Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 101

Hi guys,

When are mods and patches noteworthy to mention? On Skyrim, Shaddim (talk · contribs) added information on an unofficial patch, neatly sourced and everything. I would consider an unofficial patch a mod, but who am I to make that distinction. Anyway, Skyrim did see its fair share of necessary patches, but is this noteworthy by itself? WP:VG/GL states on patches: "Exhaustive version histories: A list of every version/beta/patch of a game is inappropriate. Consider a summary of the game's development instead." It isn't exhaustive nor a list, albeit a bit dry information. With this question, may I also suggest adding a proper guideline concerning mods? --Soetermans. T / C 11:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To be clear on the "Unofficial Skyrim Patch", it is indeed a mod, despite the maintainer's name for it. It is installed via the built-in mod capabilities of Skyrim and does not involve any "patching" of binaries. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This project choose the name "patch" very conscious over "mod", as they try to differentiate themself from ordinary mods. They try to preserve the original game mechanic and design as intended by the original game devs, like a ordinary patch (and unlike mods). Shaddim (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In general I wouldn't say mods or patches, especially unofficial ones, merit inclusion in an infobox; it's largely irrelevant except for more standard software where updates are constantly mentioned and part of the product (hence the "last release" bit.) If the mods and patches are notable enough, however, they should be covered in a post release or updates section, alongside DLC, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the perspective. A "mod" changes the point of view and intend of a software (e.g. like a total conversion). While a patch, even when a fan or user made unofficial patch^[1][2][3], tries to fix bugs and shortcomings only. regards Shaddim (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

About noteworthy-ness, this specific patch has wide press reception and that the community has to fix a software itself (instead of the original developer) is a interesting (and surprising) piece of information for a WP reader. Shaddim (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that if a mod or patch makes enough impact that it should be discussed in the article. Judging from the mod's page and vgchartz, around 1 in 3 people download this patch. That is HUGE. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting numbers (0.98m unique downloads / 3.11m PC sales). While they are clearly debatable (and OR), they still show wide awareness by the gamers. Shaddim (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• In my experience, the only time unofficial mods are mentioned are if their significance can be verified through reliable, third party sources. So, similar to how we use the WP:GNG to determine notability, we use that as a measure for/against inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• List of Source engine mods is a good example of presentation of unofficial mods - in this case, either the mod is truly notable (meeting the GNG for a stand-alone), or because it has at least one RS talking about it but not enough for a stand-alone, it's included. We routining exclusion other fan mods that may be popular but not discussed for this list. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry for stressing this point again, but I think it is relevant here: Your list provide good and typical examples of real mods. The debated "Unofficial Skyrim Patch" project, on the other hand, chooses the name "patch" well aware, as they try to be not a mod but (unofficial) patch. A differentiation which exists for some time and is made by several projects, see the given refs. regards Shaddim (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, in terms of patches, there are some that are well known - eg (not checking) but Morrowind Overhaul has reliable sourcing for it and it would be inappropriate not to include in some type of Legacy section. But most simply don't get it. I'm looking at the sourcing you've added for the Skyrim patch in the OP, and I'm not really seeing the RS behind it - or at least, these all appear situational sources. If anything, I likely wouldn't call that out by name but part of the recognition that Skyrim (even prior to Steam Workshop support) had fan patches and mods. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, while like I said above, it does sport impressive numbers, it doesn't seem to have many reliable sources giving it coverage. The only ones I can find are old and simply say it exists, not mentioning how notable it is. Also, it doesn't matter if it is a mod or patch, realistically it is the same thing. Nothing changes from giving it a different name. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. It doesn't matter if its a "patch" or a "mod", what matters is that its an unofficial, third party addition to the game, which requires coverage in third party reliable sources to indicate its significance for its inclusion. Otherwise, any old person can just tag any old sort of unofficial hacking they've done to a game, and deem it personally notable, when its really not. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed, notability must be given, this is independent the categorization "mod" or "patch". While I personnally tend to see in general greater relevance for patches of a software product (especially if official support has ceased) than for "unfocussed" mods. (Beside, the discussed Skyrim patch has good RS.) Shaddim (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well alright, thanks for the input everyone! --Soetermans. T / C 12:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#MiszaBots down. - hahnchen 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

May I request a WPVG quality assessment done for Kantai Collection? Just so I know in what areas the page should be improved, etc. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

from previous discussion, i think it would be good idea to have original console parameter and port/remake parameter. Possibly even a "compilation" parameter. So we can refocus whats most important in the parameter. Now that i think about it, it maybe better to just stick with the original release rather than listing every list and collapsing it.

but for the most part the important thing is to clarify the original console release (even if its multiple) rather than putting them all together.Lucia Black (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi fellow project members. Question: does anyone here happen to have a copy of Retro Gamer issue 69? It contains an article, "Retroinspection: Sega Nomad", that I would like to use to revamp Sega Nomad, and I can't find it anywhere on the internet... and it's also hard to find where I live, in the United States, as it's a UK publication. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• If all else fails, digital copies copies can be bought for a reasonable price via the publisher's AppStore. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't hear back in the affirmative within a week, ping me and I'll attempt to ILL it from this WorldCat entry. czar ♔ 19:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried to get it from the App Store, but on my iPhone it only will let me download the first 23 issues... not sure why since more are listed in the "Top 10 In-App Purchases" list for it. @Czar:, can you help me out here? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I put in an ILL request, so we'll see what the librarians say about shipping a video game mag from Kentucky. Fwiw, I was able to get the purchase dialogue for issue 69 on iPhone and also noticed a special issue on the Mega Drive that I don't think was mentioned in that article, if you're interested. czar ♔ 12:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Czar, I finally got it. Had to contact support for the application and get a fix from them, but I finally have it. I saw the Mega Drive special issue, it might be something I use later as we keep pushing Sega Genesis to FA status. In the meantime, though, Sega Nomad, here I come! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Godspeed. I'll cancel the ILL. czar ♔ 16:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. An issue has arisen in drafting the Wiki page for the newest Atlus / Vanillaware game, Dragon's Crown. The game has had several reviews which mention the artwork with authors expressing everything from apprehension to disgust. An early version of the page had the following brief section worked on by a small number of contributors which sought to summarize this controversy:

Controversy

Some reviewers have derided the game as sexist due its depictions of female characters. Danielle Riendeau, in reviewing the game for Polygon, stated, "Dragon's Crown's serious liberties with female anatomy are distracting... It's obvious, one-sided and gross", referring to how various female characters are depicted with large breasts, or barely clothed in suggestive positions.^[1] Other reviewers have noted the controversial portrayals of women and either laughed them off,^[2] or suggested that this is nothing new when observing Japanese pop culture as seen by previous cases in video games or manga.^[3][4]

...now a smaller number of contributors have questioned whether the controversy is important enough to mention as have been done for several other video games' Wiki pages, or whether the controversy exists at all. Further, some people have objected to the primary source cited in the section: Kotaku / Polygon. While the views expressed about Dragon's Crown are repeated in many other video game review sites, an argument has arisen that because Kotaku and/or Polygon may have "sensationalized" similar content in the past, it should invalidate the entire argument.

Worse now, some contributors have gotten into a revert battle, with at least 1-2 refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a section. We'd really like not to have to put more protection on the page and resolve this. If the community could please assess the above section, research the various reviews of Dragon's Crown online and also take into consideration the somewhat heated discussions see on the associated Talk page, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigJackman (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In the future, you only have to spell this out at the talk page and leave a one-line notice here that directs us there. This would avoid any risk of appearing impartial. czar ♔ 21:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Work any criticism of the artwork into the actual reception section. Don't single it out in its own section. - hahnchen 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It is I, Sjones23, returning from my two-month semi-retirement. I am now going to plan and take Sonic Adventure 2 to GA status. If anyone wants to help out, that would be great! Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'd be glad to throw my hat in the ring after I finish Sega Nomad. Hit me up on my talk page, I'm sure I wouldn't mind doing any number of Sonic games. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in. Let's coordinate from its talk page. czar ♔ 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

In the episode 1 (August 2011), I asked for protection and the article was semi-protected for two weeks.

Sadly, it was not enough. So I reported again in episode 2 (October 2012). This time, article was semi-protected for one month...

However, some days ago the same king of unjustified reversions by dynamic IP's started again, and I reverted explaining the reason, but he/they insisted, and I made a second try using all the edit resume space to explain my reasons, but he/they reverted me again. At this point, I want to enphasize that informations in my editions (such as release date or the fact that the game is a sequel and not an alternate version) are backed by reliable or even official references, while they insist in adding info like probably invented groups as "Konami Okinawa", or very dubious characters like "Setsuna Sekikawa" and much more. In other words, while I do my best in adding the best references, those dynamic IP's don't add any meaningful reference to their editions. Therefore, I think it's time to strongly ask for an indefinite time protection. Sorry if this is not the right place to post the problem but this extremely tiring. Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put the report there. Thank you. --Canyq (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

By comparison that's a very small amount of vandalism. It's highly unlikely they'll protect the page. --Teancum (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

After more than two years, I can't think of a solution other than indefinite semi-protection: it would be nonsensical to get more involved in an edit war and the person behind the dynamic IP's doesn't seem seem to listen to reason. --Canyq (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Thankfully, my request was accepted. --Canyq (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear video game enthusiasts: This article submitted at Afc has been waiting a long time for a review. Can anyone help? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I declined the article since only two of the sources directly spoke about the subject. It's possible they could be notable but the article isn't sourced well enough yet in my opinion. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! One down, 1323 to go... —Anne Delong (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another Afc submission that has been waiting a long time, perhaps because the game has not yet been released? What do you think? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

We have an article presently, however there was a recent AFD that closed as "merge and redirect" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout 4. The content at AFC seems to be exactly the same as the present article. Thus I would reject this AFC. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I needed to know. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely too early to create such article. Like it was stated in AfD - merge with series article. Sir Lothar (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So looking at the articles that are up at GAN, we have 5 out of 14 that have been up there since July that are not being reviewed. They are Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep, Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance, Sora (Kingdom Hearts), Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days, and Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain. If anyone has time on their hands and can review these it would be much appreciated. GamerPro64 23:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The FAC for God of War: Ghost of Sparta could use some more comments/reviews too. --JDC808 ♫ 18:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this so hopefully someone can notice this thread. GamerPro64 22:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Moving this thread down so it gets some attention because there are Good Article nominees, and Ghost of Sparta, in need of reviewing. GamerPro64 03:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ghost of Sparta passed FAC. God of War III, however, is at FAC and could use more comments. --JDC808 ♫ 19:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

This discussion concerns having this Template: Parkour and Freerunning on video game articles. I've removed them from those listed, but Jasca Ducato (talk · contribs) reverted my edit.

Original discussion on Jasca Ducato's talk page:

Hi Jasca,

I'm not really sure why you are convinced why we should include the template on the article on Assassin's Creed. Parkour might've influenced one particular element of gameplay (which would be running and jumping over obstacles and buildings) and that is the reason why someone put into the parkour template. But does that necessarily mean it should be put on the respective article also? --Soetermans. T / C 09:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that if an article is included on a template, said template should, in turn, be included on the article. That is, after all, the whole point of a navbox... That said, if the link was removed from the template, there would be no reason to have it in the article. However, if somebody were to remove the link from the template, they would also have to remove all the other links in the 'games' section of the template, by the same justification. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, because it is linked on the template, the template should be on the article? I guess that makes sense... But to me, parkour and Assassin's Creed (or those other games linked) aren't that connected. Assassin's Creed is about the struggle between Assassins and Templars, not about parkour. Shall we take this to WT:VG? Maybe with some input we can come to a general consensus. --Soetermans. T / C 11:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I really have to get to my study books, I'll check again later this day (it's half past one where I am).

Respectfully, I must disagree; Parkour and freeruning is a fundamental part of the Assassin's Creed IP, and has been since the start. (Indeed, the original idea for the series stemmed from creating a parkour-based game, not an historical one.) That said, you are correct that the story is centered on the Assassin/Templar war, but the template is not disputing that. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't contest that freerunning is a major element in the game (although I have to point out that neither Assassin's Creed nor Assassin's Creed (video game) say anything about being originated as a freerunning game). However, it is just a gameplay element, should we blindly follow the rules that we have to have that template here? There aren't that many games influenced by parkour and freerunning, and it might be helpful to point out the couple of games that have been in a template. If that's a no, I would think that removing the games in its entirety from the template is the best solution and let category listing be sufficient. --Soetermans. T / C 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(To note that Soetermans also contacted me before this about Infamous). I would think we need to be clear that if the developers made a big deal about the game being around parkour or free running, then that should qualify it here. You can certainly parkour in something like , oh, COD, but the game wasn't built to do that, while something like Mirror's Edge is all about the free running. I would argue that much of AC was designed with parkour in mind (the idea of free running across buildings, etc.) even if not the sole focus of the gameplay, similar to Infamous.

But then that brings us something like "Zombie Parkour Runner", which just seems like an endless runner - so would not Canabolt or Temple Run apply? I agree that there's a lot of OR and possible borderline inclusion that may occur if we're not careful here. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Parkour template should be reserved for games in which Parkour is the primary focus, if you ask me. Assassin's Creed certainly has gameplay elements that include a touch of Parkour, but it's not the central focus. If one were to argue that it is, then one would also have to consider stealth, horse-riding, swimming, knife fighting, knife throwing, poisons, virtual reality, puzzle solving and extensive dialogue as other focuses that would require similar templating. IMO, this makes about as much sense as adding "Template:Video games with arm-mounted energy cannons" to the Metroid series. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Freerunning is a major element in the AS games, but that doesn't make it a notable example of parkour. The template lists games like Infamous but doesn't list Prototype, for example. Those are major themes in the games, but they are not the only central element. And endless runners are certainly not proper freerunning examples. If in doubt, sources should describe the game as freerunning/parkour-based, not just central theme being that. All that said, there really aren't many parkour-based games. If we really do need examples regardless, then I guess AS might pass as one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I posit that if we don't have very many good examples of parkour-based games, widening the net to bring in more not-quite-examples is a bad idea. It calls into question whether the template is appropriate for the video game genre. (However, since the template doesn't strictly apply to video games, having just a few true examples would be just fine, provided they're still properly sourced.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Having had a large hand in Parkour#Popular culture, and due to personal experience, including "media influenced by parkour" is a bad idea for the template. It promotes spammy templates, at the very least, and at the very worst, bloated ones. I would suggest removal of both the "films" and "video games" influenced by parkour section. They are only loosely related to the core topic, at best. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I briefly and casually discussed with User:Okeyes (WMF) the possibility of WP:VG being part of the test group for the eventual beta deployment of the new WP:FLOW software. I think it'd be a great thing... after all, gamers love take part in beta tests, for the exclusivity... and even the bugs and glitches are fun. It's basically a talk page overhaul. WT:VG would evolve to its next form entirely. I think it's a fun, adventurous project and ultimately would help the software be as bug-free as possible before it is released to the general public. What do you guys think, any objections to being the first to test something that will happen at some point anyways? Is it just me who's excited to maybe be a part of this? :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have no objections to testing WP:FLOW here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have personal reservations about Flow (or at least how its deployment plans seem a bit forced) but that aside I can agree it would be fair for us to help test it and maybe prove my reservations wrong :) --MASEM (t) 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better we help test it on our own terms instead of waiting until it's deployed to the community at large, to avoid repeating the VE situation! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by forced? Happy to discuss this, obviously. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For me, mostly the same at the initial phase of VE testing and comments made back then (that VE and Flow was going to be forced, removing the ability to edit text directly which for me would slow me down), but I know the WMF has heard these issues and working to improve the projected rollout. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm cool with testing it out here. --PresN 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with this. Let's do it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Also fine with this. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine as well. Agree with Salvidrim that it'd be better to test on a project page on our terms, and get many of the bugs out, instead of it being forced on us like VE was. And I do have some reservations like Masem, but hope to be proven wrong with this testing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the whole point is to address those reservations! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the current Flow prototype at http://ee-flow.wmflabs.org/wiki/Sandbox I don't think it's the right format for this page - the amount of whitespace is ridiculous. - hahnchen 22:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is a prototype of Flow itself, not in any environment; there will be ways to format other templates in/around the main area, as is the case currently. Note that the other big Wikiproject part of the Flow testing group is WP:MILHIST, which have a lot of weight to throw around and a lot of templates and boxes on their talk page also; testing with Wikiprojects is intended and managing whitespace and the placement of other templates is one of the challenges that will have to be worked on. Don't expect a fully functional product to be released to WPVG right off the bat; the whole point is to get beta software to play around with and test and discover and adventure with. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are we going to be debriefed on how the implementation will go? Also I'll echo the white space concerns from that sample page. I hope there's a more efficient skin for power users in the works, ideally with few visual changes (baby steps). czar ♔ 02:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any specifics whatsoever. I just casually discussed with Oliver the possibility of WP:VG being part of the Flow test group, but I wanted to get some feedback from other members before "officially" doing anything. Seems that most are in favor, so I'll let Oliver knows (although I assume he's reading already). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "debriefed on how the implementation will go"? There are some good reasons for whitespace, but at our end we know there's far too much of it: the design itself needs less, and the prototype actually has far more than the design dictates it should ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Debriefed as in told how we should be using it, specific things to give feedback about, an overview of when it'll go live and other milestones, etc. I have faith in whoever's on the project, but I really hope that sections such as this very one will display less like a news site's comments section and more like these compacted comments as usually required for our conversations. czar ♔ 19:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, things like when it'll go live and what the milestones are will be broadcast (can I advocate signing up for our newsletter? Hint hint ;)) and I'm sure we'll specify things we're specifically looking for feedback on, although obviously any and all issues are welcome. Honestly, I think how users need to use talkpages is more important than how we want them to, so we probably won't be specifying that sort of thing. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My thinking aligns with Masem--I've got concerns about Flow, but I think that VG would actually be a good place to test it in action and see how bad (or good!) it is in practice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've got any specific concerns, we'd love to have them :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I also recommend that everyone read Wikipedia:Flow/Community engagement which goes into some detail about the WikiProject trial phase of the Flow release plan. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When is this likely to be put in effect? -Thibbs (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is planned for December, but a clearly timetable will probably be decided as they get closer to having the MVP ready to deploy outside of the sandbox. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

We're doing a big design and bug cleanup push in the next two weeks, so assuming that's all done in a timely fashion, we should have something to showcase on the second week of November. Specifically, we'll invite users from WikiProjects who have expressed interest in being part of the beta trial to come test out all the features on our test wiki and let us know if it's ready to be released here, or if it has critical issues that need fixing before it goes live. That's not to say that what we'd release here during the beta trial would be the finished product, of course! Flow will change and grow during the beta trial, based on your feedback and needs. We just want to make sure you know exactly what you're signing up for with the beta trial, and that you let us know if there are any dealbreakers we need to fix before we proceed ;)

So, assuming there are no major issues and you guys are happy to give it a shot, we could release something as early as mid-November. But it's entirely possible that you'll identify some critical issues that need to be fixed first, in which case early December is more realistic. Obviously, the Flow team would love to see our product go live and start getting some real user feedback! ... but we're not going to push anything on you guys until you're ready for it. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Masem and Favre1fan93 I also have reservations, but they are vague and amorphous. Whenever Wikipedia has rolled out a new layout or other significant change I've hated it at first, but I always force myself to live with it (rather than using legacy skins and such) and in the end I become completely used to it and it makes sense to me. For example if we went back to the search bar on the left side again I'd be just as unhappy at this point as when they first switched it from the left to the upper right. Anyway the reason I bring this up is because assuming that we do serve as a beta community, I think a lot of us will have to fight against our natural "I hate change" gut reaction. We should keep in mind that we're testing functionality and giving feedback on concrete concerns. I'm in favor of the test and I'll be trying to keep an open mind. -Thibbs (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to help test this. When I first joined Wikipedia, I was prepared for (and somewhat enjoyed!) editing Wiki Markup for articles, but I was surprised by the way discussions were handled in the same way. It seems kinda archaic to have discussions by repeatedly editing a page, but I got used to it quite quickly. Anyway, I personally am happy to be an 'early-adopter' of things and take the good and the bad that comes with them. It seems strange that I'm positive about this when I didn't really think much of VisualEditor, though! DarkToonLink 13:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive.org just announced this: The Historical Software Collection. This is a bunch of OLDER games (atari 2600, or even early Apple machines) that has been given to Archive.org to host legally, with an emulator that one can play these games. Note that copyright remains with owners, so this is not a source of free imagery.

However, that said, I would offer that if the game exists there, it would be a completely valid external link in the respective articles. Eg: for ET on the 2600 we can link to this landing page which is one click from the playable emulator. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It clearly meets WP:ELYES Point#2 and there's no promotion or advertising consideration to take into account. I think we should emphasize the point that the "landing page" is the only thing that should be linked, however. Per WP:ELNO point#8 we would never want to link directly to the embedded emulated game. -Thibbs (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, agree with that on the landing page since that has more useful details. Do we want to have a template for this (something like "hsc_link")? --MASEM (t) 00:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we can use it only as EL in articles, not as reference base ? Sir Lothar (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's details on the landing page that could definitely be cited, so yes. It would still sit as an EL (it would be like quoting a game's FAQ in citation, and then linking to the game's website in the EL). --MASEM (t) 12:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, check that. I was about to add Karateka's page as an EL (I still will) but I note that the content there seems lifted from WP, so I would be really careful about using any of the landing pages as a source. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this is too off-topic for the video game project, since the discussion is about the television series Case Closed, but this project does deal with lots of localized Japanese games. A user is claiming that following WP:TIES, an article should use its Japanese English title. This is the same as saying The World Ends with You be moved to It's a Wonderful World. I would appreciate views and comments at Case Closed#Requested move. Thanks everyone. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Also sorry for it's not related to English Wikipedia's policies:) In my home wiki (Chinese Wikipedia), for article titles of Japanese anime, manga and video games, we have a policies. For one region, there are three kinds of Chinese name - common Chinese name, formal Chinese name (defined by factor or so which was authorized by original copyright holder), and official Chinese name. If three are the same, that's okay; if "common name" is same as "formal name", but different with "official name", we choose the "common name and formal name" as the page title. --Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed very little activity on the collaboration of the month articles for the past many months. What do you say we actually pick articles people want to collaborate on, or instead just scrap it? Even if you're working on an article and want more eyes to see it, we're better off checking out that one than whichever ones randomly generated now. czar ♔ 01:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is because I ended up in a disagreement with another editor. Please provide your opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Secret_Ponchos --Sapeli (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Video game multiple platforms reviews has been nominated for merging with Template:Video game reviews. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Cky2250 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A consensus is required to determine whether or not the two articles are both notable and whether the content between the two of them that they can justify their own existence without repetition. The discussion can be found here, and the consensus from 2008 can be found here. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I commend NARH for sparking up a discussion; sorry if my initial comments seemed overly negative. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for outside opinions at Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted. User:Virtrium is controlled by one or more people at the company Virtrium, which is the developer of Istaria. The editor(s) have since 2009 repeatedly added material outside of VGSCOPE—such as detailed version histories with links to their own press releases—and ignored my requests to use the article Talk page to suggest changes. Recent additions (and my reverts) center on a more simple version history but (again) with press releases masquerading as reliable sources. I don't have an issue with the simple list (although a properly referenced prose section would be more appropriate, as I suggested to the user at User talk:Virtrium) but the press releases really seem like under-the-radar refspam simply because they're being added by someone/people with a clear conflict of interest. If an uninvolved editor feels different, feel free to revert my changes. Woodroar (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The User:Virtrium has been blocked as a username violation. A new user User:Riktor75—I'm assuming a person behind the original account—has admitted a COI and suggested article changes at Talk:Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted#Content Updates Suggestion per policy. I've chimed in there, but would of course welcome other opinions. Woodroar (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Polygon ran an article about User:Evan-Amos's video game-related Wikipedia work recently. Thought y'all might be interested. czar ♔ 23:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

On the God of War II page, Reception section, there's a script error with the reception chart. I don't know why or how to fix this. When clicking on "script error", it brings up a box and I don't know what it means. --JDC808 ♫ 03:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• I paged the user who did the merge & improvement work on the template & script. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Nvm, fixed it. Stray |. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I am looking into a fix or a rewrite of the code. Also any script errors for video game reviews post to the talk page on that template so I know about it. So far I have only mentioned the bug on the doc page.Cky2250 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The only issue is the GameInformer ranking is now missing. --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Was using the wrong code. Fixed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Didn't see the stray |. --JDC808 ♫ 05:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to start this idea here then take it up to a better wikiproject if it sounds good. So good articles get revoked overtime is it due to constant IP edits? Even if not I think once an article is considered good IPs should not be allowed to edit it and IPs should use feedback feature -- if active -- and talk page to get the changes they want.Cky2250 (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that a WikiProject would be able to decide that on their own since protection decisions are not made here. I think Wikipedia:Protection policy is likely a better place but I doubt that it would get enough support.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as one of those proposals that could be helpful, but would never gain support because it goes against policy. We're not allowed to protect article pre-emptively. Also, as the IP above suggests, this wouldn't be a Wikiproject-level decision anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a nice idea but it'd be sort of akin to grouping all editors in the same class. Editing anonymously makes it easier to vandalize and experienced editors tend to use accounts, that is all true, but that doesn't mean that all anonymous editors aren't acting in good faith and making good, helpful edits to articles. What does degrade these articles over time is a lack of an active, maintaining editor to keep things clean and make adjustments as the standards of Wikipedia improve and change. On a personal note, I tend to use of the case of Crush 40 as an example; I got it to GA status years ago and retired later, and due to poor maintenance it's an article that's completely fallen apart. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes the IP editors make quite good edits that registered users may never do. You could say "they could always create an account", but so can vandals. They just don't out of convenience. If they had to register, the edits may never be made, and articles would be stale. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Would these additions be a case where using forums as sources be acceptable? 2601:D:9400:3CD:2166:6994:9940:DCF5 (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Forums are almost never acceptable as sources except for when they are official forums and the author undoubtedly represents the subject. It's still a primary source then, so a secondary is preferred, but with discretion it can be used. It seems the above uses official BD forums and the poster is Dee Pennyway, PR guy of Overhaul Games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to start a discussion because myself and an another user have started an edit war and a argument on the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas article and talk page about having to mention the developer Rockstar North being based in the United Kingdom on the game's article. Myself opposed in having this because it doesn't add any real significance to the article as it's trivia for Rockstar North while the other user thinks it's appropriate information because not everyone knows the series is based made in the UK. Should the country of the developer be included in the article?, I would like this to be resoled on the article talk page. TheDeviantPro (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just blocked Kevinfrombk (talk · contribs) as a sock of a prolific disruptive individual. Looking at Special:Contributions/Kevinfrombk it appears that several untoward page moves were executed over the last few hours. Knowing very little of the subject matter I'm reluctant to undo the edits en masse. I'd appreciate more informed folks check this out and take whatever action is appropriate. Thanks Tiderolls 03:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Chopped off his work with a chainsaw. Yeehah! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Salvidrim. Tiderolls 03:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to play whack-a-vandal. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Could you give some input on whether or not a list of in-game playable factions is appropriate or not on Total War: Rome II? I'm having a hard time convincing two users that just listing factions is not a reason to include them. Discussion can be found here: Talk:Total War: Rome II# Factions Section Removal. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Since user Cky2250 (talk · contribs) asked me to put a notice on the {{Video game requirements}}, I decided to RfD it. Past discussion have shown that the template shouldn't be mentioned any longer. Please drop by for input. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 20:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Referenced content at Nintendo 3DS and Nintendo Network regarding the recent events surrounding Swapnote is being removed repeatedly. In the Japanese reports, the phrase "わいせつ画像送受信" (transmission of obscene imagery) is used, which specifically refers to pornographic imagery, and not simply any kind of "offensive material". Certain editors insist on using the phrase "offensive material" (in scare quotes), which is very vague and imprecise, and can refer to insults, racism, and the like, all of which are not as serious, and do not carry as much of a heavier connotation than pornographic imagery. I get the feeling that people are whitewashing and blanking content simply because they might not like it. I think it is poor form to downplay and sugar-coat this incident with scare quotes and lightened euphemistic terms such as "offensive material" like a Nintendo marketing team in damage control mode, as Wikipedia is not censored. The sources in question, Asahi Shimbun and Mainichi Shimbun, are major Japanese newspapers (akin to the New York Times), and are as close to a Japanese-language WP:RS as you can get. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The current version I'm seeing (Special:PermanentLink/580013461) uses the phrasing "after discovering minors were sharing Friend Codes with strangers who had exploited the messaging service to allegedly exchange pornographic imagery", which is how it is written in the letter from N support here. That avoids the "offensive material" issue and directly states the problem. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It has since been removed by the same user.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

An update on the lastest events: It is now confirmed by police that this is a pedophilia case involving men in Japan targeting 11 and 12 year old girls, and getting them to send nude photographs using SwapNote on their Nintendo 3DS. Refer to this Mainichi Shimbun newspaper article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that the release date for Ground Zeroes has been released, I think the question of whether it should be treated as simply part of MGSV: Phantom Pain or a game on its own must be raised again. This Kotaku article includes a press statement from Konami that is treating the games like two closely-linked but different entries in the series. Also, this Siliconera article from earlier this year has Jay Boor, Director of Public Relations for Konami, stating that the two games, although closely linked, are two different entities, not two halves of the same game. This is reinforced by the fact that Ground Zeroes is being released as its own digital and hard copy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Having no idea on this, a quick question to ask is, how similar is the gameplay? Are we talking a Pokemon X/Y type situation, the Zelda CD-i games (two effectively different games but with nearly the same gameplay mechanics) or two really separate games? Likely as it is MGS, two separate articles may make sense at this point. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Masem, the press release states that Ground Zeroes eases players into gameplay mechanics that will be fully utilized in Phantom Pain. I doubt the gameplay will be detail-identical, but they will be similar. It's, to use an old saying, straight from the horse's mouth. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Having quickly looked at this, it appears that there's two separate games, but because of a mistranslation/misunderstanding at GDC, the idea started that they were the same game. I read several of the sources originally reporting them as "the same game" but all of them appear to have updates along the lines of "Kojima clarified later that Ground Zeroes is a prologue to MSG V".... They are certainly closely related products, but clearly are two games. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they are different games. Each deserves its own article. — Mr. V (t - c) 10:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Could use any and all feedback for Neverwinter Nights 2 on its talk page. Thanks! — Mr. V (t - c) 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of sensitive to date-related vandalism as I've seen an awful lot of it on Wikipedia. I worry that I'm too sensitive to it, though - seeing patterns and connections where none exist. One of these patterns is the noncommunicative IP or new user who is spending an inordinate amount of time changing date-related information on articles without using sources as backup. A good recent example of this comes from X201's post on this topic Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 99#IP user changing dates a few months ago. At the time Salvidrim had drawn comparisons to the work of a vandal named User:Controls007.

I'm now seeing at least superficial similarities between that matter and the edits of User:Casper10. I am worried that I may just be assuming bad faith, though. Could someone check out this guy's edit history? If he's adding bunk dates then this should be stopped immediately. If not then he needs to be encouraged to identify his sources. I've been unsuccessful in communicating with him so far. Thanks for any help. -Thibbs (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• A quick sample shows he's adding info about Virtual Console releases as they are announced and/or happen. I checked out a few and they seem correct, if unsourced. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • OK. Weird how he doesn't respond to notes on his talk page, but I guess there's no rule that he has to. Anyway thanks for checking. -Thibbs (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ripper (video game) was announced in 2009, and apparently cancelled the same year. Sources are few, but may be reliable within the videogame subject domain, even though they're discussing rumor and circumstantial evidence. I fixed and added some refs, but it could use more help. But as it stands, it may not meet WP:GNG until some books are published which discuss its history. So - should it be moved into a list of cancelled games? Or improved? Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggest merging the content to Visceral Games. It's short enough that when you strip out all the wikipage stuff, you have a decent paragraph that affirmed the game was in development at one point, was about Jack the Ripper, and then was cancelled. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, now we have {{The Legend of Zelda chronology Sealing War timeline}}, {{The Legend of Zelda chronology Adult timeline}} and a {{The Legend of Zelda chronology Child timeline}}. Should we have these things, or not? Because the GTA and Call of Duty ones were removed, but the MGS one was allowed to stay. --Soetermans. T / C 20:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Metal Gear, and {{Mass Effect chronology}}, have a solid line of events that's easily traced. Zelda has three timelines with any amount of alternate events, while Call of Duty and GTA are mostly only linked by themes and common elements. It all depends on the series the chronology is made for. And in Zelda's case, a chronology is just not applicable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be more likely to consider the chronologically if there is a long running serial nature to the games, such that a reader needs to understand that the game is in the middle of a long narrative (eg: like Assassin's Creed). Metal Gear has that, same as Mass Effect - things that occur or will occur in other games are repeated brought up, and not just a loose offhand order. The templates there help the reader to know where the title sits in the well-established history. That's the problem with the Zelda, GTA, and COD templates - I recognize that there are some serialized elements but you have to get really into the mythology of the game to appreciate - as such you can enjoy each game as a standalone piece without understanding rest of the series' fictional history, and as such , these templates are not useful. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed these being added today too. I'm also for removal. These timelines are such minor aspects of the games, that go largely unnoticed if not for the most hardcore fans and Nintendo's additional materials such as Hyrule Historia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the templates regarding timelines as well. They are just an indiscriminate list of information. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I support removal when they are added to every game in the series, but I think there may be a valid case for it being on the series article as a standalone. - X201 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they would be fine on the series article talking about the overall plot/setting/theme, with the expectation that the games in the series are subsequently listed in release date chronological order later in the article. If there is a series where the games' release order exactly matches the story order (eg something like Sly Cooper) there's no need for such templates. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

RfD'ed. --Soetermans. T / C 20:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
RfD'ed. --Soetermans. T / C 20:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the three templates have been combined into one. Could the single template be kept and placed in the series article, while removing it from the game articles? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If the only place the template's going to be used is on one article, you don't need the template. Just drop the wikicode into the article directly. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if Josh Mosqueira, a game designer who has worked for Relic Entertainment, is the same person who also worked for pen-and-paper game company Dream Pod 9? I was trying to look for a source online to confirm this - as I am certain they are the same person - but I haven't found anything yet. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• You and your impossible questions... hehe. I would doubt it, since the D3 director goes mostly by Josh Mosqueira and the Dream Pod 9 writer by Joshua Mosqueira-Asheim. I asked the former on Twitter, dunno if he'll reply. This article does mention D3's Josh Mosquiera used to work for "Dream Mechanics" and I've been unable to find the company, so it may be a mistake and they meant Dream Pod 9, but there again, no concrete evidence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • On the bright side, if I am right after all, his Twitter post can be cited. :) BOZ (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Salvidrim, here we go: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/9773963/ BOZ (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Awesome, good work! :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, fellow video game editors. I've gone through the archives of this talk page and researched what I could about WP:NFC and the use of multiple cover arts in an article for a game with multiple releases, but I haven't really found a clear answer as to what I'm looking for. Pretty soon here, I'm looking to rewrite Phantasy Star Online, and I'm pretty sure I'll have enough to make it at least a GA, if not even better (FA anyone? I'm quite familiar with the game as someone who's logged at least 300 hours into it). However, although a couple of artworks are used in the article, the game was re-released so many times as to be ridiculous, and oftentimes the re-releases had different cover arts. All of those re-releases are covered in the article, as it's really all one game. Here's a brief short list:

• Phantasy Star Online (Dreamcast)
• Phantasy Star Online ver. 2 (Dreamcast)
• Phantasy Star Online Episode I and II (GameCube and PC)
• Phantasy Star Online Episode I and II Plus (GameCube) - worthy of note, on this one only the background changes and turns blue instead of white
• Phantasy Star Online Episdoe I and II (Xbox) - completely different cover art from Gamecube and PC version
• Phantasy Star Online Blue Burst (PC)

So here's my question: There are currently three arts in the article: the original release, Version 2, and the PC version of Episode I and II. Is three cover arts in the context of this many releases too many, not enough, or just right? I don't think there's really a lot of commentary to be said about the changes in cover arts notably, but there is in terms of how many versions there are of the game, of course. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 05:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Purely from my opinion, aside from the infobox image, the other images seem more like decorations for the article and I would remove them. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I like to think video games should have a maximum of two non-free images -- cover art for visual identification of the subject, and a critically-discussed screenshot. Throw in the occasional free image of a developer or something of the sort and you've got a good amount of media in the article. Media is fun, but not the main point of the articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would say just have one cover unless a second, third, etc, is drastically different and worthy of more than just a passing comment, but from what Red Phoenix said above, I think the fact that there are so many different covers for the same title has the potential for its own coverage in the article. I'd still limit it to two images though. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that generally one item of cover art is not inappropriate for identification purposes. The addition of a screenshot also puts the prose into context and illustrates the game, adding obvious value to the encyclopedic content. Inclusion of any further depictions of cover art can arguably be occasionally justified if the artwork itself has elevated notability, as discussed in multiple reliable sources. Otherwise, inclusion would lend undue weight to this aspect and would also not be in accordance with WP:NFCC. -- Trevj (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as others have said, from an NFCC standpoint, a second or additional cover art image is going to need critical discussion about that art cover to allow for its inclusion; just because a game gets so many rereleases is not sufficient for that. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for a PC and ver.2 cover. their virtually the same game (unlike episode 1+2 that expands the story and adds more missions and i highly recommend it be split to give further focus and understanding of the topic.Lucia Black (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessarily warranted; the development and reception are going to be virtually identical, and only really a paragraph would need to be added to gameplay and plot to explain Episode II and modes such as Challenge mode. The basic core concepts of the game itself are all the same, so I don't see a split as being warranted. I do see a complete and total rewrite necessary, though, not unlike a few articles I've done before. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

On that note, I do want to thank everyone who answered my question and helped out. WP:NFCC is still an area I'm trying to get my head around, especially since I tend to use free images a lot more than I do fair-use ones. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Theres not much to rewrite....but i did start a sandbox for the artice. it may not be substantially big, but there is enough differences to separate them.Lucia Black (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I can see quite a bit to rewrite, and even if there is enough to possibly separate them, I think better quality can be achieved by not separating the article and sticking with one article. I always prefer the "ultimately one game, ultimately one article" mentality, like the recent debate over Panel de Pon and Tetris Attack, I think they should be one article. There's a lot more that can be said for development, and coincidentally the two sources used for the Development currently are pretty deep but aren't used as such. The basic structure doesn't need to be redone, but I think Development and Reception, as well as Legacy, could use some enhancement, as well as the Release section needs redone to explain more real-world aspects of each release and what is actually brought to the table with each new version. Finally, Gameplay and Plot need a serious trim and restructuring to be more encyclopedic. Even in an RPG article, in-universe aspects should always take a backseat to real world elements, and due weight should be given to each section. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the two images not in the infobox per the consensus here. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of critical discussion regarding the use of a second box art, an example is the Wii port of Okami. In that case the Wii version's cover art was actually taken directly from IGN and included their watermark. To make up for that error Capcom for a time allowed players to order on of three free high-resolution covers to replace the watermarked version.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys, remember when I said I TfD'ed {{Video game requirements}}? Well, I could definitely use some other opinions (not canvassing here, but I do recall more people being on board). Otherwise, maybe someone can shed new light, because I'm running out of things to say. Please, your two cents here. --Soetermans. T / C 14:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, when did all this happen? I suppose I should have been more active, but I'm totally opposed to this. That being said I'm not an active enough editor anymore to make the argument one way or the other. --Teancum (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, your opinion matters as anyone else's. Join the fun! --Soetermans. T / C 12:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The manual image continues to be contentious. Despite the fact that three users have supported the image's removal and only one user supports its inclusion, that user refuses to acknowledge the consensus. Can I please get an administrator to give the "final word" as to whether the consensus is valid? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To note, the user has in his most recent edit attempted to remove the lead image (a 3D rendering of Birdo) and put the manual scan image in the lead. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an issue with the article Ninja Cop. It was recently moved from Ninja Five-O to Ninja Cop by the argument that it was the first name given. I've disputed this move both due to Google results showing Five-O in the lead for hits by hundreds of thousands (and also the fact that Ninja Cop's Google searches are far more likely to have irrelevant results thereby widening the gap) as well as the fact that the article had been stable at Ninja Five-O for many years. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've had many issues with the editor and naming policy. He really struggles with the more advanced Wikipedia article naming policies, like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH, and WP:RETAIN, and instead just tends to argue "No, this is the name on one of the boxes, we use this." type arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(Uh, I don't know how much input you'll get if you don't start a discussion over on its talk page, describing the situation, providing policies or difs, etc. I know you probably know this...but...you haven't done it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC))

Considering the low level of activity - not even 50 edits in six years - I doubt that it would accomplish much. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• The box says Ninja Five O, that the official name of the major English release for the game, and that's the name used for all of the links in the reference section. Obviously that should be its name. Dream Focus 00:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  I notice that it was released 11 days sooner in the European market than the North American one. When its released in Europe, does that mean all nations in that group at once? Dream Focus 00:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  That's usually my experience with it, Dream Focus. I'll admit I'm American, but I've never seen a game with multiple release dates in European countries in my entire time as a Wikipedian (since 2007). To me, that would indicate that European releases tend to be at least close, if not exactly the same pretty much every time, and that makes a lot of sense since a lot of video game companies don't have independent divisions for every country in Europe. The fact that most of Europe also uses the PAL standard, with a few exceptions, also helps to establish that point. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  I was thinking they wouldn't have a costly release of something in multiple languages and nations at once. The cost of advertisements and all, they'd not take chances, and would just test it on the largest markets first. That's why they usually do America in their first foreign market. Rather odd they'd release it in multiple European languages on the same day, and this timed to be before the American release. How fast can they produce copies of the game, and how many would they have made for each market before releasing it? Dream Focus 08:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  I think a lot of European releases come with a language selection so it's really one release across the region, I believe. Still, I do see what you're saying. Any European gamers care to comment here and catch us up? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The use of the cover art for The Witcher: Enhanced Edition is in dispute; I would like to get a third opinion on the matter. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, Talk:Cosplay and Talk:Promotional model.

Articles Cosplay ("a performance art in which participants wear costumes and accessories to represent a specific character or idea") and Promotional model ("A promotional model is a model hired to drive consumer demand for a product, service, brand, or concept by directly interacting with potential consumers") link to one another only through see also. But on Commons, there is an interesting category: commons:Category:Promotional models at video game trade shows, which is very much a merger of those worlds: models hired to, well, cosplay. But the said commons category has no intersection with cosplay. Let's consider a specific image: commons:File:Tekken cosplay models at E3 2012.jpg. Those are promotional models, cosplaying as Tekken characters. The picture is categorized in commons:Category:Ling Xiaoyu, which in turn is in commons:Category:Tekken characters, which is in commons:Category:Tekken. It is not, however, in commons:Category:Cosplay of Tekken. Now, I think that professional cosplay is still cosplay. There are also "booth babes" at some anime or mixed conventions, and as far as I know, based on Commons categorization practices, they are usually categorized as cosplaying (heck, sometimes it's anyone's guess if a cosplayer walking at GenCon or such is an amateur or a model, unless you can see their badge...). Now, I am not proposing that we should remove any existing categories, rather I want to check whether we have a consensus that professional models, dressed as video game/anime/manga/movie/etc, characters can also be categorized (in their Commons imaginery) as cosplayers. For example, I think that all images in commons:Category:Ling Xiaoyu should be in commons:Category:Cosplay of Tekken (or better, in not-yet-created but clearly justified commons:Category:Cosplay of Ling Xiaoyu); with the professional models of course retaining their professional model category. In other words, I am arguing for inclusion of professional models dressing up as fictional characters in a larger cosplayers category as a clearly defined subcategory of it. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Only when they make their own costumes and/or are known as cosplayers (and get hired). I actually know some personally. Otherwise, it's a promotional model (hired just to wear stuff). --Niemti (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Depends on if its for promotional reasons or not. If not, its cosplay. If it is promotional it isn't. I guess the exception would be to promote an event dedicated to cosplay.Lucia Black (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• No. Cosplay is very much an amateur hobby; the moment you started being paid, is the moment you start being a promotional model (which is what a booth babe is anyway). Also, I wouldn't reference Commons categories as part of your case here, because they're often ridiculous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, you're still a cosplayer if you're being paid for your cosplay ("professional cosplay", which is not a real term btw, caughjessnigricaugh). You're not a cosplayer if you're being paid to just show up and wear what you're given to wear (being just a model). Also, "booth babe" is any chick hired to wear anything (even random bodypaint in Russia, or whatever) for promo purposes, not even a cosplay-ish costume of any kind. --Niemti (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole "cosplayers can't be paid for cosplaying" thing is a western fandom thing only. For those who are familiar with Comiket, there are "famous" (at least in otaku circles in Japan) models who cosplay and sell softcore erotic cosplay photobooks of themselves, for example Lenfried ({NSFW}: I have no idea why she's so popular, she's like 30+ years old, and al her photobooks are photoshopped to hell and back) and Iiniku Ushijima ({NSFW}: who really isn't that better, but at least she's not a 30+ pretending to be a 15 year old girl). I think that in western "anime cons", cosplay is associated with being some kind of DIY hobby. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I just follow the cosplay definition from Wiktionary, so I also agree Models can cosplay, even if it includes promotional purpose. However, it makes me wonder weather professional wrestlers do cosplay as well, like Kane. --(,･∀･)ノシ(BZ) (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In cosplay community, you've got to: 1. make your own costume (at least partially) 2. dress up as a specific character (not as yourself). --Niemti (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Professional/competitive Japanese boxer Yuichiro Nagashima frequently cosplays as Touhou Project or Vocaloid characters prior to boxing matches. "Cosplay", at least in the original Japanese sense, essentially just means "costume play", it doesn't matter whether or not you get paid for it. There are "cosplay shops" in Akihabara where you can spend a few thousand yen to purchase a pre-manufactured costume and dress up as the flavour-of-the-month anime character. It might have different connotations in the western world, though (e.g. making your own costumes, etc). --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Going by definitions, there's nothing to make professional modeling not cosplay. In other words, the definition of cosplay does not require being an amateur (define it...), or doing it for free; nor does the definition professional model preclude cosplaying (for profit).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

the problem is that their not official promotions. that's what cosplay is about fanwork. so even if done competitively or for profit or for hobby, as long as the original creators/owners are not involved, its cosplay.Lucia Black (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I perceive and classify any costume-wearing activity as cosplay but I'd describe the amateur hobby separately from other cosplay activities like e.g. promotion or paid modeling, perhaps in the same article though, so I'd have a sections named "cosplay (hobby)", "cosplay (modeling)" or "cosplay (promotion)". There also cosplayers who get paid by photographers to dress with costumes they make for a photoshoot session, sometimes the payment is with money but very often the payment is with the photos themselves (they get the resulting photos, which is called TF or "trade-for"). We can use this analogy to make a decision: Britannica is still an encyclopedia even though it's commercial, and an artistic photo is still art even when used in a commercial advert. But I might be wrong, I never thought about that before. Cogiati (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree we could distinguish between this in our article, if we can source such distinction to reliable sources, but I don't think we need to do so on Commons. Professional models will be in both categories, the rest will be just i the cosplay one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, here are two pictures of mine which I think might portray professional models: File:Otakon 2012 220.JPG and File:Otakon 2012 392.JPG. But I cannot be sure; the first girl was simply hanging out near the Street Fighter booth (was she hired?), and the second one had a more professional photographer organizing shots (but that is not conclusive). Point being, it's often hard to distinguish between people being paid and not, both on the scene and in the photos. Next, consider those two photos: File:Kristina as Triss from Witcher 3 at Igromir 2013.jpg and File:Vladislav as Geralt from Witcher 3 at Igromir 2013.jpg. They are tagged as professional models, not cosplay, but nothing in the description or the source suggests why. I think that a category for Cosplay of The Witcher should include both of those images - not only because it is a not-100% clear case of whether this is or isn't cosplay, but also because cosplay category should include all example of people dressing up as a certain character (I guess outside of clearly identified actors, who would classify as a source material...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw this edit at BioShock Infinite where, while in addition to revamping the gameplay prose, WrathX replaced third-party sourcing about the gameplay (which could be considered sufficiently complete for a summary) with referencing the manual. I've not done a point-for-point comparison, but I would assume for this discussion that everything highlighted from the manual are things highlighted by third-party sources, and we're not having to go to the manual only for some obscure part of gameplay that isn't noted by sources. Essentially - either could be used.

That said, in terms of a better quality article, would it be better to use third-party sources or the manual to source gameplay elements? My take is that if you use third-party, you're highlighting the parts of gameplay that third-parties have emphasized, instead of focusing on elements that many be described in the manual but aren't noted by others. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Third party sources are definitely preferred. That being said some references to the manual where a third party source does not accurately describe something (and the manual does) could be allowed. Generally though why source with a primary when a third party provides all the same info? Isn't that basically the opposite of what we try to do? --Teancum (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There have been arguments in other areas (outside VGs) that at times, sourcing to primary is giving you the most unfiltered take on something and thus would be the best place to start paraphrasing from. I can see this argument when we are talking complex ideas or raw data, but when it comes to video games, gameplay mechanics rarely fall into either. Mind you, if the manual provides flavor text or a quote that succinctly captures the essence of a gameplay element, it should be quoted (eg, GLaDOS's "Speedy thing in, speedy thing out" to describe the conservation of the magintude of momentum for Portal), but I would think otherwise, gameplay features could be describe from either, and if third-party is preferred, that's the choice to go with. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with both of you, but I don't believe either one should be replacing the other if one is already present and its accurately and reliably done. If ones present and correct, its just wasting time to change it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As the previous CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series was a GA, it'd be nice to get these two articles up to that level as well, especially since they are both largely the same as what they were in the original content. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe some brief summary of all 3 games reception should remain in the article to sustain GA status. other than that, i tihnk the Link & Zelda game is already at GA-class, theonly one needing more is Zelda's Adventure. Such as plot.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the leads need work too. I'll work on expanding the lead for the duo article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a good chance that we could possibly trim the plot summary down a bit for the sidescrollers too. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You could probably trim it down or condense it to 2 paragraphs each.Lucia Black (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I also worry that we may be giving undue weight to Cowan and Szczepaniak; the two critics command more coverage than any other critic by a wide margin. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm down — if you have a specific assignment let me know. — Mr. V (t - c) 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would be willing to copyedit this article once I'm through referencing it and updating it in the near future. Otherwise, I fear that it would have to go to FAR. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that it already went through a FAR in 2008 (one that I had to source extensively for) Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katamari Damacy/archive1. Not much has changed about the game since, it's mostly what sequels came out since. But we'll have to see with what you add. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In general I just think that there's more to be said about Katamari, and I'm fairly certain that Takahashi has made comments that aren't mentioned in the article (for example, Katamari was intended to be about capitalism). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I will copyedit it. Let me know when it's ready. — Mr. V (t - c) 08:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the list is not notable enough and could suffice as a category. Comments? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep as a list. Lots of unlinked games on the list, so information would be lost converting to categories. You can create the category anyway though, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. - hahnchen 19:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair points, but I think that being unlinked means that the loss of information is arguably negligible. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because an article hasn't been created about the subject or it is non-notable enought not to get its own article doesn't mean it's nonexistent. Although the actual article can be slimmed down, especially the "Notes" section. KonveyorBelt 21:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

How much of this list duplicates with the Game Boy and Game Boy Color lists? I can understand the Super Game Boy is not a console to itself; it'd be akin to making a list of games for the Sega Nomad. If there is significant duplication and the material has notability issues (i.e. it is trivial or directory-like, perhaps a good way to tackle this would be to add a column to the respective game console lists with a box to mark if it has special effects with the Super Game Boy or not, and a short explanation in the lead. As it stands, I do worry if this list meets WP:N or ever could by itself, independent of the individual game lists for each handheld. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CLN is quite clear. You do not destroy a list to create a category. No reason not to have both. The list is more complete anyway. Not all items on it need to have their own articles. The list should aim to be complete, not leave things out do to lack of articles for everything on it. Dream Focus 00:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Then we can go with Red Phoenix's idea and merge it to the Game Boy list. It seems like something that can be easily summed up with check or crosses next to games. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose any merger/removal of this list whatsoever. See List of Kinect games, List of Xbox Live Arcade Kinect games, List of Sega CD games, List of Sega 32X games, List of PlayStation Move games... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Who's to say these articles have any value, either? Immediately I note that the only unique details on the Kinect lists are exclusivity, ratings, and Kinect use. The ratings have absolutely no place in the list, and again, those two details can be adequately summed up in the main list. PS Move doesn't need its own list either. As for the Sega CD and 32X, both of them are lists of games, not lists of compatibility. Therefore it's the same as a list of Game Boy games, not a list of games with Super Game Boy support. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Two fallacies there; one, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a relevant argument in this case, because it is about exactly the same sort of subject matter. Secondly, the exact number of entries, assuming there's more than 2 or 3, is irrelevant, as is some of the specifics of content. The simple fact of the matter is it seems to be a standard form of list. Thirdly, it is cleraly not the same as a list of Game Boy games, and any inappropriate inclusions can be easily rectified by proper editing, and not draconian deletion. That, and your proposal to replace a potentially good list with a mostly-empty category is most definitely not helpful, and is against policy as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry - the fallacy here is creating a standard that exists only outside of featured lists. "This exists therefore it's okay" means nothing when one realizes that most of the things mentioned can and should be deleted and merged into the main lists and simply consolidated to checks and crosses to verify which games can and cannot use the certain accessories. The other ones that do not warrant deletion are completely different and are in fact lists of games exclusive to the platform rather than a list of games that have a specific function. While you cite cases of articles that still exist, what does it mean when I cite the fact that lists of games by a specific feature have been deleted in the past? What we see is that a few exceptions exist whereas most similar situations have been deleted long ago. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Heyo.. is there a cosplay wikiproject? or, is this wikiproject a good place to seek cosplay experts? Can someone point to statistics of the most often cosplayed characters? Cogiati (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay is something generally avoided. If there is any cosplay images in any article, its because there was enough content on how that specific character made an impact on cosplay culture OR someone adds it in without verifying it. So if you do see a cosplay image and there is not much verifying its importance. bring it here and we can discuss it.Lucia Black (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It is, IMHO, unfortunate we dislike cosplay on Wikipedia, but it is a fact that is not going to change without any substantial debate. There's no cosplay WikiProject, but check Talk:Cosplay for which projects it falls under; I'd say that anime and manga may be better. You could start a dedicated wikiproject, too, through there are not many articles it would fall under. Perhaps a wikiproject task force would be better. With regards to the popularity, hmmm, while you could try to analyze commons:category:cospay, I don't think enough people are sharing pictures with Wikipedia for this to be representative. Perhaps you'd have more luck using flickr, but I think their categorization system is a terrible mess, so... it would be really difficult to answer that question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosplay_of_video_games --Niemti (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If there was such a wikiproject/taskforce. i would join it for the sole reason of keeping the standards true to wikipedia. but so far, there should be no rush to add in the images, just the info. but where to look? that's the thing with cosplay, its pop culture, but if ever deemed notable to a specific character it would be found somewhere unrelated to the media it originates to.Lucia Black (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an RfC active about whether the said article can be salvaged from its current state. Please feel free to go over and add to the discussion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What's with Liu Kang in other media? It seems completely unnecessary to have. I think there wasn't even a discussion to split it from Liu Kang.Tintor2 (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see more of these like Ryu (Street Fighter) in other media.Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Niemti is making them today- there's also Raiden (Mortal Kombat) in other media, Chun-Li in other media, and Scorpion (Mortal Kombat) in other media. These absolutely do not need to exist; they're pointless content forks from the main articles. --PresN 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Missed some- Sub-Zero (Mortal Kombat) in other media, Kitana in other media, Sonya Blade in other media, Scorpion (Mortal Kombat) in other media. --PresN 19:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Completely unnecessary. A subsection in the original article with the same title is more than sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just like with Category:X-Men in other media and everything else in Category:Comics characters in other media this stuff is mostly completely uncanonical and not belonging in the articles about game characters (while just 1 click away in case if anyone's interested). Some articles in the franchise oriented series are really bloated with this off-topicish content which is not actually about game characters. Also, this content may be now properly expanded without keeping it so short (and still failing). --Niemti (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is material that stays in character articles, and should be trimmed of trainspotting elements as well when merged back. A separate article is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use "canon" as a determinant for notability or whether or not an article is split out or not. Its still the same subject. As Masem says, if bloat is an issue, looking at the recently created article, there's plenty that could be trimmed... Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? I'm sure a plenty of third-party sources exist and are easily available for it as an independent subject (including reception if you want, and actually there's reception in some of them already). Also, the idea of this came to me while splitting Psylocke in other media (as part of the above-mentioned Category:X-Men in other media) - do you think it is also "inappropriate"? Also, why were these articles already reviewed, without anyone voicing such (or any) concerns? --Niemti (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

All sorts of articles are reviewed, and then sent to AFD. Besides, you can hardly play the "They've existed this far without concern" card when these articles are being questioned on the very same day you created them... Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Kitana, Sonya, Sub and Scorpion were actually split about 1 week ago, unless today is also Groundhog Day. Btw, the base Liu Kang is my GA, and I think it's now so much better. Anyway, If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is recommended that a split be carried out. (...) The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article, are size and content relevance. (and welcome to Wikipedia). You guys might help with expanding it, or better yet, sourcing the content (not a particular hard task, it's notable characters in often notable works, and the sources exist a plenty, especially for the recent stuff such as MK Legacy). --Niemti (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Liu Kang is presently only 22kb of prose text, far below where spinning off material is necessary. Trim out the trainspotting on the appearances and you'd still be far under 50kb (where splitting starts to be recommended). You also avoid notability issues that way. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Liu Kang's article is relatively small, while for example Kitana's much larger. Anyway, the second issue is "content relevance" (of non-game content for game characters). --Niemti (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And this is where the disagreement lies. We don't think there's a "content relevance" issue. It's all the same character, and should be placed together, regardless of thigns like "media" or "canon". Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The few I sampled were started today, but it doesn't matter, a week is pretty short in the whole scheme of things. (It's not like there's a time limit anyways. It can be legitimately questioned in 2 years from now.) Everything else you cited was completely subjective. You thought it was too long, you think it looks better, etc. That doesn't really combat the concerns of it being an unneeded spinout. They're all aspects of the same character. The articles need trimming and combining. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What "was completely subjective"? Wikipedia:Splitting? Eh. "This page in a nutshell: Splitting means performing a non-automated procedure by which the contents of a page are split into two or more pages. There are two main reasons for splitting content: size and content relevance. For uncontroversial splits, no permission is needed to split; just do it. If unsure, use one of the tags/templates below, and start a discussion on the talkpage." Was sure it's uncontroversial (and it's a long-standing and accepted policy to do it with comics articles in such a case), but well I guess with WP Vidya you just never know. --Niemti (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The subjective part was the very two things you bolded: "size" and "relevance". There is no objective point in which it is deemed "too big", right? Its a subjective call. Or is there some sort of 40k limit or something that I'm not aware of? Also, I'm not questioning you're right to "just do it". That's fine you did it. You thought it was uncontroversial. However, judging by the response here, you were wrong. And that's the problem - that you're not okay with changing it back once its challenged. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I should totally answer "I agree. Completely unnecessary." too, otherwise that's the problem. Why am I even watching this page again. --Niemti (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was likely, I'm saying that's what the issue is. You're the one who brought up "just do it" comment unprovoked. No one said you needed permission. They just think it was a bad decision to make. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, there are guidelines on size at WP:TOOBIG; split a sub-40k article is generally not recommended. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't realize it. None the less, I don't think any of the splits were in the 60-100k range, right? Most of his were 20-40ish range, that I checked, which puts it in the leaning towards not splitting, or highly subjective decision range... Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The article before the split had 26k of readable prose. Again, that's guidelines and I wouldn't hard enforce that split if it was 40-50k, but this is really a case that splitting makes no sense particularly when the second article fails general notably (Lui is unquestionable notable, but his appearances in other works, not so much). --MASEM (t) 21:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not "generally not recommended", but "at 40 kB and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues". And for example Kitana actually was "in the 60-100k range". --Niemti (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

But that's where we disagree. I don't think anyone else sees your "content issue". Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

See below. (And the editors of the comics articles actually see it, otherwise they would trim the non-comics stuff to a bare list of appearances or something, instead of the scores of splits like that.) --Niemti (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a "comment" but just a quote, all of split "in a nutshell". What happens in the adaptations is very often just not relevant to the subject of game content, and if there are too many of these adaptation appearances (major ones), this is unduly prominent in the articles. At least for me. This content can be also discussed further in a variety of ways and in its own right now without limitations - because sources (reliable, third-party) exist. Take for example just the subject of Liu Kang in Legacy - you have many interviews (like etc.), analysis, reviews discussing this version of the character, whatever you want. The subject (collective, it's not just Legacy but also the films and everything else) is Wikipedia notable, just the article is brand new and obviously still incomplete ("you can help expanding it"). --Niemti (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of these articles aren't that large, and there's no reason "non-canon" or "other media" content can't be covered in relevant subsections in the original article. I don't know how to break this down any further for you. I guess I'll let someone else try, and/or let consensus just take its natural course... Sergecross73 msg me 21:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Canon has nothing to do with what's important to include. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Also to note that OTHERSTUFFAPPLIES is not a good argument. The comic book project is working at reducing largely-primary content across its articles, as before notability, many of these character articles were far too large and fanboy-ish, so the fact that other "in other media" articles exist for these is not an implicit sign the idea works across the board. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the "content relevance": Liu Kang (Chinese: 劉康; pinyin: Liúkāng) is a fictional character from the Mortal Kombat fighting game series. And no, this (still tahe same example) Liu Kang of Legacy isn't "all the same character" (to cite one of you above). It's actually a brand new character with the same name - with all-different looks (other then being also Asian), a completely different backstory, and is not even a hero but a sort of tragic villain. (In comics articles, such reboot characters get separate articles all for themselves.) Which is not an isolated case. --Niemti (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Then reword the intro to say "MK franchise" or something like that, and describe some of the different appearances of his. Maybe add a second image for the radically different designs. I feel like there are ways to address this without a whole second article... Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Dubious notability, should be merged back to main article, there's ample space in it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello guys! I found WP:VG/RS said GS's release date informations are shared by GameFAQs, while GameFAQs is unacceptable for it's UGC. However, I noticed many FA and FL cite GSpot. So is the database a defacto reliable sources?--Jb19851121 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

They shouldn't, but most seem to get away with it. The two VG GA's I've written are Ballistics and Diamond Trust of London. The Gamespot release date is incorrect for them both. This has previously been brought up at archive 87, though that discussion did not come out with any clear decision. - hahnchen 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The article for Ghost in the Shell is up at Good Article Reassessment. Please get involved right here by making comments and deciding wither or not it should become a Good Article. GamerPro64 16:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Ylee&offset=&limit=500&target=Ylee

Give this (wo)man a medal or something. --Niemti (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly this is something that we should all do. User:BOZ did the same thing for Dragon magazine a while ago and his efforts have really proved helpful. If all of us who owned magazines would just go through them systematically and add refs to the articles that exist we could enhance the overall trustworthiness of WP:VG immensely. Exceptionally useful gnomish work when you're looking for a good project. -Thibbs (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing the GA review for Street Fighter X Mega Man, and having an issue with establishing completeness to meet criterion 3a of the GA criteria. I've had extensive discussions with the nominator, but we still disagree, and I've asked for a second opinion. Is someone out there who can help me with this? The review is here. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, there is an effort to spin the article negatively towards the developer of the game, this time by placing a lot of emphases on the delay of the game's Community Warfare feature. The content is based entirely on form posts with no coverage by third-party sources. The editor has also added statements such as "...indicate the developer is not capable of delivering on other stated deadlines", "the originally promised delivery date for community warfare", and "if the game webpage were truthful.". 24.149.119.20 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey everybody,

Okay, of course I know that WT:VG is reserverd for discussion etc, but I need some feedback. As you can recall, a little while ago I suggested we delete {{VG requirements}}. In this discussion, another Wikipedian said this about me:

The use of "[sic]" by @User:Soetermans is nothing short of WP:BITE-like behaviour, because it isn't needed here. I suggest you grow up and stop trying to take cheap pot-shots at those who oppose your views, in an effort to skirt the spirit of WP:NPA. Don't attempt to refute me with petty excuses either, just pack it in and drop the hostile attitude, now. WP:INDCRIT would make healthy reading for you. I'd expect better of someone who claims to study pastoral care, instead of reading and supporting people, you're making underhand replies towards non-English IPs. Where's your self-respect? WP:INDCRIT would make healthy reading for you. Ma®©usBritish

I have never felt so offended and downright angry, to be called this. I just replied with this:

Are you kidding me?! This is definitely not okay, @MarcusBritish! It's great that you took the time to read my user page, but what my studies have to with this here discussion are completely beside the point! That is simply ad hominem! I could've been a carpenter or a psychology professor, whatever, outside of this discussion that holds no ground! Also, you could've noticed that I am from Amsterdam: I am neither English nor is the language my native tongue. If anything, you are acting the very same way you are accusing me of, telling me I "have to grow up" and asking me where my self-respect is. I am not taking cheap-shots here, because the IP argument holds no ground, you simply cannot conclude what the graphics are by knowing the system requirements. And where else in this discussion have I been hostile? I haven't, not even once. I am reading other arguments and just because I disagree doesn't make me a bad person. I agreed with Codename Lisa to just rename the thing. Also, sic is a perfectly normal way of trying to point out that what I cited was the exact same thing. If you think that it is not necessary, you could've assume good faith and just said "hey Soetermans, just so you know, you don't need to use that" and THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FINE. --Soetermans.

Please, read through the discussion to see the rest of the lovely discussion yourself. What I want to know, is my reply sufficient? I thought about going to RfC or even ANI, but I don't know whether that editors words merit such an action. Thanks guys. --Soetermans. T / C 13:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, a reply.

@User:Soetermans, I don't assume nor am I required to assume good faith when signs of bullying are evident. Virtually all kids in the Netherlands speak English these days, 80–90% in fact, the same cannot be said of the Vietnamese, which this IP relates to, so your defence is a moot and over-invested point. This is no ad hominem, you were bullying, your tit-for-tat table-turning exercise only proves that; I didn't even mention his argument with regards this TfD, it seems that it is your intent to keep on bashing it - just had to get that extra jab in, didn't you? "[sic]" is not required unless you're formally quoting a source, not a person in a general discussion, the fact you used it twice for emphasis raises my concern that you were simply aiming to embarrass the editor to discourage their continued posting, per Sic#Form of ridicule. I think I've made my point, like it or lump it, either way you can WP:DROPTHESTICK I won't be wasting more time on this matter or with you. I didn't WP:AGF because you didn't demonstrate good faith to him nor in your self-defeating reply to me. Good day. Ma®©usBritish

I could say a hundred things here, but should I even reply? Because it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall here. --Soetermans. T / C 15:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Given what MarcusBritish is claiming on his talk page (That we here at VG are all emailing each other behind their backs to assure the TtD goes through, that we have ulterior motives, etc.), its behavior that has to be watched but unforutnately as WQA has been shut down, there's no immediate solution to this. (I do believe he's wrong and you're right in the sic matter - you were trying to use a direct quote and talk to it, but you needed to point out the grammar was as given, and thus not in bad faith). --MASEM (t) 15:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take this to your talk page as a private discussion, unless anyone objects czar ♔ 15:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys, thanks a lot. I took some time off from editing, but I'm calm now. Let's just talk it over during our Super Secret VG Weekly Discussion Group. --Soetermans. T / C 12:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

E-mail sent. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So MG is used in literally thousands of articles.

Now, due to its demise I say Wikipedia should either:

1. roll back the links to archive.org
2. delete the links.

Make your call, vote, whatever. --Niemti (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

MobyGames, despite its gratuitous use, was considered an unreliable source because of its dependency on user contributions. It's probably best to remove them in that case if they're used for in-line citations. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It definitely shouldn't be used as a ref. Was it deemed okay as an external link? Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's not functional as a ref, I don't see why it should be used as an external link, either. It's nice to have further reading, such as primary sources or others that could not be used in the article itself, but not unreliable further reading. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the bar was set lower for WP:ELs though. I'm not expert there, I usually only add official websites, and remove unofficial fansites. Beyond that, I don't mess with them. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

MobyGames would likely fall under WP:ELMAYBE criterion 4, so it's totally debatable, but I'd still be touchy about putting something with questionable reliability even as an external link. Even with "approvers", there's a reason it's not considered a reliable source. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not entirely true, they had official "approvers" to approve every edit. Anyway, it's gone completely to shit and is FUBAR now (and many links from here even don't work anymore anyway). Also it shouldn't be getting hits from here when it's just a souless ad website for Gamefly now. --Niemti (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure that puts it to a WP:RS level. Also, consensus at WP:VG/S is that its unusable source. So regardless, as of right now, it should be rightfully used as a source. But much like Gamefaqs, its used so widespread that it's hard to police it. But that doesn't make it right either. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

While MobyGames may not be RS by itself (in its past form), it had a lot of old games and linked reviews for those games. In fact, it lists old magazines and at-the-time reviews that are not easily searchable. We definitely do not want to just delete them, as they often list external reviews that can turn an AfD around (I've seen this happen more than once). What we should ideally do is extract the useful links from the pages at some point and meanwhile replace the dead links with archived an version. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That function of using Moby to find reviews doesn't require Wikipedia to link to Mobygames as source or EL, archived or not, though. They are unreliable sources and should be removed. Anyone researching an AFD can find them via Google. The same thing applies to say, Wikia, which often has troves of information backed by sources. We shouldn't link Wikia as a source though simply as a pass through to other (possibly valid, possibly not) sources. -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is once their pages go dead. At that point it's no longer easily searchable. One would have to know to search the archives specifically for a possibly archived page of MG in particular. But that is only if their pages go dead in articles that haven't had a chance to have the useful review info added. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used as a source. But I do use as an external link, following the same reasoning as Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. - hahnchen 20:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just tried several links from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:MobyGames, and they all seem to work. What's the problem? - hahnchen 20:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The 2 links I tried didn't work. Btw: (Ex-)Mobs about Wikipedia: http://www.mobygames.com/forums/dga,2/dgb,4/dgm,181740/ --Niemti (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Which links? If you follow the instructions at Template:MobyGames, they work. The site's still up and serving the same content. - hahnchen 21:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW about their complaints about Wikipedia, they're right, in that we're not here to serve the purpose that these other game wikis do. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was going to say too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in the post that MobyGames is DEAD, just some users left because they hated the redesign. I find MobyGames useful for screenshots of gameplay, which Wikipedia usually has a derth of. And as another user said above, they have "approvers" so, while not as carefully monitored as Wikipedia, they still have moderators, of sorts. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

All approvers left. --Niemti (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean its dead? Or just that it'll be "under new management" or something? Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

After Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2#Category:Video games featuring female protagonists just last month there's Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7#Category:Video games featuring female protagonists now again.

I think the people who come there just don't know how big the issue is currently in the game-related journalism (for whatever this journalism is worth, but anyway). I also feel I'm going to regret it, but whatever. Here, vote or comment how you feel about it.

(In the meantime, I quickly split some choose-your-gender games: Category:Video games featuring protagonists of selectable gender but I'm not even sure I'm doing it right). --Niemti (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe the best way to show that to them would be to post some links to the issue in game-related journalism. Find it and show everyone the evidence; that will do the best to support your perspective here. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I did, but on Wikipedia people prefer to "per" a 6-word-long personal opinion instead. --Niemti (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that really a fair generalization, just because a person or two against you in that argument said that? I'm glad you're not canvassing, but you sure don't know how to go about making people want to help you out at all... Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is fair, because I don't vote or discuss things I both don't know and don't care about (it was random people, I don't see them editing game articles), especially while not even reading the thread and being entirely satsified with things like just an opening 6 word long unsourced sentence to "per". --Niemti (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't make the generalization "Wikipedia people prefer to "per" a 6-word-long personal opinion instead" true... Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• The problem seems to be that many editors disagree with Niemti without looking further than his attitude. Like many other people before him: he's rude, but absolutely right. People need to get off their high horses, ignore the smack talk and get the real point. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Or, someone could try to interact with humans with an ounce of respect or charisma. He reaps what he sows... That's what you get for acting like that... (Niemti, not Salv.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Too trivial. Would cover a LOT Of games. Pretty much a majority of games if you define "protagonist" broadly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with the issue of the infobox image (or rather lack of one)? At the moment, it's one of the article's more noticeable missing elements. The talk page has recently been created, ranked as mid-importance and a message has been left that some kind of image is needed. I tried myself, in all the logos I have found, the text and the image behind it are intertwined. Can anyone help? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The logo seems to be using a simple font. So it is most likely a free-content if we find out what the font is. Other than that, specific games in the series consist of some other symbol. i'm not sure about the japanese Drag-On Dragoon as they tend to modify the font.Lucia Black (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone ever wanted to see Sega Genesis at FAC? It's there now. Could use some very helpful feedback from video game reviewers. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega Genesis/archive1 czar ♔ 04:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Coming up on November 21st, Uru: Ages Beyond Myst will be up on the main page as that days Featured Article. This is probably known for being notorious for almost closing down Cyan Worlds due to its commercial failure. So why not celebrate its notoriety on its ten year (and ten days) anniversary? GamerPro64 03:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite appropriate since Cyan just had a successful Kickstarter campaign for a new Myst-like game. --Mika1h (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. As usual any and all eyes can be helped to clean up crap and integrate in anything useful. This is a fairly old FA for me so there's doubtless some improving that can go into it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys and gals. I have never written a video-game article before, but have recently substantially expanded ATV: Quad Frenzy from it's stubby, unreferenced days (). I've just nominated it for DYK but would be eternally grateful if a more experienced VG editor could take a look at the article and make any fixes/imporvements they see fit, and give me some feedback. Thanks! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Quickly: GFaqs source should be removed without hesitation from any serious article. Sourcing reviews to Metacritic is also bad form, source to the reviews themselves. Why is there an image alone at the bottom? "48" as a score means nothing. Is it 48 on 100, on 50, on 1000000? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Also- if you quote something, it goes like: 'Joe Blah from IGN said "normal text text"', rather than like 'Joe Blah from IGN said "italics text"'. You also don't need to use cites so densely- if you're using ref 5 to cite two sentences in a row, then stick the citation at the end of the second sentence only, not the end of both (much less in the middle of sentences as well as the end.) --PresN 00:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

re: . Has this been discussed here before? Does anyone else has strong feelings about this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've seen you guys arguing about it, but wasn't really sure why there were strong feelings for or against it, honestly. Can someone explain? Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We've never had it. It's stating the obvious and doesn't add anything. - hahnchen 16:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The template basically does not add anything to the page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of tagging all project pages with WikiProject banners, including this one, for the sake of categorization. I just don't see how we can decide not to tag the main project page as a "Project-class page". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know what you mean, and I don't see any detriment to it. At best, it helps with categorization, and at worst, it takes up space, of which we have unlimited amounts of... Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• We could just manually add this page to the category but not having the template on the main page seems silly. KonveyorBelt 19:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

My rationale is three-fold: 1) per Salvidrim 2) it reminds editors that such a template exists, encouraging them to use it elsewhere 3) it looks pretty, and it's not like it adds any significant loading delay or scrolling. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion, I would say we have a consensus to add it: some people don't think it adds anything but they do not oppose the addition, others support the addition. Please note that the template replaces the "to do" template, as it includes it. And it in fact saves space, as its "to do" is collapsible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the collapsed to do list is detrimental and annoying. We shouldn't be aiming to be "saving space" when the to do list contains important links to things that editors could help with to improve the project. Editors are less-likely to see what needs to be done with the project upfront if it's collapsed now.--十八 06:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, our to-do list is another click away, and we waste screen estate with a worthless "this is a wikiproject page" template. - hahnchen 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of revert, similar to removing the Signpost templates recently. I don't think we have consensus for the recent change to a collapsed to-do list and WPVG template. czar ♔ 18:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Per popular request, I restored the to do template, through it is not really a to-do list, as a incomplete list of entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts which I think would be better to link to (through it is too large to transclude). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently conducting a Good Article Review for Nintendo 2DS and am not sure how to address the Software and services section. Disregarding the fact that a lot of it is almost directly copied from Nintendo 3DS, the wider issue is that most of the section (mostly User Interface) is almost exactly the same as information contained in the 3DS article since they use the same OS and the only change is the loss of 3D. Not sure how the article should structure itself in light of this, and any help in that regard would be appreciated. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this has it's own article. Form factor aside, the lack of 3D and stereo sound is the only real functional difference. The 3DS XL doesn't have it's own article. It's simply another version of the same line. The start up logos even say Nintendo 3DS, rather than 2DS. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ferret, we had the discussion numerous times, and consensus was to keep the articles separate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure what to do about this, any opinions? Samwalton9 (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Arkhandar has been doing large amounts of work on the 2DS, 3DS, and Wii U articles, and while he has made a lot of improvements, he's also bloated the articles with a lot of less than essential details and subsections that would probably be better off as singular sentences. Perhaps instruct him to trim it back down before you'd pass it? Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there's any policy on which currencies should be included on console articles? The industry norm seems to be to announce a console's launch price in USD, GBP, Euros and Yen - should this standard be applied to Wikipedia articles or is it valid to list others as well? Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 14:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but think this is a case where the general MoS applies most closely. See WP:CURRENCY and MOS:CURRENCY. But please also note VGSCOPE point #7 and WP:PRICE. -Thibbs (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite worried about its condition. It is one of this project's few FLs, but it appears to have many citations to GameFAQs for its information, which we do not consider reliable per WP:VG/S. If there is not anyone able to substitute its references for reliable ones, I'm afraid it may have to be considered for delisting from FL status. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I know User:CaseyPenk (now renamed User:Resoru) had been making a big push to provide solid sourcing for all Virtual Boy articles back in May 2012. It looks like that user has now departed but you might be able to find some contacts by looking through the edit histories... -Thibbs (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like, at the time of making it a FL, it was sourced by an official document by Nintendo, which now no longer exists. That, or fansite "Planet Virtual Boy". Its hard to tell; it didn't even have hardly any direct references, just a few links at the bottom. That's the thing, the standards seem to have been much looser back in the day. (It was made FL in 2006.) I kind of wonder if the article was ever actually "Featured" status, in the stricter sense used nowadays. Anyways, the problem is, its very hard to find release dates for games from the mid-90s. GameSpot/Gamefaqs isn't useable, and while the IGN release database isn't explicitly deemed unreliable, I've found it to be wrong or unlikely many times with older/retro type games. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Planet Virtual Boy does have a good library of hardcopy article scans, though. Most of those are probably usable as RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a bit offtopic but the current situation about dates is very weird. GameFAQs/GameSpot references are removed from articles because they are unreliable but dates themselves aren't removed so they have been left unsourced. Some of the recent Featured Articles use GameFAQs dates. The dates are unsourced but they come from GameFAQs/GameSpot and that doesn't seem to bother FA reviewers which I find strange. Maybe Featured Lists have different standards about dates. --Mika1h (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so much that, as much as it is that reviewers outside of WP:VG aren't familiar with GameFAQs and GameSpot, especially since GameSpot can be quite deceptive as it doesn't appear to be a user-contributed library. I was very diligent in making sure not to use them when I did List of Sega 32X games a few months ago. Perhaps the information, including dates, may be right, but GameFAQ's lack of editorial oversight and user-contributed base makes it a disqualified source even if the info is factually accurate. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That could be a good point. Someone who isn't very well verse in video game websites (or even a regular at WP:VG) probably wouldn't know its unreliable. All these Game-xxxx websites all blur together. GamesRadar, GameZebo, Pocket Gamer, etc, are all fine, but Gamefaqs isn't? Many probably don't know, especially considering how frequently the website is used on the project, despite it being deemed unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just want to throw this out as an example. Total credit to User:PresN for being a good sport, taking it on the chin, and replacing his GameSpot refs, but in this particular FLC, several experienced FLC reviewers looked at references but none identified the use of GameSpot as it was used in the article as citing an unreliable source (as GameSpot is subjectively reliable; its database is not because it's shared with GameFAQs). By the time I'd reviewed it, it had three supports, with comments on references, meaning they were at least looked at by the reviewers, and no one identified it. I would likely say I only did because I'm experienced with video games and gaming websites, and with WP:VG/S; those that aren't frequent editors on the subject material of this project seem to be susceptible to missing things like this. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to better advertise the existence of WP:VG/RS for use in VG reviews at WP:FAR. I know there is actually some objections to it in the world of WP:RSN (where they like to take things on a case by case basis and where broad generalizations are anathema), but I think that springs from a misunderstanding about how VG/RS is intended to work. VG/RS isn't completely rigid. It's more of a rule-of-thumb guideline. But as a guide in an area as nascent and dynamic as video game journalism, I think it would be an invaluable time-saver for those that aren't perhaps steeped in the culture. -Thibbs (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is now temporarily semi-protected because of constant addition and removal of similar material. Please discuss matters in Talk:Toontown Online. --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Despatche has been making a multi-year crusade of going through Wikipedia systematically and renaming articles to match what he thinks is the "official name". He openly disdains and violates Wikedia's current naming policy but instead of getting the policy changed he tries to affect a fait accompli under the guise of being bold. The problem is that this isn't boldness, but recklessness. His guesses about "official name" come from a bewildering variety of box covers, advertisement fliers, title splash screens, and various other (frequently self-contradictory) self-published sources that he has personally sifted through to determine "officialness". To date he has made 572 pagemoves with edit summary reasons ranging from "just look at the flyer" to "notsurehowthishappened.wav" to "forcing typos through under the guise of COMMONNAME... truly disgusting behavior" (three very recent examples). Considering his blatant and repeated violations of the current naming policy (i.e. COMMONNAME) should this user really be allowed to change any page names at all by this point? He's been warned over and over about this and steadfastly refuses to get the hint, choosing instead to get belligerent and sarcastic. He badly needs this privilege stripped in my view. I'd suggest a partial WP:CBAN related to alteration of article titles and lede paragraphs to match "official" terms. I think he should be allowed to propose such changes, but not to make them himself. Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: A CBAN would have to be proposed at AN or AN/I of course. I'm just curious if this is warranted. Full disclosure: I was brought to AN/I myself by this editor over this very issue about a year ago so I'd be recusing myself from filing any AN actions and only participating in the discussion if one is to take place. -Thibbs (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is just insane. There's no guessing; the rare times there is, it's still a hundred times more solid and verifiable than these fake made-up names that you allow these unrelated game reviewers to create.

A lot of the time, COMMONNAME is invoked when nothing in there actually covers the given situation; I've said this countless times, but I guess everyone wants to ignore that for their own motives. I've also suggested countless times that COMMONNAME-is-fundamentally-flawed-and-here's-why right on the talk page, and no one listens to that either.

No, why I'm so 'bold' is because I've already gone through situations where my suggestions have been considered valid--Dariusburst, 8 Eye's, and the hundreds of title changes that have been unchallenged (because that matters a lot to people; see Sonic 3D Blast)--and seek the obvious consistency that is necessary for any other article. In fact, I'm terribly confused as to why people frown upon one extremely similar move over another without actually providing any reason as to why. Over at Sonic Colors, people kept going on about ENGVAR when ENGVAR literally cannot apply in that case ("Sonic Colors" isn't 'words' that can be 'varied', it's a title that is divorced from any language).

What's really happening is that people keep ignoring me and the issue and now want to see me gotten rid of because... maybe they finally realize what I'm talking about and despise it for some reason? Yeah, I wish I got even that much! As far as I can tell, no one wants to question their own Wikipedia policy (they should be doing this all the time) and no one wants to listen to any of my suggestions or advice, unrelated or no.

If you guys seriously want to talk about this stuff instead of just blowing me off every single time (randomly, at that), I want to know now so we can just wipe the slate clean and do some real work around here. Despatche (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you really think this is guessing, anyway? How can you not realize that this so-called "original research" (more like quoting from a source, like any other source) is necessary and far more valid than some made-up name by some reviewer who barely plays or cares about 99.99999% of games or their details (that's not even an insult)? And when are you guys going to realize that you make the common name going forward? That is why COMMONNAME is flawed; Wikipedia is a very large part of it. Despatche (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Fully warranted! I would love it if someone besides me were pushing for this. If you've seen my talk page or any of his requested moves lately, you'll see he's pretty much demonized me for opposing virtually all of them. He thinks I'm out to get him or something, when the real problem is that he refuses to acknowledge WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RETAIN, or WP:USEENGLISH. While the policies are basic, and consensus opposes him virtually every time, he always seems to blame me. (I don't search him out, they're typically articles on my watch list. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop it with the wikilawyering. You've never suggested RETAIN once; it'd be double standards if you did, because with quite a few articles I'm reverting page moves made in error. Same with USEENGLISH... where does that actually come in, ever? Nowhere, because I try to stick to localized titles by default, because that's an actual standard that hasn't been distorted by people like you. You are literally making stuff up now, and things like this are why I think you've got some crazy motive. Despatche (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN was cited more than once in your unanimously opposed requested move at Sonic Colors. WP:USEENGLISH was cited in your unanimously opposed requested move at Valkyria Chronicles 3 AND at your unanimously opposed requested move at Beyond the Labyrinth. Plain as day to see. Perhaps if you paid more attention to the responses to your failed requested moves, you'd understand what you're doing wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's perfectly normal to IAR on a couple cases or have different views on others, but not on this many to the point of not even having RMs. It is clear from the edit history, their replies, attitude towards others and their current talk page message that they are not interested in following our guidelines on naming or discussing changes and agreeing with consensus. Collaboration here implies following consensus regardless if one disagrees. To alter our guidelines, we propose such changes. Unfortunately, the editor believes not agreeing with consensus means simply saying so, telling other editors that they are wrong, and continuing to edit against it. I don't possibly see how the entire Wikipedia should change to suit their view. This is disruptive behavior, and them having been told so on many instances and still continuing such, I have to agree that AN/CBAN for undiscussed moves may be the only venue at this point. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous! I'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS TIME AND TIME AGAIN. Is anyone actually going to read what I say, or are they going to keep making things up in order to get me gone?

No, what you guys are doing to me is disruptive behavior. I've tried talking to you people about this stuff time and time again; either no one actually joins the discussion, or they start making stuff up and call it 'consensus' (Sonic Colors, Sonic 3D Blast, so on and so forth).

I just wanna talk about this stuff, but you won't let me! You wanna know why I'm so rude? Because you guys pull this crap, and were all always pulling this crap long before I thought anything but good faith in all of you. Once again, as always, YOU HAVE CAUSED THIS, this is clearly a calculated attempt to get rid of me for Some Reason, and absolutely none of this is 'paranoia'.

I'm sick of it! But you know what I'm sick of above all else? The fact that you won't read anything, just like you won't bother reading any of this. Why? Why do you refuse to participate in any of these discussions and actually read what's going on and then blame me for doing exactly that? I have NEVER shown ANYONE that kind of disrespect, not even recently. Despatche (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have read this. Disagreeing with you on what consensus is or should be is not refusing to participate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bringing renaming proposals up over and over again, knowing what the consensus clearly is and without new arguments, is considered disruptive behavior. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is, as one might expect, incredibly hard to find interviews or general development information due to the vagueness of any possible searches as well as how many interviews exist for, say, Lords of Shadow or interviews that focus on Igarashi who wasn't really involved with it. If anyone has -anything-, I'll be super thankful. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a Kickstarter project for a book full of interviews with Japanese game developers. In one of the updates the author talks about tracking down Castlevania's director Hitoshi Akamatsu: . So maybe buy that book when it comes out? --Mika1h (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, more accurately he discusses his quest to try and find Hitoshi Akamatsu. Its most likely he was unsuccessful, but you never know. As to this request, there is no development info on Castlevania in English. There might be some available in Japanese, but that is outside my area of expertise. Indrian (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Our 2012 Stubcheck lies abandoned, because we're losers who fail to follow through with anything. But now there's Wikipedia:Stub Contest, which rewards users with points and prizes for re-classifying stubs. (It's not that boring, you get more points for expanding stubs) There's a week left to sign up and the competition takes place in December. - hahnchen 22:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

At one point I was working on de-stubbing NES games. I did two games as part of this. It's hard to stay motivated in editing articles that often aren't very interesting. :P - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I would love to help out... but December's a really bad month for me to be able to assist much. If it were in February or March, I'd be much more able to help out. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)