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 110 | ← | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
Lately there has been a division over which Reception chart to use. Some people claim that it's okay to use multi-platform Reception charts for multiple consoles, while others say it's not okay. I tried using the multi-platform Reception charts on articles like Need for Speed: Underground, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Need for Speed: Underground 2, and yet these IP edits always revert them to standard Reception charts, claiming that multi-platform Reception charts are "completely unnecessary and a waste of space where it gets to the point in making the article section completely un-watchable for the reader to look at and it forces the editor to revert it back to the standard reception box where it makes the article section less of a mess." On the other hand, I tried replacing multi-platform Reception charts to standard ones on The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (video game), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, X-Men Legends, and The Da Vinci Code (video game), but editors always revert them to multi-platform Reception charts, saying that "Don't see why the multi-console review table cannot be used. Stretching it out so tall ruins the flow of the article anyway." I feel so confused! I'm stuck over which Reception chart to use. I don't know which of the people are right: the "standard Reception chart people" or the "multi-platform Reception chart people". It's getting to the point where I can't use multi-platform Reception charts anymore! And I have a feeling that the multi-platform Reception charts from this link here should never have been used in the first place. So, what do you think? Do the multi-platform Reception charts deserve to be removed and replaced with standard Reception charts, even if there are over ten console versions? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Data: we have 4,960 articles that use the template in single-platform mode and 225 that use it in muli-platform mode. - X201 ( talk) 18:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
See discussion at: Talk:TERA:_Rising#Requested_move_15_August_2015 Greg Kaye 07:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
IP user 83.171.146.109 has been changing the years for various console generations on various articles and templates. I'm not sure what the correct years should be (there don't seem many sources on the actual articles) could some review their changes and see if its vandalism or bold editing. Thanks. - X201 ( talk) 10:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
For List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art, it would be great if we can get someone over to MOMA in NYC to get some freely-licensed pictures of the general layout of the museum's exhibit. While there's an image in the article, it's likely non-free and based on commons we should be able to get a free image of the generalized exhibit layout, where the video game(s) are less the focus of attention (eg in de minimus). -- MASEM ( t) 17:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
So there is a huge backlog for possible articles to be made. Along with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests we also have Category:Draft-Class video game articles with 171 drafts tagged currently. If anyone wants ideas for articles to make you can look at these options. GamerPro64 21:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys! There is Famitsu database for JP released games, and IGN database for NA released games. IGN may list UK and AUS release dates, but not always. So is there any database for PAL region? By the way, is GameDB of Eurogamer.net considered as a reliable source? -- CAS222222221 ( talk) 16:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The game was met with very mixed reception. GameRankings and Metacritic gave it a score of 57.52% and 59 out of 100 for the PlayStation 2 version, and 55.25% and 58 out of 100 for the PSP version.
I see the above fairly often and wanted to get the read of the room. (Yes, the GameRankings percentages should be rounded.) I don't find the writing out of metascores (or scores for that matter) in the prose to be a helpful practice. I would much rather see that space characterize the reviews in a broad stroke ("Reviews were "mixed", according to Metacritic.') or not in the text at all. A "59" could mean a variety of things, none of which are immediately accessible to the reader. Same would go for scores, apart from when the score is in context (e.g., the reviewer never gives scores this low/high) or when a reviewer gives a score that denotes something else (e.g., EGM's 9/10 representing a "gold" award or monthly selection). I'd like to see a recommendation added to the guidelines if others agree. Open for suggestions. – czar 05:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Pokémon Black and White have received largely positive reviews by critics, having an aggregate score of 86.35% on GameRankings and 87% on Metacritic (indicating generally favorable reviews).
- GameRankings: (X360) 65.76%[16], (PS3) 65.62%[17], (PC) 63.33%[18]
- Metacritic: (PC) 63/100[19], (X360) 62/100[20], (PS3) 61/100[21]
Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic, respectively, gave the Xbox One version 87.50% based on 10 reviews and 85/100 based on 11 reviews,[124][127] the PlayStation 4 version 88.40% based on 48 reviews and 87/100 based on 81 reviews,[123][126] and the Microsoft Windows version 68.12% based on 4 reviews and 64/100 based on 8 reviews.[125][128]
I'm late to this debate, but article bodies should not generally contain score numbers of any kind. They're obnoxious and disruptive to read, much like full dates in lead sections. If at all possible, it's always better to leave detailed numbers for an infobox. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Zombi (2012 video game) has been proposed to be moved back to its original title, ZombiU. The discussion has already been open for 17 days so additional input and/or a closing admin would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
I haven't been very active lately, so if this is a thing I must've missed it. Yesterday I edited the article on Saints Row IV, which has been partially reverted by @ Czar:. For some reason the article uses 4 instead of the Roman numerals IV, which I changed to, in my opinion, to the correct IV. Czar said in their edit summary: ""SR4" should be fine, as it's what many of the sources use, easier to write than the official title". Is this a thing now? Street Fighter 4, Final Fantasy 7, Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link? The Metal Gear Solid games are titled 2 through 4, but Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain have the Roman V. Or to stay on Saints Row, some sources went for Saints Row 3, instead of The Third, can we now use that too? -- Soetermans. T / C 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created page GTANet.com. And I need some help. I'm wondering if there are enough references. Also I'd love to hear some tips on how to improve it. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for replying, Salvidrim. Yes, Sergecross73 gave me very good tips on how to improve article and I'm following his guidelines. Since than I added a lot of references that are third party and are discussing and referring to GTANet.com. Of course it will be very hard to find news article which are discussing sole GTANet content without mentioning GTA. Google news give a wide coverage over GTAForums (GTANet), but many are only mentions. However I managed to find few good sources, I believe. Some of them are: BBC one (Hot Coffee), International Business Times (article about tool on GTANet), April Fools' Day joke covered by n4g and qj, DigitalTrends (Google street view of GTA provided by GTANet). Any further tips will be welcome. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 20:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The BBC one does not mention GTANet as a place where mod was hosted, however gives information on something that is a content of GTANet, GTAModding. On right side of article there are references and the second one, below Illspirit, there is GTAForums. This source serves for what it was put on. Claim that GTANet has developed modding community as Illspirit is one of GTANet modding staff. The IBT one, the whole article was written based on content that was found on GTAForums and it serves the claim that GTAForums is active in predicting new content. For April Fools', originally the whole story was transferred to media by Whatifgaming, however it is not possible to reach the article no more. When talking about trivial mentions you need to understand that many sites listed in reference list literally wrote gtanet or gtaforums once, however whole article was based on rewriting of something made by gtaforums. No one can affect on how many times they will use word gtaforums while writing article based on solely something found there.
For subject like this, fansite or forum, it is not possible just to say: there are no verifiable content because article makers didn't write: GTANET is a website and I am going to make thousand words essay on its features while mentioning word gtaforums at least 100 times. It is not possible to find such sources, no one will do that for any forum. For the coverage of content GTANet has, I believe GTANet is notable enough to be here. Besides, coverage on that April fools' joke satisfies that field to some point. I'm also considering the influence this fansite had on GTA itself which I referenced in many sources.
I'm using mostly google news and books for finding sources. Could anyone suggest me some alternative to this. Thanks. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 07:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I created the page for the console RetroN but I can't find any references for the RetroN 1 and 2. I don't know if I'm looking in the wrong places or using the wrong search terms. Could some people please help me with this? Ana r chyte 08:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The template for the canned NFC rationale for video game screenshots has been nominated for deletion [1]. However, I think I've offered arguments for why it needs to be kept which the nominator has agreed are reasonable, which boils down to the fact that the "purpose" (the part for meeting NFCC#8) of this template is terribly poor and while the intent is there, it really should have a stronger "default" position. So I don't think this will be deleted (so this is not a call to participate there), but instead that we do need to come up with a better "purpose" rationale language or choice of language that is better than "to show what the game looks like". This is based on the fact that nearly every video game article, that as long as it is notable, has sourcable discussion of gameplay, and for that, the image helps to explain gameplay. There may be more reasons beyond that in other cases, obviously, and when better rationales can be provided they should be, but the default gameplay-demonstration reason needs to be much better. -- MASEM ( t) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I sometimes see IGN wiki landing pages (e.g., [2]) cited for release dates, and I usually see them removed. Where do these release dates come from? Are they reliable or are they coming from a user-submitted database? Are they coming from the same database that IGN uses in its own article review infoboxes? The same database that lists all games made by a dev/publisher? I don't recall seeing a discussion about the dates provenance and whether they should be cited as reliable. Was the site redesigned recently? I remember the dates appearing much more obvious as user-submitted, but I'm not that familiar with IGN's backend – czar 17:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Given a recent republished post-mortem for the game on Gamasutra, I've been able to fill out Psychonauts's development, and have done a whole bunch of other cleanup, so it should be rather close to GA. I'd like a tiny bit of help trying to flesh out the review and award sections (including if necessary trimming out non-notable/sourceable awards), but this should be pretty much it of any difficulty within the project's guidelines. -- MASEM ( t) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that articles can only go to FA if all the images in it are permissive. Halo has a number of screen snaps that are clearly marked Fair Use. Is there a special-case rider for these articles? Or is the article in question from before the permissive licensing became an issue? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Does this page fall under the scope of Rockstar wikiproject? Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 07:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Some articles have their links bolded and others don't, why is this? Ana r chyte 10:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to help bring Freedom Planet up to date? I left a message on the talk page a couple of weeks ago expressing my concerns, and Tezero hasn't been around. I tried emailing him as well. I hate to bring it to WP:FAR based on what shouldn't be too much work, so I'm asking here before going there. -- Laser brain (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled across an archive link to this Edge making-of, but only the first page is live. An early version of the post is available ( [3], [4], [5]), but you can't access each page by clicking "next" or the page number. Instead, you have to work through Wayback to read all three pages. The question is this: how is it possible to cite three separate archive URLs? I considered using the |pages parameter and adding external links from there, but that's not an ideal solution by any means. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 19:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
|page=
params, e.g.,
Fez_(video_game)#cite_note-1UP:_review_p1-12 and
#cite_note-1UP:_review_p2-11) or (2) used short footnotes {{sfn|Edge|199X|p=Z}}
in a "Notes" section (with other short footnotes) separate from a "References" section with full citations (e.g.,
Knight Lore#Notes). The latter works better when there are multiple sources (e.g., instruction manual, individual book pages) that need to be cited this way. –
czar 03:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)I think we know the drill for now: listed below are all the unclaimed GANs, featured content reviews, and other objects such as peer reviews. As a matter of course, and hoping this continues to whittle the list down, users willing to reduce the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests are welcome.
I'll begin this by saying that I'll leave comments on anyone's Peer Review for comments in the Peer Review for Persona. Still a little flaked from a bit of a recent GA marathon, so not feeling fit to take on reviewing GAs at the moment. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 14:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have potential Featured Articles on the docket. Take a look gang. GamerPro64 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
So I was looking through Polygon's review of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and was thinking about how their review was being used in the article, yet its filed under "Provisional Review" currently. Since that means that score isn't their official score yet, should that mean their reviews should be held off from being used until they finalize their score? Comes off as an incomplete opinion on a game when its added in that state. GamerPro64 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Heads up: User:Cyberbot II has a new task that automatically adds (Internet Archive) archival links to citations! I inquired for more details on how to invite it over to your article, but thought y'all would want to know as this has been a perennial concern of ours. ( User:WebCiteBOT is still down.) – czar 03:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Relatively recently a site called Steam Spy ( [6]) has appeared, and sponsored by GamesIndustry.biz. The site polls user profiles on steam to estimate the number of game sales (or at least owners) on the Steam platform. Obviously only useful for PC/Mac/Linux games, this would be mana from heaven for any Steam-based PC article where sales numbers are lacking. That said, I do think if we want to use this we need to make sure it is included carefully. As the programmer that developed the tool warns, it is only an estimate based on user profiles and not directly from Valve's internal sales database. So we should be using statement like "As of such-and-such-date, Steam Spy estimates that 500,000 copies of a game have been sold", instead of "...Steam Spy saids that 500,000 copies..." In contrast to VGChartz, I think the method of the collection of data is very open and technically reproducable (he used open Steam APIs for this), so doesn't have the VGChartz stigma. The site has been covered from other RSes so I'm thinking if we're going to say this is an okay source for estimated sales, we should create the article on it so that an interested reader can learn how the data is collected. -- MASEM ( t) 18:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
A game will be released within a month. It has been mentioned on several occasions on IGN, is mentioned by Gamestop and has a Steam page. It was featured in Gamescom 2015. Should it have a page? Leeds United FC fan ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
{{ JRPG franchises}}
This template, by Misconceptions2, has been showing up on some articles on my watchlist. Wanted some input - is this appropriate in template form? I feel like this template would be downright massive if it was actually filled out in its entirety... Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Should this be a category or a template? Currently theres about 25 games on the list. I I included all the games it would be about 90, so I included only the best selling ones. Or another solution could be to rename it "JRPG franchises with over 10 million units sold"??-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I will remove the template from the articles I put it on, there will be no categories either.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
AFter coming across an article where "Wii U" was line-wrapped at the space between those, I checked that the MOS does suggest that in some cases like this (their example is the Boeing 747) that we use the NBSP character to avoid this break. I would argue that this definitely applies to the Wii U, but would also apply to any console name where the second word is four letters or shorter, so Nintendo 3DS, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, Playstation 3, 4, or Vita for example. It should not apply to longer names like the Magnavox Odyssey. This might be something to stick into our guidelines to be consistent. (I'm sure that for FA and PR this is picked up but doing it from the start might help). This also should apply to game titles where the last word is short or often a number (ala Mass Effect 3). -- MASEM ( t) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{NBSP|Wii U|Magnavox Odyssey}}
-> Wii U, Magnavox Odyssey
? --
CAS222222221 (
talk) 16:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{pl|Wii U}}
--
MASEM (
t) 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{nowrap|…}}
".» --
Thnidu (
talk) 16:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)This is about the "augmented-reality massively-multiplayer online role-playing location-based game" Ingress (video game). To most people, "video game" suggests a game that's played at the console, or possibly moving around on a mat. There's already a redirect from Ingress (game); I propose swapping the titles: moving the article to Ingress (game) and making Ingress (video game) a redirect. There's a Category:Pervasive games that includes the Ingress article, but that term's unfamiliar to most non-gamers, including most Wikipedia users. -- Thnidu ( talk) 16:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
For some reason The Mary Sue wrote an article calling Samus Aran a transwoman and shits gone ape. The page is protected now but the talk page is already going downhill. Help. GamerPro64 01:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
[7]. Samus, Link, Zelda, Tails and others must all be protected to reflect the reality here. 166.171.120.182 ( talk) 01:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Recently I've come across a couple of navboxes, which to me do not seem necessary. I would like some input before I nominate them (and if they can in fact be nominated, have some help in doing that all at once). I'm talking about navboxes that are based upon genres, like {{
MMOs by Sony Online Entertainment}} and {{
MMOs by Electronic Arts}} (which I've nominated for deletion already) and the ones listed here:
Category:Video game engine templates. I think that these kinds of templates fail
WP:NAVBOX and are more suitable for a category. For instance,
Grand Theft Auto V and
The Force Unleashed both use the Euphoria game engine, a certain technology, but that's it. Two MMOs by the same company can be widely different too:
Need for Speed: World and
Star Wars: The Old Republic. --
Soetermans.
T /
C 13:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I looked at other developer-publisher template, like {{ Epic}} and {{ Electronic Arts}}, which include games developed by others. Not sure if that's the way to go, though. -- Soetermans. T / C 07:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
So GamePolitics went down for a week and came back ( Source). Moved from Drupal to Wordpress so that might mean there will be some broken links to the site here. Just a heads up. GamerPro64 22:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe we should be using Daybreak Game Company as the developer of EverQuest, instead of what the company was named when the game was released. I'm aware of the MMOs still being active under Daybreak, but are there any guidelines to this? I ask because it seems really inconsistent. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 23:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As you all probably know, games like the Disney Infinity, Skylanders and Amiibos are very popular. There is also the upcoming Lego Dimensions. Collecting the physical toys is a big part of it, but is having huge tables and long lists like Disney Infinity 3.0#Characters, Skylanders: Trap Team#Skylanders: Trap Team Characters, Amiibo#List of Amiibo-branded NFC items (or Amiibo#Exclusives) and Lego Dimensions#Packs not WP:GAMETRIVIA?
If DLC is mentioned in an article, we also try to describe what it is and how it changes the game. While they might be part of the game's release, they're just listed without any substantial information. Right now, I can only guess what Peter Venkman from Ghostbusters, a hoverboard from Back to the Future or Taunt-o-Vision from The Simpsons will bring to Lego Dimensions, or what Nick Wilde from Zootopia, Joy from Inside Out or the Hulkbuster Armor from The Avengers can do in Disney Infinity 3.0. Is that not WP:NOTCATALOG No. 6? "An article should not include (...) availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details (...)". Just because these packs are or are about to be released, is that enough reason to mention it? The games can still be understood without all this release data. Seems like WP:NOTEVERYTHING to me. -- Soetermans. T / C 14:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
And speaking of Lego, I keep seeing lists like Lego Batman 3: Beyond Gotham#Characters, Lego Marvel Super Heroes#Characters and The Lego Movie Videogame#Characters. Same question, isn't that WP:GAMETRIVIA? -- Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
A quick note of the above featured article discussion which needs more eyes on it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not a big Apple person, so I'd like to check that as I understand how it was announced yesterday, the Apple TV device, which is being pushed to include major gaming applications (eg Guitar Hero Live is one I am concerned with here), is basically a more powerful iOS device but otherwise nothing new in terms of consoles: it is what Ouya was to Android, or Steam Machines was to Linux; there might be limited cases where a specific game is tuned or exclusive to Apple TV but at its core still remains an iOS application. Is this correct? -- MASEM ( t) 18:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you do me a favor? If you have access to an academic or local library that subscribes to databases (most do), can you check whether you have a subscription to any of these packages by Gale?
Gale
- Academic OneFile, 05/1993-01/2009
- Book Review Index, Sep.2007-Sep.2007
- General OneFile, 05/1993-01/2009
- General Reference Center, 05/1993-01/2009
- General Reference Center Gold, 05/1993-01/2009
- General Reference Centre International, 5/1993-1/2009
- InfoTrac Custom, 5/1993-1/2009
- InfoTrac Junior Edition, 8/2008-1/2009
- InfoTrac Student Edition, 05/1993-01/2009
- Pop Culture Collection, 05/1993-01/2009
- Popular Magazines, 05/1993-01/2009
Gale appears to have indexing for Electronic Gaming Monthly back to 1993 and full-text support from 1999. If it's true, we'd be able to search magazines that are heretofore not generally accessible online. Please take a moment to check your nearby library, especially if you're a university student. If you can't find your university's database listings, either ask a librarian (or send me the library's home page and I'll look for you). Feel free to email me details if you prefer. Appreciate your help. I'll keep looking for other mags that might have indices. – czar 04:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Apple TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- sst flyer 14:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Already posted something at RSN but I wasn't sure whether here was the first venue I should go to or not; suppose discussion could continue there. What is the general opinion on these particular VG news sites (news items provided for context):
They're not mentioned on VGRS, whether as sources to use or sources to avoid. As I mentioned on RSN, I can't check them in detail right now because I'm at work and site blocks suck, but I'd love to hear whether or not I should nuke these from my current source list. Thanks!! BLUSTER⌉⌊ BLASTER 15:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
So far I'm getting that there is no real consensus on Kill Screen's reliability. Being straight up reliable seems to be off the table. Would just being Situational fit the bill? GamerPro64 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
All right. So I guess we have consensus with having Kill Screen be a reliable source here. And if there's going to be another "Cuphead debacle", more than likely we have good judgement to find another source in case Kill Screen gets something wrong, which Czar points out will happen. Sounds like any other source we use here (Looking at you IGN). GamerPro64 20:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm trying to finish off List of Square Enix video game franchises, and I'm trying to track down sales numbers. I'm good on most of them, but I'm completely adrift when it comes to Space Invaders - Square Enix owns Taito, who make the Space Invaders games. The only sales numbers I have are for the original arcade game and its Atari port- given that there's been at least 20 games since, I'm probably missing a few... million sales. Does anyone have any idea of where I can find sales numbers on the series, from any time period, for any subset of the games? -- Pres N 21:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The IP user making this edit is clearly struggling with English, but they are also having a hard time understanding that what they wrote does not make much sense. Can anyone please help out here? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 22:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Coming up on September 17th, we have Grand Theft Auto V appearing on the main page as that days Featured Article. Commemorating the second anniversary of its release on the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 360. GamerPro64 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop an explanation for why I'm breaking the standard anime/manga/video game style on this particular article. Prior to my edit, the page had a massive introductory infobox listing 15 of 16 the various media attached to the Corpse Party series. This extended past the actual prose of the article and on my monitor (screenshot on imgur) it went beyond the external links section. To alleviate this, I created a wikitable detailing the same information under a "Media listing" section, separating the contents by medium (video game, manga, or anime/film). I've opted to avoid using the {{ Video game titles}} template in order to better adhere to WP:MOS (based on my experiences with table-based MOS at featured levels). For the local Japanese titles, I've placed them into individual notes so the table itself isn't overwhelmed with titles. In order to avoid giving extra weight to a particular title, I've removed the infobox altogether and simply kept the promotional artwork of Blood Covered: ...Repeated Fear as the main image.
I'm not entirely sure that the individual games can support stand-alone articles as the games themselves are not the notable aspect of the series, it's what the series is about that makes it more notable (in my opinion). Based on this, I feel that having this wikitable is a suitable compromise to the cumbersome infobox while retaining all the same information in a single article to avoid content forking. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 03:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
So, it was announced today that Nintendo EAD and SPD were merged into one department, now called Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development. Because of this, the articles should now be merged and re-written, so it would be nice to have some help with this. Maybe we could keep SPD's game list, to avoid bloat in the merged article, but move over the history section? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 23:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
An IP user added Category:Video games developed in Romania to multiple articles concerning Assassin's Creed franchise. I reverted them as his claim wasn't backed up by the article content. After doing some research it occurred to me that the reason behind this category implementation might be this. However, Ubisoft Romania wasn't listed as a developer in most of these articles. Furthermore, according to this article, many Ubisoft oversea subsidiaries "supported" the development. Surely that means we have to categorize the articles based on locations of those subsidiaries as well? I want to make sure that my reversion of IP edits aren't entirely unjustified. -- Chamith (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Have a look out for ExplorerX19 ( talk · contribs). I don't think he's editing in bad faith, but I just went through a bunch of edits made to tower defense and related articles and reverted the changes. -- Izno ( talk) 13:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here, so I'm sorry if I'm asking this question in an inappropriate place(but hey, the text says I can ask it here). So, I'm sort of keen on writing about notable LoL players(I've already written one about xPeke, which was later edited by various people), so can I put them for review somewhere around here when I write them? Just to get some guidelines from more experienced authors and not do anything the way it's not supposed to be done. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostaurus ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Also, how do I sign my posts?
~~~~
to sign your post. The welcome message on
your talk page contains a list of links to pages with useful information on. They are pretty long-winded but I would recommend reading them so you get a better idea of how to do things. Initially, you may want to try creating new articles using the
Article Wizard and choose to create the article in the
Draft namespace rather than directly publishing it into the main namespace. If you've created a draft you can then submit it for review using the
Articles for creation process to get feedback before it is moved to the main namespace. When creating a video game related article, add {{WikiProject Video games}}
to the corresponding talk page so someone can
assess the article. --
The1337gamer (
talk) 21:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Thanks for the advice, guys. By the way, it wasn't me who added the references from Leaguepedia, and thanks for fixing the article a few times.-- Kostaurus ( talk) 19:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to let regular VG editors know, I am taking a wikibreak until the 28th of this month. If you have any queries for me, then post them, but do not expect any response from me before that date. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to give a shout out for this one because User:Cyclonebiskit has been working his butt off over the last two weeks to whip this article into shape, and I would hate to see it fail for lack of interest. We have one support on prose, a completed source review, and a mostly completed image review. Come on down and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Satoru Iwata/archive1. Indrian ( talk) 17:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I recently updated cite video game to rely on Template:Cite book rather than Template:Cite journal. If you have any comments or questions, please see Help talk:CS1#Cite video game for more info. -- Izno ( talk) 17:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Should music writers/composers be listed in the infobox according to game credits? Or should they be listed in order of who has more tracks in the soundtrack album? For example, take Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, the game credits explicitly list Harry Gregson-Williams above Nobuko Toda (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwq1rbRfJnU#t=6m42s). I am in favor of the infobox matching the game credits, so I list Williams above Toda. However, Dissident93 listed Toda over Williams because in the game's soundtrack album, Toda has more tracks than Williams.
Also, there are cases where composers are listed in the game credits but don't have any tracks in the soundtrack album. Take Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker for example; this game has composers Shuichi Kobori and Seiro Hirose listed in the game credits (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESBxEcd8r7Q#t=3m32s). But in the game's soundtrack album, Kobori and Hirose don't have any tracks. I am in favor of keeping these composers listed in the infobox as they are still credited by the game under "music by", whereas Dissident93 wants them omitted. -- Wrath X ( talk) 08:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at the new article, Pixel Press, by new editor User:Bathchurnning. A new editor, proficient with wiki-markup, sourcing and NFCC. Places in the lead a list of media coverage in the same way that a corporate website or press release would. It's clear to me that this is a paid placement, and while I believe Pixel Press is notable enough for an article (I had previously redlinked it from another article), I'm not sure what we do with undeclared WP:COI edits now. Even after uncovering the massive paid editing network, I think there's still a no-fishing rule at Wikipedia:CheckUser, so I'm not sure if there's anything to be done. - hahnch e n 15:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Pixel Press' platforms have been embraced by schools, such as the Grand Center Arts Academy, offering development of skills, such as critical problem solving and design thinking, to its users.This particular sentence reads like an advertisement, in my opinion. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion
here. Now for the waiting game.
GamerPro64 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I know it's a long shot, but I was wondering if anybody has access to the April 2011 issue of Nintendo Gamer? I'm looking for the review of Ni no Kuni: Shikkoku no Madoushi, and I can't seem to find anything about it online (besides the score). Thanks in advance! – Rhain1999 ( talk to me) 07:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A reminder that the above is a Featured Article nominee as of August 29, 2015. It has one support, does anyone have the time to put eyes on this nomination please? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
So continuing my adventure of discovering defunct sources coming back to life, I've just learned that G4 is technically still around thanks in part to Syfy Games. Its tagline is "Now Featuring News from G4" with the G4 logo being part of it. I will say this surprised me. Then again with EGM still being a thing anything is possible. Its relatively new, starting earlier this year so I'm not entirely sure how reliable the source is. Especially this being a far cry from the original G4 channel. GamerPro64 20:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Electron toolset, Aurora toolset, and Infinity Engine were recently redirected without any apparent attempt to merge them. In review, the sourcing looked a bit weak, but given the popular games they were used on, I'm sure the sources exist somewhere to restore and improve them a bit? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 12:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
A little while ago I asked about release tables in the "toys-to life" articles, like Disney Infinity and Lego Dimensions. Is there someone familiar with these franchises? Because I don't think a table like Level packs is the best way to go right now. Starting from the left: first column, name of franchise. Second column, level pack, repeating franchise name with the words "level pack" behind it. Third column, content of level pack. Fourth column, release date. Fifth column, "series". Sixth column, "wave". Starting from the level pack table, it is the first time in the article that "series" and "wave" are mentioned, so what exactly are they? -- Soetermans. T / C 13:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Continuing on from this link here, I have a problem regarding the Reception sections for the Medal of Honor (1999 video game), Medal of Honor: Underground, Medal of Honor: Frontline, Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, Medal of Honor: Infiltrator, Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, and Medal of Honor: European Assault. It's just that all of them use the Reception article's English that is too convoluted. For example: the Medal of Honor: Underground Reception section says, "The PlayStation version of Medal of Honor: Underground was met with positive reviews. It received an 85.65% on GameRankings and 86/100 on Metacritic. The Game Boy Advance version of Medal of Honor: Underground was met with negative reviews. It received a 49.67% on GameRankings and 46/100 on Metacritic.", which is just ridiculous. The Medal of Honor: European Assault Reception section claims that the game "received favourable reviews", when in fact they're mostly mixed, not "favorable". And almost all of them say, like European Assault, "Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the PlayStation 2 version 73.23% and 73/100, the Xbox version 73.09% and 72/100 and the GameCube version 72.78% and 71/100." This wording is too ridiculous. I tried to take someone's advice from SSX 3 and round the GameRankings scores to the nearest whole number, but 81.158.229.168 kept reverting my good edits to too confusing English and GameRankings' decimal numbers and kept warning me to use only one separate way of one score instead of two, which they accuse me of, and that if I kept using two separate ways, like this, then they will ban me! What can I do? I'm too confused, I just don't know what to do anymore! I don't know if I can continue to edit video game articles or just quit. Please help me. -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 00:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Quiting Wikipedia because GameRankings and Metacritic is confusing? I think you're taking this too seriously. I mean Metacritic's scoring is a trade secret, to the point that a lot of people do not take it seriously (film wise at least. Rotten Tomatoes is more beloved). My suggestion is to not use Metacritic or any aggregation. I'm using them for Dyscourse but that's mainly because all the reviews for the game are sevens. GamerPro64 01:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Couple of questions and remarks concerning Template:Infobox_video_game#Credit_fields:
*producer
The popular names of the game producers in overall charge of the production of the game. The names can be wikilinked.
- List only the person credited specifically with the title "Producer";
- Do not list the "Executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits, as they are not generally as intimately involved in a game's development;
- If three or more people are credited as "co-producer"s, discuss whether any one played the most significant part and, if decided, list that person;
- List the "Creative producer" only if said person's involvement in the game is discussed in the article's development-related section.
I don't understand this. No. 1 says: only producer. No. 2: says: no "sub"-producer. No. 3 says: if there are three or more people credited as co-producer, we should decide who played the most significant part. But there are co-producers, someone must be listed as producer, right? Does that mean we can list co-producers, if there's a producer, or that we shouldn't? What if we can, what if there's one producer, and three co-producers and we don't know who of those three did the most work? Also, discussing who had the most significant part in the development starts from three, so we should pick one name. But two is okay? Unlike other fields, this doesn't have a limit to it. What if there are eight producers credited?
*designer
The popular names of the game designers, i.e. people who worked on the game's system. The names can be wikilinked. This field is often unfilled in modern high-budget development due to large team sizes and collaboration. Older games and indie games are more likely to use this position.
- If a single person is credited as "Lead designer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Game-design director" and "Lead planner";
- If there is no equivalent to #1, omit this field;
- If three or more people are credited as "lead designer"s, discuss whether any one played the most significant part and, if decided, list that person.
Same thing, what if there are two lead designers, that's okay? Or what if a small indie game just has 'designer' as a credit, right now it says that name should be omitted. Sidenote: why don't we change the name of the field from designer to lead designer?
*writer
The popular names of the game's writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers.
- If a single person is credited as "Scenario director" or "Scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Lead writer";
- If there is a person credited as "Scenario concept writer" or "Original concept", also list that person here;
- List no more than three people in this field.
If there is one 'scenario director', we should list that person. If there's a 'scenario concept writer', we can list that person too. If either one of these titles are listed, does that mean other writers shouldn't be mentioned? Also, again we can have three names, without having to discuss to pick one.
*composer
The popular names of the composers who worked on the game's music.
- List people who contributed significantly to the soundtrack. Discuss inclusion criteria on a per-game basis on the talk page.
Here, there is no limit of names, unlike other fields.
Do you see what I mean? These discrepancies might not our biggest problem, but I think it would be helpful to have a clear understanding of how the infobox can and should be done. Soetermans. T / C 10:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Another thing, Wrath X states that, for composer listings in the infobox, we should go with what the game itself lists, rather than how much they actually contributed. He claims that, what the original soundtrack states (how many songs each composer wrote is clearly listed in the liner notes), is WP:OR, and that because the game itself credits Harry Gregson-Williams first (for "music" in Ground Zeros, yet it actually states Akihiro Honda is the lead composer right after), that we should go with that the game states. Does anybody disagree with this? It's not like I'm guessing on how much they contributed, like screen time for an actor in a film. This needs to be changed, as we are supposed to list writers by order of contributions, and we don't even have something as clear-cut as soundtrack liner notes for them. It just doesn't seem right to have Williams listed first, when he really only did two tracks in the entire game. I'd really like to have all this wrapped up soon, since it's becoming just edit warring between us two. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 07:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Anybody against making this public? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 03:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Continuing on from this link here, I was following the rules by using multi-platform Reception charts for only two to four console versions, and yet 81.158.230.137 broke the "not too tall, not too wide" rules by reverting them all to Standard Reception charts and using improper English on the following articles: Burnout (video game), Burnout 2: Point of Impact, Burnout 3: Takedown, Burnout Revenge, Burnout Legends, Burnout Dominator, Burnout Crash!, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2002, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2000, Tiger Woods 99 PGA Tour Golf , and Minority Report: Everybody Runs. Could somebody do something about it? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 22:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
( example) Our project has a strange habit of putting Japanese titles in the lede's opening—the article's most precious sentence. Non-English names, unless the article topics have strong affiliations with the language, really have no business being in the first sentence. MOS:FORLANG:
If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local language equivalent
Chibi-Robo might be a Japanese series, but its Japanese title is of little consequence to understanding its content, and it is not closely associated enough to warrant that type of exclusive real estate. Unless we need the Japanese characters/alt title to understand the sources (...do we ever?) it makes little sense to give whole lines in the intro to stuff that is useless to almost all of our readership. (This is not limited to Japanese titles, but that is the language most often abused in the opening sentence.) I suggest moving the foreign language titles to a footnote, if not just eliminating most of them altogether, and updating WP:VG/GL accordingly. czar 03:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, Chibi-Robo might be a Japanese series, but its Japanese title is of little consequence to understanding its content
is not the criterion, which you even quoted for our provision. It is not understanding that a name is to impart but a close associat[ion]
. Your argument on this point is specious. --
Izno (
talk) 13:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree; I always thought that "Metal Gear Solid (Japanese: メタルギアソリッド Hepburn: Metaru Gia Soriddo)" wasn't particularly necessary to mention. -- Soetermans. T / C 09:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Something is terribly wrong with GameZone's review pages, as all of them have gotten error messages! And it seems that these review pages haven't been fixed yet! Here are these two examples. Does anyone have any idea why? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 03:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since sourcing is essential for a proper article here, this is a call to have more people to take a look and get involved with the Source talk page. There are a lot of sources that are being discussed on their reliability and consensus hasn't been reached for some of them. GamerPro64 16:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In trying to add reception for the character of K′, one review that talked about him was removed from Gaming Age. I tried using the archive [11] to find in the Dreamcast section King of Fighters '99 Evolution but it gives me a mistake. Any possiblity to still find this source? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 22:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem that I've seen come up for films too (particularly The Shawshank Redemption) in that editors will want to include a game's position on the overall MC/GR lists based on lists these sites have. I would argue that we should avoid using that type of approach, and only call out the MC/GR position if a secondary or third-party source does so (such as [12] that covers GTAV hitting the highest score in 2013, where a number of other games are listed). This avoids any type of potential OR that might come from favoritism (eg, does one consider only one platform, ignore other platforms a game came out of, etc.) as well as reflects the fact these lists remain dynamic. -- MASEM ( t) 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Masafumi Ogata? My redirect was reverted. czar 21:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
What is the proper way to format DLC content, if it is named, with italics or quotes? I've always done quotes because I felt that was the most appropriate. Or might it depend on what the content is? I'm wondering, due to it being brought up in the GA review for Batman: Arkham Knight. Here are some examples of its DLC, with the titles put in bold now for uniformity here. Example 1: story, playable DLC Batgirl: A Matter of Family. Example 2: Bat-family Skins pack, which includes six character skins based on alternate timelines for the playable characters of the game. If the format isn't uniform, would 1 be italics and 2 quotes? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Does someone know of a general guideline on video game series navboxes? WP:VG/T doesn't say anything about them. Is there a reason to shorten titles? For instance, {{ Borderlands series}}, was changed, from Borderlands 2 to 2, from Tales from the Borderlands to Tales. Is this necessary? Does this save space? Would the general reader automatically assume that 2 is short for Borderlands 2? Or {{ Fallout series}}, with Fallout: New Vegas as New Vegas? Or the {{ Assassin's Creed}} games, dropping Assassin's Creed from the link? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Crytek UK#Requested move 3 October 2015. -- Mika1h ( talk) 09:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:SUBTITLES, it's preferred to omit the subtitle in the page name. Does anybody oppose this? If not, I'll ask User:Anthony Appleyard to move them. The other main series Dragon Quest already omit the subtitle. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Video game articles are rarely called their common name, which I still think is a good thing, because most of WP:VG/RS is, in the end, still written for an audience familiar with video games. So we have articles starting with Call of Duty, not COD. GTA 5 is a common abbreviation, but the article's title is Grand Theft Auto V. Sources use The Phantom Pain, we have Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. James Cameron's Avatar: The Game is called, understandably, Avatar. Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie is called King Kong in reliable sources. In the end, most "common names" for video games is just a VG/RS dropping half of the title or using its initials. -- Soetermans. T / C 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Though I agree that with video games, we should usually use the official name for articles (though I doubt anyone would want to rename Call of Duty to "COD" ;p), I was wondering about Street Fighter II: The World Warrior - I've never even known Street Fighter II had a subtitle until I was redirected to the article. I figured I'd bring it up now the topic is being discussed anyway. ~ Mable ( chat) 20:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sort of related, so I'm gonna ask about it in this thread. Gyakuten Kenji 2, the sequel to Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth, is almost always referred to as Ace Attorney Investigations 2 in English by reliable sources, and even by Capcom themselves. Should it be moved to Ace Attorney Investigations 2, despite how it has not actually been released in English? -- IDV talk 12:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Before I begin, it's important to note that the site in question is still in its building stages and definitely not ready for consideration right now. However, I see that it has potential and worth keeping it in mind for sometime down the line.
I'll be blunt. Metacritic is problematic. Extremely problematic. It's a for-profit website that seems to have an undue influence not only on the public perception of a game, but also in some cases the payout of bonuses for developers. It has a deliberately hidden weighting system that obfuscates the basis of its primary metric, the metascore. Certain major publications are omitted for unpublicized reasons and the ones that are included may be subtly increased in weight for purposes unknown (read: money). A disingenuous Metacritic-reviewer-publisher industrial complex has developed in which publications which have "made the cut" to appear on Metacritic are favored by publishers and get review copies of games early. This Wikiproject's reliance (or over-reliance) on Metacritic scores to set the tone of a Reception section is also quite problematic, given the above. This has been discussed many times, but this particular discussion jumps out in my head. In including Metacritic on virtually every modern game reception section, we are contributing massively to the feedback loop echo chamber that is only amplifying Metacritic's power. Whether or not that's a bad thing is something I'd like to discuss more as a project but not here.
The new website is called OpenCritic. Here's the link to the FAQ. Pros:
Cons:
I just wanted to get this site on people's radar as a potential alternative to Metacritic when/if it becomes comprehensive enough to rival the big MC. I had previously argued for the inclusion of GameRankings because its mere presence (even if potentially unduely high) dilutes the monopoly that Metacritic has established. Hopefully OpenCritic will become a resource that provides the same function as Metacritic without the caveats and problems. Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"reviews are presented with the review author's name listed" I take it Edge won't be on Open Critic then? Seeing as they never list reviewer names in order to allow the reviewer freedom to say what they want. - X201 ( talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an alternative to metacritic that is transparent in calculation method and includes editorial reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.55.237 ( talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Checking the VG templates, I've nominated a couple for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_5. -- Soetermans. T / C 10:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
user_talk:czar proposed merging Mushihimesama Futari to Mushihimesama#Sequel. I believe the article has enough mention/external sources to be notable for an article by itself as per Reliable Sources for Video Games [13]) as stated under WP:VG/RS. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ ( Talk) 09:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think anyone should take a look at Godzil's statement in Talk:WonderSwan#To Hounder4 and any other try to revert correction. -- Hounder4 12:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
So I've just noticed that Lucasstar1 has rapidly nominated five Sonic articles at GAN, all of which they have not contributed to and will most definitely fail once reviewed. Sonic the Hedgehog CD still has numerous citation needed tags and a big "verification needed" tag at the top. Sonic Heroes and Sonic Colour's leads are too short and just will not pass. I left a message on his talk page asking if he would be interested to contribute to the articles instead of nominating them or if he would withdraw the GANs. I don't want to discourage him, but it would put my mind to ease if I just removed all the nominations now and help him improve the articles if he's really interested. Should they be removed? JAG UAR 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
So a user states that because other articles list expansion packs to their main games in their work list, such as BioWare, Obsidian and Bethesda, the CD Projekt Red article should as well. My argument when reverting him is that these expansion packs have their own articles, while the ones for The Witcher 3 just redirect to a small subsection on the main article, so I didn't think they were that notable to be listed. Opinions? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I notice that the page for the Dark Souls series was renamed to Souls (series). However... there is no "Souls" series.
Dark Souls is the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls, not the sequel. The page in question states as much itself, as do the Eurogamer article it cites, the pages for the individual games, and those pages' own citations. Also note that Hidetaka Miyazaki, the director of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, directly states "Dark Souls series" in interviews such as this one.
I believe it would actually be a violation of copyright for Dark Souls to be part of the same series as Demon's Souls, as Demon's Souls is a Sony IP. This is why From came up with a separate IP and developed a spiritual successor instead. Splatterhouse5 ( talk) 09:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
When reading the wiki article for The Walking Dead: Season 2, I became confused with a passage that said reviewers were annoyed by the lack of hubs. I have a vagye idea of what hubs are but wanted to read more about this and was shocked to discover Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this... despite the fact that many articles currently include the text "hub world". Thoughts??-- Coin945 ( talk) 03:55, 11 October 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 110 | ← | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
Lately there has been a division over which Reception chart to use. Some people claim that it's okay to use multi-platform Reception charts for multiple consoles, while others say it's not okay. I tried using the multi-platform Reception charts on articles like Need for Speed: Underground, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Need for Speed: Underground 2, and yet these IP edits always revert them to standard Reception charts, claiming that multi-platform Reception charts are "completely unnecessary and a waste of space where it gets to the point in making the article section completely un-watchable for the reader to look at and it forces the editor to revert it back to the standard reception box where it makes the article section less of a mess." On the other hand, I tried replacing multi-platform Reception charts to standard ones on The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (video game), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, X-Men Legends, and The Da Vinci Code (video game), but editors always revert them to multi-platform Reception charts, saying that "Don't see why the multi-console review table cannot be used. Stretching it out so tall ruins the flow of the article anyway." I feel so confused! I'm stuck over which Reception chart to use. I don't know which of the people are right: the "standard Reception chart people" or the "multi-platform Reception chart people". It's getting to the point where I can't use multi-platform Reception charts anymore! And I have a feeling that the multi-platform Reception charts from this link here should never have been used in the first place. So, what do you think? Do the multi-platform Reception charts deserve to be removed and replaced with standard Reception charts, even if there are over ten console versions? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Data: we have 4,960 articles that use the template in single-platform mode and 225 that use it in muli-platform mode. - X201 ( talk) 18:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
See discussion at: Talk:TERA:_Rising#Requested_move_15_August_2015 Greg Kaye 07:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
IP user 83.171.146.109 has been changing the years for various console generations on various articles and templates. I'm not sure what the correct years should be (there don't seem many sources on the actual articles) could some review their changes and see if its vandalism or bold editing. Thanks. - X201 ( talk) 10:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
For List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art, it would be great if we can get someone over to MOMA in NYC to get some freely-licensed pictures of the general layout of the museum's exhibit. While there's an image in the article, it's likely non-free and based on commons we should be able to get a free image of the generalized exhibit layout, where the video game(s) are less the focus of attention (eg in de minimus). -- MASEM ( t) 17:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
So there is a huge backlog for possible articles to be made. Along with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests we also have Category:Draft-Class video game articles with 171 drafts tagged currently. If anyone wants ideas for articles to make you can look at these options. GamerPro64 21:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys! There is Famitsu database for JP released games, and IGN database for NA released games. IGN may list UK and AUS release dates, but not always. So is there any database for PAL region? By the way, is GameDB of Eurogamer.net considered as a reliable source? -- CAS222222221 ( talk) 16:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The game was met with very mixed reception. GameRankings and Metacritic gave it a score of 57.52% and 59 out of 100 for the PlayStation 2 version, and 55.25% and 58 out of 100 for the PSP version.
I see the above fairly often and wanted to get the read of the room. (Yes, the GameRankings percentages should be rounded.) I don't find the writing out of metascores (or scores for that matter) in the prose to be a helpful practice. I would much rather see that space characterize the reviews in a broad stroke ("Reviews were "mixed", according to Metacritic.') or not in the text at all. A "59" could mean a variety of things, none of which are immediately accessible to the reader. Same would go for scores, apart from when the score is in context (e.g., the reviewer never gives scores this low/high) or when a reviewer gives a score that denotes something else (e.g., EGM's 9/10 representing a "gold" award or monthly selection). I'd like to see a recommendation added to the guidelines if others agree. Open for suggestions. – czar 05:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Pokémon Black and White have received largely positive reviews by critics, having an aggregate score of 86.35% on GameRankings and 87% on Metacritic (indicating generally favorable reviews).
- GameRankings: (X360) 65.76%[16], (PS3) 65.62%[17], (PC) 63.33%[18]
- Metacritic: (PC) 63/100[19], (X360) 62/100[20], (PS3) 61/100[21]
Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic, respectively, gave the Xbox One version 87.50% based on 10 reviews and 85/100 based on 11 reviews,[124][127] the PlayStation 4 version 88.40% based on 48 reviews and 87/100 based on 81 reviews,[123][126] and the Microsoft Windows version 68.12% based on 4 reviews and 64/100 based on 8 reviews.[125][128]
I'm late to this debate, but article bodies should not generally contain score numbers of any kind. They're obnoxious and disruptive to read, much like full dates in lead sections. If at all possible, it's always better to leave detailed numbers for an infobox. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Zombi (2012 video game) has been proposed to be moved back to its original title, ZombiU. The discussion has already been open for 17 days so additional input and/or a closing admin would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
I haven't been very active lately, so if this is a thing I must've missed it. Yesterday I edited the article on Saints Row IV, which has been partially reverted by @ Czar:. For some reason the article uses 4 instead of the Roman numerals IV, which I changed to, in my opinion, to the correct IV. Czar said in their edit summary: ""SR4" should be fine, as it's what many of the sources use, easier to write than the official title". Is this a thing now? Street Fighter 4, Final Fantasy 7, Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link? The Metal Gear Solid games are titled 2 through 4, but Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain have the Roman V. Or to stay on Saints Row, some sources went for Saints Row 3, instead of The Third, can we now use that too? -- Soetermans. T / C 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created page GTANet.com. And I need some help. I'm wondering if there are enough references. Also I'd love to hear some tips on how to improve it. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for replying, Salvidrim. Yes, Sergecross73 gave me very good tips on how to improve article and I'm following his guidelines. Since than I added a lot of references that are third party and are discussing and referring to GTANet.com. Of course it will be very hard to find news article which are discussing sole GTANet content without mentioning GTA. Google news give a wide coverage over GTAForums (GTANet), but many are only mentions. However I managed to find few good sources, I believe. Some of them are: BBC one (Hot Coffee), International Business Times (article about tool on GTANet), April Fools' Day joke covered by n4g and qj, DigitalTrends (Google street view of GTA provided by GTANet). Any further tips will be welcome. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 20:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The BBC one does not mention GTANet as a place where mod was hosted, however gives information on something that is a content of GTANet, GTAModding. On right side of article there are references and the second one, below Illspirit, there is GTAForums. This source serves for what it was put on. Claim that GTANet has developed modding community as Illspirit is one of GTANet modding staff. The IBT one, the whole article was written based on content that was found on GTAForums and it serves the claim that GTAForums is active in predicting new content. For April Fools', originally the whole story was transferred to media by Whatifgaming, however it is not possible to reach the article no more. When talking about trivial mentions you need to understand that many sites listed in reference list literally wrote gtanet or gtaforums once, however whole article was based on rewriting of something made by gtaforums. No one can affect on how many times they will use word gtaforums while writing article based on solely something found there.
For subject like this, fansite or forum, it is not possible just to say: there are no verifiable content because article makers didn't write: GTANET is a website and I am going to make thousand words essay on its features while mentioning word gtaforums at least 100 times. It is not possible to find such sources, no one will do that for any forum. For the coverage of content GTANet has, I believe GTANet is notable enough to be here. Besides, coverage on that April fools' joke satisfies that field to some point. I'm also considering the influence this fansite had on GTA itself which I referenced in many sources.
I'm using mostly google news and books for finding sources. Could anyone suggest me some alternative to this. Thanks. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 07:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I created the page for the console RetroN but I can't find any references for the RetroN 1 and 2. I don't know if I'm looking in the wrong places or using the wrong search terms. Could some people please help me with this? Ana r chyte 08:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The template for the canned NFC rationale for video game screenshots has been nominated for deletion [1]. However, I think I've offered arguments for why it needs to be kept which the nominator has agreed are reasonable, which boils down to the fact that the "purpose" (the part for meeting NFCC#8) of this template is terribly poor and while the intent is there, it really should have a stronger "default" position. So I don't think this will be deleted (so this is not a call to participate there), but instead that we do need to come up with a better "purpose" rationale language or choice of language that is better than "to show what the game looks like". This is based on the fact that nearly every video game article, that as long as it is notable, has sourcable discussion of gameplay, and for that, the image helps to explain gameplay. There may be more reasons beyond that in other cases, obviously, and when better rationales can be provided they should be, but the default gameplay-demonstration reason needs to be much better. -- MASEM ( t) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I sometimes see IGN wiki landing pages (e.g., [2]) cited for release dates, and I usually see them removed. Where do these release dates come from? Are they reliable or are they coming from a user-submitted database? Are they coming from the same database that IGN uses in its own article review infoboxes? The same database that lists all games made by a dev/publisher? I don't recall seeing a discussion about the dates provenance and whether they should be cited as reliable. Was the site redesigned recently? I remember the dates appearing much more obvious as user-submitted, but I'm not that familiar with IGN's backend – czar 17:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Given a recent republished post-mortem for the game on Gamasutra, I've been able to fill out Psychonauts's development, and have done a whole bunch of other cleanup, so it should be rather close to GA. I'd like a tiny bit of help trying to flesh out the review and award sections (including if necessary trimming out non-notable/sourceable awards), but this should be pretty much it of any difficulty within the project's guidelines. -- MASEM ( t) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that articles can only go to FA if all the images in it are permissive. Halo has a number of screen snaps that are clearly marked Fair Use. Is there a special-case rider for these articles? Or is the article in question from before the permissive licensing became an issue? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Does this page fall under the scope of Rockstar wikiproject? Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 07:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Some articles have their links bolded and others don't, why is this? Ana r chyte 10:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to help bring Freedom Planet up to date? I left a message on the talk page a couple of weeks ago expressing my concerns, and Tezero hasn't been around. I tried emailing him as well. I hate to bring it to WP:FAR based on what shouldn't be too much work, so I'm asking here before going there. -- Laser brain (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled across an archive link to this Edge making-of, but only the first page is live. An early version of the post is available ( [3], [4], [5]), but you can't access each page by clicking "next" or the page number. Instead, you have to work through Wayback to read all three pages. The question is this: how is it possible to cite three separate archive URLs? I considered using the |pages parameter and adding external links from there, but that's not an ideal solution by any means. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 19:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
|page=
params, e.g.,
Fez_(video_game)#cite_note-1UP:_review_p1-12 and
#cite_note-1UP:_review_p2-11) or (2) used short footnotes {{sfn|Edge|199X|p=Z}}
in a "Notes" section (with other short footnotes) separate from a "References" section with full citations (e.g.,
Knight Lore#Notes). The latter works better when there are multiple sources (e.g., instruction manual, individual book pages) that need to be cited this way. –
czar 03:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)I think we know the drill for now: listed below are all the unclaimed GANs, featured content reviews, and other objects such as peer reviews. As a matter of course, and hoping this continues to whittle the list down, users willing to reduce the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests are welcome.
I'll begin this by saying that I'll leave comments on anyone's Peer Review for comments in the Peer Review for Persona. Still a little flaked from a bit of a recent GA marathon, so not feeling fit to take on reviewing GAs at the moment. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 14:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have potential Featured Articles on the docket. Take a look gang. GamerPro64 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
So I was looking through Polygon's review of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and was thinking about how their review was being used in the article, yet its filed under "Provisional Review" currently. Since that means that score isn't their official score yet, should that mean their reviews should be held off from being used until they finalize their score? Comes off as an incomplete opinion on a game when its added in that state. GamerPro64 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Heads up: User:Cyberbot II has a new task that automatically adds (Internet Archive) archival links to citations! I inquired for more details on how to invite it over to your article, but thought y'all would want to know as this has been a perennial concern of ours. ( User:WebCiteBOT is still down.) – czar 03:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Relatively recently a site called Steam Spy ( [6]) has appeared, and sponsored by GamesIndustry.biz. The site polls user profiles on steam to estimate the number of game sales (or at least owners) on the Steam platform. Obviously only useful for PC/Mac/Linux games, this would be mana from heaven for any Steam-based PC article where sales numbers are lacking. That said, I do think if we want to use this we need to make sure it is included carefully. As the programmer that developed the tool warns, it is only an estimate based on user profiles and not directly from Valve's internal sales database. So we should be using statement like "As of such-and-such-date, Steam Spy estimates that 500,000 copies of a game have been sold", instead of "...Steam Spy saids that 500,000 copies..." In contrast to VGChartz, I think the method of the collection of data is very open and technically reproducable (he used open Steam APIs for this), so doesn't have the VGChartz stigma. The site has been covered from other RSes so I'm thinking if we're going to say this is an okay source for estimated sales, we should create the article on it so that an interested reader can learn how the data is collected. -- MASEM ( t) 18:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
A game will be released within a month. It has been mentioned on several occasions on IGN, is mentioned by Gamestop and has a Steam page. It was featured in Gamescom 2015. Should it have a page? Leeds United FC fan ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
{{ JRPG franchises}}
This template, by Misconceptions2, has been showing up on some articles on my watchlist. Wanted some input - is this appropriate in template form? I feel like this template would be downright massive if it was actually filled out in its entirety... Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Should this be a category or a template? Currently theres about 25 games on the list. I I included all the games it would be about 90, so I included only the best selling ones. Or another solution could be to rename it "JRPG franchises with over 10 million units sold"??-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I will remove the template from the articles I put it on, there will be no categories either.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
AFter coming across an article where "Wii U" was line-wrapped at the space between those, I checked that the MOS does suggest that in some cases like this (their example is the Boeing 747) that we use the NBSP character to avoid this break. I would argue that this definitely applies to the Wii U, but would also apply to any console name where the second word is four letters or shorter, so Nintendo 3DS, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, Playstation 3, 4, or Vita for example. It should not apply to longer names like the Magnavox Odyssey. This might be something to stick into our guidelines to be consistent. (I'm sure that for FA and PR this is picked up but doing it from the start might help). This also should apply to game titles where the last word is short or often a number (ala Mass Effect 3). -- MASEM ( t) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{NBSP|Wii U|Magnavox Odyssey}}
-> Wii U, Magnavox Odyssey
? --
CAS222222221 (
talk) 16:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{pl|Wii U}}
--
MASEM (
t) 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{nowrap|…}}
".» --
Thnidu (
talk) 16:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)This is about the "augmented-reality massively-multiplayer online role-playing location-based game" Ingress (video game). To most people, "video game" suggests a game that's played at the console, or possibly moving around on a mat. There's already a redirect from Ingress (game); I propose swapping the titles: moving the article to Ingress (game) and making Ingress (video game) a redirect. There's a Category:Pervasive games that includes the Ingress article, but that term's unfamiliar to most non-gamers, including most Wikipedia users. -- Thnidu ( talk) 16:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
For some reason The Mary Sue wrote an article calling Samus Aran a transwoman and shits gone ape. The page is protected now but the talk page is already going downhill. Help. GamerPro64 01:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
[7]. Samus, Link, Zelda, Tails and others must all be protected to reflect the reality here. 166.171.120.182 ( talk) 01:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Recently I've come across a couple of navboxes, which to me do not seem necessary. I would like some input before I nominate them (and if they can in fact be nominated, have some help in doing that all at once). I'm talking about navboxes that are based upon genres, like {{
MMOs by Sony Online Entertainment}} and {{
MMOs by Electronic Arts}} (which I've nominated for deletion already) and the ones listed here:
Category:Video game engine templates. I think that these kinds of templates fail
WP:NAVBOX and are more suitable for a category. For instance,
Grand Theft Auto V and
The Force Unleashed both use the Euphoria game engine, a certain technology, but that's it. Two MMOs by the same company can be widely different too:
Need for Speed: World and
Star Wars: The Old Republic. --
Soetermans.
T /
C 13:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I looked at other developer-publisher template, like {{ Epic}} and {{ Electronic Arts}}, which include games developed by others. Not sure if that's the way to go, though. -- Soetermans. T / C 07:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
So GamePolitics went down for a week and came back ( Source). Moved from Drupal to Wordpress so that might mean there will be some broken links to the site here. Just a heads up. GamerPro64 22:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe we should be using Daybreak Game Company as the developer of EverQuest, instead of what the company was named when the game was released. I'm aware of the MMOs still being active under Daybreak, but are there any guidelines to this? I ask because it seems really inconsistent. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 23:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As you all probably know, games like the Disney Infinity, Skylanders and Amiibos are very popular. There is also the upcoming Lego Dimensions. Collecting the physical toys is a big part of it, but is having huge tables and long lists like Disney Infinity 3.0#Characters, Skylanders: Trap Team#Skylanders: Trap Team Characters, Amiibo#List of Amiibo-branded NFC items (or Amiibo#Exclusives) and Lego Dimensions#Packs not WP:GAMETRIVIA?
If DLC is mentioned in an article, we also try to describe what it is and how it changes the game. While they might be part of the game's release, they're just listed without any substantial information. Right now, I can only guess what Peter Venkman from Ghostbusters, a hoverboard from Back to the Future or Taunt-o-Vision from The Simpsons will bring to Lego Dimensions, or what Nick Wilde from Zootopia, Joy from Inside Out or the Hulkbuster Armor from The Avengers can do in Disney Infinity 3.0. Is that not WP:NOTCATALOG No. 6? "An article should not include (...) availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details (...)". Just because these packs are or are about to be released, is that enough reason to mention it? The games can still be understood without all this release data. Seems like WP:NOTEVERYTHING to me. -- Soetermans. T / C 14:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
And speaking of Lego, I keep seeing lists like Lego Batman 3: Beyond Gotham#Characters, Lego Marvel Super Heroes#Characters and The Lego Movie Videogame#Characters. Same question, isn't that WP:GAMETRIVIA? -- Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
A quick note of the above featured article discussion which needs more eyes on it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not a big Apple person, so I'd like to check that as I understand how it was announced yesterday, the Apple TV device, which is being pushed to include major gaming applications (eg Guitar Hero Live is one I am concerned with here), is basically a more powerful iOS device but otherwise nothing new in terms of consoles: it is what Ouya was to Android, or Steam Machines was to Linux; there might be limited cases where a specific game is tuned or exclusive to Apple TV but at its core still remains an iOS application. Is this correct? -- MASEM ( t) 18:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you do me a favor? If you have access to an academic or local library that subscribes to databases (most do), can you check whether you have a subscription to any of these packages by Gale?
Gale
- Academic OneFile, 05/1993-01/2009
- Book Review Index, Sep.2007-Sep.2007
- General OneFile, 05/1993-01/2009
- General Reference Center, 05/1993-01/2009
- General Reference Center Gold, 05/1993-01/2009
- General Reference Centre International, 5/1993-1/2009
- InfoTrac Custom, 5/1993-1/2009
- InfoTrac Junior Edition, 8/2008-1/2009
- InfoTrac Student Edition, 05/1993-01/2009
- Pop Culture Collection, 05/1993-01/2009
- Popular Magazines, 05/1993-01/2009
Gale appears to have indexing for Electronic Gaming Monthly back to 1993 and full-text support from 1999. If it's true, we'd be able to search magazines that are heretofore not generally accessible online. Please take a moment to check your nearby library, especially if you're a university student. If you can't find your university's database listings, either ask a librarian (or send me the library's home page and I'll look for you). Feel free to email me details if you prefer. Appreciate your help. I'll keep looking for other mags that might have indices. – czar 04:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Apple TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- sst flyer 14:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Already posted something at RSN but I wasn't sure whether here was the first venue I should go to or not; suppose discussion could continue there. What is the general opinion on these particular VG news sites (news items provided for context):
They're not mentioned on VGRS, whether as sources to use or sources to avoid. As I mentioned on RSN, I can't check them in detail right now because I'm at work and site blocks suck, but I'd love to hear whether or not I should nuke these from my current source list. Thanks!! BLUSTER⌉⌊ BLASTER 15:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
So far I'm getting that there is no real consensus on Kill Screen's reliability. Being straight up reliable seems to be off the table. Would just being Situational fit the bill? GamerPro64 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
All right. So I guess we have consensus with having Kill Screen be a reliable source here. And if there's going to be another "Cuphead debacle", more than likely we have good judgement to find another source in case Kill Screen gets something wrong, which Czar points out will happen. Sounds like any other source we use here (Looking at you IGN). GamerPro64 20:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm trying to finish off List of Square Enix video game franchises, and I'm trying to track down sales numbers. I'm good on most of them, but I'm completely adrift when it comes to Space Invaders - Square Enix owns Taito, who make the Space Invaders games. The only sales numbers I have are for the original arcade game and its Atari port- given that there's been at least 20 games since, I'm probably missing a few... million sales. Does anyone have any idea of where I can find sales numbers on the series, from any time period, for any subset of the games? -- Pres N 21:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The IP user making this edit is clearly struggling with English, but they are also having a hard time understanding that what they wrote does not make much sense. Can anyone please help out here? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 22:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Coming up on September 17th, we have Grand Theft Auto V appearing on the main page as that days Featured Article. Commemorating the second anniversary of its release on the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 360. GamerPro64 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop an explanation for why I'm breaking the standard anime/manga/video game style on this particular article. Prior to my edit, the page had a massive introductory infobox listing 15 of 16 the various media attached to the Corpse Party series. This extended past the actual prose of the article and on my monitor (screenshot on imgur) it went beyond the external links section. To alleviate this, I created a wikitable detailing the same information under a "Media listing" section, separating the contents by medium (video game, manga, or anime/film). I've opted to avoid using the {{ Video game titles}} template in order to better adhere to WP:MOS (based on my experiences with table-based MOS at featured levels). For the local Japanese titles, I've placed them into individual notes so the table itself isn't overwhelmed with titles. In order to avoid giving extra weight to a particular title, I've removed the infobox altogether and simply kept the promotional artwork of Blood Covered: ...Repeated Fear as the main image.
I'm not entirely sure that the individual games can support stand-alone articles as the games themselves are not the notable aspect of the series, it's what the series is about that makes it more notable (in my opinion). Based on this, I feel that having this wikitable is a suitable compromise to the cumbersome infobox while retaining all the same information in a single article to avoid content forking. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 03:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
So, it was announced today that Nintendo EAD and SPD were merged into one department, now called Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development. Because of this, the articles should now be merged and re-written, so it would be nice to have some help with this. Maybe we could keep SPD's game list, to avoid bloat in the merged article, but move over the history section? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 23:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
An IP user added Category:Video games developed in Romania to multiple articles concerning Assassin's Creed franchise. I reverted them as his claim wasn't backed up by the article content. After doing some research it occurred to me that the reason behind this category implementation might be this. However, Ubisoft Romania wasn't listed as a developer in most of these articles. Furthermore, according to this article, many Ubisoft oversea subsidiaries "supported" the development. Surely that means we have to categorize the articles based on locations of those subsidiaries as well? I want to make sure that my reversion of IP edits aren't entirely unjustified. -- Chamith (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Have a look out for ExplorerX19 ( talk · contribs). I don't think he's editing in bad faith, but I just went through a bunch of edits made to tower defense and related articles and reverted the changes. -- Izno ( talk) 13:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here, so I'm sorry if I'm asking this question in an inappropriate place(but hey, the text says I can ask it here). So, I'm sort of keen on writing about notable LoL players(I've already written one about xPeke, which was later edited by various people), so can I put them for review somewhere around here when I write them? Just to get some guidelines from more experienced authors and not do anything the way it's not supposed to be done. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostaurus ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Also, how do I sign my posts?
~~~~
to sign your post. The welcome message on
your talk page contains a list of links to pages with useful information on. They are pretty long-winded but I would recommend reading them so you get a better idea of how to do things. Initially, you may want to try creating new articles using the
Article Wizard and choose to create the article in the
Draft namespace rather than directly publishing it into the main namespace. If you've created a draft you can then submit it for review using the
Articles for creation process to get feedback before it is moved to the main namespace. When creating a video game related article, add {{WikiProject Video games}}
to the corresponding talk page so someone can
assess the article. --
The1337gamer (
talk) 21:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Thanks for the advice, guys. By the way, it wasn't me who added the references from Leaguepedia, and thanks for fixing the article a few times.-- Kostaurus ( talk) 19:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to let regular VG editors know, I am taking a wikibreak until the 28th of this month. If you have any queries for me, then post them, but do not expect any response from me before that date. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to give a shout out for this one because User:Cyclonebiskit has been working his butt off over the last two weeks to whip this article into shape, and I would hate to see it fail for lack of interest. We have one support on prose, a completed source review, and a mostly completed image review. Come on down and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Satoru Iwata/archive1. Indrian ( talk) 17:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I recently updated cite video game to rely on Template:Cite book rather than Template:Cite journal. If you have any comments or questions, please see Help talk:CS1#Cite video game for more info. -- Izno ( talk) 17:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Should music writers/composers be listed in the infobox according to game credits? Or should they be listed in order of who has more tracks in the soundtrack album? For example, take Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, the game credits explicitly list Harry Gregson-Williams above Nobuko Toda (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwq1rbRfJnU#t=6m42s). I am in favor of the infobox matching the game credits, so I list Williams above Toda. However, Dissident93 listed Toda over Williams because in the game's soundtrack album, Toda has more tracks than Williams.
Also, there are cases where composers are listed in the game credits but don't have any tracks in the soundtrack album. Take Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker for example; this game has composers Shuichi Kobori and Seiro Hirose listed in the game credits (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESBxEcd8r7Q#t=3m32s). But in the game's soundtrack album, Kobori and Hirose don't have any tracks. I am in favor of keeping these composers listed in the infobox as they are still credited by the game under "music by", whereas Dissident93 wants them omitted. -- Wrath X ( talk) 08:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at the new article, Pixel Press, by new editor User:Bathchurnning. A new editor, proficient with wiki-markup, sourcing and NFCC. Places in the lead a list of media coverage in the same way that a corporate website or press release would. It's clear to me that this is a paid placement, and while I believe Pixel Press is notable enough for an article (I had previously redlinked it from another article), I'm not sure what we do with undeclared WP:COI edits now. Even after uncovering the massive paid editing network, I think there's still a no-fishing rule at Wikipedia:CheckUser, so I'm not sure if there's anything to be done. - hahnch e n 15:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Pixel Press' platforms have been embraced by schools, such as the Grand Center Arts Academy, offering development of skills, such as critical problem solving and design thinking, to its users.This particular sentence reads like an advertisement, in my opinion. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion
here. Now for the waiting game.
GamerPro64 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I know it's a long shot, but I was wondering if anybody has access to the April 2011 issue of Nintendo Gamer? I'm looking for the review of Ni no Kuni: Shikkoku no Madoushi, and I can't seem to find anything about it online (besides the score). Thanks in advance! – Rhain1999 ( talk to me) 07:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A reminder that the above is a Featured Article nominee as of August 29, 2015. It has one support, does anyone have the time to put eyes on this nomination please? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
So continuing my adventure of discovering defunct sources coming back to life, I've just learned that G4 is technically still around thanks in part to Syfy Games. Its tagline is "Now Featuring News from G4" with the G4 logo being part of it. I will say this surprised me. Then again with EGM still being a thing anything is possible. Its relatively new, starting earlier this year so I'm not entirely sure how reliable the source is. Especially this being a far cry from the original G4 channel. GamerPro64 20:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Electron toolset, Aurora toolset, and Infinity Engine were recently redirected without any apparent attempt to merge them. In review, the sourcing looked a bit weak, but given the popular games they were used on, I'm sure the sources exist somewhere to restore and improve them a bit? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 12:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
A little while ago I asked about release tables in the "toys-to life" articles, like Disney Infinity and Lego Dimensions. Is there someone familiar with these franchises? Because I don't think a table like Level packs is the best way to go right now. Starting from the left: first column, name of franchise. Second column, level pack, repeating franchise name with the words "level pack" behind it. Third column, content of level pack. Fourth column, release date. Fifth column, "series". Sixth column, "wave". Starting from the level pack table, it is the first time in the article that "series" and "wave" are mentioned, so what exactly are they? -- Soetermans. T / C 13:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Continuing on from this link here, I have a problem regarding the Reception sections for the Medal of Honor (1999 video game), Medal of Honor: Underground, Medal of Honor: Frontline, Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, Medal of Honor: Infiltrator, Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, and Medal of Honor: European Assault. It's just that all of them use the Reception article's English that is too convoluted. For example: the Medal of Honor: Underground Reception section says, "The PlayStation version of Medal of Honor: Underground was met with positive reviews. It received an 85.65% on GameRankings and 86/100 on Metacritic. The Game Boy Advance version of Medal of Honor: Underground was met with negative reviews. It received a 49.67% on GameRankings and 46/100 on Metacritic.", which is just ridiculous. The Medal of Honor: European Assault Reception section claims that the game "received favourable reviews", when in fact they're mostly mixed, not "favorable". And almost all of them say, like European Assault, "Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the PlayStation 2 version 73.23% and 73/100, the Xbox version 73.09% and 72/100 and the GameCube version 72.78% and 71/100." This wording is too ridiculous. I tried to take someone's advice from SSX 3 and round the GameRankings scores to the nearest whole number, but 81.158.229.168 kept reverting my good edits to too confusing English and GameRankings' decimal numbers and kept warning me to use only one separate way of one score instead of two, which they accuse me of, and that if I kept using two separate ways, like this, then they will ban me! What can I do? I'm too confused, I just don't know what to do anymore! I don't know if I can continue to edit video game articles or just quit. Please help me. -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 00:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Quiting Wikipedia because GameRankings and Metacritic is confusing? I think you're taking this too seriously. I mean Metacritic's scoring is a trade secret, to the point that a lot of people do not take it seriously (film wise at least. Rotten Tomatoes is more beloved). My suggestion is to not use Metacritic or any aggregation. I'm using them for Dyscourse but that's mainly because all the reviews for the game are sevens. GamerPro64 01:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Couple of questions and remarks concerning Template:Infobox_video_game#Credit_fields:
*producer
The popular names of the game producers in overall charge of the production of the game. The names can be wikilinked.
- List only the person credited specifically with the title "Producer";
- Do not list the "Executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits, as they are not generally as intimately involved in a game's development;
- If three or more people are credited as "co-producer"s, discuss whether any one played the most significant part and, if decided, list that person;
- List the "Creative producer" only if said person's involvement in the game is discussed in the article's development-related section.
I don't understand this. No. 1 says: only producer. No. 2: says: no "sub"-producer. No. 3 says: if there are three or more people credited as co-producer, we should decide who played the most significant part. But there are co-producers, someone must be listed as producer, right? Does that mean we can list co-producers, if there's a producer, or that we shouldn't? What if we can, what if there's one producer, and three co-producers and we don't know who of those three did the most work? Also, discussing who had the most significant part in the development starts from three, so we should pick one name. But two is okay? Unlike other fields, this doesn't have a limit to it. What if there are eight producers credited?
*designer
The popular names of the game designers, i.e. people who worked on the game's system. The names can be wikilinked. This field is often unfilled in modern high-budget development due to large team sizes and collaboration. Older games and indie games are more likely to use this position.
- If a single person is credited as "Lead designer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Game-design director" and "Lead planner";
- If there is no equivalent to #1, omit this field;
- If three or more people are credited as "lead designer"s, discuss whether any one played the most significant part and, if decided, list that person.
Same thing, what if there are two lead designers, that's okay? Or what if a small indie game just has 'designer' as a credit, right now it says that name should be omitted. Sidenote: why don't we change the name of the field from designer to lead designer?
*writer
The popular names of the game's writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers.
- If a single person is credited as "Scenario director" or "Scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Lead writer";
- If there is a person credited as "Scenario concept writer" or "Original concept", also list that person here;
- List no more than three people in this field.
If there is one 'scenario director', we should list that person. If there's a 'scenario concept writer', we can list that person too. If either one of these titles are listed, does that mean other writers shouldn't be mentioned? Also, again we can have three names, without having to discuss to pick one.
*composer
The popular names of the composers who worked on the game's music.
- List people who contributed significantly to the soundtrack. Discuss inclusion criteria on a per-game basis on the talk page.
Here, there is no limit of names, unlike other fields.
Do you see what I mean? These discrepancies might not our biggest problem, but I think it would be helpful to have a clear understanding of how the infobox can and should be done. Soetermans. T / C 10:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Another thing, Wrath X states that, for composer listings in the infobox, we should go with what the game itself lists, rather than how much they actually contributed. He claims that, what the original soundtrack states (how many songs each composer wrote is clearly listed in the liner notes), is WP:OR, and that because the game itself credits Harry Gregson-Williams first (for "music" in Ground Zeros, yet it actually states Akihiro Honda is the lead composer right after), that we should go with that the game states. Does anybody disagree with this? It's not like I'm guessing on how much they contributed, like screen time for an actor in a film. This needs to be changed, as we are supposed to list writers by order of contributions, and we don't even have something as clear-cut as soundtrack liner notes for them. It just doesn't seem right to have Williams listed first, when he really only did two tracks in the entire game. I'd really like to have all this wrapped up soon, since it's becoming just edit warring between us two. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 07:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Anybody against making this public? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 03:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Continuing on from this link here, I was following the rules by using multi-platform Reception charts for only two to four console versions, and yet 81.158.230.137 broke the "not too tall, not too wide" rules by reverting them all to Standard Reception charts and using improper English on the following articles: Burnout (video game), Burnout 2: Point of Impact, Burnout 3: Takedown, Burnout Revenge, Burnout Legends, Burnout Dominator, Burnout Crash!, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2002, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2000, Tiger Woods 99 PGA Tour Golf , and Minority Report: Everybody Runs. Could somebody do something about it? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 22:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
( example) Our project has a strange habit of putting Japanese titles in the lede's opening—the article's most precious sentence. Non-English names, unless the article topics have strong affiliations with the language, really have no business being in the first sentence. MOS:FORLANG:
If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local language equivalent
Chibi-Robo might be a Japanese series, but its Japanese title is of little consequence to understanding its content, and it is not closely associated enough to warrant that type of exclusive real estate. Unless we need the Japanese characters/alt title to understand the sources (...do we ever?) it makes little sense to give whole lines in the intro to stuff that is useless to almost all of our readership. (This is not limited to Japanese titles, but that is the language most often abused in the opening sentence.) I suggest moving the foreign language titles to a footnote, if not just eliminating most of them altogether, and updating WP:VG/GL accordingly. czar 03:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, Chibi-Robo might be a Japanese series, but its Japanese title is of little consequence to understanding its content
is not the criterion, which you even quoted for our provision. It is not understanding that a name is to impart but a close associat[ion]
. Your argument on this point is specious. --
Izno (
talk) 13:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree; I always thought that "Metal Gear Solid (Japanese: メタルギアソリッド Hepburn: Metaru Gia Soriddo)" wasn't particularly necessary to mention. -- Soetermans. T / C 09:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Something is terribly wrong with GameZone's review pages, as all of them have gotten error messages! And it seems that these review pages haven't been fixed yet! Here are these two examples. Does anyone have any idea why? -- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 03:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since sourcing is essential for a proper article here, this is a call to have more people to take a look and get involved with the Source talk page. There are a lot of sources that are being discussed on their reliability and consensus hasn't been reached for some of them. GamerPro64 16:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In trying to add reception for the character of K′, one review that talked about him was removed from Gaming Age. I tried using the archive [11] to find in the Dreamcast section King of Fighters '99 Evolution but it gives me a mistake. Any possiblity to still find this source? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 22:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem that I've seen come up for films too (particularly The Shawshank Redemption) in that editors will want to include a game's position on the overall MC/GR lists based on lists these sites have. I would argue that we should avoid using that type of approach, and only call out the MC/GR position if a secondary or third-party source does so (such as [12] that covers GTAV hitting the highest score in 2013, where a number of other games are listed). This avoids any type of potential OR that might come from favoritism (eg, does one consider only one platform, ignore other platforms a game came out of, etc.) as well as reflects the fact these lists remain dynamic. -- MASEM ( t) 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Masafumi Ogata? My redirect was reverted. czar 21:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
What is the proper way to format DLC content, if it is named, with italics or quotes? I've always done quotes because I felt that was the most appropriate. Or might it depend on what the content is? I'm wondering, due to it being brought up in the GA review for Batman: Arkham Knight. Here are some examples of its DLC, with the titles put in bold now for uniformity here. Example 1: story, playable DLC Batgirl: A Matter of Family. Example 2: Bat-family Skins pack, which includes six character skins based on alternate timelines for the playable characters of the game. If the format isn't uniform, would 1 be italics and 2 quotes? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Does someone know of a general guideline on video game series navboxes? WP:VG/T doesn't say anything about them. Is there a reason to shorten titles? For instance, {{ Borderlands series}}, was changed, from Borderlands 2 to 2, from Tales from the Borderlands to Tales. Is this necessary? Does this save space? Would the general reader automatically assume that 2 is short for Borderlands 2? Or {{ Fallout series}}, with Fallout: New Vegas as New Vegas? Or the {{ Assassin's Creed}} games, dropping Assassin's Creed from the link? -- Soetermans. T / C 10:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Crytek UK#Requested move 3 October 2015. -- Mika1h ( talk) 09:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:SUBTITLES, it's preferred to omit the subtitle in the page name. Does anybody oppose this? If not, I'll ask User:Anthony Appleyard to move them. The other main series Dragon Quest already omit the subtitle. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Video game articles are rarely called their common name, which I still think is a good thing, because most of WP:VG/RS is, in the end, still written for an audience familiar with video games. So we have articles starting with Call of Duty, not COD. GTA 5 is a common abbreviation, but the article's title is Grand Theft Auto V. Sources use The Phantom Pain, we have Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. James Cameron's Avatar: The Game is called, understandably, Avatar. Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie is called King Kong in reliable sources. In the end, most "common names" for video games is just a VG/RS dropping half of the title or using its initials. -- Soetermans. T / C 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Though I agree that with video games, we should usually use the official name for articles (though I doubt anyone would want to rename Call of Duty to "COD" ;p), I was wondering about Street Fighter II: The World Warrior - I've never even known Street Fighter II had a subtitle until I was redirected to the article. I figured I'd bring it up now the topic is being discussed anyway. ~ Mable ( chat) 20:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sort of related, so I'm gonna ask about it in this thread. Gyakuten Kenji 2, the sequel to Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth, is almost always referred to as Ace Attorney Investigations 2 in English by reliable sources, and even by Capcom themselves. Should it be moved to Ace Attorney Investigations 2, despite how it has not actually been released in English? -- IDV talk 12:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Before I begin, it's important to note that the site in question is still in its building stages and definitely not ready for consideration right now. However, I see that it has potential and worth keeping it in mind for sometime down the line.
I'll be blunt. Metacritic is problematic. Extremely problematic. It's a for-profit website that seems to have an undue influence not only on the public perception of a game, but also in some cases the payout of bonuses for developers. It has a deliberately hidden weighting system that obfuscates the basis of its primary metric, the metascore. Certain major publications are omitted for unpublicized reasons and the ones that are included may be subtly increased in weight for purposes unknown (read: money). A disingenuous Metacritic-reviewer-publisher industrial complex has developed in which publications which have "made the cut" to appear on Metacritic are favored by publishers and get review copies of games early. This Wikiproject's reliance (or over-reliance) on Metacritic scores to set the tone of a Reception section is also quite problematic, given the above. This has been discussed many times, but this particular discussion jumps out in my head. In including Metacritic on virtually every modern game reception section, we are contributing massively to the feedback loop echo chamber that is only amplifying Metacritic's power. Whether or not that's a bad thing is something I'd like to discuss more as a project but not here.
The new website is called OpenCritic. Here's the link to the FAQ. Pros:
Cons:
I just wanted to get this site on people's radar as a potential alternative to Metacritic when/if it becomes comprehensive enough to rival the big MC. I had previously argued for the inclusion of GameRankings because its mere presence (even if potentially unduely high) dilutes the monopoly that Metacritic has established. Hopefully OpenCritic will become a resource that provides the same function as Metacritic without the caveats and problems. Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"reviews are presented with the review author's name listed" I take it Edge won't be on Open Critic then? Seeing as they never list reviewer names in order to allow the reviewer freedom to say what they want. - X201 ( talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an alternative to metacritic that is transparent in calculation method and includes editorial reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.55.237 ( talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Checking the VG templates, I've nominated a couple for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_5. -- Soetermans. T / C 10:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
user_talk:czar proposed merging Mushihimesama Futari to Mushihimesama#Sequel. I believe the article has enough mention/external sources to be notable for an article by itself as per Reliable Sources for Video Games [13]) as stated under WP:VG/RS. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ ( Talk) 09:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think anyone should take a look at Godzil's statement in Talk:WonderSwan#To Hounder4 and any other try to revert correction. -- Hounder4 12:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
So I've just noticed that Lucasstar1 has rapidly nominated five Sonic articles at GAN, all of which they have not contributed to and will most definitely fail once reviewed. Sonic the Hedgehog CD still has numerous citation needed tags and a big "verification needed" tag at the top. Sonic Heroes and Sonic Colour's leads are too short and just will not pass. I left a message on his talk page asking if he would be interested to contribute to the articles instead of nominating them or if he would withdraw the GANs. I don't want to discourage him, but it would put my mind to ease if I just removed all the nominations now and help him improve the articles if he's really interested. Should they be removed? JAG UAR 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
So a user states that because other articles list expansion packs to their main games in their work list, such as BioWare, Obsidian and Bethesda, the CD Projekt Red article should as well. My argument when reverting him is that these expansion packs have their own articles, while the ones for The Witcher 3 just redirect to a small subsection on the main article, so I didn't think they were that notable to be listed. Opinions? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I notice that the page for the Dark Souls series was renamed to Souls (series). However... there is no "Souls" series.
Dark Souls is the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls, not the sequel. The page in question states as much itself, as do the Eurogamer article it cites, the pages for the individual games, and those pages' own citations. Also note that Hidetaka Miyazaki, the director of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, directly states "Dark Souls series" in interviews such as this one.
I believe it would actually be a violation of copyright for Dark Souls to be part of the same series as Demon's Souls, as Demon's Souls is a Sony IP. This is why From came up with a separate IP and developed a spiritual successor instead. Splatterhouse5 ( talk) 09:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
When reading the wiki article for The Walking Dead: Season 2, I became confused with a passage that said reviewers were annoyed by the lack of hubs. I have a vagye idea of what hubs are but wanted to read more about this and was shocked to discover Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this... despite the fact that many articles currently include the text "hub world". Thoughts??-- Coin945 ( talk) 03:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)