Eisspeedway

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 110

Archive 105←Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112→Archive 115

Reviews

How are reviews evaluated for video games? I got into a bit of an edit war with an IP over whether PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale has gotten "generally favorable reviews" or "mixed to favorable reviews". I support the later because, of the reviews listed, it has 4 scores less than a 7, a C and only two scores equivalent to an 8/10. The scores seem to be around the same range as The Simpsons Game which is a featured article, and says " mostly mixed to positive reaction". So, what is the general guide lines for evaluating the reception of video games? JDDJS (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

IMO, this is a time to look beyond strict averages. As far as I'm concerned, if a game is getting fairly consistent 7s and 8s out of 10 across the board, that's "generally favorable reviews". "Mixed to favorable reviews", to me, implies a greater standard deviation: some reviews were mixed, and some were favorable. Of course, these guidelines aren't set in stone. The fact that the distinction is so minute, I think, calls into question whether it's worth arguing about. Tezero (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
In this case it'd generally 6s and 7s with a couple of 8s out 10, so what do you think it should say here? JDDJS (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
...Mixed to positive/favorable? I don't know. That's kind of a problematic range. Tezero (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I know there's a bunch of editors that oppose some of those phrases like "mixed to positive", because its kind of awkward/redundant. Mixed means "all over the place", not "medium", keep in mind. I'd usually just say "mixed" and then let the reader identify whether or not it seemed to skewer more on a positive side by reading the rest of the prose. (Also, aggregates help with that.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Normally, I'd say "average", but then you've got some people who'll say the average is 7 because that's the "average score of most VG these days", when I'm trying to refer to average as being neither good or bad. 85.210.178.27 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I already calculated the average score of PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, and I got 7.1, which I'd say is a favourable (but to make it clear, not great) score. Of the 12 scores listed that are actually numbers, four are listed as around 6, five are around 7, and and other three are about 8. However, none of the scores are lower than six, which for me would warrant a "mixed" score. And even then, one low score wouldn't exactly change the definition, I wouldn't have thought. It is "generally" one or the other, after all. 85.210.178.27 (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Not suitable for Wikipedia, of course, but the Four Point Scale is probably in effect here, heheh. If 7.1 is indeed above average, it isn't by much. Tezero (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, 1-2 is a terrible game, 3-4 is a relatively poor game, 5-6 is meerly an OK game (neither good or bad), 7-8 is a good game, and 9-10 is an excellent game. 85.210.178.27 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
That section should based on the score from review aggregator. If the score from GameRankings or Metacritic is higher than 75/100 then the game received generally positive review. If lower than 75 then the game received mixed to average review. However, if the score given is around 70, I would consider the game received mixed to positive reviews from critics. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well this is right on the border because GameRankinga give the PS3 version 75.3 and Vita 73.17 while Metacritic gives the PS3 version 74 and Vita 75. JDDJS (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should just drop the statement, if its contentious, and just say that criics such as X liked the (graphics/gameplay/whatever) while critics such as Y disliked the (whatever). --PresN 16:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. When there's a conflict about meaning, the standard practice is to defer to the sources. How do Metacritic and Game Rankings summarize it? Tezero (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
From what I can see, Metacritic ranks the PS3 version with 43 positive reviews, 25 mixed reviews and 1 negative review from critics, and 150, 19 and 27 for User reviews, respectively. On GameRankings, I'm counting eight out of 69 reviews ranking it below 70%, and 23 ranked above 80. All the rest seem to be between 70 and 80. 85.210.178.27 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Guys, the current statement is not "mixed" or "generally positive", it's "generally favourable". That's clearly in the middle of the two. Favourable and Positive are not the same thing. 85.210.178.27 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually positive and favourable are synonyms. They do mean the same thing. JDDJS (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Neither necessarily carries any intensity. "Favorable" might imply slightly less enthusiasm, but since qualifiers like "mixed to" and "strongly" can be applied to both, I find the distinction a little irrelevant, wouldn't you? Tezero (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
No, they don't mean the same thing. Not the way Wikipedia uses them. Positive is used for games that have gotten good scores. Favourable is used for games that have gotten good scores for the most part, but at the same time have received a few lower scores (and thus, mixed is used to describe games that have either got an equal amount of "good" and "bad" scores, or alternatively, scores that are around middle-field....4, 5 or 6/10 for example...but very few higher or lower).
My issue here is simple...Wikipedia doesn't use these terms consistently. Heck, I wouldn't even say "The Simpsons Game" deserves to be listed as having "mixed to positive" when the majority of the reviews are above 7/10. That on its own doesn't make sense. Especially given the fact that the various versions are all different. 85.210.178.27 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Creating a distinction in the words "favorable" and "positive" does not make any sense, and I don't think Wikipedia intentionally tries to, and if it is, that needs to change. There are plenty of other, clearer, ways to create distinctions. To the average reader, "generally positive" and "generally favourable" sound the same. Personally, I actually think favourable sounds better than positive which shows that there is no clear distinction between the two words. JDDJS (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Meetup

I know a number of y'all live in the American Midwest. I'll be traveling from Wisconsin to Indianapolis (via Chicago) for a conference the second weekend of November (6–9th). If anyone wants to meet up, let me know? (Email is fine too) czar ♔ 21:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A pretty interesting idea to see other members of the project. Too bad I'm busy being in the East Coast. But that does raise an idea for any possible meet ups in the future. GamerPro64 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me check my calendar. I live in Indiana. Red Phoenix let's talk... 22:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I actually... might be able to make that. My dad's family all lives around there (compared to my mom's in NYC, which would not be as practical), and if I weren't there for that reason, I could hop a bus pretty easily if I had time. Tezero (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with GamerPro64 - a meetup is an interesting idea. I thought of something like that after attending a USA East-coast Wikipedia event this summer where I was the only one who worked in the VG area. I'm unable to make it to a Midwest event at present, but one thing I'd recommend is that at least one person should wear a super-nerdy Wikipedia shirt or other marker. There's nothing more awkward than having to go around asking random people if they're here for the Wikipedia event. :) -Thibbs (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking we could say what we were going to wear beforehand, if it were distinctive enough. For example, I could wear my Tool or Grateful Dead T-shirt or be listening to my iPod with a purple earbud cord. Maybe describe ourselves as well to make it easier: I've been told I'm the spitting image of Landon Liboiron. Tezero (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Before this gets archived, wanted to send one last ping for anyone in the Midwest. @Tezero and Red Phoenix, how's it looking? czar ♔ 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like I can afford it and I'll have time. There's no way we don't have more Midwestern WP:VGians, though - have you gone around and perused the userpages of the active clientele? Tezero (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Midwesterner here as well, but that's an ~8 hour drive for me and the timing is inconvenient. Oh well. Woodroar (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I'm still not really sure yet. I can tell you that the only day I'd have available is the 6th, but I've got more going on with a possible position change in my company that's complicating matters right now. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero, that's a good idea. I figured that anyone active would see the WTVG message, but feel free to leave talk page messages if you have others in mind. As for Th., Nov. 6th, I'll be arriving in Indy in the early evening, if that's the best time to meet up. (Staying through the weekend, though, for what it's worth.) I'm all ears for good places to meet—never been there before czar ♔ 07:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
czar, IME downtown Indianapolis is actually pretty lackluster. The Broad Ripple neighborhood has more to do. Tezero (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Red Phoenix, what times do you think you'll be available? Tezero (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

czar, RP has unfortunately had to bow out. That's a relief, personally; tomorrow would've been the worst of these four days for me anyway. Which of the others would be ideal for you? Saturday probably would for me. Tezero (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Indy that weekend? Too far away for my limited college time and money, but if you end up closer to the Michiana or Tri-State areas, lemme know! I know the weekend before Thanksgiving is a big Super Smash Bros event in South Bend, I may or may not be able to make it to that. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

czar and I managed to get through a couple hours of conversation without clawing each other's eyes out, and overall meeting another Wikipedian was a nice experience I'd recommend and would like to replicate. I'll be in Chicago for winter break if anyone can meet there. Tezero (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) merge proposal

I have proposed that Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) be merged into Grand Theft Auto (series). The article has a volatile history; it barely survived an AfD last year and another merge proposal at the start of this year was closed as no consensus. Let's put the issue to bed. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

...Again? Man, I'm so glad I don't do notability anymore. Would it be wise to recruit all of the voters from the previous proposals to make sure all arguments are on the table and the community is represented? Tezero (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Official Nintendo Magazine - website closure

The final issue of Official Nintendo Magazine was published in October. While the official statement makes no reference to the website, other sources suggest that it will go dark on November 11th.

There are over 700 links to the website on Wikipedia. If someone is up for some archive botting, this is of immediate concern. - hahnchen 23:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Video game consoles (home consoles, handheld game consoles etc)

Before I made changes, I have found that Wikipedia articles are VERY inconsistent about the definition of video game consoles. Template:Video game consoles for example only includes home video game consoles (home consoles) like PS4 and Wii U etc, but History of video game consoles (eighth generation) for example would include handheld game consoles like PlayStation Vita and Nintendeo 3DS as well. Pages like microconsole and dedicated console also mentioned they are other types of video game consoles, but such consoles are not listed in Template:Video game consoles at all. So Video game consoles-related articles in WP are indeed in a VERY inconsistent state. Since video game consoles indeed do not just include home consoles, and handheld game consoles etc are game consoles as well, I have proposed to create a separate home video game console page which talks about home consoles exclusively, and the existing content in Template:Video game consoles to be transferred to Template:Home video game consoles so that the original Template:Video game consoles page will cover for example the types and generations of video game consoles instead (see example here). I can fix any remaining issues (such as duplicate redirects etc) too. --Cartakes (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

One problem is that in their current states, handhelds and microconsoles are not considered to belong to a "video game generation", but simply to have occurred in the same time frame, which is why they are missing from the generational templates and the main template in question. "Video game console" is taken to literally mean home consoles, while others are "micro consoles" and "handheld game consoles" which have their own separate templates and articles already. -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it's that so much as them just being considered different markets. I often hear the 3DS discussed as part of the eighth generation, even on Wikipedia, but less so as a legitimate competitor or even a legitimate alternative to the Xbox One, PS4, and Wii U. Tezero (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Ferret, that is not true, I am afraid. History of video game consoles (eighth generation) article as mentined above for example already includes handheld game consoles (please check it by yourself). Pages like Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita also mention they are Eighth generation (in their infoboxes for example). --Cartakes (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes they are included, and sometimes they are held apart, much like that same article does to microconsoles. I'm agreeing with you that there are inconsistencies, but I don't necessarily agree that your approach fixed them. For example, the template for Handheld video game consoles isn't divided into generations at all, but instead by vendor and/or year (It actually uses both...). All three (four?) classes of console have their own templates already. It sounds like what you want could go as a "video game hardware" template, as well, leaving the rest of the templates alone.-- ferret (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
So now you see the inconsistencies too. As for the template, as you said, there are separate templates for handheld game consoles, microconsoles, and dedicated consoles already, which are three of the four kinds of video game consoles. It is only natural to have a separate template for home consoles too, instead of using the video game consoles template just for home consoles. How each of these templates be formatted (e.g. divided by generations or by vendor/year etc) is another matter, which can be discussed either separately or as a whole. --Cartakes (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Any further discussion on this? I don't exactly see a consensus forming here, or much discussion at all. Anyone else have any input on this. Masem? Czar? PresN? You guys weigh in on this kind of thing sometimes.... Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the logical conclusion is included in the very premise. The phrase "handheld console" contains "console", which implies that "console" can denote either handheld consoles or some other type, that type being home consoles. I support not treating home consoles as a privileged default. Tezero (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I have no stance in this, but I do think the project should have input and buy in on this - this is a big part of how video games are organized and defined, and and editor of less than a week started doing it without any discussion at all. It'll be easier if we handle this on the front end, instead of a huge clean up session afterwards, like similar past failed attempts to make massive changes like this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to agree that "console" should not be limited to just the main hardware console, and can include handheld, microconsoles, etc. - any commercial device that has the primary function to play video games (even if it does more than that). --MASEM (t) 18:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that handheld consoles should be considered just as much a console of a given generation as a home console. I think the way I'd organize the console template is: A general console template the way that Cartakes is trying to edit it to, and then a separate template for each generation- so, the Wii U article would have a video games consoles template that lists out all the generations and the types of consoles, and also an 8th generation template that lists all the home consoles, handheld consoles, etc. of that generation. I think if we try to include everything into one massive console template it's going to be a foot long.
Alternate template idea: The way that the {{Final Fantasy series}} template works, you call it with a parameter- {{Final Fantasy series|FF=FFIV}} gets you a template that gives you the articles related to just FF4, and also the articles related to the series as a whole. We could do that, have {{Video game consoles|generation=8th}} give you all of the 8th generation consoles, and also the articles on the generations in general, without overwhelming the reader with the massive list of 5th generation consoles that aren't directly related to what they're looking at. --PresN 19:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Compelling idea. I do have a general preference for fewer larger navboxes > more smaller navboxes (as part of a liking for high interconnectedness that also includes larger "See also" sections), and this accommodates that nicely. Tezero (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
At this time, Cartakes' changes have been implemented before this really came to a close, though I believe they have stopped short of hitting every article with new templates. In regards to separate Generation templates, that is what once existed. I was not involved in the merger discussion, but it was only a year ago roughly that they were all merged together into "Video game consoles". I'm not sure we need a "Super template" with every home console, handheld console, dedicated console, microconsole, all in one. Cartakes' current approach is that the Video game console template becomes about the "types" of consoles, while a new Home video game console template takes over the old content. Existing templates for the other 3 types are already there. I'm cool with that. I mostly got involved due to the sweeping nature of it and the de-merging of the template after a valid merger discussion just a year ago. My only remaining concern is a bit goofy: The old "common name" argument that sources may not typically say "home video game console" and instead use "video game console" with no distinction to indicate home units. -- ferret (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I had a look at the previous merging proposal, which was largely based on the argument that each template was quite small such that the combined template was not so large that splitting was necessary. This argument is however no longer valid with the current consensus on the definition of the video game consoles. A "super template" with every home console, handheld console, dedicated console, microconsole all in one as mentioned above is probably not desired by most people. While I am currently not doing this, I can re-implement separate templates for each generation of different kinds of video game consoles too if there is consensus about this. --Cartakes (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So, this is what I'm thinking for what you would get from {{Video game consoles|Generation=Eighth}}. I'm unsure as to whether this should replace the handheld console/microconsole templates, or just run alongside them. If it runs alongside them, do we need a separate "home consoles" template as well? --PresN 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with making a template that lists all different types of game consoles of a given generation. I think it can run alongside with templates like "home consoles", "handheld game consoles" too. For example, in PS3 article it will have two templates, one lists all all different types of game consoles of the 7th generation, and the other (home console) template lists all home consoles including PS3; in PS Vita article it will have one template lists all all different types of game consoles of the 8th generation, and the other (handheld game console) template lists all handheld game consoles including PS Vita. --Cartakes (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Also note that many existing video-game related articles (e.g. PlayStation Vita and Nintendo 3DS) already have both templates such as {{Handheld game consoles}} and {{Eighth generation game consoles}}, with the latter currently being redirects. I hope they can still work without much modifications to these pages themselves as well. --Cartakes (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Redirects are fine, it's easy enough to modify the redirect for "Eighth gen consoles" to pass in the right parameter.
Great. Then I'd like to go with this. --Cartakes (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I like PresN's approach. We can get rid of multiple templates with this design. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
One new thought. This approach works well for home, handheld, and microconsoles. They have already been for the most part grouped or at least lumped in with the generations. How to handle dedicated consoles? In general, although many were released in recent years, their focus is bringing old generation content back to the market. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Secondary thought, and this is more a technical question. Can the template be implemented with a way to do generation=all and cause all 8 to show, if that was desired? -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Be a bit messy the way I have it, where it's just switching out what group 3 is, instead of selectively showing groups 3-11; let me see if I can do anything. What use case do you forsee for needing "all"?
Also, maybe dedicated consoles, since they largely stand outside of generations, shouldn't be included in this template like the other three types, and should keep their template. --PresN 21:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I could see the main article at Video game console using generation=all since it's the central article, if you will. While the Microconsole, Handheld Console, etc, articles would not. Something like that, but maybe unnecessary. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, figured out how to get the template to work with "All" as a parameter without too much work. I'll go ahead and do the other generations, then stick it in the real template instead of my workspace. --PresN 21:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Be aware that Cartakes has already implemented this at the real template and it's various redirects/subtemplates. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Saw that! Very fast. Implemented the "All" functionality in there. --PresN 21:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added a doc subpage to the template. -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The other templates

Cartakes and PresN have implemented a new template that incorporates all the types and generations. Lot of flexibility now. The question is, do we now merge/redirect Template:Home video game consoles, Template:Handheld game consoles and Template:Microconsole and replace their usage on respective articles with the appropriate generation? Example of at [[Wii U] where both templates are in use, but display similar data. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A second example though is Microconsole, where both templates coexist very peacefully. The Microconsole template shows all the microconsoles, while the Video game console (With no generation selected) is about hardware and generations without a listing. Perhaps in that case, a "type" parameter is also necessary? "Video game consoles|type=micro"? -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Got edit conflicted really hard on this one. My vote is that we keep the home consoles/handheld consoles/microconsoles templates, but only use them on the parent articles e.g. Microconsole, and not on the individual console articles. --PresN 22:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we should keep the home consoles/handheld consoles/microconsoles templates too. These templates belong to different categories, and can be useful for other users as well (e.g. when looking for other similar home or handheld consoles). PlayStation Network article for example also has both Template:PlayStation and Template:PlayStation 3, but they have different scopes. Also note that Template:Video game consoles does not support listing all game consoles of a given type yet. --Cartakes (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
My next thought then would be to remove Generations from Template:Home video game consoles and reorganize it similar to Template:Handheld game consoles, with major vendors getting a group and those belonging to less notable vendors being at the bottom as "Other". -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It is better to be more consistent with similar templates in formation too. --Cartakes (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed as well. It looks like we're all in favor of: keeping the console-type-specific templates but only using them on the general console articles, and changing Home video game consoles to match the format of Handheld. Lets go ahead and tag the articles accordingly. --PresN 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now noticed a problem. This is due to the question posted by ferret elsewhere a moment ago. He asked how to include dedicated consoles. Since Template:Home video game consoles does not include dedicated consoles, we need to add Template:Dedicated video game consoles into each dedicated-console article I think. Similarly, we need to include Template:Microconsole into each microconsole article in order to be consistent. Then how about home consoles and handheld game consoles? It's obviously a bit easier to find information relating to home consoles and handheld game consoles from Template:Home video game consoles and Template:Handheld game consoles, just like Template:Microconsole and Template:Dedicated video game consoles. --Cartakes (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's only an issue for Dedicated consoles which aren't tied to generations and therefore not in the new template. I've already fixed all of the microconsole articles with the correct generation. Let's move this discussion to the template talk now so it's saved for prosperity there. -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I see. By the way, I have already changed Template:Home video game consoles into a different formation. How do you think about it? --Cartakes (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Matches the handheld template now, looks good. -- ferret (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Console articles

Can someone point out the part of the discussion that says the Video game console article should be renamed to Home video game console please. Also it shouldn't have been done as a Cut and Paste move. - X201 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this part was discussed and I would support restoring the redirect from home video game console to video game console. That article is a wreck to begin with and needs an overhaul... -- ferret (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that this particular part was not discussed explicitly, but only implicitly. There is already consensus on the separation of Template:Video game consoles and Template:Home video game consoles. The similar thing would be done to Video game console and Home video game console too. This is quite natural to see so. Otherwise there will be another major inconsistencies. The original definition of game consoles made in that article obviously contradicted with the current consensus, so it needed to be fixed too (as already done), and should not be changed back. --Cartakes (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Also it was not exactly a rename or move, and most of the original content in the Video game console article are still in the article, so a copy/paste with noticeable modifications to create a new article should be considered valid as well. --Cartakes (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It still destroys the edit history. You need to add templates to the article talk that informs users where the bulk of the content comes from. - X201 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. Thanks for mentioning this. --Cartakes (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
In the conclusion of all this I deleted the whole Type section from Home video game consoles along with all its data. The other video game console articles should be amended as well. See the talk page by Home video game consoles' talk page. GeneticOS (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I realized that the other console articles don't have this problem because when they were split up, that section wasn't included. However I think there's a problem by List of microconsoles. See my note on the talk page there. GeneticOS (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I joined WP a while ago to try editing. However I don't have that much time and I never really stuck with it. Video games are my forte so i did a little editing there (the units sold section in list of home video game consoles was my idea when I started here, but I hardly touched it since created it. Anywho, list of video game consoles was on my watchlist and i got an email this week that the page was moved and I checked it out and was very happy that Cartakes decided to clean up the video game consoles. Anyways I'd like to start an organized cleanup effort on all console-related articles. Thanks. GeneticOS (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GeneticOS, you'll want to see Red Phoenix about that; he's about the only expert we have under our belt about console articles: he's gotten several of them, nearly all of Sega's consoles, to good and featured article status. I myself and most of the VG clientele seem to be more into the games. Tezero (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Tezero, thanks for the pointer, but to clarify I'd like to work on the general area of consoles and not on specific consoles. I was about to put this up explaining what i mean to do, but got an edit-conflict, so I'll put it now;
Just want to put some ideas out on the table for my cleanup project; the page list of million-selling game consoles seems a bit lonely (it starts off with a mash up of paragraphs taken from other consoles pages and then just has two charts with the million console data. I think we should just move the chart to the main video game console page. If we can finish up the units sold column in all the list of video game consoles lists. Cartakes seperation of different consoles was a good idea, however I think they should all be kept on the same page (list of video game consoles), just under different sections. We should also semi-protect all the console lists because if you look at the edit history, there is always a back and forth of people changing the generation dates. GeneticOS (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GeneticOS you should make sure you have Template:Video game consoles watch listed. A lot of discussion is going on their currently that relates to what was discussed here. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ferret thanks, thats probably exactly what I was looking for. I'll join in over there.GeneticOS (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Need a little advice regarding citing a Youtube Takedown notice

So in an article I'm working on one individual had a youtube video taken down due to a false DMCA claim (the video in question was later reinstated) but the reactions to said takedown are of significance. That said no major websites seem to have covered the takedown, the most we have to confirm it occurred was the individual posting a censored version of the takedown notice and subsequent dismissal from their emails with the private information regarding the claimant censored. Would the proper protocol here be to ask that the emails be forward to wikipedia commons to be used as a source, similar to what we've done for voice acting claims?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If the reactions to the takedown have received reliable coverage then surely they at some point acknowledge that a takedown happened? Sam Walton (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That's the thing, the mainstream media made no comment on the takedown that I can find, only commentary by sources that would be the equivalent of citing someone's personal blog and screenshots of the emails in question.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If the mainstream media didn't cover the takedown then there's no reason we should. Some context might help though, I'm having to speak in generalities here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
More pertinently, I don't see why we'd be able to cite YouTube users' reactions. Random people on YouTube are not reliable sources. Tezero (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm trying to establish a timeline with the origins of GamerGate, and one thing that's been glossed over are the two videos Mr. Baldwin tweeted a response to spawning the hashtag were in turn responses to another video being taken down by a DMCA claim. Said video, posted by youtube user MundaneMatt, was hit by a copyright claim by Quinn according to the emails from youtube. I feel this is significant to paint it less as a one-sided issue, as it shows while the matter did start with Quinn, she played the part of being aggressive in this as well (nobody in the history of the internet has ever responded well to a DMCA).
Really hope that came out right, I'm still trying to read through a lot here at once.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I rather suspect that using a primary source to achieve 'neutrality' isn't going to go down well at that article and I'd suggest you try to find some third party coverage of this. Sam Walton (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If the mainstream media didn't cover the takedown then there's no reason we should.

This is the answer. Gets even more complicated if the content of the video brings in BLP issues. If the media responded to the takedown, you need only acknowledge that something was taken down. I wouldn't go into any more detail if the media outlets didn't find it important to do so czar ♔ 16:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
But right now we are, in the current incarnation of the article, mentioning the two video responses to the takedown and Baldwin's twitter post, but ignoring the cause and effect chain that led up to it:
  • Video in question that was taken down then restored: [1]
  • Reaction video by InternetAristocrat stating outright at the beginning he had no plans to post these but DMCA action occurred: [2]
  • Baldwin posts links to videos, spawning GamerGate hashtag: [3]
We're arguing for a neutral tone here, but ignoring the original thing that caused the chain of events seems to imply that Quinn got haymakered out of the blue, changing the tone complete. There has to be a means to ascertain the existence of the claim and time it occurred, because I can't honestly believe in all these years of wikipedia similar hasn't happened.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Quick question, because I really haven't been following the gamergate thing, but aren't there 'timeline' news articles out there which document the whole ordeal from the start? If so, do these not mention it? Sam Walton (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I have yet to see any, some don't even mention the videos Baldwin link to and several seem to disagree on just how the order of events actually occurred. The New Yorker article even mentions harassment occurring for *18 months* before GamerGate started, but I'm having trouble turning up sources showing that as well or the exact cause for that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In that case I'm strengthened in my opinion that saying anything in the article to the effect of "this is how it started, look see here at these videos and notices" constitutes undesirable original research and shouldn't be included. I'd recommend taking this discussion to the talk page for the Gamergate article however. Sam Walton (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly wary about taking any discussion to the GamerGate article's talk page for now as the discussions there seem to have broken down. That said I did manage to find a forbes article discussing the matter here: [4]. Not sure if augmenting it further with having a copy of the emails to commons, but I think this should suffice for a sentence referencing the fact. Thank you for the help guys, it's useful to have a zero point to clear one's mind and keep things on the right track.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Permanently archiving videos

Is there a way to do this? I ask because online videos, especially on YouTube and game review websites, are frequently taken down deliberately or made obsolete by website restructuring, and I'm worried because a few articles I've taken to GA or FA status use videos as sources. Are there any archiving tools that would take care of a video even if the original embedded link goes dead? Tezero (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know some archiving service (Wayback Machine?) recently made a bunch of Flash versions of old arcade games available, they might also know something about videos. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 22:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn FAC

Considering the previous FAC lacked sufficient support to nominate, I would appreciate comments from the community. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Raising possible concern

So I happened to stumble across a GamerGate Wikia page. And I must say, it likes calling out names. Just letting everyone here be aware of this in case something goes down. GamerPro64 00:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. If my only claim to fame there is being a member of a Wikipedia task force that uses a logo based on a game by someone who would later take up the anti-Gamergate side, I must be doing something right. Tezero (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
My only mention was...my involvement in discussions of Lucia Black's topic bans?! That's considered a GamerGate related incident? That's...bizarre. Sergecross73 msg me 04:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking it has something to do with Lucia opposing the Fez icon for the Indie Games task force. And Fez was made by Phil Fish. And Phil Fish is Anti-GamerGate. It's like six degrees of Bacon here. GamerPro64 04:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
If it helps looking at the history page, it's being edited by a fistful of anons and two regular editors. I wouldn't take it as "Oh lord GG hates these guys!" Other than Ryu haven't seen hardly anyone else mentioned on twitter at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I closed that discussion and didn't get a mention. I'm a bit sad. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to stop using Fez as the WP:INDIE icon

  • As much as I abhor the idea of leting our choices be dictated but such circumstances, I'll ask WPVG (and specifically Czar: could we not use Fez's icon (or any other specific-game icon) for the Indie Taskforce? I originally leaned that way too but felt that Lucia had argued so combatively about it that there was no way I could convince you all; but now, the circumstances have changed dramatically, and I think it is even more wise to carefully consider the implications of connecting the Indie Taskforce to a specific game, especially one surrounded by such controversy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is surrounded by controversy. Phil Fish is, but he's developed a public persona far divorced from Fez unusual for an indie game designer. Tezero (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that's a bit extreme. Fez is hardly an anti-GG mascot or something. I assumed that the Wikia was just written by someone who has a love for semi-related rambling trivia, and someone will eventually rewrite that out for being too unimportant and off topic. Or maybe I'm just too used to how Wikipedia works, but I don't think GG was mentioned once in the discussion they reference... Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of Fish nor his antics, but the icon's fine. As much as Phil may like to have people think he was the one-man-army behind it, it was still a team effort and possibly a reminder to him at least that he's yet to top himself. I can take a bit of comfort in the latter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this all before GG was a thing? I'm unaware of it being used as a mascot for anything related to GG at all, so I'm disinclined to agree with changing it. -- ferret (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe so, yes, so there's also that, if this ever did become an actual problem. Also, like Kung Fu Man above, I'm not a fan of Phil Fish as a person, and I've never even played Fez. I just supported the icon because its an important indie title and it made good for a small, simple icon. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would keep it. The controversy regarding Phil Fish should not automatically be inherited by Fez simply due to his involvement. Also, simply because Phil Fish is anti GamerGate should not mean that the character Fez is automatically an anti GamerGamer gate icon either.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Video game requests

Hi everyone, quick reminder that the requests page has a lot of article suggestions ready to be written! I've stopped slacking and gone through the latest few months of requests to take out any which definitely weren't notable & added some sources for those which likely or definitely are to help get them started. Sam Walton (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AllGame Alert!

Lately I went to the AllGame website here and got this message: "We're sorry to announce that after many years of celebrating the world of video games, AllGame has run out of quarters. The site will be shutting down on Friday December 12th." It seems that AllGame will suffer the same fate as Official Nintendo Magazine, so if there are any AllGame links that need archiving, now's the time to do it before next month! And archiving must be done NOW! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the listing of all the links there from Wikipedia. Fortunately, we've got a bit more time than for ONM, so the 3002 pages (including talk archives, userpages, etc) should be able to be taken care of. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Dang it, not another one. Ah, well, I'll recommend using WebCite rather than the Wayback Machine as it's not subject to the ignominious robots.txt. Tezero (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that sucks, I use that one alot. Is there any reason why all these sites are going out of business? Is this world of infinite little blogs and social media just too much to compete with? Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's okay to archive AllGame links with the Wayback Machine, as long as the AllGame site now allows crawlers. I've archived one AllGame link as an example here. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend putting them all through archive.today as well, and keeping a list of the archive URLs you make in a notepad file. You know, just in the off chance that in 2 years time, the Wikipedia community comes to its senses and gets over the FUD surrounding that website. It's better to maintain security and avoid putting all your eggs in one archival website basket. The blacklist ban for archive.today hasn't been lifted yet, but that doesn't mean it won't be lifted in 2016 if I complain loudly enough. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh crap... Well, I guess I'll have to start backing up my featured lists. Just lovely; AllGame has been a fantastic resource and now we have to lose it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
WP will not accept archive.today links (it was a former archive site that caused problems). Stick to webcite. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
(See Wikipedia:Using archive.today) --MASEM (t) 00:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting to use archive.today within Wikipedia articles right now, it can't be used since it's on the blacklist. I was pointing out that if the AllGame website will be shut down, it would make sense to archive its pages on more than just the one archival website, before the pages are all finally lost forever. Can you guarantee me that WebCite will still exist in 5 years time? The long-term prospects of WebCite look uncertain at best. Archive.today might be on the blacklist now, but the blacklist is not carved in stone, and future community discussion might change that; in the prospects that change might occur, it would be of no harm to double-up on archiving any website that will be shut down, so that the same content is duplicated on multiple archival websites—ensuring redundancy prevents permanent information loss.

Wikipedia:Using archive.today is based on Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC which was a flawed community discussion which failed to address multiple issues. Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 was closed on the basis of numbers rather than the validity of arguments. I assure you that I will not be letting the matter to rest, and will bring up the matter again in 6 months time, once everyone has had the time to mature up and get over the non-existant boogeyman fear that's been spread around. There is no reason to be putting all trust in WebCite when it could potentially close down; having multiple archive websites to rely on means that if one shuts down due to funding problems, another one can still be used as fallback. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Damn it, this would be so much easier if we could just upload old versions of sites to Wikimedia directly. Tezero (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Or if archive.org didn't retroactively adhere to robots.txt. Sometimes I think we'd be best off by just taking screenshots of the sites and uploading them to imgur/flickr/dropbox. --PresN 07:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Which reminds me- if archive.org hasn't archived something, if you try to find an archive there it will let you archive-on-demand the page like webcite. Just in case you guys didn't all know that. --PresN 07:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we took screenshots of websites and uploaded them to image hosters, then obviously there's going to be someone who will complain about verifiability since an image can be modified by anyone, and that opens up another can of worms. Presently, we trust websites such as WebCite and archive.org out of good faith, but I don't think the same level of good faith would work for editors in general creating their own captures of webpages. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm telling you, please stick to the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive website. It's much safer this way. Trust me. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I generally only use WebCite when the Wayback Machine isn't an option, like for sites with robots.txt or that are about to get shut down. I'm open to the idea of archiving in multiple places; I was silent to the original suggestion because I thought he was saying that we should simply alternate between archiving sites rather than doubling up, which would increase the chances of some content being lost. Tezero (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The National Museum of Play

I have a call with the director of The National Museum of Play tomorrow. I contacted him a while ago about getting access to rare magazines but the idea is also to kindle a partnership, see how we might be able to work together. If anyone wants me to ask about anything in specific, let me know? czar ♔ 06:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any specific questions, but please let us know how that goes. It would be neat to get ahold of sources that would help in expanding games from the 90's, there's plenty of Genesis/N64 era games I'd expand if I had access to more sources, for instance... Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73, let me know if there are specific games/mags you're looking for—might be good to have some ideas for a pilot czar ♔ 16:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Czar - Sega platformers like Ristar, Bubsy and Earthworm Jim-related articles are all ones that I feel I've taken about as far as I can with what sources are available. I work a lot on Nintendo platformers, and Sonic related ones too, but they've been re-released and remade so many times in modern times that it's generally easy to dig up stuff on them. Virtual Boy games would be interesting too, if there's anything interesting there... Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Czar I'm trying to do a units sold column in the List of home video game consoles. If you can get numbers for the earlier generation consoles that'd be great.GeneticOS (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • So a few updates: (1) When we're having trouble finding those rare mag articles in the future, we can use the museum (a.k.a. The Strong) to lookup materials if we have the citation (more exact the better). Let me know if you're into this but the gist is to first search that they have the mag in their library holdings and then to email their staff. We don't want to inundate them though, so yeah let's talk about this if you want more info. I definitely plan to use it so I can write more on pre-90s games. (2) Their collection of 3D materials is also online, if you're interested. Mainly toys. (3) They don't really handle digital stuff, but I'm going to talk to Jason Scott about getting some backup on the number of gaming sites going down and how we can keep archives accessible in the future (it's one thing to have Internet Archive backups for current refs, but another to be able to find new articles in those archives that we haven't used). (4) Depending on the number of scan requests we have, I might apply for a grant to work on other history of play stuff there and scan what we need so the burden isn't on their staff. Perhaps let's keep a list somewhere of low-priority citations we want filled? (5) The search continues for a full run of Famitsu... czar ♔ 01:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Are there any plans for a large scale digitization/scanning project at the Strong Museum? Maybe with the Internet Archive? If so, arcade trade publications such as Play Meter and RePlay would help fill some gaping holes in our arcade game reception sections. Both magazines are still in publication though, so there's probably some legal involved too. - hahnchen 20:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
They don't have the staff for it, but Jason Scott works for the Archive and they continue to add to their scanned mag collection. JS didn't have much to say by way of projects that index reviews or how to handle offlining sites, other than that Archive Team is already on the big ones. Not sure how to help with that. Might be worth asking JS if he has those mags and whether they're on the slate to be uploaded. czar ♔ 22:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG/DATECAT

While reading over the article guidelines page, I came over the following guideline at WP:VG/DATECAT:

  • If the game only has a November 2014 or a Q4 2014 type date and a citation, add the game to Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2014.
  • If the game has a release date that is a full date that contains day, month and year and a citation from a reliable source, then also add the game to the appropriate year category e.g. Category:2012 video games.

There seems to be discrepancy between what the guideline says and what editors are actually doing; for example Category:2015 video games currently only contains two entries despite plenty of 2015 video games having a "full" release date. Instead, editors (including me) add "Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for XXXX" to all upcoming games, regardless of full release date, and then replace it with "Category:XXXX video games" after the game actually releases (thus "Upcoming video games scheduled for XXXX" cats contain only upcoming games, and "XXXX video games" cats contain only games already released). Personally, I believe the guideline should be changed to reflect this, as A) it's clearer this way (and even these "full" release dates are susceptible to change at a later date) and B) it's what editors seem to be already doing. Thoughts? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible proposal, the way the guidelines propose seems counter-intuitive. Sam Walton (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the original wording four years ago, it was a compromise at the time as people wanted to put unreleased games in the year category and it was also the start of pushing for valid references for any form of date. I've been BOLD and changed the wording to:

If anyone disagrees please change it back, but I don't think this needs a discussion if its how people are operating now. One request though: Can we leave a couple of articles in Category:2015 video games as it seems pointless to delete it as an empty cat, only to re-create it next month. - X201 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, wording's much better now. However, I've added {{empty category|hide=true}} to Category:2015 video games as a preventative measure against deletion (shouldn't happen though, as it does contain a subcat) and moved the two articles in it out as directly going against policy may not be the best idea in my opinion. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Its not a policy. - X201 (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Guideline, I mean. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Upcoming being a subcat solves my worry about the cat being deleted so that's that I think. - X201 (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Super Metroid selling "at least one million units"?

I think I need some help from anyone on Super Metroid. Some IP user was going into a habit of adding in that the game is "selling at least one million units" without providing a source that backs it up. I listed some revisions of the IP's behaviour:

I don't know if some IP tries to do this again, and I'm not sure where this "one million units" coming from... -- Hounder4 14:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected for a week. See if you can get anything out of the IP about it now... Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be that the IP has responded to my message, as seen here (revision), explaining about his edits. I hope the discussion I put up (Talk:Super Metroid#The game selling "at least one million units"?) would draws his attention. Post your comments there. -- Hounder4 23:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Review Thread Epsilon: Greek Letter version

Since the old one up top has reached the top and is getting a little stale (been out for at least a month), I decided to start number five down here. The review thread is turning into a helpful trend, spurring on the completion of FACs and making GANs more noticeable. While a lot of the stuff here will be carried over from upstairs, it will be a more up-to-date version, with a new GA added and a passed GA removed.

  • FAC:
  • Lightning (Final Fantasy) has been nominated since October 6. It has three supports, a passed image review and a completed source review.
  • I'd add that the article's already in great shape, so the final reviewer won't have much work to do. It's been up for well over a month—whoever's free, please don't shaft ProtoDrake by making him go through FAC again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Three supports is officially enough. The problem - which I discovered and have since solved with Underground - is that there are no supports from people uninvolved with video game articles. (I suspect my involvement in the recent FACs of Luo Yixiu and American paddlefish was part of that threshold.) Try asking around elsewhere. Tezero (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The source review has been done, and apparently it's alright, I just need to wait for the article to pass or fail. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sega Saturn has been nominated since November 16. It has a few comments and one oppose concerning excessive citations.
  • Freedom Planet has been nominated since November 19. It has no comments.
  • GAN:
  • Peer review:
  • Jumping Flash! has been nominated since November 13. It has no comments.

I may have done completely the wrong thing in creating this fifth review thread, but I thought it was the right thing to do. Usual begging threads below and anyone can update this at need. To start, I have two GAs and a lingering FAC. If anyone is willing to tackle any of them, I would be willing to help in some way with one of their projects. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, a few more comments for Freedom Planet would be nice. I was going to nominate Amy Rose as my next FAC, but that's becoming increasingly unstable due to the three Sonic Boom works. For this one, I'll be rewriting the Reception section at some point but have no other plans. Tezero (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably a good idea. Between her new character iteration happening, the Boom games potentially coming under fire for being bad, and how feminism/damsel in distress type characters being such a hot-button topic these days, I bet she'll be receiving a lot more coverage soon... Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Second round of comments added for Freedom Planet. Any other users who wish to comment should please do so. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Never mind; it's at FAC now. Comments still appreciated, though! :D Tezero (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a bit of a dry season for FACs, it seems. If anyone's got a GA they're fairly comfortable with and that didn't just barely slide by on comprehensiveness, now's as good a time as any. Tezero (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Match-3 games are NP-hard

There's been a few studies (such as the one above) on the issue, might be something to update various match 3 game articles with -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Running With Scissors needs improvement

Please someone consider overhauling the RWS page to make it more encyclopaedic. I'm way too busy as the moment. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't post here asking other people to do something while explicitly stating that you're not going to. It comes across as condescending- that you think our time is worth less than yours. --PresN 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could take the attitude that this is simply an important page we should be aware of (though I only know the name from the old parents' adage and the Weird Al album) that ought to be improved. I personally don't care a whit about the Postal series and I've got other projects at the moment, both on and off Wikipedia, but perhaps some of us do. Tezero (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I certainly understand PresN's sentiment though. At any point there's a million articles that need cleanup. It's a little careless to say "Hey, I find this important to fix, but important enough to do anything about personally. Fix it up for me." Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree. I'm only wondering if something worthwhile can't be salvaged from it. Tezero (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think of it, we do have WP:Reward board. This past winter, I saw that someone was offering a free copy of Terraria for anyone who brought one of a list of survival games to GA status, so I accepted the offer (with Don't Starve) and now I have both Terraria and a cool new indie survival game I'd never have learned about otherwise. The reward doesn't necessarily have to be large, but if it matters that much to you... Tezero (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I literally don't have a half hour to myself, which is why I suggested it here, but it turns out I'm actually being condescending. Is there a reason you had to interpret my comment negatively? Willhesucceed (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@PresN:?
I'm sure you didn't mean to be condescending. But all three other people in this thread took it the same way: "There are 10000 VG articles that need fixing, and all of you have your own projects. But here's an article that I care about... but I'm not going to fix it. Fix it for me." Sorry for interpreting it negatively instead of just ignoring the thread, but really, your presentation needs some work- if you had said "Here's this article that needs some work, is anyone interested in fixing it with me?" you probably would have gotten some hits, but actively stating that it wasn't a priority for you but it should be for other people isn't really a winning strategy. I do apologize for responding, though- better to say nothing than to be rude. --PresN 06:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I daresay we've focused on the tone enough. (I personally didn't think it was that bad, anyway; I've see harsher conduct from admins more times than I can count.) Are there users who have handled similar topics that we could innocuously suggest this to, as a possible area of interest? Tezero (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Coin945 and iOS game articles (part three)

Following up on a previous conversation, @Coin945 is mass-creating pages again and copy-pasting the reception from the Metacritic quotes. (See their talk page notices for a long list of examples.) I left a message on their talk page (that was eaten by some automated message and now restored). I thought Coin had said they wouldn't do this anymore, and I'm not sure if the issues from last time were even resolved yet, so wanted to bring this back to your attention czar ⨹ 13:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've given him a short block. A ton of people, both WPVG editors and admin, have warned him to stop, and he conceded that he would. He's received ample warning, and I'm pretty sure another admin already gave him a final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a clear issue with compilation protection. I've removed as much of the copy-paste as I can, dating back several days, but there's more. :/ If anybody has any time to help out, the content copy-pasted from MetaCritic should be removed. I'm placing my own little template of explanation on the talk pages at User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. It's a quick, basic template that any of you are welcome to use without attribution. (Note: I'm here because I saw the block on my watchlist; this contributor has been receiving warnings on various copyright issues since 2009.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
What about a topic ban? Or something similar that prohibits creating articles? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not against it per se, but it is the first time the editor has been blocked for it. Perhaps he'll take the warnings more seriously now? Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't the best route here be to delete the articles as copyvios if there is no version without infringing content? Paring it down to a single sentence does what we originally asked Coin not to do (lots of rock bottom quality stubs), which was why they expanded into copy/pasting Metacritic in the first place. czar ⨹ 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think so. Looks like there's about 65 articles created since the 17th, most in the last 24 hours. If we're in agreement that his initial creation of one sentence stating the name and developer + 4 sentences copied from metacritic is a complete copyright violation with no redeeming features, then I can run through and kill them all in <10 minutes. Right now, the cut down version is just "X is a game released in 2013 by Y. It's metacritic score is Z%", which is completely useless. --PresN 19:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:SE tries to keep it's stub rate at 0% anyways, so I'd likely redirect it even if it wasn't deleted unless there's enough information to make a start-class article. Anyways, starting the deletion run now. --PresN 21:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I redirected Slime 3, though I told Tezero that he's free to re-split it (he asked) if he's willing to actually write an article on it. I redirected it because it was only a sentence or two, but I do believe there's enough coverage for that one to warrant an article, if someone actually tries. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Titan (gaming organization)

Hello, video game experts! Is Draft:Titan (gaming organization) a notable topic? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. Our esports coverage on Wikipedia is quite poor, I'm not sure many of our members actively follow it and a lot of it takes place overseas so is mostly covered by foreign language sources. Titan recently got dumped from a competition for cheating, which was covered in plenty of reliable sources such as IGN. Other random sources [5][6][7]
I recommend everyone ignore the draft space, and just create everything live; better to chance it at AFD then a single reviewer. - hahnchen 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Category error

One of the categories on this page is missing a space causing it to show up a redlink. I'd fix it, but I don't know enough about category syntax, and the hidden text tells you not to edit them. CamelCase (talk | contribs) 22:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

On which page? I'm not seeing any redlink cats on this talk page or WP:VG itself... --PresN 22:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh it's gone now. Nevermind. CamelCase (talk | contribs) 23:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Article by Game Informer about its editors' favourite soundtracks

I figured this might be some nice reception, especially for games that might not discuss soundtrack much, or might even help with soundtrack articles. Soundtracks mentioned include:

[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎209.169.219.170 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 11 November 2014‎

Pokémon Sage

I'd like to alert the project to a situation involving a fangame article. Jabberwock xeno, a user who has for a couple of years stuck with the development of the game Pokémon Sage, which originated on and is being developed by members of 4chan's Pokémon board, has altered some information in the game's article, claiming that it is incorrect - for example, he disputes that the game's development began in 2011 instead of 2012 and that the villainous teams had not yet been decided in 2014. I believe him, but he claimed that the information was unsourced here, while in fact I wouldn't have had anywhere else to get it but the sources and I cited accordingly. Having said that, is there any way we could cite parts of the game's wiki as primary sources, rationalizing that perhaps the third-party sources made mistakes? I'd prefer some kind of stable revision of a page or news release if at all possible, but I'm not sure if it would be against the rules anyway. I want to emphasize that Jabberwock xeno has not been disruptive; I'm merely intending to bolster my points with consensus or, if I'm wrong, find that out.

As a related issue, if Jabberwock xeno's analysis is correct, the game's community is taking the unusual position of being against their game having a Wikipedia article. I would expect that most fangame communities would be supportive, as was Freedom Planet's when it was a DYK and Sonic: After the Sequel's when it was a TFA last month, but apparently it's something about privacy. Is there a way that both Wikipedia readers seeking information and the Sage community might be satisfied? Tezero (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Go with what the reliable sources say, even if they're incorrect. (Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth.) As part of being reliable, they're trusted for their accuracy. Have JX submit a correction there, if necessary? If no RS covers the detail, omit it. A wiki with no editorial control is not reliable even as a primary source. If the project leader were to post somewhere on a secure account, that could perhaps be used as a primary source. I wouldn't even get to that point. Keep the article shorter and to the RS-supported facts if the project members find it contentious. czar ⨹ 22:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hah, I'm well-aware of that principle. At the same time, a certain meme comes to mind. When I suggested the wiki, I was talking about something added exclusively by high-ranking members of the development team.
Jabberwock has implied an unpleasant possibility I didn't think of, though: perhaps it won't only be potential fans seeing this article. Sega is lax on fan media, but they're an outlier. As a 2000s preteen/teen, I remember the hubbub over Smosh's Pokémon theme song video being taken down via a Nintendo of America copyright claim, despite having amassed over 24 million views and not disparaging the franchise or taking revenue from it in any way. Tezero (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with Czar on this one. That's Wikipedia's role. There's a massive Internet full of blogs, forums, social media, Wikias for anything that falls outside of our scope. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let me make this clear, the wikia actually is a reliable source, as every edit is proofread, and its Main Page can only be edited by an administrator. I've been at the project since October 2012 (when it started). The deletion proposal is just a consequence of the reverts made by Tezero the last one done without listening to Jabberwock's reasoning. This angered some people at the project, as they opposed an unnecessary news post.
There's no point in knowingly keeping inaccurate information. The citated news articles never bothered to contrast their information, so they shouldn't be taken as a valid source, no more than the official wikia.
Therefore, I'm undoing Tezero's revert, so the correct information is displayed, until a "general info" page is added to the wikia for future references.
Our job may not be to "find the truth", but knowingly hiding it is almost vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallardomartinez (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2014‎ (UTC)
Wikipedia is an edited collection of information that is cited in reliable sources. Wikia wikis are not reliable sources- they are community-edited pages with none of the markers of a professional/pro-am publication with fact-checking, editing, and being cited by other reliable sources. That this wikia page can only be edited by admins only means that it can only be edited by a subset of the community; being an admin on a wikia does not give an editor inherit reliability. If the reliable sources out there for this article are in error, then you need to get them to issue corrections or get a new source to publish information; given that the game itself is not released we have no reliable sources available to contradict what is out there. The purpose of the article is to summarize the available sources, so the fact that it may bring unwanted attention to the project or the fact that Tezero did not run his edits by Jabberwock or the other project members is neither here nor there. --PresN 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
As I stated, the quoted sources never bothered to fact-check, which invalidates them as "reliable sources", the admins on the wikia are trusted people in the project, which grants them more reliability than the aforementioned "news" sites. I have to agree that there's too little information to be contrasted, maybe it's just that the project is too little and shouldn't have a Wikipedia page yet, maybe marking it for deletion is a good idea after all, until there's enough "valid" sources (right now there's none).
Most of the incorrect information wouldn't make sense on a news post, so that won't happen, and my proposed "General Info" wikia page wouldn't be a valid source. Congrats, you're already making Wikipedia a worse place. Gallardomartinez 12:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You're now knowingly keeping incorrect information on a page about a atopic you know nothing about, you're cancerous to this wonderful place. You've lost your bearing. Gallardomartinez 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I know you've got a massive 24 hours and 4 edits of experience under your belt for lecturing us on how to run the website, but please take the time to learn how the website works a bit more first. You'll make a lot more progress trying to work with us under the confines of policy and guideline, than you will slinging around vague insults. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I sheldom use this account to edit, hence the low count. If after being told how inaccurate those news sites are when it comes to the project, you keep adding potentially inaccurate information (the demo doesn't feature only 10 Pokémon), you have too see how little and inaccurate public information there is about the project. That's the reason I proposed the article to be deleted, not "vandalism", as an admin controlled wikia (where the updated and correct data is displayed) is somehow not valid enough. Please direct me to the vague insults, as stating that you have zero knowledge about the project can't be considered one. Gallardomartinez 17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you not refer to me/us as "cancerous"? Or you mean "cancerous" in a non-insulting manner? Regardless, please read WP:V and WP:VNT. We go by what sources say. We'll fix it if new sources present new/different information. Please read WP:RS and WP:SPS. Once you do, you'll see why your Wikia won't work as a source. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION, and you'll see why we can have first party accounts providing their accounts on things primarily. Please read WP:GNG, and you'll read why the proposed deletions were dismissed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You care more about an invalid deletion proposal than about a valid one, you care more about the rules that were made to assure the information is as correct as possible than about the information actually being correct, you care more about not fact-checked sources than about the actual facts. Yes, you've done a lot for this place, but somewhere along the way you've forgot what this place is about. Just as laws are made to serve justice, these rules are made to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible, and you're now achieving the opposite. Right now, you're making this a worse place, congratulations. Gallardomartinez (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Do things go well on your Wikia, or 4ch, when people waltz in and make a bunch of demands and changes without taking any initiative to figure out how things work or what's expected of editor/posters? Look, I've informed you of how things work, and how you should go about making the changes you want to be made. Its on you now, if you want to listen, or just grumble about how terrible the place is. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know, as we try to use logic, but we do know how well things go when we do things your way, as we currently have a pointless article, where half of its content is incorrect, I seriously can't see how that's making things "work". And your solution is informing several posters of years old news articles about some (irrelevant at the moment) mistakes they made and expect them all to fix them, or wait for a new article to appear which magically addresses all the issues, and this article couldn't be ours according to WP:NPOV. I seriously would love to know what do you think the chances are of any of this happening. Oh, and I said this place is wonderful, not terrible, let's work on keeping it this way. Gallardomartinez (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Look, it's not like primary sources can't be used at all; otherwise we wouldn't have policies governing them. In fact, I primarily started with secondary sources to ensure notability and provide some basic information, not because I thought they were more likely to be correct. But we can't just cite any wiki article or hastily written Wikipedia correction piece when we don't even know how much of the CAPX wiki agrees with it, whether the author/s knew what they were talking about, or whether it's genuinely objective or the author/s are just trying to make themselves/the project look good. I mean, Jabberwock said it himself: there's already a tremendous amount of disagreement over everything over there. Maybe we could use an interview with the project leader or something to correct some uncontroversial facts about the game, with the addendum that while Kotaku, Polygon, etc. claimed this, the project leader claimed that. But until the Sage team gets the wherewithal to pull off something like that, Wikipedia can't wait on them hand-and-foot to dictate the truth as they see fit. Tezero (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Disagreement was about the Wikipedia article being positive or negative to the project, not about the growing amount of incorrect information. There's no project leader to interview, the closest thing to what you're asking for would be the voluntary input you've been receiving from Jabberwock and me. None of the incorrect facts are controversial, only the article itself is. Most of the people don't care at all about this. So you have two options, keep ignoring the simple, not controversial (they're just dates, locations and simple facts) corrections, while burying in bureaucracy the poor article, or check the wikia, see how obvious the mistakes were, ask either Jabberwock or me any doubt and accept the proposed changes. We already know Sergecross73's opinion, "your Wikia won't work as a source", but I'd love to hear yours. Gallardomartinez (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
No, there is a Project-wide consensus that Wiki's cannot be used as a source, per our source info at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if that's literally the only source of information about the topic (yes, also for the cited news articles)? That means those articles are based on invalid sources, making them invalid by extension, and as that would render the entire article pure speculation, it should be deleted. Again, congratulations, you achieved this yourself, proceed to delete it, by your own rules. (I was in favor of having a wikipedia article, so thanks). Gallardomartinez (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, Sergecross, I'm guessing that consensus wasn't intended for games with wikis actually run by the dev teams, which could arguably count as reliable primary sources if not for the possibility of content wildly changing (which is why I've suggested citing stable revisions or site-hosted articles). But Gallardomartinez, sources making mistakes doesn't mean they're invalid or purely speculation - what I suspect happened is that the authors of these secondary sources were more excited about the fact that a well-developed Pokémon fangame exists at all than about reporting all the facts correctly. Moreover, even if they were "invalid" or speculative sources, that wouldn't make the article fit for deletion, since the fact that several of them wrote articles dedicated to the game means the game passes WP:Notability. Tezero (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Still, as we were never contacted by the authors of those articles, they could only get the information from our wikia, and they did write part of those articles out of speculation, as some of the false facts that you still refuse to correct were never part of any wikia. No matter what, our "terrible" wikia is still the only source for the Wikipedia article, rendering it invalid, unless you accept its validity. However, I fear we'll stay with a laughable article, which, in only three small paragraphs manages to:
  • Contradict itself; the evil team/Conquistadores part (Conquistadores are not in the game), and the Mexican/South American location (Mexico is never mentioned).
  • Spoiler the game; the Pokémon stealing part.
  • Use a loose format; the starters shouldn't be in the Gameplay section.
  • Include personal opinions; the "marked by internal disagreements" part.
  • Display highly inaccurate information; the 2011 start (it was Oct 2012), the original purpose of the game (at first it was supposed to only be a Pokédex), the working title (it never was CAPX, that stands for Create A PokédeX), the outside source seeking, and finally, the number of Pokémon in the demo (it's 32, not 10).
Luckily we have someone as experienced as Sergecross73, who knows how things work around here, and will somehow fix all this without being corrected by a "24h account"(and about 5 years). Gallardomartinez (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not written any of the article, nor do I plan to. Just fielding questions and enforcing policy on the Wikipedia page for video games article help... Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I created the article and wrote all of it, and I'm not ashamed of that. I first heard of it on the 17th when one of my Facebook friends mentioned it in passing along with Somari, so, being curious, I Googled it, found several articles on the game, and whipped up a quick article that night. If you don't like it, Gallardomartinez, I'm sorry, but we can't undo notability even if we want to; the sources giving inconsistent, incomplete, and incorrect information isn't an adequate justification around here. And as I've reiterated repeatedly, primary sources are not completely closed off, but we can't cite wiki pages, especially not to contradict long-esteemed sources. (And by the way, the sources' information could easily have come from places other than the wiki, such as the 4chan board itself; at least one source didn't even mention the wiki.) Tezero (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tezero, you created the article and I appreciate that, you were wrong in several aspects, which wasn't your fault, then told why you were being corrected, maybe you thought there was controversy surrounding the corrections, but there isn't, as I explained earlier. However, I rather not have an article at all than a joke of one, which is what we have now, a very bad joke. I couldn't disagree more about the "we can't cite wiki pages, especially not to contradict long-esteemed sources" part, as said sources used nothing but our wiki to terribly write their articles (that's how esteemed they deserve to be).
Sergecross73, you said you're helping here, well, read the list I posted and agree with me, you're doing a terrible work until all that is corrected. And if we follow your rules and plan, it's probably never going to happen. Gallardomartinez (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've informed you of policy, and told you of how it can be fixed. You refuse to budge on your stance. I have no interest in writing the article. That's all I've got, I don't have anything else left to say. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you please remind me of how to fix it? Are the options "informing several posters of years old news articles about some (irrelevant at the moment) mistakes they made and expect them all to fix them, or wait for a new article to appear which magically addresses all the issues"? Seriously, maybe I just missed something. Gallardomartinez (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute; there's an obvious (partial) solution we're forgetting. What if we cited quotes from the game? That won't work for everything, but it's an acceptable primary source for obvious gameplay and plot details; hundreds of video game GAs and FAs use game quotes. I don't see why we couldn't simply note that while Kotaku, etc. initially reported such and such, in a later demo release, such and such happens, and here are the in-game quotes to show you exactly where you can see for yourself. Tezero (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As Sergecross73 has probably gone to ruin another article with his helpful insight, I'm not going to play hide and seek with Wikipedia rules, and unlike him, it looks like you still have some logic left, this is up to you. You know the wikia is not a fanmade compilation, like 99% of the wikias, but our true handbook, with as many references and as much control as Wikipedia itself. I'm telling you this, and that the "long-esteemed" sources never bothered to fact check. You can go and check it yourself, and then, decide which source is more reliable, I've already listed everything that's wrong in this very conversation. You started all this with good faith and intention, now fix it the same way. Gallardomartinez (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sergecross73 has done nothing more than offer his opinion on this talk page. If people giving opinions that you don't like "ruins" things for you, then I suspect you have that problem a lot. Wikipedia has rules, and sometimes those rules aren't convenient, especially on articles with few sources. Calm down. You've been told what you can do to fix the issue; if you don't want to that's fine, but there's no need to disparage people you disagree with. --PresN 18:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've explained how the "proposed fixes" are unrealistic, why they don't make any sense and why they wouldn't even happen, leading to a ruined article. I've proposed mine, which would lead to a correct, sourced and fair article(our supposed objective here). If you really think that what we have now is what Wikipedia aims for, if you think that fighting to keep highly incorrect information on an article is what we're supposed to do, I'm sorry, but I think you're the one with a problem. Gallardomartinez (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jumping Flash! 2 GAN

The Jumping Flash! 2 GAN has recently been opened by an IP and since IPs are not allowed to take GA reviews, I'm not sure on what to do. Should it be closed or can someone else review it? I think this is the same IP that opened the Sonic the Hedgehog 2 GAN... annoying I know... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the page and reverted the transclusion so that the review can be started fresh when a reviewer is ready. Sam Walton (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

List of horror video games article possible improvements

I noticed that Bioshock 1 and 2 are in the list of horror video games. I do not think that they belong in this list, as neither of them are particularly frightening games. I propose that they be removed from the list. Any input on this idea would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Cap'n Tightpants (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how I get scared when playing Minecraft, I personally disagree, but I digress, haha. What are the inclusion criteria for this list? If anything that has a good reliable source referring to it as a "horror game" can get in, then you are free to remove anything without a source or add anything for which you do have a source. The BioShock article has "first person shooter" as its genre, so yes, it is not a horror game. Feel free to remove them, be bold! ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wargaming and Wargaming.net

When I was creating a template for Wargaming, I am confused by a problem. Is Wargaming.net an alternative name of Wargaming? The page itself stated that it is a service introduced by Wargaming but it is using a company info box. Many of their titles, like Massive Assault and Order of War, their info box stated that the developer is Wargaming.net instead of Wargaming. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth merging, while the relationship between .com and .net could be construed as a Valve/Steam type relationship, .net seems to only serve the parent company's products. I'm also fairly sure the creator of those articles, User:Dzimitry works for Wargaming. - hahnchen 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
How to merge the page actually? AdrianGamer (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Just copy and paste the relevant parts from one article to another. Turn the defunct article into a redirect. - hahnchen 16:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to Czar and Sam Walton!

I'm a few days late, but congratulations to czar for passing his RfA and becoming an Admin! He joins the heady ranks of VG-interested active admins, which include PresN (me), Sergecross73, MASEM, Salvidrim!, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, and Sam Walton! Feel free to pester him and us with all your admin-related needs, and especially consider pestering him with the really gnarly issues and problem users that the rest of us don't really want to deal with. (Also, please note the correlation between a custom signature and admin status.) --PresN 04:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You forgot Sam Walton, who got the tools before Czar did. Also, custom signature… riiight. But either way, congrats all around. GamerPro64 04:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Knew I was forgetting someone! Added them in. And yes, custom signatures. I wonder about you, actually. --PresN 05:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
If the admin-quality is proportional to the customization of the signature, me and Czar are definitely amongst the best there is! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, Czar's got that cool triangle talk-page link, but I have two colors in one word. Beat that! (Also, the coolest user page- you guys are slacking.) --PresN 06:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That's highly subjective; I prefer my own upage layour to yours, full of collapses... I did steal the original wrapper from MuZemike though. However, Czar doesn't even have a userpage, so we don,t have much competition. :p As for formatting, I hadn't even noticed Czar's new signature, I was still under the impression he was using the bordered one, with the crown and all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not even an admin! *raspberries* Tezero (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, no wonder. Default font, default blue text... no good. Slap some color on that bad boy and nominate yourself for adminship! --PresN 06:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Pah, two bolded letters is all you need ;) Sam Walton (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Huh, maybe I need to add a random crazy symbol to add to my signature somewhere. But yes, congrats to both Czar and Sam Walton! Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And also congrats to Sam Walton, who was also made an admin in the last week! Looks like everything's coming up WP:VG! --PresN 07:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing beats simplicity when it comes to a signature, and Tezero understands that! Congratz to Czar, though :) ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
...Damnit, guys. ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a plain signature's so boring and easy to miss, although too flamboyant and people get annoyed (trust me on this one....), so gotta find some balance. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I wouldn't say I'm that active… but with my term on the arbitration committee winding down I hope to be back at the article-writing presently. And having a custom sign is kind of mandatory if you want to scroll through long pages and find what the hell you said easily :) Congrats to the new admins. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. For my first trick, going to close an off-topic conversation... (ho ho ho) Salv, thanks for finding my old thumb stick! Not sure how you got it. Speaking of signatures and pings, just found out that my post-RfA sig had silenced my {{ping}}s because the the poster's signature needs to contain a "User:" link and I had switched to "User_talk:"—the more you know, czar ⨹ 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Victory

May I have some extra watchers on Assassin's Creed Victory? Users have continued to try to make an article for this leaked (since confirmed) game. Per WP:GNG, I do not believe there is not enough notable information at this time to warrant a whole article, when all info can perfectly be placed at Assassin's Creed#Assassin's Creed Victory (which it is). All we have on this game is a single source about the leak, here, and then other news outlets reporting on the leak from the Kotaku source (and only rehashing the info in the Kotaku source). Thank you in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected, because it's WP:TOOSOON, and they probably won't announce much more for a bit, as they'll probably focus on pushing Unity and Rogue for a bit still. Notify me (or another VG Admin) when you feel a recreation is actually warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. As has previously been the "norm", the next AC games leaks in the early part of the year of release, then Ubisoft reveals around March/April/May. So unless a bunch of info comes out before March 2015 (which I doubt, as you said because of them focusing on Unity and Rogue), that would probably be when it could be created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Game design, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Favor

Can I bug someone from this project for a favor? The last few weeks I've been adding, subtracting, rewording, and citing material on the page characters of StarCraft. I would like to know if someone could double check what I've added/subtracted/reworded/cited and make sure that its all acceptably for Wikipedia and in line with this project's guidelines. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

TomStar81 - I can't comment on the accuracy of the content, since I'm unfamiliar with the characters, but breezing through a couple entries, you seem to be on the right track with what you're doing. I'd say its especially good considering, in my experience, a large percentage of these "List of X character" articles are in pretty terrible shape. Even very popular ones, like List of Mario characters or Characters in The Legend of Zelda series look pretty rough. Its a constant battle to keep the List of Sonic characters article from degrading into garbage - probably 1 of 2 lists I personally try to maintain. So yeah, yours is looking good comparatively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Health (gaming), Experience point and magic point

The article on health in gaming describes health as a value measured in health points or hit points. The articles on experience point and magic point describes their topic as a unit of measurement. Should we change the name of some of these articles so that they are consistant? I myself would prefer to make an article about the value itself, rather than the points used in measuring the value. Note that MP in particular is a very poor article, and EXP and HP are considered Start-class. Health also mentions a "Defense value". Opinions? ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I just found out that an article called Magic (gaming) does exist, but it seems to attempt to define the magic system used in video games. Interestingly, magic system is also for a large part about video games - perhaps the two should be merged? Both articles are in pretty poor quality... This might be an entirely different conversation, though, and I'd prefer to focus on my previous question. ~Maplestrip (chat) 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking around some more, I checked out the articles on statistic (role-playing games), and more specifically attribute (role-playing games). From here, it seems clear that Health and Magic are attributes as described by these articles: "An attribute describes to what extent a character possesses a natural, in-born characteristic common to all characters in the game."
Do note that this information isn't sourced, so it might as well be original research. I also don't know whether Experience would fall under this definition. Again, thoughts? I'm surprized that 5+ people congratulate a new administrator, but nobody seems to care about this issue... ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you get some weird imbalances with what people respond to sometimes. Anyways, my thoughts: Magic system and Magic (gaming) should definitely be merged; while fantasy novels could have a magic system, that article does not talk about that at all and only looks at it from the perspective of gaming, so they're duplicates. I'd then keep health (gaming) and magic (gaming) names as they are- health is sometimes but not always measured in points, so defining it as a unit of measurement seems wrong, and the same goes for magic- magic is a game mechanic, that sometimes has points of mana associated with it. Experience point, on the other hand, should stay where it is- experience as a game mechanic is invariably measured in discrete quantities, so experience point is accurate. Finally, I agree with you- health and magic are attributes of a character, while exp isn't- level may be, but not the thing that fills up the bar. --PresN 18:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, just saw that magic point exists. Hmm. I don't really think that should be separate from magic (gaming), since it's intrinsically tied to it, and not that much can really be said about it that requires a separate article.
Experience Points may need a better name for the article, actually- it's really about character progression, and all the different types, including exp-based systems. Maybe rename it to Character progression (gaming), or something? --PresN 19:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Character progression can be about leveling, skill aquirements, stat improvement, but also story-based character development. Experience is focused on a specific numeric value that is common in many video games and as far as I know, role-playing games as well. :::::It might be an idea to focus on levels rather than experience, though, as gaining experience is all about going up a level. The level in this sense might be what the focus of the article should be about.
Either way, we have to figure out a way to approach these topics both encyclopedically and accurately, which is hard, because any game may use these common systems slightly differently. And, as you said, there isn't incredibly much to say about them. I'm really proud of my work on health (gaming), but that kind of information is way harder to find on MP... ~Maplestrip (chat) 19:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear here, though, what do you suggest to do with the whole magic situation? ~Maplestrip (chat) 19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think magic point, magic system, and magic (gaming) should be merged into magic (gaming). Magic system and magic (gaming) seem to be about the same thing, and I think magic (gaming) should discuss that magic points/mana are sometimes used to quantify how many spells can be cast/how much they cost. I agree with you about "character progression", what about "Leveling (gaming)"? My concern is that experience point starts off talking about that, but they spends a lot of time talking about leveling systems, some of which do not use experience points. --PresN 20:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree about magic, though a mass-merger will be tough to pull off. I might start a draft on Monday to collect all the references these articles have and put them together logically, but it'll be a lot of work.....
I think I support the idea of "leveling (gaming)" as an article to replace Experience. Leveling is something a player does in a game, a goal, so to speak. level (gaming), on the other hand, is the what you get. Obviously, however, that already exists in the form of areas and such, which is awkward to say the least. Hmm, level is a typical RPG-element, so perhaps "Level (role-playing games)" would work. Note that I include role-playing video games here as well. ~Maplestrip (chat) 20:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I did start working on a draft, User:Maplestrip/Magic (gaming), but finding sources is a disaster. Right now it is mostly a blank state, but if anyone could find somekind of source, that would be great. ~Mable (chat) 10:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

AllGame alert, Part II

Something terrible has happened. All of the AllGame links that we have archived until yesterday have been erased from existence! It's as if AllGame doesn't want us to remember all the reviews we have archived before the website closes! I have a sad feeling that we will never save AllGame before it shuts down! It just wanted to wipe out everything we have archived yesterday, and it did! Can't anyone do something? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait. Is it possible to re-archive them? Was it effected by robots.txt or something? This is very puzzling. GamerPro64 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
*Ron Paul face* I tried to warn you; WebCite is the way to go... But seriously, I don't think there's anything that can be done about these links for now, so we should focus on contacting Allgame or whomever else it might concern that Wikipedia very much appreciated its links while they lasted and can't access them now. Tezero (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is possible to re-archive them, but I'm afraid there's not enough time. In Mickey's Speedway USA, for example, the AllGame link is claimed to have been archived on "November 14, 2014". However, when I got to the archived link itself, it takes us all the way back to 2010! Same goes for the link I had archived earlier: it gets canceled out and erased from existence! If AllGame can't be saved before Friday, then you might as well remove "AllGame" from the list on this link here. Sometimes I even wonder why AllGame even bothered to show up on the code list in the first place. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, Hermes, this is just cataclysmic. The links not archived are still up, but WebCite isn't accepting them. Does anyone know of any archiving systems similar to WebCite that might work? Tezero (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's not all that's cataclysmic. Lately, all the links from other websites we have archived from October 2014 all the way to the present have been erased from existence as well! The link shown here has been moved all the way back to 2013! And when I access this link here, it is acting as if we never archived the links from October 2014 all the way to the present! That's strange! It seems that archived links are disappearing! When will the Wayback Machine be fixed? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Also bad. Sorry, I guess I wasn't able to empathize much at first because it's so rare that I'll stone-carve a site using the Wayback Machine for any date after, like, 2012. Regardless, in case the threshold climbs even earlier, maybe we should double-bag Waybacked links that are working using WebCite or something. I don't know. Tezero (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Redundant archiving is great in theory, but probably isn't very feasible due to the time factor. PresN in a similar conversation above (C&VG to die final death) said that he had a Python script that automatically archived links, then just put those on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/CVGurls for us to put into the articles at our leisure, but I'm not sure he'd be willing to take care of it every time a site goes down, which seems to be a frighteningly common occurrence. I've been slowly working on archiving some AllGame links, but I just don't have the time right now to be able to knock out a whole lot. If someone's got some bot experience, that'd be a great project for them to try and take care of, but my HTML knowledge is too limited to be of much use here. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
How have you been archiving Allgame links, Supernerd11? Have you checked to see that they're actually being committed? (WebCite turned out not I be for me.) Tezero (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I was just using Wayback Machine and doing the archiveurl-archivedate thingy in the refs. At the time, they were fine, but now that we're having the issues with it, I'm not sure my efforts will do any good (depending on what's going on exactly with Wayback). Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
To clarify about my script- given a list of urls in some format, it just runs through and finds the latest web.archive url that is returned for it, and if it gets the live site instead, it submits to webcite. Currently, it doesn't check if the web.archive returned an archive of a redirect, nor does it go back to check if the webcite archive failed or not- I wrote it intending it for individual articles, not lists of thousands of links. That said, I can totally adjust it to do those checks for problems like this, and run it before Friday if I have a list- it just runs itself, so it's not a big deal. The problem is that webcite cuts you off for 24 hours if you make more than a few hundred requests in a row, so best to get started early. I am willing to run it every time a site goes down- it runs itself, I just paste the results into a page, it's not a big deal. --PresN 18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It may only be temporary, but Wayback is working again. All those lost archive urls are back, from the few I've tested, including those linked above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I can see that the links archived from October 2014 all the way to the present are back as well! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a bit of interesting reading on this topic: GameInformer feels our pain. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wayback Machine is acting up again since yesterday!

I have more bad news. Lately, all the links from other websites we have archived from October 2014 all the way to the present have been erased from existence as well! The link shown here has been moved all the way back to 2013! And when I access this link here, it is acting as if we never archived the links from October 2014 all the way to the present! That's strange! When will the Wayback Machine be fixed? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It could be a server glitch. Or a crash. Or something to do with the fund raising. I don't know who to ask. I see someone, possibly you, has posted to them about it in their forums. We'll likely get a reply. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope so. And yes, I did post the guys at the forums about it too. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope people are now nervous about being over-reliant on one archive, and realise this is a serious issue. Wasn't there a plan to create an archival service specifically for Wikimedia sites by an editor? What happened to that plan? I'm pretty sure it was some Frenchman who had a little project going on grok.se or something. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Update

WebCite is acting strangely now too. I decided to give it a test after failing to archive a Famitsu link. When I tried to archive this IGN page (IGN has been accepted by WebCite in the past) and a page from Gematsu. They both sent back the message "When WebCite tried to archive the page, it received a document type that WebCite could not understand." Something is up with both Wayback and WebCite. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I experienced the same result. Maybe it'll be feeling better again today. I certainly do hope so. Tezero (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
WebCite is throwing an error when you try to archive something that they're out of disk space, while Wayback's twitter says that the storm in SanFran knocked out power to their data center there, so they're offline for the time being. I suspect that WebCite's problems are related. Just wait a couple days for them to get back up, I guess. --PresN 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I will add at least some basic plots and gameplay of some games.

I will do so. Please give me some articles to work with for such thing. I want to help Wikipedia become much better. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000, these articles all have very little written in them so far. I'm not really interested in writing about them for the most part, because they tend to be sports, tabletop-style, or just from the '80s (I play basically nothing from before the SNES/Genesis), but any of these would be a great place to start. Often sites like IGN and GameSpot will have reviews or articles on them that you can use as sources. Tezero (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
What I am saying is to give me some articles that need a plot or gameplay added to it. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
...That's what these are, Qwertyxp2000. Take Absolute Zero (video game), for example: almost nothing is written. Tezero (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Perfect example. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Where is the table that shows which websites are reliable when it comes to video games? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.

Original games StoryBundle returns

Heads up that the original video games StoryBundle has made a return, for those that missed it (including me—I previously lamented somewhere in the WTVG archives). Expires in a week. Link is http://storybundle.com/games

Books include:

The Making of Karateka by Jordan Mechner

Kill Screen Issue 2: Back to School by Kill Screen Magazine

Confessions of the Game Doctor by Bill Kunkel

Constellation Games by Leonard Richardson

Killing is Harmless by Brendan Keogh

Generation Xbox: How Videogames Invaded Hollywood by Jamie Russell

Videogames: In the Beginning by Ralph H. Baer

The Making of Prince of Persia by Jordan Mechner

Phoenix: The Fall and Rise of Videogames by Leonard Herman

Haven't looked into the reliability and potential WP of each of the titles, so feel free to do that and report back, if you're interested. Would be worth adding these to our WP library czar ⨹ 03:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about Phoenix alongside others like Game Over: How Nintendo Conquered the World in a discussion here a while ago, and the Ralph Baer one would probably be reliable. Constellation Games is fiction, so that's obviously out. The others are all nonfiction, but I dunno about their reliability. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I accidentally deleted SuperNerd's post due to a conflict. I just returned it ~Mable (chat) 15:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

GDC Vault

I realise it's a long shot, but I'm wondering if anyone here has a subscription to the GDC Vault? There's a lot of resources over there that could really help me, but unfortunately I can't afford to pay the hefty subscription fee. If you have a subscription, please let me know. Thanks! -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 10:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So beautiful, so free use

Apple used the mobile multiplayer online battle arena game Vainglory (Halcyon Fold map pictured) to demonstrate Metal's graphics capabilities at the iPhone 6's September 2014 announcement event.[1]
  1. ^ McWhertor, Michael (September 9, 2014). "This is the game Apple used to show off iPhone 6". Polygon. Vox Media. Archived from the original on September 9, 2014. Retrieved September 9, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Had to share this score (Halcyon Fold map from mobile MOBA Vainglory). Let me know if you have other ideas on how we can use it. (Yes, I'm already aware of at least one way.) czar ⨹ 03:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

...Wow, that is gorgeous, easily deserving a rare spot in my art collection alongside the Jackson Pollocks and scrawlings by literal four-year-olds (still mix 'em up). Doesn't quite turn me onto MOBAs, but now I can move them from the scorpion pit to the non-sexy whipping dungeon. Any articles related to MOBAs or their related game mechanics would be obvious candidates, and because it's such a niche, new genre, you won't be running into the kind of screenshot warring I did at Platform game. Maybe even the iPhone 6 article could work. Tezero (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make the first video game screenshot to be featured? I very much approve of that :3 About how to actually use it, we can't just haphazardly slap it onto any article in which is kinda makes sense. I don't know too much about MOBAs, what exactly is happening in this scene? Is this the full level map? What are the purple things on each side of the map? How many players are shown? I think this picture could probably be used in MOBA, though I don't think placing it this big is according to Wikipedia's guidelines... ~Mable (chat) 08:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I know there was one a while ago for some mobile game, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was called. Something about a skateboarding kid fighting zombies, I think. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
About a month ago, I was checking out basically all featured images of the past year, but I didn't find any game-related ones. Not even a person! Don't we keep track of our own featured images, though? ~Mable (chat) 14:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep: WP:VG/FC#Featured_pictures czar ⨹ 14:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, haha. I just came back to say that I only managed to find the formerly featured image, [9]. Looks like I just had to scroll up a bit to find the current ones. That reminds me, though, how would [10] do as a featured image? ~Mable (chat) 14:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There was consensus against making the animation a FP last time, but it's possible that feelings have changed czar ⨹ 16:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and appended the OTRS tag so it's all legitimate. Great scoop. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

C&VG to die final death

According to MCV, Future will be closing down C&VG.[11] No official word from Future yet, so no details on what will happen to the website, but I won't be surprised if the content disappears and the site just redirects to the listicle dreck at gamesradar. There are thousands of links to C&VG on Wikipedia. - hahnchen 16:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we need to move fast. Because I don't actually know this, when it goes down, will the Wayback Machine still work or will we have to use WebCite? I can do either, but I'd like to find out before I start archiving. (I think I've already gotten the 1UP, Allgame, and ONM links on most if not all of my GAs and FAs, and that wasn't much of a problem, but it looks like I'll be handling a lot more.) Tezero (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Wayback Machine works after the website's down, long as we archive before it dies. Can't say anything about WebCite, never used it. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Supernerd11 WebCite works for pages that are no longer stored by their site (NowGamer being a personal experience) and old urls, so I think it can store pages from dead sites. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I have a bit of time now so I'll get to archiving a few. Tezero (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Alright, thanks. I'm busy with finals coming up, but I've been archiving a few AllGame URL's here and there; nice to know that WebCite can sometimes work for when Wayback Machine doesn't. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a custom python script I use to archive urls for my own articles, so if it's what we need I can run through this list and generate webarchive/webcite urls, then save them to a subpage somewhere. What I can't do is actually add archiveurls to the articles in question; I don't have a bot or any on-wiki scripting experience. Do we have a bot somewhere that can archive on demand? Do you guys want me to generate archiveurls to get manually placed into articles? --PresN 02:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I've looked and haven't found one yet. Is there some way you could combine your Python script with someone with some wiki-scripting experience to automatically archive urls (I have some HTML experience, but it'd take me quite a while to figure out how to do something of that scale)? Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more urgent to make sure every link has an archive on the Wayback Machine than that this archive is being used in Wikipedia. >90% of the time the page has already been archived on Wayback anyway - I'm guessing they have a bot that crawls Wikipedia - and we can simply implement those archives after dealing with the remaining <10%. Tezero (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I started it running- the first ~60 are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games/CVGurls; the rest of the ~3600 will be up when they get done tonight. Only delaying factor, besides loading the pages, is that webcite has a rate limiter that will cut me off after a while. --PresN 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
All 3159 links are archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/CVGurls. Since this was done automatically, it's possible that some of the archives are malformed (archived a 302 page or something), but if so they should be a small minority. We should now work out a way to get these archive links into the articles. --PresN 03:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we maybe keep a running tab of sites that are going/have recently gone black? AllGame and C&VG are shutting down, Official Nintendo Magazine did not that long ago, 1UP & UGO links 404 but the former still shows up in search engine results (at least with DuckDuckGo), so it couldn't've been that long since they shut down....we've got quite the situation on our hands. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Site closure confirmed - "The current site will be closed and some content migrated in to the new GamesRadar+." - hahnchen 00:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's affected Edge too...

Back in May, MCV reported that Future were planning on closing the Edge website along with C&VG. It's still there, but it's been given a redesign (yes, yet another one). Fortunately, most of the content I checked seems to still be online, but a lot of contributors' byline credits - whether to "Edge Staff" or a specific person - seem to have disappeared. (And not that this will affect Wikipedia references, but their switch to Disqus means user comments are gone too).

Links to next-gen.biz/.../ used to automatically redirect to their edge-online.com/.../ equivalents, but no longer do so; fortunately, that first part of the URL seems to be all that you need to change in order for the link to work. (However, it seems it has to include the "www." at the start; omit it and you'll just be redirected to the site's main page.) --Nick RTalk 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... Okay, thanks for notifying. Are Wayback and WebCite up and running again? Tezero (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I tried them a while ago and nothing. It's proving very frustrating. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 on the main page

We're almost done with 2014. But we're still getting our articles on the main page. Starting on the 19th, List of Key video games will be that days "Today's Featured List". As well, on the 30th, Thief II: The Metal Age will be that days "Today's Featured Article". And as always, keep your eyes peeled on vandalism. GamerPro64 00:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to 十八 (Juhachi) for List of Key video games, and JimmyBlackwing for Thief II! --PresN 19:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The article was a lot of fun to write, and I'm glad that more people will get to read about such an interesting subject. And I'm beyond honored that so many articles I've worked on (four!) have hit TFA this year—it's been wild. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This kind of came out of left field since I wasn't the one who nominated it. It's the first, and will probably be the last, article I have a hand in that appears on the main page. Unless I somehow get one of those articles on the list up to FA.--十八 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
FA isn't an insurmountable task, Juhachi, at least not for subjects like these that appear to have plenty written about them. Nominate one if you're interested. Most of my FAs are on topics people would normally have settled for GA with or wouldn't have bothered with at all. Tezero (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WebCite issues

WebCite has just today been throwing up a message when I try to access archived pages: "Warning: readfile(/home/webcita/public_html/cache2/2010/08/17/09322489076682a3049cbf532f9c879466c4d9e5) [function.readfile]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/webcita/public_html/mainframe.php on line 141" Something is badly wrong. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Reads like the database is offline or overloaded. It'll probably come back on shortly. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As a faint glimmer of hope, Wayback seems to be up again. Tezero (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U passed its retention

If anyone is willing to do the work to get Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U prepared for WP:GAN, please do so soon, as it has passed its its retention period for Wikipedia:Featured topics/Super Smash Bros. series. The article already appears to be in excellent shape, so there is probably little that needs to be done to make it a Good Article, and it would be a shame to demote the topic only to promote it at a later date.--十八 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have more time than I did recently, so I can help out a little tonight. Yeah, not much work is really needed. Tezero (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As a non-major contributor who's only rewritten the intro and done a few minor formatting fixes, I've gone ahead and nominated it. If anyone feels it is not ready, they may review accordingly, but please do not simply remove the GAN template just because I'm not a major contributor; I'm willing to make any needed fixes now and no major contributors have given any interest in nominating it themselves. Tezero (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A Merry Christmas to you

Not necessarily pertinent to a current gaming issue, but I thought it would be nice to wish Jaguar, PresN, CR4ZE, Tintor2, Sjones23, Xiomicronpi, Tezero, Czar Judgesurreal777, Crisco 1492, Nikkimaria, Gerda Arendt and Sergecross73, who have helped me repeatedly throughout the year on my various editing endeavors for the project, a very Happy Christmas and New Year. I, of course, also extend greetings to the other members of this project, but I felt the above deserved special mention. I could not have done so much this year without their help and encouragement. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I've enjoyed working with you too, and I hope to continue to do so in the coming year! Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
So what gives - newcomers don't deserve special mention!? Hihi, merry Christmas to all of you as well, and I will be looking forward to work with you all whenever some of you happen to end up at a tiny game mechanics no one cares about :) Happy new year! ~Mable (chat) 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I started this little section in the hopes that others would send greetings to whoever they wanted to. Yours are much appreciated, and welcome to the project. If I have encountered you before, then forgive my forgetfulness. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Not that I am aware, so your forgetfulness is forgiven. Still, don't let it happen again! On a more serious note, thank you for the warm welcome. ~Mable (chat) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas all! I hope to start writing some video game content again in the new year, I've been slacking recently :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, now that I think about it it's been ages since I've nominated a video game GAN that I worked on entirely myself. Might be refreshing to pop out a quick one sometime soon. Happy holidays, everyone, and thanks for thinking of me, ProtoDrake! Tezero (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as you lot have forgotten about them... as usual. Happy Christmas to all the WP:VG WikiGnomes, this place would have crumbled years ago without you. - X201 (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks everybody. I look forward to a good merry christmas.20:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Tintor2 (talk)

Holiday wishes!
WikiProject Video games, thank you for making this another fantastic year!

I hope you will find joy and serenity for 2015, and I am looking forward to our continued efforts in making Wikipedia ever better! Y'all deserve more glory and cheers than I could ever put into words. *hug* :)

  • Salvidrim!, once again feeling lucky to be a part of this amazing project!

Magic in gaming

The original topic was swept away during archiving, but I still don't know what to do with this, so I'll just ask again. We currently have the following three articles:

Magic system is technically about magic in fiction, but focuses mostly on magic in gaming. I want to combine these thee articles into User:Maplestrip/Magic (gaming). This article would then fit well with Health (gaming), explaining the concept as a mechanic simulating magic. However, I have a hard time finding sources and would like some help. I also can't exactly go to these articles and say "so, I'm now nominating these three articles for deletion." Do you guys support me doing this? ~Mable (chat) 10:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be nominating those articles for deletion, it'd be merging bits of them into the proposed article. To me there is a lot f duplication between them so a merge seems to make sense. As for sources, sadly I don't think there are many good sources on these essentially basic components of game design; they often get overlooked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I know how hard it is to find sources on these things - they are my favorite kind of articles :p Of course it would be a merge, but that's just semantics. I'm afraid there isn't much quality content in those articles and I've already implemented everything useful I could find in them that wasn't original research. I was hoping I could find some help, though, because the current situation is just painful to watch and the draft still needs expanding... ~Mable (chat) 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem with these kind of articles is that they are about a very generic and loosely-defined concept that varies from one game to another, so that's why it is hard to expand them without original research. My suggestion? Explain the magic points, magic, and magic system of a game in the gameplay section of its corresponding article, and merge the few bits of "generic stuff" to Role-playing video game under the Character actions and abilities subsection. Then, you can get rid of these three useless articles. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

After some more work, I managed to find the amount of references needed for a decent article. It sadly still doesn't discuss magic potions or even mentions that magic in this sense could imply any kind of energy-powered ability. However, I just haven't been able to find the needed sources for that. I moved (and replaced) my draft to Magic (gaming), which had a "complete rewrite" tag on it anyway. Right now I'm simply just thinking about requesting deletion for the other two articles, which would solve this issue. It might be hard to expand these articles without resorting to original research, but it definitely isn't impossible. EDIT: I managed to find a whole page in Ernest Adams' book on magic, so I've got those issues out of the way now too. ~Mable (chat) 13:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Speed Freak - New Sources

This is a quick FYI for anyone wanting to improve the Speed Freak article. I've located a few items including a scanned copy of the manual at the Internet Archive that could be used to expand the article, I've placed all of them in the external links section of the article. Graham1973 (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay .gifs

Do .gif files need to be freely licensed like videos or can we use short clips under fair use? I've just seen File:Galak-Z_GIF_3.gif and would love to add something like it to other game articles. Sam Walton (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that animated GIFs are treated like videos for the purposes of fair use. Only conversation I've really seen about video fair use in video game articles was at the Dishonored FAC—mainly about justifying the length and context of the clip and so on. So, yes, it's possible but complicated. I like asking indie devs for GIFs because I tend to get them and they're a little more accessible than videos and their open file types. Let me know if you'd like a hand contacting devs czar ⨹ 20:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, could you send me an example of how you usually ask? It would be useful if I consider it. Sam Walton (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jim Sterling

A Jim Sterling article was redirected to link to the magazine he worked for, The Escapist (magazine), a couple of months ago, then of course Jim had to leave and go solo. I tried to revive the article but honestly couldn't find enough reliable sources to write a decent bio, so I've listed it for deletion. Thought people watching this page might be interested.

--TS 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So you created the article and then nominated it for deletion? Wouldn't nominating it for Speedy Deletion under G7 work out? GamerPro64 02:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was only for articles that were hoaxes or blatantly unsalvageable, not just ones with some, but not enough, third-party sources. Tezero (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
G7 is for "Author requests deletion". For hoaxes, that's G3. GamerPro64 03:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh. I was inclined to think of "G7" as all deletion cases - you know, like Sector 7-G, where Homer Simpson works, where in that one episode he narrowly avoids "deleting" Springfield twice by arbitrarily picking the right button? ...I'll show myself out. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I don't agree with the suggested deletion, I guess it would be better to sit this one out to the end, rather than to change to a speedy deletion. Either way, a discussion of whether Stirling deserves an article (right now) is probably a good thing. ~Mable (chat) 07:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros multiple box arts discussion

I'd like input from the project whether the box arts on Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U meets WP:NFCC. A discussion is here. « Ryūkotsusei » 04:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated, but the article has just passed GAN, so the featured topic can stay. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Review Thread: Holiday Edition

2014 is almost over. But it doesn't mean that Wikipedia ceases from article work. So if you're free and interested, please look at this nominated articles:

FAC
  • Sega Saturn has been nominated since November 17th with only one Support in it.
  • Freedom Planet has been nominated since November 19th with also one Support.
  • Jumping Flash! has been nominated since December 17th with no comments.
Peer Review
GAN

Now for the articles currently nominated at GAN that haven't been reviewed of right now

And there's the daily reminder that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests has been backlogged since 2011. If you're interested in making any of the articles on the list, go right ahead. GamerPro64 02:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Begging/bribing/collusion section

I'll kick off the review trading! If any of you could find it in your heart to review my Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC, even though it's in no way related to video games, I'll do you a review back (or owe you one for later, if you'd like). --PresN 02:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it if you can take the time to review Mussie or E language. They're both short, easy reads also unrelated to games - the first about an obscure legendary lake monster in Canada and the second about an obscure creole language in Southern China - but they've been languishing at GAN since the late Bronze Age. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Reviewed Mussie; it's only been there 5 weeks, and E 2.5, so not exactly bronze age- Idolmaster up there's been waiting for 2 months! --PresN 19:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ooh, ouch. I didn't want to do that one since I reviewed The Idolmaster Dearly Stars and the series ought to get some fresh eyes, but I'll take your list. Thanks! Tezero (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope no-one minds, but I decided to relieve Tezero of the problem of no fresh eyes by taking on the Idolmaster nomination, since I'm a total novice to the series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
...While we're here, anyone want to trade a review for E? It's okay if you're not familiar with language articles - could be advantageous, actually. Tezero (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
...Eh, what the hell; Scribblenauts has sat on the toy shelf long enough. Happy Hanukkah. Tezero (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC) GamerPro seems to have one-upped me. You're the lucky child, Loved! Tezero (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Might as well. Gotta pay my due here sometimes. GamerPro64 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone stop over at Freedom Planet's FAC? It's almost halfway through the Older nominations section and only has one support and JimmyBlackwing's mostly finished review. As always, I'll gladly take one of yours in exchange. Tezero (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Proteus is up at FAC for the 3rd time, if it isn't promoted due to lack of response again I think I'm going to give up! Sam Walton (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. Your newest project member here, in addition to Lemmings (video game), which is mentioned above, I currently have Max Payne (character), Jill Valentine and Sarah Kerrigan nominated for GA. I'd be thrilled if someone could review one (or all, lol) of them. I'm also more than happy to do a quid pro quo; you review one of my GA's and I'll review one of yours. I've had this arrangement with other editors at GA before - there's no rule against it. Anyway i'm happy to be here and looking forward to working more on this project. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Saturn still needs just one more support. Come on, people, let's make this happen! (I'll probably have another GAN up in a few days, but nothing for now.) Tezero (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

2015

Well ladies and gentlemen of this fine project, we're finally beginning another year. Just want to say that it might be a pretty fine year. New games, faces, controversies, and hopefully improvement on articles for this project will flourish. So let's hope for something grand this year. GamerPro64 06:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Free gaming e-books available through Wikipedia Library

Hello project members, just letting you all know that McFarland & Company has offered free e-book versions of its titles to experienced Wikipedians. The publisher has a good collection of titles on gaming. See Wikipedia:McFarland for instructions on how to get them. Best, The Interior (Talk) 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This cover looks familiar... Still, great news. - hahnchen 15:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

GOTY Reader's Choice

When listing Game of the Year awards is it okay to list Reader's/Community Choice awards or is it the same as listing stuff like Metacritic user scores? --Mika1h (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If 1) the source reporting it is reliable (eg like IGN), and 2) that you are pretty confident they protected the polls from vote stuffing, then yes, it should be good to include. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wayback Machine is acting up again!

Something's wrong with the Wayback Machine... again! It's pushed all the way back to when we archived the links all the way to September 15, 2014 and never archived the rest of the links all the way to 2015! (See links here and here.) Please fix the Wayback Machine, or I'm done! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Good lord calm down. You don't have to create a new thread every time Archive.org acts up. Yes it can be upsetting when it does but grief. Its more than likely out of our hands. GamerPro64 17:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the bigger concern is WebCite, since that hasn't begun working again since it farted out and it was useful for archiving volatile Waybacked links. Tezero (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been using WebCite for the last few days now and all seems to be running smoothly, saying that though I was only archiving links from one site so maybe the problems haven't gone. Salavat (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Have you checked to see that the archives are actually loading, Salavat? For me when I last tried, I could ostensibly archive them but when I clicked on these backup links, it came up with errors. Tezero (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeh I have a bad habit off checking all the archives are loading (even before it started playing up). The last few days I have been archiving only IIHF.com based pages and haven't had any issues but prior to that there were errors on some of the other sites I was using. Salavat (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

More playable games from archive.org

[12] Unless I'm missing something, these are all legit copies of these software titles (but only streamable, not downloadable, probably why they can host). Some may have manuals, but ones I'm spotchecking don't. Either way, these would be valid WP:EL links for any associated game article. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

IGF noms prime for article creation/expansion.

[13]. If anyone is looking for articles to develop, I've found in the past that if a title gets an IGF finalist or hon. mention, it should be easy to expand/create a notable article for that title. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Video Game alpha/beta release dates?

The inclusion or omission of early access/public alpha/beta release dates in infoboxes seems to be enforced somewhat randomly across video game articles. Has there been any consensus on when early access release dates should or shouldn't be included, or should I start one at Template:Infobox video game? Sam Walton (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I forgot that I started a discussion about this before, though there wasn't much input. Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
My comment there still applies, but some common sense applies - for example, Broken Age's Act 1 release date is still technically Early Access, but I cant see removing that once Act 2 is out and the game is considered "final". But that's a trickier situation; for something like, say Invisible, Inc., this will be a clear mark. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
In the current market, where Steam is a big deal, it might make a lot of sense to have the early-access/beta release date in the infobox. Broken Age is actually a good example of odd situations that can result from what is becoming more and more common. Minecraft's real release date compared to the game's first release is pretty vital too, as it actually become insanely popular before 1.0 was released. If I'm not mistaken, that is.
Whether it should or shouldn't be included in the infobox, I guess that only matters if it's notable enough. With DayZ, it's obvious that the early access release date is just as vital as the real release date, but I am sure that there are plenty of examples where the the early-access or beta release date is hardly worth mentioning. I don't think it needs to be enforced in any way. I think that's the same opinion as Masem stated? ~Mable (chat) 18:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread VII (aka New Year Edition)

The new year has come, and since the old review thread is likely to be archived soon, I jump up with a new and up-to-date one for all and sundry.

FAC
  • Sega Saturn has been nominated since November 17th with only two Supports in it, and multiple unfinished comment threads.
  • Proteus has been nominated since December 26th, this being its third nomination, with also two Supports so far.
  • Freedom Planet has been nominated since 7 January 2015, with one user commenting but no solid opinions.
  • God of War III has been nominated since 9 January 2015. No comments so far
Other Featured content
GAN

These are the GANs currently not undergoing review, with several carrying over from the previous thread.

Peer reviews

As before with other creators of the review thread, I shall remind readers and editors that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests has been backlogged since 2011. If you're interested in making any of the articles on the list, feel free. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Negotiation area

Here, people can swap reviews or do their various bits of begging and bargaining. For my own part, I start off with this: if someone will take on either the Drakengard music article or Tales of Hearts, I would be more than happy to take on one of their reviews. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take either of those for Sonic Adventure 2 or the non-video-game-related E language, or 2 for 2. Tezero (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll take E. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am in round 4 of the GA Cup and need as many reviews as I can to maintain stability. I'm taking as many as possible, if anyone wants a review done please let me know and I can do it - free of charge ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Freedom Planet is up again, Jaguar and JimmyBlackwing. Tezero (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I really just support it twice? I don't mean to sound lazy or controversial (me, and controversy? Can you imagine those two things!), but if anything needs doing to Freedom Planet it would probably be some minor and more or less technical prose issues since a lot of things were cleared up last time. I can take another look through it but I'm afraid of criticism with being too lenient... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

New VG Book bundle

[14] If any of these might help with sourcing of related articles, you can get them cheap on this bundle. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Unreviewed old FAs

Over at WP:FAC, they're starting up a program to review all of the FAs that haven't had an FAC/FAR since June 2006 or earlier. We've previously had a similar idea at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs, but that drive never got completed. Anyways, on their initial list to review, they have Donkey Kong (video game), promoted in February 2006 and never reviewed, nominated by the now retired user Amcaja. Since it's a high-importance article, I think we should try to get out ahead of the FAR so that it doesn't get delisted, so I'm bringing it here to everyone's attention. Additionally, at WT:FAC they also mentioned Grim Fandango by Masem, Space Invaders by Guyinblack25, and Perfect Dark by CALR as being on the list of FAs that have changed in size the most since FAC- they've both more than doubled in size since 2006/8, so they're likely to get reviewed in the second wave. Is anyone interested in trying to clean up Donkey Kong, or check out the other three? --PresN 21:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I can take a look at Donkey Kong. Space Invaders seems to be the one to have multiples eyes to look at, though. Especially with GiB not being active here anymore. GamerPro64 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Basically to see if the article still meets the FA criteria. Also, wow. I did not expect the Donkey Kong article to be this low in quality. GamerPro64 22:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) There's nothing in particular, other than it being at a close enough level to a modern FA to pass an FAR. The concern from FAC is that by size half of the article was not present when the initial review was done, even ignoring that the original review was in 2006- they're trying to find some systematic way of identifying articles that have probably gone downhill since the last FAC/FAR, and big size changes was one way they were looking at. Perfect Dark doesn't look like it needs a bunch of work, actually- looks like Niwi3 adopted it a few years back and kept it pretty solid, though that's likely also the source of the size increase. Looks like Smuckola did some work on Donkey Kong this Fall, so it's looking better than when it was looked at for our pre-2008 reviews, though it still needs a bunch of work; Space Invaders seems to have been overtaken by trivia, though, especially at the end of the article; Grim Fandango seems to be still oversighted by Masem, it just got a big awards table tacked on which increased the bytesize immensely. None of these are really appalling, or need too much work—Space Invaders probably needs the most—I just didn't want anyone to be caught off guard by an FAR in a couple months, or for it to slip by the project's notice because no one was watching an old FA. I've seen worse FAs in this project- I think Mana (series) from 2008 is worse than all four, for example, due to rising standards and a lack of updates from new games, though I plan on fixing it up this Spring. --PresN 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Right, I did massive changes on the Perfect Dark article a few years ago as it was in really awful shape. The biggest changes I made to the article were fixing/deleting/adding/replacing/archiving references and expanding the reception section, in addition to copyediting and proofreading. I also created a new article for the XBLA version to improve its shape. Anyway, I think the PD64 article is not bad, but it is not outstanding either: the gameplay section is way too long and overly detailed for the general reader, and the game engine section doesn't convince me; its content can be merged into the gameplay and/or development section. I also think that placing the article under a FAR won't help: I am an immediatist and I see the Perfect Dark article as a product of eventualism. It is like a piece of software that is overly patched. The best way to improve the article is to solidly build the article from scratch and base it on the references we have. I would love to take the challenge and will probably do it in the near future if you agree, but right now I am quite busy IRL. I am also busy improving Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Niwi3, I've just done some work on Perfect Dark. I've preserved the information that's needed while cutting out a lot of the fine detail that would have made reading it such a headache. I'm not saying it's finished, but it's at least more readable now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent work, really appreciated! You just read my mind about what needed to be done. Now it is much better organized and cleaner. I have reviewed your edit in great detail to make sure you did not omit any important fact, and fixed some things here and there. Feel free to change any part of the article you are not happy with. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like a FA now, rather than something with a gold star stuck there by accident. I can't see anything big wrong there anymore. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think I've finished reviewing your edit and cleaning up the article. As far as I know, I don't find any serious issues with it. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Grim Fandango will get an expansion after a few weeks here when the remastered version comes out (probably mostly reception on that, as opposed to new development). It would not hurt to have a review of that after that has been done, but before would be premature. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah there might need to be more hands for Donkey Kong. I've been removing some unreliable and unnecessary sources so far. The article is in need of a major rewrite. GamerPro64 00:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusing authorship of a review

Hi, people. Someone has any idea to whom I should attribute this review. For now, I've assumed it's a GamesRadar's one as it's on their site. However, there's several mentions on it that apparently makes it an Edge work. Should I assign it to GamesRadar or Edge? If it's to Edge, how should I format the reference as GamesRadar is hosting it? Greetings. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A GamesRadar review, published in Edge Magazine (author=GamesRadar, publisher=Edge)? The other way around? A GamesRadar article about an Edge review (making this a tertiary source)? So many questions, so little answers. Try that mailto: link, maybe you'll get lucky? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
GamesRadar apparently hosted a lot of content from magazines that didn't have their own websites at the time, such as Edge, apparently- Future Publishing published them both, and didn't want to bother with multiple websites or something. Anyway... I'd set the work as GamesRadar and the publisher as Future plc, since that's where you're actually getting the content. If you can figure out what the original issue of Edge was that had the review, you can move the cite to that, but I'm not sure you should say the work is Edge itself when you're not pulling the information directly from them. It's a bit analogous to when GameSpy shared content with IGN- even if the same review was posted on both, you'd say the work was whatever website you were looking at, not IGN just because they were the parent website. --PresN 06:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In cases like this I usually try to track down the source of original publication and cite that, but include something like "(republished at GamesRadar)" and link the GamesRadar cite as well. So the final result looks like this:

But if I can't track down the original source then I go with something like :

Citations to both the original source and the online (accessible) version are helpful so even if you're just linking the online one and making mention of the original, it might be possible for other later editors to track down the original. Anyway that's my 2 cents. -Thibbs (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(Without actually weighing in, a style note that standalone parentheticals should keep the final punctuation on the inside like here.) If the parentheses were coming at the end of a sentence, the punctuation goes outside (like here). Also the style guidance for this situation would be "say where you read it", which has an example of giving the actual citation for a work while noting that you did not actually read it at that location but somewhere else. I wouldn't go that route unless you were absolutely certain of the original citation's existence. czar ⨹ 18:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thibbs, you're giving a hypothetical example or do you know Edge review comes from vol.44, no.5 of May 2002? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, no. Sorry. That was purely hypothetical. -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015's Main Page

2015 opens the month for this project my not only having one Featured Article on the main page, Tony Hawk's Underground on the 15th, but there are also plans for Mischief Makers to be the article of the day on the 27th. Meanwhile, for Featured Pictures, we have an image that documents the PlayStation 2 in all of its glory. Real fine month it'll be. GamerPro64 19:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What's more, January 23 will see List of songs in Rock Band 3 as the day's Featured List! --PresN 21:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Mischief Makers can't be the can't be the featured article on the 27th since Batman: Arkham City has already been chosen.--67.68.163.181 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Turns out it is being held back until 2017. the 20th anniversary.--67.68.163.181 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How to do music/rhythm game "List of Songs" lists?

Hi there. Seeing from a section above ("January 2015's Main Page") that List of songs in Rock Band 3 exists and is a pending Featured List, I would like to ask the good people here how "Lists of Songs" for music/rhythm games should be done so that it stands well like RB3's.

As a little background, I personally work a lot with quite a number of rhythm games, including the Taiko no Tatsujin series and Cytus. Cytus has been under PC1 for as long as I could remember, mostly concerning issues with the addition of the song list. I used to contribute separate articles for Taiko no Tatsujin games before I AfDed them for inadequate notability and substance outside the song list, which ended up redirected back to the series article.

If anyone need more substance for discussion, feel free to critique the list of songs for Taiko no Tatsujin: Don to Katsu no Jikū Daibōken in this past state I did before I had it redirected. I own a physical copy of the game and has all the attached printed leaflets, and there are additional sources available from, say, Famitsu and 4Gamer.net of previews and news about DLCs. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 14:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, looking at the successful Rock Band 3 list, the first tips that come up in my mind are the following:
  • Make the article about the list, not the game. List of Rock Band 3 songs starts with "Eighty-three songs are included in Rock Band 3, a 2010 music video game developed by...", not "Rock Band 3 is a 2010 music video game developed by x. The game included eighty-three songs." Keep the article focused on the songs themselves rather than on information about the game. Do give basic information, though, in the first part of the lead. The list needs to be able to stand on its own while still being focused on the music of game x.
  • Possibly the hardest part: you probably need a good amount of sources talking specifically about the tracks featured within the game. Rock Band and Guitar Hero games are known for having extensive coverage of their tracklists, but other games might have more trouble with this. If you can't find any sources talking specifically about the music used within the game, you will probably have a hard time getting by notability guidelines.
  • Furthermore, the Rock Band list has a pretty announcement, downloadable songs and reception section. Downloadable tracks are often anounced by the developer and copied by gaming news websites. If those exist, such a section could be nice. Reception needs to be focused on the tracklist of the game. I guess half of a music game's reception is gameplay, and the other half is about the music listing. A reviewer might say "the tracklist of this game is amazing, including a variation of rock and pop songs with many classics" - something like that would be perfect.
  • Lastly, try making the table in which the songs are listed attractive and accessible. The Rock Band 3 list is a great example in that regard, but other styles can work too. Adding more information about the song, such as genre, makes the list much more useful.
I cannot tell you if your own example has enough notability, as I don't know anything about the game. If it doesn't have enough notability, you can wonder if a track listing on the main article makes sense either. Do Cytus songs prominently exist outside of the game? Would someone who has little interest in playing the game care about the track listing? Good luck making songlists, and I hope someone with more knowledge on the topic could give some better advice. ~Mable (chat) 14:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, it's that 1) The soundtrack itself gets significant coverage from reliable sources and 2) if the music is licensed/well-known, like they typically are in Rock Band games, its much easier to find the sources to meet my point #1. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Masem, did a ton of them, so I'd that's where I'd take questions about specific franchises. As for which track listings are appropriate to list, Serge has it right. The list guidelines say that lists need to have coverage in multiple, independent sources (notability) just like regular articles. czar ⨹ 22:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. For Taiko no Tatsujin games a lot of the song list are original composition, that normally gets nothing more than a mention in previews. And that still a significant part of that are hidden unlockables, making it even harder to even being mentioned. Maybe like the game articles it would be good to just have one list for the whole series on notable inclusions, like very big name licensed J-POP, game music or anime themes (Frozen [15]) and large scale collaborations (Momoiro Clover Z [16], Sachiko Kobayashi [17] and Monster Hunter 4G [18]).　野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 23:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception topic-sentences

Okay, so have we ever reached a firm conclusion on whether these are allowed? JimmyBlackwing has risen up again and contested their usage at Freedom Planet, and as always, I'm not interested in allowing a given construction on some of our articles and not others. Tezero (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

For those reading: see the previous debate. The issue is whether sentences that generalize the reception of a particular aspect, without any sources other than disparate reviews, are acceptable. For example:

The playable demo of Freedom Planet received positive coverage from video game journalists, much of it focusing on the game's similarities to 16-bit Sonic games.

Reviewers mostly enjoyed the demo's aesthetics.

Freedom Planet '​s media coverage remained positive after its release.

No sources exist for these particular statements: they are generalized from the content of reviews X, Y, Z and so on. For example, reviews X and Y call the graphics "good", while Z calls them "merely decent". This would be translated as "reviewers mostly enjoyed the demo's aesthetics." Is this an acceptable practice? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It's WP:SYNTH, but I think it is necessary to create a good summary of a game's reception. It's hard to evade without fracturing the article to much. In the case of Freedom Planet, would you get, for example: "IGN noted similarities to Sonic The Hedgehog,[1] as did Gamespot[2], Edge,[3] 1UP,[4] and GameSpy.[5]"? That would be rather awkward, when a reader doesn't really care about that. A casual reader wouldn't even know most of these review websites. If Wikipedia says that "much" of it coverage noticed those similarities, then that would be much more useful for the reader.
A bigger problem would be that the reception section of most, if not all game articles I have ever looked at, starts with "x received mostly y reception." That would need a lot of editing only to make the reception of the game less clear to the reader. It's a practice that could be done less, but I don't think it should be abolished entirely, as it is sometimes just necessary to give the optimal amount of information. Maybe we should create somekind of guideline for it, or at least an essay. Something to refer to when this comes up that will help prevent POV editing based on this habit.
Perhaps the above example of "Reviewers mostly enjoyed the demo's aesthetics" should be changed to "x, y and z praised the demo's aesthetics," though, if reviewers aren't that sure of it. It depends on what the sources actually say. ~Mable (chat) 09:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Practically speaking and for ordinary purposes, summary-style claims like those would be tolerable. But if such a claim is challenged in good faith then it will always have to be directly sourced and if you want to bring the article to GA/FA then you'll have to chop out the original research. So basically it's not a good practice because it causes problems down the road. Like Maplestrip suggested, it's probably not worth going on a witch-hunt to root it out encyclopedia-wide, but in your own common practice the best solution to the problem is to reword sentences to say "some reviewers though XYZ" or "Reviewers A, B, and C thought XYZ". Summarizing is original research unless a metastudy has been performed. Metacritic and GameRankings offer such metastudies and can be cited directly thus: "According to Metacritic, the game received mostly positive acclaim. Reviewers A said XYZ, Reviewer B said QRS". -Thibbs (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm along the same line of thinking as well. I believe, like a lot of things, it's acceptable up until the point it's challenged, and then it's the writer's burden to provide further sources if the content is questioned. So, I guess it's a gamble on the writer's part, that a reviewer, or anyone else, isn't going to question it, if they chose to go this route but are unable to back it up. But that goes along with most content creation as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I've rephrased the contested points as attributable to the first individual authors of each paragraph. It's frustrating - normally I'd be able to back these points up with others' characterization of the sources, but there's no Metacritic summary or anything. Tezero (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that's one of the hard parts about writing about something more on the obscure side of things like this, you're much more limited in the info you can extract from sources. I deal with the same thing with many of the obscure JRPG articles I work on. The plus side is usually in these types of scenarios, there's usually less people to challenge information that's likely to be true. Unfortunately, all the extra attention that comes with taking it to FA status kind of negates that positive point... Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad I never tried to get involved into anything much higher than c-class - I'm in that situation a lot where sources are as scarce as interest in the topic. ~Mable (chat) 17:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I should add that I plan to challenge these synthetic statements in every FAC I review. It would be nice to have a guideline or accepted essay to point editors toward. Is there agreement as to what such a guideline or essay should say? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see any sort of consensus on this at all, except for that most parties, in the vaguest sense, agree that WP:BURDEN and WP:V should be followed while WP:OR should be avoided. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Then I'd say that outside opinions should be requested. The issue has been up in the air at WPVG for a very long time—far longer than necessary. It's been decided by several other media-related WikiProjects already. We need to figure out WPVG's official stance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
How are you going figure out WP:VG's stance with outside opinions though? I mean, yeah, maybe for brainstorming or something, but, well, you really need the buy in of the people actually part of the Wikiproject, because they're going to be the ones doing it, you know? That idea may work well for a single dispute, but it can't really shape what the Wikiproject itself will do... WPVG needs to decide what WPVG will do. Right now, the closest thing we've got is loosely "allow it until it's challenged". Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Thibbs and Serge so here comes that consensus. WP:PROVEIT or a link to this thread as precedent should suffice: Tez is free to make reasonable statements and JB is free to challenge them with good faith and require a direct source. No need for more rules (or for bloodletting). In other advice, this is a good reason to avoid topic sentences czar ⨹ 22:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That should suffice for now, I suppose. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Review Sega Sports R&D and Smilebit edits

Can someone review these edits made to Sega Sports R&D and Smilebit? I've found a bit of history on these two here.[19] « Ryūkotsusei » 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Unreviewed old FAs Part 2

I've found a few that need a look at. Metroid Prime (2011), as its sources seem a little disorganized, nearly all of the online ones are unarchived, and a few of them seem to be fansites rather than anything else. Myst needs some copy-editing and a check through the references for redirects and such. Some tidying up "Reception" and "Re-releases and ports" would probably be good too. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time also seems in need of work: the lead looks bloated, gameplay is mostly unreferenced, and all the other sections look a bit too large. Devil May Cry could also do with a source check for archiving, formatting and such. I just felt these needed a look-see. I'll likely take on a few others I found, or one of the ones I've mentioned here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

WPVG banner "importance" vs. "priority"

There is a proposal to switch from the former term to the latter at Template talk:WPBannerMeta for those interested czar ⨹ 03:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that the two terms, while similar in implication for Wikipedia work, aren't identical. To capture the difference, imagine an FA-class article on a topic highly relevant to a full understanding of a medium - say, Super Mario 64, Super Smash Bros. Melee, or Final Fantasy. Sure, these are important to maintain at a good quality, but are they of high priority? I don't think so; that to me would imply that there are glaring problems auguring an FAR. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree - for us, priority would be all the core video game concept articles, such as game genres, the consoles, etc. with very few games on that list, as for a reader completely new to video games, those are the articles they should read first. For importance, this is where several games core games, like SMB, Zelda, GTA3, etc. would come much higher as they represent some of the key pinnacles of video game history, but this should also include the priority ones as well. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Article up for deletion

Hey everybody,

Metal Gear Online 3? I don't think so. Not to canvas, but some input might be useful. --Soetermans. T / C 10:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ask this again, but the AfD has been relisted. Without any proper input it'll stay because of no consensus. Anybody willing to say something? --Soetermans. T / C 13:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The sourcing is horrible, so I've weighed in in favour of deletion. If there's an online component it can easily be documented at the article on the main game, and appropriate redirects can be created at the time this putative online component acquires a name. --TS 13:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking to Internet Archive emulated games

I created {{Internet Archive game}} to make it easier to link to the in-browser emulated games hosted by Internet Archive, specifically the recently introduced MS-DOS and Arcade collections (although there also appear to be some ZX Spectrum ones). Thanks to Ylee there's already nearly 150 uses of this template but there are thousands of games in the collection so there's plenty more linking that could be done. Happy to add any missing features to the template if you'd find it useful! bokkibear (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for creating the template! I learned of its existence when your edits using it appeared on my watchlist.
Two suggestions: 1. Would it be possible to set up a redirect from {{IAg}}? Being able to save even a few keystrokes would be welcome. I'd have created the redirect myself but was not sure whether doing so for a template would break anything. 2. A way to suppress the template text. Zork is an example of a single article that applies to an entire game series, and it would be nice to be able to have one line in the External links section reading "Zork I, II, and III can be played for free ..." as opposed to the current version.
I suggest setting up some guidelines for use of the template:
  1. Emphasize linking only to the higher-quality IA collections. The newly released MS-DOS one is, for example, specifically curated for quality by Jason Scott. I see that his name is attached also to the Arcade one, but don't know for others.
  2. Related to the above is avoiding linking to collections/software with obvious pirate ties. I know abandonware in general heavily depends on already cracked games, but I've seen titles on the Internet Archive with filenames specifically mentioning various cracking groups.
  3. We presumably want to link to only one version, no matter how many ports/versions exist, but how to decide which? The first platform? The "best" (and how does one decide that)? Version 1.0, or the last released 2.1? Linking to the 1984 DOS version of a game in adherence to the first rule I suggest above, as opposed to the Apple II or Atari 8-bit version, usually means choosing the one that is inferior in terms of audiovisual quality (dat amazing CGA graphics, amirite). Ylee (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
On point #2, we need to make sure that these are the games officially hosted by the archive.org with their autherization. Per [20] (at the bottom), archive.org is relying on a DMCA provision that allows for legal copies of games/software on platforms that are effectively no longer accessible. So as long as the game archive has the archive.org blessing (as opposed to simply a copy that got caught up in the Wayback Machine), we should be okay. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I should have been clearer. I am aware of the archive's DMCA exemption, but that doesn't mean that we have to prioritize linking to an emulate game with the name of the cracking group in the filename; it's unseemly. The MS-DOS archive has good filenames; the Internet Arcade does, too. Ylee (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Good thoughts, Ylee. Perhaps a form of these guidelines could go in the template documentation? I'll have a think about the best way to handle multiple links in a single line; for now I suggest multiple bullets. bokkibear (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a clearer vindication of the copyright murkiness here before this continues and someone inevitably uses the template on every IA game and creates a butt-ton of cleanup. Is there any kind official statement? I know eyebrows were raised in the comments wherever this story was reported. I've also read that the DMCA exception (via the above Giant Bomb link) was not renewed in 2012... czar ⨹ 19:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This might be a question to ask at WP:EL (Which I will after this). When the exception's 3 year period expires, it doesn't mean that it no longer applies, the idea of the 3 yr exceptions are better to think of as "trials". So if, say, Broderbund (or whomever owns there IP) took the Archive to task about hosting these games, the challenge will be if the DMCA exception from 2009-2012 for software is a fair consideration. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The comments attached to the Giantbomb article are incorrect. As the Internet Archive article states, in 2009 the Library of Congress removed the 27 October 2009 expiration date from the rule granting DMCA exemptions to several types of works including video games. In 2010 the exemption was made permanent, with no subsequent relevant action in the Federal Register; I'll update the IA article accordingly. Everyone should feel free to add the {{IAg}} template early and often to articles. Ylee (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually that's not the correct one. Per the DMCA page at IA, [21], they are looking at two exceptions in the period 2003-2006: "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete." and "Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access." Now, while the dongle one was firmed up in the link above, that doesn't apply to many of these games, and the latter clause is not listed in the 2010 version nor in the 201.40 section of the US code. Again, it doesn't meant that there isn't a possible DMCA exemption that the IA can rely on if challenged, but they would have to argue on that matter. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, the 2009 removal of the expiration date of the 2006 ruling has not been changed, as a search of the Federal Register for "37 CFR Part 201" shows. The 2006 exemption lives on indefinitely until and unless something happens to change the status quo. Ylee (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ylee, could you add something to this effect to the template talk or even its documentation? It's going to be a recurring question for people who see the link, both Wikipedians and casual readers czar ⨹ 13:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Some suggestions for using the {{IAg}} template:

  • If originally an arcade game, the arcade game gets linked. As I mentioned above, the Internet Arcade archive is curated by Jason Scott.
  • If no arcade version is available but an MS-DOS version is, that gets linked even if another port appeared first or is generally considered superior. The MS-DOS archive is also curated by Scott.
  • If other archives prove to be curated, they are similarly prioritized.
  • If none of the above applies, the the first or best platform for the game should be linked; how this is determined is left to the editor's discretion.
  • If possible, avoid linking to games with obvious associations with piracy (crack group's name in filename; group's banner at startup). See my discussion of same above.
  • Always specify the platform to avoid confusion. (I admit to not doing this myself until very recently, but that was because I had not realized that the Internet Arcade archive was curated so was always linking to the MS-DOS one.)
  • Only one IAg link per article. (Exception: Articles that cover multiple games. In such case, specify the title for each link.) There is no need to link to the DOS, Amiga, ST, and Genesis versions of the same game.
  • Match the GameFaqs template id used to the linked platform.

Ylee (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Some questions

Hello! I have some questions:

  • In video game articles' reception section, some games were received "positive reception" while some are "mixed reception". Positive reception means GR/MC score >= 80% or 75% or 70%? And for mixed reception?
  • In project assessment, if a game article discussed all of Gameplay , Plot (if available), Development and Reception, it could be assessed as C-class or better. What's the bar for company and biography articles?
  • Is Fire Emblem#Reception acceptable in today's GA standard, it seems too short.

--Just for a question (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Regarding the first question, I don't think there's a magic number that defines the line between "positive reception" and "mixed reception". And claims made in Wikipedia's voice shouldn't really be simply parroting GR's/MC's terms of art without appropriate attribution anyway. Whether 75% is the dividing line between "positive" and "mixed" at MC should have little impact on a general summary made in Wikipedia's voice. For more on the topic of summaries in Wikipedia's voice, you might be interested in this discussion from above. -Thibbs (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Metacritic does define the line between them. Games scored over 75 received positive reviews while games scored from 50-75 received mixed reviews. However, GameRankings don't really define whether game received good or bad reviews as I recall. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We don't have to use MC's standards, but it is used commonly as a way to settle disputes, but usually in the context of directly attributing the sentiment to them.
  • Fire Emblem was made a GA in 2007. The standards were way lower back then. If you think it needs more, you can either fix it, or bring it to WP:GAR. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to echo: a average score of 75% with reviews between 79% and 71% might be "positive", but an average score of 75% with reviews between 96% and 53% might be "mixed". An average aggregated score can not appropriately convey the overall reception when taken by itself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There was recently an argument about the "positive/mixed/negative reception"-portion so common in articles today. There (sadly) aren't any guidelines to follow right now, except that if the wording of such summary is contested, it should be discussed

When I look at the reception section of the Fire Emblem article, I'd say it clearly misses a lot of prose while being completely focused on percentages and grades that are not particularly suited for an encyclopedia. It's well-sourced, though, so it should be easy to turn that around and develop a few paragraphs of well-written prose. ~Mable (chat) 11:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Indie conclusions (or independent ideas)

A point was raised at the Freedom Planet FAC- that calling something an "indie game" is using industry jargon, and should be properly "independent game" for general audience understanding. I was going to respond that there was a reason the article was at indie game... only to discover that while we have indie game (and Indie Game: The Movie), we have independent video game development (which is, apparently, the process of making "indie games"). Though we then collect these independent game devs into... list of indie game developers. It's not like we're consistent Wikipedia-wide, though: it's independent film, but indie rock/indie pop, but independent music, but indie role-playing game...

Point is, we should probably pick one for video games and stick to it. So... is Freedom Planet an "indie game"? Or an "independent game"? --PresN 06:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's inconsistent. I think the common terms are "indie games" and "independent game developers", but it depends on its context in the sentence, etc. This has been my experience on how sources use the phrases, but also confirmed in searches for "freedom planet" "indie game" vs. "freedom planet" "independent game". czar ⨹ 10:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think both words are simply used a synonyms, neither being wrong or a specific industry term. "Indie" is often used as a genre (even if it's not technically a genre, but it is used this way for both videogames and music), while "independant" is the more technical - No one seems really sure what value the term "indie" is really supposed to have, it seems, when defining aspects games or music.
I definitely wouldn't change all use of "Indie" to "Independand," even simply because indie is such a common word these days. Freedom Planet is probably more commonly refered to as an indie game than as an independant game (though that's a guess) ~Mable (chat) 15:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd support moving List of indie game developers for consistency. ~Mable (chat) 15:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A basic WP:GOOG-ometric analysis shows this
Term Goog score
"Indie game" 3.68M Ghits
"Independent game" 506K Ghits
"Independent video game" 498K Ghits
"Indie video game" 93.1K Ghits
"Indie videogame" 14.1K Ghits
"Independent videogame" 12K Ghits
I'm very sympathetic toward the idea of inter-article consistency, but it seems to boil down to a fundamental tension between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SLANG. At what point (if ever) does the slang term become the official term? -Thibbs (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I've found the following when writing : if I'm only once or twice referring to the game's indie nature, I will use "independent"; but if the nature of indie comes up a lot , such as an article like Indie Fund, I'll use "independent" once and then switch to indie for the rest, making sure the context is clear that the terms are equivalent. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally almost never use the word "independand" to refer to a game, because it seems to have intrinsically less meaning than "indie", though that might just be a personal feeling. Again, "indie" is used more as a genre than as anything else. Technically, Super Mario 64 and Portal 2 are independand video games, but we don't refer to them as "indie games" anywhere throughout their articles, because no one sees games developed and published by large companies as games that should have the "indie" label. This creates inconsistencies by nature, as there is no clear definition of what an indie game is (as the article on the topic makes very clear). ~Mable (chat) 16:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, how were those independent? Tezero (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't follow either. I don't believe this is a common interpretation.... Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Portal I can see because, IIRC, it was developed originally in 2005 as an indie game called Narbacular Drop, which Valve then picked up, so let's go with that - I still wouldn't consider the final release of Portal, either in The Orange Box or independently, to be "indie" as it was retooled and published by a major publisher.
Anyway, while it's indeed absent of a specified definition, there is a general schema attached to "indie game" beyond just its publishing: it tends to call to mind the typical 8- or 16-bit 2D platformer, often with puzzle elements and a pretentious story like the coffeeshop doodlings of a bleary-eyed English major at Brown. Y'know, Super Meat Boy, VVVVVV, Braid, Cave Story, that kind of thing. I haven't looked into whether this is covered in much detail by reliable sources, and either way it likely wouldn't be sufficient to determine in specific game articles whether individual games would count as indie, but it's probably worth covering nonetheless. Tezero (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think Maple was going by the definition "not published by an external publisher"- Portal 2 was developed and published by Valve, and SM64 by Nintendo. Anyways, it's been long-established that there is no good definition of an "indie" game that we can use here, so we have to go by if RSs call it one- which is why Journey says it's one even though Sony published it. The only thing we're trying to solve here is standardizing when we use the actual word "indie" vs. "independent". --PresN 18:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
But that's just it: we haven't agreed on whether "indie" and "independent" are synonymous. Tezero (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they really are. Both lack a strict definition in video games (though "independent" is slightly more strict by nature, I believe) ... Reliable sources aren't too sure about it either, but much like people, I think they vary in exact definition. I should do some research, I guess.
Generally, I just think we should go with the sources: If more than a few sources refer to a game as an "indie game", call it an indie game in the article as well. If a game is notably independent, but is in none of the sources referred to as an indie game, just call it "independent" if needed, but don't call it an "indie game". That's what I think. ~Mable (chat) 19:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I say that they're both inter-changeable; use whichever one. They both wiki-link back to the same article, and neither really have a consistently interpreted different connotation. Use the label whenever reliable sources support it. If only a fringe source or two call it indie, while others don't, don't use it. All the normal approaches we take on this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Proteus copyedit

Would someone be able to give Proteus a copyedit? A full copyedit by a fresh pair of eyes has been requested at the FAC. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This was the first time I've ever really critically looked at a FAC, and it just looks amazing, I can't think of much, if anything, to improve about it. Because of that, I'll look forward to see how this goes and how it will be improved (if at all).
The only thing I did notice was that I'd rather put the sentence on the Shacknews staff poll one paragraph earlier. Right now, the reception of the audio is surrounded on both sides by much more general reception topics, which reads odd. I'm afraid to make edits to such a high profile article, though ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 09:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within at FAC

I have nominated Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (which I successfully nominated for GA in 2010) for FAC, see here. It is currently on the verge of receiving its first support. While it is not under the scope of this project, not only was it a video-game inspired film, it is of significance as it holds the world record for the most expensive video-game inspired film ever made. Therefore I feel I have grounds to shamelessly beg here for reviews for the nomination. In exchange for a review of the nomination I will gladly review any GA of FAC of your choice. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A video game movie, eh? I've only seen Advent Children and that was years ago, but I'll review this if you can take a crack at Freedom Planet, which has one support now and failed last time from inactivity. Tezero (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tezero: I reviewed Freedom Planet; i've never seen an FAC with so few sources so it took less time than expected. I only found one issue which I mentioned at the review. Freikorp (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. There are only two FACs in the urgent list (at the top of WT:FAC), and they're both WP:VG articles; if you want to review the one you haven't reviewed yet, it shouldn't be too hard because the reviewers have covered a lot already. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your review Dank. I'll review Saturn shortly. Freikorp (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Dank, I hate to ask, but what's stopping you from supporting Saturn? It only needs one more, and you've already copyedited it to your liking. Tezero (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's my comment at the FAC. I'm giving some thought to whether I can get more involved in VG; I'd have a bit of a learning curve, but OTOH, I need to learn how to condense VG featured articles for the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
But that doesn't answer my question. I already know you've commented; that's how I know you copyedited it. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_110