enough reliable sources covering Mike Dailly at DMA and involved in GTA. I feel a revert-a-thon coming on :( - X201 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

G4 links

It's been news for a while but its been affirmed that G4 TV is being rebranded as Esquire Network come April - becoming a "man" network and definitely losing any focus on video games.

As G4 has been a reliable source in the past I suspect we have a lot of links to it, and I fear those links may disappear when the rebranding hits. While its not as much an emergency, we've had a bot do WebCites for us on closure of websites, I think this might be a good time to evoke that for G4 based on links. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WebCitation may not be an option given the current funding situation with the WebCite organization, for the future. Internet Archive may be a better option, where archived links already exist (though I've noted such are hit and miss). --Izno (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Webctie's not closing down, just not accepting new links after 2013 if they don't get their funding target. There's a proposing at meta to get the FOundation to help invest to assure that since archive.org is very hit or miss. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ys RfC discussion

There is an important RfC going on at Ys (series) regarding the version of text to use with respect to grammar and the manual of style. The discussion can be found at Talk:Ys (series)#Which version of text is more preferable with respect to grammar and the MoS?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Recognized content

I just stumbled across this page and I have to say, this project has come a long way according to this. GamerPro64 15:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and despite an ongoing request for comment on Niemti which was closed a week ago but swiftly reverted by Salvidrim a few hours after the closure, the project has been doing very well. We may need to clear the GAN backlog if anyone can help. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception section from Devil May Cry games articles

More eyes are needed for reception section from individual articles on some Devil May Cry games as one or two IP(s) made uncited changes to the review/aggregation scores. Here are examples:

• Devil May Cry 2 - [13][14]
• Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening - [15][16]
• Devil May Cry 4 - [17]

Thanks, Hounder4 (Talk) 18:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Also in the Devil May Cry 4 article, the links from GameRankings and Metacritic sources leads to pages showing aggregated scores on DmC: Devil May Cry instead of DMC4. One IP added GameRankings and Metacritic with these links from revision on January 18. Hounder4 (Talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just corrected this issue. The1337gamer (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon - 1st or 2nd party franchise?

That rotten "Nintendo Franchise" template is causing trouble again. While I'm just about done trying to manage that trainwreck, it has raised a question that I'd like to know for the future.

Pokemon. As a game franchise, would you label it as a "first party" franchise, because Nintendo owns it as a property, and wouldn't let it be on anything that not a Nintendo platform? Or would it be considered second, or even third, party, because its developed by GameFreak, which is not a Nintendo company/subsidiary/dev team? Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd consider it third party, but see what references call it. As you said, GameFreak is not owned by Nintendo; they just have dealings. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Video game developer describes it as second party. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand, Nintendo owns controlling interest in the brand since they own controlling interest in Creatures Inc. Interview says, "The mainstream games are created by Game Freak, and then Creatures creates the card games, mainly. But the games that Game Freak doesn't create, Creatures often works on. The 3D modeling for Pokémon is all created within Creatures, too. The 3D modelings will be used in the card games, in the actual games, in commercials, everything else." « Ryūkotsusei » 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Second party" is a meaningless game forum neologism that should never be used in an article. - hahnchen 23:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Vndb}}

template:Vndb has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars Combine Check Needed

Hello all, I've been told to contact someone from the videogames project to check a page that was created, then deleted, then restored, then deleted again for lack of sources. Now I have added several sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RubenWan/Star_Wars_Combine Any feedback is welcomed and appreciated. RubenWan (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you can expand or rewrite the Gameplay section, because I'm having trouble understanding what the game really is about. You can also add a Template:Infobox video game to the page and fill it with properly sourced information. Best way to understand how to add an infobox is probably to look at other video game pages.Bergakungen91 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bergakungen91. The Template:Infobox video game has many fields that are not suitable for an online non-profit MMORPG. Should I use it nonetheless, adapting the data to its fields? I'll expand the Gameplay section as suggested. --RubenWan (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Most games don't use most fields in that template. As it's a game, it should use the template. I don't know what being an "online non-profit MMORPG" has to do with it- it still has a title, a developer, a platform (browser), a genre, and a release date, just like every other game. --PresN 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A big problem with your article is its use of the top-level sub-headings (=). Change them to second level subheadings (==). That would be a big fix. The top-level subheadings are never used. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a few quick run-throughs to clean things up a bit more in accordance with standards. Didn't do much, though. --Teancum (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your article has several problems: "very peculiar in comparison to many other games." in the first section is a bit vague, and should be properly sourced or removed. "offers the best Star Wars universe simulation fans may ever dream of" could be used as a sourced quote, or should be removed. Wikipedia pages should be objective and properly sourced. Bergakungen91 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. I have removed the offending sentence as pointed out by Bergakungen91 in the first section with an explanation of its origin which I sourced. I turned the second offending sentence into an author's quote. I apologise for the top-level headings, they have been changed into subheadings by Teancum. Now, is the article up to your standards? I will not ask for it being moved to mainspace until I have not the "green light" from you. RubenWan (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made additional changes and updates and submitted the article for approval at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Wars Combine. If anyone is an admin a speedy approval would be appreciated. I uploaded two non-free images for the article and would prefer them not to get deleted. --Teancum (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

VGMDB - reliability

Hello,

currently, User:TransVannian disagrees that [18] is unreliable. I would like to ask the project members what they think about this site. Footnotes redirecting to that site were previously removed, until he put back certain information on List of Castlevania media, citing only to vgmdb. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is unaware of the site, VGMDB is a database of video game music releases. It is invariably correct- I trust it implicitly- but it is also entirely user-generated. Many of those users are the same authors of articles and interviews that are used as reliable sources throughout the wiki, but many are random people, such as myself. The editors of the site have a backend view to review/revert any change made to the site, but user changes still go live immediately, and they have no way of catching plausible but false data. It is not a reliable source, unfortunately. --PresN 18:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

VGMDB is not really considered a reliable source, and that is similar to why Wikipedia disallows IMDB as a reference. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's up there with IMDB, Wikias, or Neogaf - they can make for a nice personal read, but don't qualify as a reliable source based on Wikipedia's current definiton for one. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How can you say it's not reliable? You have any proof? Also I'll like to inform that I've used Konami's online shop Konami Style as a ref for Pachislot Akumajo Dracula III OST. Although it might be in Japanese but it's an official source even though it's an online shop. TransVannian (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• For the exact same reasons that Wikipedia can not be used as a reliable source for articles. I can go on VGMDB and rewrite the credits and then cite it. That makes it unreliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. Anything that anyone can change like that, violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The site DOES have a lot of scans, however. Things that can be checked directly from them should be ok...though it'd probably be better to cite said liner notes, granted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, cite the liner notes, and then if possible just provide a url to where they are hosted online. For that, any website could be used provided we don't think they have altered or faked the notes. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I didn't know that they were edited by the public just like us. I'm sorry I did not know that. If any trouble has been caused due to my mistake I apologise for that too. In this case I also agree with the majority consensus that Vgmdb can't be used as a reliable source. I'm in favor of not using the site as a source. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I know the class of an article?

On this project's home page, it says that they want certain amounts of a-class, b and c class articles. Apart from checking the list of articles, is it possible for it to show in the top right corner of an article like it does with good and featured articles? Supercuty27 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You can take a look at one of our article's talk pages or go through one of our "(X)-class video game articles" categories (X meaning the class of the article). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You can also go in your Preferences, under Gadget, and enable "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you go to "preferences" up top, and go to the "gadgets" tab, down in the "appearance" section there's a box labeled "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article". Check it, and then from then on article titles will be colored according to the article's assessment, and it will give the current status below it- both the class, and if there's a current/former GAN/FLC/FAC going on. It's based on the templates on the article's talk page, if you didn't know. --PresN 06:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Really helped. :) Supercuty27 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks

Check its history. Can someone deal with this? I've had to deal with this on File:MetalGearRisingRevengeance.jpg. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No description or link? Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be mini-edit war over cover art. - X201 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty major actually, spanning 50+ edits and 5 days. Salvidrim warned them just now, so I'm sure either one of us will block them if they do it again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was only commenting on the image changes, not the article. Ryūkotsusei only left a link to one image so I assumed the Zelda problem was the same. - X201 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that just after I wrote that response. We're both right; its minor in the effect that it was a very small image change, but major in the effect that they both basically both broke 20+RR.... Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Both continued to edit war, even after Salvidrim's final warning, and so both were blocked. So this is taken care of for now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it time to clear the GAN backlog?

As noted in the RFC on Niemti, Bridies (talk · contribs) has listed some concerns about saturating the GANs because, in Bridies's words, "they are a mess" and also due to "the user's behaviour during GA reviews, and while editing in general." Some of the GANs here are already being reviewed, but some of the GANs (i.e. Lemmings (video game)) are in desperate need of second opinions as well given the fact that some of the original reviewers bowed out due to some issues. At this point, I think it's time to start doing a backlog cleanup drive. Thoughts? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made a stand to not be involved with any of his stuff from this point on. Having been a second op on some of his GANs consensus doesn't help with him, so I stand aside and ignore all of his GAN and assessment requests. --Teancum (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Teancum. I am not touching another GAN nomination by him again. GamerPro64 23:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand where your frustrations are coming from. I have never touched a GAN nomination or assessment requests by Niemti as I don't want to run into issues with his behavior, but what do you think is the best option here? Last time this came up, the ban proposal on AN went with no consensus, and the user was topic banned from any and all discussions related to Anita Sarkeesian. Time to take action against him? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just let his GANs sit, honestly. Someone uninvolved will eventually come along and help out, and until then they can sit indefinitely in my opinion. --Teancum (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well then. Given the fact that there is a still ongoing RFC on Niemti and that a lot of users were exasperated, I think we should just let the GANs sit unless an uninvolved user eventually comes along. I was only trying to see if anyone is interested in cleaning the backlog, but since there might be some concern about this matter, I have notified the Good article WikiProject about this here. It's only a matter of time before another site ban proposal will take place if Niemti does not change his behavior, as his relationship with the community is still on a downward spiral and the site ban possibility was not discounted by Kurtis, one of the outsiders who commented on the RFC. Does anyone else have their opinion about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said at WT:WPGA#Clear video game backlog? I don't know what the best solution here is. When you develop a bad reputation on Wikipedia it tends to spread. I personally am not keen to take on any of those reviews. He seems to do some good work, but does not interact well with others, especially when they disagree with him. This is particularly problematic at WP:GA as reviewers should provide critiques. Looking at his talk page he does get a few reviews and passes, he just nominates articles much faster than they get reviewed and this doesn't look like slowing down. One solution to the backlog is to ask him to slow down his nominations to maybe having four unreviewed on the page at a time. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Niemti has been asked multiple times by a selection of editors to slow down on his nominations. It doesn't appear he has any intentions of doing this. I have reviewed some of his GANs and will, likewise, not be doing any more for a few reasons. Those being that I am involved in the RfC and I see it as a COI to be reviewing his submissions while maintaining a position in the RfC and also that his battleground mentality does get a bit wearing as I get the feeling that any GAN of his I would do I must be prepared for a fight unless the article is perfect first time round resulting in a critique free pass (which is unlikely). Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd support removing his nominations outright, as it seems very few, if any, likely candidates are willing to review them or deal with him. I mean, this is more of an informal process, right? It's not rigid like AFD or RFA. But if that's in bad taste or something, then I don't oppose to just letting them sit in the backlog for forever either, though I do know that that bothers some users too... Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• His GANs are getting reviewed, just slowly. With respect to the GAN issues, the discussion should really be had at WT:GAN. They are video game articles, and WPVG members often do the reviewing (and butt heads with the user), but the GA process is independent of the video games wikiproject. Sports and recreation has a GAN backlog going back to October, and they have a larger backlog, too. If one editor adding so many GANs gets to be a problem for the wikiproject GA people then they could remove some or impose limits. Niemti responded once saying something like "I nominated a bunch of GANs. Don't review them if you don't want to." I think this is probably the best course of action: leave them, and for whatever reasons you have, don't review them if you don't want to. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine too then. I was saying it in a "if there are no repercussions, then lets just toss them. But if it falls more under a separate GA jurisdiction like that, then yeah, just let them sit. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Letting them sit is really just sweeping the issue under the carpet. If he refuses to slow down we can try and get consensus to enforce a limit on the nominations. Odie is right this really does need to be discussed and decided at WT:GAN or WT:GA. AIRcorn (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already taken this matter to the GAN talk page in order to get a more centralised discussion and I also feel that this backlog cleanup seriously needs to happen sooner rather than later. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Clearing out the VG backlog. Please direct your comments there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sjones23, your now nearly one year long continued obsession with me is crazy. In a literal meaning of this word. As I said so many times, try to find yourself some kind of another hobby, such as playing vidya games, or maybe consult a therapist if you just can't let it go because of a crippling trauma or something, because it's pretty sad and creepy.

Anyway. This year's completed GAs (last 6 weeks):

• Claire Redfield
• Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards
• Leon S. Kennedy
• Mona Sax
• Resident Evil 4 (GA earlier, but now into "Capcom Five")
• XCOM: Enemy Unknown

Also films:

• Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (within 2 weeks since the its release)
• Jacob's Ladder (film)
• Kony 2012
• TMNT (film)

Oh, and btw: Lemmings isn't "in desperate need of second opinions" at all, as "tune" is not colloquial (as noted there by Tomcat), it's used 100% correctly while "songs" is 100% incorrect because there are no songs there at all and it's all melodies (yes, melodies) without lyrics, the developer himself referred to all the tracks as "tunes", the tune in question is actually referred to by its Wikipedia article as a "tune" (and correctly so), etc, etc, and ALSO over month ago I even wrote it can be even wholesale deleted/whatever and I don't even care (because what exactly music was used isn't even actually important). --Niemti (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't in good conscience remain silence: that was damn rude and really uncalled for, and I'm finding it really hard not to carpet bomb this with profanity. But I will give you this: Niemti, you're an ass. You're not a prolific editor, nor some savior of wikipedia as you seem to think yourself. You're just a guy with way too much time on his hands and a handful of articles that yes, while you're able to fix up some, others come across as a complete trainwreck. Articles like Mona Sax for example have several issues that should have been brought up during GA status that weren't addressed, but I'm going to presume probably because you're rather insufferable to contend with:

• Single paragraph sections.
• The prose is messy as hell, and is not written in a tone often to make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the subject of video games in general. And so help me don't hit me with "it's not FA" because the same bloody concepts should apply too.
• The Character Design section suddenly discusses the movie appearance in a jarring way, and goes on with a long winded quote (another issue: quotes should be summarized. If they don't add much to the article, don't quote the entire thing and focus on the most important aspects).
• What exactly is a "likeness factor?" What is Complex basing this on? Does it have any real significance?
• How does the nude cheat reflect on the character in terms of reception and not the game?

And I can keep going. I wouldn't have passed this. In fact I'm really concerned on the overall quality of the articles in general and would be more than willing to spend the time to drag more than a few of these to GAR to force them through cleanup. You might be able to hit hard and fast with GANs, but quality is superior to quantity. And having a bunch of free times on your hand to crank out and nominate articles en masse does not make them properly written. So I think over the next few days I'm going to take a look at some of your nominees and go very in-depth with them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

I don't know if this has been discussed before; but this IP has changed all the Mario templates so that the games' full names are displayed, instead of the shortened ones. Is it better to have full names or shortened names? Thanks, ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 00:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any official word on it, but I've seen so many experienced users switch things to the shortened version that I assume that's the preferred way... Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Thanks. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 01:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Niemti from the Video Games WikiProject.

• After further discussion, a thread will be initiated at some point on AN. It may take a few days. I'll update here once it is done. Thanks for the input! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn temporarily pending broader AN thread.

Proposal After reading the complaints of numerous exhausted and exasperated editors, I think we have come to point where the only way we'll be able to minimize disruption is to ban Niemti from WP:VG. As the RFC/U demonstrated, the editor seems unwilling to improve his behaviour or to even discuss the issues. He has already been topic-banned from articles relating to Anita Sarkeesian. However, considering the general feeling I perceive from the WP:VG community, I think people have tried, and failed, to work with Niemti constructively. I haven't had much interaction with Niemti myself and am only involved because I am part of WP:VG, but I see editors either actively ignoring the user or who are feeling stress due to his behaviour and that's totally and completely inappropriate as far as I am concerned. I am undecided as to whether a topic-ban from Video Games articles would be an eventual solution, as his editing isn't completely destructive... however his behaviour is starting to demotivate other great editors and that's incredibly worrying me. I want to avoid losing good editors because one of them is impossibly hard to work with. For these reasons, I propose that Niemti be formally banned from all pages in the WP:VG subspace. Of course banning him from actual VG articles, or GANs, is another matter entirely, but at the very least this would demonstrate beyond any doubt that members of this project have tried to come to terms and work with Niemti, and he has continued to behave in such a way that produces more problems than improvements and that goes against the spirit of collaboration that WikiProjects are supposed to be about. It clearly indicates that his presence in discussions is destructive and hopefully will help him focus on content contributions and less on demoralizing other editors. Since I am a member of WP:VG, once this discussion has run its course, I will ping AN so an uninvolved administrator can close the discussion and officialize the result if need be. I do not know if this kind of action has precedent but I do believe it is the best solution for everyone. A wider site ban may, in the future, be pursued if this solution's scale ends up being too small but that's neither here nor there. If you think about opposing because it's "not enough", please instead support and propose further steps. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Evidence I think the lot us knows the situation well enough for diffs to be superfluous, but I will point you to the most recent post by Niemti, which is a prime example of his recent behaviour. It led the target of his vicious attack to plead for help and prompted a generally level-headed editor to lose his cool somewhat. The kind of atmosphere that is brought about by Niemti's behaviour isn't productive... it's destructive and demoralizing to anyone trying to improve Wikipedia. In the words of a great man: "The line must be drawn here; this far, no further!". :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Discussion Support - As proposer. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Support - per his RFC/U and the most recent evidence posted here. This one is long overdue. Driving away good editors due to disruptive editing is unacceptable and this evidence matches the criteria specified in that guideline. The user has failed the WikiProject for the last time. No thanks, we really don't want this type of behavior here and with that said, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Support - per pretty much the entirety of his RFC/U. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Support - Agree with all those above. I have had a few unpleasant experiences with this user myself, especially during the last time this community tried to ban him. I dare not edit any Resident Evil character section because of his seeming want to dominate them, and it needs doing. Some of the grammar is horrific. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Support - I was expecting this to happen soon. His RFC/U and the latest evidence provided means he doesn't belong here at the project anymore. ZappaOMati 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Question - how would such a ban be enforced? Can a person be blocked from a specific set of articles? --22:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Maybe we should specifically ask him to be civil on WP:VG pages, and then consider a ban if he remains uncivil? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Answer We tried that, but in the long run it didn't work. It only quietened him for a short period as far as I have gathered. "You'd bring the Calm, and then what?" --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I would want evidence for this before supporting this measure. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think there can be any reasonable assumption that editors have never asked him to remain civil. The RFC/U demonstrates this, as well as his disregard for discussion about his behaviour, rather clearly. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Pretty certain that was requested up and down his RFC/U, not to mention countless other discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC) It has. There are two different, very long discussions about the user in question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 96: here and here. There is also a lengthy one on the Administrator's noticeboard which came to nothing, now stored in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241. this is the discussion mentioned. Within these are several examples and pieces of evidence, brought forward by users at the time, to attest to Niemti's constant uncivil and disruptive behavior. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't this be done at WP:AN? AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC) As it involved specifically this project and its members, I felt it preferable that we should form consensus before asking an unvinvoled admin to assess that consensus. I am unaware of precent for banning an editor from a WikiProject, but I will gladly defer to established procedures, should they exist; I wasn't able to find any documentation relating to this specific kind of situation. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, for some reason I read it as a ban from all video game articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Question - what is this supposed to accomplish? As far as I can tell, Niemti rarely if ever posts at WT:VG, except when specifically called out by the community (like here). His other interactions in this project space are mostly confined to requests for assessment. If this is meant to simply be a public humiliation in the manner of a stockade, then fine. However, if you're looking to minimize his "demoralizing influence" on project members, I don't believe that anything short of a topic ban from game articles will suffice. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC) As Salvidrim is a largely uninvolved admin, in rather good standing in the community, I find it hard to believe he's looking for "public humiliation". I imagine it's more of a "starting small" type thing, but I'll let him respond for himself. (I'd support a topic ban myself, so I do hear that part of what you're saying though.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't be opposed to withdrawing this and replacing it with an AN thread proposing a ban from... what, all video game article? Or more specifically GANs? I'm open to suggestions but the problem has to be tackled. This has been going on for too long to ignore. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I apologize if my comment came across as snarky. Banning Niemti from WP:VG is all well and good, but I'm afraid it wouldn't have a large impact on his behavior at the areas of Wikipedia where he actually edits. I believe there was a semi-fruitful discussion here in which he agreed to bring down the number of open GANs. His hostile behavior must have returned since then, I take it? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Yep, I actually proposed that discussion as I felt that it has become a very serious problem, but his hostile behavior has returned once again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I gonna stay Neutral on this discussion but I'm wondering: is this the first time someone will get banned from a WikiProject like this? I mean I don't think this is thing anyone would do normally to get rid of an obnoxious editor. GamerPro64 01:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I haven't found any precedent. But I cannot assert for certain. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Comment - I am concerned that this is the wrong venue for a topic ban (from what I understand, the proposal is to topic ban the editor from WikiProject Video games Wikipedia-space pages, so this is not a particularly unusual request). For the most part, bans have either moved through WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM primarily due to the fact that community consensus for the removal of an editor from any page or number of pages is paramount, and I would personally see it as inappropriate for a ban to be instantiated anywhere else. From my point of view, holding this discussion elsewhere (at WP:AN) may also produce results which deal better with the problem, which may be better appreciated by members here.... At the minimum, WP:AN (and possibly WP:ANI) should be neutrally WP:CANVASSed prior to the closing phase to receive input from editors outside of the project's purview as to whether a topic ban from these particular WP-space pages is an appropriate remedy for any of Niemti's behavior. --Izno (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment at Template talk:Super Robot Wars

Your comment is requested at Template talk:Super Robot Wars#Naming of list items regarding recent history of that template. --Izno (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hideaki Itsuno

I noticed that Capcom veteran Hideaki Itsuno did not have an article. So I created one. Feel free to expand upon it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the article, so that it's a very nice start. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've further cannibalized sections from other articles that discuss Itsuno. Please review it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Destiny on next gen consoles?

What's to be made out of this from a encyclopedic pov? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 11:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Speculation currently as that information is being interpreted from an outdated contract. Here is a link to the full contract: Bungie-Activision publishing agreement. Contracts change so until it is officially confirmed, Destiny should not be considered a next-gen console game. The1337gamer (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It was announced for PS4 tonight, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any differences between a B-class article and a GA?

I found delisted GA will be re-assessed as C-class (instead B-class), so is there any articles meet B-Class criteria but not meet WP:WIAGA?--Overview2 (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's up to the assessor whether the delisted GA is C or B. Yes, articles can meet B-Class but not GA. One difference is that GA must comply with 5 pages from the Manual of Style (GA criteria 1b). B articles don't need to comply with much any of the Manual of Style. B doesn't have to be neutral or stable. Oddly, B has a more stringent criteria for 6 while GA has no comparable requirement. As you have noticed, there is a lot of overlap. For practical purposes, the referencing requirements are identical. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look on the talk page you can see a link to what the article looked like when it became a GA. It's possible that damage done since then has lowered it to a C or it was passed when it shouldn't have been. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The A,B,C class listings are separate and specific to Wikiprojects, compared to GA which are WP-wide global expectations. So there can be VG articles that meet our B-class (generally defined in terms of completeness and sourcing) and fail GA (which is more towards MOS compliance and writing style). --MASEM (t) 16:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what everyone else has said, which is all true, another difference is that B-Class can be self-assessed, while GA status requires a peer review from someone else. (So, getting an article to GA can be a slower process because first you have to find someone willing and able to review your work, and then you may have things to work out if there's much of a descrepency between interpretations of the work. Not really the case with B-class, unless someone challenges your assertion of it being a B-class article, which would lead to discussion and whatnot.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WWE '14

Members of this wikiproject may be interested in a discussion taking place at WT:PW. Have a great day. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Resident Evil 6 edit warring

Can someone deal with the edit warring on Resident Evil 6? IP user 184.152.58.203 violates the three-revert rule and still reverting edits, ignoring the others. Check the page's history. Hounder4 (Talk) 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The page is protected; hopefully this influences the IP to discuss on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is at it again. Jeez laweez! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Still basically reverting continuously. I told an IP to discuss his changes on the talk page, but he doesn't listen. Hounder4 (Talk) 22:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked him for two weeks, I'm not in the mood for 3RR-violating genre warriors. --PresN 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering release dates

I had to change a bunch of release dates for a game, as shown here, in part that the format the person that put them in was causing the infobox to spread out (we probably have so no-breaking spacing in the vgrelease template). But as you can see from the initial version, there were effectively 5 different release dates - with only 2 days difference between the five. While I could have reformatted them properly to sort first by platform and region, effectively, there's no need to that - the game was released on all platforms worldwide at effectively the same time.

I can understand pointing out a week (7+ days) difference between platform and/or region, as that can be somewhat significant (console exclusivity, etc), but when all release dates as can be grouped to within the same two or three days, I think it becomes a waste of time to try to distinguish them all, particularly as more and more games go digital. The storefronts are generally all updated the same week, but the day or two difference between, say, XBLA and PSN, is negliable in terms of understanding the release schedule for the game. If that day is important for some reason (I cannot think of a single situation where it is), then it can be discussed in the body of the article. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a fair assessment. Especially with minorly differing territorial releases, sometimes the discrepancy is caused by time zone differences. Related, is it really necessary to state WW for worldwide? Shouldn't that be assumed if it's the only date listed? Or have we gotten so used to have an abbreviated superscript to tell us what region the release date is referring to that we get disturbed/anxious when none exists? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Eurogamer suggests that it was released on different days. I'd prefer to see at least as much as Eurogamer discusses in the infobox. It shows that the XBLA and Steam releases were delayed, possibly encouraging people to buy the PSN/WiiU version. See also [19]. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It was on different days - but due to the time schedule of PSN/Wii U vs XBLA, and that's within the same few days. That article (and since I've tracked the game, I've never seen such implication) never gives the implication. In the larger scheme of things, the difference of one day is negligable - it would be like, because a Gamestop on the East Coast opened at midnight to sell a new game we would not be tagged its release a day earlier based on West Coast time. In the larger scheme of things - comparing to other games released that week - the Cave was released on JAn 22. Again, if it is clear that a one or two day release difference did make a huge factor in sales (not a presumption of one), then the separate release dates should be documented, but it is mostly a boring exercised to be that "accurate". IMO, from a larger perspective, it's what released weekly that makes the difference, rarely daily. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's being needlessly specific to note that the game was released on different days for different platforms. It's not all the time we get such precise release information, so I think when we do we should use it. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
      • But precise release dates really mean little for video games. It's, at minimum, the week-to-week, more often the month to month releases, and what other releases were there, that make the difference. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not keen on homogenised release dates. If it's a big problem, go for the hidden list approach with the main day shown on top, but squashing them into a single date is only going to create more work as people from different nations will be "Fixing wrong release date" or "Adding missing EU date". And infoboxes with the platform after the date should be formatted on sight, they look hideous.- X201 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Titles

Dark Chronicle and Rune Factory: Tides of Destiny, are both Japanese games that have been released in North America and Europe. Now they were both released in Japan under one title (Dark Chronicle and Rune Factory: Oceans respectively), after which they were released in North America under a different title (Dark Cloud 2 and Rune Factory: Tides of Destiny respectively), after which they were released in Europe under they're original Japanese title (Dark Chronicle and Rune Factory: Oceans respectively). I don't think they should both have separate name basis, either they should both be named after they're Japanese and European titles or they should both be name after their North American titles. Which should it be and why? 86.177.166.40 (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:VG/NAME " In general, use the official English title when available. If multiple ones exist, use the most common. If no English name exists, use the most widely used name from the country of origin." So use Japan and EU as the most common. NA title should be mentioned at the top of the lead section. - X201 (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC) - X201 (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception#Requested move February 2013, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

UGO

UGO [20] appears to be shutting down.

I don't know what the plans are - for the site to go dark, keep content up, etc - nor am I aware of our reliance on UGO (I don't think I used it much, but that's just me).

I would suggest that we may want to get a bot to webcite UGO links as we've had to done in the past. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

UGO is a reliable source according to WP:VG/S#Reliable sources. As for the bot, I also support it to webcite UGO links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well damn! 1UP, Gamespy, and UGO are all shutting down. Can we get a bot to webcite all of these places? I'm quite sure I've used 1UP and Gamespy a ton in my featured articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Webcite might shut down yet, though it has a lot of time to make that 50K. Not a good thing though, 1UP and Gamespy at least I know are sourced in my FAC nominee article. Archived but still, a nuisance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, Webcite won't be shutting down, just not accepting any more archiving after 2013 if they don't get $50k. We're still fine to use them now, and there's a proposal to get the Foundation to support Webcite. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted Anomie (whose AnomieBot did the task last time) to see about archiving these.

Assuming that we do have a way to do citations in the long-running future, and given our project's reliance on websites, I would suggest we may want to consider a mechanism of any of our articles that reach good, A-class, or featured to be "required" to archive its references. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a script that I use personally to archive references for articles, prioritizing archive.org over webcitation, but it requires the references to be list-defined (all in the references section). I'm willing to run it on anyone's articles if asked, though I know it's not the most popular referencing style. I'll look into how much work it would be to make it run on articles with regular citations, if there's interest. --PresN 02:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT can do the link replacing again, but note it does not submit existing links to Webcite. Last time Betacommand ran something to do that. I dumped a list of all the links to these three sites at Special:PermaLink/539588286, BTW.

I also note that 1up.com links won't be found in the Internet Archive; their robots.txt blocks IA with the comment "Internet Archive generates us no value". Sad that they didn't consider value for the rest of the Internet. I've also seen IA links go dark years after the fact, when the new owner of the domain suddenly decides to put up an overly-restrictive robots.txt and IA decides that means they should remove public access to all the old archives. Anomie⚔ 03:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Anomie, Masem, PresN, you all seem like movers and shakers in the community. What do you guys think of meta:WebCite#ArchiveLinks_extension? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

They just did this to make the lives of Wikipedians difficult!! (Not really, but.) SharkD  Talk  09:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting input on Final Fantasy article titling

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Final_Fantasy:_All_the_Bravest

I believe the article should be titled with a lowercase "t" in "the", per MOS:CT. Lucia Black believes it should be an uppercase T due to it being used by Square. Input would be appreciated so that we can come to a consensus on this. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to inject something here: Please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why me specifically? G-Zay also believes it to be capitalized aswell. I merely defended my point.Lucia Black (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot the other person's name when writing it. Didn't bother looking it up because it really wasn't the point... Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

it appears hostile, you should really think twoce before posting.Lucia Black (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How is mentioning you by name "hostile"? Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that i didnt start the conversation is one, two its better mentioning both, or neither. It looks hostile because it insinuates that "we're having this debate because of Lucia Black". I know you dont mean to be hostile but thats why i suggest you think twice. If i started this convo though, it wouldve been ckmpletely different.Lucia Black (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say any of that, you're reading into things way to much. I mentioned you because I remembered your name. That's it. Yikes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I said insinuates. Like i said for probably the third time, think twice before you post. Example:

If someone else started discussion, and you didnt however support the idea, i appropriately canvass the discussion however only mentioning you. You can easily fall in the same chain of tjought i did. Doesnt matyer how much i defend my lack of thought, it still gave a bad sign.Lucia Black (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I did think before I posted, and I didn't see any rational cause for why that would be offensive, (I still don't) so I posted it. (I can only address that part of your response, I don't understand the rest, there's too many typos. It seems at least one user doesn't like that we're arguing here, so if you want to continue this, please move it to my talk page. Thanks.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, calm down. It's only one letter. "All The Bravest" seems alright, but "All the Bravest" also seems valid. Maybe we should roll with the current title for now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I just hope it does not go as bad as bad as the Star Trek (i|I)nto Darkness dispute. That went over 40,000 words. Also, that was not a typo it really was over forty thousand words.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A few points: 1) everyone should step back and remember that it really doesn't matter that much. Redirects are easy, page moves are easy, and the title can always be figured out a later date- there's no rush. 2) The article itself isn't in great shape- there's no plot section, no development section, and the lead is one sentence- that seems more important to me than the capitalization of the title. 3) We do have a WP:SE guys, it's there for a reason. --PresN 04:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I only created the article about a week ago because I was shocked it didn't exist yet. It wasn't as planned out as most of my created articles, it was more of a "spur of the moment" type thing, just enough to clearly meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The good news is that the discussion has been static for almost 3 days, hopefully that is a sign that this issue has been dropped.--70.49.74.215 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

Seems that there are still some articles up for an assessment at the Assessment Request page since December 1st. And while I know some of them are by Niemti, can someone spend some of their time looking over these? GamerPro64 15:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

If anyone has some time, God of War II is up for Peer Review. Any comments are appreciated/welcomed/wanted. --JDC808 ♫ 23:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Designer credits in Infobox video game

I've been seeing some increasingly comprehensive listings of staff rolls in the infoboxes of certain video games. For example, at the time of this writing, The 3rd Birthday features the names of a whopping 23 people in its infobox, most of whom have a parenthetical description of their exact title as listed in the credits. Not knowing whether this level of detail was appropriate, I looked at the documentation at Template:Infobox video game, finding this discussion linked. While it has some general guidelines, mostly erring on the side of including less people in the infobox in favor of dev section prose, I think it might be wise to be a bit more specific and prescriptive in the template's usage notes. See the below subsections for my initial thoughts and proposals. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Producer field

I think it's safe to say that the "executive producer" credit is generally meaningless. For example, Satoru Iwata is named executive producer on every single 1st party Nintendo game. I'm also not a huge fan of listing all the "sub"-producers (e.g. creative producer, associate producer, assistant producer) since it's rarely clear what their actual role was in the game. If these sub-producers actually had a meaningful contribution, it should be noted in prose in the dev section. Criteria:

1. List only the person credited specifically with the title "producer"
2. Do not list the "executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits
3. If 3 or more people are credited as "co-producer" discuss who is the "main" producer and list that person
4. New: List the "creative producer" only if said person's involvement in the game is discussed in the development section

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this idea. While only the main producers should be listed in the infobox, we should can also incorporate the executive producer, sub producers and co-producers in the prose section. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Other figures can be mentioned in the text if relevant, (so disagree with SJones on "should", substituting "can") but the infobox shouldn't be a listing of every manager in the company. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 1 and 2 with regards to Square Enix titles. The "creative producer" is an important role as it's the producer equivalent to a "creative director". People like Tetsuya Nomura have been credited in many games with this role and it's therefore become important enough to add to the field. Also, the executive producer field is important as there are different executive producers within Square Enix. For example, there are games by Square Enix 1st Production Department where Shinji Hashimoto is almost always executive producer. However, any games made out of this department have different executive producers. as a result, it's something that needs clarifying with each Square Enix page and therefore a requirement for the Producer field. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I can abide by "creative producer" since guys like Nomura-as-creative-producer actually do interviews and talk about design in that role (e.g. TWEWY). The mere fact that someone named Nomura was credited does not automatically make it notable enough to include in the infobox, though. I've added another bullet to this effect. I still maintain that the executive producer of a project is a meaningless piece of information to include in the infobox. The role of the executive producer of any project (game, movie, tv show, etc.) generally ranges from jack squat to "I write the checks that pay all the dudes below me". If Hashimoto has something meaningful to say about the project, it should be mentioned in the Dev section, not the infobox. Also, Square Enix is not special. These criteria are for Infobox video game, not Infobox Square Enix game, which should not exist. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all four criteria and Axem's last comment. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Director field

I think this one is also straightforward. "Art director", "sound director", "scenario director", etc. belong in other fields anyway.

1. List only the person credited specifically with the title "director" or new: "co-director"
2. Do not list other types of directors in this field
3. For games with multiple directors in sequence, e.g., MMOs and games with exceptionally long development cycles, indicate their years of involvement in (parenthetical small text)

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 1 with regards to Square Enix games. The director should be mentioned but so should the co-directors. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine, no objections. Also, Square Enix is not special. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all three criteria. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Designer field

Here's where it gets tricky. Designer can mean a lot of different things and there are a lot of different types of designers, especially in modern AAA developed games. This field is probably easier to fill out in older games with smaller teams and more creative power vested in the "lead designer". In Japan, this position is usually called "lead planner" or "main planner". If you've seen Indie Game The Movie or are familiar with the development of Fez (video game), I would list Phil Fish as designer and Renaud Bredard as programmer. Beyond these small teams, I think the usefulness of this field diminishes as the team size increases. This will require some discussion to reach a consensus but here's a proposal to get the conversation started.

1. If a single person is credited as "lead designer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "game design director" and "lead planner"
2. If there is no functional equivalent to #1, omit this field
3. If 3 or more people are credited as "lead designer" discuss who is the "main" designer and list that person or omit this field

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. This is easier in smaller teams, but for large games where there is no one "designer", we shouldn't be listing every person who was involved in designing something in the infobox. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 2 with regards to Square Enix games. Their modern games are always divided into the sections Game Design, Map, Battle and Event. Each of these areas will have a director. I believe that all the directors for these areas should be added to this field. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The middle management of a video game production is not something that is critical to an infobox. If there is not a single person I can point to who is responsible for "lead design", which would indicate an amount of creative control that matters, it is not salient to the infobox. These four sub-directors can have stuff to say in the Dev section, no problem, but it shouldn't distract from the more important roles that are highlighted in the infobox. Also, Square Enix is not special. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of a modern game in which the lead designer is not the director or the producer? I am under the impression that this field is really only useful for small projects or older games, for which there was no director (back then the "designer" was basically the director except he didn't have a team to direct). Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this assessment is correct. Looking at "modern" large-scale game releases, I haven't found any that have a specific title called "lead designer" because of the way responsibilities are broken down in large teams. Thus, this field should probably be left blank for most modern AAA games. In indie games and older games, this field is probably more useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Programmer field

This is another problematic field, especially for modern games with staffs of 100+ people, most of whom could be called "programmers". I would treat this similarly to the designer field; there was an age in video game development where a single person could be adequately described as the "main programmer" or even the "only programmer" but that age is mostly past except in indie development. See Fez example above as well.

1. If a single person is credited as "lead programmer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "main programmer"
2. If there is no functional equivalent to #1, omit this field
3. If 3 or more people are credited as "lead programmer" discuss who is the "main" programmer and list that person or omit this field

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. I don't think most non-indie games should be filling out this field- tons of people program AAA games, there's no way in general to narrow it down to just one. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 2 with regards to Square Enix games. If there is no overall main programmer listed, then the section programmers should be listed instead. For example, "main programmer: map" and "main programmer: battle". --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, see reasoning above for lead designer. Also, Square Enix is not special. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of a modern game in which the programmer is notable at all? IMO the programmer is only notable for small projects or older games, for which there was only one programmer. By the way, for small projects or older games in which the designer was the programmer, I think only the designer field should be listed. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, no need to list the same person twice for what amounts to the exact same responsibility. This field should also probably be left blank for most modern AAA titles. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Artist field

I think the art director should definitely fill the prime, unqualified spot here. Character (or environment) designer might go here as well, on a case-by-case basis if the work is famous for using that designer or the designer got famous for doing the work. E.g. Akira Toriyama as character designer for Dragon Quest or Jen Zee for Bastion.

1. List the person credited as "art director" first and without qualification, edit: also "lead artist"
2. List the person credited as "character designer" if their work on the game is notable or they became notable for their work on the game
3. List the person credited as "environment artist" if their work on the game is notable or they became notable for their work on the game
4. Do not list "character designer" or "environment artist" in this field; describe notable people in these roles in the development section
5. List no more than three people in this field, the less the better

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

To all points, only the art director should be listed, surely all the others answer to, and take instruction from, him/her. Determining if 2-3's work was notable is a slippery slope which is completely open to interpretation and anyone who has spent any time on this site knows, people think all kinds of crap is notable. Anyone who can be sourced as notable should be discussed in prose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree regarding only listing the art director in the infobox. Any notability of environment artists/character designers etc can be discussed in the prose of the article. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think those are good points. I forgot about the "out" I had previously used for other fields about only mentioning extra names in prose. What about games that lack an art director? Should it default to some other title? If so, which? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three (current) criteria. A lot of games may not be able to fill this field- the lead artist or art director should be the only one listed. Sometimes in massive games that might be more difficult, which means that no one should be listed, rather than 5 people. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria per reasonings provided by Cabe6403 and PresN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, forgot about "lead artist". Added. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 1. The art director and lead artist should always be mentioned. The rest are irrelevant. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what "lead artist" is? I'm pretty sure someone here thinks that means character designer while the others don't think so. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say "lead artist" is whatever the development team decides it means. If someone is influential enough on the game to be given that title, then it should be listed. The vast majority of games won't have both a lead artist AND art director but if they do, then I would imagine both should be listed. Regardless of what the lead artist actually did for the project, be it character design or environment art or anything else, they must have had some significant input in order to earn the title. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Writer field

Again, modern game scenarios are generally collaborations between multiple people. I think that if the scenario can be mainly credited to a "scenario director" or a single "scenario writer"/"lead writer", then do so. Sometimes the main scenario is a close collaboration between two people, e.g. Killer7 by Suda51 and Shinji Mikami. The rest of the contributing writers can be described in prose if the need arises.

1. If a single person is credited as "scenario director" or "scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "lead writer"
2. If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "original concept", list that person here as well
3. List no more than three people in this field, the less the better

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria, same as above. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 2 with regards to Square Enix games. Instead of mentioning the "concept writer", the actual writers should be mentioned instead. The concept writer can be mentioned in prose. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, with the way games writing works, it's usually the scenario director and original concept writer who come up with the entire story arc and let the writer minions flesh out the specific scenes and all the NPC dialogue (cf. Hollywood script-writing, which is usually hacked to pieces by an army of editors). In this situation, I would still call the director and concept writer the "original authors" of the story, even though they didn't physically write every word in the sometimes massive script. It's very similar to the concept of ghost writer who does the actual labor of writing and typing words on behalf of the original author. The original writer (in our case, scenario director/concept writer) proofreads and ensures that all the minion writers' work is in line with the overall creative vision. Also, Square Enix is not special. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all three criteria as well as Axem's last comment. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Composer field

This one should be relatively straightforward. Very few games have multiple composers and even then, it's usually one person whose style the others emulate to generate the soundtrack.

1. List the main composer of the game. If multiple people contributed a roughly equal number of tracks, list them all. Otherwise, defer to the one.
2. If a single (music) was released for a particular track, list the composer of that track.

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Not really an issue; even in large games there's generally only one main composer. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about these criteria. "Roughly equal number of tracks" seems a bit of a slippery slope. What if someone contributed one third of the soundtrack? What if someone's only contribution is the game's main theme? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I know most games have single composers, but let's take God of War III as an extreme example. It has 5 composers, with 3-7 tracks each, something I might call "roughly equal". I don't know if all 5 should be listed in the infobox but I could certainly never say that only one of them deserves to be listed. What do you think? As for the main theme issue, I would use Kingdom Hearts (video game) as an example. Utada Hikaru composed the main theme which was released as a single, so she should probably get listed as a composer, perhaps with a parenthetical note. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For movies, when a theme song is composed by someone other than the score's composer, they usually aren't noted in the infobox(take for instance Beaches (film), where it only lists Delerue as the composer despite having spawned a hit song which he had no involvement with). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Since both you and Jonathan have an objection to it, I'm striking #2. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What about a game like Chrono Trigger? Nobuo Uematsu composed 10 out of 64 tracks, and Noriko Matsueda composed 1. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well bugger me. I don't know at this point. Should we just abandon a set of hard and fast rules for composer in favor of per-article community consensus? At least with this particular field, we can be confident that the number of people who can be listed here is generally less than 5 (unlike, say, programmer). Axem Titanium (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue with Chrono Trigger is the "roughly equal" wording. I'd list Mitsuda and Uematsu in the infobox, but not Matsueda. I kind of think it should be "If multiple people contributed a significant number of tracks, list them all". --PresN 20:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So what's the correct wording we should use? What is "a significant number"? What if the one track is the main theme? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Other discussion

Can we make it a rule to generally avoid (parenthetical small text qualifiers) where possible? Shouldn't it be assumed that the only person listed in the programmer field is the "main programmer"? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I support listing no more than 2-3 people per field. Anything more goes into prose if that many people all need mentioning. They need to be of significant contribution, besides just working on the project. If the names need small parenthesis, probably too many are included already. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 2-3 sounds a bit high. I would prefer the "default" to be 1 and 2-3 only if absolutely necessary. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I said "no more". 1 is too high in many cases. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This RFC is really long. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That's why I broke it up into multiple subsections so you can comment on each one individually, which I invite you to do. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I feel that most fields should have one person or be left blank. I really, really don't like infoboxes like at Fantasy XII, where there has to be show/hide buttons to keep the infobox from reaching to the end of the 8-paragraph gameplay section. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it looks like FFXII's infobox ballooned since this discussion started. Thanks to Sjones for controlling the flow earlier today. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with not adding info in brackets is the readers don't know that persons specific role. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The goal of this proposal is to condense the info found in infoboxes to the point where a person's specific role should not need to be called out by parentheticals. It should be obvious what role the person listed under "Director" or "Programmer" had without such brackets. If absolutely necessary, use them, but avoid them if possible. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An infobox is not meant to tell us new information; it's meant to summarize the article. Readers will always know a person's specific role because that will always be explained in the article. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: If there are enough credits in a particular field that the use of Template:Collapsible list becomes necessary, there are too many credits in that field. Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember someone mentioning a couple of years ago that Collapsible List caused problems for people using screen readers; and to a lesser extent magnification tools. Does anyone know if this is still the case? - X201 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, I can't really tell if it still does. I've dropped a line to User talk:Thumperward to confirm. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not, had this discussion at FAC a couple weeks ago. Screen readers and browsers without javascript just get an uncollapsed list/table. --PresN 03:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, regardless, I think that Collapsible list should be avoided because it encourages credit creep in the infobox. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the "YYYY in video gaming" and awards

A side consideration that I've realized (from an AFD discussion on Game of the Year) is that our "YYYY in video gaming" articles (ala 2012 in video gaming) are vaguely normalized, but lack specifically listing out major GotYs for that year. Contrast this to 2012 in film.

I don't think we can necessarily include anything more than GOTY as while this is an award that is easily matched by the various sources that give it, other awards tend to be less common between all sources (that is, not all give "Best Action game" or "Best PC game"), whereas with film there's always Best Actor, Best Director, etc. But we still can at least list out the top game that all the various awards and publications give for that year. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem would be deciding which awards to include(Game Dev Conference, BAFTAs, etc). If you can get solid consensus on that, go for it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable awards are generally the same awards that would be mentioned in the winning game's article without being considered trivia. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013's TFA

Looks like The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II is gonna be up on the Main Page as that day's TFA. Unfortunately, it doesn't get the taste of An Unexpected Journey out of fans mouth. GamerPro64 01:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wasteland 2

On Wasteland 2, there appears to be a dispute between Niemti and Sxerks on the article regarding the use of an article over issues regarding original research and possible ownership issues As indicated in the recent recerts between the two (for more information, please check the article history). A few old sources state that the game is isometric. Just recently, according to this, the game is no longer isometric and per Sxerks, "the camera is rotatable as well as the height can be changed." I do not want to get involved in this situation, but can someone please deal with this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not me. This is exactly why there needs to be a ban on him. Though in his defense it seems that even when he's in the right people take the other side because he's a donkey's backside about everything. **EDIT** I'd actually give this one to Niemti given Sxerks ~200 total edits. --Teancum (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting "EDIT" note, basing your opinion on the number of edits vs quality(me being a WL wiki admin and WL Forum mod and all). In this case he is in the wrong, I tried to explain on his talk page, but it is apparent he has problems entering into discussions and doubles down when he is wrong. Looking into his past problems, I find this:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Niemti as well as his old banned user name: User:HanzoHattori, and see why neither of you would want to get involved. Maybe I shouldn't have even bothered correcting it in the first place.--Sxerks (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the forest fire doesn't make it put itself out. If he does edits you know are wrong, direct him to the talk page and open a discussion. If he ignores discussion or continues to offer stupid reasoning, request administrator help and they will hopefully ban him. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to echo the sentiments of Darkwarriorblake as well. If he does edits that you know are wrong, please open up a discussion on Talk:Wasteland 2 rather than resorting to edit warring (which is strictly forbidden). However, if he continues to ignore discussion or continues to offer some illogical reasoning, please ask for intervention from one of our VG administrators (i.e. Sergecross73, PresN, or Salvidrim) and add diffs, and they will hopefully deal with him. Niemti has reverted three times on Wasteland 2 today, so if he does violate WP:3RR within 24 hours, report him at WP:AN/EW or ask one of our administrators. A fourth revert just outside the 24-hour timeframe will be considered gaming the system at the very least. However, there's two things that we must keep in mind: beware of the boomerang when reporting him and in the immortal words of Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), anyone who is involved in an edit war is automatically wrong. Also, a discussion to ban Niemti from the VG WikiProject was proposed above, but it was closed pending a broader AN report. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not much I can add, but it should be noted that Niemti has cited a third-party review of Syndicate Wars, a completely unrelated game, as proof that Wasteland 2's perspective is isometric. In the article itself, Niemti cites another third-party article for the isometric claim. While I would normally argue that YouTube is not considered a reliable source, information from the developer that the game "is no longer isometric" should override what third-parties claim the game to be. While Niemti is correct in his claims that isometric games can have a rotating perspective (Roller Coaster Tycoon and The Sims are two examples, though those are limited to instant 90 degree turns), Wasteland 2's camera creates parallax when it moves, which is not a trait of isometric perspective. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is now taking place at Talk:Wasteland 2#Game Camera View. More eyes will be needed there and also, I've contacted Salvidrim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about this discussion and the WL2 talk page discussion. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll read the discussion over, but I will say one thing -- while it is appropriate to post a discussion notification here, the discussion should be continued on the article's talk page. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, and its already happening at Talk:Wasteland 2#Game Camera View, but I don't want to get involved in it at the moment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand why you'd feel that way, and as previously stated, can only deplore that it had come to this point. Anyways, I replied on the article's talk page. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• On that same article, Niemti has repeatedly violated WP:NFCC#8, using images as purely decorative. You can read of my attempts to explain things to him: User talk:Niemti/Archive3#Orphaned_non-free_media_.28File:Wasteland_2_concept.jpg.29. I rewrote the caption [21], but a little while later Niemti decided his version was correct: [22]. In its current state, the image should be deleted because the NFUR is incomplete and because the image violates NFCC #8. If anyone wants to fix it up, feel free. Or we can just let Niemti have his way. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In its current state, I think we can delete it because the NFUR is incomplete and there is a clear violation of WP:NFCC#8. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There's an ANI discussion between Frogacuda and Niemti here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I have asked Sergecross73 to take a look into this matter as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Follow-up - This dispute is now up at DRN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Activision games

G'day, mates. I've labored long and hard to convert the List of Strategic Simulations, Inc. games from this to this. I would happily do the same for this list, but given the size, I think alone it could take me an eon. Therefore, I am requesting assistance from anyone who is bored or feeling altruistic. It's not hard, there are just a lot to do. Many thanks! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 04:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

you said it wasn't hard but what exactly did you do to the code?Sincerely zeroro(edits) 08:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You change an entry like this:

* ''[[Alienators: Evolution Continues]]'' (2001) GBA

to this:

|-

| ''[[Alienators: Evolution Continues]]''

| 2001

| GBA

|

Adding a short description (last line) is optional. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are actually fairly easy ways to do this without too much effort, all of which are essentially variations on the same method. The way I do it is a) copy the entire article or article portion into Notepad++ (or a similar text editor with find and replace functionality) b) find and replace * with |\n|-\n| c) find and replace '' ( with ''\n| d) find and replace ) with \n|. Then all you have to do is remove the first instance of a | and add one at the end, add table open and close code, check it over, then copy and paste it back into the browser. Alternatively, I'm sure something similar could be done with one of the Wiki IDEs or a bot. I've done the first couple of letters for you but haven't the time right now to do the rest. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 23:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and just to clarify, \n is a newline character, so |\n|-\n| translates to this:

|

|-

|<text continues here>

In Notepad++ you need "extended" enabled in the search mode box to use it. Other editors probably vary in how they represent newlines etc in the replace dialogue. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I had a graphical parser that did it, but it wasn't perfect and I didn't feel like fixing it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 04:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Castlevania media - Japanese

Hello,

if someone has interest in video games, understands Japanese very well and is ready for rescuing List of Castlevania media from being demotated, please ping me. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox video game suggestion - include Shutdown/retirement date

I'm posting this here instead of at Template talk:Infobox video game because this page gets more traffic. As we move into the free-2-play, games as a service era, games are no longer a thing that you buy once and play forever. MMOs and F2P games rely on the publisher to host the back end, they die when the publisher says they die. This date is as important as the release date, it should be included in the infobox.

We have an entire category for dead MMOs, Template:Zynga contains many closed games (which will only continue to expand - with casualties such as CityVille 2[23]). Let's do this, thoughts? - hahnchen 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that games based on networked servers required to play at all (not games where a single player component remains active even though servers no longer exist for multiplayer; and of course, specifically ignoring network DRM checks ala Ubisoft games) will likely have end-dates that correlate on the opposite side of the product life chain as release dates. I'm trying to judge if there may be potential problems with it being in a general infobox, with editors trying to assign some random date to that field just because it exists, but I can't see cases of that really happening. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Use the existing release date field, an entire field for something that affects a small fraction of games is unnecessary, and I don't personally see the importance of it, especially in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, there are fields that are in the template that most games don't use as well (particularly along the creative personnel ones) but we kept. Not to apply too much speculation, but as we get into games that require server connections to play even single player (Diablo III), this date can start to become important. Same with facebook games too. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Tabula Rasa (video game) uses the release field to note shutdown date. Yes, it's only for a fraction of games, but this subset is only going to grow larger - and for this subset the shutdown date is as important, as defining of the subject as the release date that it deserves equal placement. Having it in the template would standardise things, so eventually, when people update articles like Bullet Run, they'll know where to put the date, instead of in its own paragraph. - hahnchen 21:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind: everything that goes into the infobox should at some point be repeated in the article - if it is a piece of information only in the infobox and not discussed in some manner, it's wasting space. (hence why, for example, PC requirements were removed, since rarely that's a point of discussion in an article.). This is not to say anything against a "end date" for a online game, but that mentioning the end date in the article can be good too - particularly if there are events around it (City of Heroes, IIRC, would be an example of a big last-day finale). --MASEM (t) 21:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• On a related note, I created the Category:Inactive online games and Category:Inactive multiplayer online games and I think I'm the only one that's added to them. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Statistic Brain

Is Statistic brain a reliable source for sales figures? KahnJohn27 is claiming "Many users have agreed that statisticsbrain is a reliable source" (specifically regarding this page) but I can't find any consensus on here that it is reliable. If there is one, please point me to it. They also claim that http://www.statisticbrain.com/about/ is "a proof saying that they can be relied upon for list of video game sales", which doesn't follow (one cannot prove reliability of a source by quoting the source saying they are reliable, that's circular reasoning). Regardless of that though, what are your opinions on it? Is Statistic brain a reliable source? I'm inclined to think not, especially when pages such as this one and this one state that one of their sources is Wikimedia and Wikipedia respectively. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

After a look, I'm on the no side. They list sources, but don't link to them or even name the article or press release etc. It also fails NPOV, a lot of the stats are US centric, but presented in a definitive style. You should also list this on WT:VG/RS, as they're the experts in this sort of thing. - X201 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: It would appear KahnJohn27's reasoning for the about page showing reliability is this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 142#List of best-selling video games. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 11:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a question about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Statistic Brain. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 13:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I talked to 3 or 4 users on their talk page and they agreed that it looks like a reliable source. Though now I think I should have discussed the topic here first. Also the links and articles you're talking about the people who own them either get the number form retailers or the publishers of the video game themselves. But they don't list any sources like they've found out of the sales form this game from this publisher or this retailer. If links are necessary then I don't think even your articles or press releases are reliable. If you think this source is so unreliable I suggest either delete the list or either mention the date the sales were counted. For example statisticsbrain.com mentions the list was published in November 2012, ie. its about 5 months old and not totally up to date. However I should mention that the earlier list was totally out of date and, the sales given are of 2010 ie. 3 years old. I don't know what it's exact sales are but many websites mention Modern Warfare 3 to be the best selling of Xbox 360 and PS3 however sales counts aren't given anywhere. What do you say about that? KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also why are you using the sales breakdown of the old list on a new updated list? KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Though now I think I should have discussed the topic here first." Maybe, but there's nothing wrong with being bold. Either way we're discussing it now, so it doesn't really matter.

"Also the links and articles you're talking about the people who own them either get the number form retailers or the publishers of the video game themselves. But they don't list any sources like they've found out of the sales form this game from this publisher or this retailer."

It is fairly safe to assume that the publisher has statistics on how many of one of their products they have sold. For things like sales figures, the publisher (or distributor) and retailers would both be primary sources for the figures. They have no need to provide a source since they are the source. Sites like Statistic Brain however can gain information in two ways a) they get the information themselves via a survey or something similar, (which wouldn't really work for something like sales figures) in which case they would also be a primary source, or b) they aggregate data from primary (or secondary) sources, in which case they would be a secondary or tertiary source. See also WP:PSTS. My main (potential) problem with Statistic Brain is that it seems to be acting as a secondary or tertiary source (hence listing a source for the page), but does not say specifically what that source our sources is/are.

"… I suggest … [you] mention the date the sales were counted."

I wouldn't be opposed to that, and it would certainly put the numbers into context.

"… statisticsbrain.com mentions the list was published in November 2012, ie. its about 5 months old and not totally up to date."

Actually they say that that is when it was verified. That does not necessarily mean that all the figures are as of 7 November 2012 11 August 2011 (they appear to be using the American month-day-year date format). In fact, it is quite unlikely that they are, since that would imply that all the publishers of all the games listed released their data on the same day. Instead, it is more likely that either a) the list was compiled on that date or b) something was added to the list on that date. I tried using the Wayback Machine to view some earlier versions of the page and see how it looked pre-11 August 2012, but apparently their crawls of that particular page don't include the actual data.

"I don't know what it's exact sales are but many websites mention Modern Warfare 3 to be the best selling of Xbox 360 and PS3 however sales counts aren't given anywhere. What do you say about that?"

That is unfortunate, but strictly speaking our list isn't a "these are the top X selling games" type list, it is a "these are all the games that have sold X copies". This is also why we don't assign numbers (e.g. 5th best selling etc) to the games in the list (see also Talk:List of best-selling video games/Archive 7#Table format (again).) If we don't have figures, Modern Warfare 3 cannot be included on the list as it is in essence a list of figures. There is nothing stopping us from adding it in the prose however (e.g. something like "As of «date», Modern Warfare 3 is claimed to be the best selling Xbox 360 game, although sales figures are not publicly available."). Incidentally, if said figures are unavailable, where did Statistic Brain get their figure from?

Regarding the sales breakdown, because a) it is useful information and b) it allows us to include more figures on the list. Could you please explain why you have removed almost all the figures that are not sourced to Statistic Brain and changed the criterion for inclusion on the list to three million? All other "list of best-selling X video games" lists use 1 million as the criterion for inclusion, and the fact that a figure is outdated does not make it irrelevant. We know that all those games sold at least 1 million copies (the normal standard for inclusion) so what is your reason for removing them? As far as I can see, the only reasons for them not being listed is that they don't appear on Statistic Brain's list or are outdated. It should be noted that a) SB's list is a top-50 and b) we needn't use SB's criteria for inclusion. If we do, we are essentially mirroring their list anyway. Also, by adding the "updated" figures, you are not replacing the list, but updating it - that is not a reason to remove other content.

Normally, one should not just remove large amounts of content with no explanation, and thus I have re-inserted it. You are of course free to discuss its removal (which would probably be better done on the article's talk page than here).

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 02:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham City FAC

I don't remember if I've plugged this already but it has 3 supports and has been open a while, if anyone is willing to take a look and if they like it add their support, we can get a great game a deserving FAC star. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Remote play

Hi everybody,

With the announcement of the PlayStation 4 I've been checking the articles on its launch games for the last couple of days. On Killzone: Shadow Fall I noticed that an anon IP user also added the PS Vita as a platform, because of its remote play function. I'm not sure whether or not we should actually consider it a different platform though, so that's why I'm asking you. --Soetermans. T / C 16:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that is a good point, it's probably good we come up with a set way now before it's too common. I'm personally not exactly sure how to handle it, but I don't think it should be listed in the same way that someone would list Xbox 360 and PS3 on a multi-platform game, because it would give the impression that either could be used, when in reality, the options are "PS4" or "PS4 + Vita", not Vita by itself, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Its a system feature and Vita should not be listed as a platform. If the game is playable without Remote Play then its a Vita game, if you need remote play to play it, its a PlayStation 4 game. - X201 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with X201. I can technically play any game more than 5 years old on my PC, but that doesn't mean that every game should list PC as a console. "Remote Play" is a cool feature, but it is not a console. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That logic is sound, and I'm fine with that, but it seems like something along the lines of "(PSVita via Remote Play)" wouldn't be out of line either, though I guess its debatable on whether or not that needs to be listed as a platform, I supposed it could just be mentioned in the prose, much like how Off TV Play is commonly plugged into Wii U article's prose. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

With Sony saying that all games will support it, I suspect that mentioning when a game doesn't use the feature would be the time to mention it. - X201 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

On a personal level, I'm wary of that claim of Sony's, as they originally seemed to have more intentions on remote play with PS3 and Vita, and they didn't end up doing much with that, but for the sake of the argument and going by what sources are saying, I see where you're coming from. I'm fine with leaving it out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a feature, not a console any more than the Wii U controller is one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure peer review

Heads up, everyone. I've started a peer review on Sonic Adventure in an effort to get this game, Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) to GA status; the peer review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sonic Adventure/archive1. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Is open world a genre?

As the title states, is open world a game genre and should it be listed in the video game infobox? The wikipedia article does not define it as a genre yet some article like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Destiny (video game) currently list it as a genre. Thanks. The1337gamer (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Open world is not a genre its a design method, you wouldn't list Linear as a genre. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. So does anybody else support/decline the removal of open world as genre on all video game infoboxes? The1337gamer (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I would support it. Darkwarriorblake does have a point, and it also seems a little silly to define such a thing as a genre, thus going against what a 'genre' is defined as and bringing hundreds, no thousands, of games into it from all the various genres proper. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Genre - a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content. It follows this definition, but is this the definition we want to use? I think that a video game genre, as it is displayed on Wikipedia, should be anything that describes the core elements of its gameplay.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Open world is a core element of gameplay. Video game genres focus more on gameplay elements than narratives, so I think open world would fit this. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Are any games described simply as open world games though, without the use of another video game genre? To me, "open world game" itself doesn't like seem a suitable description for a video game without being accompanied by a different genre. It just serves as a design choice to cater non linear gameplay, rather than describing what the gameplay actually involves (i.e. racing, shooting, etc). The1337gamer (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 1337gamer here. Having an open world is an important part of many games, but it doesn't describe the core gameplay appropriately enough to be considered a genre in and of itself. To try and draw a literary equivalent, it would be like saying that "second person" is a genre--it's a tool authors use in their novels, sure, but it could be applied to almost any kind of novel, poetry or prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with the above. It's a gameplay mechanic, but not a genre. Some genres (aka GTA clone) necessitate having this format as part of the genre, but there are games that use open world in a less specific manner, and as noted, are more akin to non-linear gameplay. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Masem and I had a similar discussion recently about Assassin's Creed 3, and I think that Open World should not be in the opening sentence as a genre because it isn't sometihng everyone will understand. We fall into the trap on here of writing for gamers but as I've learned with my Arkham City FAC, reviewers are not gamers and don't understand anything and will knock you down because of it. Open World can be mentioned in hte lede as it's generally considered a technical feat to accomplish a proper streaming open world, but it should be mentioned elsewhere where the concept can be briefly explained in the context of the game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely in cases like Assassin's Creed, one could describe that the setting takes place in an open world of (location) or similar language but yea, it's less a genre than a gameplay mechanic. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, wouldn't 'survival horror' not really be a genre either? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Horror is a genre, survival horror is like action comedy, literally if you saw that film with Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. It's a tone, not a level design.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Finding articles in support of it being a genre should be pretty trivial. SharkD  Talk  11:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Finding evidence of it being used as a means of categorization should be trivial, a genre not so much. And it wouldn't deal with the fact that if you are going to include Open World as a genre, you would have to include linear, or sandbox (open world and sandbox are not the same even if the link redirects there) and every other possible type of level design because that is what it is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not problematic. It is just used that way out in the world. And, I'm not sure whether our articles should reflect that, either. SharkD  Talk  08:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I can come up with a list of articles that call it a genre if that is desirable. Is it? SharkD  Talk  08:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Concensus

To reach a conclusion on this topic, I am proposing the removal of the term "open world" from being listed as a genre on video game infoboxes. If people could sign support/decline or something along those line for your agreement/disagreement. Write any further comments in the above discussion. Thanks.

• Support - as proposer and per above discussion. The1337gamer (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support per previously stated arguments. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support ditto. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the above arguments. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support --PresN 19:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral - It is clearly a genre, but maybe not a useful one from our perspective as Wikipedia editors. SharkD  Talk  08:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support per arguments above. Design paradigm, not a genre and shouldn't be listed unless reliable sources specifically call it a genre for that game (e.g. "open world genre game", not just "open world game"). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Maybe a bit late, but just wanted to add one more line of support for this for all of the reasons listed above. Foman123 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus discussion has been open for over 7 days, and learning clearly in one direction, time to enshrine. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

aren't screenshots and primary source of the video games themselves good enough sources?

An IP address keeps reverting information which I don't believe anyone is in doubt of. [24] I'd like a comment on this. Does me linking to where screenshots are shown of Dr. Cat in the Ultima games, as well as me referencing the games themselves, not prove the claim that he was in them? The IP address just keeps posting the edit summary "The entire reference is a series of posts left by readers. ("Posts left by readers are NEVER acceptable as sources."))" It is in fact not a series of posts, its a screenshot, as I have stated in my own edit summaries already. Primary sources should also be accepted when not in any possible doubt. Dream Focus 22:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The source is a primary source rather than secondary. Because it is primary, the even remote assertion that the character is associated with the person is synthetic. He is thus legitimate to challenge the association of Dr. Cat the person with Dr. Cat the character and remove the statement and citation.
2. Besides the actual question asked, that information is trivial. I would remove it for that reason even if a better source were found. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A guy who works in video games has his image and name used in two very notable bestselling award winning epic games he helped work on. That isn't trivial. He is listed in the credits as having worked on those games, his name is used for a character in the games. That's common sense, not synthesis. Dream Focus 22:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's common sense until it is challenged. Provide a reliable secondary source that shows the actual connection. The use of a wiki is straightup inappropriate as well. --Izno (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's trivia based on a GIF file on an open wiki. Anyone—anyone—could create the "proof" in minutes. Per WP:BURDEN, the claim should not be reinstated until a reliable source says it's important enough for us to consider. Woodroar (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Video game screenshots are very easy to doctor and make claims that X exists, compared with a published film or book where the experience does not change between viewers. It would be one thing if, say, Capcom teased an image of a character in connection with an upcoming fighter game they are publishing, and a random screenshot on a random wiki showing that. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ridiculous. I played the games, and saw him in them. How many long active Wikipedia editors stating that they own the game and saw a Dr. Cat character in it, would it take to convince people? This conspiracy nonsense that it might be doctored, is just plain ridiculous. Do any of you really believe that is the case here, or are you arguing about some hypothetical situation that might one day arise? Dream Focus 04:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  You haven't shown a connection between the person and the name being intention on the developers. Is it likely the case? Sure, but there's no evidence of that. It's basically a classic example of OR's synthesis. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  You mean by some strange coincidence a guy doing a lot of work on the characters and dialog of a game, can just accidentally put a character in the game with his same name? Its not original research synthesis, its common sense. There is a difference. Does one person here sincerely doubt that the Dr. Cat character in those games is the man Dr. Cat who worked on them? Dream Focus 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I sincerely doubt that they are the same. That said, it doesn't matter whether we "sincerely doubt" it, only that we have said we doubt it. You are the only one arguing that it doesn't need an appropriate citation. I suggest you find one. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It's more ridiculous that such a long term editor is arguing in favor of using personal observations to synthesize information from an image from a wiki to come to conclusion. How many guidelines does that ignore? WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SPS, etc. How do you not know this isn't acceptable here? Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • This is the type of thing that WP:TRIVIA builds on. The example here, where I would say that it is probably true, seems like a case where we could include it without a source, but let me give you a counter example, that at some point in the past, someone had inserted that the character name Eddie Riggs from Brutal Legend was based on the Eddie the Head (created by a man named Riggs) from the band Iron Maiden. Seems innocuous, right ? Well, a very recent interview (last month) showed that that actually wasn't the intent, and in fact they had problems licensing music from Iron Maiden for the game because they thought the name was too close. So that assumption was clearly wrong. This is why when any type of trivia like this is brought up, I always look for other sources that make that connection; if that RS source is later proven wrong, fine, that's not WP's fault, and we simply remove it. But we can't state that connection without the other sources to proof it. Mind you, there may be other ways that primary sources clearly show these types of things that do not require such sourcing, but that's rare. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Something was added by an unknown editor you couldn't trust, and was false. Not relevant here. And to the others, guidelines are not absolute laws like policies, and are never an excuse to ignore WP:common sense. Dream Focus 18:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
        • You should read the section right above that one. In fact, you should probably read the rest of that page, in its entirety. You do not seem to understand what ignoring a rule means. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
        • "Something was added by an unknown editor you couldn't trust" - no, something was added by an editor who thought it was true, but didn't have an RS to back it up. You are not a reliable source. I am not a reliable source. None of use are (probably). That was the whole point of the anecdote. The trustworthiness of the editor is not the issue. It doesn't matter if the bit is added by an IP or by you or by an admin or by Jimbo Wales. Facts need sources. --PresN 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
        • And not to stress the point, but to take out of context, a game developed specifically as a tribute to heavy metal naming its lead character "Eddie Riggs", and knowing that there's Iron Maiden's "Eddie the Head"? Sure, it sounds like it was a likely connection, and likely one that may be called out as a shoutout on TVTropes. But we didn't have anything that affirmed the connection and thus we can't include that. (The fact that it is now specifically known to be not true is a fact included elsewhere now in the article). This is exactly the case you have saying there's a "Dr. Cat" character and a developer that has the nickname "Dr. Cat" so they must be one and the same. That's simply not true. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)