Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 104

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 100

←

Archive 102

→

Why are a few video game people listed as Top-importance?

I don't fully agree with this project's importance standards, but they are fairly consistent and well-maintained compared to those of most other WikiProjects. One garish oddity, though, is the inclusion of a few individual people, such as Nolan Bushnell and Shigeru Miyamoto. I advocate partitioning these real-life figures off into the High- and Mid-importance classes for the following reasons:

They are not well-known outside the gaming community – certainly not compared to subjects like certain individual consoles (Xbox 360, Nintendo DS), games (World of Warcraft, Super Mario Bros.), and characters (Pac-Man, Yoshi, Link), all of which are High- or even Mid-importance.
Because of the limited amount of media it is humanly possible for one person to work on, none of these people have the extreme influence within the industry that seems necessary for Top-importance. Sure, Ralph H. Baer created the light gun (Mid) and worked along with others on the Magnavox Odyssey (High). What else? Even if he had not only created the Odyssey by himself, but was literally synonymous with both products, he wouldn't have any more influence on the industry than, say, Super Mario 64 (High) or Grand Theft Auto III (High), games that are brought up near-constantly when developers discuss what inspired their creations.
I contend that most of these people aren't even that well-known inside the gaming community. I hadn't even heard of most of them before browsing through WP:VG's Top-importance articles a while ago, and I'm fairly knowledgeable about games. The only Top-importance people I've ever heard mention of in a conversation or even gaming publication are Miyamoto and maybe Suzuki once or twice. (This is also true of Will Wright [High] and Phil Fish [Low]). If the rest of these people can really be quoted without hesitation by any segment of the game community, that segment consists of veteran executives and maybe some well-educated older players.

I propose that each Top-importance person be reevaluated. Tezero (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - I don't necessarily know all the people listed in Top, but reading their contributions, we're talking key figures that have helped to shape the nature of video games (hardware and software) today. I'm not saying all the present top-listed ones need to be there, but I think there really aught to be more - eg Will Wright, Sid Meier, Ken Levine, Gabe Newell, and I'm sure there's plenty of others. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They're not at all insignificant; I just dispute that any of them alone have changed the industry more than things like Super Mario 64, which we can't list as Top-importance right now as it's an individual product. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that Miyamoto's page starts off by saying that "Sometimes called "the father of modern video gaming," he is best known as the creator of some of the best-selling, most critically acclaimed, most enduring, and most influential games and franchises of all time.", yes, I think we can say that he has changed the industry more than one of his creations alone. On the flip side, though...

Does it matter? I mean, I've never once seen the importance ratings have any effect on any editor's work. People might be more or less inclined to work on an article about an important figure/game, but they determine that based on what they hold important, not what the tag actually says. We could downgrade all 30k articles to Low, and nothing would really change for us. (the WP1.0 project, on the other hand, might complain) --Pres N 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Therein lies the caveat; since WP1.0 is intended for students and laypeople, privileging certain game designers and other people as Top-importance is even more egregious, though I'm not sure how much time they actually spend looking at our importance categories. But if it doesn't matter that they're Top-importance, surely it wouldn't matter if we changed them.

As for your first point, though, I contend that some of Miyamoto's creations are more influential (as well as—and I don't see this being contested—more well-known) than the man himself, because he didn't create them himself, and because it's entirely possible (and likely common) to be influenced by something like the level design, gameplay, and open-ended structure of Super Mario 64 without knowing or caring what Miyamoto or anyone else contributed to the project, or even that they did. And Miyamoto's probably the most influential and well-known of any of these people.

The "father of modern video gaming" bit is important, but similar accolades have been bestowed on Mario and Super Mario Bros., for example. Tezero (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason we opted to keep any specific video games, characters, and hardware out of the top tier is to have this project keep its focus more on the history of the medium, and less "games", making the overall effort more encyclopedic. No one doubts the importance of Mario the character, or Super Mario 64 to the overall industry of VGs, but it's not those games but their creators that are the ones that should be the focus of the education of VGs. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But we're allowed to list specific people, companies, and console brands? (But only some brands: PlayStation > Xbox/Game Boy line?) That seems really screwed-up. Tezero (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would remove all individuals from the Top importance. - hahnch e n 02:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Since we have this much, and I don't see any strong opinions against de-Topping these people, here is my proposition:

Ralph H. Baer → High

Nolan Bushnell → Mid

John D. Carmack → High

Ken Kutaragi → Mid

Shigeru Miyamoto → High

Yu Suzuki → Mid

I'll just change them to this at an appropriate time if no one objects. Tezero (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea and list. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Done it. Tezero (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mid-class is way too low for these. They all belong to at least high-class. Nolan Bushnell, one of the fathers of video game industry, mid class? Same assessment for Kutaragi who changed the whole industry with PlayStation? Suzuki has worked on 9 mid-class games and 1 high-class game. I think that makes it a high-class article. Sorry but you don't know anything about the history of video games if you haven't heard about these people. --Mika1h (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I already changed Nolan to high. As for the others, It depends on how other designers on wikipedia are rated. Ken Kutaragi and Yu Suzuki are both extremely important, but they are less important than Nolan Bushnell or Shigeru Miyamoto. If other designers of similar stature are rated as high though, they should be too. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Editor dispute - Knuckles in Sonic the Hedgehog 1

There is some dispute on the Knuckles the Echidna and Sonic & Knuckles pages. A user is claiming that Knuckles was playable in Sonic the Hedgehog 1 by locking the cartridge onto Sonic & Knuckles, citing a scan from a 1994 issue of MegaZone as evidence. However, another user asserts that Knuckles was not playable in Sonic 1 via lock-on, and that the only feature the two games unlocked when combined was an expansion to the Blue Sphere special stages. Until the first user's edits, all prior revisions of the page have only stated that Knuckles could be used in Sonic 2 and 3, not 1, supporting the second user's claims. Please advise: which user is correct? -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Retail copies will only use the bonus stages by design (iirc sonic 1 is supposed to offer 1000 of them or something like that). I have a feeling Sega made some form of statement to say Sonic 1 wasn't technically possible, but unfortunately I can't provide evidence. A scan can be used as evidence they attempted it, but it wasn't present on retail copies. The mag scan is clearly from before the game was finished so using it as proof of a feature that was never released publicly is a bit odd. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to add it to the article as a planned feature. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty essential if the article was to be properly improved. I would imagine there should be another magazine with a similar aspect, much how we learned a little about the Sonic 2 beta partly because of magazine coverage prior to release being rediscovered through the internet.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm the user who added the Knuckles in Sonic 1 claim; I did add it newly to Knuckles' page, and I thought Sonic & Knuckles' page already did, but looking at it now I must have misinterpreted what was said. However, I do recall there being a screenshot of Knuckles in Sonic 1 on Wikipedia—I'm not sure which of the three articles (Knuckles, Sonic 1, Sonic & Knuckles) it was in—circa 2008-2009, though that may have been with modding. Further research (into clearly non-reliable sources like old forum posts and user-made guides) gives conflicting information.

And it is essential, since I'm working on Sonic character articles for a likely Good/Featured Topic in the future.

What seems like the least offensive option is to simply say that he was playable in Sonic 2 and 3 and appeared in some promotional screenshots of 1 released around the time of Sonic & Knuckles. Tezero (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Early development screenshots" seems a bit closer to the truth. Promotional screenshots is a bit of a minefield and could easily suggest they were marketing materials, which is jumping the gun.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that all the game cases (JP, US, EU, AU for example) only advertise lock-on functionality for Sonic 2 and 3, while ignoring Sonic 1 in any capacity. If Knuckles was playable in Sonic 1 via lock-on, it seems odd that they would omit that from the box. Additionally, Sonic Mega Collection features Blue Sphere, Knuckles in Sonic 2, and Sonic 3 and Knuckles, but no Knuckles in Sonic 1, and the Wii Virtual Console version of Sonic & Knuckles can "lock on" to the three numbered titles to unlock the same three bonuses, but (again) not Knuckles in Sonic 1. Given this, combined with the existence of the scan, it's probably best phrased as such:

"Early development screenshots suggest Knuckles was planned to be playable in Sonic the Hedgehog via Sonic & Knuckles' lock-on technology, but this feature was removed prior to release. However, Knuckles was later added as a playable character in the 2013 Remastered release for iOS." -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"but this feature was removed for unexplained reasons." - implies that the reasons aren't explained, but it's really just that we personally don't know. Better I think to say "but this feature was not present in the released game." --Pres N 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Edited accordingly. -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This source seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the lock on situation. Яehevkor ✉ 22:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow diff

Guys, any comments ? I've added recently GameRankings reception, Hahnchen considered it as "bloat". Sir Lothar (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding GR isn't bloat at all for the table at its present size, and actually should be used alongside MC to show another way aggregators break it down. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree; it's a rather small table even with GR. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you add Official PlayStation Magazine or PC Gamer or Kotaku? At least those would be introducing new opinions from reliable sources. Metacritic is the industry standard. In the discussion above, editors are implored to stick with the industry standards, the most influential opinions. So why is it that we keep on pandering to GameRankings, CBS's secondary aggregator.

'"Metacritic" video game' on Google News - 9 pages of hits
'"GameRankings" video game' on Google News - 0 hits
'GameRankings' on Google News - 6 hits

It's Metacritic ratings which developer bonuses rely on, it's Metacritic that is quoted in corporate earnings reports, it's Metacritic that sits on the Steam product pages, it's Metacritic that reliable sources complain about as a shorthand for review aggregation. I wrote about about how Gamezone spam gives undue weight to Gamezone's point of view. Yet we do the same thing on almost every video games article when we place GameRankings alongside Metacritic. Metacritic is a reliable source, it is the industry standard, we should trust it to do its job - we don't need to hold the readers hand and show what is almost exactly the same score from another source. In almost all cases of a game released today, Gamerankings is redundant. - hahnch e n 23:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic is certainly the most important for the industry, but a key factor that everyone knows about MC is that they weight scores depending on sources. Gameranking may not have the weird of being a source, but it is much more obvious they do not employ any weighting in their score balancing ([1]) while MC does have some unknown factors. As such MC is important as the industry metric, but GR's better as the balanced average (it's also part of gamespot's network so it doesn't have the GameZone issue. This is why both should be used. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) GR introduces more opinions from sources (in that it tends to contain reviews Metacritic doesn't, and vice versa), if the user cares to click, and calculates its scores differently, as Masem mentioned. It's not as widespread as Metacritic, but by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine as long as there are a couple of reviews by IGN and GameSpot. Tezero (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How does it not have the Gamezone issue? Gamezone is a reliable source, but whose opinion is over-expressed in our articles, same with GameRankings. That GameRankings does not weight results, or contains sources which Metacritic omits is irrelevant, because the industry has decided on a standard, while the use of GameRankings is just down to the OR whims of Wikipedians. The aggregate score is there to show the critical consensus, and the critical consensus is Metacritic. I'm not against using GameRankings if there is somehow a disparity between the two, there are games pre-Metacritic for which GameRankings is the only option. But for every game coming out now, GameRankings is bloat, you might not add much to each article, but you're doing so across the entire encyclopedia. - hahnch e n 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

GameRankings is providing no opinion on the reviews, just a summary of scores and because it catalogs scores differently, provides a different way for a reader to look at other reviews for the game. GZ is providing opinion, so whether we include it should be based on whether their review offers anything new (and certainly not on it being forced into the article by a COI editor). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

GameRankings is providing an opinion, it has an inclusion criteria. It's decision not to weight those scores is an opinion. We give GameRankings significantly higher weight than the rest of the world does, we shouldn't. - hahnch e n 23:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

GR has a very straightforward, mostly fair objective means to include reviews, see the link above. They are not subjectively selecting sites, though they do want to make sure they are dealing with professional sites and not blogs. However, they aren't excluding sites that otherwise meet their requirements. That's objective for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As for "by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine", we wouldn't use those if they did not add any specialist knowledge or unique opinion to the article. If RPGFan said the same thing as IGN aside from a few words every time, we would never use it, it would be redundant. I asked at the beginning, "Why don't you add Official PlayStation Magazine or PC Gamer or Kotaku?", because at least those would be original. - hahnch e n 23:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you just add new sources and let others add GameRankings? It doesn't hurt the articles one bit. It's not a commercial site either. My two cents. --Soetermans. T / C 23:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite having written the reception section and cleaned up the article, I'm told by User:Sir Lothar to start working on articles. This is despite Lothar's only contribution to the article being the addition of GameRankings to the template. There's a 0.71% difference in the PlayStation 3 score, and a 0.31% difference in the Xbox 360 score. Undue weight given to an opinion which is largely the same as the Metacritic standard. Why should I let others add Gamezone spam, any other table bloat or any other instances of undue weight? My argument for Metacritic is that it is the industry standard, the argument for including GameRankings too is ILIKEIT. - hahnch e n 00:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that using both MC and GR is a standard for most VG articles, and thus the addition of it to a table that is not bursting at the seams is not hurting anything. If GR was not a standard across most VG articles, yes, that would be possibly pointy, but really, this isn't harming anything. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The argument that I am making, is that ILIKEIT is a poor standard and one that should be changed. GR should not be standard, giving it undue weight across the entire encyclopedia is damaging, in the way that undue weight is damaging anywhere on the encyclopedia. This Wikipedia standard was set, when? 2007? Maybe before Metacritic had established itself as the industry standard. I removed GameRankings from Lords of Shadow 2 because the critical consensus had already been provided by the industry standard, an industry standard that is not being challenged. I'm challenging tradition, the argument "it's traditional" is not much of a counter-argument.- hahnch e n 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fair to challenge the tradition - I'd start a separate subsection to call for removing GR links. But it is standard tradition to include them so until you can should consensus is against them, it's not harmful to add the link. Remember, MC is criticized at times for bias, this is why a site like GR which does not bias scores at all is also useful to show what an unbiased score aggregiation is compared to MC (and the industry metric) --MASEM (t) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I disagree with plenty about WP:VG's current standards (I think it should be okay to add as many reviews to a table as are available as long as it fits in a reasonable-length Reception section, for example), but I'm not about to challenge them on a pointy basis. Tezero (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I won't argue. Removed GR from table - ain't gonna provoke conflicts. As I see Hahnchen still hasn't read those pages WP:CIV, WP:AFG and of course WP:EQ. Sir Lothar (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to call you on that one, Sir Lothar. What we have here is a standard editorial dispute-turned minor scuffle, and you're just as guilty of etiquette violations as he is. I recommend you leave a comment at the "GameRankings standard" section below, and then walk away. Hahnchen would probably best be served doing the same. What's needed, I feel, is for the two of you stay away from each other, and this discussion, for a few days. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

GameRankings standard

Make GR optional (i.e., based on the article's local consensus). I've never seen it differ significantly from the MC score and have always added it begrudgingly. czar ♔ 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Discourage the use of GameRankings - Template:Video game reviews/doc is out of date, which is why it suggests using the standards of 1UP.com, GameSpy and GameRankings. In general, tables should have one aggregator - Metacritic, which no one doubts is the industry standard. GameRankings should only be included on an individual basis when there is a strong consensus to do so - such as for old games, or in a case where there is a wide disparity between it and Metacritic that is noted in reliable sources. Arguments for GameRankings seem to stem from an ILIKEIT principle, but its use is not supported by reliable sources (compare the Google News hits above). For too long, Wikipedia has given undue weight to GameRankings, it's an anachronism, it's inertia. - hahnch e n 12:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep GR Standard - This is one of those "we need to pick and choose our battles better" type scenarios. It's always going to be a uphill battle to try to remove it, and there's nothing overtly against policy with it. I prefer being more productive with my efforts, rather than trying to constantly enforce/explain such a stance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

With you there, Sergecross. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:ProtoDrake, your first userbox is User:Axem Titanium/User nospoilertags, Wikipedia has made bigger changes. - hahnch e n 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hahnchen Erm, I don't follow. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler tags used to be everywhere. And in this case Wikipedia is behind the rest of the world, if they can move on, so can we. - hahnch e n 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is to make it optional, which doesn't require removal or enforcement. It just kicks it down from a WPVG standard or expectation to a local consensus discussion. czar ♔ 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Even that's going to lead to extra arguing and debate over something that has no real detriment to article if it's there. Subjective arguments over whether it necessary in one scenario, but not another. It's a timesink with no real benefit. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy, our continued inclusion of GameRankings is ILIKEIT. I'm not proposing systemically wiping all uses of GameRankings, just that removals aren't reverted without a consensus reason. That "it might be difficult" doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, I'm proposing that we rewrite the guidelines at Template:Video game reviews/doc (and possibly introduce clearer guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Review_sites). So that if anyone removes a redundant GameRankings link, we don't get this pointless back and forth - and can just point to the guidelines. I'm giving solid arguments that we change our guidelines to reflect policy. The counter-argument has to be more than just inertia; the rest of the world has accepted Metacritic as the industry standard, we should. - hahnch e n 18:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally like or use GR, so to keep quoting "ILIKEIT" isn't my point at all. (Though if we were to play that game, your stance could just as easily falls into "WP:IDONTLIKEIT honestly.) My point is that, while less popular, there's no actual problem with it. If you find an actual fault with it - flawed calculations, incorrect info, etc - that would be one thing. But your argument seems to be largely "its less popular than Metacritic". Valid point if we were using it instead of Metacritic. But no one wants that. Its not that it's "too hard", its that its not worth the effort. In fact, its probably pointless to argue about, because it'll be borderline impossible to enforce. Kind of like not using Gamefaqs for release dates for games in the 1990s. Regardless of what we deem here, its use is so widespread that its not like a divided fragment of WP:VG could ever really enforce it. I imagine any supporters of what you're saying will largely get burned out, or lose out to consensus most of the time. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No actual problem (apart from the WP:UNDUE). Placing GameRankings alongside Metacritic is exactly undue. The same reason that adding GameZone to every table is undue. We wouldn't accept the latter and we should treat GameRankings the same way. From the outset, my argument has been THEGAMESINDUSTRYDONTLIKEIT, which is significantly different to IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think anyone disagrees that Metacritic is the industry standard. The reasons for giving GameRankings equal prominence stem from Wikipedian's original arguments about aggregator quality, arguments that the rest of the world have brushed past. We shouldn't use GameFaqs for release dates, WP:VG/RS states this explicity. Even if it isn't actively enforced, it's better than having a guideline that states the opposite. - hahnch e n 02:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, there is zero UNDUE aspects here, and the GZ issue is far far far far different from the GR issue. Your argument is more akin to "Why should we include a Eurogamer review if we have an IGN review?" which of course is not going to happen. GR is a different way to finding reviews from MC. Just because the game industry doesn't hang its hats on it doesn't mean it is a bad source. There are other valid reasons for not including it, but is has zero comparison to the GameZone issue. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just don't see it as much of a UNDUE problem when its usually a fraction of a sentence and a place on the review chart. Its effectively a very tiny part of the reception section, which is a small part of the overall sentence. Its not like we have a "Gamerankings" section or analysis or something. And yes, I know Gamefaqs is unusable, I'm relatively active at WP:VG/S - you missed the point. Its was an example of something that goes so strongly against a vast majority of editors in VG articles that its rendered useless. Much like this proposal would be. But you don't seem bothered by creating standards that aren't actively enforced, so I suppose you don't fear time wasting like I do. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a fraction of a sentence across the entirety of the encyclopedia, which our guidelines actively enforce. I'm not asking you to actively enforce any new standard, just for the standard to be removed, so we don't (even on paper) unduely endorse GameRankings. There are valid reasons for including GameZone, it is not a bad source; there are valid reasons for including Eurogamer, it is not a bad source. But neither of these are given the kind of "protection" that GameRankings has. Template:Video game reviews reads "Every single-site review source should be used within the reception section", but GameRankings gets a free pass. - hahnch e n 12:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

GR is not providing a review, however. They are a neutral aggregator, with a better-documented process of how the review scores are included and aggregated compared to MC, but they make no subjective claim about the work. As such, aggregate scores do not have to be cited in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) GR is providing an opinion, there is no such thing as a neutral aggregator. Its criteria for reviews is subjective, sites "must be visually appealing", sites "must publish a minimum of 15 reviews a month", yet they include Edge scores, which this month published 8 reviews. Regardless of Metacritic's opacity, the games industry has adopted it as a standard, if the games industry is not calling for GameRankings, we shouldn't, we certainly shouldn't give it special protection. - hahnch e n 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Weak Support to keep GR as a standard when it exists. Starting from the point that MC is necessary, I've pointed out my arguments how GR is a more objective, though less industry-significant, measure of aggregate score, I agree when there's 20+ reviews the numbers difference is statistically insignificant, and thus would be duplicating the MC, hence why I won't strongly defend retaining GR. However, that said, this should either be "must be used" or "never to be used", and not an optional thing, only because I can any "optional" option leading to editing warring on people inserting GR where it was chosen not to be used, or removing GR where it is used, based on their opinion. If we have have to spell out cases where its use must be or must not be used, that's fine, but this is a situation to avoid sitting on the fence towards. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned - "GameRankings should only be included on an individual basis when there is a strong consensus to do so". If there is an individual case where GameRankings should be included, it can be, but the default position is for it to be excluded. (this is the same as any other website parameter, you wouldn't go adding GameZone to everything - default is excluded) We should state this in our guidelines so we can refer to it hereafter. - hahnch e n 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment on bold text - @Czar, Hahnchen, Sergecross73, ProtoDrake, and Masem: Normally bold text is used to let people know, at a glance, what the opinions are. In this case, however, it's rather confusing because people are answering the question from different standpoints (I 'oppose' getting rid of it and I 'support' keeping it are opposite bold texts that mean the same thing). Can we relabel the bolds to "Keep GR as standard", "Make GR optional", "Discourage GR", and "Disallow GR", so that we can go back to knowing what everyone is saying from looking at the bold texts? Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep GR Standard I often hate how Metacritic weighs the scores giving more weigh to some sites than others. I find that GR is a safe and healty alternative that provides an actual averaged score from all the publications which reviewed a game. I do find the argument that GR is less reliable than MC a bit empty. Both websites belong to the same company, CBS Interactive, and so they should be held to the same standard. → Call me Hahc21 02:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a question of reliability. My argument is that the games industry (reliable secondary sources - Metacritic vs GameRankings) do not value the alternative that GameRankings supplies, and it is only included per the whims of Wikipedians. This whim should not be enforced as a standard. - hahnch e n 12:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep GR standard per GR's different methodology, potential addition of further reviews not suitable for the table, and minimal bloating effect. Tezero (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep GR standard. Until there is a demonstrated harm that comes from its use - actual harm to the article, not minuscule maybe harm - I can't see the justification for this proposal. If we make it optional, it's just going to make the video game articles worse because all that will happen is that editors will focus more and more on bureaucracy and arguing than content creation - and Wikipedia could use far less as it stands. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Every single review source in the table is optional, and should generally only be used when cited in the text. I don't believe removing the special protection for GameRankings (and it's the only website that gets special protection, because unlike Metacritic, it is not the naturally used industry standard) would not add to the bureaucracy, any more than adding a new parameter would. - hahnch e n 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep GR standard. If we are talking industry standard, then besides the aforementioned sources using MC as a benchmark, there are many articles criticizing MC and how it hurts the industry and its employees by their magical "number". Reliable sources that call out on over-reliance on MC! Exactly what we should avoid -- preference to and over-reliance on MC. If anything, I consider it biased to only including MC over other aggregators. There is nothing wrong about GR and it is a healthy alternative. Or, from the other view, GR should be as optional as MC should be. I even wish there were more aggregators with different criteria to place as a summary. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- I linked to critiques of Metacritic above, showing how Metacritic for good or worse is the industry standard. None of those critiques suggested the use of GameRankings as a solution. Your solution to the industry standard aggregator is to use a non-standard aggregator - a Wikipedia-original solution. It's not much of a solution either given how similar the GameRankings score is. But this Wikipedia-original solution is enshrined at Template:Video game reviews. No other parameter on the table gets that level of protection. Removing it from an article where it adds nothing and essentially duplicates Metacritic should not be as painful or contentious as it currently is. - hahnch e n 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Come on, stop hounding every single editor. Its pretty clear there's no consensus for this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding to arguments made that have already been countered and are yet still proposed. My reading of Hellknowz argument above would be ILIKEIT, is yours? I'm considering opening this up to a wider RFC - I do not believe the wider Wikipedia community would allow their personal appraisal of specific aggregators to override secondary sources, I don't think any other project on Wikipedia offers special protection to a non-standard measure to the degree that WP:VG has. - hahnch e n 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it was starting to look a bit like badgering. And I still don't understand why you would even care that much, but to each his own. Good luck with that. If this discussion is any indication, you'll need it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"I do not believe the wider Wikipedia community would allow their personal appraisal of specific aggregators to override secondary sources" -- uh what? If we were saying, "Screw MC, we only using GR", then that would make sense. We're talking about adding a second aggregator which is known to be reliable but not as much of a standard compared to MC to be included on review tables. You're overthinking this way too much. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, but "Screw MC, we'll force GR" seems to be a prevailing argument at WT:VG. If it's not a standard, why is it deserving of special protection? - hahnch e n 17:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not saying that. We are saying you should use both, not GR over MC. MC is clearly the standard, but GR provides a different cut of the scores (including reviews GR might omit) so it's a reasonable resource for a reader to look for more reviews. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's what I'm saying too. Just use both. Its really not that crazy of a prospect. WP:FILM does it the same way - they use Metacritic, and the more movie-specific Rotten Tomatoes. (MOS:FILM for details.) We use Metacritic and GameRankings. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to use both, I want to use the industry standard, which if sufficient for the industry, should be sufficient for us. Rotten Tomatoes does a different thing. It categorises reviews into Y/N rather than coming up with a weighted average. And both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are cited by reliable sources - Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic. Metacritic and GameRankings do pretty much the same thing, only one of them is the standard, yet it is forced because you have to go through this entire wall of text to remove a redundant score only for it to be reinstated in a drive by. The wider Wikipedia community decided that Infoboxes were optional, yet GameRankings isn't. - hahnch e n 02:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why categorizing reviews as Y/N vs. gradient scores is so much more significant than weighting them by perceived use vs. not. And are you criticizing the fact that WP:VG consensus gets reinstated quickly and efficiently? Tezero (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You might not see that, but it's there. Compare the scores, they're different, the two scores tell you something different about the film. If everyone rates a film 7/10, that's a 100% fresh, but a 70 Metascore. If everyone rates a game 7/10, that's a 70 Metascore and a wasted row for Gamerankings. - hahnch e n 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

RT has to do some OR for some reviews to decide if they are fresh or not, so that's a lot more subjective than GameRanking's neutral approach. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OR is exactly what reliable sources are allowed to do. It's what we trust them to do. GameRankings value Digital Chumps opinion the same as IGN's, it might be more transparent (despite an arbitrary application of their approval criteria), but it isn't neutral. - hahnch e n 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You do know that RT also consider small newspapers and magazines on the same order as NY Times and the like too, right? And unlike most VG reviews which have some type of score, RT frequently has to read between the lines to determine the fresh/rotten rating since many film reviewers have forgone the star rating system. Am I saying that RT is a bad source? No, it's a good companion to the MC rating for a film. My problem is if you say RT is "fine" and then complain that GR is introducing OR and opinion and shouldn't be used, that's hypocritical, as GR is far more unbiased and objective than RT. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You have totally misrepresented or just plain misunderstood my argument. My argument never had anything to do with OR - only yours did, and I punched a hole in it when I showed that GameRankings was subjective and non-neutral. Rotten Tomatoes is not fine because it has its own methodology, we're not in a position to appraise methodology, Rotten Tomatoes is fine because there are reliable sources that say it is. The only OR that GameRankings introduces is that reliable sources never mention it because it's not the industry standard. It's not GameRankings OR, it's yours. - hahnch e n 15:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown anything how GR is subjective and non-neutral, and to say that it is more than MC or RT is a very large stretch based on GR's published metrics for inclusion and calculation. And it is not OR for us to use a source that reports exactly how it is compiling scores as an aggregator alongside the industry standard as to provide a second reference for these scores for a video game article. That is the flexibility we have as WP editors in choosing what we consider as reliable sources - those decisions might involve some original research but that's not the OR that WP:NOR disallows. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You point out GameRankings objective selection criteria - I point out how they're not objective and unevenly applied. You point out how RT weights each score equally, which is their judgement call - I point out how GR does that too. Not a single reliable source mentions Castlevania and Gamerankings. Plenty of them mention Castlevania and Metacritic. Who are we to say that GameRankings is mandatory? How can that possibly be construed as flexibility? - hahnch e n 04:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) GameRankings also sees some use by companies like Take-Two and Activision. source Tezero (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice find. It further drives the point home that both are valid. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And it even further emphasizes that both should remain mentioned until a time at which a specific, significant reason is presented to remove either MC or GR. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep GR Standard because there is nothing against policy in keeping it and there is no obvious reason to remove it, thus every time you were to make an edit to remove it, you would need to explain why. That is neither productive, nor is there a serious reason to perform this change. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- No. Every time you make an edit to remove it, there would be no need for an explanation. You would need an explanation to add it, just like the rest of the reviews. - hahnchen 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  - I have to disagree with that. For instance, GR adds to an article, many articles already include it and it is an improvement to having just Metacritic as it provides a different view. If you remove that, you are taking away from the article, which needs explanation. Either way, there is no serious reason that I have seen provided that would make me want to remove GR. Just like the point made above by @Sergecross73:, whereas movie articles include both RottenTomatoes and Metacritic, I think it is an enhancement to the article to have both GR and MC, whereas removing GR detracts from the article. I also dislike how every time a USER makes a vote, you decide to refute it. It seems like badgering. Agree to disagree, I guess. It just doesn't seem at all productive. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ridiculous succession boxes

I just removed a ridiculous succession box on the Doom article. Talk:Doom_(video_game)#why_is_there_a_succession_box_for_a_minor_achievement.3F I'm wondering if there is a bot to remove this pointless succession box from all pages its own, to save time. Does anyone believe that mentioning what games were number one for a single month in the UK should be in all of these articles? There are dozens of other game articles that have it still in it. See Alien Trilogy, etc. I don't think that's a significant achievement, and if we had one for every nation it was number one in for any month, and for each platform it was released on, it'd take up a lot of space. Dream Focus 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I also removed it from Ridge Racer Revolution Alien Trilogy Actua Soccer FIFA Soccer 96 and finally Tekken (video game) since I also don't see that as necessary. I lost track after Ridge Racer since the entry after that was a siccer game thot does not have an article so there may be more.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I managed to find out that all of them were added by the same IP address in June 2012 meaning that I was able to find all of the pages with box. Some had already been removed some time ago but I did remove the rest. This should be over unless the user in question decides to return. however, since they did not readd the box to the articles where it was previously removed I think there is little to worry about.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion 1, Previous Discussion 2. My tuppence on the matter is that they should be binned; and that we need a consensus and a note in the guidelines to stop the damn things coming back. - X201 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Count me in for removal. They were added over a year ago so hopefully that peraon has moved on.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick 3O for Tales of Symphonia

A user insists there is too much spoilers in the lead. Requesting a third opinion at Talk:Tales of Symphonia#Third opinion March 2014. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Flappy Bird GAR

Hi all, following the discussion regarding Flappy Bird being a Good Article a while back, I have put up my thoughts in a Good Article Reassessment. Your comments regarding the article fitting (or not) the criteria are very much welcome. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning 2014

Spring is coming soon so we might as well get some cleaning done. Currently we got:

Six articles up at FAC: Dishonored, God of War III, Proteus (video game), Pokémon Channel, Grand Theft Auto V, Menacer. The Dishonored review being up since January 24th.
A FTC for the Sega Genesis.
Ten articles at GAN: Big the Cat, The Castle Doctrine, Drakengard 2, Blood Knights, Charlie Murder, Tales of Xillia, Invader (artist), Development of Grand Theft Auto V, Seiken Densetsu 3, Yu Narukami. Blood Knights and Charlie Murder articles are currently being reviewed.
Two Peer Reviews: Drakengard 2, Nuon (DVD technology).
And there is an FAR for Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening and a GTRC for Broken Sword.

GamerPro64 00:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If it matters, I've given my thoughts at all of the FACs except Menacer's, and that's because I passed its GAN and feel strange about the prospect. I agree that this is quite a backlog. Tezero (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that the one who started the Nuon (DVD technology) article is a Jakandsig sockpuppet named AustralianPope. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 18:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

His edits were all un-done and the page is at the same state it was before AustralianPope ever edited it. We should probably just remove the request for a peer review. I tried to help him along by improving his references, grammatical mistakes, etc. not realizing he was apparently a sockpuppet. --Nicereddy (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What do other WikiProjects think of us?

If they're even aware. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to ask them, I imagine. -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've always been impressed with the WikiProject. Our talk page is far more active than many I've looked through or been a part of. I've come across many where they are relatively desolate, and there's little answers to questions or concerns. Almost everything here gets responses/discussions. Also, I don't believe its very common for a project to have such an extensive list of reliable/unreliable sources like we do at WP:VG/S, or one at all. (There is WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, which I've tried to help them with some in the past, but its far behind what we have here.)
That being said, in passing, I've somewhat gotten the sentiment that what we consider a reliable source is a little too loose compared to other projects. I feel like sometimes someone from somewhere like a literary background would scoff at us using sources like Kotaku or GameZone. Just as well, I'm not sure I'd care about Kotaku's thoughts on Shakespeare - but that being said, sources need to be experts in their field, not necessarily for everything. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never noticed that about sourcing, but now that I think about it, our guidelines are fairly loose, in that a source doesn't have to be too well-established. I can't speak for literature articles, but I know that biology ones, particularly about diseases and disorders, have extremely strict guidelines. (Not only do sources have to be from widely known, reputable, and old publications; they have to be secondary, or in some cases have to be primary.)

My overall impression is that our project is rather centralized; while ones like Military history and Film also get large numbers of GAs and FAs, they appear to run on individual members doing their own things rather than consulting one another like we do. I could be way off-base on that, though. Tezero (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the statement about sources, seems to occur more so at AFD. So it could be just more of a "they wanted the article to be deleted" than anything personal against our source standards. And as you were kind of getting at, we don't need sources written by scientists or anything, because most of our article don't have any danger of falling into pseudoscience or fringe theories quite like other topics.
You're right, I think we collaborate/consult a little more than other WikiProjects, but I think there's a number of reasons for that. 1) We're very active, so there's many people there to consult, or be a hindrance and need consultation on. 2) I'm not referencing anyone in particular, but to be quite frank, I believe that, with the subject matter, we deal with a lot of immature adolescents that are either out to start trouble, or have strong (yet questionable) opinions on things. The console war-mentality of the industry doesn't help either. So I think we need that sense of collaboration to keep our articles from constantly being in the state of an edit war. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're more lax on sources. Most of the sources we use are respected within the industry. Kotaku might be a bit more gossipy than others, but I've still found it to be very reliable. I generally consider a site reliable if it's been used as a reference by a well-respected news source. You can see my findings at User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not sure any WikiProject worries about the others. If you're not interested in, say, movies, then you probably won't pay the respective Wikiproject much attention. The biggest visibility factor is the ratings on the talk pages, but past that? I don't think so. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The rest of Wikipedia looks down on us in the same way we look down at those who work on Pokemon articles. - hahnch e n 04:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*cries* Tezero (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

D: bbbut.... _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Somebody doesn't liek Mudkips D: Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously though, unless there is a case of overlap and or a case whete there is a direct conflict brtween different Wikiproject rules I doubt that other Wikiprojects give us much though and vice versa.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen non-trivial disdain from people when articles appear on the front page by us, but never have I seen organized disdain. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

True but from the discussuons at main page (whuch seems to have gone down since its seems to no longer seems happen every time a game is on the main page) most of the negativity appears directed at games in general that the Wikiproject itself.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Even that though, isn't that more of the "Kids these days play too many video games! They need to go outside!" or the "Video games aren't art! I'm so sad that Final Fantasy is a GA while this Mozart's Mitridate, re di Ponto is in shambles!" - type mentality. Which is crazy - people should write about what they like and know, not what is deemed a "legit" medium. But regardless, my point is, its more about the topic than the Wikiproject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I find WP:VG much more active and friendly than other projects. I tried to participate in one or two others in the past, but found it much less welcoming. Recently I tried looking for an active project about books. I guess the popularity (video games vs. books) is reflected in the activity of the projects: video games are very popular. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Novels WikiProject is not at all active compared to ours. I nominated Fight Club (novel) for GAR a while back, and no one ever responded or tried to fix its numerous issues, so I had to remove it. Tezero (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

FPS vs First person action adventure

What is the difference between these two genres? I noticed that while an obvious game like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is called an FPS, Metroid Prime isn't. How do we decide which is which? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a thin line but I would argue its based on the idea that there's elements of an RPG or similar game that the player goes on specific quests and missions and improves over time via RPG/Metrovania-like elements - while playing from the first-person perspective - as opposed to be funneled down a map shooting just anything that moves. The FP-action adventures will also tend to have more integrated story than just cutscenes at the start and end of a level. It's not an easy line to define however, and generally best left to make sure reviews and third-party sources classify it one way or another. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Another option is that there are instances where we can switch from third person view with Metroid, such as getting into her ball form to manuever. It has to do with what elements they chose. FPS do indeed have story, but the objective is still usually killing in first person as for Metroid Prime is also about exploration (adventure). Lucia Black (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This is also a good distinguishing point, the emphasis over exploration rather than just racking up kills. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody would think of CoD as an adventure game; it's a shooter. Metroid Prime is a near-perfect example of what an adventure game is. That they are both played from first-person view is coincidental. You could call Skyrim a first-person view RPG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- What about BioShock? Despite frequent commentary on its adventure elements in reviews, when I edited the genre field a few months ago to include "action-adventure" and "survival horror" as well as "first-person shooter", my changes were quickly reverted without explanation. Tezero (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  - Because there's not as much exploration as there is shooting as the means to the end. It's also far from what survivor horror is. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
To answer the question directly, we should only be using the classifications made directly by the reliable sources. Shouldn't matter how we'd classify it. czar ♔ 18:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Admittedly, few reliable sources class them as survival horror, and I didn't bother checking this at the time (it had been in a previous revision since the article had been FA promoted, so I decided to just bring it back). But plenty have noted the adventure elements and called them action/adventure, particularly Infinite. Yet we refuse to mention this for some reason. Tezero (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I do think bioshock infinite could be classified as an action game if sources say so (which i dont doubt at least one source will classify it as an action game). Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  - On the specific issue of BioShock, we've had to deal with an few IP editors that saw exactly one mention of Bioshock being a "survivor horror" game (from an MSNBC review) and no other reliable source mentioned that - they note elements of survivor horror but do not call it as such. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, an adventure game focuses on exploration and interaction with the environment; an action-adventure game focuses on combat, exploration and interaction with the environment; a shooter focuses on aiming and shooting; and a first-person shooter focuses on aiming and shooting from a first-person perspective. Personally, I would call Metroid Prime an action-adventure game since the term "first-person adventure" is not widely used. Also, at the GameSpot's Best of 2002 Awards, the game won Best Action Adventure Game on GameCube and wasn't even nominated for Best Shooter, so it clearly isn't a shooter. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Then i suggest we go by sources, if sources claim it is a first person adventure, then so be it. Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Metroid Prime an action-adventure game played from a first-person perspective? The game's genre and the game's camera mode aren't interchangeable right? I noticed that sometimes the camera mode is added to ~~the genre~~ the mode field in the infobox like here, but the camera mode doesn't say anything about the gameplay itself. I would be cautious when combining existing genres (and camera modes) into a new one for Wikipedia. Like BioShock is rarely called a survival horror, I doubt that many RSes would call Prime a "first-person action-adventure". Explaining that in the article's body is okay though I think. --Soetermans. T / C 11:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The camera mode actually says something about the gameplay; there is a significant difference between a first-person shooter and a third-person shooter, but these two genres are much more used by the video game industry. I think we should use the industry standard when adding video game genres to the infobox; action-adventure is clearly the standard, while "first-person action-adventure" isn't. Otherwise by that logic, we could say that Ocarina of Time is a third-person action-adventure. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I'm trying to say. First-person shooter and third-person shooter are actual genres, while first-person action-adventure is a combination of a camera mode and a genre. --Soetermans. T / C 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

John Cooney (jmtb02)

Hello everyone, I need some reference-hunting help: My AfC for John Cooney (former Head of Game Development at ArmorGames and maker of some pretty well-known games) was recently declined due to not having enough notability. It said that the best way to help it out is to get more refs to reliable secondary sources. Can anyone see about helping me handle that? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

After looking over your submission, remember that your sources need to be INDEPENDENT of the subject. For example, one of your references comes directly from his profile at AG. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

These might be useful:

http://www.indiegames.com/2010/09/browser_game_pick_flock_togeth.html

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/11/the-joystiq-indie-pitch-armor-games/

http://www.ex@miner.com/article/iphone-game-developer-to-watch-armor-games (replace the @ with an a – it may be, though, that citing a source from Examiner is blocked for some reason) Tezero (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Examiner is blacklisted. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I removed all the first-party sources from it and found a bit more stuff about his work, but I'll keep looking for more information before I resubmit. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeking comments for Amy Rose

As I'm preparing the article for GAN, I'd like some comments on a few issues:

Is the image that loads automatically an outlined, drawn one or a CGI one? It should be the first of those; my iPod still loads the latter but that could be due to me not having cleared its cache.
Is the section "In video games" too detailed? She's the first character whose article I've worked on substantially and who's been this major a character in this many games, but perhaps it's still too much.
Does the second paragraph of "Reception and impact" seem neutral enough? I don't want to piss anyone off, as I personally find a lot of these criticisms of her to reflect a poorly researched understanding of her and the series, and the same is true of a large number of gamers, but at the same time I am obligated to mention it all, regardless of how vitriolic it is.

(And yeah, I know I still need to de-cruft "In comics" and expand "In animation".) Tezero (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The reception section could really use some work. It doesn't flow at all, and some parts ought to be removed outright. (That Kotaku/comic strip bit is entirely pointless and without any sort of actual commentary, I'm unfamiliar with the reliability of websites like "Gamemoir", etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty haphazard now, at least the first paragraph; I'll have to reorganize it. Gameoir I'm not sure about, but the comic I think offers commentary and, as Kotaku publicized it, is notable. Tezero (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I know gender issues are a big thing right now, but really, is "Whether furries of each gender wear clothes or not?" really one of them? It seems more like one of those age old jokes that date back to Donald Duck or Winnie the Pooh. That's really a stretch... Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it up to us to decide how important a gender issue it is? It's not universal, either; it's not even true in Winnie-the-Pooh (Kanga's naked, for example), while it's only partly true for the classic Disney characters (in that I think most of the males are fully clothed, while a few like Donald don't wear pants). Seems more like a commentary on Amy/the series. Tezero (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, so any other sources chiming in on this ludricous debate? The "helpless female" or "scantily clad female" are highly discussed issues. Do you have any other sources for this so-called "clothes on furries" debate? Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What? You're the one who implied that was a well-established debate. I don't think it is that much, but it's something that a source decided to bring up about Amy. Tezero (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Sarkeesian may have mentioned it. I know she had a spiel about the "Ms. Main Character", but I don't remember whether she extended that to clothing in general or just stuff like bows. Tezero (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You must of misunderstood me. Gender equality is a big debate. Whether or not furries wear clothes is definitely not. Making females wear sexy clothes? Sure. Clothes or no clothes. Definitely not. Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Who cares whether it's a big debate? Amy Rose being cute doesn't seem like a big debate, either, nor is 99%+ of the reception of her or any other character. Tezero (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, otherwise, I have no idea how you'd argue its a noteworthy part of her as a character. At least it would it would give done context/importance to an otherwise pointless, stupid bit of "reception". As is, it's nothing more than "some rando on the Internet noticed she usually wears more clothes", and Kotaku published it. Not every passing comment warrants inclusion. It shouldn't be in the article at all, let alone would it last through a GA review. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's not notable, just say that. I'll get rid of it for that reason. Tezero (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Does the section read better now? Tezero (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks better now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've tried loading the article on a few separate computers, and it looks like only my iPod, with its non-empty cache, loads the old image. Still like to know what anyone thinks of "In video games", though. Tezero (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wonderswan love?

I recently been looking for information on the wonderswan/color/crystal and accessories. I thought perhaps these articles be upto GA considering how much attention they had received despite being a japanese-exclusive console. I posted some refs here in talk:WonderSwan and talk:WonderWitch although depending if any more information can be found, the article may be merged to Wonderswan.

Still it would be great to see this particular article upto GA. Lucia Black (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't realize much of anyone else cared about the WonderSwan. I haven't even heard of the darn thing here since List of Digimon video games. The WonderWitch is still new to me. Tezero (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm particularly interested about it because of there were special editions for Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy II, and Final Fantasy IV. And of course Final Fantasy III was cancelled. What got me more invested was that i found out that there were also special editions for Gundam series aswell. Still, its an interesting console and i think it could potentially be a very informative article. Lucia Black (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Could, yeah. One thing that worries me is that there might not be enough reliable English-language information. Tezero (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a given, but i'm finding quite significant ammount of information on the wonderswan color and crystal, the original is a little harder to find. Lucia Black (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a Retro Gamer article in issue 36 that I can provide scans to if you like. - hahnch e n 16:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be most helpful. if you like to send it over to my talkpage. Speaking of Retro gamer, they also had another issue covering the wonderswan which i believe is issue ~~136~~ (126) as well Retro Gamer 126. However i dont know how much information is repeated from issue 36. but it would still be a great help to have that info. Lucia Black (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Send me an email, I will reply with the article this evening. - hahnch e n 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have 126 (My subscription arrived 3 weeks ago but I never opened the wrapper!), it's the current issue so 136 doesn't exist. The article is only a couple of pages of meaningful content. I can take a look at the article later and add anything missing.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a typo. its fixed now. if you could send me the scan covering 126, that would be great. Lucia Black (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Citing video games as references for themselves

I am curious whether this is allowed either on Wikipedia or in academia in general. I'm trying to prove Algae fuels are an important element to the plot of Metal Gear 2:Solid Snake. I know instruction manuals can be used as a reference but why not the video games themselves? Using supporting lines of dialogue or mentioning something is visible on screen is not original research; unless you just hate pictures as a medium for communication for some reason. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As is often the case, OR can depends on the context. Template:Cite video game is the template you would want. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Citing the game should be fine unless you are trying to analyze or read between the lines since in that case the source is not the game itself but you personal interpretation of it.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically, plots are allowed to remain completely unsourced. Quotes are considered quite helpful, though. Tezero (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It'd be a primary source, which wouldn't be as good for Wikipedia as a secondary one, but it still works (I've seen it a lot on pages like Amy Rose and various Pokemon). Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A primary source would be fine for a basic plot summary though.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I imagine you're partly asking on principle, but this source would fit your need. I personally wouldn't cite anything not mentioned by RS by virtue of the principle that it's important for an encyclopedia article only if it's important enough for secondary sources to mention. czar ♔ 03:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with Czar for general trends; analyzing something's significance in a work, even with quotes, seems like OR. I think it's fine to cite specific events with quotes, though, as secondary sources often won't mention them because (1) they might not be relevant to the specific review or point they're trying to make or (2) it's obvious and well-known enough that they don't bother. It should be okay to simply mention when Algae fuels appear without judging their significance one way or the other, if no secondary sources do. Tezero (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Psychological horror video games category

Hi everybody,

From time to time, I notice that anon editors have the tendency to add the literary and film genre psychological horror to the genre field in the VG infobox. For instance, I had to remove psychological horror a couple of times on the article on Alan Wake. I've expanded on the article of psychological horror itself, trying to show that it's not a video game genre, as they are based upon gameplay. I just stumbled upon a category listing, "psychological horror games" (not sure if there's a wikilink for categories). Is this helpful, having such a category? Or could we rename it to psychological horror in video games (I also prefer video games to 'games', because that can mean so much more), to emphasize here also that it's the narrative and not gameplay? --Soetermans. T / C 21:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink: Category:Psychological horror games czar ♔ 21:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty subjective. It might be a good idea to require at least one source mentioning psychological horror aspects. I agree about adding "video" before "games"; I'm neutral on "in". Tezero (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft and Video games

So I recently noticed that the Microsoft article is tagged for the group. I remember a discussion about this before (Coincidently started by me), but we never really got an answer to that. What do you guys think? GamerPro64 21:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I just added it a bit ago because we already have Nintendo, Sony, Atari, and Sega, and ~~there's no appropriate "totes hardcore Microsoft console development studio" article that would be analogous to Sony Computer Entertainment. Tezero (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)~~ I didn't realize, but there is one: Microsoft Studios. Should Microsoft be removed, then? Tezero (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Xbox is an important VG-related article, so by extension, Microsoft should be tagged as well, ~~just with a lower importance.~~ with a pretty high importance due to how much they do in the industry. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

They created the Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One, DirectX, Kinect, Windows, Games for Windows - Live, Microsoft XNA, they've had a large amount of oversight in the Halo series, and are the parent company of Microsoft Studios. I think they have a huge amount of relevance to the project. However, I do think that Sony should be tagged for our WikiProject as well, assuming we choose to keep Microsoft. --Nicereddy (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged Sony as Top-importance as Microsoft was, please correct me if I'm wrong. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly if we add Microsoft and Sony to our project we might as well also at Philips and Panasonic and any other other company made a console. GamerPro64 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but if it was only one a long time ago, I'm not sure it'd be relevant anymore. Microsoft and Nintendo and everyone else are/were recently involved in the video game industry, so that's why they get tagged. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Microsoft and Sony should remain tagged.MrAdaptive343 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we get some kind of established and agreed-upon threshold for making distinctions for this kind of inclusion though and formally note it someplace in order to avoid the obvious fan conflicts this may instigate. Just a suggestion.BcRIPster (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: GDC Photos

With GDC here again, they are again providing lots of good CC-BY photos over on Flickr. [2]. Just remember to double check the descriptions to make sure there is not any additional copyright notes to a third-party photographer (that would make them inallowable), but like this one [3] has no additional information about copyright and works fine for us. Also I'm seeing a lot of good board game shots that work well in a de minimus aspect to show the tableau of the board game without being a copyright problem (assuming they lack the copyright note, of course) --MASEM (t) 02:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that we mostly forgot to upload pictures from 2013 GDC with a paltry 2 files. Remember, you can use the Flickr Upload Bot to make the process less boring/annoying. - hahnch e n 13:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Got some more in commons:Category:Game Developers Conference 2014 (using UW Flickr − makes it even less boring ;). Will go through 2013 one of these days. (hardest part for me is to recognise the superstars ;-þ). Jean-Fred (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Masem: not sure what you mean by « good board game shots » ; but generally speaking if the shot is good enough to see anything meaningful of the game, then it can hardly be considered De minimis. De minimis is not really about the percentage of the file occupied by copyighted material ; it is about how accidental its inclusion is. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Something like this: [4] would be de minimus as the focus is not on the game's pieces but on the people playing the game, the game's setup incidental to the photo. (This [5] is another example in terms of a video game - the photo's focus is on the presenter, not the game.). On the other hand [6] is not going to be free for us to use because it is the game set that is the focus. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Legacy games

You know, Zelda, pong, Mario, etc. Why isn't there a category. Are these called legacy? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:History of video games plays a similar role. I'm not convinced I agree with the use of either on individual game articles, because there's such a continuum. Is Final Fantasy VI a legacy game? How about The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker? Why? Both seem rather influential to me, but not quite as much so as those you mentioned... yet I don't see a good place to draw the line, nor do any reliable sources I know of. Tezero (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What is a legacy game? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Samwalton's question. Legacy is an industry term for when you're stuck with an outdated system (Hardware or software) and continue using it when new versions are available. I don't think games could really be viewed in this fashion, anymore than a movie from 1980 is a "legacy" movie.. You could perhaps say a certain patch or version of a game is "legacy" (Say, people who prefer an earlier version of Starcraft). -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Invader (artist)

While perusing the history of our "Things you can help with" template, I just noticed that GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) questioned Invader's relevance to our project. I was the one who added it (not to GAN - I don't recall editing it once): I was bored one day and clicking the various links up at GAN, and I thought it curious that he wasn't already part of our project. Is Invader outside our scope, though? Tezero (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen a definitive scope for the project. Based on the "related to video games" assumed scope from the WP:VG main page, I say Invader fits. ~~(However, I don't think the article's main picture is suited for Commons since it contains the copyrighted Pac-Man ghosts. Right? Might be okay if moved to fair use.)~~ czar ♔ 22:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Struck since the photo appears to meet FoP in Spain, and I tagged it as such czar ♔ 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Its a tough call, no video games are really being called to mind. He's more inspired by the 8-bit style of the games, rather than the games themselves. Lucia Black (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the Pac-Man ghosts are shown and labeled, and Space Invaders is mentioned, but I think that's it. Tezero (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for help with Blood Knights

Hey there. I currently have an ongoing GA review for the article Blood Knights. Tezero has been kind enough to pick up the review after the original reviewer disappeared, but I have run into a snag and could use some help. Tezero would like for me to expand the plot section, but I am at a loss as to how to go about it. He recommended that I go through the "let's play" videos and build it from there, but it's not something I've ever done before and I'm unsure as to how sourcing would work in that situation. Additionally, I'm not sure how much more "plot" I can put into the game's article, seeing as most of the reviews I read were of the mind that there really wasn't much of one to begin with. If anyone could offer me advice or assistance, it would be greatly appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Similar to our conversation about Hell Yeah, the article starts off with that the game is for PlayStation Network and Xbox Live, which I consider to be the distribution channels, and not the platform it is for. Maybe others here can shed some light on this? --Soetermans. T / C 01:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That is totally unrelated to what I was asking for in this thread. I will make the same change I did to Hell Yeah!, but this isn't the place we should be discussing this. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you're working on a GA review, I thought that "If anyone could offer me advice or assistance, it would be greatly appreciated" goes beyond advice about plot. But I guess not. Terribly sorry for trying to help out. --Soetermans. T / C 11:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't need sources in a plot section. Sticking in quotes from the game (via {{Cite video game}}) is always nice, but not required- most video game articles, even GAs, have completely unsourced plot sections. As you have it, you seem to have the setup for the game, but not what actually happens- so Jeremy must attempt to reverse his transformation and break his bond. Does he? What happens while he tries? --Pres N 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation help for Gunpey article

I recently been working on the Gunpey article, and need some additional referencing for the gameplay section. Fortunately i found the instruction manual of the original version, but i can't understand it. I need someone who reads Japanese.

If anyone knows Japanese and is willing to help, please check out the talk page for more information: talk:Gunpey#Ref(s). Thank you. Lucia Black (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Important website message

The site previously known as Square Enix Music Online, which has been a useful source of music intel for multiple articles, has shifted over to a new site: Game Music Online. The old site will remain active for a few months while the material on it is transferred over to the new site and archived, but this is an advance warning of a change in address for where to go, and that the old site will not be available for much longer. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? They've been saying they were going to do it for 2 years now, with nothing to show for it. I thought the site was dead for a few months now. Anyways- the whole SEMO site is at archive.org, so even if everything doesn't make the move to GMO, it should all still be accessible. Pop in some archiveurls to your references, everyone! Reminder- if you archive stuff proactively, you'll never get screwed over by site moves. --Pres N 22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Using Metacritic's summary in prose

In the vg articles I write, I try to quote the short text Metacritic writes next to its metascores ("universal acclaim", "generally favorable", "mixed/average reviews", etc.) as a more objective characterization of the reviews overall than my OR judgement on the matter. CR4ZE offers several counterarguments against this in the Threes! GA review. We're looking for external input, if you have a moment. czar ♔ 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we create a "List of Games with Gold games" article?

I was wondering if we could create an article listing all games offered in Microsoft's Games with Gold program for Xbox 360 (and Xbox One in the future)? I'll start a draft at Draft:List of Games with Gold games, although if someone has a better name please feel free to suggest it. PlayStation Plus' "Instant Game Collection" already has a list and I think people would find this useful. We may also wish to add a "Games with Gold" section to the Xbox Live article. I don't think there are enough differences between regions thus far to warrant separate articles, like PS+'s separate PAL and North America lists. Thoughts? --Nicereddy (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Though I was initially sceptical (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), I actually think this would be quite alright as an article. Which games are part of the program are regularly covered in sources so it could easily be done. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks for the support! I've created the full list of games with dates, I just need references and the replacement titles for some games banned in other regions and I think it can be moved to the main namespace. --Nicereddy (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a cross over category to cover these free/discounted games from console subscription services? (eg. List of Instant Game Collection games (North America)) Not sure if there is a page like this for iTunes/Steam/Amazon... of maybe this is overkill. Thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games With Gold games (North America) czar ♔ 00:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Who decided to move this article in the main namespace? Of course it's nominated for deletion, they removed the platforms, notes, and added a bunch of sub-par references. The "Notes" should include games which have been switched out for others in certain nations and the Platforms row is future proofing for the Xbox One. I'll improve it as soon as I have time, but I don't see why anyone would have moved it out of "Draft" in its current state. --Nicereddy (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing List of Game Boy games disambiguation page

there is only one list that involves "Game Boy" games alone. and that is the original. So i don't understand why we have to redirect people to a disambiguation page just because many share the "Game Boy" title. There shouldn't be confusion between List of "Game Boy" games from "Game Boy advance". I think the only possible confusion there is, is the Game Boy and Game Boy color. But that should be the only issue. We can still clarify on top of the list. Lucia Black (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is because "Game Boy" refers to the system, as well as the family of systems that includes Super, Color, and Advance. So, someone may want to search for a list of all games released for the Game Boy family (List of Game Boy games) and by taking them to the disambig page, they see that such a list does not exist, but there are multiple for the different systems in the Game Boy family. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, its not a strong reason. The Gameboy line barely divides itself into 4 lists. Here's an example: List of PlayStation games. the playstation has had possibly more list articles than the gameboy line and its mostly divided by numerical or handheld. Lucia Black (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Lucia Black (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to direct people to the Game Boy List, then have a "Series" template to direct people to the others? I'm not sure what precedence there is for such a small group to have a series template, but it would aid navigation. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1UP.com and 403 forbidden errors

I've had some 1UP links start to spit back 403 errors, and I can't get an archive from web.archive.org because there's a robots.txt file preventing an archive. Is there another alternative, or did I just lose all of those sources? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You can try searching Google for the article title. Also see if Google has a cached copy of the article. Though they may very well be gone. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is why I hate references to 1UP. I've been going through all Valve-related articles and adding archives just in case sites go down (and many of the links to GameSpot, etc. have broken over time), and the inability to archive 1UP articles is pretty frustrating. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've had a few like that. I can't archive my video game lists for Sega either because Allgame does the same thing. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
This is really serious; a good number of GAs, FAs, and FLs rely on such sources. It might sound outlandish, but could we email the companies to ask them for archived copies? Tezero (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's perfectly reasonable. 1UP may not even mean to do this, seeing as their parent site IGN doesn't. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  - This is bad. This is really bad. The 1UP links on Pokémon Channel, which is at FAC now, are already gone before I could find a way to get them archived, and I can't find anyone to contact at 1UP because the contact page is down. Any ideas? (slams head on keyboard) Tezero (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    - No worries- I managed to get the page to load for me. Webcitation wouldn't archive it (it kept timing out) but archive.is seemed to have a more forgiving archiving style ([7]). I've added the archives to the article. --Pres N 20:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
      - I take it back, archive.is is apparently banned from article space. Got it with archive bay, though, though no promises that it's a good permanent solution. [8]. --Pres N 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Archive Bay built to last? Looks sketchy czar ♔ 21:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that if the link is still good you should be able to archive links manually with webcitation.org, sometimes. --Pres N 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's incredibly helpful. Are there bots that could help us with that, if by nothing else than giving us links to 1UP articles that are still active and sourced in Wikipedia? Tezero (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an inbuilt tool for finding external links. There are 5855 links to www.1up.com. - X201 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, they did announce their closing in February 2013, guess they decided to shut down the site now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the site's back up but who knows how long it's going to last. webcitation.org is my go-to archiver and it works with 1UP. (Edit: Actually it only appears to be working on half of the links—not sure why. This is my workaround.) You know, I'm curious whether IGN and Penny Arcade have considered donating their site archives to the public domain, especially if they don't plan to import the content. I can't say I've heard of such a move before, but it would be a great contribution to posterity. I can try making inroads to this effect unless someone has a better idea. czar ♔ 21:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by "inroads", but go ahead. I wonder if there's a way to archive 1UP articles while taking out robots.txt. Tezero (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarified above. Also:

The site's been turned into an archive a while back, but some services seem to have gone MIA. I'll check. Shouldn't happen.
— Peer Schneider

czar ♔ 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

We're editing 42% of all WP:VG articles

One of the biggest clean-ups in the history of WP:VG is starting.

User:TeleComNasSprVen had the idea of adding a tracking category to the Infobox template, to categorise all articles that contained infobox code for defunct fields. With additional technical gubbins by User:Technical 13, we now have a very large administration category that contains 0 articles.

Help is required in a number of ways.

There is an AWB file available so that any AutoWikiBrowser users who want to help can get straight to work.
I'm fairly new to RegEx, so anyone who can provide technical help to improve the above file is welcome to do so.
Check the infobox on pages you watch for the following fields (picture format, aspect ratio, input, license, resolution, ratings, requirements, version, preceded by, followed by, latest release version, latest release date, latest preview version, latest preview date, website) and remove them.
Bake a cake for when we cross the finish line sometime next year.

My main reason for taking part is to make life easier for new editors, templates are confusing for new editors, and having loads of redundant fields around only makes it harder for them to open an existing article when looking for a few pointers.

Please help if you can. The AWB code is available here. - X201 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm kinda wondering why some of these fields have been deprecated. Ratings, website seem moderately useful and informative, preceded/followed by is very useful for series Infoboxes... were these all discussed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Were all discussed and have been dead fields for between 1 and 3 years. - X201 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Pass. Why can't we have a bot do something like this? Editors shouldn't have to waste their time on monotonous tasks about parameters that are no longer seen anyway when they can be adding real value to articles. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because not all editors are good at creating article content. If the Gnomes find nothing to do that interests them, they wither and die. - X201 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A bot definitely could do this, though I would have the bot leave any of these old alone if they contain references or links, so that we can then filter the much smaller set to make sure if there's anything to keep worthwhile. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree a bot should be doing this once the rules have been properly vetted and debugged (there are still a couple minor issues according to X201). I wonder if any of the bot writers I know (Theopolisme—Hasteur—Legoktm—SigmaWP) could write up this bot for this and get it through WP:BAG since there seems to be a consensus here for that. Technical 13 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I could do this manually, I like such projects. If BAG will take a long time to clear, why not just do it manually - saves hassle in the end. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I could also probably run an AWB routine for the simpler cases over the weekend (such as simply removing fields with no information to keep). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of them are simple removes, it just needs the human eye to spot the oddballs. - X201 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 Definitely doable with a bot. Just enumerating the requirements so far

For each transclusion of {{Infobox video game}}

For each parameter in the template

If the parameter is on a blacklist of "deprecated fields" fields

If the field's "value" has a URL, reference, or internal wikilink, don't strip

Else strip the parameter

Save the modified template with a summary that is distinctive, and gives a link to the consensus for removal. Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:X201 for his work. Someone who is familiar with the videogame infobox issues should look at the last hundred entries in Special:Contributions/X201 to see if those changes look correct. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I don't think internal wikilinks need to be included; for example, see this edit which removed defunct parameters and plenty of wikilinks that didn't need to be kept. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Do it with a bot". I've done about 400-500 articles with AWB while testing my RegEx code. I think a bot could do a large proportion of the fields, the problem I have with letting a bot loose on it is that users have come up with their own styles for actually laying out the field data, - especially in the requirements field, where I've had to rely on the fact that its usually the last item in the infobox and implement an open bit of RegEx to select everything between the field start and the end of the template. - and I'm fully expecting to find more. Plus I'm also finding totally made up fields like site, time limit and numerous others where people think that just adding something in the correct format will make it appear in the template.

I'm fully in favour of the human approach to this, checking as each edit is made and spotting anomalies. There is no urgent reason that means the job must be done in a week, I'm fully happy to do the whole 12,000 myself with AWB, I've done similar with large categories before, its not a problem for me. The main reason I posted here was to let everyone know what was happening and get a bit of help if anyone is interested in joining in. - X201 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know There is a new version of the AWB code on the template talk page. It contains a bug fix for the website field and Izno's template suggestions below. - X201 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not remove deprecated parameters - In many cases, they contain accurate referenced material, which although decided that they are unsuitable for the infobox - may still be useful elsewhere. If not on Wikipedia, then on Wikidata. - hahnch e n 16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I won't remove deprecated parameters in the future, I can't promise I'm going to go back and restore all the ones I already removed. :S — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The 600-ish articles that I've so far processed don't back up the claim that many contain accurate referenced material. On the rare occasion anything has had a reference in it, it's been the Ratings field. - X201 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Lists of age ratings are exactly the type of thing that Wikidata can and should cover. - hahnch e n 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

They rarely have a reliable reference. That was one of the reasons the field was removed from the template. Is WikiData just being populated with whatever happens to be in Wikipedia when it makes a pass? Surely they would be better off doing a look-up to the actual source of the info, the ratings bodies? - X201 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to scrape Wikipedia than it is to scrape external sites. Each video game article already has a link to Wikidata so you know you're dealing with the correct subject. And a lot of system requirements information never needed sourcing because it was taken as read that the source was the game itself. Wikidata is still in its infancy, it'd be better to keep the information stored in deprecated infobox fields until that data is transferred across. - hahnch e n 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if its possible, but a better solution would be to remove the deprecated fields from the Infobox, and put the ones that do have data in them into an invisible template at the bottom of the article. That way the template is cleaned of redundant code and Wikidata still has the info to mine at some point in the future. - X201 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That would work. - hahnch e n 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Anything else that could piggyback

Is there anything else that WP:VG could use this large a run to do other changes with, besides gen fixes? Running it over 12k articles is an excellent time to poke away at other things that could use a mass-tweak and which are otherwise banned as "solo" edits per WP:AWB#Rules of use #4. The example off the top of my head would be to change all instances of Infobox VG to Infobox video game. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Good thinking Batman. How about sorting the fields into the same order? - X201 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice, but there are some who would see that as controversial, which would fail rule #3. --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Izno: Isn't bypassing template redirects part of AWB genfixes? I see it happen all the time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

T:IVG isn't one of them apparently (though it's not the only template I have in mind)! We can add templates to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects so long as we can show consensus. On that note, I'd probably say that the following are good ones to add: {{Video game reviews}}, {{Infobox video game}}, and {{System requirements}}, with their respective redirects. (I would expect T:System requirements not to be removed in an AWB run per AWB usage rule #3.) --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And I've gone ahead and added the above three. Are those replacements taking place? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What about <!-- Deleted image removed: tags? - X201 (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That might be controversial, though it's a good suggestion. Who to bug about it? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How about converting all of the image field mark-up from the old px method to the [[File:name.ext|frameless|upright=1.15]] method that allows user preferences to work? - X201 (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

Sorry I got a bit delayed with this. I'm ready to make the bot request for this and I just wanted to make sure everyone was OK with the plan and that we had a consensus for the changes to be made. The request will be; that in order to aid users in editing the infobox code, and at the same time preserve data, any populated defunct fields should be moved from the template on existing article pages, to a new hidden template at the bottom of the article, so that the data in those fields can be harvested later by WikiData. Any field that is blank can just be binned.

Is everyone OK with the above? Any other tasks need adding that can be completed at the same time? - X201 (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Lost World and Sonic Generations instruction booklets

Does anyone happen to own either of them or know where I can find scans? I'm looking for formal attestations of the presence of certain Wisps in those games. (It's unlikely that the Generations manual will mention them, but who knows.) Tezero (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Gen from Sega's help site [9] (so you can cite it cleanly), but nothing for Lost World there. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mention Wisps, but thanks anyway. Sonic Colors DS's manual would help too, if anyone has that. Tezero (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Here. (Note, I', finding these by searching here: [10] ) --MASEM (t) 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated, but it's not for the DS. Eh, I found some quotes from the game, and for Generations I just cited levels. (I've seen that done in GAs before, though it seems sketchy.) Thanks anyway. Tezero (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good source for some video game stubs: Video Game Bible, 1985-2002

I found a source which can provide some reception/commentary on video games:

Slaven, Andy. Video Game Bible, 1985-2002. Trafford Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1553697316, 9781553697312.

If you have a stub article you can search within the Google Books book. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting! The entries are brief, but that can still be helpful for some of those more obscure 90's games where its harder to find sources, due to it being in the "pre-website" era. Thanks!

Side note: Every entry has a title, company, a number, and a money value. Is the number a review score? Is the price a suggested current value? Original price? Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I used it to cite some contemporary reception in Dr. Mario, I'm sure it has other interesting stuff also! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm excited about this, it could really help with some of the 90's game articles I work on that are pretty slim on the reception side! So, I don't usually use Google Books much. Can I just go through and read it, or do I need to keep on searching for individual titles. The pages seem to skip around when I try to read it, and its in another language so I'm struggling a bit at navigation... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In another language? Oh I see. Replace the "&hl=zh-CN" in the URL with "&hl=en" to swap the interface in English. It's that way just because WhisperToMe much be using Cantonese Google. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer your questions- you have to search, it gives you non-contiguous preview pages to see but you can't just pick a page number at will unless you search for a term; the number is the "rarity" from 1 to 10; there's nothing about what the price means (though I think it's what the price was when they wrote the book). --Pres N 17:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yeah, I wasn't noticing any correlation between number values and positive/negative feelings on the game, so that makes more sense. Same with the price, I assume its the price as of book creating. That would be the only reason why there are so many N64 games listed in the 10-20 range. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at its copyright page, this book is self-published. I'm not sure it's reliable. czar ♔ 18:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This book is not reliable. It's an incredible fan work, but it's self-published by Andy Slaven using an on-demand printing publisher. Slaven writes on his LinkedIn, "I wrote this in college with the help of an assembled team of gaming experts." Even if some of the gaming experts were notable individuals, it's unclear what level of professional (amateur, rather) editing the compilation received. Reliable sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This is self-published fan work. Additionally, Slaven appears to have no other qualifications and does not appear to have worked in the industry. The best support for him I could find was [11]. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I looked up the publisher's name and I didn't see anything that said it was self-publishing. I did see it was on-demand but after taking a look at the article it didn't seem like the same thing as self-publishing. Where does it say it was self-published? When I check a source, I usually go to the publisher's Wikipedia article and see if it is described as a self-publishing publisher. If so, then I do not use the source. The publisher here is Trafford Publishing and the website at the time is http://web.archive.org/web/20030129023510/http://trafford.com/ - WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the History section on the Wikipedia article for the publisher says it's self-publishing. They sell publishing services. That's their business. I think you should go back to the site and the Wikipedia article and re-evaluate it. Also, the title of the WSJ article used as a source is "Self-Publisher Buys Rival As Sector Consolidates". --Odie5533 (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. Since it seems to be a self-published book, it's too bad. Thank you for finding it, Odide. WhisperToMe (talk)

Well, the Chicago Tribune is a pretty major endorsement though. And I was under the assumption that if the publishing was legit enough to issue an ISBN, you were sitting pretty good as far as publishing goes... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can buy an ISBN. CreateSpace charges $25 to add an ISBN to your book, but some sites might be even cheaper. Bought in bulk, you can get 1,000 ISBNs for a buck a piece. Trafford's cheapest packaged, $550, includes an ISBN assignment. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's really too bad if its deemed unusable, it looked pretty professional and well-written, and could have really helped some with some of the VG articles from the 90's. I'll try to look up more info on it and the author. Please notify me if anyone finds a rationale to prove it useable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

Your opinion sought regarding the migration of {{cite music release notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. The discussion is here: Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking expert opinion in restore of article: Project64

Hi,

I've started a discussion for restoring the Project64 article. I have found two third party citations that states its notability. I am looking for experts who have worked on emulation articles. Project64 was one of the most highly edited emulation articles due to its prominence within the community. Those familiar with emulators are aware that this remains the most actively and one of the only used N64 emulator today.

I have an updated version on my userpage User:Valoem/Project64. I intended to do a bold restore pleading WP:IAR, however given its history I opted for a discussed restoration. Thanks! Valoem ^talk 15:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Top X" lists really aren't the best sources to run with. It would be much better if you could find an article specifically about Project64. As it stands, your sources support other emulators just as much as they support Project64, and one of them even contradicts your statement that Project64 is the only used N64 emulator. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Those other articles may also pass notability, but I can only focus on one emulator at time, I chose to start with one am I familiar with.Valoem ^talk 15:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You have a lot more work to do to establish notability, the sourcing is very weak. Of the sources in the article, the book source only seems to mention the emulator by name once, with no actual details. 4 sources are primary sources. 1 forum. 3 are questionable sites that seem to be emulation fan sites. 2 are top X sites as mentioned above - not great for notability, might not be reliable anyway. What's needed is "significant coverage". Good luck. Яehevkor ✉ 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have three reliable sources, the coverage received by emulators, a free ware hack, is not going to receive the same coverage as other subjects. I have, however, found three sources that are third party and appear to be subjected to some form of editorial review: Life Hacker, Take 2 and Digital Trends, the prior AfD for this article did not bring these into consideration and relied solely on first party sources. I am hoping consensus can change. I am looking for editor that actively uses these emulators and are aware of its prominence in the scene. Valoem ^talk 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

LifeHacker - I'm unfamiliar on whether or not this is considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, but even beyond that, the source doesn't even mention "Project 64" by name, so I'm not sure if that's going to count as "significant coverage".

"Tech 2" I'm unfamiliar with this being considered a reliable source, and it only contains 3 sentences about it, and a download link. Not sure if that's going to count for "significant coverage".
"Digital Trends" is probably closest to being a reliable source, and has the most info about it too.
- Feel free to propose these sources to WP:VG/S's talk page to see how people feel about them, but I'm guessing Digital Trends will be the only one that's really deemed usable... Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources: Micromart, Chip.de, Chip.de 2, PC World, Giga.de, MakeUsOf, Vintage Game Consoles. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I added them to the article. Please let me know of any further improvements needed. Valoem ^talk 00:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the article is unsourced. I'd recommend removing a lot of the unsourced material from the article, particularly most of the Features section, Project64k, and the System Requirements. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, even if sourced, system requirements are usually discouraged per WP:NOTHOWTO. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! Removed tons of cruft and added a few more citations. Let me know what you think! Valoem ^talk 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to restore the article now let me know of any improvements. Many emulation related article that were deleted are possibly notable. The next ones am I going to work on is Mupen64, Nestopia, and (possibly) Jnes. I would appreciate any additional sets of eyes! Thanks Valoem ^talk 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, you still left in a lot of sources that are flat out not reliable (like forums/messageboards)or questionably reliable. You may have jumped the gun a bit. I feel like someone could still rightfully redirect/undo you changes. I'd keep working on that, if I were you, considering the efforts to redirect non-notable/sloppy emulator articles in the last year... Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just cut it down to reliable sources, I think. The one remaining forum post is probably reliable as primary, the interview is likely reliable as primary, and the PJ64K one again should be reliable as primary. There's still a lot of WP:OR though and I tagged it as such. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it looks much better now. I mean, its much more bare bones, but there's a lot less unsourced/poorly sourced information present now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This article was/is a terrible mess. It still probably requires a complete rewrite from the ground up. I don't know what the other articles you plan to restore used to look like, but if they're anything like this I'd recommend copying the Infobox and nothing else, finding some reliable sources, and start writing it from a stub. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 26/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transreality gaming. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Capcom list conversion done

As I mentioned a few months ago, I converted the List of Capcom games into something more logical. The current list separates the games by platform, something no other list does. I decided to use the List of Square Enix games as a template and changed the list into something more akin to it. The result of my work is here. I had the split the list up because it became way too large, but I feel now it is much more useful. I decided on the splits (0-D, E-L, etc.) based on size. For example, M and S have their own pages because there are about a kagillion entries in the Mega Man and Street Fighter franchises. I'm not married to the splits however, and am open to hearing suggestions.

The list is very incomplete (such as missing release regions and dates), yes, but it has as much information as the previous list and in some cases, more. I also cleaned up a lot of entries (for example, some games were listed under their Japanese titles in one place and under their English titles somewhere else). Before I replace the current list with my draft, are there any other changes anyone would like to see made? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely better your way than currently. Tezero (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The articles should be named List of Capcom games: 0–D etc. And each should have a {{Compact ToC}}. See WP:NCLL. I support replacing the list with yours. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I probably would have split it by date instead of name (one list per decade), and maybe fewer than 6 lists (as you can see by the SE list, I'm fine with mega tables), but it's definitely way better than the existing one, so nice job! Good luck filling everything in. As far as name, WP:FL has split lists like List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F), and a few more series like that, and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sa–Sc, so you could go with either naming convention. --Pres N 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How large is too large? List of Sega Genesis games is a featured list with over 900 items. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having it as one big list (and in fact I think in some cases it is more useful), but I was going by this. Plus I noticed that after about 100K, editing was incredibly tedious with tons of lag. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone. I'll go ahead and move the pages into the main article space sometime soon. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is done. Take a look at the new list at List of Capcom games. Thanks to everyone for your comments and pointers! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Tezero (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Almost makes me want to do work on the Nintendo games list to make it not junky. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Featured Pictures milestone

Just want to let everyone know that we as a project now have 10 Featured Pictures to our name. This comes from the addition of File:Sega-Mega-Drive-JP-Mk1-Console-Set.jpg and File:Sega-Genesis-Mk2-6button.jpg being given the bronze star. GamerPro64 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

— Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Evan-Amos has done some amazing work with his huge gallery of consoles and controllers. More of his work should really be recognized as featured status. --Nicereddy (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well one can always nominate one of his pictures on the board. Just as long as they follow the criteria and whatnot. I myself have only gotten a picture up at WP:Valued pictures and as shown that's not saying much. GamerPro64 21:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Gamerankings for older games.

Both stub and articles with significant content related to certain classic video games, sometimes use scores from Gamerankings. Whether because users think it is a reliable source, or just to add reception.

The problem with this is that Gamerankings usually only has around only 5 or less reviews per game. This makes me question whether we should even use Gamerankings for older games since the quantity of reviews is next to non-existent. Gamerankings also has a less restricted guideline for reviewers than Metacritic. Making the reliability of this site more questionable.

I believe that we should remove Gamerankings scores from older games. We should only keep Gamerankings scores for say, games after 1999 and so on. Gamerankings scores for older games before 1999 other than when they virtually copy Metacritic are highly unreliable, and don't have restrictions on the sources for the reviews. Let alone the lack of reviews in the first place. It would for example, be perfectly possible for someone to use Gamerankings to say X very bad game got a 97%. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you aren't taking issue with Wikipedia noting positive reviews for games that are "bad" by non-reviewers' standards. For example, I can't stand Majora's Mask, EarthBound, or most fighting games, but they've gotten very positive reviews and my opinion has no worth in Wikipedia's article space since I'm not a professional reviewer.

If, however, you're suggesting WP:Undue weight due to the reviews GameRankings happens to pick, that's a more reasonable concern, though IMO still not a worthy one, since GameRankings doesn't have a reputation as cherry-picking reviews to fit its staff's own biases as far as I know. Moreover, I don't see what's so special about 1999. What shifts occurred around then?

Admittedly, a score based on four reviews isn't all that helpful; if they're mentioned in the article text, the average reader probably knows roughly what their average is intuitively. With larger numbers of reviews, though, WP:VG consensus is (per a recent discussion) that GameRankings is fine. Tezero (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe you fell offf point. The issue is despite whether ot not GR has bias, if they pick only 2 good reviews for a bad game that game will get a 80%+ regardless. Then you have to include the fact they don't have restrictions to make sure they have quality standards. Also I don't see why you are confused about 1999. I said AFTER 1999 is the only time we should use GR because that is when they do not have this problem. Although there are acceptions down to 1996 or so only because at that point GR was basically copying MC's scores for games around that time period with only few exceptions (CBandicoot 1 on GR for example)

Most gamerankings reviews before that time period have only a few reviews, sometimes, because of lack of QA, sites that lean toward bias are the only ones picked, because GR does not care what reviews they have inputted regardless if they did it intentionally or not.

The other issues I forgot to mention is even with no restrictions in terms of where the reviewer is from, they won't accept reviews unless it fits their unwritten rule for what they consider "professional" which is why that so many games on GR have so few reviews.

The whole GR system is flawed. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

GR uses a different method for picking which reviews "count" than MC does. It's one of the main reasons that we allow its use- it's not just a copy-paste job from MC. That said, I dispute your main argument, that GR isn't relevant before 2000 - the real issue is that if you only have 5 review sources, the results aren't going to be statistically viable. Almost by definition, if there's only a few reviews, they're going to be by lesser publications that may or may not converge to the actual average review score- if one of the major reviewers is counted instead, then most likely there's going to be 20+ reviews. The rule shouldn't be "before this arbitrary date don't use GR because there's poor selection of sources", it should be "don't bother listing an aggregate score unless it includes at least X reviews", for whatever X should be. MC is just as crummy when it only has 5 reviews for a game as well. --Pres N 22:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Except most games before 1999 with more than a couple of reviews on GR are DIRECTLY copied from MC. Also I said 1999 not 2000.

You also seem to be defending GR with completely inaccurate reasons. For one, GR has counted major publications before, EGM, EDGE,GI, etc. With still only having a few reviews. Then you have the point you have not addressed about inflated scores based on low reviews. Then you also seemed to have forgotten to dispute another key issue, QA. GR has no restrictions for websites, but will not include the same websites for different games randomly. Even if those sites did indeed review the same game.

The only time when GR uses balanced rules is games after and some on 1999 with only few, few, few exceptions.

As for your comment on MC, it's completely irrelevant. People aren't using MC 4 review scores, they are using GR 4 review scores. Even if they did, MC still has restrictions on reviewers that are accepted MC does not randomly Omit publisher B's review of game C even though they also were allowed to be in the score of game A. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You've used Crash Bandicoot as an example of GR copying MC, without explaining what this "copying" is. From what I can see, GR has Crash Bandicoot with 10 reviews listed. MC doesn't even HAVE Crash Bandicoot (the first one) listed. So... what do you mean by copying? Do have a clear and obvious example? I looked at Crash Bandicoot 3 for a second example, one that both sites have, and again, their scores are different, with GR having two more reviews listed as well. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no problem here, as long as it's noted that a game only has a 95% rating because they only grabbed 3 reviews of 90, 95, and 100, which is less noteworthy than a game scoring 95% out if 47 reviews. As long as the review count is noted, we're fine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ferret I never used CB as an example of copying MC, I used it as an example of an EXCEPTIN for not copying MC.

Sergecross I suppose you have a point, so I guess a compromise is to make a side statement on these pages with HOW MANY reviews are counting. That could work. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This should really be on a case-by-case basis, and that almost seems to be what you're suggesting. It's usually a good idea to write how many reviews a score is based on. If GR is compiling scores based on 2-3 reviews, then yeah, maybe don't use that score. I think an example might be useful as well if the discussion is to continue. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that some scores aren't "aggregated" based on too little reviews. So editors should pay attention to tell if GameRankings and Metacritic have enough reviews to be considered aggregated.00:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm for a resolution along the lines of what PresN said, such that at least five reviews should be included in the aggregate before including it in the template. (Without that, the editor might as well list the four sites in the template itself and leave off the aggregate.) czar ♔ 00:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's fine; I mentioned that as well. Tezero (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't like EarthBound, User:Tezero? ...We can't be friends no more - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never been able to get into it. It just seems boring and grindy. It's okay, though; I luv u 5evr. Tezero (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the game's only really grindy for the first couple of hours. Once you've left the first town, the grindy aspects come to a halt with only maybe a couple exceptions. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's nice to hear. I could only throttle so many crows and Pogo Punks before I canned it (it really was awful that I only had the basic attack); maybe I should try it again. Tezero (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If GameRankings offers less than what's already in the reviews box, drop it. I have done drive-bys on articles such as E.V.O.: Search for Eden and Herzog Zwei. I mentioned this at the God of War: Betrayal FAC, but the nominator decided to keep it in even though it only covered 3 reviews and his table had 5. - hahnch e n 02:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with Devil Survivor games

I've been working in Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor and managed to add development, reception, references, etc. making it almost a B class. However, I myself have yet to finish the game (or the 3DS port) so I can't reference some of the other parts. I also couldn't get much info about its western sales. Also, I need help finding interviews for the sequel Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2. I was lucky to find an artbook page in a Siliconera article about Devil Survivor's staff, but with Devil Survivor 2 I couldn't find anything. If anyone is interested, you are of course free to edit the articles. Regards and good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of, I feel that Devil Survivor Overclocked should be split out. I think that there's enough development, reception, and in-game new content to justify splitting. Granted, it's not -on- there yet, but I've observed it enough. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be interesting.Tintor2 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced plot sections

I've never written an unreferenced Plot section, but it's my understanding that such sections can go uncited. (Disclosure: This seems a little nuts to me, in light of WP:V and the sheer amount of coverage addressing the elements of the plot worth repeating, but anyway...) Where is the section or guideline or consensus that establishes this? I couldn't find it in WP:VG/GL or the WT:VG archives. And is it only the Plot section that can go unreferenced, or can Setting and other Gameplay sections go without refs as well? czar ♔ 16:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:WAF, and yes, only plot sections (which would include Setting) can go unreferenced, as it is assumed that the source is the work itself. What happens when it comes to video games is that the plot is usually secondary to the gameplay and other elements, so save for rare cases (Portal 2 and BioShock Infinite come to mind, when most critical story points have been discussed in 3rd party sources) most of the time we really can't. One comment on things like Setting and the like is that here, where it might require to discover ingame collectables (the recordings from BioShock, for example) to establish the point, these really should be cited directly since every player will not necessarily experience it in the normal playthrough of the game. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Are videos RS's?

Hello all, I've noticed a few things that could be added in to various video game-related articles while watching Game Theory, Gaijin Goombah, etc videos. Are these reliable, and if so, how do I cite them? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Of the general class of Let's Play and similar type of videos, no. They would fall under WP:SPS, and have to be used with caution. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, video reviews from official channels associated with reliable sites are okay, though they pose a problem for archival backup (WP:V). If you use those, I suggest including the portion's time code (e.g., 1:35). I'd have no reason to believe Game Theory or Gaijin Goombah have the editorial oversight so as to be reliable—videos or text or otherwise. czar ♔ 15:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

reliable source dispute. Guy interviews Miyamoto on Kotaku

Talk:Shigeru_Miyamoto#reliable_source_dispute._Guy_interviews_Miyamoto_on_Kotaku. More input please on whether or not the guy at Kotaku interviewing Miyamoto and writing articles about him counts as a reliable source. Dream Focus 02:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible new article, but looking for opinions

A story is breaking today about this GAME_JAM event that appeared to be an attempt to make a reality TV show on the indie dev cycle (for release on YouTube), but that apparently went south very fast [12], [13], [14], [15]. There's a few people that are core at the center of the controversy here that have not had their point brought forwards, so I'm already hesistant to start the article, but on the presumption that we get their statements (regardless of how they spin this), does anyone think this might be a possible article? --MASEM (t) 00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. No article comes to mind that such a happening could be merged into. Tezero (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's on the cusp of notability right now. I wouldn't use that second GS blog nor the Indie Statik just yet. You can start building a draft from the first two, though. So, not a crystal ball, but if you made it now, it'd be notable by the time it makes its way to AfD. I say go for it czar ♔ 00:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Indie Statik piece is being called the comprehensive first-person account of the event, so in citing the other sources (Gamasutra, now Polygon, I would be able to use them as direct quotes from the people involved. But as I said, I do want to see what the response is to this from the production side. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, they can be used as SPS, but I wouldn't use them for facts. Your link is to imgur but since I have it here anyway, the full citation: Campbell, Colin (March 31, 2014). "How 'Game Jam,' an indie game dev reality show, collapsed on its first day of filming". Polygon. Vox Media. Archived from the original on March 31, 2014. Retrieved March 31, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) czar ♔ 01:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Gah, thanks, fixing. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Robin Arnott's blog has positive comments about the Producer and Director of the show, could be useful for balance. It was also quoted in a reliable third party source [16]. - X201 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Even with its coverage, it's still a bit WP:NOTNEWSy. I'm not sure any of this has any lasting impact. - hahnch e n 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Grand Theft Auto V" article FAC awaiting further comments

Hello all. I nominated the article Grand Theft Auto V as a Featured Article Candidate on March 11, and there has so far been review comments from only one editor, in addition to queries from others. This is just a ping for any editors who may be interested in reviewing the article or perhaps throwing their support/opposition behind it. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd already commented on that FAC, but that must've been the PR. I'll get to it later today, probably. Tezero (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You commented on the PR, and in response to your comments I cut down the Reception section a fair bit, which is why I finally felt it was ready for FAC. I welcome any further review from you! Thanks. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I Support the FAC, because the article seems high quality to me. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 08:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Excessive in-game detail in Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA related articles

May I request some outsider opinions on this issue, and possibly some eyes to watch a few articles? Recently a handful of IP editors have been adding too much niche in-game detail to articles, and per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT I decided to remove the excessive detail from articles such as Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA (video game), Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA Arcade, Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA F, Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA F 2nd, etc. The problem in question relates to giant tables listing every single module (costumes that the characters can wear) in each game; I honestly do not believe that including such tables are absolutely important and necessary for a Wikipedia article, and that such content is better suited at a dedicated gameplay Wikia, since they are out of project scope and of questionable encyclopedic value.

That said, my removals have (understandably) led to negative reactions, and so I'd like to confirm with WP:VG as to whether or not the huge tables of costumes on each article should be kept. My position is that these game articles should adequately describe the immediate aspects of the game to readers with the aim of forming a general understanding of the topic, without going into unnecessary deep detail like a specialised website would. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm generally not a fan of anime and manga, even I don't usually think Yamaha's Hatsune Miku and other Vocaloids. However, I think those articles could have more information about the development, promotion, and reception (and maybe legacy) than the games themselves. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 22:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, considering your comments, large tables of costumes are better as separate lists because the costume isn't as big as the gameplay. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 22:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, this is considered WP:GAMECRUFT and should be removed. I can help enforce this further if you'd like. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes please. There's just been yet another disruptive revert with no explanation, despite requests for the user to discuss the matter on the talk page. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the page and left a note on the talk page. Are there continual reverts at the other Miku pages too, or is it mainly this one? Let me know, here or my talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the user contributions pages of each of the IP editors involved, it appears that it's not happening elsewhere, and it's just this page. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor Dispute: Anarchy Reigns (GameCruft)

A use has been repeatedly removing the list of playable characters on the Anarchy Reigns page, citing it as "overly detailed" and "trivial". See this edit for comparison. Granted, there might be one or two lines that can afford to be cut from some of them, but by and large, one to three sentences each describing the character, their fighting style/weapon, and their relevance to the story as a whole is not unheard of for a fighting game article, especially one without a separate character page to link to. Thoughts? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It does seem a little trivial, actually – the list format doesn't help, either. It's even worse, though, to include a plot section with no mentions or explanations of the characters beforehand, as the other editor seems to have done. I'd go with either creating a "Characters" subsection of "Plot" or starting a new article called List of Anarchy Reigns characters. Tezero (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Soetermans: is correct, this is the type of thing that WP:GAMECRUFT was written for. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem right to cut them entirely, as characters are central to any fighting game, but I don't think there's enough detail for its own article. There's not a lot of characters, and aside from Bayonetta and the few returning Madworld characters, none of them have appeared in any other games. I do know, however, that the character list was originally written before the plot section was, and could easily be made into a subsection. Like I said before, there's not a whole lot to each entry to begin with, so it's not like it needs to be trimmed dramatically; maybe cut the three NPCs and leave only the player characters. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Added a "Characters" section to the plot that heavily compresses things. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Vastly improved. Tezero (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft FAR

I have nominated Microsoft for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Indrian (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sega

Heh, we have two Sega articles at FAC, one at PR, and three at GAN. That's odd as the task force was pretty dormant until a few months ago. Tezero (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And the FTC thing as well.--SexyKick 15:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It mainly goes to show what one determined editor--in this case, RedPhoenix--can accomplish, although hats off to everyone who contributed in ways large and small.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I think you're giving me way too much credit, but I appreciate your praise. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have done a huge amount with Sega console articles lately, while I've worked on Sonic characters - a more niche field - in a smaller timeframe. I don't know if I've seen effort as consistent on articles as important in any WikiProject as what you've done with Sega consoles. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been maintaining and rewriting Sega and Sonic articles for years, but I never really focus enough on one thing to do any massive overhauls like you guys have been doing. Good to see you guys doing it though. The Saturn article in particular looks a million times better than it did in 2013... Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We still need as many people to help with the review processes as possible. We keep getting just barely enough after a month of waiting and a delegate comment, just about every time.--SexyKick 13:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean for FACs? GANs? PRs? Some combination thereof? Tezero (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think he means FACs specifically; a lot of my featured article candidates have had issues getting reviewers on board (though, honestly, Sega 32X was my last one and it actually went rather quickly, though Sega CD was archived for next to no comments). In those cases, it just kills nominations not to get any feedback. I know Menacer needs more now, too. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I do feel bad about that. I've given comments to Menacer and to GTAV, which also needs them, and will probably get to Sega CD tomorrow. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The FTC *almost* has enough. But I think we're like one or two short for the moment. But yes, I mean the FAC's specifically. Sega Genesis just about barely hit the mark, same with the FLC for Sega CD games and Sega Genesis games. As Ian Rose said, the problem with FAC is not being short on FAC managers (I forgot what his title is there), but FAC reviewers.--SexyKick 02:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Pokémon Channel could use some. I've fixed two editors' complaints to the best of my knowledge, but they haven't been back to give it their support. Tezero (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I take a lot of time with my FAC reviews, so I usually leave them for the weekends czar ♔ 15:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at MoS concerning peacock language

Hi there! This is a heads-up that I have opened up a discussion among the community about the use of language when summarising an entertainment product's critical reception. It's a discussion I feel we need to have and is relevant to multiple WikiProjects, including this one, so I am looking for input from other editors. Here is the discussion. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Main page FA for April

Nintendo DSi will be the Featured Article of the Day on April 5; congratulations to Ryūkotsusei! --Pres N 04:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! « Ryūkotsusei » 17:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tabletop Simulator

Tabletop Simulator, a game, is being discussed at AfD. The other voice of the discussion suggested I open it up to this WikiProject, so the link is in the name. Please be helpful in our discussion! Origamite (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Color coding of Take-Two list

There is a discussion on the Talk page of the List of Take-Two Interactive video games about the color coding of the table. In short, while the table has great content, an editor, me, thinks the colors distract from the content and thinks they should be nixed, especially since they present information that is already in a column of the table. I'm bringing it up here since it appears that article isn't heavily watched. Please chime in there. Thanks! The discussion — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied. Also, if you ask for input, you might want to wait longer than 1 hour and 14 minutes before making the change. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would, but another editor suggested I just be bold and do it. I went with that. It looks like everyone agreed with the change (so far), so no worries (yet). — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Jon Tron AFD

Hey everyone. Looking for more input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron (3rd nomination). Its become quite the mess due to off-Wiki canvassing by JT himself, who is asking all of his Youtube/Twitter followers to come in and defend him. Its a huge mass of invalid arguments. It'd be great to see more policy based reasons for deleting or keeping. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, that's a lot of canvassing. I've gone there and commented. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost relieved that starting the dicussion affords me the privilege of abstaining entirely, both from the discussion and the eventual closing. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they can get pretty heated. Tezero (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have evidence of JT trying to swing the discussion, please link those on the AFD to note the offsite canvasing, so that the closing admin can review contributions from less active/newer editors appropriately. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why that affects the validity of their contributions. Their contributions will on average not be very helpful, but that could also be the case, theoretically, of already-registered users. What if I'm only participating because I like JonTron? (Incidentally, I'm pretty neutral towards him, although I really hate Egoraptor.) Tezero (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Masem - Someone already listed it, and now another editor is tagging SPAs. @Tezero, WP:SPA's and WP:CANVASSING are always considered in AFD closings, though more often than not, its their emphasis on arguments to avoid that get their stances voided in the end anyways. Most of their arguments have nothing to with the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's compatible with what I said. The arguments in favor of keeping JonTron's page from his supporters will on average be pretty weak, but that's not a good reason to skip over their posts, assuming that they'll just be more WP:ILIKEIT, or to count their arguments as inherently less worthy. Tezero (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

While AFDs are not !votes, if there is canvassing and it is not know, a huge # of keep votes w/o too much comment over a small # of delete/merge votes based on policy may be taken as no consensus by some closers. To validate which accounts are SPA and that canvassing occurred, this alerts the closer to review more carefully and discount !votes over policy-based arguments. It's just safe to have when the evidence of canvassing externally is clear. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair. Tezero (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Jon's tweets were already linked to, and I applied the NOTAVOTE banner up top as soon as I started the discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Query

Hey guys. I am working on Ancient Trader and I am gathersing sources to craft the development section. I came across this [17], in which Peter Levius (the lead developer) explains a bit about how he came with the idea and stuff. I know that forums are not reliable but since Peter Levius posted that comment himself, can I make an exception and use it as if it were a normal primary source? I also found this [18] on his blog, where he states that the game was sent for XNA approval on 2 June 2010. This is valuable dev. info so... :) → Call me Hahc21 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Forum posts are tolerated if (1) they're posted by a notable individual and (2) you only use those parts for information. At least, that's what I recall from reading some guideline whose name escapes me. Tezero (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I supposed so, but I wanted to ask anyways since I plan to take the article to GA after I finish it. If any doubts, Levius tweeted about the post a couple weeks after. → Call me Hahc21 19:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to believe it may be fake, forum posts can be regarded as primary sources of the poster's opinions. Obviously then the poster's opinions need to be noteworthy to include. In this case it seems fine to use as a primary self-published source for the dev's opinions. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually decided to leave the forum post out by now, and use only the blog one for the XNA submit date. → Call me Hahc21 04:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can establish that the source is indeed him, SPS's WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. czar ♔ 04:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that's him. Other articles have made the connection between him and his Twitter, and from then, its easy to see that he was the one who posted on the forum. Not the first dev to do so, though. → Call me Hahc21 04:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Education programs, looking for some direction

I don't want to jump into their program and start discussions that may not be in the appropriate place, maybe someone here can direct me towards the appropriate avenue. I know this isn't strictly a WP:VG topic but....

Education Program:University of Toronto Mississauga/CCT110: The Rhetoric of Digital and Interactive Media Environments (W14) is popping up on a lot of our articles right now. This program is requiring their students to edit stubs and add a minimum of 500 characters (I saw "2 paragraphs" mentioned somewhere as well). This is resulting in a lot wordiness, gameguide-ish text, and POV/fluff. It also does not appear that the program has taught students on citation templates, as they are manually formatting citations in line or adding them to reference sections with hard coded numerials. What's the best way to interact with programs like this or communicate these issues? I've dealt with this on three articles so far and seen it on others that I didn't get involved in. Having to reformat and rewrite this is somewhat frustrating, but I also don't want to bite. -- ferret (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm facing this issue at The International (video gaming), not sure if that's one of the places you've seen. A huge section on something which doesn't deserve so much weight in the article has been added, and though I've trimmed bits of it I too don't want to just remove or drastically reduce their work. Sam Walton (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:ENI, at least to register what's happening. They'll help you decide on how to approach the instructor. czar ♔ 17:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In contrast, the edits to Jazzpunk, which I created and then forgot about, have been quite helpful. Tezero (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The additions to Persona 5 seem pretty good. On the whole I'd say they're improving articles. Yes, everything they add would need to be gone over and references added/fixed, but the same is true for most of the VG articles on Wikipedia. I don't really see an incident, but thank you for letting us know. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the edits are in vain at all, but there's repeated issues coming up. I don't think we should be involved in having to explain to each student, as they show up, how to use Template:cite, and have to refactor all of them. Sure, we do that whenever it's needed, but the course should also be instructing them on that. I posted at WP:ENI for direction, per Czar. -- ferret (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Why explain anything to them? Let them make their edits, then later as you come across articles to improve, go ahead and fix them. Have you seen our Stub/Start categories? They're filled with uncited and improperly formatted articles. These shouldn't be any different. You don't need to go through the list and fix every article they touch. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually my main concern at the moment is changing their work - I have no idea if it might somehow affect their marks for this assignment if their content is removed/modified/undone. Sam Walton (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've actually only fixed their edits on articles I specifically watch (though I glanced at Jazzpunk and fixed a small thing). Certainly am not going through the list, but I watch the articles I watch due to interest in the topic, so I fix them. -- ferret (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks Ferret for pinging the Education Noticeboard for incidents. Yes, it would be troublesome to contact the students directly, but as you can see on the course page, the professors for the class are making themselves available. I will ping them now.

@Rhonda.mcewen, Michaelh.dick, Dendenn, and Unburritoble:

First and foremost I thank you for bringing this to the attention of myself and the administrators of the CCT110 course. I can assure you students were taught prior to editing proper guidelines and rules when writing for Wikipedia. Although when dealing with a class size this large it does seem inevitable all students will adhere. I apologize if this has affected other Wikipedians as a result. If other members of the community wish to help revise these stubs and the students contributions it will NOT affect their individual marks. Unburritoble (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks University of Toronto Mississauga for bringing "Digital and Interactive Media Environments" to Wikipedia! As you can see in the discussion above, when the students in the program learn Wikipedia guidelines and practices, then the community is able to review, enhance, and complement their work. When lots of students have a misunderstanding, then the Wikipedians need a communication channel for recommending suggestions to the entire class. Could I recommend the following as conversation starters?

click cite, then choose a template like "book" or "journal"

Remind the class that Wikipedia maintains its quality by being a summary of existing published sources. Students who add content to Wikipedia should not do original research, but rather should summarizes a source that they find and and cite that source, perhaps after every sentence they add.
To make citations, do the best you can, but if possible, make them in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style. Wikipedia tries to make this easy to follow by providing templates built into the editor through the RefToolBar as is shown on the right.

Thanks for having the students tag their articles and keep communication open. With good communication and students who respond to feedback, all content they add will immediately be sorted and publicized. Please comment here to meet your support team in WikiProject Video Games. Thanks! Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And I've left a note on these people's talk pages. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this that asking questions here is a great idea if the topic is a video game one; there are plenty of active and friendly users here happy to help. Sam Walton (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm not sure if I am allowed to comment here since I'm only a student that had worked on the assignment, but I wanted to answer the concern about whether or not modifying an edit made by a student would affect their marks. The students were asked to take a screenshot of the stub they picked before and after the edit as well as a copy of their sandbox, and were to submit them as a hardcopy. I believe they should not be surprised if changes were to be made to their edits since we were already informed of that when presented to this assignment. I hope this information helps in some way. XTeaBag3 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on this :) It did occur to me that you can always show the revision in the history. And you absolutely can comment here; as I said above I encourage any students who edited video game articles to speak to us here, we're more than happy to help new editors! Sam Walton (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. Thank you for raising this concern! I'm one of the Campus Ambassadors for this course and will try to provide a response, and I'm sure the instructors will add to this when they can. The students were guided and taught on how to edit, but it is a large class and so monitoring every student does become difficult. We have encouraged them to engage with the community on any stub they choose to take part in before revising it, but it seems that this point needs to be enforced in the future, so thank you for bringing that to our attention! The students are aware that others can and will edit anything that is put in to the main-space. Going in and removing/fixing their edits will not have an effect on their grades if they followed the assignment instructions accordingly. It seems like one of the main repetitive issues is referencing? If there are more patterns of errors you are seeing in their work, could you list them for me? This would be a great help to improve their instruction in the future. Let me know if I can provide any more assistance in this matter! Deneille Rochelle (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing so many new contributors to Wikipedia! I've looked over a few of the articles, and referencing does seem to be a recurring problem. Many of the references are not reliable, so they should perhaps work on identifying reliable sources (no blogspots or youtube videos). The other problem I see is that content is added to the article without enough regard for its origin, as references aren't always cited for the facts being added, or aren't being cited enough (e.g. one citation in the middle of a paragraph, but then where did the facts from the rest of the paragraph come from?). You might consider working on a process which is what I personally do when writing articles: after finding a source, I slowly read through it and take notes on the various facts I want to include in the article. Then I write the article based on the notes I've taken, remembering to cite every fact to the source I used. I think following the note-based writing process would alleviate much of the problems, and might make it easier as well.--Odie5533 (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dendenn On the course page you made you can see there is an option for "add reviewer". You say "it is a large class and so monitoring every student does become difficult", but actually, if you instruct the students to make themselves reviewers of each other articles (that is, each student reviews two other students' work) then students will work together to help each other understand. In this way, it does not matter how large the course is plus if there is a problem then the three students together can sort it out more certainly than one student alone. This also relieves some grading burden on the instructors, because it makes a massive review web in which everyone knows everyone else's business. Please suggest that students review each other's work and in the future consider making it mandatory, if not this time. You saw this suggestion in the tutorial you completed, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the helpful discussion and suggestions. As the lead on the teaching team for this assignment (and a CA myself), I'm also grateful for the responses from my colleagues. I think they've already said everything best! We will be debriefing on this assignment (as we always do) in the near future, and will certainly incorporate this feedback into the process. This course also runs in the summer months (where I'm the Instructor-of-Record), so I'm looking forward to continuing to refine the assignment. In particular, I'm very keen to make full use of the peer review features that are built-in to the new course page framework (as mentioned above). Again, thanks for reaching out to us. michaelh.dick (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Course talk page will notify all students

This is just to note that messages posted to the course talk page will create a Notification (like when you get Mentioned, etc.) for every student in the class. So if there's information that you'd like to get to every student, such as a particular guideline that they need to be aware of, you can try posting it to the talk page.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Number vandalism at List of Nintendo 3DS software

Would it be possible if a few people kept watch over this page? The same guy from Athens, Greece with a dynamic IP address keeps repeatedly making random changes to the numbers on this page ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), and shows no signs of stopping. Based on a quick automated script count, the tables within the page displayed roughly 490 rows last time it was checked, however this person changes this figure to random, arbitrary numbers with no explanation or edit summary at all, and the number also changes each time he edits. I don't believe that page protection is absolutely necessary, since a significant portion of constructive edits to this page are by anonymous IPs, however this page does need some additional attention. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to warn him and, for a while, semi-protect the page. Tezero (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe he's Jakandsig. ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just another note: The tables in this page appear in poor condition and not well maintained; for some reason, some rows don't even have matching cells with the table columns. I have no idea what's going on here, but dates appear in a section full of yes/noes, and there's a mysterious column that doesn't even have a name. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Classic subtle vandalism. Wish there was more we could do against this kind of thing. These creatures thrive in unmaintained list articles. It's particularly bad in the area of children's cartoons. I think games is the most recent target they're moving into because the stereotype is that games are toys for children and editors may give children the benefit of the doubt as far as goodfaith efforts are concerned. The suspicion is that this kind of edit may be partially automated. Certainly it's a widespread practice. -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I protected the page, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Generalisation of digital pets

Interesting genre discussion happening at Talk:The Idolmaster 2#Raising simulation / life simulation?. Yaris678 (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wolfenstein 3D

I am befuddled that this article became a Good Article. I have plans on reviewing it for GAR, but the problem is that Niemti, the nominator of the article, is still blocked from editing. So I'm wondering if anyone's interested in improving the article, with or without a GAR starting up. GamerPro64 03:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at Wolfenstein 3D and saw plenty of ^{[citation needed]} tags and unsourced information, especially in "Gameplay", which just has one source. I can ask the Guild of Copy Editors to redraw the article's grammar and prose. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 04:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's only GA. I think the missing citations are the bigger problem, and GOCE probably won't be necessary. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well okay, I can keep the GoCE request alive, but adding and using reviews of the game as sources may help make the "Gameplay" section reference-healthy. The article is detailed, although short, and filling up the rest of the article with interviews of the people at id Software as citations makes the article happier with references. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 06:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Niemti was topic banned from the GA nomination process because he kept on trying force sub-par nominations into the queue (and also hassle reviewers). I am surprised someone passed it in this shape, though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, how are Niemti's other articles? I mean, with all the hassling he caused in the group to get his articles to GA status, including me, one wonders if they even meet criteria at all. GamerPro64 17:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember that you can check the state that the article was passed as GA by looking at the ArticleHistory in the talk page headers. In this case this version was the GA-promoted one which lacked citation needed tags and other aspects. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My first good article is Asteroids (video game), and almost everything (except for the lead and images and infobox and userbox) had references and no citation needed tags. My ambitious next good article, The Downward Spiral, is full of sources. If Wolfenstein 3D gets demoted from GA status, then I can improve it to the point where it can pass GA easily like in Asteroids. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 22:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And oh, there's a lesson Niemti must learn from the GA nomination process: Every single paragraph that's not in the lead must have a reference(s). ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Though a lot of GA reviewers do require at least one in-line citation per paragraph, it's not actually a requirement of Good Articles. GA only require in-line citations for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines". So if a paragraph doesn't have any of those, it doesn't need in-line citations, though it still needs a Reference in the References section where the facts in the paragraph can be verified. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I said anyone can put citations of id Software personnel interviews and Wolfenstein 3D reviews to that article. You can also put in-line citations and even non-Wikipedia articles/books about id Software and video games there. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 23:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Update - Started an GAR for the article. It can be found here. GamerPro64 23:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure GAR?

I'm thinking of nominating the article for a reassessment. I feel bad, as the article wasn't promoted that long ago, but it has a lot of unsourced statements that the original GA reviewer assumed would be fixed before an FAC that never happened. Reception also needs a lot of expansion and, less importantly, the paragraph lengths are kind of uneven. Are these issues major enough for GAR at this point? Should I just try to fix it myself? Tezero (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Two entire sections are unsourced, and were unsourced when it was sent to GAN. The GA Reviewer wrote, "There's still a cite tag in Characters, and those citeless sections are still citeless, but the rest of the article is fine." It should not have been promoted. Apparently it was the reviewer's first GA review, and he only had about 200 total edits at the time. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but it's in bad shape. Plot is way too big, reception is too short, and there's a lot of unsourced material. Some significant work needs to be done here, but I don't have a lot of faith in the GAR process. Tezero, is this something you want to work on? I would be glad to re-check it and review it against the criteria, as well as provide some pointers, if you do. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure Plot is much of a problem (there are seven character stories, after all, and a decent number of cutscenes in each), but other than that, I guess I can work on it sometime. I've got a lot on my Wiki-plate right now. Tezero (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pretty surprised it was promoted too, but then again, I'm commonly surprised what is and isn't promoted, which is why I don't really mess with the process much. But regardless, the article's on my watchlist, and I've contributed in the past, so I may chime in here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As someone who was watching the page at the time, I was shocked that it passed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Gotta go fast: Wisp (Sonic) may not need a PR

As the article's on the short side even with its table, I think I'd prefer a new tactic for myself: to just take it straight to FAC after some comments here from whomever wants to give them. All comments are valued, but in particular, I'm wondering about:

The wording, specifically in the first section.
Whether Reception's too disorganized.
Whether the article places undue weight in some form on Colors for the Wii.
Whether I should condense the table in some manner. (I'd really prefer not to scrap it altogether, as numerous types of Wisps are referred to by name elsewhere in the article, sometimes more than once. Nevertheless, perhaps it should be smaller somehow.)

Tezero (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have any opinions? I'm getting itchy for another FAC not long after Channel closes, which should be soon. Tezero (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't deal with the process much, so I could be wrong, but would it be wise to skip steps? The article's kind of short, and that chart is rather large/overwhelming/crufty if you ask me. From what I've observed, it seems video games can be a harder proposition for featured content, especially with people reviewing it outside the general video game fanbase, correct? It seems like you'd really want to "over-prepare" on this one, considering its basically more or less about a minor gameplay mechanic/item/character. (It could almost come off as non-notable at first glance.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll put the article up at PR to sit alongside Big's. Tezero (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fantasy tropes and conventions

I added Fantasy tropes and conventions to this project, as well as the literature and film projects. This is an article that could be greatly fleshed out. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this fits in our project scope. It'd be like putting Gun, Sword, or Protagonist in WP:VG. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, especially considering the article hardly even mentions video games. Sam Walton (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but like Brainy said, it needs expansion to improve the scope. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Adventure of Little Ralph

I created a page for this game. Japanese only PS1 release. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyedited. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Charity bundle sale for possible VG sources books

There's a new bundle-like sale going on here [24] that includes the following e-books which some look like possible sources for various articles:

How to Do Things With Videogames - Ian Bogost
Atari Inc.: Business Is Fun - Marty Goldberg and Curt Vendel
SCROLL: Collection 01-11 - Ray Barnholt
Service Games: The Rise and Fall of Sega - Sam Pettus
Ghosts in the Machine - Lana Polansky and Brendan Keogh
The Gothic Tower & Assorted Interactive Fiction - Ryan Veeder
Boss Fight Books #1: EarthBound - Ken Baumann
Minecraft - Daniel Goldberg and Linus Larsson
The Final Hours of Portal 2 - Geoff Keighley

I do not know how well any of these (outside of the last one) would meet WP:RS guidelines, but I can see some possibly good titles here if they are. The entire bundle is $12 to unlock (the last 3 are the bonuses); the first 6 otherwise costs $3. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not an attack on you, but how do we know these would be reliable? Tezero (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to look to see if the book is commented on elsewhere, or look at the bio of the author. This is why I'm confident on the last one, since Kieghley is an established journalist and author. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Anything that Ian Bogost writes is golden, even when he's slagging off games criticism. His review of Hundreds is one of the most scathing and condescending pieces of games criticism I've read.[25] His piece on Flappy Bird is the best breakdown of what that game, and in a sense, all games are.[26]

I've not read Baumann's book, but I was aware of the Kickstarter, and there's an excerpt at kotaku - it's a first person account of him playing the game, so while it you may consider Boss Fight Books a reliable (though very new) publisher, the source itself isn't that useful. - hahnch e n 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Bogost's Flappy Bird article is such crap, ignorant to the vast continuum of art games and players who are determined to take on more commercial or simple games like what he describes for more than their face value. Hell, I don't think he really understands the concept of players actually finishing games at all. But he's definitely a well-enough-established author. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, he gets art games. Check out A Slow Year, which comes with a CRT emulator to give it the right fuzzy look. But I also think he gets Flappy Bird, more so than most. - hahnch e n 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Both of Bogost's articles, especially his attempt to pretentiously dismiss the supposed pretentious players of an... iPhone game (Hundreds) just felt clumsy; it seemed like he looked at all the way overthought and overwrought articles about small, silly games like those Flappy Bird and decided to see if he could turn it up past 11- he says very little of substance, but takes forever to do so while meandering through sarcasm and supposed wit. He's certainly an RS, but if his book is anything like that I'm not sure you can get much actual information to cite out of it. Bauman's book, on the other hand, while narrow in scope, could be useful for citing the gameplay section of Earthbound... that's about it, though. --Pres N 22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(almost 2 weeks late, but...) I have to agree with Hahnchen about Bogost. He's certainly worth citing and clearly an RS. How come all the charity events I go to only have romance novels as bundles? Good find, Masem. -Thibbs (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice find! I'm in for the full bundle. (And I wish I didn't miss this one.) Thanks for posting czar ♔ 02:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I can definitely say right now, Pettus is NOT reliable. He's an Eidolon's Inn contributor, and they definitely don't do their research and fact-checking well. His book is self-published as well. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As a writer and fact checker for Retro Gamer magazine (among other magazines, sites, etc.), and a regular member of this group, I'm surprised there's a question on the reliability of my book (Atari Inc. - Business Is Fun) or that some of you wouldn't be familiar with me and my background. Both mine and my co-authors sites (atarihq and atarimuseum.com respectively) passed reliabile sources vettings here ages ago as well. Regardless here was our resource/reference and vetting process for that book. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

New WikiProject Video Games logo?

Revision 1

Since joining the WikiProject, I've felt like our logo was horribly outdated. The current File:Gamepad.svg is nearly a decade old and I figured I'd try to make a more modern iteration for our project.

I apologize for hosting these on imgur, but I didn't want to go through the process of uploading a bunch of images to Wikipedia only for just a few to be used. I've narrowed it down to the two choices based on my personal preferences and the feedback of a few of my friends: "Light Gray/Grey" or "Green".

Anyway, here are my designs: http://imgur.com/a/n4lKq

The top two are the normal icon which would appear on Talk pages, etc. The bottom two are a potential header for the project, or can really go anywhere on the main page if we want. All fonts are free to use, the shape of the Xbox 360 controller (upon which this is based off of) isn't copyrighted by Microsoft, and can't be, and the usage of the Wikipedia "W" is allowed under their trademark policies. Also, I made these in Adobe Illustrator, so it's very easy to make them SVGs.

Feedback is appreciated! Thanks, --Nicereddy (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the modern simplistic look. I was wondering what it would look like in place of the current icon, so I did a small mockup. It might be useful to have other mockups as well, to see what it will look like in place: http://imgur.com/3o5QNE9 I have to say it doesn't look quite as good scaled down to 28 pixels. Perhaps a scaled version right from illustrator would be a bit sharper. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a peek at other colors? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to current logo. I don't see a reason to change from a rather iconic gamepad image to a more modern one. In addition, using a particular current gen controller silhouette feels biasy to me. Why not Wiimote or Dual Shock? I also don't think the X360 silhouette clearly conveys a controller image, especially once shrunk to 28 px. The current logo with buttons and cable (Even if cables are becoming less common) conveys better. -- ferret (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I originally thought about doing an NES controller, but I felt that that would somewhat defeat the purpose of "modernizing" the logo, it was also somewhat difficult to make it work with some sort of designation that it was related to the WikiProject. I realize that's not necessary, but I wanted to try to include it in the design. As for bias, I can assure you that it wasn't chosen for that reason. I chose an Xbox controller because it was the first I saw that was easy to make a vector and also add Wikipedia iconography to. I also felt like it was representative of the general "modern controller", as it seems to be the most commonly used controller on PC (and obviously Xbox). I'm not exactly a fan of Microsoft or Xbox, and I don't think the controller is necessarily evocative of any bias by our project. To be fair, the same argument could be made toward the current SNES controller we have as the logo. --Nicereddy (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm partial to File:Video game controller icon designed by Joe Harrison.svg. Iconic at all sizes, looks less like a spaceship, etc. I thought I brought this topic up before, but I could only find the task force logo talk in the archives. czar ♔ 00:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I really like that, my only concern being that it may be too simple? --Nicereddy (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of switching it up, but I have a problem with each of these ideas. Nicereddy, I think the "W" circle in your logos is way too small considering how small the logos will be displayed. (I'd prefer a sans-serif font, myself, but that might look a little Wario-y.) As for Joe Harrison's logo, it doesn't look that professionally designed, while using a Wiimote or DualShock seems like it'd project preference toward one company. What I'd most like to see is a sleeker version of our current logo, but tailored toward an actual GameCube/Xbox/DualShock-style generic controller rather than its current Saturn-like state. Tezero (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Prefer original - more easily readable at all sizes. - hahnch e n 02:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Compared to the above alternatives, I do not like them more than the current one. Not only do I think the logo based on the Xbox controller is too simple (it's basically just a silhouette), but I also don't particularly like the design of said controller either (at least in comparison to Sixaxis). I wouldn't agree to using the Sixaxis instead, though, since I believe the logo should be as neutral as possible, even if the current one looks similar to File:SNES-SFAM-Controllers.jpg (though with enough differences to keep it neutral).--十八 02:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we need to keep it as platform neutral as possible. And my opinion is keep the current image. - X201 (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps redraw your own unique Controller with the edition of Wikipedia "W" on it. I don't like the current one but its the most nuetral one out there. i suggest going for an oval shape, i havent seen an oval-shaped controller, with a D-pad and a set of buttons. You could possibly switch the D pad and button setup as most controllers have the D-pad on the left with the set of buttons on the right. Lucia Black (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Game Cube had an oval-shaped controller. Maybe if we make a controller shaped like the Wikipedia W? Anything I can think of looks really weird, but I think that's got a lot of potential. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 11:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If you put a silhouette of the gamecube, it will not be oval shape. I'm talking about it oval shape completely. I don't know what you're seeing. Lucia Black (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, it's the Wii Classic controller that's the oval. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 12:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, it looks good. or we can just go with but there are so many styles that have been taken that its hard to make something completely original. the only orignality i can think of is mirror the button and slap a "W" on it. Lucia Black (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision 2

Based on feedback I've received, I've re-done it with a design that's easier to see at small resolutions. See the image to the right.

Thoughts, @Odie5533, @Salvidrim!, @Czar, @Ferret, @Tezero, @Hahnchen?

--Nicereddy (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer anything over the current logo (ugly gradient and why does the controller even have that top bump), but I still prefer Joe Harrison's (right). There's another variant on the image's page. czar ♔ 02:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm great with Nicereddy's new logo. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, imgur's blocked by the ~~censors~~ ~~bastards~~ ~~high-and-mighties~~ admins who run the network I'm on, but between the two to the side, I prefer Joe's: It's simple enough to scale up and down easily, the black on white is easy to customize if need be (i.e. a colorful new barnstar), but still distinctive enough for our project. Nicereddy's is these too (but to a slightly lesser extent), but I prefer Joe's. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I think Nice's new logo feels fresher, and it doesn't have any particular console-bias. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the new version of Nicereddy better than the original mock-ups this thread started with. I'm still partial to the existing logo, but I prefer Nicereddy's to Joe Harrison's. From the idea of a platform bias, Joe's is clearly an NES controller in my eyes. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but Nice's is a lot like the generic logos you see everywhere for video game-related stuff. Joe's, while being biased towards the NES, is much more unique. It shouldn't be too hard to modify it away from looking like a specific console controller, should the need arise. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure I can see your view point. They are both controller silhouettes with buttons/gamepad. One is lined and empty, with solid buttons, the other is filled, with empty buttons. I just don't see how Joe's can be viewed as unique (at all) and the other as too generic. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  - I would agree with ferret here, although I am obviously biased. Joe's works because of its simplicity, something that I think would be ruined if we modified it too much to look less like an NES controller. Mine (and again, I am admittedly biased) is more modern, it includes the triggers - a staple of all current home and handheld video game consoles - as well as being wireless. It takes elements from multiple different current controller silhouettes, whilst keeping the button layout pretty simple. I personally believe that it's more representative of the current state of video games than Joe's, but also not over-complicating it with the thumb-sticks or "Start/Select" buttons. --Nicereddy (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    - I was just thinking that Joe's, while not unique per se, is used a lot less in gaming conventions, YouTube shows, etc. The triggers are a nice touch on Nicereddy's design, not sure how I missed those before. However, after reading through some of the thoughts under Revision 3 below, a simplistic take might not be the best idea, so here's an idea: What if we make a collage (3X3 or 4X4 would probably work best) of various video game-related stuff (controllers (possibly incorporating in these designs and the old one as well), characters, etc) and then whited out parts in the middle to make the Wikipedia W? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
      - Interesting. One concern of mine there is copyright infringement, though I guess it's time that Happy Mustached Bosnian Man, Speedy the Sassy Armadillo, and Eustace Q. Hungry-Puff get their time in the spotlight. Tezero (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
        @Supernerd11: I feel like this'd be too complicated, it wouldn't work very well at small sizes, which was the main problem with my first idea. --Nicereddy (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I like this one, but why change the logo? I really like the one we have right now. It's colorful and fun :) → Call me Hahc21 16:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Hahc21: I myself am not a fan of "Change for the sake of change", but I like to think, and hope others would agree, that my logo is an improvement over the current iteration. The current logo is now just a few months short of being a decade(!) old, and very clearly reflects that. I made my logo gray as it's a neutral color, and wanted to discuss the logo itself instead of the color at first. However, I am absolutely open to changing it to another color if we can decide on what would be preferable.
- The quality of our current logo is of course subjective, but I personally view it as an eyesore that should have been put out to pasture years ago. In the time most sites, companies, etc. would have refreshed multiple times we've yet to iterate upon what we have, and I don't think that can be attributed to the logo's quality. I think almost every design can be improved upon, and I try to treat everything with that mindset. Never sit still, never remain stagnant, never allow yourself to become apathetic. --Nicereddy (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  - True, maybe my reason not to change is because it represents my generation of gamers, which were the same generation who kicked off the Wikiproject ten years ago. But against it are the new generation of gamers, the new trends in both console (and media) design. → Call me Hahc21 02:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of changing the logo; File:Gamepad.svg certainly looked dated about...three console generations ago. I like the design, but I'm not so sure on the simplicity of the colour choices. If we're trying to freshen things up and make the logo stand out, I'd suggest a darker grey/black colour for the body of the controller. To make the logo pop, I'd suggest colouring in the face buttons - maybe red, green and yellow? Not sure about the colour of the D-Pad - Nicereddy, can you do a few mock-ups retaining the shape but applying my suggestions for colour, one with a plain white D-Pad and another with a grey D-Pad? CR4ZE (t • c) 14:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a 1-minute MS Paint job (don't judge me) of what I was thinking. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision 3

Why the hell does it have to be a joypad? There are loads of other things it could be in order to represent video games. If we're going to have a discussion about changing the logo, lets have a discussion about really changing it, not about updating it to a slightly different version of what we already have. - X201 (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, a joypad's shape seems like the single shape most iconically tied to gaming. Do you have any suggestions for others? I suppose an arcade-style joystick in some ways rivals it, but that's a little biased toward older gaming generations. Tezero (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You're still thinking controllers. There are loads of alternatives; we could have a generic console linked to a screen, we could have "Game Over" as text, we could have our own Space Invaders style blocky alien, we could have WP:VG in the style of a famous video game logo, we could have... there are loads of possibilities, If we're going to talk about changing it then lets do the job properly, decide if we're going to change it, and then choose from as wide a field as possible. - X201 (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be hard to have that conversation without anyone first proposing ideas. If I can offer a suggestion for structuring this discussion, it'd be that we list a bunch of options and have a run-off. Otherwise this can go on and on without action. czar ♔ 20:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this has come up or whether my opinion is worth much here, but why can't we have a PlayStation-Xbox-esqe controller? I think we need a relatively modern icon, and unless we're using the Nintendo DS or 3DS for inspiration, that shape of controller is the most iconic controller out there for modern mainstream gaming as far as I can tell. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think my most recent revision is pretty similar to the current generation's DualShock/Xbox Controller/Wii U Pro Controller, albeit without thumbsticks. Is there anything you would want changed? My main issue with adding detail is that the details wouldn't be visible at smaller sizes. --Nicereddy (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nicereddy:It wouldn't need to be high detail. To my eye, the logo you referred to just looked like a slightly warped version of the SNES/Super Famicom rather than a more recent gamepad, which is why I spoke up. I was thinking of having the logo a little smaller than our current one and at an angle: that way, we could show the controls and everything, but keep it low on detail. It's just a suggestion, and I tend to have a rather grand imagination. If it's too much, pay my suggestion no mind. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: To clarify, we're both talking about this controller, right? I can play around with its angle and see what works. --Nicereddy (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nicereddy: Yes, that's it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@X201: I think a gamepad is definitely the best way of handling this. We could do a Mario or Pac-Man sprite, or a spin-off of a current video game logo, but both of those invite an implication of bias. A video game console is hard to design without it looking like "just a rectangle" at smaller sizes or resembling a currently existent console. A controller is the most neutral and recognizable concept I can think of, and it's a lot easier to get the Project to accept a new logo using an already agreed-upon object than it would be to introduce something completely new. --Nicereddy (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake:, I agree with you. I mentioned that earlier, but you may have missed it as I phrased it "GameCube/Xbox/DualShock." Same basic idea. Basically, I want something that looks sleek and professional and isn't obviously tailored toward the work of one company. Tezero (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the initial design concept of having an ultra simplified image. Look at any other WikiProject logo and you will either see colourful photos or colourful drawings. Even the WikiProject Apple logo is more visually interesting. Not to mention that video games are a form of media first and foremost known for visual dynamics, having a really simplified logo is out of place. Wikipedia can always use more colour. Not that I disagree with the idea of a new logo, the old one certainly could be improved, but I think this is the wrong direction. Benach (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Benach: Personally, I disagree with the idea that WikiProject logos need to be colorful or complex. Look at WikiProject editor retention or WikiProject Sharks for example. I personally feel that the WP Apple logo is exactly opposite of what their logo should have been, as it contradicts the minimalist ideals of Apple as a company. The icon is fairly small in many cases, so details are not only unnecessary but completely impractical. This idea that our logo needs to be "flashy" or colorful is antithetical to the purpose of our logo. It should add to the content surrounding it, not take attention from it. Good design is design which you don't notice, it melts away in favor of the actual content. Logos for large video game companies tend to use a small palette of colors and simple shapes. For example: THQ, Valve, Nintendo, PlayStation, Steam, Origin, and EA. I don't think the logo needs to be complex simply because the medium it's representative of is. Movies are generally represented by a simple film strip, books are represented by an open book, and TV is represented by a simple analog "rabbit-ears" television. As such, I don't think the medium of video games needs a complex visual metaphor. --Nicereddy (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we please just go and continue with Nicereddy's logo, making it the new WP:VG logo? We don't need debates for that. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 03:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of debate is so that things don't get changed on the whim of a single person. - X201 (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Commenting on this to make sure it doesn't get archived yet. I'm going to update it with color options as suggested by other users, then hopefully we can vote on which of my variations/Joe's logo we'd prefer. --Nicereddy (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Missed this originally, but I also am quite partial to the original logo, and don't think it needs to be changed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also missed this originally, but I don't really see a great need to change what we have. Using the Gravis PC GamePad as our logo beautifully blends PC and console gaming and avoids the project any hint of big name (Atari, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, etc., etc.) bias. Looking at the logos of our colleagues from other language editions of WP:VG we see that the logo we're using is by far the most common (19 of 32 WP:VGs; 20 if you count sv.wiki's obvious SNES controller) and I think this helps us gather under a common banner. For those who are curious, the lesser-used logos include 3 NES Maxes (from da., nl., and ja.wikis), 3 joysticks (Atari-WICO style in ar. and fr.wiki; generic in po.wiki), 2 PS3 bananarangs (pt. and th.wiki), 1 PSP (hi.wiki), 2 without any logo (no. and zh-yue.wiki), and only at uk.wiki do we see the kind of modern stylistic designs that are offered above (the logo's a whole battlestation setup at uk.wiki). So yeah I'd prefer to leave things as they are. But... if the majority favors changing then I also prefer Maico's logo (depicted above) - mainly because science shows that the SNES controller is the most aesthetically pleasant video game peripheral of all time. -Thibbs (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)