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 80 | ← | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
the Final Fantasy character template has been TfD here and has yet to have a clear consensus. So if anyone wishes to participate, please do so we can have consensus. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as Elite (video game) is our Collaboration of the Week, I'm wondering if anyone is interested in working on it. It's honestly one of the most important games ever released—more influential than all but maybe a half-dozen other titles—but our article on it is pitiful. It's been covered so heavily over the years that finding sources would be a breeze; all we lack is the drive. It's always been too daunting for me to do alone, even though I've considered working on it several times in the past. If we collaborated, however, I think we could do some good work. Anyone interested? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 10:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if we were considering the improvement of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. articles, eventually prepare them for the PediaPress. Considering S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl is mid-importance, it should be improved above "starter class." Halofanatic333 ( talk) 12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Right now, I think the structure of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat's gameplay section needs a major rehaul before we start worrying about screenshots. Halofanatic333 ( talk) 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Because of the above discussion, I looked at Who Framed Roger Rabbit (computer game) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Nintendo Entertainment System). Both articles are stubs, and they even state in the NES article that these are different versions of the same game released on different systems. Is there a good reason not to merge these? LedRush ( talk) 21:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like your input at Talk:The Legend of Zelda#"__ is the #th installment in The Legend of Zelda series.". Thanks, Blake ( Talk· Edits) 03:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
They just announced an 11-lecture series of postmortems from various games, given by their key developers, will be at the GDC, with the information put up online after the event. [1]
Games include:
Clearly going to be a good source of dev information for these game articles. -- MASEM ( t) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've commented on Talk:Maniac Mansion. I can provide sources, but I don't know how good I'll be on actually building the article as I have never really played the game. – MuZemike 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Over on Who Framed Roger Rabbit (computer game), there's a bit of a dispute brewing between someone who insists that without sections on "development" and "reception", an article fails WP:N and should be redirected to a "list of games by [publisher]" ( User:Sarujo), and someone ( User:Badger Drink) who insists (using crude, borderline incivil edit summaries that he should probably be warned about) that aforementioned sections are only required for an article to reach Good or Featured status, and a stub without these particular sections is just that - a stub, but not an ipso facto violation of WP:N. The game in question is an officially-licensed product, released by a then-major game publishing studio, so it seems to this particular crude, borderline incivil jerk that the game is practically guaranteed to meet some standard of notability - but since this particular crude, borderline incivil jerk doesn't have much access to contemporary computer gaming magazines, he is at a bit of a frustrating loss when it comes to adding a couple sources himself. Because I've more than met my quota of frustration and annoyance for the day, I'm posting this message here in the hopes that someone more prepared and informed than I can inform Sarujo of his misunderstanding of the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and perhaps - as a bonus - get involved in the article as well. Badger Drink ( talk) 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently found this gem of a game (Total conversion of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion), and I was appalled that there was no article on it. So I created it and gave it my best shot. However, I'm not really used to write VG articles, so I thought I'd drop you people a line and ask for help. The universe section could use some expanding, which I can't do right now because I'm about 20 hours in the game and have yet to discover much about the universe and of the story. Mainstream coverage (IGN, Gamespot, etc...) of this is surprisingly low considering how big this is in the modding community, and it won Mod DB's mod of the year award for singleplayer.
So yeah, any help you can give would be much appreciated. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently working on StarCraft II, specifically its Development section first. I haven't touched the actual article; I'm sandboxing my work here. None of the content there comes from the article, either, which means that when I merge the new content with the existing article, the article will be about 60 kb. I feel that that might be a bit too big of an article, so let me know if it is.
Anyway, this is my first real work on an article since The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II, which was promoted to FA over two years ago, so I'd like to get working on something again. So, I'm looking for thoughts on what I have so far in the sandbox. I feel that there's a lot of stuff that is repetitive and can therefore be cut; the text could probably also use a copyedit.
I'm heading out right now, so please let me know what you think so far. Thanks! Gary King ( talk · scripts) 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
While working on Flight Unlimited, I couldn't help but notice that we don't actually have an article on flight simulators. Our genre template links to the article about real-life flight simulation, which isn't particularly helpful. We've got an article about combat flight simulators, but not an all-encompassing one for general aviation, PilotWings-esque arcade sims, aerobatics and the rest. Even a one-paragraph stub would be better than nothing, in my opinion. Does anyone else think we could use one? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 08:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I've noted that Shaddim ( talk · contribs) has recently been adding several reference links to old gaming mags on older game articles - which of course is generally a good thing, but the user is also linking to the PDFs of these articles at Mean Machines Archive ( [2]). These scans don't appear to be authorized by the original magazines, which unless I'm missing something, makes the linking to these illegal. That's not to say that the ref to the original article is bad, but we cannot link the URL to these PDFs, I believe. Does anyone know if there's anything otherwise special about that site that allows for that? -- MASEM ( t) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Vsync presently redirects to Analog television, which does not answer my questions. I seek information on what the so-named setting I see in numerous PC games does, and what are the (dis)advantages of enabling it. I hope the experts here can do something to ensure that people who go to Vsync with the same purpose will find something useful.-- 69.110.0.210 ( talk) 01:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This probably will affect quite a bit of NES-related articles, but IGN took down its "Top 100 NES games" list, as all its pages are now 404 errors. A good part of them are also not found on web.archive.org, and I don't know how long Google cache keeps old versions of the pages. – MuZemike 01:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
So I recently came across Japan Media Arts Plaza, (which I am confident easily passes RS criteria) and wondered if we should start some more formal way of defining awards and how to decide what to use. I know there's been discussion in the past, but it has always stalled out. Meanwhile people just slap awards on {{ VG Reviews}} with no concern about whether they should be there. Since I'd like to go through and do an overhaul of our GL anyway, what do you think? 陣 内 Jinnai 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really satisfied that the images used in Dragon Age II have adequate fair-use rationales. File:Kicking-ass-in-dragon-age-2-20100817080847944_640w.jpg and File:Thedasmap wallpaper 1600x1200.jpg. Anybody else agree? -- Tærkast ( Communicate) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
new contributor who is new to the englsih wiki wants to merge the two articles together. Although i originally wanted to do the same.I couldn't as the two were completely different. one is media that happens to have tracklist, the other is a list of songs of the game, simialr to the rockband and dance dance revolution have. regardless, the contributor believes they are the same no matter waht. Although yes, i do believe the media article needs merging, i don't believe it should be merged into the music article as it's not meant for media. Can someone please join in and end the duspute? Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out the following discussion on what, if any, content on gamefaqs would be considered coming from a reliable source. I asked there first because I wanted the discussion to be separate from any current discussions (to think purely of policy and not the effect on a specific article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_editorially_created_.28i.e..2C_not_user_created.29_content_on_gamefaqs.com_a_reliable_source LedRush ( talk) 15:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
So you may remember that some time ago I asked for clarrification on how to use these after a dispute arose in their use with LttP+FS and other articles. I finally got some feedback at RS/N essentially saying that those are okay so long as they are attributed to whomever says it. They want to make it clear that its not a fact, but merely an educated opinion. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kingdom Hearts (video game) is scheduled to be the TFA for February 7, 2011. While I'm happy that is was chosen, I know that the quality is not up to snuff due to several issues. Of course the obvious answer is to fix them, but my editing time is rather erratic and I'm certain I can't improve the article in a week. In fact, I've been debating whether or not to take it to FAR. Any thoughts on the matter? Should I request it not be the TFA, and is that even a possible request? ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC))
Raise issues at article Talk:
Speaking of FAR, anyone want to check-out/improve Devil May Cry 2? It was denied TFA for reasons listed here « ₣M₣ » 00:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As the result of a series of mergers, the article is Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness and the talk page is Warcraft II. As the article now contains all things Warcraft II, I'd lean towards the simpler title, though one of them needs to chosen over the other. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automate stock information through RSS feeds - please see this proposal and voice your opinion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to argue that a few of the VG-related projects should be converted for task forces. Age of Empires hasn't had a discussion thread on its talk page that wasn't related to many other pages as well in two years. Adventure games hasn't had one since March 2010. Music Video Games has had one unique discussion thread period. Koei Warriors games hasn't had a discussion for more than a year. And as for the Xbox and PS ones, they aren't particularly inactive, but they don't seem to have anywhere near the constant stream of activity that warrants being separate. I'm not necessarily calling for all of these task forces to be merged, but some of them don't really need to be separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup has not been in use for over a year now, but it was a fairly useful administrative task force to gauge activity in some project and determine which ones were needed and no longer needed. – MuZemike 06:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Just so that you know, 8 Projects were proposed for a move to Task Force status last year, but an admin disagreed with the fact that they were all nominated as a block and closed each discussion as a No Consensus (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Koei_Warriors_Games#Requested_move) - X201 ( talk) 09:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Rambling time- I believe most every one has different opinions on this subject. More often than not though, proposals like this lose steam because members are more interested in things they deem more important. However, I strongly suggest members (new and old) to collaborate in establishing member, structure, and participation guidelines (or at least general recommendations) for our task forces and sub-projects. Many might argue that this is a bad approach that needlessly imposes control on the community and its members. But a well designed process can aid those involved reach a quality outcome. Some ideas to consider:
Our current model for task forces and sub-projects as rather hit and miss in my opinion. We some good success stories, but a number of inactive project pages. We can let things continue as they are or try to improve things to benefit every one. My two cents. ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
So, it looks like the Square Enix project has abandoned Dragon Quest, and now we have a Dragon Quest task force. For those of you who don't know your history, we had a Final Fantasy WikiProject. Then somebody made a Square Enix WikiProject. When we were doing inactive project cleanup, FF merged with SE ( see here). Even though FF was more active and had been around longer, SE was a broader topic that encompassed the other, so it seemed logical to proceed that way. We also had a whole Dragon Quest project, but that was inactive and went through MfD.
So now there is this project that covers all of Square Enix. Except of course for Taito, because there are so many games from before they were purchased. And except for Eidos, for similar reasons. And except for the Battle Ogre games... and Dragon Quest... So we pretty much have a Square Enix project that only covers Final Fantasy games. Neat! WTF is going on?
Ok, so does Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Dragon Quest only exist so that people won't bother Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix? Because that's how it looks at the top of SE's page. Maybe the project should go back to just FF? Or are there interested editors who would like to work in a project that covers all of SE, not just the current scope (whatever that is). I personally got frustrated with the focus issue when I was trying to work on Taito articles, although with that one it made sense (at the time). DQ doesn't make any sense. Ogre Battle doesn't make any sense. Or am I mistaken? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Should we consider merging the Dragon Quest task force with the Square Enix WikiProject if it is possible? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 12:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you came to consensus in 3 hours, between 2AM and 5AM west coast America time! That has to be some kind of record. </sarcasm> Anyways...
So, you wanted to know why Dragon Quest isn't under Square Enix. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix/archive/4#How is Riven under Square Enix has your answer. WP:Final Fantasy was upmerged into WP:Square Enix in March 2009, as WPSE was basically inactive and we'd always planned to do that someday anyway. 1 month later, in April 2009, someone raised a complaint that WPSE had some strange articles listed in its scope- like Riven and Tomb Raider III. It didn't make any sense to us to have those there- and the reason they were listed was because they were published in Japan by Square Enix. As editors of WPSE, we didn't feel like that was a strong enough connection- it would mean that half of the projects articles were ones that no one cared about. So, we changed the scope. Instead of all games/related that were developed or published by SE, we made it just developed. This cut out those extraneous articles, and also cut out Dragon Quest- Enix published DQ, but they were developed by Chunsoft. Incidentally, that's why you never heard about the cut, Bread- your first comment on the talk page was October '09, 6 months later.
I don't really see why you want to merge the DQ task force with the SE project. Even leaving aside that it doesn't fit in the scope, what benefit would there be? If the task force is dead, it's because no one is working on those articles. How will tacking it onto a wikiproject change that? If the WP:SE editors (all of whom are WP:VG editors as well) weren't interested in them before, we're not going to magically get interested now that it's on our index page.
Also, you guys are making some weird assumptions. The hatnote on WP:SE about the dragon quest project is because the dragon quest guys wanted the publicity, not because WPSE didn't want to be bothered. WP:SE didn't "arbitrarily" cut DQ out of our scope- we defined the scope to "games developed by", and they weren't. We do cover things that aren't Final Fantasy- you mention Kingdom Hearts, which even has a section on the front page, not to mention the index. If you're not going to take the time to look up what WP:SE covers or why, then please don't make decisions for them. -- Pres N 19:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"Specifically, the project supports all articles that cover anything that Square, Enix, or Square Enix designed or produced. It does not cover articles covering items only published by Square, Enix, or Square Enix, and it does not cover articles related to Square Enix's wholly owned subsidiaries Taito and Eidos, which were bought in 2005 and 2009, respectively, as their domains are too large and distinctive to be included in this project's scope."
I personally just found it really odd that there wasn't a discussion about the project and there was a discussion about DQ not that long ago in the SE project. We could make it so X-factors are allowed. such as Dragon Quest that has had a history with Enix and further more with Square Enix. Or maybe instead of "only being published by square enix" be more like "square enix serving as one of multiple publishers" i really don't know how to write it. but basically make it so that if square enix is only one of the many publishers of the given article, then it doesn't belong in the wikiproject. But these are merely options, i'm sure a better solution can come up. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
WHHAAAT!?!? Holy crap, I am a giant JackAss. I don't know why it never occurred to me that DQ wasn't developed by Enix. Now it makes some sense. Sorry for my rude comments above. DQ is so integral to the image of Enix that it never occurred to me. Wow, that really is a specific scope. So you cover Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, but not Ogre Battle: The March of the Black Queen. You cover FF, but not DQ. What about Star Ocean: Second Evolution? What about Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which is co-developed (SEJapan did all the FMVs and probably a lot of other assets as well)? Where does the scope end in those cases? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to address that there's a new Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters, about fictious characters, since some of our articles fall into their project as well. GamerPro64 ( talk) 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Project statistics charts - Does anyone see an actual need for this page? This is transcluded at the bottom of the main project page, and it is all out-of-whack. I was going to edit it to make it look better, but I realized that the images haven't been updated for two years. I get the idea, but do we really need graphical representation of articles by class, afds by vote, etc., on the main project page? Even if someone kept them updated, surely their usage is anecdotal at best? The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics bit should stay for sure, as that is automatically updated and serves as a directory of sorts. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
250 Featured articles and lists: 74.8% complete | ||
250 Featured articles and lists: 147.6% complete | ||
Is it normal for the List of PlayStation Store PC Engine games to be exclusively about Japan? [4]
I've tried to get other areas' info, but it wasn't easily forthcoming (I'm sure you guys know it)? So, should we rename this or add the NA/EU info? Or ignore it? LedRush ( talk) 22:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've had a problem with an IP trying to add Onlive to the list of platforms that Braid (video game) is on. While true that Braid is available through Online, I don't believe that Onlive qualifies as a "platform" - much like the discussion about Steam recently, it's nothing special in terms of unique hardware or the like. With that, I've been removing Online from the platform in the infobox.
Now we have Warrenonline ( talk · contribs) who's name and current editors (of today online) clearly suggest a COI problem. It's not an issue of writing about Onlive (if he is a person associated with the company, that would be an issue), but that he's returned back to add in the Onlive as a platform.
So there's two questions:
I did find that there was a thread at the OnLive users forum [6] that clearly is the basis on these additions. Given that it reads that Warrenonlive is simply a fan and not an employee, there's really no major COI problems here - though of course edit warring to get one's point across isn't good either. -- MASEM ( t) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Be aware another reg user (clearly from the aforementioned thread) Rasmasyean ( talk · contribs) has been adding OnLive to the game articles again. The thread is a bit worrisome again because those users are pushing on trivalities and the like to try to convince us (WP editors) that OnLive is a unique platform. To me, Hahnchen has the best argument here: it is like claiming a game platform is the MacOS X just because the game (a Windows title) can run in the emulator there. It is effectively a giant emulator, possibly modifying the code to make the game work effectively, but no different from what Steamworks adds or what Good Old Games does to older games to update them for modern systems. -- MASEM ( t) 06:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed there appears to a discrepancy in the naming of two of the game of that series. The article for the second game uses. Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney: Justice for All with third being at Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Trials and Tribulations. The main question here is whether the comma or the colon is correct because unless Capcom decided to change the grammar for the two games one of them is at the wrong title and needs to be corrected.-- 76.66.180.54 ( talk) 04:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Joystiq is reporting Halo HD will be out this November. No other confirmations have been made, and even they seem to say between the lines that it's still a rumor. The Halo-based pages might get flooded. -- Teancum ( talk) 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a Japanese game but in the main text of the article, the Japanese title is not given (クーロンズゲート, or KOWLOON'S GATE -九龍風水傳-) Per guideline the Japanese title should be given. The problem is the 九龍風水傳 part - it is intentionally given in Traditional Chinese (lit. The Legend of Kowloon [Wall City] Fung Shui) Hence it might not be appropriate to use nihongo template since there is no romanji to translate to.
For that matter, in Japanese Wikipedia Kowloon is kept as in Chinese name, 九龍, and not written as 九竜. SYSS Mouse ( talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a recent change of moving Misty (Pokemon) to Misty (Pokemon character) with the reasoning that she isn't a Pokemon. I did not immediately revert this as although it violates our naming conventions, it seems like it might be a reasonable exception. Thoughts? 陣 内 Jinnai 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Pokémon should italicized. Problem solved. Jonathan Hardin' ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In preparation for the 3DS, I did a little work on WonderSwan (cut-and-paste merged the three articles) and Virtual Boy (found and cleaned-up images). Virtual Boy could be made into a GA (currently at B), with all the coverage that thing has received. WonderSwan could too; the article is a bit of a mess right now, but it could be made GA if someone is well-stocked in elbow grease. I also made an article for Famicom 3D System, but I don't think it could ever get past Start-class, unless it shares some of 3DS's spotlight in the press coming up. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've created a Commons:WikiProject Video Games to help organize efforts on Commons, as well as organize the images themselves. It's not much to look at now, but hopefully if there are like-minded editors then this will help towards progress. Or maybe it will disappear into the void, time will tell. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have anything to improve the articles for these upcoming games, Neverwinter (video game)/ Neverwinter (Cryptic Studios), and Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale? 108.69.80.49 ( talk) 05:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
As we have no featured content that is based on a gameplay element, I'm looking to get advice of what should go into such an article. After a nice summary article of the history of the (dreaded) quick time event that appeared yesterday, I've been able to expand that article far from a stub, but am unsure if it can be expanded further or the like. Sure I could take it to GA and see how it fairs, but I'd like to see if there's anything I really really need in it to progress forward. -- MASEM ( t) 20:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I may need a few extra eyes to help on Guitar Hero, as this article : [8] suggests the series has been official killed, but more details will come in Activision's financial hearings tonight. Nothing may happen, but given history of this, this could lead to vandalizing. -- MASEM ( t) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This sounds similar to Hudson Soft's very recent decision to close down its publishing arm Hudson Entertainment at the end of the month and cancel all projects within. Doesn't mean all of its projects and franchises are officially dead. – MuZemike 03:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
DJ Hero has bitten the dust too [9] - X201 ( talk) 12:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm having problems with IPs changing "the GH series is ..." to "the GH series was...". Based on how we derived the current language in our guidelines for tenses, they're more aimed at specific games or units, so its difficult to apply to series. Now, for one, Activision has not said the equivalent "we will never made a GH game"; they likely will not be making any in the appreciable future and shuttered the studios, so we don't have a final point on a timeline, so "is" is still appropriate. But if the assumption was that Activision fully killed GH, gave up its trademarks/copyrights, etc. etc., the series still exists, so "is" is still appropriate as well.
Am I wrong here? -- MASEM ( t) 20:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
A IP user has recently been going through and expanding/promotion for Tri0viz 3D glasses to articles. So far the edits seem to be in good faith, but also seem to have a bit of a promo push to them. Tri0viz are located in France, and the IP is from the also French. I don't necessarily know that the two are connected as they're at opposite ends of the country according to the IP trace, but the WP:SPA nature leads me to believe they are. Again, nothing of concern just yet, but it might be something to watch. -- Teancum ( talk) 12:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The 1989 Commodore 64 and DOS game Face Off! has been proded has non-notable. Does anyone know of any reviews that may save it? Salavat ( talk) 16:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to join in on this conversation, and/or here. 108.69.80.49 ( talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
In a recent discussion above, it was decided that progress bars would be included on our main page. However, I'd like to discuss one more element about them: placement. Currently, they're under "Statistics", which is very low on the page. Wouldn't they be better off under "Goals", or some variant thereof, as with WP MILHIST? It'd be a pretty drastic visual alteration to a page that most of us see so regularly, so I thought bringing it up here would be better than being bold. Any thoughts? JimmyBlackwing 16:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the current progress bars. 71.2% of all articles in the project are Featured? That doesn't seem correct :/ Jonathan Hardin' ( talk) 13:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, Final Fantasy XIII is getting close to being dropped from FAC due to lack of reviews. Can anyone take the time to check out the FAC and give it a review? Thanks! -- Pres N 19:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking for the issue on the internet for ages, but now that EGM's back as a publisher, I doubt i'll ever find scans. So if anyone owns that issue could someone please post the information about Nimbus Terrafaux (a hoax Mortal Kombat character created by EGM in that issue) on here or my talk page. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain ( talk) 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the rationing thing came up, I thought this was as good of time to mention this. I wanted to see since I have PRs for Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior if some people could take a look at them as I'd like to get to FA quality before the 25th release anniversary in May. DQ has some sources tagged atm I'm checking for replacements or asking about the reliability of the sources (mainly just The Magicbox). 陣 内 Jinnai 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed a soundtrack list from an article yesterday, under the same guidelines that I have used before and that I've seen other users state. The guideline being Only add soundtrack listings if the game's soundtrack has been released on a separate CD that has in itself received separate coverage. Another editor asked me to state where in the guidelines this was listed as they couldn't see it listed there, and , after some searching, it turns out that they were right, its not. I found a couple of discussions about it but no actual move to add it to the guidelines. Its obviously become one of the unwritten guidelines in the way we deal with articles, so should we formally add it to the guidelines page? - X201 ( talk) 08:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
[10] How do we do with reviews of a review when they are by a RS - in this case, the same RS? 陣 内 Jinnai 03:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Avatar_(Hinduism)#Requested_move_2 where it is requested that the move done by 2010 move request be undone, moving the Hindu concept to primary in place of the disambiguation page. 64.229.101.183 ( talk) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Heads up. MediaWiki 1.17 has just been turned on. Looks like there are a couple of bugs floating about. Keep your eyes open for wonky templates etc. - X201 13:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been reverted back to 1.16wmf4 for now, but due to caching certain things aren't going to be fixed immediately. It seems to be working fine now here, but my gadgets still aren't loading on mw.org. Reach Out to the Truth 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they've switched it back on :D - X201 ( talk) 10:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the rate of Featured Articles across all of Wikipedia is by far exceeding 365 per year. What that means is that (sadly) the long standing tradition of every FA getting onto the front page has ended.
It is evident that the front-page FA committee are trying to preserve variety by 'rationing' the number of articles of particular categories...notably, VideoGames. If you look back over the past year, you'll see an almost suspiciously exact rate of one VideoGame article per month...which I take to be an effort to do that.
Sep: Elder scrolls Oct: NinjaGarden Nov: Golden Sun Dec: The Simpsons Game Jan: Sacrifice Feb: Kingdom Hearts
While it would be tempting to demand justice and more representation of our WikiProject on the front page, I actually believe that variety matters for the reputation of Wikipedia - and that one video game article per month is pretty generous. After all, there are 3,000,000 articles out there - and there aren't 100,000 video game articles - so we're doing pretty good! Also, it would be tough to argue that information about video games constitutes more than 1/30'th of all human knowledge. Those of us who recall the tsunami of Pokemon-related FA's and the pressure to get every single Pokemon character's page up to FA quality will realize the need for this kind of rationing!
So rather than complain about insufficient front page space, I think we should make an effort to ensure that those Videogame FA's that DO make it to the front page are the best (although, with FA's it can be hard to choose!) - and perhaps discuss whether we want articles of greater "importance" to make it. In essence, provide some support to the front-page FA folks by recommending certain video game FA's be presented in preference to others...perhaps have this group push forward a single FA to that committee every month - and do our best to limit the expectations of other video game FA authors.
Perhaps we could monitor the front page FA proposal page - and when the time comes to !vote on a videogame FA, we could drop into the discussion something that says "WikiProject Videogames endorses this article as being of great importance" - or "WikiProject Videogames recognises this FA as being of sufficient standard to be displayed on the front page, there are other articles of more importance - so in the interests of preserving variety, we reluctantly do not recommend this article for the front page"...arranging to use the former statement for just one article each month.
This is harsh for editors of new FA's - but numerically, we have little choice - and I'd rather we got to make the decision than a bunch of people who are not experts in the subject matter here.
Comments please. SteveBaker ( talk) 13:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
My point is not so much that we're being "limited" to one per month (and with such precision that it can hardly be just luck). I don't even want to change that...it seems a perfectly reasonable rate. What I'm attempting to suggest is that if we ARE being limited, then this WikiProject ought to inform the decision-makers as to which of the available VG FA's we consider to be the ones that most need/deserve to be up there. We can do better by far than an essentially random process. We can be topical - we can even avoid over-representation by a particular genre or game manufacturer. SteveBaker ( talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
First off, I'll say that I agree with Dream Focus in that there certainly is an anti-video game bias out there, and I think I have mentioned it a couple of times here and there (and I even got nearly laughted out of T:TDYK or a video game-related DYK nom once). However, I'm fine with keeping at about one or so a month on the Main Page for two reasons: first, to appease some of those that do not like seeing such a big video game presence on the Main Page; secondly, we only got so many video game FAs to go around. If we featured 3-4 on the Main Page per month, we'd run out of FAs to show quite quickly. – MuZemike 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have to say, I didn't believe that when I put Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne up as a candidate for main page, that I would be walking into such a 'political firestorm' ! I have to say I was rather shocked by the immediate negativity against it, which was quite a bit discouraging. This issue about choosing the more "important" games to put on the main page - well I guess the game I have written an article about is not the most important game out there, but I did spend a long time on it and I believe I did my best work, and isn't wikipedia about the quality of the writing, more so than what the article's subject matter is? I'm trying to address the non-free use issue by deleting two images to leave only two, as I cannot find any "free-use images" for the game on the web. Thank you so much everyone for contributing to the discussion! I hope my addressing the non-free use issue will encourage some more to support, but even those who opposed, to have taken the time to look at the article and discuss it was very kind of you :) Thanks everyone.-- Paaerduag ( talk) 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
While we're talking about FAs right now, I should note that we haven't had a VG article promoted to FA in over 4 months now, the last one being Killer7. I don't know if it's the FAC process, the lack of FAC reviews (which I can blame myself for that personally), or something else, but I mention that because it's been a long while since the last successful FAC here. – MuZemike 05:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, this is really random, but I figured I'd drop it in here. I was reading the New York Times when I ran across this article which tells people to look at WP:VG/FA, praises the article Halo, and pretty much says that Wikipedia is the Bernard Berenson of technology articles, including video games. Thought you'd all enjoy the pat on the back. Nomader ( Talk) 20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Since
User:GA bot insists on placing (and moving) the latest GA nomination under "Miscellaneous" instead of "Video games", I will instead spam the project here since people will obviously miss the nomination on the
WP:GAN page. Anyways,
Maniac Mansion has been nominated for
Good article, and if anyone is interested in reviewing, please see the top of
Talk:Maniac Mansion for instructions; if anybody else wishes to further improve on it, feel free to do so, as I think this has a decent shot at FA someday. Also, keep in mind that this is more of a "tri-nomination" among
User:JimmyBlackwing,
User:Guyinblack25, and myself, as this was a collaboration effort among the three of us. –
MuZemike 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like User:Jappalang fixed the problem, in that the Template:GAN doesn't like that one parameter one bit. Removing that caused the article to properly classify under "Video games". Disregard the above message, or at least get the older nominations, first. – MuZemike 13:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have an answer for me at Talk:Neverwinter (video game)#Part of the Neverwinter Nights series? - I'm trying to halt a potential edit war. BOZ ( talk) 12:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:COMP which may be of interest. Thanks. -- trevj ( talk) 15:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Many of you have probably heard that the Smithsonian is going to have a display for the art of video games next year. Presently they are running a poll for which games they will actually show [12]; there are 76 categories based on eras, platforms, and type of game, each with 3 games that users can vote from. But, clearly, there's been some pre-vetting to the initial 3 choices.
I am considering making an article about this (the display clearly has gotten attention for notability purposes) but including the games that have been selected as part of a list, eg about 220 games roughly. Once they actually say which games will be shown that can be marked in the short list, but it seems as I read it this is not disparaging the other games as non-art, simply that there's little room to show 220 games in the exhibit.
Any comments on this before I proceed? -- MASEM ( t) 16:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#WP:VG/GL mediation may also affect the text of this page. The last section of this discussion starts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Breakpoint 8. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
I'm trying to find a little more real-world content for Kronos Digital Entertainment aside from what's contained in this interview, so the article can survive AfD. At one point in the interview, Stan Lui mentioned that they were developing a fighting game for Sony based on a comic book character, and "we were asked to come up with some game concepts based on that license. We worked feverishly and came up with the idea of a fighting game (the rage back then), to which the characters can learn new moves, change physically and raise their attributes through time. Eventually, for political reasons (at least that’s what we were told), the local Sony division we were dealing with had to give up the license to one of their European subsidiaries." They then used what they had already developed to make Criticom, which was first released on November 29, 1995. So, what game was released for the PlayStation in 1995 or 1996, based on a comic book character, possibly a fighting game, and developed by Sony in Europe? I realize that correctly guessing is OR, but I can hopefully track down some reliable source if I can just figure out what game it was. And ideas? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping that someone could help give it a good copyediting, so that I could get that oh-so-necessary second set of eyes on it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Input is needed for WP:Notability (video games) as we are trying to streamline and update our guideline and items off of it that really wouldn't be appropriate for a MOS-style guideline (its not one atm, but its been proposed to be moved to one by others). The notability of video games has been contentious and the GNG doesn't really give enough advice when dealing with some specific circumstances surrounding video games. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
We have an issue that is bound to become more prevalent as stereoscopic games become more popular. We use the terms 3D and 2D too sparingly. Depending on the article, a 3D game can mean:
Maybe there are other uses I'm not thinking about. So far it's been unchecked because nobody thought that stereoscopic games would come back, but we should really hammer out terms. The big problem is that Nintendo, Sony, etc. are making no attempt to differentiate. This is a 3D game, a 3D system, etc. Obviously we can refer to 3DS as stereoscopic, and isometric games should never be referred to as "3D" (right? because they often are), but what about Street Fighter EX's 2.5D graphics? What about the "pseudo-3D" of Battlezone and Wolfenstein 3D? Star Fox? The term 3D is tossed around like appleseeds, and to new gamers it's not going to make a ton of sense. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we can break down "3D" use into 3 specific uses:
Wouldn't this be a case of Wikipedia attempting to define terminology, something that has just recently opened a can of worms with regard to console generations? Strange as it is, all of the types of games mentioned are legitimately "3D" in the context that they were using to differentiate themselves from "2D" games. Old RPG dungeon crawls were "3D" because they had (fixed tile-based) first-person views. Wolfenstein was 3D because it had real-time 3D rendering. Doom was "more" 3D because it actually had different floor and ceiling heights, and Duke was more 3D because it could stack one room on top of another. Quake was still more 3D because it had 3D models instead of sprites, and so on. 3D is a relative term that is synonymous with "graphic realism". I don't think there is really a problem with the way the term is commonly used, with an implicit context, as long as there is a qualifier that states what that context is. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 07:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is a problem, but I think it's something that's a problem well beyond wikipedia. I notice these types of things when reading about video games from all sorts of sources. I kind of hope the "world of video games" comes up with something, and then wikipedia could follow suit... Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Gran Turismo Wii. >_> Obviously fake. I'm not real familiar with the AFD process, I usually only explain my stance in them, not get them started...and I'm short on time at the moment. But I'm just pointing out that this obviously needs to be deleted... Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
There are two issues here. Firstly, should consumer game magazines and blogs with strong financial ties to the subjects they are reporting on be regarded as reliable sources of information? Secondly, should entire subsections consist of opinion piece editorials from these types of magazines when they do not cite any evidence for the statements; basically, should original research that does not follow the scientific method be used as a source on Wikipedia? -- Therpgfanatic ( talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There is too much nonsense in the various videogame related articles that stems from videogame review magazines, which are NOT credible sources! Videogame magazines should not automatically be considered reliable because they are NOT held to the same journalistic standards as those of other journalism industries.
For example, it is well known that videogame reviewers accept bribes from videogame developers http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/scared-to-open-the-package-adventures-in-game-writer-bribery.ars
A lot of the sources, such as those used in the Computer RPG article for "cultural differences" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#Reception_of_cultural_differences ) stems entirely from opinion pieces written by game reviewers who simply make statements and don't actually back them up with evidence (on the contrary, even a little bit of research into computer rpgs shows there are just as many American created computer rpgs with religious references and deities as there are Japanese ones, just look at the Ultima and D&D related games).
Secondly, many major videogame magazines have direct financial ties to game developers and publishers (example: Nintendo Power, Official Playstation Magazine) and game retailers (example: Game Informer). IGN once fired an editor for giving a bad review to a game being heavily promoted on the website http://www.gamezone.com/editorials/item/the_fallout_of_the_kane_lynch_debacle/ and later tried to cover the fiasco up through press releases http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/05/gamespot-addresses-gerstmann-gate-concerns-in-depth/
Thirdly, many game journalists acknowledge that the industry doesn't follow the journalism standards that other industries hold themselves to:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/11/the-soapbox-game-journalism-is-not-journalism-yet
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6228583
http://nukezilla.com/2008/12/19/game-reviewers-journalist-or-slave-to-the-hype/
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1049994303.php
Fourthly, very few of the sources used in the videogame Wikipedia articles stem from interviews or books written by actual game designers which can actually be considered credible sources. Game reviewers are not established industry experts on anything but writing PR articles about videogames and perhaps how the game journalism industry works. Unless they have backed up their claims with proof they should not be used as sources for articles pertaining to what defines a game genre or "cultural differences" of different cultures, or anything that basically extends outside their realm of knowledge. Because of the notoriously poor journalism standards rampant in this industry we cannot automatically assume they have actually researched the articles they have written.
I move for every single addition to a page that comes from a game review magazine, especially a blog, to be re-reviewed for credibility. If the article was not written to comply with ethical journalism standards the information should be removed. -- Therpgfanatic ( talk) 08:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the accusation. Consensus comes from anyone who wishes to participate, and we try to get everyone possible involved. If you feel going up the chain necessary, please do so at WP:RFC, however I would submit that we have not dismissed your arguments any more than you have dismissed ours.. -- Teancum ( talk) 14:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Any source, not just ones in the video game industry, that takes advertising dollars would have to be immediately tagged as biased, under this scheme. Which would include works like Time, Wired, New York Times, CNN, BBC, etc. That's not going to fly.
And I think we're well aware that these sources are driven by advertising dollars. As long as those dollars aren't going towards discrediting other games or developers by factually lying about games, we just have to be aware that games with major financial advertising backing are going to get considerably more attention and positive reception. Which is why our review sections are written from the standpoint "Here's what the gaming scores say, and here's what reviewers said. You figure out the answer", thus avoiding any promotion ourselves of a source that may have been influenced by promotion. -- MASEM ( t) 14:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
And I'm going to echo the sentiments of the other editors who have posted before me; we do the best that we can to get comments on all new sources brought up for comment. You're more than free to participate in any future discussions or bring up sources for new discussions. I'm probably opening a Pandora's box, but I really don't feel any of the articles you link to discredit the sources. All of the sources that we have deemed reliable have been done based on the reliability of the websites and their editorial standards. Should media sources be discredited because Michael Gerson of the Washington Post states that traditional sources have become more partisan ( [15]), and thus, we shouldn't trust them anymore? Your logic seems rather flawed, but I invite you to actively participate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Nomader ( Talk) 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
@Therpgfanatic - Clearly we're going in circles here, as the consensus seems to be against your thoughts. At this point if you still want to discuss it, please take it to WP:RFC as we're not getting anywhere here. And again this seems like a larger discussion that stems from specific instances that you have issue with. Can you please point out very specific examples of articles that suffer from this problem? Maybe we can better understand what the issue is with actual examples. -- Teancum ( talk) 10:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not the best counter-argument we've given, but either way, I'm with Teancum that we seem to be going around in circles. Eight editors have disagreed with you and you've ignored all of their opinions and continued to simply re-state your argument. Feel free to bring this to WP:RFC if this is still bugging you. Nomader ( Talk) 13:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I was pointed to this blog [21] which I'm pretty sure is the same therpgfanatic posting above (apologies if not).
Reading this, I think I see more exactly what he's trying to say about in a direct method: this section: History of role-playing video games#Cultural differences. If you look at the comments of the online article, at the thread started by "REVULSIVE", I think I see what therpgfanatic is getting at, in that with a few lines of statements, we're making broad strokes about the differences between J and W games where there are clearly counter examples to those points. Arguably yes, that seems to be what's happening...
...but then you have to read the WP section carefully or you miss this: Western games often tend to feature darker graphics, older characters, and focus more on roaming freedom and realism; whereas Eastern games often tend to feature brighter, anime-like graphics, younger characters, and focus more on scripted linear storylines. (emphasis mine). "Tend" is meant to grossly summarize everything without going to exasperated details about the exceptional cases. There are western games that follow the stated Japanese trend (Anachronox); there are Japanese games that follow the Western trend (which I'm lacking examples ATM (Maybe .hack?) but the point's there).
That's true throughout this section: it never at any time says "All Japanese RPGs are linear plots", it says they tend to have this. This is not only supported by our sources, but it's also common sense if you actually played the games - eg that point is verifiable. We are a tertiary source, so we're summarizing these, and thus while one could likely construct a whole section to pinpoint every single difference and every single game that deviates, we just need to grossly compare and contrast. Again, since this compare and contrast is verifiable to any person that can play the games from both regions, we're looking at sources that reiterate these.
I'm not saying this section is perfect, and thus to therpgfanatic - ignoring the source issue, which statement of any in that section are wrong as a gross overview of the differences? Again, I'm not talking about detailing the one game from Japan that features Western-mechanics or vice versa, I'm talking about the generalized statements of the differences. If it is clear that there is a factual error that we cannot see by common sense and using awkward sources, then lets resolve that. -- MASEM ( t) 14:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Therpgfanatic - I don't think your arguments are flawed but I think you're trying to paint too big a stroke to say that problems extend throughout the project, or that our sources are unreliable, because of a few bad apples in specific articles. I reiterate what others have said: WP:SOFIXIT if you think it is broken. If you get constantly reverted by editors on those pages, that's part of a larger issue, but if you're contributing to improve the statements, that's better.
We do want to make sure we establish the different between a source claiming something as a fact (which we need to be careful about for reliable sourcing), and a source stating their opinion (at which point we only need to care if that person is considered an "expert" in the field). However, if we're dealing with someone stating their opinion, we don't need to worry if they have it right or wrong - as long as we're saying "Soandso said..."; that leaves the reader the ability to evaluate the claim on their own. As for when source report something as fact and it is clearly wrong, we should fix that with a better source. Do keep in mind VGs move quickly - what was true a year ago may no longer be true now (which may be the program with that WRPG/JRPG comparison). But that only means we should write to show the effects of time on the issue. -- MASEM ( t) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
OK give us concrete fact, that they aren't credible. NOt like "they said this, they said that". we need some hardcore fact. I agree we should be a little careful on choosing reviewers, but at the same time. Some of these people review for a while. it's hard to just say hey, you're not credible for the manner of your speech. Bread Ninja ( talk) 03:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this needs RFC. The specific point covers more than just videogame magazines. If any source used by WP should in itself state its own sources, and failure to do so means that it fails the sourcing requirements, then that ruling would cover the whole gamut of the encyclopaedia and so needs to be discussed by the whole of the WP community, and especially the people who keep WP:V on the rails. - X201 ( talk) 09:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Lastly if Jinnai believes that Vintage Games: An Insider Look at the History of Grand Theft Auto, Super Mario, and the Most Influential Games of All Time, is an academic book then he needs to do some research into how academic publishing works. The book is not peer reviewed, which is a necessary part of the process of scholarly papers. The book is also written by game journalists who work for Armchair Arcade, a blog. But perhaps he or someone else can point out where in that book they cite or show the results of a study comparing a large pool of these games to see their differences. -- Therpgfanatic ( talk) 21:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
One thing to consider that several of these "unsourced" claims that you are suggesting game journalists make are effectively attributed to the video games themselves. Their status as "experts" in the field allow us to use their collective knowledge to make the wider assumptions about video games in general (eg the cultural differences section). In such cases, there is no need for them to cite their sources as their sources are obvious, the games themselves. The types of statements that you appear to be focused on are where there are nuanced statements that aren't quite accurate or probably made some years ago. Take the customization issue: I would agree that the differences cited between customization in WRPG and JRPG was true in 2005 (pre PS2) but not today. That doesn't mean our sources are wrong, they're just out of date. Everything can be reflected to talk about "early games" for customization, and then update sources for newer examples. So here, when it is talking about games in general and nothing specific to the industry, we look to their "expert" opinion to use to make generalizations we can build on. These can be verified by the reader
Where we do need to watch for sources are things like industry reports - closures, buyouts, game sales, new titles, etc. Most of our sources don't specific "link" to any work for these but do start with "Today, CompanyX announced...". So they've named a source, and, at least how the VG industry works, news gets corroborated quickly. These might beat press releases to the door, or simple not be mentioned. Again, in this type of situation, not a problem if they aren't listing explicit sources as long as they aren't pulling data from thin air. (yesterday's news of Guitar Hero is an example of this type of sourcing working well - news broke from Eurogamer, at least two other sites contacted Activision to confirm, and then Activision formally announced it.) These also catch hoaxes too, given time. (case I'm aware of is the rumor of a PC/PS3 port of Limbo, which was listed by the ESRB, but nixed a day or so later by the publisher)
But, if say, Stephan Tolito of Kotaku comes along tomorrow and says "I've heard that Deadly Premonition sold 5 million copies" and doesn't say where or how he got that number, then, hey, flame on. That's a piece of data that needs to be challenged if only one person without any source makes that claim. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. This is where we do need to strongly evaluate the RS of the work and the expert making claim, and a general BS test to make sure it makes any sense, and then just to consider if it is a useful piece of questionable information to include. In this fake example, I would call foul and ignore that statement until it was proven by another source otherwise (and more than just, "Kotaku said that...", which is one thing to watch for).
Basically, a lot of your problems with how we treat video game magazines and web sites as reliable sources is because the journalism field for this area doesn't run itself like academic sources; they rarely cite sources and as most are online rely on hyperlinking for references back older articles. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong with that per WP:RS. These sources have a history of having editorial oversight and reporting factual news 99% of the time. The expert opinions are respected within and outside the area of video games. So really, its not a sources issue.
Really, I think most of your complaint is either 1) very naunced claims that really don't apply well when we're summarizing the field - we can't spend time to identify every exception to a rule and 2) sections that are outdated and liking need some TLC to get up to date. The cultural differences section does need modern refs from the last few years to show how the WRPG and JRPG sections have become less distinct from each other. I don't know if such exists. If we can't find them, there's some options for rewriting that to indicate the material there is outdated, but outright removal is not warranted. -- MASEM ( t) 14:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I put in a request for mediation, which seems to be the next step in this process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Role-playing_video_game -- Therpgfanatic ( talk) 19:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
@Everyone - I truly think this is all talked out here. If Therpgfanatic is not satisfied with the result then he can take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. However, that's where the buck stops, so the ruling decision there is what we as a community will need to follow. -- Teancum ( talk) 16:01, 16 February 2011 (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 80 | ← | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
the Final Fantasy character template has been TfD here and has yet to have a clear consensus. So if anyone wishes to participate, please do so we can have consensus. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as Elite (video game) is our Collaboration of the Week, I'm wondering if anyone is interested in working on it. It's honestly one of the most important games ever released—more influential than all but maybe a half-dozen other titles—but our article on it is pitiful. It's been covered so heavily over the years that finding sources would be a breeze; all we lack is the drive. It's always been too daunting for me to do alone, even though I've considered working on it several times in the past. If we collaborated, however, I think we could do some good work. Anyone interested? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 10:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if we were considering the improvement of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. articles, eventually prepare them for the PediaPress. Considering S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl is mid-importance, it should be improved above "starter class." Halofanatic333 ( talk) 12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Right now, I think the structure of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat's gameplay section needs a major rehaul before we start worrying about screenshots. Halofanatic333 ( talk) 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Because of the above discussion, I looked at Who Framed Roger Rabbit (computer game) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Nintendo Entertainment System). Both articles are stubs, and they even state in the NES article that these are different versions of the same game released on different systems. Is there a good reason not to merge these? LedRush ( talk) 21:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like your input at Talk:The Legend of Zelda#"__ is the #th installment in The Legend of Zelda series.". Thanks, Blake ( Talk· Edits) 03:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
They just announced an 11-lecture series of postmortems from various games, given by their key developers, will be at the GDC, with the information put up online after the event. [1]
Games include:
Clearly going to be a good source of dev information for these game articles. -- MASEM ( t) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've commented on Talk:Maniac Mansion. I can provide sources, but I don't know how good I'll be on actually building the article as I have never really played the game. – MuZemike 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Over on Who Framed Roger Rabbit (computer game), there's a bit of a dispute brewing between someone who insists that without sections on "development" and "reception", an article fails WP:N and should be redirected to a "list of games by [publisher]" ( User:Sarujo), and someone ( User:Badger Drink) who insists (using crude, borderline incivil edit summaries that he should probably be warned about) that aforementioned sections are only required for an article to reach Good or Featured status, and a stub without these particular sections is just that - a stub, but not an ipso facto violation of WP:N. The game in question is an officially-licensed product, released by a then-major game publishing studio, so it seems to this particular crude, borderline incivil jerk that the game is practically guaranteed to meet some standard of notability - but since this particular crude, borderline incivil jerk doesn't have much access to contemporary computer gaming magazines, he is at a bit of a frustrating loss when it comes to adding a couple sources himself. Because I've more than met my quota of frustration and annoyance for the day, I'm posting this message here in the hopes that someone more prepared and informed than I can inform Sarujo of his misunderstanding of the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and perhaps - as a bonus - get involved in the article as well. Badger Drink ( talk) 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently found this gem of a game (Total conversion of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion), and I was appalled that there was no article on it. So I created it and gave it my best shot. However, I'm not really used to write VG articles, so I thought I'd drop you people a line and ask for help. The universe section could use some expanding, which I can't do right now because I'm about 20 hours in the game and have yet to discover much about the universe and of the story. Mainstream coverage (IGN, Gamespot, etc...) of this is surprisingly low considering how big this is in the modding community, and it won Mod DB's mod of the year award for singleplayer.
So yeah, any help you can give would be much appreciated. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently working on StarCraft II, specifically its Development section first. I haven't touched the actual article; I'm sandboxing my work here. None of the content there comes from the article, either, which means that when I merge the new content with the existing article, the article will be about 60 kb. I feel that that might be a bit too big of an article, so let me know if it is.
Anyway, this is my first real work on an article since The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II, which was promoted to FA over two years ago, so I'd like to get working on something again. So, I'm looking for thoughts on what I have so far in the sandbox. I feel that there's a lot of stuff that is repetitive and can therefore be cut; the text could probably also use a copyedit.
I'm heading out right now, so please let me know what you think so far. Thanks! Gary King ( talk · scripts) 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
While working on Flight Unlimited, I couldn't help but notice that we don't actually have an article on flight simulators. Our genre template links to the article about real-life flight simulation, which isn't particularly helpful. We've got an article about combat flight simulators, but not an all-encompassing one for general aviation, PilotWings-esque arcade sims, aerobatics and the rest. Even a one-paragraph stub would be better than nothing, in my opinion. Does anyone else think we could use one? JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 08:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I've noted that Shaddim ( talk · contribs) has recently been adding several reference links to old gaming mags on older game articles - which of course is generally a good thing, but the user is also linking to the PDFs of these articles at Mean Machines Archive ( [2]). These scans don't appear to be authorized by the original magazines, which unless I'm missing something, makes the linking to these illegal. That's not to say that the ref to the original article is bad, but we cannot link the URL to these PDFs, I believe. Does anyone know if there's anything otherwise special about that site that allows for that? -- MASEM ( t) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Vsync presently redirects to Analog television, which does not answer my questions. I seek information on what the so-named setting I see in numerous PC games does, and what are the (dis)advantages of enabling it. I hope the experts here can do something to ensure that people who go to Vsync with the same purpose will find something useful.-- 69.110.0.210 ( talk) 01:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This probably will affect quite a bit of NES-related articles, but IGN took down its "Top 100 NES games" list, as all its pages are now 404 errors. A good part of them are also not found on web.archive.org, and I don't know how long Google cache keeps old versions of the pages. – MuZemike 01:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
So I recently came across Japan Media Arts Plaza, (which I am confident easily passes RS criteria) and wondered if we should start some more formal way of defining awards and how to decide what to use. I know there's been discussion in the past, but it has always stalled out. Meanwhile people just slap awards on {{ VG Reviews}} with no concern about whether they should be there. Since I'd like to go through and do an overhaul of our GL anyway, what do you think? 陣 内 Jinnai 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really satisfied that the images used in Dragon Age II have adequate fair-use rationales. File:Kicking-ass-in-dragon-age-2-20100817080847944_640w.jpg and File:Thedasmap wallpaper 1600x1200.jpg. Anybody else agree? -- Tærkast ( Communicate) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
new contributor who is new to the englsih wiki wants to merge the two articles together. Although i originally wanted to do the same.I couldn't as the two were completely different. one is media that happens to have tracklist, the other is a list of songs of the game, simialr to the rockband and dance dance revolution have. regardless, the contributor believes they are the same no matter waht. Although yes, i do believe the media article needs merging, i don't believe it should be merged into the music article as it's not meant for media. Can someone please join in and end the duspute? Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out the following discussion on what, if any, content on gamefaqs would be considered coming from a reliable source. I asked there first because I wanted the discussion to be separate from any current discussions (to think purely of policy and not the effect on a specific article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_editorially_created_.28i.e..2C_not_user_created.29_content_on_gamefaqs.com_a_reliable_source LedRush ( talk) 15:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
So you may remember that some time ago I asked for clarrification on how to use these after a dispute arose in their use with LttP+FS and other articles. I finally got some feedback at RS/N essentially saying that those are okay so long as they are attributed to whomever says it. They want to make it clear that its not a fact, but merely an educated opinion. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kingdom Hearts (video game) is scheduled to be the TFA for February 7, 2011. While I'm happy that is was chosen, I know that the quality is not up to snuff due to several issues. Of course the obvious answer is to fix them, but my editing time is rather erratic and I'm certain I can't improve the article in a week. In fact, I've been debating whether or not to take it to FAR. Any thoughts on the matter? Should I request it not be the TFA, and is that even a possible request? ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC))
Raise issues at article Talk:
Speaking of FAR, anyone want to check-out/improve Devil May Cry 2? It was denied TFA for reasons listed here « ₣M₣ » 00:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As the result of a series of mergers, the article is Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness and the talk page is Warcraft II. As the article now contains all things Warcraft II, I'd lean towards the simpler title, though one of them needs to chosen over the other. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automate stock information through RSS feeds - please see this proposal and voice your opinion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to argue that a few of the VG-related projects should be converted for task forces. Age of Empires hasn't had a discussion thread on its talk page that wasn't related to many other pages as well in two years. Adventure games hasn't had one since March 2010. Music Video Games has had one unique discussion thread period. Koei Warriors games hasn't had a discussion for more than a year. And as for the Xbox and PS ones, they aren't particularly inactive, but they don't seem to have anywhere near the constant stream of activity that warrants being separate. I'm not necessarily calling for all of these task forces to be merged, but some of them don't really need to be separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup has not been in use for over a year now, but it was a fairly useful administrative task force to gauge activity in some project and determine which ones were needed and no longer needed. – MuZemike 06:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Just so that you know, 8 Projects were proposed for a move to Task Force status last year, but an admin disagreed with the fact that they were all nominated as a block and closed each discussion as a No Consensus (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Koei_Warriors_Games#Requested_move) - X201 ( talk) 09:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Rambling time- I believe most every one has different opinions on this subject. More often than not though, proposals like this lose steam because members are more interested in things they deem more important. However, I strongly suggest members (new and old) to collaborate in establishing member, structure, and participation guidelines (or at least general recommendations) for our task forces and sub-projects. Many might argue that this is a bad approach that needlessly imposes control on the community and its members. But a well designed process can aid those involved reach a quality outcome. Some ideas to consider:
Our current model for task forces and sub-projects as rather hit and miss in my opinion. We some good success stories, but a number of inactive project pages. We can let things continue as they are or try to improve things to benefit every one. My two cents. ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
So, it looks like the Square Enix project has abandoned Dragon Quest, and now we have a Dragon Quest task force. For those of you who don't know your history, we had a Final Fantasy WikiProject. Then somebody made a Square Enix WikiProject. When we were doing inactive project cleanup, FF merged with SE ( see here). Even though FF was more active and had been around longer, SE was a broader topic that encompassed the other, so it seemed logical to proceed that way. We also had a whole Dragon Quest project, but that was inactive and went through MfD.
So now there is this project that covers all of Square Enix. Except of course for Taito, because there are so many games from before they were purchased. And except for Eidos, for similar reasons. And except for the Battle Ogre games... and Dragon Quest... So we pretty much have a Square Enix project that only covers Final Fantasy games. Neat! WTF is going on?
Ok, so does Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Dragon Quest only exist so that people won't bother Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix? Because that's how it looks at the top of SE's page. Maybe the project should go back to just FF? Or are there interested editors who would like to work in a project that covers all of SE, not just the current scope (whatever that is). I personally got frustrated with the focus issue when I was trying to work on Taito articles, although with that one it made sense (at the time). DQ doesn't make any sense. Ogre Battle doesn't make any sense. Or am I mistaken? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Should we consider merging the Dragon Quest task force with the Square Enix WikiProject if it is possible? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 12:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you came to consensus in 3 hours, between 2AM and 5AM west coast America time! That has to be some kind of record. </sarcasm> Anyways...
So, you wanted to know why Dragon Quest isn't under Square Enix. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix/archive/4#How is Riven under Square Enix has your answer. WP:Final Fantasy was upmerged into WP:Square Enix in March 2009, as WPSE was basically inactive and we'd always planned to do that someday anyway. 1 month later, in April 2009, someone raised a complaint that WPSE had some strange articles listed in its scope- like Riven and Tomb Raider III. It didn't make any sense to us to have those there- and the reason they were listed was because they were published in Japan by Square Enix. As editors of WPSE, we didn't feel like that was a strong enough connection- it would mean that half of the projects articles were ones that no one cared about. So, we changed the scope. Instead of all games/related that were developed or published by SE, we made it just developed. This cut out those extraneous articles, and also cut out Dragon Quest- Enix published DQ, but they were developed by Chunsoft. Incidentally, that's why you never heard about the cut, Bread- your first comment on the talk page was October '09, 6 months later.
I don't really see why you want to merge the DQ task force with the SE project. Even leaving aside that it doesn't fit in the scope, what benefit would there be? If the task force is dead, it's because no one is working on those articles. How will tacking it onto a wikiproject change that? If the WP:SE editors (all of whom are WP:VG editors as well) weren't interested in them before, we're not going to magically get interested now that it's on our index page.
Also, you guys are making some weird assumptions. The hatnote on WP:SE about the dragon quest project is because the dragon quest guys wanted the publicity, not because WPSE didn't want to be bothered. WP:SE didn't "arbitrarily" cut DQ out of our scope- we defined the scope to "games developed by", and they weren't. We do cover things that aren't Final Fantasy- you mention Kingdom Hearts, which even has a section on the front page, not to mention the index. If you're not going to take the time to look up what WP:SE covers or why, then please don't make decisions for them. -- Pres N 19:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"Specifically, the project supports all articles that cover anything that Square, Enix, or Square Enix designed or produced. It does not cover articles covering items only published by Square, Enix, or Square Enix, and it does not cover articles related to Square Enix's wholly owned subsidiaries Taito and Eidos, which were bought in 2005 and 2009, respectively, as their domains are too large and distinctive to be included in this project's scope."
I personally just found it really odd that there wasn't a discussion about the project and there was a discussion about DQ not that long ago in the SE project. We could make it so X-factors are allowed. such as Dragon Quest that has had a history with Enix and further more with Square Enix. Or maybe instead of "only being published by square enix" be more like "square enix serving as one of multiple publishers" i really don't know how to write it. but basically make it so that if square enix is only one of the many publishers of the given article, then it doesn't belong in the wikiproject. But these are merely options, i'm sure a better solution can come up. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
WHHAAAT!?!? Holy crap, I am a giant JackAss. I don't know why it never occurred to me that DQ wasn't developed by Enix. Now it makes some sense. Sorry for my rude comments above. DQ is so integral to the image of Enix that it never occurred to me. Wow, that really is a specific scope. So you cover Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, but not Ogre Battle: The March of the Black Queen. You cover FF, but not DQ. What about Star Ocean: Second Evolution? What about Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which is co-developed (SEJapan did all the FMVs and probably a lot of other assets as well)? Where does the scope end in those cases? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to address that there's a new Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters, about fictious characters, since some of our articles fall into their project as well. GamerPro64 ( talk) 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Project statistics charts - Does anyone see an actual need for this page? This is transcluded at the bottom of the main project page, and it is all out-of-whack. I was going to edit it to make it look better, but I realized that the images haven't been updated for two years. I get the idea, but do we really need graphical representation of articles by class, afds by vote, etc., on the main project page? Even if someone kept them updated, surely their usage is anecdotal at best? The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics bit should stay for sure, as that is automatically updated and serves as a directory of sorts. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
250 Featured articles and lists: 74.8% complete | ||
250 Featured articles and lists: 147.6% complete | ||
Is it normal for the List of PlayStation Store PC Engine games to be exclusively about Japan? [4]
I've tried to get other areas' info, but it wasn't easily forthcoming (I'm sure you guys know it)? So, should we rename this or add the NA/EU info? Or ignore it? LedRush ( talk) 22:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've had a problem with an IP trying to add Onlive to the list of platforms that Braid (video game) is on. While true that Braid is available through Online, I don't believe that Onlive qualifies as a "platform" - much like the discussion about Steam recently, it's nothing special in terms of unique hardware or the like. With that, I've been removing Online from the platform in the infobox.
Now we have Warrenonline ( talk · contribs) who's name and current editors (of today online) clearly suggest a COI problem. It's not an issue of writing about Onlive (if he is a person associated with the company, that would be an issue), but that he's returned back to add in the Onlive as a platform.
So there's two questions:
I did find that there was a thread at the OnLive users forum [6] that clearly is the basis on these additions. Given that it reads that Warrenonlive is simply a fan and not an employee, there's really no major COI problems here - though of course edit warring to get one's point across isn't good either. -- MASEM ( t) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Be aware another reg user (clearly from the aforementioned thread) Rasmasyean ( talk · contribs) has been adding OnLive to the game articles again. The thread is a bit worrisome again because those users are pushing on trivalities and the like to try to convince us (WP editors) that OnLive is a unique platform. To me, Hahnchen has the best argument here: it is like claiming a game platform is the MacOS X just because the game (a Windows title) can run in the emulator there. It is effectively a giant emulator, possibly modifying the code to make the game work effectively, but no different from what Steamworks adds or what Good Old Games does to older games to update them for modern systems. -- MASEM ( t) 06:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed there appears to a discrepancy in the naming of two of the game of that series. The article for the second game uses. Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney: Justice for All with third being at Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Trials and Tribulations. The main question here is whether the comma or the colon is correct because unless Capcom decided to change the grammar for the two games one of them is at the wrong title and needs to be corrected.-- 76.66.180.54 ( talk) 04:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Joystiq is reporting Halo HD will be out this November. No other confirmations have been made, and even they seem to say between the lines that it's still a rumor. The Halo-based pages might get flooded. -- Teancum ( talk) 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a Japanese game but in the main text of the article, the Japanese title is not given (クーロンズゲート, or KOWLOON'S GATE -九龍風水傳-) Per guideline the Japanese title should be given. The problem is the 九龍風水傳 part - it is intentionally given in Traditional Chinese (lit. The Legend of Kowloon [Wall City] Fung Shui) Hence it might not be appropriate to use nihongo template since there is no romanji to translate to.
For that matter, in Japanese Wikipedia Kowloon is kept as in Chinese name, 九龍, and not written as 九竜. SYSS Mouse ( talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a recent change of moving Misty (Pokemon) to Misty (Pokemon character) with the reasoning that she isn't a Pokemon. I did not immediately revert this as although it violates our naming conventions, it seems like it might be a reasonable exception. Thoughts? 陣 内 Jinnai 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Pokémon should italicized. Problem solved. Jonathan Hardin' ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In preparation for the 3DS, I did a little work on WonderSwan (cut-and-paste merged the three articles) and Virtual Boy (found and cleaned-up images). Virtual Boy could be made into a GA (currently at B), with all the coverage that thing has received. WonderSwan could too; the article is a bit of a mess right now, but it could be made GA if someone is well-stocked in elbow grease. I also made an article for Famicom 3D System, but I don't think it could ever get past Start-class, unless it shares some of 3DS's spotlight in the press coming up. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've created a Commons:WikiProject Video Games to help organize efforts on Commons, as well as organize the images themselves. It's not much to look at now, but hopefully if there are like-minded editors then this will help towards progress. Or maybe it will disappear into the void, time will tell. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have anything to improve the articles for these upcoming games, Neverwinter (video game)/ Neverwinter (Cryptic Studios), and Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale? 108.69.80.49 ( talk) 05:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
As we have no featured content that is based on a gameplay element, I'm looking to get advice of what should go into such an article. After a nice summary article of the history of the (dreaded) quick time event that appeared yesterday, I've been able to expand that article far from a stub, but am unsure if it can be expanded further or the like. Sure I could take it to GA and see how it fairs, but I'd like to see if there's anything I really really need in it to progress forward. -- MASEM ( t) 20:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I may need a few extra eyes to help on Guitar Hero, as this article : [8] suggests the series has been official killed, but more details will come in Activision's financial hearings tonight. Nothing may happen, but given history of this, this could lead to vandalizing. -- MASEM ( t) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This sounds similar to Hudson Soft's very recent decision to close down its publishing arm Hudson Entertainment at the end of the month and cancel all projects within. Doesn't mean all of its projects and franchises are officially dead. – MuZemike 03:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
DJ Hero has bitten the dust too [9] - X201 ( talk) 12:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm having problems with IPs changing "the GH series is ..." to "the GH series was...". Based on how we derived the current language in our guidelines for tenses, they're more aimed at specific games or units, so its difficult to apply to series. Now, for one, Activision has not said the equivalent "we will never made a GH game"; they likely will not be making any in the appreciable future and shuttered the studios, so we don't have a final point on a timeline, so "is" is still appropriate. But if the assumption was that Activision fully killed GH, gave up its trademarks/copyrights, etc. etc., the series still exists, so "is" is still appropriate as well.
Am I wrong here? -- MASEM ( t) 20:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
A IP user has recently been going through and expanding/promotion for Tri0viz 3D glasses to articles. So far the edits seem to be in good faith, but also seem to have a bit of a promo push to them. Tri0viz are located in France, and the IP is from the also French. I don't necessarily know that the two are connected as they're at opposite ends of the country according to the IP trace, but the WP:SPA nature leads me to believe they are. Again, nothing of concern just yet, but it might be something to watch. -- Teancum ( talk) 12:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The 1989 Commodore 64 and DOS game Face Off! has been proded has non-notable. Does anyone know of any reviews that may save it? Salavat ( talk) 16:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to join in on this conversation, and/or here. 108.69.80.49 ( talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
In a recent discussion above, it was decided that progress bars would be included on our main page. However, I'd like to discuss one more element about them: placement. Currently, they're under "Statistics", which is very low on the page. Wouldn't they be better off under "Goals", or some variant thereof, as with WP MILHIST? It'd be a pretty drastic visual alteration to a page that most of us see so regularly, so I thought bringing it up here would be better than being bold. Any thoughts? JimmyBlackwing 16:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the current progress bars. 71.2% of all articles in the project are Featured? That doesn't seem correct :/ Jonathan Hardin' ( talk) 13:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, Final Fantasy XIII is getting close to being dropped from FAC due to lack of reviews. Can anyone take the time to check out the FAC and give it a review? Thanks! -- Pres N 19:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking for the issue on the internet for ages, but now that EGM's back as a publisher, I doubt i'll ever find scans. So if anyone owns that issue could someone please post the information about Nimbus Terrafaux (a hoax Mortal Kombat character created by EGM in that issue) on here or my talk page. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain ( talk) 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the rationing thing came up, I thought this was as good of time to mention this. I wanted to see since I have PRs for Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior if some people could take a look at them as I'd like to get to FA quality before the 25th release anniversary in May. DQ has some sources tagged atm I'm checking for replacements or asking about the reliability of the sources (mainly just The Magicbox). 陣 内 Jinnai 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed a soundtrack list from an article yesterday, under the same guidelines that I have used before and that I've seen other users state. The guideline being Only add soundtrack listings if the game's soundtrack has been released on a separate CD that has in itself received separate coverage. Another editor asked me to state where in the guidelines this was listed as they couldn't see it listed there, and , after some searching, it turns out that they were right, its not. I found a couple of discussions about it but no actual move to add it to the guidelines. Its obviously become one of the unwritten guidelines in the way we deal with articles, so should we formally add it to the guidelines page? - X201 ( talk) 08:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
[10] How do we do with reviews of a review when they are by a RS - in this case, the same RS? 陣 内 Jinnai 03:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Avatar_(Hinduism)#Requested_move_2 where it is requested that the move done by 2010 move request be undone, moving the Hindu concept to primary in place of the disambiguation page. 64.229.101.183 ( talk) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Heads up. MediaWiki 1.17 has just been turned on. Looks like there are a couple of bugs floating about. Keep your eyes open for wonky templates etc. - X201 13:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been reverted back to 1.16wmf4 for now, but due to caching certain things aren't going to be fixed immediately. It seems to be working fine now here, but my gadgets still aren't loading on mw.org. Reach Out to the Truth 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they've switched it back on :D - X201 ( talk) 10:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the rate of Featured Articles across all of Wikipedia is by far exceeding 365 per year. What that means is that (sadly) the long standing tradition of every FA getting onto the front page has ended.
It is evident that the front-page FA committee are trying to preserve variety by 'rationing' the number of articles of particular categories...notably, VideoGames. If you look back over the past year, you'll see an almost suspiciously exact rate of one VideoGame article per month...which I take to be an effort to do that.
Sep: Elder scrolls Oct: NinjaGarden Nov: Golden Sun Dec: The Simpsons Game Jan: Sacrifice Feb: Kingdom Hearts
While it would be tempting to demand justice and more representation of our WikiProject on the front page, I actually believe that variety matters for the reputation of Wikipedia - and that one video game article per month is pretty generous. After all, there are 3,000,000 articles out there - and there aren't 100,000 video game articles - so we're doing pretty good! Also, it would be tough to argue that information about video games constitutes more than 1/30'th of all human knowledge. Those of us who recall the tsunami of Pokemon-related FA's and the pressure to get every single Pokemon character's page up to FA quality will realize the need for this kind of rationing!
So rather than complain about insufficient front page space, I think we should make an effort to ensure that those Videogame FA's that DO make it to the front page are the best (although, with FA's it can be hard to choose!) - and perhaps discuss whether we want articles of greater "importance" to make it. In essence, provide some support to the front-page FA folks by recommending certain video game FA's be presented in preference to others...perhaps have this group push forward a single FA to that committee every month - and do our best to limit the expectations of other video game FA authors.
Perhaps we could monitor the front page FA proposal page - and when the time comes to !vote on a videogame FA, we could drop into the discussion something that says "WikiProject Videogames endorses this article as being of great importance" - or "WikiProject Videogames recognises this FA as being of sufficient standard to be displayed on the front page, there are other articles of more importance - so in the interests of preserving variety, we reluctantly do not recommend this article for the front page"...arranging to use the former statement for just one article each month.
This is harsh for editors of new FA's - but numerically, we have little choice - and I'd rather we got to make the decision than a bunch of people who are not experts in the subject matter here.
Comments please. SteveBaker ( talk) 13:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
My point is not so much that we're being "limited" to one per month (and with such precision that it can hardly be just luck). I don't even want to change that...it seems a perfectly reasonable rate. What I'm attempting to suggest is that if we ARE being limited, then this WikiProject ought to inform the decision-makers as to which of the available VG FA's we consider to be the ones that most need/deserve to be up there. We can do better by far than an essentially random process. We can be topical - we can even avoid over-representation by a particular genre or game manufacturer. SteveBaker ( talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
First off, I'll say that I agree with Dream Focus in that there certainly is an anti-video game bias out there, and I think I have mentioned it a couple of times here and there (and I even got nearly laughted out of T:TDYK or a video game-related DYK nom once). However, I'm fine with keeping at about one or so a month on the Main Page for two reasons: first, to appease some of those that do not like seeing such a big video game presence on the Main Page; secondly, we only got so many video game FAs to go around. If we featured 3-4 on the Main Page per month, we'd run out of FAs to show quite quickly. – MuZemike 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have to say, I didn't believe that when I put Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne up as a candidate for main page, that I would be walking into such a 'political firestorm' ! I have to say I was rather shocked by the immediate negativity against it, which was quite a bit discouraging. This issue about choosing the more "important" games to put on the main page - well I guess the game I have written an article about is not the most important game out there, but I did spend a long time on it and I believe I did my best work, and isn't wikipedia about the quality of the writing, more so than what the article's subject matter is? I'm trying to address the non-free use issue by deleting two images to leave only two, as I cannot find any "free-use images" for the game on the web. Thank you so much everyone for contributing to the discussion! I hope my addressing the non-free use issue will encourage some more to support, but even those who opposed, to have taken the time to look at the article and discuss it was very kind of you :) Thanks everyone.-- Paaerduag ( talk) 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
While we're talking about FAs right now, I should note that we haven't had a VG article promoted to FA in over 4 months now, the last one being Killer7. I don't know if it's the FAC process, the lack of FAC reviews (which I can blame myself for that personally), or something else, but I mention that because it's been a long while since the last successful FAC here. – MuZemike 05:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, this is really random, but I figured I'd drop it in here. I was reading the New York Times when I ran across this article which tells people to look at WP:VG/FA, praises the article Halo, and pretty much says that Wikipedia is the Bernard Berenson of technology articles, including video games. Thought you'd all enjoy the pat on the back. Nomader ( Talk) 20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Since
User:GA bot insists on placing (and moving) the latest GA nomination under "Miscellaneous" instead of "Video games", I will instead spam the project here since people will obviously miss the nomination on the
WP:GAN page. Anyways,
Maniac Mansion has been nominated for
Good article, and if anyone is interested in reviewing, please see the top of
Talk:Maniac Mansion for instructions; if anybody else wishes to further improve on it, feel free to do so, as I think this has a decent shot at FA someday. Also, keep in mind that this is more of a "tri-nomination" among
User:JimmyBlackwing,
User:Guyinblack25, and myself, as this was a collaboration effort among the three of us. –
MuZemike 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like User:Jappalang fixed the problem, in that the Template:GAN doesn't like that one parameter one bit. Removing that caused the article to properly classify under "Video games". Disregard the above message, or at least get the older nominations, first. – MuZemike 13:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have an answer for me at Talk:Neverwinter (video game)#Part of the Neverwinter Nights series? - I'm trying to halt a potential edit war. BOZ ( talk) 12:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:COMP which may be of interest. Thanks. -- trevj ( talk) 15:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Many of you have probably heard that the Smithsonian is going to have a display for the art of video games next year. Presently they are running a poll for which games they will actually show [12]; there are 76 categories based on eras, platforms, and type of game, each with 3 games that users can vote from. But, clearly, there's been some pre-vetting to the initial 3 choices.
I am considering making an article about this (the display clearly has gotten attention for notability purposes) but including the games that have been selected as part of a list, eg about 220 games roughly. Once they actually say which games will be shown that can be marked in the short list, but it seems as I read it this is not disparaging the other games as non-art, simply that there's little room to show 220 games in the exhibit.
Any comments on this before I proceed? -- MASEM ( t) 16:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#WP:VG/GL mediation may also affect the text of this page. The last section of this discussion starts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Breakpoint 8. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
I'm trying to find a little more real-world content for Kronos Digital Entertainment aside from what's contained in this interview, so the article can survive AfD. At one point in the interview, Stan Lui mentioned that they were developing a fighting game for Sony based on a comic book character, and "we were asked to come up with some game concepts based on that license. We worked feverishly and came up with the idea of a fighting game (the rage back then), to which the characters can learn new moves, change physically and raise their attributes through time. Eventually, for political reasons (at least that’s what we were told), the local Sony division we were dealing with had to give up the license to one of their European subsidiaries." They then used what they had already developed to make Criticom, which was first released on November 29, 1995. So, what game was released for the PlayStation in 1995 or 1996, based on a comic book character, possibly a fighting game, and developed by Sony in Europe? I realize that correctly guessing is OR, but I can hopefully track down some reliable source if I can just figure out what game it was. And ideas? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping that someone could help give it a good copyediting, so that I could get that oh-so-necessary second set of eyes on it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Input is needed for WP:Notability (video games) as we are trying to streamline and update our guideline and items off of it that really wouldn't be appropriate for a MOS-style guideline (its not one atm, but its been proposed to be moved to one by others). The notability of video games has been contentious and the GNG doesn't really give enough advice when dealing with some specific circumstances surrounding video games. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
We have an issue that is bound to become more prevalent as stereoscopic games become more popular. We use the terms 3D and 2D too sparingly. Depending on the article, a 3D game can mean:
Maybe there are other uses I'm not thinking about. So far it's been unchecked because nobody thought that stereoscopic games would come back, but we should really hammer out terms. The big problem is that Nintendo, Sony, etc. are making no attempt to differentiate. This is a 3D game, a 3D system, etc. Obviously we can refer to 3DS as stereoscopic, and isometric games should never be referred to as "3D" (right? because they often are), but what about Street Fighter EX's 2.5D graphics? What about the "pseudo-3D" of Battlezone and Wolfenstein 3D? Star Fox? The term 3D is tossed around like appleseeds, and to new gamers it's not going to make a ton of sense. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we can break down "3D" use into 3 specific uses:
Wouldn't this be a case of Wikipedia attempting to define terminology, something that has just recently opened a can of worms with regard to console generations? Strange as it is, all of the types of games mentioned are legitimately "3D" in the context that they were using to differentiate themselves from "2D" games. Old RPG dungeon crawls were "3D" because they had (fixed tile-based) first-person views. Wolfenstein was 3D because it had real-time 3D rendering. Doom was "more" 3D because it actually had different floor and ceiling heights, and Duke was more 3D because it could stack one room on top of another. Quake was still more 3D because it had 3D models instead of sprites, and so on. 3D is a relative term that is synonymous with "graphic realism". I don't think there is really a problem with the way the term is commonly used, with an implicit context, as long as there is a qualifier that states what that context is. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 07:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is a problem, but I think it's something that's a problem well beyond wikipedia. I notice these types of things when reading about video games from all sorts of sources. I kind of hope the "world of video games" comes up with something, and then wikipedia could follow suit... Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Gran Turismo Wii. >_> Obviously fake. I'm not real familiar with the AFD process, I usually only explain my stance in them, not get them started...and I'm short on time at the moment. But I'm just pointing out that this obviously needs to be deleted... Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
There are two issues here. Firstly, should consumer game magazines and blogs with strong financial ties to the subjects they are reporting on be regarded as reliable sources of information? Secondly, should entire subsections consist of opinion piece editorials from these types of magazines when they do not cite any evidence for the statements; basically, should original research that does not follow the scientific method be used as a source on Wikipedia? -- Therpgfanatic ( talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There is too much nonsense in the various videogame related articles that stems from videogame review magazines, which are NOT credible sources! Videogame magazines should not automatically be considered reliable because they are NOT held to the same journalistic standards as those of other journalism industries.
For example, it is well known that videogame reviewers accept bribes from videogame developers http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/scared-to-open-the-package-adventures-in-game-writer-bribery.ars
A lot of the sources, such as those used in the Computer RPG article for "cultural differences" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#Reception_of_cultural_differences ) stems entirely from opinion pieces written by game reviewers who simply make statements and don't actually back them up with evidence (on the contrary, even a little bit of research into computer rpgs shows there are just as many American created computer rpgs with religious references and deities as there are Japanese ones, just look at the Ultima and D&D related games).
Secondly, many major videogame magazines have direct financial ties to game developers and publishers (example: Nintendo Power, Official Playstation Magazine) and game retailers (example: Game Informer). IGN once fired an editor for giving a bad review to a game being heavily promoted on the website http://www.gamezone.com/editorials/item/the_fallout_of_the_kane_lynch_debacle/ and later tried to cover the fiasco up through press releases http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/05/gamespot-addresses-gerstmann-gate-concerns-in-depth/
Thirdly, many game journalists acknowledge that the industry doesn't follow the journalism standards that other industries hold themselves to:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/11/the-soapbox-game-journalism-is-not-journalism-yet
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6228583
http://nukezilla.com/2008/12/19/game-reviewers-journalist-or-slave-to-the-hype/
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1049994303.php
Fourthly, very few of the sources used in the videogame Wikipedia articles stem from interviews or books written by actual game designers which can actually be considered credible sources. Game reviewers are not established industry experts on anything but writing PR articles about videogames and perhaps how the game journalism industry works. Unless they have backed up their claims with proof they should not be used as sources for articles pertaining to what defines a game genre or "cultural differences" of different cultures, or anything that basically extends outside their realm of knowledge. Because of the notoriously poor journalism standards rampant in this industry we cannot automatically assume they have actually researched the articles they have written.
I move for every single addition to a page that comes from a game review magazine, especially a blog, to be re-reviewed for credibility. If the article was not written to comply with ethical journalism standards the information should be removed. -- Therpgfanatic ( talk) 08:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the accusation. Consensus comes from anyone who wishes to participate, and we try to get everyone possible involved. If you feel going up the chain necessary, please do so at WP:RFC, however I would submit that we have not dismissed your arguments any more than you have dismissed ours.. -- Teancum ( talk) 14:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Any source, not just ones in the video game industry, that takes advertising dollars would have to be immediately tagged as biased, under this scheme. Which would include works like Time, Wired, New York Times, CNN, BBC, etc. That's not going to fly.
And I think we're well aware that these sources are driven by advertising dollars. As long as those dollars aren't going towards discrediting other games or developers by factually lying about games, we just have to be aware that games with major financial advertising backing are going to get considerably more attention and positive reception. Which is why our review sections are written from the standpoint "Here's what the gaming scores say, and here's what reviewers said. You figure out the answer", thus avoiding any promotion ourselves of a source that may have been influenced by promotion. -- MASEM ( t) 14:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
And I'm going to echo the sentiments of the other editors who have posted before me; we do the best that we can to get comments on all new sources brought up for comment. You're more than free to participate in any future discussions or bring up sources for new discussions. I'm probably opening a Pandora's box, but I really don't feel any of the articles you link to discredit the sources. All of the sources that we have deemed reliable have been done based on the reliability of the websites and their editorial standards. Should media sources be discredited because Michael Gerson of the Washington Post states that traditional sources have become more partisan ( [15]), and thus, we shouldn't trust them anymore? Your logic seems rather flawed, but I invite you to actively participate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Nomader ( Talk) 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
@Therpgfanatic - Clearly we're going in circles here, as the consensus seems to be against your thoughts. At this point if you still want to discuss it, please take it to WP:RFC as we're not getting anywhere here. And again this seems like a larger discussion that stems from specific instances that you have issue with. Can you please point out very specific examples of articles that suffer from this problem? Maybe we can better understand what the issue is with actual examples. -- Teancum ( talk) 10:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not the best counter-argument we've given, but either way, I'm with Teancum that we seem to be going around in circles. Eight editors have disagreed with you and you've ignored all of their opinions and continued to simply re-state your argument. Feel free to bring this to WP:RFC if this is still bugging you. Nomader ( Talk) 13:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I was pointed to this blog [21] which I'm pretty sure is the same therpgfanatic posting above (apologies if not).
Reading this, I think I see more exactly what he's trying to say about in a direct method: this section: History of role-playing video games#Cultural differences. If you look at the comments of the online article, at the thread started by "REVULSIVE", I think I see what therpgfanatic is getting at, in that with a few lines of statements, we're making broad strokes about the differences between J and W games where there are clearly counter examples to those points. Arguably yes, that seems to be what's happening...
...but then you have to read the WP section carefully or you miss this: Western games often tend to feature darker graphics, older characters, and focus more on roaming freedom and realism; whereas Eastern games often tend to feature brighter, anime-like graphics, younger characters, and focus more on scripted linear storylines. (emphasis mine). "Tend" is meant to grossly summarize everything without going to exasperated details about the exceptional cases. There are western games that follow the stated Japanese trend (Anachronox); there are Japanese games that follow the Western trend (which I'm lacking examples ATM (Maybe .hack?) but the point's there).
That's true throughout this section: it never at any time says "All Japanese RPGs are linear plots", it says they tend to have this. This is not only supported by our sources, but it's also common sense if you actually played the games - eg that point is verifiable. We are a tertiary source, so we're summarizing these, and thus while one could likely construct a whole section to pinpoint every single difference and every single game that deviates, we just need to grossly compare and contrast. Again, since this compare and contrast is verifiable to any person that can play the games from both regions, we're looking at sources that reiterate these.
I'm not saying this section is perfect, and thus to therpgfanatic - ignoring the source issue, which statement of any in that section are wrong as a gross overview of the differences? Again, I'm not talking about detailing the one game from Japan that features Western-mechanics or vice versa, I'm talking about the generalized statements of the differences. If it is clear that there is a factual error that we cannot see by common sense and using awkward sources, then lets resolve that. -- MASEM ( t) 14:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Therpgfanatic - I don't think your arguments are flawed but I think you're trying to paint too big a stroke to say that problems extend throughout the project, or that our sources are unreliable, because of a few bad apples in specific articles. I reiterate what others have said: WP:SOFIXIT if you think it is broken. If you get constantly reverted by editors on those pages, that's part of a larger issue, but if you're contributing to improve the statements, that's better.
We do want to make sure we establish the different between a source claiming something as a fact (which we need to be careful about for reliable sourcing), and a source stating their opinion (at which point we only need to care if that person is considered an "expert" in the field). However, if we're dealing with someone stating their opinion, we don't need to worry if they have it right or wrong - as long as we're saying "Soandso said..."; that leaves the reader the ability to evaluate the claim on their own. As for when source report something as fact and it is clearly wrong, we should fix that with a better source. Do keep in mind VGs move quickly - what was true a year ago may no longer be true now (which may be the program with that WRPG/JRPG comparison). But that only means we should write to show the effects of time on the issue. -- MASEM ( t) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
OK give us concrete fact, that they aren't credible. NOt like "they said this, they said that". we need some hardcore fact. I agree we should be a little careful on choosing reviewers, but at the same time. Some of these people review for a while. it's hard to just say hey, you're not credible for the manner of your speech. Bread Ninja ( talk) 03:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this needs RFC. The specific point covers more than just videogame magazines. If any source used by WP should in itself state its own sources, and failure to do so means that it fails the sourcing requirements, then that ruling would cover the whole gamut of the encyclopaedia and so needs to be discussed by the whole of the WP community, and especially the people who keep WP:V on the rails. - X201 ( talk) 09:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Lastly if Jinnai believes that Vintage Games: An Insider Look at the History of Grand Theft Auto, Super Mario, and the Most Influential Games of All Time, is an academic book then he needs to do some research into how academic publishing works. The book is not peer reviewed, which is a necessary part of the process of scholarly papers. The book is also written by game journalists who work for Armchair Arcade, a blog. But perhaps he or someone else can point out where in that book they cite or show the results of a study comparing a large pool of these games to see their differences. -- Therpgfanatic ( talk) 21:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
One thing to consider that several of these "unsourced" claims that you are suggesting game journalists make are effectively attributed to the video games themselves. Their status as "experts" in the field allow us to use their collective knowledge to make the wider assumptions about video games in general (eg the cultural differences section). In such cases, there is no need for them to cite their sources as their sources are obvious, the games themselves. The types of statements that you appear to be focused on are where there are nuanced statements that aren't quite accurate or probably made some years ago. Take the customization issue: I would agree that the differences cited between customization in WRPG and JRPG was true in 2005 (pre PS2) but not today. That doesn't mean our sources are wrong, they're just out of date. Everything can be reflected to talk about "early games" for customization, and then update sources for newer examples. So here, when it is talking about games in general and nothing specific to the industry, we look to their "expert" opinion to use to make generalizations we can build on. These can be verified by the reader
Where we do need to watch for sources are things like industry reports - closures, buyouts, game sales, new titles, etc. Most of our sources don't specific "link" to any work for these but do start with "Today, CompanyX announced...". So they've named a source, and, at least how the VG industry works, news gets corroborated quickly. These might beat press releases to the door, or simple not be mentioned. Again, in this type of situation, not a problem if they aren't listing explicit sources as long as they aren't pulling data from thin air. (yesterday's news of Guitar Hero is an example of this type of sourcing working well - news broke from Eurogamer, at least two other sites contacted Activision to confirm, and then Activision formally announced it.) These also catch hoaxes too, given time. (case I'm aware of is the rumor of a PC/PS3 port of Limbo, which was listed by the ESRB, but nixed a day or so later by the publisher)
But, if say, Stephan Tolito of Kotaku comes along tomorrow and says "I've heard that Deadly Premonition sold 5 million copies" and doesn't say where or how he got that number, then, hey, flame on. That's a piece of data that needs to be challenged if only one person without any source makes that claim. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. This is where we do need to strongly evaluate the RS of the work and the expert making claim, and a general BS test to make sure it makes any sense, and then just to consider if it is a useful piece of questionable information to include. In this fake example, I would call foul and ignore that statement until it was proven by another source otherwise (and more than just, "Kotaku said that...", which is one thing to watch for).
Basically, a lot of your problems with how we treat video game magazines and web sites as reliable sources is because the journalism field for this area doesn't run itself like academic sources; they rarely cite sources and as most are online rely on hyperlinking for references back older articles. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong with that per WP:RS. These sources have a history of having editorial oversight and reporting factual news 99% of the time. The expert opinions are respected within and outside the area of video games. So really, its not a sources issue.
Really, I think most of your complaint is either 1) very naunced claims that really don't apply well when we're summarizing the field - we can't spend time to identify every exception to a rule and 2) sections that are outdated and liking need some TLC to get up to date. The cultural differences section does need modern refs from the last few years to show how the WRPG and JRPG sections have become less distinct from each other. I don't know if such exists. If we can't find them, there's some options for rewriting that to indicate the material there is outdated, but outright removal is not warranted. -- MASEM ( t) 14:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I put in a request for mediation, which seems to be the next step in this process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Role-playing_video_game -- Therpgfanatic ( talk) 19:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
@Everyone - I truly think this is all talked out here. If Therpgfanatic is not satisfied with the result then he can take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. However, that's where the buck stops, so the ruling decision there is what we as a community will need to follow. -- Teancum ( talk) 16:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)