This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 105 | ← | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | → | Archive 115 |
An IP user has requested that the recent GOG.com release of Star Wars: Dark Forces be noted in the infobox. It's my understanding that we don't generally note releases on GOG unless they're remastered versions. Am I right about that or am I hallucinating? I'm not 100% sure one way or the other, so I wanted to ask before I did anything definite. Thanks guys. Bertaut ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. The two FAC noms for this one aren't around. Crisco_1492 has picked this one for a Main Page appearance soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters, and I also decided to include something about the selection of playable characters; that may appeal more to the Main Page readership. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank ( push to talk) 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing move request; join in to improve consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Should pro gamers be referred to by their legal names or by their gamer handles?-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 08:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Many modern video games feature realistic versions of real-life firearms. Naturally, editors interested in those games like to add references to those games in the articles on the firearms themselves. Members of the firearms wikiproject, WP:GUNS, object to these additions and have even created a project MOS guideline calling for that material to be routinely deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture. Since it keeps getting re-added, it's clearly something people want. It could be legitimately kept if there were references which showed that the firearms are important to the individual games. However such citations are rare. For example, see FAMAS#Popular culture. I've noticed that many game articles do not include lists of weapons or discussions of their importance either, so it's not easy to just look to those articles to find sources. Do online and print magazines discuss video game weapons, and if so could those references be added somewhere? How else can we bridge the divide between video game content and firearms content on Wikipedia? Rezin ( talk) 00:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some honest feedback on the use of an illustration in the Hatred article at Talk:Hatred_(video_game)#Slipknot_comparison czar ⨹ 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Lately, I've read a few FAC-related posts that got me thinking about WPVG's standards. The first was from SandyGeorgia:
I am not sure what you are referencing with "increasing standards since 2009". You can find the benchmark dates in the FA process among the footnotes at this chart
(which by the way hasn't been updated since 2011, hint, hint)UPDATED. The last time there was a change in the criteria was March 2009: we've had only minor wording changes for clarity or linking since then. The last benchmark change in FAC reviewing processes occurred in November 2010 (copyvio checking was tightened). Reviewing standards have become more lax: we no longer have, as examples only, the highly detailed sourcing checks which were done by Ealdgyth, prose checks on the level of writer Tony1, and copyvio checking also seems to have declined. I could name scores of FAs still on the books that are not up to snuff, but don't do so as not to single out any particular group or editor. I don't doubt that at least a quarter of our FAs are out of compliance. More importantly, because no one has been systematically checking, how do we know if it's not worse?
SandyGeorgia
The second was from Czar, posted today:
Prior to this discussion, however, is our treatment of reviews as cleanup instead of rubber stamps. It's one thing to address a few relatively minor points or to apply one's very specific nitpicks (that could not have possibly been addressed by any other review), but we shouldn't be sending FACs with major issues when they can be feasibly addressed in-house (or at least told in a lower-stakes environment that it's not ready and what it needs). Considering our recent issues with WPVG-based opposes at FAC, it should be less disheartening to break the news here than at FAC.
Czar
As someone who remembers the (helpfully!) savage QA of people like Ealdgyth and Tony1, and who's perplexed by the newly lax FAC process—particularly at WPVG—, I found these comments insightful. FAC standards are lower across the board, but WPVG has been hit especially hard. In my opinion, this is mainly because our reviews are much more insular than they were in 2006 or 2009. Even back then, our project was infamous for its lower standards, but that problem was offset by WikiProjects' cross-pollination at FAC. We don't have that anymore. And now, as Czar points out, we're seeing flawed VG noms passing after major cleanup—or, in a few cases, without major cleanup. (Proud as I am of the FAs I worked on last year, I was shocked that they didn't receive the hard-hitting feedback I remembered—they were far from perfect.) WPVG is contributing to a new and poorer understanding of FAC, in which the bar is low and the burden on opposing reviewers is high. I see only two solutions: either WPVG's internal vetting is toughened significantly, or we somehow bring back cross-pollination at FAC. Right now, we're among the worst offenders when it comes to FAC's drop in standards, and that just can't continue. This will probably be a controversial post, but I thought it needed to be said. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 05:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is a pet project of mine (completely different from the iOS games I created); I have been working on it on/off for a number of years and would really like to see it hit GA. I seek the advice and assistance from this Wikiproject, which is filled with extremely formidable Wikipedia editors in this topic area. Though I am very familiar with this game, I am not used to creating GAs, so I figured I would post here to move things along.
I am fairly sure the sources in the article currently are the best it's ever going to get. Lord knows I've tried various means to access content, but it is tricky with a game from 1997. I think fancruft that has accumulated in my absence needs to be removed, and certain sections need to be copyedited.-- Coin945 ( talk) 02:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
A proposal to merge The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and its HD remaster has been made. I have voiced my support on the main article's talk page. Input on the issue is requested and required. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I would advise anyone to take a look at the edits from 75.142.13.251 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) ( Jan 13 and Jan 24); he removed the review of 1UP.com from the article of Metroid II: Return of Samus without giving a good reason. The review of the game was already referenced, so why did he removed it? -- Hounder4 15:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I just reverted and temporarily blocked 109.10.202.98 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) after they went on a spree of changing video game infobox parameters to false ones (usually publisher and developer). Given that IPs in a similar range ( 109.9.46.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.10.211.21 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have been doing the same thing over the past few days on some of the same articles I'd appreciate if you kept an eye out for this happening on any games on your watchlist and report the IP to WP:AIV or let me/another admin know. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 11:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to get more rollback happy, see 109.13.72.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.9.0.33 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). - hahnch e n 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
More 90.19.213.171 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) includes image deletion. - X201 ( talk) 07:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've done some digging, including the ones mentioned above, these are the IPs that need undoing.
109.9.46.141 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.18.230 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.12.12 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.11.203 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.10.133 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.0.33 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
90.19.213.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.13.72.201 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.13.243.6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.10.211.88 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
109.10.211.21 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.10.202.98 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.10.201.92 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
86.220.198.247 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
- X201 ( talk) 10:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Samwalton9:I think your friend is back. The IP range fits, and the edits seem in the same vein see Special:Contributions/109.9.56.18 - X201 ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
This has been brought up before, with the outcome usually being no consensus, but what do you think of GameFAQs and Template:GameFAQs? I don't see why we should use GameFAQs as an EL, let alone keep a template for it. GameFAQs is not a WP:VG/RS as it "relies on user-submitted content with no apparent editorial oversight." So why is sometimes used as an EL? It provides cheats and walkthroughs, just like hundreds other websites out there. Isn't it time we got rid of it? -- Soetermans. T / C 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Guys? Penny for your thoughts? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have always wondered why Zzap!64 is missing when it's lesser brethren CRASH and Amtix! are not :) It would be of great benefit for the retro documentation effort to add this influential (at the time) British rag to the mix. These are the pages that link to it, in case it's useful for the scope. If so, is further justification or information required ? SHOlafsson ( talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I would like to ask 3 questions.
- AdrianGamer ( talk) 11:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
We probably should go about archiving what we can of them. One thing that may be worth noting is that 1up.com often syndicated stories from their various magazines, so if a page isn't properly archived it still may be possible to find the article in an aforementioned magazine. -- Deathawk ( talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As previously discussed, Future have intended to close and consolidate their gaming websites for a while now, and now it's been confirmed: Edge (the website, at least) is going the way of C&VG and merging into GamesRadar. (Sorry, GamesRadar+.)
The site says: "Articles from the Edge archive will be available alongside new interviews, opinion and features and the best content from the website will be migrated over to our new GR+ homepage." In terms of how many citation links will stay working, that could mean anything! -- Nick R Talk 21:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
There have been discussions about this in the past, that templates that based upon in-game chronological order are not following WP:VG/MOS, as it is WP:GAMETRIVIA, leading to the deletion of templates based upon the timeline of Assassin's Creed, The Legend of Zelda, Grand Theft Auto, Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. To my surprise I found a Category that just list these kind of templates (see Category:Video game fictional chronology templates, not sure how to link to the page!) What do you say about coming to a decision here whether to have these templates or not, or at least come to a consensus what would at least be a minimum of having one around?
To me, some aren't necessary, like Template:Banjo-Kazooie chronology and Template:Killzone chronology, because the main series' article (assuming there is one), can easily explain how the games are set. Template:Silent Hill Chronology and Template:Devil May Cry chronology also list 'other' games, beside the 'main series'. That at the same time breaks the very chronological order, but also makes clear that some entries aren't connected plot-wise to others. But Template:Yakuza chronology lists non-canonical games (two that are set in the past and the zombie spin-off). Then there are some templates that mention other works, like comics, novels and films in the same fictional universe, like Template:Perfect Dark chronology and Template:Dead Space chronology. The deleted template on Assassin's Creed was also one that listed novels and such, which I actually nominated for deletion. Other templates feature game series with games with titles that aren't clear how they fit in the chronological order, like Template:Metroid chronology, Template:God of War chronology and Template: Metal Gear chronology.
So, any thoughts? -- Soetermans. T / C 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everybody know that I nominated Template:Perfect Dark chronology and Template:Banjo-Kazooie chronology for deletion. If anyone cares, please discuss this matter at TFD. Thanks in advance. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 14:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input guys. @ User:Niwi3, I haven't replied to the deletion proposals myself because there was nothing else I could say. I think we've established a couple of minimal requirements: first, the need for such a template, second, it has to be more than mere gameguide material, and third, if we can verify the information.
Metroid and MGS have passed the test at least. There aren't that many entries in the category, so let's review the ones we haven't discussed, shall we? I think we can keep these three at least:
In my opinion, these can go. @ User:Niwi3, @ User:ProtoDrake and @ User:Sergecross73, any thoughts?
I'm not sure about Template:Professor Layton chronology and Template:Ace Attorney chronology, is the chronology important for these games? I haven't played them and I thought they were mostly about solving cases and winning courtcases. Template:Front Mission chronology is so huge, sheer size alone makes me wonder if it's worth having around. Template:God of War chronology doesn't look necessary either, but maybe @ User: JDC808 has some input? -- Soetermans. T / C 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think all timelines should go unless they are sourced. - X201 ( talk) 09:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we can delete a bunch of the templates then. To nominate them all individually for the same reasons is silly, so maybe an admin can help out here? -- Soetermans. T / C 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ User: Sergecross73, any chance you can help out? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys. Salvidrim, if you please: Template:Onimusha chronology, Template:Killzone chronology, Template:Ys chronology, Template:Devil May Cry chronology, Template:Silent Hill Chronology, Template:Dead Space chronology, Template:Professor Layton chronology and Template:Ace Attorney chronology. I noticed that for some reason Template: Perfect Dark chronology still exists, even after the result was delete. They're all based upon in-universe timeline, which is either not that important to merit its own template or it the chronology of the series is vague at best. -- Soetermans. T / C 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The Addison-Wesley Book of Atari Software 1984 is at the Internet Archive. Its 400 pages review Atari 8-bit software, including almost 200 pages for games. The reviews are in great detail ( read the one for Archon: The Light and the Dark, for example) and have letter grades. Since the book is also available in plaintext, I hope an intrepid editor will accept the challenge of write a bot to scrape the grades and insert them into Wikipedia articles (and perhaps, even, creating stub articles when none exists). Ylee ( talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Pres N 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added the link to this book to the Reference Library; while I'm at it, if anybody has hard or electronic copies of video games magazines or books, please add them to the reference library so other editors can more easily use them as sources. -- Pres N 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, members of Wikiproject Video games! I'm AmericanLemming, and I'm trying to put together a list of notable/highly active Wikipedians by topic. As you're probably well aware, many or perhaps most of the 446 editors listed as "active" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members#Active either haven't edited in years, never did that much work on video game articles anyway, or are highly active but in areas other than video games.
The problem with all this is that it's difficult for an editor outside the Wikiproject to find active editors to collaborate with and/or ask questions of. Also, it's difficult to know who the most important video game editors are. From DYK, FA, GA, and GAN I've put together the following list of highly active and/or important video game editors:
I guess the questions I have for you are as follows:
I hope none of you feel offended if you aren't included in the above list, and I very much appreciate any help you can offer me. Thanks! AmericanLemming ( talk) 02:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Aw I'm flattered ☯ Jag uar ☯ 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who commented above, especially those who suggested names of editors who work behind the scenes with small edits; I wouldn't have realized who they were without the above feedback. There isn't as much glory in reverting vandalism or writing out acronyms as there is in amassing a large collection of FA stars, but it's vital work nonetheless. Since I've chosen to keep the link to the userpages of those editors listed here, it should (?) notify them. That way they can inform me if I've miscategorized them. Again, thank you all very much for your assistance. In a couple of months I'll see if they'll let me run this in the Signpost, once it's (reasonably) complete. AmericanLemming ( talk) 08:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Please only comment here if you feel that you or someone else has been placed in the wrong category. This is just a pet project of mine; it's neither authoritative nor comprehensive. I don't think It's especially important for every single editor on this list to know that they're included, since it isn't official or anything. I'm just trying to make it easier to to find active video game editors. AmericanLemming ( talk) 09:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who's played a good 4X game knows the temptation to play "one more turn", often finding as a result that it is 7am and you have spent the whole night playing. It's so well known that the Civilization games—the series that "one more turn" is most associated with—even mocks it with "just ... one ... more ... try" when you try to quit. Is there an article that discusses the phenomenon? It's not video game addiction; for most "one more turn" is temporary and harmless.
As the 4X article discusses, the phenomenon has been observed since the early days of the genre. I know others have observed it with other turn-based games, like Rogue. There are similaries to "one more episode" in binge watching. In both cases, it seems like the discrete intervals of individual turns/episodes if anything encourages staying with the game/show longer than otherwise, because of the illusion that the next turn/episode will be the last one. Ylee ( talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
There is probably a guideline or other conversation concerning this, but I thought a fresh view would be nice. During my time editing/exploring, I've encountered some GA/FA articles that use the "work=|publisher=" boxes (where it can be done), and others that simply use the "publisher=" box. There doesn't seem to be a solid rule about it. As I have several GAs/FAs in preparation at the moment, and other articles I intend to create in the relatively near future, I need an answer on this. Which is more proper and/or more popular: "work=|publisher=" or "publisher="? -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
|work=
automatically italicizes, and |publisher=
is only for completeness. As for needing a definitive answer, remember that WP has no definitive citation style requirement. It just needs to be consistent, and it's more important to keep the existing style than to overhaul for your personal preferences (unless you're rewriting the whole article, but that's another story). Previous discussions:This is probably not the most ideal place for this question, but what's the point of citation templates anyway? Is it mostly for editor convenience or is it more about structured data with an eye toward the semantic web? I am generally in favor of structured data for just that reason, but I find that when I'm in a rush I almost always just forgo the templates and default to creating the refs by hand. Should I be using citation templates more often? - Thibbs ( talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
Is there a consensus how to describe canceled multiplayer online games? For instance, is or was Star Wars Galaxies a MMORPG? I have to be honest, just the other day I added a bit to the MOS, saying it should be is, but after seeing a change to Age of Empires Online, I'm not sure. On one hand the game was developed and released, so at one point in time it was playable. On the other hand, since it was cancelled, now nobody can actually play it, effectively stop "being" a game in that sense. -- Soetermans. T / C 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it is a game that was available? Theoretically, let's imagine that in one point in time no NES consoles will work. Would we change it to "was"? People might still have the physical thing in their possession, even if it doesn't function anymore. It also just might be some old players still have the files on their computer, even if doesn't connect to a server. The game was designed, developed and published, part of its development. The cancellation of the multiplayer doesn't mean it wasn't developed, etc. I guess we're going a bit into the philosophical direction of art. If a old masterpiece has gone missing over the years, without any knowledge whether or not it still exists, wouldn't you say it still does exist? Schrödinger's painting, huh? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks guys. Since I was so bold to change it earlier, it's already in the VG/MOS. Now to look up every canceled MMO... -- Soetermans. T / C 13:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Requests board about whether the order of submissions should be newer submissions go on top. The discussion can be found here if you have a chance to give your input. GamerPro64 15:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Joystiq may be closing down, so we might need to get archiving citations to them. No official word yet but worth keeping an eye on. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Or the first article I've created from scratch ever; here it is. I'd definitely appreciate some feedback, and maybe even some help improving it. BlookerG talk 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Because video games are primarily covered in new media (online sources) and judging by all the closures of late, I'd like to suggest that we have an informal guideline that for our A-class articles or articles at GA (or better) that all citations that are only cited to a online source have appropriate archiveurl information, whether this is through Wayback or WebCite. I know we can't readily enforce that at GA level but we can push for that internally, and definitely make than an A-class requirement. Short of having a bot being able to do this for us, this at least ensures that our better content won't be "killed" when these sites go dark. -- MASEM ( t) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Swatting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I suggest we add this to the project since it does seem to happen a lot to gamers and people on Twitch.tv lately. Objections or comments? Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Figured I'd just jump straight to the review begging/collusion here, since the available GANs, PRs, and FACs are all listed in our project navbox. Anyway:
Okay, the Saturn's FAC has been up for two and a half months. Is it passing or not? Tezero ( talk) 18:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I put SSX 3 up for nomination more than a week ago but it isn't receiving much attention. Would anyone be willing to review it? BlookerG talk 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently deleted an article for a popular YouTuber and someone asked why articles like Markiplier remain while that one was up for deletion. Upon looking at the page, I can see their point- the article is pretty spotty and much of the sourcing is either primary or not the type that would give notability. Anyone up for improving the article? I'm somewhat busy with school work at the moment and I'm not as good with finding gaming sources for LPers as I am with just plain games, so I thought I'd ask here for some assistance. I'd like to avoid having to put this up for AfD if I can help it, although if any of you want to go that route then I'm fine with that. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
So as a reminder, Final Fantasy VIII will be on the main page for "Today's Featured Article" on the 11th. And since its part of a Featured Topic, I hope that there will be an introductory paragraph added to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII before the article premiers on there. Just to help standardize introductory paragraphs in Featured Topics. GamerPro64 00:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up, God of War is at the request page to hopefully be TFA on March 22nd, the game's 10th anniversary. -- JDC808 ♫ 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure about the use of podcasts as references in articles since I don't recall any major article using them. That being said, the article Revolution 60 uses podcasts 14 times as a source currently. Some of these podcasts can be considered self sources so I'm not fully confident they hold up well in a review of sorts if it ever does in the future. What's anyone else's take on this? GamerPro64 22:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, all. Over at the FAC for Sonic 1, one user has given my first oppose vote in a while over comprehensiveness concerns. She listed four sources I ought to include if Wikipedia's coverage of the game is to be complete, but my county's library system only has one of them. Does anyone own, or know where I might get access to, any of the below?
Thanks. I'm not expecting miracles, but even a push in the right direction would be appreciated. Tezero ( talk) 23:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Could use some more reviews. Don't want to see this get closed for lack of reviews. -- JDC808 ♫ 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Italics were inadvertently removed from the listings for print magazines in Template:Video game reviews when it was converted to Lua. I've restored this functionality through a draft in the sandbox, just need an admin to make it live. Either an admin here can do it, or you can drop a line to indicate consensus at Template_talk:Video_game_reviews#Loss_of_italics_in_Lua_transition, if you would be so kind. Axem Titanium ( talk) 08:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
A little while ago I asked about the use of GameFAQs and Template:GameFAQs in the external links section of video game articles. In my mind, it seemed like consensus was reached, and I proposed its deletion. No consensus was reached there however, and it has since been relisted.
Could you please take a moment and share your opinion on the matter? This is by no means canvassing, because the template is used on over 1100 pages so it might be important to hear your thoughts. You can find the discussion here. -- Soetermans. T / C 19:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I know we're already got the AFD alert page - WP:VG/D - but I wanted to bring more attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jory Prum, as so far, it seems most of the input is from the subject himself, and a bunch of WP:SPA's obviously connected to him. I'd like to see more input from experienced editors who are unconnected to the subject. I'm still personally undecided on my stance, so this is not any sort of WP:CANVASSING. Just wanted more people weighing in. Please look into it, and leave a comment if you have any thoughts or a stance. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly what it says above, as supported by this article with its own link to the blog post. All the details are there for people to read up, including the new review policies and limited rating system. I feel that this merits attention as Eurogamer is a prominent UK/European video game review site. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 12:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the new scores that Eurogamer have come up with should be placed inside the review template with no modification to how said scores are worded, but context should always be given in each article containing the score explaining why they gave it that rating. However, in the cases where no label is given, I feel that nothing should be placed in the review template for Eurogamer, as it would definitely lead to a dispute regarding whether people interpret the reviewer's criticism differently. In the latter situation, a mention of their critique in the Reception section would still be appropriate. BlookerG talk 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I was just reading our Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood article. The game's connection to Japan appears to be tenuous at best, so why do we give the Japanese name in the opening? Is it just because the character/series is originally Japanese? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion about our current size limitation policy of video game screenshots going on at NFC Talk. Please come and chime in on the matter. DrNegative ( talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I checked the Article statistics page and according to the monthly statistics table, we've been at 42 A-class articles since November 2013. I used to champion the class during my early days here. But now I'm uncertain about its use for this project. We've have had multiple discussions about the class with no real movement. I just think we may need a definitive consensus on what to do with it. GamerPro64 00:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
So are we keeping A-class in the project? GamerPro64 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
A-class is no more! |class=A now leaves an article as unassessed, the 42 A-class articles are now GA-class, the category is deleted and doesn't show up an any assessment table or class-listing template, and the Good article subpage doesn't list A-class articles. If anyone sees anything I missed, let me know. -- Pres N 21:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
When I recently posted here about a Carmen Sandiego game I had wanted to take to GA, it was noted that there a very few if any edutainment games with great coverage here on Wikipedia. So today I wanted to quickly talk about the Trail series - one of the most lucrative and important edutainment franchises ever. You probably recognise the most famous entry The Oregon Trail ("You have died of dysentery" is something the majority of 80's kids has read), but in truth this little beast sparked an entire franchise that unfortunately is not covered very well here at all. I wanted to find out more about these games, but found that an internet search + the Wiki articles left such incredible knowledge holes that I'm left more confused than I started.
I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of y'all, as it is something a little bit different that might interest someone here. A new project to sink your teeth into. I honestly don't even know where to begin. I created a stub of one game that still didn't have an article, and created a template to house the franchise, but don't really know how to proceed. So I post this here in order to read the opinions of those more experienced in this area than I.-- Coin945 ( talk) 08:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Time for the next review thread to come, and we have a doozie. Several ancient FAs, a glut of GAs, and two Peer Reviews. As with previous threads, I shall remind readers and editors that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests has been backlogged since 2011. If you're interested in making any of the articles on the list, feel free.
There we are. Enjoy. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 17:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
For exchanges and such of reviews and opinions on articles. To begin, and open myself up to something I might regret, I'll give some help to a Peer Review or FAC, or take on a GA review, in return for someone taking either Before Crisis or Tales of Innocence. I must exempt Advent Children from those I can take as I am closely involved with bringing VII-related articles to GA status as part of a small project, and thus my objectivity could be called into question. Addendum: As PresN mentioned it below, I also feel that I must exempt myself from Children of Mana as well as I did the GA review for that. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 18:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've already reviewed God of War III and Grow Home (now at GAN, if anyone's interested in that), but I'll take a GA review for anyone in exchange for a review of Sonic 1 (whose Oppose I believe I've addressed to the best of my ability and the voter's inactivity) or of the PR for Sonic Adventure 2. Tezero ( talk) 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll review a GAN in exchange for someone reviewing SSX 3. I nominated it a while back and it hasn't received much attention. I haven't reviewed an article before, but I'll try my best. BlookerG talk 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If a developer of a game posts something on Twitter that confirms that a game will or won't have a feature, is it acceptable to use that Twitter post as a source?
This is the particular sentence in question:
Christer Ericson of SCE Santa Monica Studio wrote on his Twitter page that God of War III has seamless loading; no loading screens and no hard disk drive installation requirement. source. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the responses. -- JDC808 ♫ 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This probably sounds like a stupid question, but what exactly does it mean for a game, movie, or whatever to have universal critical acclaim? Does that mean every reviewer gave it a perfect score? Basically, there are no flaws?
I ask this because I'm having an issue with its inclusion in an article. On God of War III's FAC, there's a reviewer (a non-gamer) who has an issue with including the statement because there are mixed reviews in the reception section. I explained (and linked) him to Metacritic where it shows the score range a game must have to be universally critically acclaimed (which is 90-100). He said that although that's Metacritic's scoring, it's not actually universal acclaim. He said that although gamers would understand the Metacritic scoring, non-gamers wouldn't. Have any of you dealt with this and how did you resolve it? -- JDC808 ♫ 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
New to the reference library: The Story of the ZX Spectrum in Pixels by Chris Wilkins. Published in 2014 after a Kickstarter campaign. Has a history and descriptions of the various Spectrum models, two-page spreads of important games, and first-person accounts by many developers. Ylee ( talk) 01:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Would Nintendo's rumored new console be part of the 8th or 9th generation of video game consoles? They seemed to beat the other two ( Sony and Microsoft) to the punch on the eighth generation, but I don't see Sony or Microsoft releasing a new system for at least another 6-or-so years. So, if Nintendo's new platform comes out in the next couple of years (the Wii U has already been release to the public for over two years, bearing the other two major consoles by about a year), what generation would that console belong? Steel1943 ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As per EuroGamer, Kotaku, Joystiq, Rock, Paper,Shotgun and any others I've missed, do we need to look at the project's use (or over-use) of numbers to indicate a game's quality? The content of VGReviews will already be biased by the fact that the sites listed above either aren't listed in it at all, or will only be listed at certain times (e.g EuroGamer "Recommended" award). If the template is there to give a quick snapshot of reviews, then it is failing, due to the fact that it can only give a snapshot of sites that assign review scores, this is in itself and in-built bias towards those sites and could start to raise the NPOV question.
A similar problem is the use of MetaCritic in the template, if scores from EuroGamer et al are not going to be included in MetaCritic, then again, we're using a skewed figure that doesn't represent the opinions of a number of key websites.
I think we need to talk about the above, just to see if they really are problems and what we can do about it if they are.. - X201 ( talk) 10:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
We give the numbers as much weight as the reliable secondary sources and the games industry does. Aside from our massive undue support for Gamerankings, this is the correct approach. It's the prose that counts, the box merely serves as a way to excise clumsy percentages from that prose and acts as a sanity check for the prose. - hahnch e n 19:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Here, I'll pose a question, since I personally don't see purely numerical consensus as particularly useful, even though in this case it's running in my favor. What do we lose by allowing GameRankings in cases where Metacritic is available? I genuinely don't get that. I don't see a reliability issue - is it that it's a slippery slope to including less notable sites? (If so, could we set a bar somewhere?) Is it that allowing it will shift convention toward demanding it and that's a lot of work? Is it a template-size issue? Is it that it's seen as excessively redundant? Tezero ( talk) 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Just realised that Template:Video_game_series_reviews forces you to include GameRankings. - hahnch e n 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been adding review information from magazines like Electronic Gaming Monthly and GamePro for some months now, and it's become clear to me that there's a difference of opinion on how the review scores for these publications should be represented.
How does project consensus say we should represent scores for these publications? I still think we should use each gaming publication's own scoring system (or lack thereof) rather than making up our own, but I'll happily bow to whatever the consensus is.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 16:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed a few minutes ago that the Reception charts are suddenly made very big. I have a feeling that they may be too big for article pages. Like this one, for example. Who made these Reception charts so big? Can something be done to make them normal-sized again? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I would like to ask another 3 different questions.
1. I would like to know whether a video game gone
gold is notable to mentioned in the development section. I tend to add them to articles every time when critics made stories about them but are these information
necessary?
2. This one is a very minor question. It is about the position of the review template. For example. If an article have both pre-release subsection and post-release subsection, would it be more sensible to put the template along with the post-release section since scores were issued after the game's release? I always found that the template was placed/moved next to the pre-release section like this and this
3. This is also a very minor question. I wonder if information about reception is appropriate for the lead section or not. It often get removed like this
— AdrianGamer ( talk) 04:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1. If a franchise article page is placed in subcategory Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2007 should it be removed from the parent category Category:Video game franchises? Going by WP:CAT#Categorizing pages I'm guessing it should be removed from the parent category. Currently, some articles are in both, some only in subcategory, and some only in parent category.
2. On Category: Video game franchises, under Subcategories do the eponymous franchise categories need moving under Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises? Again there doesn't seem to be any consistency at the moment.
Just checking I got things right before I make changes. – The1337gamer ( talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys! While read Color TV-Game, I found an opposition between two sources. The one is from the book Game Over, now listed in article, said Color TV-Game 6 and Color TV-Game 15 were sold one million units each; while the another one I found is from Japanese media Nikkei Business Publications, said the totally sales is one million, Color TV-Game 15 is 700,000 and Color TV-Game 6 is 300,000, respectively. I'm not familar with guidelines, we source which one, or both?
The Nikkei BP source said: "The two video game consoles of Nintendo have been sold about 1 million units in total. More than 70% of the sales are from the console priced 15,000 Yen." ( 任天堂は二つのゲーム機を合計で約100万台販売した。販売台数の7割以上が1万5000円の機種だった。) -- CAS222222221 ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I keep seeing a certain category being added to a bunch of articles on my watchlist, and I wanted to double check here before I start reverting, in case I'm wrong.
Here's an example of what I mean. The category "Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 2015" is being added to games like Xenoblade Chronicles X. My concerns are:
Am I missing something? Or does this need to be removed? Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Introduced would make sense if it was the "introduction" of a franchise. Final Fantasy could have "Role-playing video game series introduced in 1987" as a category, for example. It currently has "Video game franchises introduced in 1987". I guess that's better anyway. One does not introduce a game, it gets either released or announced. Xenoblade Chronicles X could have a "2015 role-playing video games" category (if it isn't considered Christal ball or something). Probably an category's title worth changing. ~ Mable ( chat) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This subject has been nagging me all week. I've just done a bit of digging and I've just dug this out ( User_talk:Mindmatrix/December_2014#Dispersion_of_year_categories_by_genre) I knew it rang a bell. I contacted the user that created them last year, as they were going against our consensus on WP:DUPCAT, I hadn't seen their additional explanation until this morning. It seems the user was trying to create something akin to Category:2007 role-playing video games and instead decided upon a different naming structure to fit in with different projects. I think a mass category rename is in order to avoid the confusion that "introduced" has introduced. - X201 ( talk) 11:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If someone has a chance to look into notability on this bunch (I believe it's the same author), it looks to me like they should largely remain redirects. I'm on the run right now. czar ⨹ 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest a merge for all involved, even for Success. -- Izno ( talk) 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If a game does not list anybody as a director or co-director, but a member/s of a development team are listed as a development director/s, can I place them in the infobox as directors? BlookerG talk 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across these two articles( BrainBread (Half Life Mod) and Brainbread 2, I can't find a reliable source for either. If someone wants to try before I AFD them, feel free. - X201 ( talk) 09:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
With the 2015 main GDC conference on us, it is a good reminder that their Flickr photostream [1] in CC-BY licenses , meaning they are great pictures to illustrate articles, particularly to illustrate major devs, etc. These can be uploaded to commons, just make sure to tag them with the "Game Developers Conference 2015" category there. -- MASEM ( t) 04:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Survival games have been one of the hottest genres of the last few years. A survival game is not a survival horror game, yet currently still redirects to it. What's even more confusing is that we don't have a survival horror category, but instead place everything into Category:Survival video games. There's also Category:Horror games, Category:Horror video games and Category:Psychological horror games (which itself is a poorly defined subset of survival horror).
If anyone has time, I'm sure a survival game article would be a rewarding project, can't be that many opportunities to start a new genre article. - hahnch e n 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for the creation of an article and category, however there is one small disambiguation problem to think about. In Japan, survival game refers to outdoor airsoft competitions. In the English language, the videogame genre is more likely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but as a global website there will be some non-native speakers searching for the alternate definition, so it's best to add a disambiguation hatnote at the top or something. This is nothing overly big or problematic, but small things still need to be nitpicked at. -- benlisquare T• C• E 13:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In a desperate attempt for you to keep reading I want to say now ITS EASY TO FIX, you won't believe how easy to fix it is, there's even a tool to help you, it finds the fault and tells you what it is, all you have to do is make the edit.
Hopefully you're still reading.
This project has 478 faulty articles, including Featured Articles and Good Articles. The fault is caused by a template field being duplicated; so it may be the media field appearing twice in the infobox or accessdate appearing twice in a reference or IGN being listed twice in the reviews box. The problem is that this can cause readers to see the wrong info as the template will obviously only display one field call, so incorrect or out of date info could be being displayed to users.
If this project clears this 478 articles we'll be the only WikiProject without an article in the obscenely large Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.
The tool and simple usage instructions are available from here.
Then, all you have to do is:
Thanks in advance for any help. - X201 ( talk) 10:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks everyone, a brilliant team effort. It was great fun watching the list shrinking by the minute as The1337gamer and AdrianGamer attacked it this morning. - X201 ( talk) 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) . - X201 ( talk) 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Maldita Castilla computer game has been edited by me and still requires an info box. This article appears in the March 2015 list of articles requiring editing. Having edited it I have marked it
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{ copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! |
According to the information editing was first requested Feb 2012. Please add the info box. Isthisuseful ( talk) 13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm in the process of getting WP:GAMES on it's feet and there's a recent request on WT:GAMES from an editor for more information(?) in the Asphalt_8:_Airborne article. Cheers. - Mattwheatley ( talk) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
ClassicOnAStick ( talk · contribs) is systematically going through game articles and rearranging their platform order from comma-separated to line break-separated apropos of nothing. They have been warned in the past, if you view their talk page history. I don't have time to look into this right now, if someone else can. czar ⨹ 22:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, i'll stop, I thought it looked better my way. But oh well. Rewind Wrestling ( talk) 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Not sure if this the right place to go asking for this, but I'd like some help trying to bring the Ratchet & Clank series article up to snuff-- there's a couple of things I'm trying to get organised that would be a lot easier with an extra set of hands, since I'm not a super experienced editor, and the talkpage is as dead as doornails.
Anyone up for it? BlusterBlaster kablooie! 14:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Future have just moved OXM across to GamesRadar. All their links no longer work and their old material has not transferred across to the new domain.
Future have recently closed various websites and publications such as C&VG and Official Nintendo Magazine. Did we do anything about those? Are there any bots on Wikipedia where we can request mass archive link updates for an entire domain? - hahnch e n 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have a problem, again. I wanted to modify the Reception chart to a multi-platform one in the article for Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory because this link here claims that Nintendo 3DS is enlisted as "3DS" in the "Predefined System Type" list. But when I tried modifying the Reception chart, "3DS" is missing because it is still not in the multi-platform Reception chart! Now what? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This may only concern one game, but no-one is noticing it on the article's talk page, and I need an answer. Info from the section (with minor correction): "I have found an article from a site called Final Fantasy News (a fan site of some kind) containing details on a lecture Yusuke Naora gave at Southern Methodist University which features new information on Final Fantasy Type-0 the former's HD remaster, and Final Fantasy XV. There is a video on Twitch, but it won't archive (the video might be taken down), and this information is not stored on any other referable site in its entirety. I have encountered other cases where a fan site like this is acceptable if the transcription is proved accurate or there is no other usable source. Can it be used on this article and Type-0 (they are both likely to become FA in the future)?" As an extra detail, there don't appear to be any malicious elements in the page, such as malware or unfriendly cookies, so it should be usable risk-free. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 16:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Naora, Yusuke (27 February 2015),
"Recap notes", Lecture at SMU,
Southern Methodist University{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
Naora, Yusuke (26 February 2015),
"Lecture recap", The visual evolution of Final Fantasy,
The Guildhall at
Southern Methodist University in
Plano, Texas{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
Found this while doing other stuff; Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1991 video game) has been unreferenced for 7 years, just dropping it here in case anyone fancies having dabble at it. - X201 ( talk) 11:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I missed out on mentioning Lost Luggage (video game) being on the main page on March 8th. However, we have another video game article going on the main page on the 22nd with God of War (video game). And its the tenth anniversary of its release, too. GamerPro64 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Inclusion of video games in the template may be of interest. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for months, but I'm no law expert, and I'm not sure if it's notable to have its own article, so what do you guys think? Should an article about Nintendo's lawsuit against NTDEC be written on the merit of the latter making unauthorised use of Nintendo's name? Blake Gripling ( talk) 01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 105 | ← | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | → | Archive 115 |
An IP user has requested that the recent GOG.com release of Star Wars: Dark Forces be noted in the infobox. It's my understanding that we don't generally note releases on GOG unless they're remastered versions. Am I right about that or am I hallucinating? I'm not 100% sure one way or the other, so I wanted to ask before I did anything definite. Thanks guys. Bertaut ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. The two FAC noms for this one aren't around. Crisco_1492 has picked this one for a Main Page appearance soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters, and I also decided to include something about the selection of playable characters; that may appeal more to the Main Page readership. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank ( push to talk) 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing move request; join in to improve consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Should pro gamers be referred to by their legal names or by their gamer handles?-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 08:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Many modern video games feature realistic versions of real-life firearms. Naturally, editors interested in those games like to add references to those games in the articles on the firearms themselves. Members of the firearms wikiproject, WP:GUNS, object to these additions and have even created a project MOS guideline calling for that material to be routinely deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture. Since it keeps getting re-added, it's clearly something people want. It could be legitimately kept if there were references which showed that the firearms are important to the individual games. However such citations are rare. For example, see FAMAS#Popular culture. I've noticed that many game articles do not include lists of weapons or discussions of their importance either, so it's not easy to just look to those articles to find sources. Do online and print magazines discuss video game weapons, and if so could those references be added somewhere? How else can we bridge the divide between video game content and firearms content on Wikipedia? Rezin ( talk) 00:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some honest feedback on the use of an illustration in the Hatred article at Talk:Hatred_(video_game)#Slipknot_comparison czar ⨹ 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Lately, I've read a few FAC-related posts that got me thinking about WPVG's standards. The first was from SandyGeorgia:
I am not sure what you are referencing with "increasing standards since 2009". You can find the benchmark dates in the FA process among the footnotes at this chart
(which by the way hasn't been updated since 2011, hint, hint)UPDATED. The last time there was a change in the criteria was March 2009: we've had only minor wording changes for clarity or linking since then. The last benchmark change in FAC reviewing processes occurred in November 2010 (copyvio checking was tightened). Reviewing standards have become more lax: we no longer have, as examples only, the highly detailed sourcing checks which were done by Ealdgyth, prose checks on the level of writer Tony1, and copyvio checking also seems to have declined. I could name scores of FAs still on the books that are not up to snuff, but don't do so as not to single out any particular group or editor. I don't doubt that at least a quarter of our FAs are out of compliance. More importantly, because no one has been systematically checking, how do we know if it's not worse?
SandyGeorgia
The second was from Czar, posted today:
Prior to this discussion, however, is our treatment of reviews as cleanup instead of rubber stamps. It's one thing to address a few relatively minor points or to apply one's very specific nitpicks (that could not have possibly been addressed by any other review), but we shouldn't be sending FACs with major issues when they can be feasibly addressed in-house (or at least told in a lower-stakes environment that it's not ready and what it needs). Considering our recent issues with WPVG-based opposes at FAC, it should be less disheartening to break the news here than at FAC.
Czar
As someone who remembers the (helpfully!) savage QA of people like Ealdgyth and Tony1, and who's perplexed by the newly lax FAC process—particularly at WPVG—, I found these comments insightful. FAC standards are lower across the board, but WPVG has been hit especially hard. In my opinion, this is mainly because our reviews are much more insular than they were in 2006 or 2009. Even back then, our project was infamous for its lower standards, but that problem was offset by WikiProjects' cross-pollination at FAC. We don't have that anymore. And now, as Czar points out, we're seeing flawed VG noms passing after major cleanup—or, in a few cases, without major cleanup. (Proud as I am of the FAs I worked on last year, I was shocked that they didn't receive the hard-hitting feedback I remembered—they were far from perfect.) WPVG is contributing to a new and poorer understanding of FAC, in which the bar is low and the burden on opposing reviewers is high. I see only two solutions: either WPVG's internal vetting is toughened significantly, or we somehow bring back cross-pollination at FAC. Right now, we're among the worst offenders when it comes to FAC's drop in standards, and that just can't continue. This will probably be a controversial post, but I thought it needed to be said. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 05:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is a pet project of mine (completely different from the iOS games I created); I have been working on it on/off for a number of years and would really like to see it hit GA. I seek the advice and assistance from this Wikiproject, which is filled with extremely formidable Wikipedia editors in this topic area. Though I am very familiar with this game, I am not used to creating GAs, so I figured I would post here to move things along.
I am fairly sure the sources in the article currently are the best it's ever going to get. Lord knows I've tried various means to access content, but it is tricky with a game from 1997. I think fancruft that has accumulated in my absence needs to be removed, and certain sections need to be copyedited.-- Coin945 ( talk) 02:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
A proposal to merge The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and its HD remaster has been made. I have voiced my support on the main article's talk page. Input on the issue is requested and required. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I would advise anyone to take a look at the edits from 75.142.13.251 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) ( Jan 13 and Jan 24); he removed the review of 1UP.com from the article of Metroid II: Return of Samus without giving a good reason. The review of the game was already referenced, so why did he removed it? -- Hounder4 15:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I just reverted and temporarily blocked 109.10.202.98 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) after they went on a spree of changing video game infobox parameters to false ones (usually publisher and developer). Given that IPs in a similar range ( 109.9.46.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.10.211.21 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have been doing the same thing over the past few days on some of the same articles I'd appreciate if you kept an eye out for this happening on any games on your watchlist and report the IP to WP:AIV or let me/another admin know. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 11:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to get more rollback happy, see 109.13.72.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.9.0.33 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). - hahnch e n 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
More 90.19.213.171 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) includes image deletion. - X201 ( talk) 07:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've done some digging, including the ones mentioned above, these are the IPs that need undoing.
109.9.46.141 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.18.230 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.12.12 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.11.203 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.10.133 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.9.0.33 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
90.19.213.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.13.72.201 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.13.243.6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.10.211.88 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
109.10.211.21 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.10.202.98 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
109.10.201.92 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
86.220.198.247 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) Done
- X201 ( talk) 10:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Samwalton9:I think your friend is back. The IP range fits, and the edits seem in the same vein see Special:Contributions/109.9.56.18 - X201 ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
This has been brought up before, with the outcome usually being no consensus, but what do you think of GameFAQs and Template:GameFAQs? I don't see why we should use GameFAQs as an EL, let alone keep a template for it. GameFAQs is not a WP:VG/RS as it "relies on user-submitted content with no apparent editorial oversight." So why is sometimes used as an EL? It provides cheats and walkthroughs, just like hundreds other websites out there. Isn't it time we got rid of it? -- Soetermans. T / C 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Guys? Penny for your thoughts? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have always wondered why Zzap!64 is missing when it's lesser brethren CRASH and Amtix! are not :) It would be of great benefit for the retro documentation effort to add this influential (at the time) British rag to the mix. These are the pages that link to it, in case it's useful for the scope. If so, is further justification or information required ? SHOlafsson ( talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I would like to ask 3 questions.
- AdrianGamer ( talk) 11:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
We probably should go about archiving what we can of them. One thing that may be worth noting is that 1up.com often syndicated stories from their various magazines, so if a page isn't properly archived it still may be possible to find the article in an aforementioned magazine. -- Deathawk ( talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As previously discussed, Future have intended to close and consolidate their gaming websites for a while now, and now it's been confirmed: Edge (the website, at least) is going the way of C&VG and merging into GamesRadar. (Sorry, GamesRadar+.)
The site says: "Articles from the Edge archive will be available alongside new interviews, opinion and features and the best content from the website will be migrated over to our new GR+ homepage." In terms of how many citation links will stay working, that could mean anything! -- Nick R Talk 21:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
There have been discussions about this in the past, that templates that based upon in-game chronological order are not following WP:VG/MOS, as it is WP:GAMETRIVIA, leading to the deletion of templates based upon the timeline of Assassin's Creed, The Legend of Zelda, Grand Theft Auto, Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. To my surprise I found a Category that just list these kind of templates (see Category:Video game fictional chronology templates, not sure how to link to the page!) What do you say about coming to a decision here whether to have these templates or not, or at least come to a consensus what would at least be a minimum of having one around?
To me, some aren't necessary, like Template:Banjo-Kazooie chronology and Template:Killzone chronology, because the main series' article (assuming there is one), can easily explain how the games are set. Template:Silent Hill Chronology and Template:Devil May Cry chronology also list 'other' games, beside the 'main series'. That at the same time breaks the very chronological order, but also makes clear that some entries aren't connected plot-wise to others. But Template:Yakuza chronology lists non-canonical games (two that are set in the past and the zombie spin-off). Then there are some templates that mention other works, like comics, novels and films in the same fictional universe, like Template:Perfect Dark chronology and Template:Dead Space chronology. The deleted template on Assassin's Creed was also one that listed novels and such, which I actually nominated for deletion. Other templates feature game series with games with titles that aren't clear how they fit in the chronological order, like Template:Metroid chronology, Template:God of War chronology and Template: Metal Gear chronology.
So, any thoughts? -- Soetermans. T / C 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everybody know that I nominated Template:Perfect Dark chronology and Template:Banjo-Kazooie chronology for deletion. If anyone cares, please discuss this matter at TFD. Thanks in advance. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 14:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input guys. @ User:Niwi3, I haven't replied to the deletion proposals myself because there was nothing else I could say. I think we've established a couple of minimal requirements: first, the need for such a template, second, it has to be more than mere gameguide material, and third, if we can verify the information.
Metroid and MGS have passed the test at least. There aren't that many entries in the category, so let's review the ones we haven't discussed, shall we? I think we can keep these three at least:
In my opinion, these can go. @ User:Niwi3, @ User:ProtoDrake and @ User:Sergecross73, any thoughts?
I'm not sure about Template:Professor Layton chronology and Template:Ace Attorney chronology, is the chronology important for these games? I haven't played them and I thought they were mostly about solving cases and winning courtcases. Template:Front Mission chronology is so huge, sheer size alone makes me wonder if it's worth having around. Template:God of War chronology doesn't look necessary either, but maybe @ User: JDC808 has some input? -- Soetermans. T / C 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think all timelines should go unless they are sourced. - X201 ( talk) 09:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we can delete a bunch of the templates then. To nominate them all individually for the same reasons is silly, so maybe an admin can help out here? -- Soetermans. T / C 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ User: Sergecross73, any chance you can help out? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys. Salvidrim, if you please: Template:Onimusha chronology, Template:Killzone chronology, Template:Ys chronology, Template:Devil May Cry chronology, Template:Silent Hill Chronology, Template:Dead Space chronology, Template:Professor Layton chronology and Template:Ace Attorney chronology. I noticed that for some reason Template: Perfect Dark chronology still exists, even after the result was delete. They're all based upon in-universe timeline, which is either not that important to merit its own template or it the chronology of the series is vague at best. -- Soetermans. T / C 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The Addison-Wesley Book of Atari Software 1984 is at the Internet Archive. Its 400 pages review Atari 8-bit software, including almost 200 pages for games. The reviews are in great detail ( read the one for Archon: The Light and the Dark, for example) and have letter grades. Since the book is also available in plaintext, I hope an intrepid editor will accept the challenge of write a bot to scrape the grades and insert them into Wikipedia articles (and perhaps, even, creating stub articles when none exists). Ylee ( talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Pres N 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added the link to this book to the Reference Library; while I'm at it, if anybody has hard or electronic copies of video games magazines or books, please add them to the reference library so other editors can more easily use them as sources. -- Pres N 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, members of Wikiproject Video games! I'm AmericanLemming, and I'm trying to put together a list of notable/highly active Wikipedians by topic. As you're probably well aware, many or perhaps most of the 446 editors listed as "active" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members#Active either haven't edited in years, never did that much work on video game articles anyway, or are highly active but in areas other than video games.
The problem with all this is that it's difficult for an editor outside the Wikiproject to find active editors to collaborate with and/or ask questions of. Also, it's difficult to know who the most important video game editors are. From DYK, FA, GA, and GAN I've put together the following list of highly active and/or important video game editors:
I guess the questions I have for you are as follows:
I hope none of you feel offended if you aren't included in the above list, and I very much appreciate any help you can offer me. Thanks! AmericanLemming ( talk) 02:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Aw I'm flattered ☯ Jag uar ☯ 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who commented above, especially those who suggested names of editors who work behind the scenes with small edits; I wouldn't have realized who they were without the above feedback. There isn't as much glory in reverting vandalism or writing out acronyms as there is in amassing a large collection of FA stars, but it's vital work nonetheless. Since I've chosen to keep the link to the userpages of those editors listed here, it should (?) notify them. That way they can inform me if I've miscategorized them. Again, thank you all very much for your assistance. In a couple of months I'll see if they'll let me run this in the Signpost, once it's (reasonably) complete. AmericanLemming ( talk) 08:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Please only comment here if you feel that you or someone else has been placed in the wrong category. This is just a pet project of mine; it's neither authoritative nor comprehensive. I don't think It's especially important for every single editor on this list to know that they're included, since it isn't official or anything. I'm just trying to make it easier to to find active video game editors. AmericanLemming ( talk) 09:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who's played a good 4X game knows the temptation to play "one more turn", often finding as a result that it is 7am and you have spent the whole night playing. It's so well known that the Civilization games—the series that "one more turn" is most associated with—even mocks it with "just ... one ... more ... try" when you try to quit. Is there an article that discusses the phenomenon? It's not video game addiction; for most "one more turn" is temporary and harmless.
As the 4X article discusses, the phenomenon has been observed since the early days of the genre. I know others have observed it with other turn-based games, like Rogue. There are similaries to "one more episode" in binge watching. In both cases, it seems like the discrete intervals of individual turns/episodes if anything encourages staying with the game/show longer than otherwise, because of the illusion that the next turn/episode will be the last one. Ylee ( talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
There is probably a guideline or other conversation concerning this, but I thought a fresh view would be nice. During my time editing/exploring, I've encountered some GA/FA articles that use the "work=|publisher=" boxes (where it can be done), and others that simply use the "publisher=" box. There doesn't seem to be a solid rule about it. As I have several GAs/FAs in preparation at the moment, and other articles I intend to create in the relatively near future, I need an answer on this. Which is more proper and/or more popular: "work=|publisher=" or "publisher="? -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
|work=
automatically italicizes, and |publisher=
is only for completeness. As for needing a definitive answer, remember that WP has no definitive citation style requirement. It just needs to be consistent, and it's more important to keep the existing style than to overhaul for your personal preferences (unless you're rewriting the whole article, but that's another story). Previous discussions:This is probably not the most ideal place for this question, but what's the point of citation templates anyway? Is it mostly for editor convenience or is it more about structured data with an eye toward the semantic web? I am generally in favor of structured data for just that reason, but I find that when I'm in a rush I almost always just forgo the templates and default to creating the refs by hand. Should I be using citation templates more often? - Thibbs ( talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
Is there a consensus how to describe canceled multiplayer online games? For instance, is or was Star Wars Galaxies a MMORPG? I have to be honest, just the other day I added a bit to the MOS, saying it should be is, but after seeing a change to Age of Empires Online, I'm not sure. On one hand the game was developed and released, so at one point in time it was playable. On the other hand, since it was cancelled, now nobody can actually play it, effectively stop "being" a game in that sense. -- Soetermans. T / C 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it is a game that was available? Theoretically, let's imagine that in one point in time no NES consoles will work. Would we change it to "was"? People might still have the physical thing in their possession, even if it doesn't function anymore. It also just might be some old players still have the files on their computer, even if doesn't connect to a server. The game was designed, developed and published, part of its development. The cancellation of the multiplayer doesn't mean it wasn't developed, etc. I guess we're going a bit into the philosophical direction of art. If a old masterpiece has gone missing over the years, without any knowledge whether or not it still exists, wouldn't you say it still does exist? Schrödinger's painting, huh? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks guys. Since I was so bold to change it earlier, it's already in the VG/MOS. Now to look up every canceled MMO... -- Soetermans. T / C 13:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Requests board about whether the order of submissions should be newer submissions go on top. The discussion can be found here if you have a chance to give your input. GamerPro64 15:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Joystiq may be closing down, so we might need to get archiving citations to them. No official word yet but worth keeping an eye on. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Or the first article I've created from scratch ever; here it is. I'd definitely appreciate some feedback, and maybe even some help improving it. BlookerG talk 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Because video games are primarily covered in new media (online sources) and judging by all the closures of late, I'd like to suggest that we have an informal guideline that for our A-class articles or articles at GA (or better) that all citations that are only cited to a online source have appropriate archiveurl information, whether this is through Wayback or WebCite. I know we can't readily enforce that at GA level but we can push for that internally, and definitely make than an A-class requirement. Short of having a bot being able to do this for us, this at least ensures that our better content won't be "killed" when these sites go dark. -- MASEM ( t) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Swatting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I suggest we add this to the project since it does seem to happen a lot to gamers and people on Twitch.tv lately. Objections or comments? Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Figured I'd just jump straight to the review begging/collusion here, since the available GANs, PRs, and FACs are all listed in our project navbox. Anyway:
Okay, the Saturn's FAC has been up for two and a half months. Is it passing or not? Tezero ( talk) 18:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I put SSX 3 up for nomination more than a week ago but it isn't receiving much attention. Would anyone be willing to review it? BlookerG talk 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently deleted an article for a popular YouTuber and someone asked why articles like Markiplier remain while that one was up for deletion. Upon looking at the page, I can see their point- the article is pretty spotty and much of the sourcing is either primary or not the type that would give notability. Anyone up for improving the article? I'm somewhat busy with school work at the moment and I'm not as good with finding gaming sources for LPers as I am with just plain games, so I thought I'd ask here for some assistance. I'd like to avoid having to put this up for AfD if I can help it, although if any of you want to go that route then I'm fine with that. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
So as a reminder, Final Fantasy VIII will be on the main page for "Today's Featured Article" on the 11th. And since its part of a Featured Topic, I hope that there will be an introductory paragraph added to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII before the article premiers on there. Just to help standardize introductory paragraphs in Featured Topics. GamerPro64 00:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up, God of War is at the request page to hopefully be TFA on March 22nd, the game's 10th anniversary. -- JDC808 ♫ 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure about the use of podcasts as references in articles since I don't recall any major article using them. That being said, the article Revolution 60 uses podcasts 14 times as a source currently. Some of these podcasts can be considered self sources so I'm not fully confident they hold up well in a review of sorts if it ever does in the future. What's anyone else's take on this? GamerPro64 22:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, all. Over at the FAC for Sonic 1, one user has given my first oppose vote in a while over comprehensiveness concerns. She listed four sources I ought to include if Wikipedia's coverage of the game is to be complete, but my county's library system only has one of them. Does anyone own, or know where I might get access to, any of the below?
Thanks. I'm not expecting miracles, but even a push in the right direction would be appreciated. Tezero ( talk) 23:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Could use some more reviews. Don't want to see this get closed for lack of reviews. -- JDC808 ♫ 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Italics were inadvertently removed from the listings for print magazines in Template:Video game reviews when it was converted to Lua. I've restored this functionality through a draft in the sandbox, just need an admin to make it live. Either an admin here can do it, or you can drop a line to indicate consensus at Template_talk:Video_game_reviews#Loss_of_italics_in_Lua_transition, if you would be so kind. Axem Titanium ( talk) 08:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
A little while ago I asked about the use of GameFAQs and Template:GameFAQs in the external links section of video game articles. In my mind, it seemed like consensus was reached, and I proposed its deletion. No consensus was reached there however, and it has since been relisted.
Could you please take a moment and share your opinion on the matter? This is by no means canvassing, because the template is used on over 1100 pages so it might be important to hear your thoughts. You can find the discussion here. -- Soetermans. T / C 19:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I know we're already got the AFD alert page - WP:VG/D - but I wanted to bring more attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jory Prum, as so far, it seems most of the input is from the subject himself, and a bunch of WP:SPA's obviously connected to him. I'd like to see more input from experienced editors who are unconnected to the subject. I'm still personally undecided on my stance, so this is not any sort of WP:CANVASSING. Just wanted more people weighing in. Please look into it, and leave a comment if you have any thoughts or a stance. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly what it says above, as supported by this article with its own link to the blog post. All the details are there for people to read up, including the new review policies and limited rating system. I feel that this merits attention as Eurogamer is a prominent UK/European video game review site. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 12:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the new scores that Eurogamer have come up with should be placed inside the review template with no modification to how said scores are worded, but context should always be given in each article containing the score explaining why they gave it that rating. However, in the cases where no label is given, I feel that nothing should be placed in the review template for Eurogamer, as it would definitely lead to a dispute regarding whether people interpret the reviewer's criticism differently. In the latter situation, a mention of their critique in the Reception section would still be appropriate. BlookerG talk 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I was just reading our Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood article. The game's connection to Japan appears to be tenuous at best, so why do we give the Japanese name in the opening? Is it just because the character/series is originally Japanese? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion about our current size limitation policy of video game screenshots going on at NFC Talk. Please come and chime in on the matter. DrNegative ( talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I checked the Article statistics page and according to the monthly statistics table, we've been at 42 A-class articles since November 2013. I used to champion the class during my early days here. But now I'm uncertain about its use for this project. We've have had multiple discussions about the class with no real movement. I just think we may need a definitive consensus on what to do with it. GamerPro64 00:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
So are we keeping A-class in the project? GamerPro64 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
A-class is no more! |class=A now leaves an article as unassessed, the 42 A-class articles are now GA-class, the category is deleted and doesn't show up an any assessment table or class-listing template, and the Good article subpage doesn't list A-class articles. If anyone sees anything I missed, let me know. -- Pres N 21:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
When I recently posted here about a Carmen Sandiego game I had wanted to take to GA, it was noted that there a very few if any edutainment games with great coverage here on Wikipedia. So today I wanted to quickly talk about the Trail series - one of the most lucrative and important edutainment franchises ever. You probably recognise the most famous entry The Oregon Trail ("You have died of dysentery" is something the majority of 80's kids has read), but in truth this little beast sparked an entire franchise that unfortunately is not covered very well here at all. I wanted to find out more about these games, but found that an internet search + the Wiki articles left such incredible knowledge holes that I'm left more confused than I started.
I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of y'all, as it is something a little bit different that might interest someone here. A new project to sink your teeth into. I honestly don't even know where to begin. I created a stub of one game that still didn't have an article, and created a template to house the franchise, but don't really know how to proceed. So I post this here in order to read the opinions of those more experienced in this area than I.-- Coin945 ( talk) 08:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Time for the next review thread to come, and we have a doozie. Several ancient FAs, a glut of GAs, and two Peer Reviews. As with previous threads, I shall remind readers and editors that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests has been backlogged since 2011. If you're interested in making any of the articles on the list, feel free.
There we are. Enjoy. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 17:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
For exchanges and such of reviews and opinions on articles. To begin, and open myself up to something I might regret, I'll give some help to a Peer Review or FAC, or take on a GA review, in return for someone taking either Before Crisis or Tales of Innocence. I must exempt Advent Children from those I can take as I am closely involved with bringing VII-related articles to GA status as part of a small project, and thus my objectivity could be called into question. Addendum: As PresN mentioned it below, I also feel that I must exempt myself from Children of Mana as well as I did the GA review for that. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 18:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've already reviewed God of War III and Grow Home (now at GAN, if anyone's interested in that), but I'll take a GA review for anyone in exchange for a review of Sonic 1 (whose Oppose I believe I've addressed to the best of my ability and the voter's inactivity) or of the PR for Sonic Adventure 2. Tezero ( talk) 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll review a GAN in exchange for someone reviewing SSX 3. I nominated it a while back and it hasn't received much attention. I haven't reviewed an article before, but I'll try my best. BlookerG talk 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If a developer of a game posts something on Twitter that confirms that a game will or won't have a feature, is it acceptable to use that Twitter post as a source?
This is the particular sentence in question:
Christer Ericson of SCE Santa Monica Studio wrote on his Twitter page that God of War III has seamless loading; no loading screens and no hard disk drive installation requirement. source. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the responses. -- JDC808 ♫ 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This probably sounds like a stupid question, but what exactly does it mean for a game, movie, or whatever to have universal critical acclaim? Does that mean every reviewer gave it a perfect score? Basically, there are no flaws?
I ask this because I'm having an issue with its inclusion in an article. On God of War III's FAC, there's a reviewer (a non-gamer) who has an issue with including the statement because there are mixed reviews in the reception section. I explained (and linked) him to Metacritic where it shows the score range a game must have to be universally critically acclaimed (which is 90-100). He said that although that's Metacritic's scoring, it's not actually universal acclaim. He said that although gamers would understand the Metacritic scoring, non-gamers wouldn't. Have any of you dealt with this and how did you resolve it? -- JDC808 ♫ 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
New to the reference library: The Story of the ZX Spectrum in Pixels by Chris Wilkins. Published in 2014 after a Kickstarter campaign. Has a history and descriptions of the various Spectrum models, two-page spreads of important games, and first-person accounts by many developers. Ylee ( talk) 01:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Would Nintendo's rumored new console be part of the 8th or 9th generation of video game consoles? They seemed to beat the other two ( Sony and Microsoft) to the punch on the eighth generation, but I don't see Sony or Microsoft releasing a new system for at least another 6-or-so years. So, if Nintendo's new platform comes out in the next couple of years (the Wii U has already been release to the public for over two years, bearing the other two major consoles by about a year), what generation would that console belong? Steel1943 ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As per EuroGamer, Kotaku, Joystiq, Rock, Paper,Shotgun and any others I've missed, do we need to look at the project's use (or over-use) of numbers to indicate a game's quality? The content of VGReviews will already be biased by the fact that the sites listed above either aren't listed in it at all, or will only be listed at certain times (e.g EuroGamer "Recommended" award). If the template is there to give a quick snapshot of reviews, then it is failing, due to the fact that it can only give a snapshot of sites that assign review scores, this is in itself and in-built bias towards those sites and could start to raise the NPOV question.
A similar problem is the use of MetaCritic in the template, if scores from EuroGamer et al are not going to be included in MetaCritic, then again, we're using a skewed figure that doesn't represent the opinions of a number of key websites.
I think we need to talk about the above, just to see if they really are problems and what we can do about it if they are.. - X201 ( talk) 10:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
We give the numbers as much weight as the reliable secondary sources and the games industry does. Aside from our massive undue support for Gamerankings, this is the correct approach. It's the prose that counts, the box merely serves as a way to excise clumsy percentages from that prose and acts as a sanity check for the prose. - hahnch e n 19:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Here, I'll pose a question, since I personally don't see purely numerical consensus as particularly useful, even though in this case it's running in my favor. What do we lose by allowing GameRankings in cases where Metacritic is available? I genuinely don't get that. I don't see a reliability issue - is it that it's a slippery slope to including less notable sites? (If so, could we set a bar somewhere?) Is it that allowing it will shift convention toward demanding it and that's a lot of work? Is it a template-size issue? Is it that it's seen as excessively redundant? Tezero ( talk) 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Just realised that Template:Video_game_series_reviews forces you to include GameRankings. - hahnch e n 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been adding review information from magazines like Electronic Gaming Monthly and GamePro for some months now, and it's become clear to me that there's a difference of opinion on how the review scores for these publications should be represented.
How does project consensus say we should represent scores for these publications? I still think we should use each gaming publication's own scoring system (or lack thereof) rather than making up our own, but I'll happily bow to whatever the consensus is.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 16:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed a few minutes ago that the Reception charts are suddenly made very big. I have a feeling that they may be too big for article pages. Like this one, for example. Who made these Reception charts so big? Can something be done to make them normal-sized again? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I would like to ask another 3 different questions.
1. I would like to know whether a video game gone
gold is notable to mentioned in the development section. I tend to add them to articles every time when critics made stories about them but are these information
necessary?
2. This one is a very minor question. It is about the position of the review template. For example. If an article have both pre-release subsection and post-release subsection, would it be more sensible to put the template along with the post-release section since scores were issued after the game's release? I always found that the template was placed/moved next to the pre-release section like this and this
3. This is also a very minor question. I wonder if information about reception is appropriate for the lead section or not. It often get removed like this
— AdrianGamer ( talk) 04:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1. If a franchise article page is placed in subcategory Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2007 should it be removed from the parent category Category:Video game franchises? Going by WP:CAT#Categorizing pages I'm guessing it should be removed from the parent category. Currently, some articles are in both, some only in subcategory, and some only in parent category.
2. On Category: Video game franchises, under Subcategories do the eponymous franchise categories need moving under Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises? Again there doesn't seem to be any consistency at the moment.
Just checking I got things right before I make changes. – The1337gamer ( talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys! While read Color TV-Game, I found an opposition between two sources. The one is from the book Game Over, now listed in article, said Color TV-Game 6 and Color TV-Game 15 were sold one million units each; while the another one I found is from Japanese media Nikkei Business Publications, said the totally sales is one million, Color TV-Game 15 is 700,000 and Color TV-Game 6 is 300,000, respectively. I'm not familar with guidelines, we source which one, or both?
The Nikkei BP source said: "The two video game consoles of Nintendo have been sold about 1 million units in total. More than 70% of the sales are from the console priced 15,000 Yen." ( 任天堂は二つのゲーム機を合計で約100万台販売した。販売台数の7割以上が1万5000円の機種だった。) -- CAS222222221 ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I keep seeing a certain category being added to a bunch of articles on my watchlist, and I wanted to double check here before I start reverting, in case I'm wrong.
Here's an example of what I mean. The category "Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 2015" is being added to games like Xenoblade Chronicles X. My concerns are:
Am I missing something? Or does this need to be removed? Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Introduced would make sense if it was the "introduction" of a franchise. Final Fantasy could have "Role-playing video game series introduced in 1987" as a category, for example. It currently has "Video game franchises introduced in 1987". I guess that's better anyway. One does not introduce a game, it gets either released or announced. Xenoblade Chronicles X could have a "2015 role-playing video games" category (if it isn't considered Christal ball or something). Probably an category's title worth changing. ~ Mable ( chat) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This subject has been nagging me all week. I've just done a bit of digging and I've just dug this out ( User_talk:Mindmatrix/December_2014#Dispersion_of_year_categories_by_genre) I knew it rang a bell. I contacted the user that created them last year, as they were going against our consensus on WP:DUPCAT, I hadn't seen their additional explanation until this morning. It seems the user was trying to create something akin to Category:2007 role-playing video games and instead decided upon a different naming structure to fit in with different projects. I think a mass category rename is in order to avoid the confusion that "introduced" has introduced. - X201 ( talk) 11:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If someone has a chance to look into notability on this bunch (I believe it's the same author), it looks to me like they should largely remain redirects. I'm on the run right now. czar ⨹ 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest a merge for all involved, even for Success. -- Izno ( talk) 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If a game does not list anybody as a director or co-director, but a member/s of a development team are listed as a development director/s, can I place them in the infobox as directors? BlookerG talk 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across these two articles( BrainBread (Half Life Mod) and Brainbread 2, I can't find a reliable source for either. If someone wants to try before I AFD them, feel free. - X201 ( talk) 09:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
With the 2015 main GDC conference on us, it is a good reminder that their Flickr photostream [1] in CC-BY licenses , meaning they are great pictures to illustrate articles, particularly to illustrate major devs, etc. These can be uploaded to commons, just make sure to tag them with the "Game Developers Conference 2015" category there. -- MASEM ( t) 04:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Survival games have been one of the hottest genres of the last few years. A survival game is not a survival horror game, yet currently still redirects to it. What's even more confusing is that we don't have a survival horror category, but instead place everything into Category:Survival video games. There's also Category:Horror games, Category:Horror video games and Category:Psychological horror games (which itself is a poorly defined subset of survival horror).
If anyone has time, I'm sure a survival game article would be a rewarding project, can't be that many opportunities to start a new genre article. - hahnch e n 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for the creation of an article and category, however there is one small disambiguation problem to think about. In Japan, survival game refers to outdoor airsoft competitions. In the English language, the videogame genre is more likely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but as a global website there will be some non-native speakers searching for the alternate definition, so it's best to add a disambiguation hatnote at the top or something. This is nothing overly big or problematic, but small things still need to be nitpicked at. -- benlisquare T• C• E 13:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In a desperate attempt for you to keep reading I want to say now ITS EASY TO FIX, you won't believe how easy to fix it is, there's even a tool to help you, it finds the fault and tells you what it is, all you have to do is make the edit.
Hopefully you're still reading.
This project has 478 faulty articles, including Featured Articles and Good Articles. The fault is caused by a template field being duplicated; so it may be the media field appearing twice in the infobox or accessdate appearing twice in a reference or IGN being listed twice in the reviews box. The problem is that this can cause readers to see the wrong info as the template will obviously only display one field call, so incorrect or out of date info could be being displayed to users.
If this project clears this 478 articles we'll be the only WikiProject without an article in the obscenely large Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.
The tool and simple usage instructions are available from here.
Then, all you have to do is:
Thanks in advance for any help. - X201 ( talk) 10:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks everyone, a brilliant team effort. It was great fun watching the list shrinking by the minute as The1337gamer and AdrianGamer attacked it this morning. - X201 ( talk) 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) . - X201 ( talk) 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Maldita Castilla computer game has been edited by me and still requires an info box. This article appears in the March 2015 list of articles requiring editing. Having edited it I have marked it
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{ copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! |
According to the information editing was first requested Feb 2012. Please add the info box. Isthisuseful ( talk) 13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm in the process of getting WP:GAMES on it's feet and there's a recent request on WT:GAMES from an editor for more information(?) in the Asphalt_8:_Airborne article. Cheers. - Mattwheatley ( talk) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
ClassicOnAStick ( talk · contribs) is systematically going through game articles and rearranging their platform order from comma-separated to line break-separated apropos of nothing. They have been warned in the past, if you view their talk page history. I don't have time to look into this right now, if someone else can. czar ⨹ 22:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, i'll stop, I thought it looked better my way. But oh well. Rewind Wrestling ( talk) 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Not sure if this the right place to go asking for this, but I'd like some help trying to bring the Ratchet & Clank series article up to snuff-- there's a couple of things I'm trying to get organised that would be a lot easier with an extra set of hands, since I'm not a super experienced editor, and the talkpage is as dead as doornails.
Anyone up for it? BlusterBlaster kablooie! 14:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Future have just moved OXM across to GamesRadar. All their links no longer work and their old material has not transferred across to the new domain.
Future have recently closed various websites and publications such as C&VG and Official Nintendo Magazine. Did we do anything about those? Are there any bots on Wikipedia where we can request mass archive link updates for an entire domain? - hahnch e n 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have a problem, again. I wanted to modify the Reception chart to a multi-platform one in the article for Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory because this link here claims that Nintendo 3DS is enlisted as "3DS" in the "Predefined System Type" list. But when I tried modifying the Reception chart, "3DS" is missing because it is still not in the multi-platform Reception chart! Now what? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This may only concern one game, but no-one is noticing it on the article's talk page, and I need an answer. Info from the section (with minor correction): "I have found an article from a site called Final Fantasy News (a fan site of some kind) containing details on a lecture Yusuke Naora gave at Southern Methodist University which features new information on Final Fantasy Type-0 the former's HD remaster, and Final Fantasy XV. There is a video on Twitch, but it won't archive (the video might be taken down), and this information is not stored on any other referable site in its entirety. I have encountered other cases where a fan site like this is acceptable if the transcription is proved accurate or there is no other usable source. Can it be used on this article and Type-0 (they are both likely to become FA in the future)?" As an extra detail, there don't appear to be any malicious elements in the page, such as malware or unfriendly cookies, so it should be usable risk-free. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 16:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Naora, Yusuke (27 February 2015),
"Recap notes", Lecture at SMU,
Southern Methodist University{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
Naora, Yusuke (26 February 2015),
"Lecture recap", The visual evolution of Final Fantasy,
The Guildhall at
Southern Methodist University in
Plano, Texas{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
Found this while doing other stuff; Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1991 video game) has been unreferenced for 7 years, just dropping it here in case anyone fancies having dabble at it. - X201 ( talk) 11:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I missed out on mentioning Lost Luggage (video game) being on the main page on March 8th. However, we have another video game article going on the main page on the 22nd with God of War (video game). And its the tenth anniversary of its release, too. GamerPro64 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Template talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Inclusion of video games in the template may be of interest. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for months, but I'm no law expert, and I'm not sure if it's notable to have its own article, so what do you guys think? Should an article about Nintendo's lawsuit against NTDEC be written on the merit of the latter making unauthorised use of Nintendo's name? Blake Gripling ( talk) 01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)