Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 138

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140→Archive 145

Historical assessment data

In the (resurected!) Signpost, there's an interview with WP:MILHIST, and in it they make the claim that the project has been in "a slow decline over the last few years", as has Wikipedia as a whole. It made me curious about our own project, and since I have both just over 12 years of assessment data at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics and a willingness to make up my own arbitary measurements, I thought I'd give it a try. Here's a table of data for the Marches of 2007-2018:

big 'ol table
Year Total count GA/A FA/FL Δ GA/A Δ FA/A Δ total GA/A% FA/FL% GA+% Δ GA/A% Δ FA/FL% Δ GA+%
2007 16517 115 42 0.696 0.254 0.951
2008 20606 189 91 74 49 4089 0.917 0.442 1.359 0.221 0.187 0.408
2009 21930 327 146 138 55 1324 1.491 0.666 2.157 0.574 0.224 0.798
2010 23936 411 168 84 22 2006 1.717 0.702 2.419 0.226 0.036 0.262
2011 25587 476 179 65 11 1651 1.860 0.700 2.560 0.143 -0.002 0.11
2012 27522 537 193 61 14 1935 1.951 0.701 2.652 0.091 0.002 0.093
2013 29073 625 203 88 10 1551 2.150 0.698 2.848 0.199 -0.003 0.196
2014 30191 694 228 69 25 1118 2.299 0.755 3.054 0.149 0.057 0.206
2015 31852 818 259 124 31 1661 2.568 0.813 3.381 0.269 0.058 0.327
2016 32762 1008 274 190 15 910 3.077 0.836 3.913 0.509 0.023 0.532
2017 33668 1185 284 177 10 906 3.520 0.844 4.363 0.443 0.007 0.450
2018 34242 1288 304 103 20 574 3.761 0.889 4.649 0.22 0.044 0.286

The data as chosen doesn't make things look as dire, actually, as MILHIST seems to find it. GA and FA counts keep going up, as do the percentage of total VG articles. VG article count itself started slowing down in 2016, but that was about the point that we started getting aggresive about finding and merging/redirecting new substubs- the sheer size of the 'new articles report' every week doesn't seem to bear out a slowing rate of creation. The main point of concern is that the rate of GAs peaked in 2016 and FAs in 2015, though the trend isn't long or deep enough to be over-alarming (to me, at least). Anyways, I mainly posted this because I spent so long building the table that it seemed a waste not to, so... here you go. --PresN 04:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This is really interesting data! Thanks for compiling it. ~ P*h3i (📨) 05:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlike video games and other entertainment media, military history is not something that has new, encyclopedic-worthy info released daily, so it makes sense that this project hasn't declined, and is in fact more active now than a few years ago. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
There is plenty of noteworthy military action taking place each day (Category:April 2018 events in Syria). Article count is a poor measure of project growth but is more often used because it's harder to quantify quality growth, which is often done in sheer word count. Anyone who has edited a plot section knows that word count on Wikipedia also accounts for little. czar 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Quick question here-- does "FA" refer to FL/FA in this case? I'm noticing that the FA/FL seems to add up with the ΔFA column pretty nicely. Nomader (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, yes, it's GA+A class and FA+FL class all the way across. --PresN 15:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the biggest fan of the articles on how Wikipedia is failing. This WikiProject seems to have a significant amount of high quality articles. The rates will always get slower, as there is less historically notable subjects to add to wikipedia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info. Very interesting to look at. I personally don't usually buy into all the panic/worry about "Wikipedia is on the decline". Partially because it seems like its always being cited by people who are crying about not getting their way (What do you mean I can't write a personal essay about all 200 characters that appear across Ocarina of Time. Then I quit! This is why Wikipedia is failing/no one uses it anymore etc etc) and partially because, some decline is normal once all the low hanging fruit type articles are created (Railroad station article output is bound to decline once we've written articles on all existing railroad stations, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's been some of my thoughts too. Especially the low-hanging fruit one- over at WP:SE, the heyday of the project was around 2006, and we've been "in decline" ever since. Loss of editors? Rising standards? Sure. But more than all of that: 2006 was when every "major" game in the Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, etc. series released by then got pushed to GA/FA. When all that was left was major work boosting a less-popular title to GA/FA... effort swam away, even as the VG project as a whole continued to grow. And that's what I think it is across the board- MILHIST can point to WP:OMT stalling out without finishing, but it clearly got every article that the contributors actually cared about to GA+, and what was left felt like work, and work that was less interesting than doing some other article. And even there, it's resurfaced in the last year or so- and most of that was new editors who were interested in a different part of the project. VG just has the advantage that new exciting games come out every year, so there's always some element of low-hanging fruit for people to jump for. --PresN 16:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Are there enough reassessments each year to be worth noting? Since this chart is really about "rate of activity", it should show increase of new GA/FAs each year and not count reassessments against the total, not least because reassessments represent work (and thus a kind of growth) as well.
There's also no easy way for this chart to acknowledge how the 120 new GA/FAs from the past year are held to a much higher quality than the 110 between 2009–2010. The count is also low enough to be explained simply by individuals. I can think of several people who actively wrote G+FAs during one of these historical periods who might alone account for 10 (20?) that year, which can be the difference between the annual G+FA growth rate looking good or stagnant. It's silly to expect a rate of growth comparable per annum when the measure of participation is contingent upon whim: who simply had more time to volunteer, who was giving editors a harder time during review, who went on a streak of reassessments that year, which years had GA review or collaborative quality drives, and so on. czar 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Viewtiful Joe (series)

I was just dotting around and noticed something important. There isn't a "Viewtiful Joe (series)" page. There are a total of 4 games, 1 anime, and 1 character pages. IMHO, there is enough information to make a series page. I'm not good at making them yet so I'm requesting here if someone would like to make it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie - We do have a requests section that would be suitable in this case. I don't know much about the subject, so I'm not really the best person to help. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I just made a request. I'll try to learn how to make pages.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
ON second thought, I keep messing up. Is it possible for someone to make the request for me this one time?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Harvest Moon series confusion

The Harvest Moon series was rebranded Story of Seasons some time ago, but continued on as a new series also entitled Harvest Moon. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of history, changing the name of the former series to Story of Seasons feels incorrect. I think that Story of Seasons should be split - with the old portion going to the more notable Harvest Moon and the current Harvest Moon being moved to Harvest Moon (2007 series) which is somewhat less notable. I would like to see if people agree on this, and if there is a correct naming convention.

Another possibility is to move all the old Harvest Moon games back to Harvest Moon, and prioritize the series name over the owners of said series.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: There is also the possibility of returning the new series to Harvest Moon (Natsume series) which I accidentally moved it from, but I think simply redirecting Harvest Moon to Story of Seasons is overly confusing for people.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've thought (and probably talked) about this plenty of times. There is [the 1996 series] and [the 2007 series]. Without doing research, I would say that the WP:COMMONNAME for the 1996 series still is Harvest Moon rather than Story of Seasons. It is also the more notable series, but despite this there is a significant risk of confusion between the two, so I would suggest not having either of them at Harvest Moon. Rather, I suggest turning Harvest Moon into a disambiguation page that links to Harvest Moon (1996 series) and Harvest Moon (2007 series). Using "Natsume" as disambiguator doesn't work because the 1996 series used to be published by Natsume.--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

^^I really like this proposal. I support this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Sounds like the best way to solve this, considering that neither series probably is exclusively WP:PTOPIC. Regards SoWhy 15:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Also agree. The way it was handled right after the announcement of the name change was just recentism, it should have never been done like that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Mostly agree. However, I caution that whoever does this and performs the moves/splits/etcs take on the effort of cleaning up links as well. This is going to leave a lot of links going the wrong place, and the DISAMB project guys may not have the background on the article move history and renaming for this year or that year to re-point each link correctly. -- ferret (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I read through all the relevant articles and I'm still confused about the timeline of events and which name belongs to who and when. Can someone who knows the history better try to provide a more thorough explanation somewhere? Perhaps Story_of_Seasons#Naming? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's the brief history. Bokujō Monogatari is a life simulation series from Japan. From 1996 to 2014, the series was localized by Natsume who dubbed it "Harvest Moon". In 2014, Natsume stopped localizing the Bokujō Monogatari games, but continued to hold the "Harvest Moon" naming license. Because of this, the developers of Bokujō Monogatari began localizing their games themselves under the name "Story of Seasons". Meanwhile, Natsume began developing their own "Harvest Moon" games. These new games by Natsume are not true Bokujō Monogatari games, they are in-house developed knock offs just to take advantage of the naming license. It's a complete mess. TarkusABtalk 23:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Please include this somewhere in mainspace. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's confused. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
is it possible to make a page that covers both series as the go-to page? Explaining the history that belonged to one company, and then the name moved to another? they both have a shared history.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
A Harvest Moon disambiguation page should (briefly) explain the situation, and I imagine both the 1996 and 2007 articles would explain it in more detail in their respective history/development sections. Aside from the disambiguation page I can't see us having any additional, separate pages explaining the history - it's not like the "Harvest Moon" brand name itself would be viable as an article.--Alexandra IDVtalk 23:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks for letting me know. it just looked like such a unique situation that might have its own page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There are only 2 games out of the entire series named "Story of Season". We don't know if they'll stick with that name too. Wouldn't it be better if we kept it as Harvest Moon, at least until there is enough games under the belt of the new name? WHo knows, maybe they'll change the name again.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I preferred the old setup. "Harvest Moon" for most people really means the series "Story of Seasons", confusing as that is. I definitely 100% disagree with moving the cash-in neo-Harvest Moon series to just "Harvest Moon" [1]; it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Harvest Moon", which is the "old" series, and it violates WP:ASTONISH to see "Harvest Moon" claim to be a series that started in 2007. The confusing redirect, or at worst a disambig page, are the way to go. SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree and placed a move request Talk:Harvest Moon TarkusABtalk 21:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Folks at the move request disagree with WP:NCVGDAB and think Harvest Moon (2007 video game series) is a better title than Harvest Moon (2007 series). All TV series are marked (TV series) so do we need to update our guidelines? Currently VG series just say (series) like Mana (series), and Halo (series). Thanks TarkusABtalk 10:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, having "video game" is unnecessary. Only if another series that covered another media existed before the video game one. Like if they were based on some Novel series or something. but that's just me. whatever everyone thinks is best.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't get too wrapped up in the current crusade for (video game series) versus (series). Focus on getting the confusion of Harvest Moon/Story of Seasons fixed. Too much haggling on the final disambiguation could result in a no consensus and nothing happening. -- ferret (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I wanted to just add a vote to the disambiguation page idea, for the simple reason that there is also a physical phenomenon called "harvest moon", which is the full moon seen nearest to the time of the autumnal equinox. A disambiguation page would allow us to provide a link to an appropriate article on the lunar cycle, which I would expect would cover the timing of that particular full moon, in case someone is looking for that and not the video game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox galgame TFD

Notifying of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 3#Template:Infobox Galgame -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Need more opinions at List of longest-running video game franchises

ThiagoSimoes (talk · contribs) changed the criteria on the List of longest-running video game franchises page so that games should only be included if they have had 25 years pass between the initial release and most recent. I find this silly, and think we should only base it on the initial release, so basically any game (with a dedicated series/franchise page) released in 1993 or earlier would qualify. More discussion would be appreciated on the talk page there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe Dissident93 has good faith, but what he wrote is not entirely true. I did not change the criteria. It was there all along when I first edited the page. The original criteria was listing franchises that had received releases for at least 20 years. Then, someone changed this number to 25 years. The point of disagreement is about *how* franchises must be listed. He believes every franchise released from 1972 to 1993 should be listed, and this makes no sense at all for the list, since it is a list of longest-running franchises, not a list about oldest franchises. This point has been supported on the article's talk page by Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) and an unidentified user who posted through his IP address. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm all for changing the criteria for what goes on the list, but you can't just make a sizable change to the list without a consensus and then accuse me of "making a mess" when all I did was revert back to the old version. More discussion is required on the talk page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not mean to keep this going, but there had never been a problem before you decided to modify the article following your own rules (which, apparently, no one agrees with), without asking for consensus at all and causing this discussion. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this discussion is breaking the whole point of WP:BRD. A better use of time would be to come to a consensus on what the page should be, rather than placing blame. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, not sure why I seem to be taking blame when the article was in terrible shape and had no effort/prior discussions to fix it before me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (April 22, 2018 to April 28, 2018)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

April 22, 2018

April 23, 2018

April 24, 2018

April 25, 2018

April 26, 2018

April 27, 2018

April 28, 2018

No new feature updates since last week. Now collapsed, though. --PresN 12:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Tagging franchises for project

  • @Lee Vilenski, I don't think we tag entire franchise's article for the VG project when only a small section of the article is about VG. If it's an article about a VG series specific to the franchise, sure, but for general media franchises, I'd only tag the WikiProjects for which the subject is known (e.g., TV for TV-based franchises, anime for anime-based franchises, VG for franchises spun out of video game IP) czar 14:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Czar. I haven't been adding any tags to articles as far as I remember. I often rank articles that are already tagged, but I haven't been adding any articles that are regarding other WikiProject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, meant to ping @X201. In any event, I would remove the banner in those assessment cases. czar 15:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
If that's the consensus, it's not one that's actually upheld- see The April 15-21 list for a bunch of similar additions, which look to also be by X201 (Lee just assessed them). Note also on WP:VG/GA the 'Non-game-focused franchises' section, which has been there for years, with articles on anime franchises that have a small 'video games' section. If as a project we want to not tag these kinds of articles, we need to be consistent on it, because right now the consensus appears to be that we should be tagging them. --PresN 18:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
We should probably assertain the concensus regarding this. Not that it matters, but I feel we should be tagging articles that have notable games inside them, that haven't been created into full articles, certainly. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't tag a WikiProject unless a significant portion of the article pertained to the project. Seems more like a spectrum than a hard cut-off. For example, based on PresN's linked GA list, I think it's reasonable to tag Sword Art Online#Video games for the project but I don't see the case for Eyeshield 21#Video games, The Irregular at Magic High School#Video games, Aim for the Ace!#Video game adaptations, Uzumaki#Video games, whose articles have very little to do with video games. Stuff like Attack on Titan#Video games, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED#Video games, Strawberry Panic!#Visual novel are stronger cases, but pretend that those small paragraph sections are about the country Spain instead of video games—they represent too little of the article's content to warrant tracking the article as part of the project's scope. czar 23:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The reason I tagged them was they contain video game content of varying amounts and quality. I generated a list of all articles that used the VG Infobox but without a project banner on their talk page. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if we don't track it, we don't know what we've got.
At the moment the discussion seems to be a binary one of add banner or don't add banner, (or only add banner at level X). Wouldn't a better solution be an additional banner option of flagging the article as "Minor sub-section", "Important to article but not Project" or even "Insignificant to Project", that way, we know what content we've got and we know the quality and value of it. - X201 (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
What do we have to gain from including the items I mentioned by name? I can't think of another WikiProject that tracks minor subsections as you propose, or how our project would make use of that distinction/work. The project would still include the article in all of its other counts, cleanup tasks, etc., regardless of the flag marked as minor subsection. There are other items too like The Angry Birds Movie 2, which is peripherally related to "video games" (by virtue of the series) but the article otherwise has no connection. Should be a fairly simple line to draw: Is the article, as scoped, about video games? czar 01:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Bold uncollapsing the list. I think the main function of this section is to be an eyesore that editors are forced to glance at when visiting this page, and possibly spend a modicum of brainpower examining. If I could scroll past it easier, I might not catch articles that are worth interrogating/merging/PRODing. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Past and present tense

Hi everyone,

Paragon is no longer playable, its lead tense was changed from "is a" to "was a". I reverted @OhKayeSierra, but they me pointed on the talk page to, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Verb_tense, which says something else (one of the examples is the revived Star Fox 2!). If I recall correctly, we had a discussion about this thing a while back, but I'm not sure what to search for in the archives.

My thoughts that a game, even if no longer playable, still exists. At one point, it was created and playable. You can have the files on your console or PC for instance, but it might not connect to a required server. What about P.T. for instance, it exists, but it is no longer downloadable. The piece of software is still there. Or to compare a long lost work of art, it *is* a painting that *is* presumed lost. To me, Paragon *is* a game that *is* cancelled. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, regarding what our consensus might have been, but in my eyes, a game should only be in past tense if it physically no longer exists, or was never created. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I did a little bit of scrounging for the past few days, and I found this past discussion regarding verb tense and cancelled MMO's. Funnily enough, when I made my bold verb tense change to the lead for the article, Star Wars Galaxies was actually the precedent I considered, as I was rewording the lead. It also seems that Age of Empires Online uses present tense as well, even though that's also a game that's ceased development and had its servers shut down. IMHO, MOBA's and MMO's that aren't playable and have no chance of being playable again would be best described using past tense. But I also don't write about video games that often. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Past tense should be used for projects that had been planned or partially developed but never came to fruition. An MMO or the like that was released but no longer playable still is a video game; it just doesn't have any functionality if you try to launch it. --Masem (t) 14:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we have any precident for recalled video games in this sense? In that they were sold, but never actually released (Such as betas), or the physical copies were recalled? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Not rendering any judgement on the main question, but in the instance of P.T., should definitely be present tense. Still exists and is still playable. Nomader (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, it should be "is" not "was". The video game still exists, it has not been completely lost. It is simply unplayable online. "Was" should only be the case if the code is entirely lost and inaccessible.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in video game articles

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few dozen high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the ==K== section. Looking at the preview, they don't look the same. I suspect that the problem is that someone removed most, but not all, of the table that was in the ==J== section, so this may be simply a side effect of unnoticed vandalism (unless there have never been any fictional countries whose names start with J?).


This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting indicates that the problem is in the first words, where it says {{nihongo foot|'''''Chrono Trigger'''''|クロノ・トリガー|Kurono Torigā|lead=yes|group=lower-alpha}}. This probably indicates that the template itself contains tags in the "wrong" order (which is unfortunately not uncommon for language templates). However, the page still looks the same, despite the HTML error, so fixing this one is not an emergency.

Extended content

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried to fixed the {{nihongo foot}} template itself, (which makes this post a little confusing)- it opened a span tag it never closed. Still highlighted in the parser, though, so I guess I missed something else as well. --PresN 19:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@PresN: that may have done the trick for a lot of pages. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) may have to regenerate the html5-misnesting list. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
You're down to just 16 now:

Congratulations! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out what was wrong with Macrospace, so I cleaned up the infobox a bit and that seemed to fix it. Does anyone know why that worked? Reach Out to the Truth 02:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Figured it out. The newline in the city field created a new paragraph for some reason. City is wrapped in a span, so we end up with the dreaded <p><span></p></span> structure. Fun. Reach Out to the Truth 02:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

French Connection?

I need this article translated. I've already asked on Wikiproject:France, but in case they take too long to respond I wanna ask here. Cognissonance (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As a natively bilingual Canadian I can help, but I'm a slacker so it might take me longer than WP:FR to get to it. TarkusAB has been waiting for a ref translation for almost two weeks from me. :p Side note, I can't believe they misspelled "Square Enyx" XD Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you really need a irl translation? Google translate is pretty good with French->English, and there aren't a lot of quotes in the article that you'd need confirmation on word choice. The robo-translation seems perfectly readable to me. --PresN 15:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. Unless you want to quote directly. And I'm happy to clear up any statements that might be confusion after machtrans. Much easier than a full-article translation. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it was just the economic lingo I was confused about, and thought things could be clarified with better translation. I'll try my luck with Google Translate. Cognissonance (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"Ce deuxième jeu de l'histoire du studio mobilise encore 70 des 166 salariés de l'entreprise aux 9,7 millions d'euros de chiffre d'affaires en 2017." @Salvidrim: I don't get this. What is being said here? Cognissonance (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This second gmame in the studio's history still occupies 70 of the 166 employees of the company which made 9.7 million euros of revenue in 2017. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Salvidrim: And this? "Nous limiterons à 40 % notre part de coproduction dans un jeu et nous ne souhaitons pas coproduire plus d'un jeu sur deux" On Google Translate, it says "we do not want to co-produce more than one game out of two", which confuses me to high heavens. Cognissonance (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"We will limit our coproduction of a game to a 40% part and do not wish to coproduce more than one game out of two"; another way to put it: "do not wish to coproduce more than every other game" or "do not wish to coproduce more than half of the games". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Salvidrim! Cognissonance (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"script-title=ja" issue.

For a couple of weeks, I've noticed something odd happen with articles that have references using the "script-title=ja" documentation in any of its citations. The Japanese text displays, but rather the link being part of the text as per usual, it is shunted to one side and the url appears similar to an external link. Sometimes refreshing a page corrects the fault, but most times it remains. There are also pages more prone to this than others, as some pages still display citations using "script-title=ja" as normal. Normal "title" documentation appears unaffected. I've tried clearing my browser cache and data in case it's a fault at my end, but the issue has persistent. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this as well a couple of weeks ago. I realized that the "script-title=ja" field never displays as the clickable link, only the "title" field will and the template seems to indicate that it want us to write the romanized title in that field, which I don't necessarily agree with. --TorsodogTalk 19:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide an example? --Izno (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: I've seen the problem occurring on the articles for Sakura Wars (video game), Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Bravely Default. The issue appears in Tales of Destiny 2, but one PDF link relating the game's total sales appears like normal. Strangely, Sakura Wars 4: Fall in Love, Maidens doesn't seem to have this problem at the moment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Ideas or thoughts (whether directly pertinent to the question or not--I have a thought about italicizing kanji). --Izno (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Very likely the problem described at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Possible problem with script-title parameter and at WP:VPT. If I understand the current discussion at Phabricator, the problem will be fixed in June when MediaWiki switches en.wiki off of Tidy and onto Remex. I don't think that there is much that can be offered in a way of an interim fix at cs1 because <bdi>...</bdi> does not require us to specify a language direction. Were we to temporarily replace <bdi>...</bdi> with <span>...</span> we would need to invent some sort of mechanism to determine text direction. I think that is a rather lot of work for little reward that would in the end be tossed into the rubbish tip. So, best advice I think, is to accept the MediaWiki (not the templates and not Module:Citation/CS1) failure until June when Remex comes on line.
Nothing to do with italicizing kanji (which per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC) should not be done.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is that {{cite web}} expects that, when |script-title= exists, an appropriately latinized |title= is in place, which is however missing on citations on the pages in question and should be added. Even if that is not the actual problem, they should be added nontheless as they fixed the problem in previews. Furthermore, it might be wise to add |trans-title= parameters with English translations of the citation titles. Lordtobi (✉) 21:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
|script-title= does not require nor expect |title= or |trans-title=.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (April 29, 2018 to May 5, 2018)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

April 29, 2018

April 30, 2018

May 1, 2018

May 2, 2018

May 3, 2018

May 4, 2018

May 5, 2018

Bit late this week, busy weekend. No script updates. --PresN 04:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCC and Story of Seasons

Having difficulty with WP:NFCC and the usage of the Harvest Moon logo in Story of Seasons. there is an active discussion there. I believe the image is vital for understanding of Story of Seasons. Marchjuly says it doesn't reflect what the article says. To be fair, the article is really empty. I did agree i'll add information. Do to a copyright mistake, all the information i added in was removed too. So i dont have the confidence to re-add the information in without a copyright violation. if someone could assist me with that?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Story_of_Seasons#Harvest_Moon_image_issues TarkusABtalk 13:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I posted as I was falling asleep. Thank youBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Battlefield weapons list

Hello Everyone, who ever is reading this I need editors to edit my list of Battlefield 1 weapons. It looks like its not reliable and I need help with it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxNTE22xX (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't think this is something that really cane be helped with - this isn't the sort of content that Wikipedia usually covers. See our concept of WP:GAMECRUFT. We don't do things like list of in-game weapons. You may want to find a different website to host your content. A wikia or Gamefaqs or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

GamePro Score

When looking at those GamePro magazines, does the "fun factor" count as an overall score? When looking at sites like Game Rankings and Moby Games, the scores given with their GamePro entries seem to reference the "fun factor" score from the GamePro reviews. However, some users here are doubtful. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been meaning to bring up this topic here as well. At first I thought informing editors here that GamePro didn't give overall scores during the 1990s would be preaching to the choir, since it's a hard mistake to make when looking at the source: GamePro gives scores in four categories, all of them presented in the same size, the same icons, etc. and not even in the same order in every review. However, it has since come to my attention that GamePro's now-defunct website included severely abridged versions (we're talking two sentences from a 12-sentence review) of their vintage reviews which present the FunFactor score as if it were the overall score (bizarrely ignoring the fact that the very word FunFactor indicates that it's just one element in the assessment). So to anyone referencing this site, be advised that it does not present the reviews as they were originally published! The real deals can be found on archive.org and other sites.Martin IIIa (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Using some user generated content web pages as references for descriptions of video game content?

Some games do not have a game manual, or whatever manual exists does not include a description of the game content. There are user generated content Wikia web sites that have taken the actual in game descriptions of content and created web pages with identical descriptions of that content. These are peer reviewed site to ensure that the web site descriptions match the in game descriptions. Here is an example of a list of "driver skills" from a game called Need For Speed World (which was shut down on July 14, 2015, so this is now historical data):

http://nfs.wikia.com/wiki/Need_for_Speed:_World/Driver_Skills

In the case of EA games up to around 2016, all of the publisher's official announcements about game changes were URL links that redirected to the publishers forum (for NFS World, this was forums.ea.com, now gone and without archive), which presents an issue since this is also user generated content, although the users in this case are staff members of the game publisher.

Normally user generated content web sites are not considered as reliable sources, but in this case, the data being referenced in the cases I'm wondering about (description of game content that matches actual in game description) is not opinion based and extremely unlikely to be challenged by anyone. Rcgldr (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a forum site associated with that Wikia article, and one of the members was a EA staff member, but that is probably an unusual situation. Users familiar with the game and that particular Wikia article would be aware of it being peer reviewed, and could confirm the content, but that level of "proof" may not be enough. Rcgldr (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that there are 3 administrators for this Wikia web site. Rcgldr (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I mean, I get the desire here, and the reason for wanting to ponder it. But open wikis are inherently unreliable. An article using a Wikia would never make GA. Second to that, a list of Driver Skills sounds like WP:GAMECRUFT, how would you use such content? -- ferret (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the editors of that article have to be members for that Wikia page, so anonymous edits can not be made. As far as how the content would be used, in this particular case it was to give a general idea of what "driver skills" were, and goes beyond the level of detail needed for the article, where I just wanted to note there were "driver skills" that later were replaced by "skill mods", and give a general idea of how they worked, and the Wikia web page was the only source still in existence that I could find. Rcgldr (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Some of the Wiki video game article have no references for significant amounts of content in the articles, but no one seems to be objecting to this. You do see discussions on the talk pages about what the collective group has decided to allow and not allow on those Wiki video game articles. A similar thing occurs with specific Wikia pages via associated forums. Rcgldr (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:V, unsourced content is not okay, and per WP:USERG, wikis aren't usable sources. Unsourced articles are not acceptable, period. You'll have to link me to some of these discussions allowing for wiki source use. I can't recall any personally, and I feel like most would be poorly reasoned WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - as you can see by the direction of this discussion, this is a pretty clear cut situation known by most who are experienced with Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • On a side note, what about youtube videos from the actual game to capture some descriptions by scrolling through in game menus in the video? Rcgldr (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I was mostly trying to add references for content already in the article. For example, 8 of the links related to dates and milestones are from EA announcements that were removed from the internet and were not archived, since archive.org doesn't archive deep enough into a web site to pickup this type of information.
Note that this youtube video Kite Hovering was accepted as a reference in Bird_flight to show that Kites (a species of birds) are able to truly hover. In this particular case, although there are several reliable sources in the form of textbooks and Audubon articles by experts in the field that Kites and Ospreys can hover (for short periods of time), the users on the bird flight talk page were debating if the textbooks and articles used the term "hover" to mean true hovering (it does when used in such context, but this wasn't known to the users doing the debating), so a youtube video was used as proof of true hovering, an example where a youtube video was accepted as a reference while what should have been a reliable source was not accepted.Rcgldr (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As another example, the wiki article for Need For Speed Carbon has virtually no references for the sections that describe gameplay and game content Wiki Need For Speed Carbon. In this case, it could be possible for a reader to purchase the game on a compatible system (note the game will not run on Windows 10), to verify the wiki article. Maybe I should not be concerned about trying to find references to back up wiki video game articles? Rcgldr (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikias aren't reliable sources and shouldn't be used to cite information. End of story. Even if you got approval from some editors here, it wouldn't matter because it still goes against Wikipedia policy. Need for Speed isn't exactly obscure. It's one of the most popular racing video game series. There's widespread coverage of NFS games from reliable sources, so you should have no problem finding appropriate sources to cite. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of the widespread coverage of Need For Speed games is the newer Need For Speed games. EA itself deleted all content related to the older games, and it's become difficult to find sources for the older games as they have been shut down and not fully archived ("hopelessly lost"). NFS World and Motor City Online are difficult to find sources for as they were online games that are now shut down. NFS World went through several content iterations (performance kits replaced by performance parts, driver skills replaced by skill mods, event types like team escape and drag racing added to the game, a constant stream of new cars added to the game, expansion of the main map from the original release, ...). Rcgldr (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There's also this from Wiki's five pillars: Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected. Rcgldr (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The Nvidia page is essentially an archive of the original publisher's description of the game. Even it it's promotional, it includes a basic description of game content in its original released form. What about a review like this: mmos review NFS World ? Then again, as I look at the other Wiki articles for the older nfs games, such as Need_for_Speed:_Underground_2, there are no references in the sections that describe gameplay, cars, multiplayer, ..., so maybe my concern about finding references is unneeded as the Wiki pages, at least for video games, are somewhat self-policed. Rcgldr (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Just because there are unreferenced articles, doesn't mean it is acceptable or considered okay. Do you really think the small number of active editors here have time to reliably source every bit of information on the +30,000 video game related articles that Wikipedia has? Use your brain and think about it. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not to pile on, but it's never okay to use user-generated content, because it would fail the core two principles - WP:V and WP:OR. If the user-generated content is sourced (if they are good sources), then we should write our own content from those sources. Video game articles and Wikia are not exceptions to this and WP:IAR doesn't apply here. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
One of the opinions I've read is that in the case of video games that can still be run, then actual gameplay can be used as a reliable source, although this would require the reader to have a copy of the game, and a platform to run that game on (or I'm suggesting videos of actual gameplay could be used for those without access to a particular game). Technically, all sources are user generated content, so the criteria is the credibility of the user(s) generating the content. Another key point made at WP:V is if the material involved is likely to be challenged. For the video games that I've mentioned, the wiki pages have reached a point that their material is very unlikely to be challenged. 15:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
More specifically, a game is a primary source to itself. However if you start arguing that "all sources are user generated" by letter of strict technical definition, then I'm not sure what more value this discussion is going to provide you. An open Wikia (And all Wikias are open. Required registration doesn't change it) is not a reliable source. -- ferret (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
So for primary sources, it seems the key issue is if they are "reputably published". I think the point of the opinion I read that games are primary sources to themselves, is similar to the scientific standard of repeatability (that the claimed results of an experiment can be reproduced). As for "all sources are technically user generated content", I read that somewhere, it's not my argument, and this differs from what is stated in WP:USERG. Rcgldr (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Are there no instances of Wikia or otherwise user generated content web sites where "content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff", which is one of the exceptions listed for WP:USERG or "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", which is one of the exceptions listed for Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Rcgldr (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    No. There are no Wikias or open sites with user contributions that are reliable. Open user submitted is not reliable. The external links bullet for wikis is not about reliability. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
So Wikia's can be used for external links, just not as references? Rcgldr (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:ELNO states that "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" should be avoided. The only time I've ever seen a proper use of a Wiki as an external link (for video games) is when it's officially endorsed by the company/game in question, such as the official Minecraft Wiki. But in pretty much every other case, they wouldn't belong (and it's debatable even if Minecraft's belongs). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

What sources can be used as references for video games, such as gameplay and game content?

I'm creating a list of potential reference sources. Please add any that you can think of and also if the ones I've listed could be used as references.

The game itself (assuming the game and required platform could still be obtained).

The game's manual or any documentation that is included with the game, or downloaded from an official publisher web site for the game. This would eliminate the need to be able to actually run the game.

Original publisher's promotions or announcements that note content, and dates of importance related to a game.

strategy guide - although as noted in the article, a game could change, so that the guide could be out of date. An online guide could be updated to stay up to date with a game, and also keep an history / archive of prior versions of a game.

Third party game review sites.

Rcgldr (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Yup. There's a massive list of sources already at WP:VG/S. There's both ones that have a consensus, from past discussions, for being usable and unusable. I'd recommended looking it over, and starting discussions on any additions on that talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, this is the info I was looking for. Rcgldr (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:005

Wikipedia:Reward board#005 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Draft:005 & The Encyclopedia of Arcade Video Games may be of interest to members of this wikiproject. Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Does Metacritic accept user input for critic reviews?

This isn't a Wikipedia question but it could help me with something. I'm working on Edge (video game) and Metacritic has an aggregated score for the iOS version of Edge extended [2]. But it doesn't have an aggregated score for the original Edge game [3]. I thought that was odd because the same review websites for Edge Extended also have reviews for Edge. How do we bring the attention to Metacritic so that they can determine the score for it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No one here is affiliated with Metacritic. Try reading their Contact Us page. TarkusABtalk 11:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Dutch Gameplay magazine available

I recently acquired a large number of issues from the Dutch Gameplay magazine. This monthly commercial gaming magazine that has run since 1994 and is published by "BVBA Tarsonis." See also the Dutch Wikipedia article. The issues I obtained range from November 2010 (#175) to March 2013 (#203). However, I am missing the "end of year" editions. I will be getting more issues for 2013, '14, '15, '16, and '17 in the coming weeks and months. Gameplay has covered all big mainstream releases in this period, as well, as many smaller-scale releases. The magazine covers news stories (sometimes as a blurb or a short article), has a few interviews, and does one "retro review" per issue. Gameplay has always had a bit of a focus on PC gaming, and didn't start covering console gaming until 2010. I am willing to translate articles from these issues upon request. I wouldn't even know yet how to make full list of all of this as I have done thus far at User:Maplestrip/Available sources. Feel free to ask if a certain game has been covered by Gameplay and I'll be happy to look them through! ~Mable (chat) 10:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Good stuff! Would be nice if there were some way to create an index over what each issue covers, but I understand that that would be a lot of work.--Alexandra IDVtalk 10:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    Sadly, it seems like Gameplay magazine's official website hasn't been updated since the 90s, so they haven't made such a list available either. I may try to provide something along these lines at some point, though. Games like Dishonored, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Diablo 3, The Witcher, Tomb Raider, Dark Souls, etc, often make their way on the cover, but these games have plenty of sources already I'm sure. I recommend just asking about games that don't have enough coverage currently. ~Mable (chat) 11:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    WP:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Gameplay? --Izno (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'm aware of the reference library. It's just a lot of work to add large numbers of issues to it. I may end up doing so eventually. ~Mable (chat) 13:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    That was a reply to IDV, not you, about the fact we do have a reference library that does have other things indexed, so it's more a comment on whether it will be done and not that we don't have existing precedent. :) --Izno (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Missing shortdesc" tracker

You know me, I love metadata and wikifying, infoboxes, navboxes, WikiProject tagging, dabsolving, etc. -- so the new WP:SHORTDESC are definitely something I'm now looking out for and editing/importing on any page where it hasn't been done yet. Does anyone have any idea how we could generate some sort of "WPVG articles missing shortdescs"? Ideally three classes: existing shortdesc, Wikidata shortdesc (which need reviewing and importing) and missing shortdesc. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Might also be worth discussing if we want VG-specific guidance for shortdescs in MOS:VG or just go by the general guidelines; it's such a newborn thing, the general guidelines aren't set in stone much either. Take a peek at my recent contributions (Special:Contributions/Salvidrim!) to get an idea of how I'm working it (feedback always welcome). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
petscan can do the first and last. (put (negative) category Category:Articles with short description and in templates&links put WikiProject Video games with use talk pages), though it is taking quite a bit of time (may want to use other subcategories in videogames to narrow it down as you probably don't need a full 70000+ list initially). For the ones with description https://query.wikidata.org should work, though I'm unable to get it working Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Salvidrim! 90% of the wikidata descriptions seem like "video game" or "1990 video game"; so I'm thinking of auto-generating short descriptions from the {{infobox video game}}. Though one may want more specific descriptions like "first-person shooter video game" they seem more lengthy than advisable and I'm thinking the descriptions should be more generic and understandable? It'd at-least fill in the descriptions decently/better than wikidata. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Other wikidata descriptions use the |genres= field of the infobox in essence, so perhaps for certain genres a somewhat customized description can be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to make shortdescs that describe the topic's defining features succintly. Not just "1999 role-playing video game" but instead how you might describe the game in a few words to a friend, which I think is the whole point of a shortdesc -- the very briefly explain the topic to a new reader. See how I've been doing it for an idea of my perspective. If there are no particularly noteworthy features then year+genre+video game(+console if pertinent) is the default of course but many games have more than a single release year or release platform. Examples:
  • Capcom Five : "Five Capcom video games for GameCube" - the dev and platform are defining
  • Freefall 3050 A.D. : "2000 action game for Nuon DVD players " - the platform is the most defining aspect, but year and genre fits nicely under 40chars anyways
  • Puzzled (video game) : "Neo Geo falling-block puzzle video game" - multiple release years but other than genre the defining characteristic is that it is primarily a Neo Geo game
  • Falsion : "1987 3D shoot-'em-up video game" - the defining characteristic is the combination of the year and the fact it is 3D
  • Fast Racing League : "2011 racing video game for Wii" - there isn't much defining further than year and genre but I've included platform since it is (1) short, (2) single-platform, and (3) has other similarly titles sequels on other platforms
  • Slay (video game) : "Shareware turn-based strategy video game" - multiple release years, platforms and no bigname dev, but being shareware is a defining characteric
  • Crown and Council : "2016 Mojang strategy video game" - one of the few instances where I see the dev being a defining characterstic; perhaps it's ambiguous and could be "2016 strategy video game by Mojang"
  • Lucienne's Quest : "3DO and Sega Saturn role-playing video game" - this is on the longer side; more than one year, not defined by dev; however this is what I meant when I said "how would you describe the topic to a friend in a few words?" -- you'd mention it's an RPG for 3DO and Saturn. That's the defining characteristic.
  • Hook (video game) : "video games based on the 1991 film Hook" - article covers multiple games of multiple genres over multiple years for multiple platforms. The defining characeristic of the topic is that it's about games based on a famous film.
That's how I see it. I'm not saying it's the correct or true way -- there is no "correct" or "true" way, shortdescs are so incredibly nascent that there has not been significant consensus on whether my perspective above is "the way to do it". But it seems to fit with the intended purpose, seems to work relatively well, and seems to make sense. However of course "defining characteristic" remains a very subjective topic which is why I think eventually it might be worth agreeing upon and adding guidance on how to craft shortdescs in MOS:VG. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, I'm just thinking in relation to how they'd view as in the image to the right - they seem a tad wordy so someone just looking through may not get the more important and recognizable information first/easily visible. There I think would be value in consistency, maybe not to the point of always "year video game" but still, so people don't have to look left and right to figure out it is a video game. More information would be useful though to make sure people have the right video game without clicking in, The "year video game" could still be a starting default though - basically being like the current wikidata ones but a slight improvement (and so we can finish the transition quickly and turn of wikidata descriptions) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get what you mean. This obviously required a lot of refining. From the screenshot you sent it seems even the 40chars baseline might be too long. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I too think the "year video game" format is sufficient in most cases. In particular, platform is too subject to change, especially when the article covers a game which hasn't been released yet. (For example, the above mentioned Lucienne's Quest was originally a 3DO exclusive, so were the article created shortly after the game's release, the shortdesc would later have to be changed to mention the Saturn.) The shortdesc should be based on more permanent qualities. While I've never edited shortdesc, just going by my usage of it as a reader, I see it more as a clarification that the article is (or is not) the one you're looking for rather than a substitute for the article lead sentence.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

1001 Video Games you must play before you Die?

Does anyone have actual copy of this book? I'm looking at Edge (video game) and I can't find any proof that the game is featured in that book.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: You mean this? Google Books is your friend Regards SoWhy 16:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I was trying to save some money. Were you trying to show me a way to see it for free? If you were, I'm not familiar with google books and I didn't see an option to look through the pages.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: You can search the pages to get snippet views. Per this result the game is indeed there in the book Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the help.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: For future reference, just google the name of the book or the name of the game, then choose "Books" in the top bar of the search results (you might have to click on "More" first). Regards SoWhy 17:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I did that too. No preview options were given when I did that. But based on what Galobtter said, he was able to verify that the game is in the book, that's good enough for me.18:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk • contribs)

I have the physical book and can indeed confirm that it's in there. CurlyWi (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for the help everyone.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I outlined a complete overhaul of Handheld video game

That article is rated as start-class and high-importance. Any editor knows that's a bad combo. I'm not a project member but I came across it and it was...pretty bad to say the least. Almost mention of anything newer than the Nintendo DS/PSP era.

I made an outline for every single section of the article on what to flesh out and what kind of information needs to be put in there. A few volunteers with more expertise than me need to go in, write some rough drafts, source some claims, and clean things up. I am absolutely available and happy to help, but I do my best work editing wording for greater clarity and professional tone. I'm not a great researcher or draft writer. If all you can do is go in there and add a bunch of sloppy (yet well-sourced!) information, I will be happy to do the rest.

If my suggestions are followed I'd easily rate it as a C-class, perhaps as a B-class.

As a side project, it may be important to go into articles on specific games and link to this page. I've noticed that the Pokemon games link to Role-playing video game rather than this article. I don't blame them. It sucks. But you know, I'd say that they are more influential to the handheld market than RPGs as a whole. If you say, "What's your favorite RPG?" no one is going to say a Pokemon game even if they love those games. Point is, this article can be a useful tool if it's fleshed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus720 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to put this on my list of articles to work on. I work a ton on individual system and game articles, but I've never done much with that one. As you say...it needs a lot of work. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, much of this article is garbage - much of what I'd add is at handheld video game consoles. They should probably be combined/merged. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd support a merge to that location. After all, they are essentially the same topic.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a deletion request for List of Harry Potter-related topics if anyone is interested.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe that article has existed for over a decade when a better, GA level article makes it completely redundant (and look like garbage in comparison). Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Someone did redirect the page before and I had no complaints, but then someone disagreed about it. That's why there's a debate about it now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Deathgarden

There is a new game called deathgarden would someone ever made that article? 49.148.157.152 02:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There are some good sources out there, so it would be a plausible project for someone, if they wanted to take it on. IGN, PC Gamer, Variety (?!), etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I'm hoping you would create it because most people need some info if it will be created earlier then most people think that Wikipedia or. Wiki project videogames is helpful for searching and info and the game is been notorious. 49.148.157.152 02:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@49.148.157.152: and @Sergecross73:  Done here Deathgarden, Hope this is an acceptable article, like I spend 2 hours or more lol. Personale (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

TouchGen archive list?

Does anyone have an archive link for all things related to Touch-Gen? I don't see them in list of Reliable sources but they seem to be reliable based on Metacritic using them. But i can't access any of their reviews anymore.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic uses many reviewers that we do not consider reliable, and many we explicitly consider unreliable. Don't use inclusion on MC as a sign of reliability. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Is TouchGen considered reliable?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I found the link, but i dont know if TouchGen is a normal reliable source. I'll ask in WP:VG/RSBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Move help

Yo, would someone mind moving Talk:The Dark Knight (video game) to Talk:Batman: The Dark Knight (video game) to match the main article's title? JOEBRO64 21:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Already done by Sergecross73. Next time, just tag the page that's holding up the move with {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} and it will show up in CAT:CSD for faster processing. Regards SoWhy 07:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Or request it at WP:RM, which has always been met with a quick response, in my experience. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't even mind helping people with stuff like this - I openly offer to do this sort of stuff for people all the time. I just was stuck on mobile for a bit when he pointed out that the talk page didn't move with the article page, and figured I'd wait until I could access off-mobile to finally make the move, as it didn't strike me as particularly time sensitive... Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I just assumed you hadn't seen my message about it and didn't want to bother you. Sorry I kinda treated it as time-sensitive—it was just bothering me for some reason. JOEBRO64 23:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries. It worked out. At least now you know there are alternatives if I'm not fast enough for you. (I don't mind "prodding" or "reminders" either though. Sometimes I do forget after getting caught up with other stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (May 6, 2018 to May 12, 2018)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

May 6, 2018

May 7, 2018

May 8, 2018

May 9, 2018

May 11, 2018

May 12, 2018

Another week, another lack of script updates- I've been programming non-stop at work, so I haven't had the time/drive to do it at home too. A solid week for new articles, though. --PresN 19:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Instead of manually pulling the history of every single article, the script just goes to User:AlexNewArtBot/VideogamesSearchResult and looks. That page only keeps records for the last 2 weeks, though, so ones missing a person were generally not actually started in the past week, they were instead only given a WPVG tag in the past week. The International 2018, for example, was started on March 15 as a redirect, and then turned into an article on May 9 and only then given a tag. I may adjust that in the future, but it's not a high priority compared to getting all the articles on the list (or not) when the should be. --PresN 01:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia

It is time for Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia to receive its own article. I have made a start. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Pitched in with some wikifying Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 36: In the midst of spring

I thought I'd chip in and give us an update for our review thread.

FAC/FLC
GAN
FAR
PR

That's all, folks! JOEBRO64 20:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Move to Every Extend Extra to just Every Extend series

I made a request to move Every Extend Extra (single game) to Every Extend (series). You can find the discussion here. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Alpine Games

I've put forward Alpine Games for AfD not sure where to add it for the project deletion process know, Govvy (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games. It explains how at the top.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
k, but I rarely put anything to AfD so I might forget that in a few months! Govvy (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Steam scores/reviews as sources

Is there a policy/consensus on whether or not Steam scores/reviews can be used in articles? I've been removing them from Reception sections but now I'm seoncd-guessing myself. The Verified Cactus 100% 21:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right to remove them; they fail WP:USERG. However, if a reliable source (such as those listed at WP:VG/S) notes Steam reviews as having an impact on the professional critical reception to the game or in some other case, then you can cite that source. JOEBRO64 21:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is the case for anything really. If covered by a reliable third-party source, it can generally be included. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Magazine article query

Anyone have a clue as to which issue of Cube this feature was in? JOEBRO64 19:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

GamerFitnation

Ideas on how to clean up this promotional article? (Do not click through to the website, which is now spyware.) Might be able to salvage an article about Antwand Pearman, its founder, based on the sourcing? czar 21:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

By the looks of it, the only reliable sources that talk about this website are talking about that ceasefire incident, which even then I don't think that warrants its own article. An article on Pearman might be a stretch, since it doesn't appear Pearman has done much else to warrant an article. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hey! So I've noticed that our newsletter is super out of date. Is there anyone that I can talk to about helping out? Or is the current one still under construction? I think it'd be great if we could find a way to automate pieces of it so just one or two editors could work to get it out. Nomader (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter czar 00:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be willing to help out with it. JOEBRO64 21:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Awesome-- I'm going to start up a draft probably on Wednesday or Thursday, I'll ping once I've started working on it and we can divvy it up! Nomader (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lumines (series)

There is over 7 titles for the series and all the non-notable sequels are being redirected to the original game Lumines: Puzzle Fusion. In my opinion, that's a problem. I just started a draft and everyone is welcomed to add and rework. I prefer it to meet C-class before becoming an official article, if that's OK with you.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI, it would be fine for the page to just be located at Lumines since the game has a natural disambiguation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Oops, how did i miss that. Once its ready, then we can move all the info to that link instead.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Does look more like a "List of Lumines games" right now. I hope some sources on the series in general can be dug up :) ~Mable (chat) 15:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There's also a reception section, in the work. Want to help?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Lists of Nintendo Characters inconsistency

Talking about every page pointed to by Lists of Nintendo characters. I felt this was a more appropriate talk for this since it has less to do with the pointing page and more to do with everything being pointed towards, but why are the character lists inconsistent?

Points to dedicated character lists:

  • Another Code
  • Donkey Kong
  • F-Zero
  • Kirby
  • Legend of Zelda
  • Mario
  • Metroid
  • both Pokemon characters and Pokemon
  • Punch-Out
  • Star Fox

Points to general pages with no character list:

  • Animal Crossing
  • Earthbound
  • Every Fire Emblem game
  • Golden Sun
  • Mother 3

Points to general pages with character lists:

  • Legendary Starfy
  • Pikmin
  • Super Smash Bros
  • Wario

Points to nothing yet:

  • Fossil Fighters
  • Nintendo Wars
  • Xenoblade Chronicles

Now whether it goes to a character section or a character page is just a very minor complaint. We have links going to no character lists at all, which is what I'm pointing out and needs to be resolved. The Fire Emblem games, except Thracia 776, all had dedicated lists that have since been replaced with redirections to their general pages that never had and never got character sections. Why was this? Can we roll them back? I can't find anything on this. I know @ProtoDrake: did most of them so if you could fill me in on why or how it went down back then, please.

On a related note, Wario points to a specific series' characters, WarioWare, and not overall including Wario Land and Master of Disguise characters. I personally feel a separate character list page would benefit way more, for more solidarity without changing or ruining the flow of Wario (franchise). But either reworking the Wario franchise page (which it needs anyways) to have a general character section or pointing to each section from the Lists of Nintendo characters page would work. Most of the character blurbs for Wario Land end up telling the plot and nothing about the character themselves. Also why isn't Wario listed in the Master of Disguise or WarioWare list of characters? Even though it's all on the same page, it doesn't feel organized to me. ~ CFood0 22:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue may simply be the lack of dedicated character pages. Ideally, all pages would be directed to the character's Wiki article, but these may not exist. I'd argue that Characters of Mother 3 is a notable subject, but no page exists for it, and is redirected to Mother 3. In a perfect world, these would be redlinks, and then be made unless they are considered non-notable. However, these redlinks have obviously been created in the past and set as a redirect, which is also fine.
The biggest issue with the list is it's complete lack of sourcing, and poor rules for inclusion. It simply says "appear in various games and franchises published by Nintendo arranged in alphabetical order", but Nintendo have published thousands of games that don't appear on this list. Even if you simply include games that have multiple games in a series, Mega Man was published by Nintendo, and doesn't appear, as well as licenses such as Final Fantasy. I think that's the bigger issue. Although to answer above, having red links is perfectly ok. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
That does need to be redone, I think [Nintendo franchises] would be the best criteria to follow. But limiting it to to recurring characters for any series that's not Pokemon or Smash Bros. That's usually good enough to have enough sourcing for their individual lists. "Lists of Recurring Nintendo Characters"? ~ CFood0 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@CFood0: In answer to your query, I only found two or three character lists during my work on the Fire Emblem series. While exhaustively written to include every single recruitable and notable enemy character, they had hardly any sourcing beyond quotes from the game, little to no reception, no development, and no real value to communicating the narrative of each game. With this in mind, I redirected them, and communicated essentials through their game's articles where necessary. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense. Unlike Mario or Zelda or Donkey Kong, none of the Fire Emblem characters really get to return, and there isn't a whole lot to go off of. There could be an argument for the Radiant games and 1/3/11/12. The rest don't really have anything to say other than "this is Bors, he's an armoured Lance that protects Lilina." Those exceptions might be worth doing. ~ CFood0 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would remove the mentions of Mother, Fire Emblem, Golden Sun, and Animal Crossing, Nintendo Wars, Xenoblade, and Fossil Fighters from Lists of Nintendo characters until these games get lists of characters. Moreover, I don't particularly like lists of characters and know that they are likely to tend to gamecruft, so I would not use this as a "list of articles to create," nor as a reason to create a "list of characters" section in any of these articles. ~Mable (chat) 09:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT word, it directed me right to the section about character lists, that I didn't know about. With that in mind, can we add something to the redirect pages that states that rule to avoid repeat questions like this? But after knowing that, I think all of these lists are gonna need work to comply. ~ CFood0 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, gamecruft isn't exactly something to stop an article being created, just something that should be removed from an article. If the subject is notable, and sourcing can be found, an article can be made. You'll see gamecruft or In-Universe in a lot of lists, but it's rarely a reason for deletion, and should simply be written to an encyclopedic style. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well no, it can definitely be a reason to not create articles too though - if something is considered GAMECRUFT as part of an article, it most certainly isn't going to fly as a standalone article either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The reason its so inconsistent is probably largely just because no one has been putting much of a dedicated effort into it. It's received a mere 50 edits in the last 7 years, and even a lot of those were minor tweaks to spelling, categories, etc. As long as you stay in line with the general discussion of the consensus that may develop here, I think you can pretty safely radically alter the article to make it more consistent - it doesn't appear much thought has been put into the list in recent years... Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. I'll give this a few days to see if anything else comes up and then start working on all of them. ~ CFood0 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (May 13, 2018 to May 19, 2018)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 13, 2018

May 14, 2018

May 15, 2018

May 16, 2018

May 17, 2018

May 18, 2018

May 19, 2018

Note: there are a lot more redlinked "new" articles this week, because Personale went on an article creation spree for articles with tenuous notability... and then it turns out they were a sock, so they got blocked and the articles deleted. If anyone is interested in recreating them (or just seeing what was created) ping me or another admin. --PresN 19:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Saints and Sinners Bingo has reappeared, looking suspiciously similar to how I remember it. Sock? Reach Out to the Truth 04:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxenfree/archive1

This FAC is in danger of being archived due to inactivity, so I'd appreciate additional eyes. Always good for my gratitude and a review in exchange on whatever you need down the line :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Piposh - perhaps the only Israeli video game series

Hi everyone!

I did a lot of work on this article over the past few days and would love it to be onced over by the community in its current state. This series is fascinating to me as it appears to be the only Israeli video gaming series. There's still much more information to be squeezed out of sources, particularly with the Haaretz source, but yeah, just wanted to post this here to get your thoughts. :) (I'm not a Hebrew speaker so I've used Google Translate to understand the sources).--Coin945 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to make a call on the sourcing. There's 4 Mobygames sources (not okay) and the rest are Hebrew sources that I have no idea about. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The Mobygames sources are there mostly so I could easily access them for various pieces of information such as the games' Hebrew names. They were never intended to be 'reliability' sources. As for the Hebrew sources, I believe there are enough to justify notability. But as there are no hebrew sources listed at WP:VG, it's a discussion worth having. :D--Coin945 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow why you wouldn't just have the MobyGames links on the talk page or something. But yes, I'm neutral on the Hebrew sources. I have no particular doubts other than the fact that you commonly add every source you can find regardless of the RS standards. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding notability, I know that Haaratz is a very old and well respected source, so when I have time I'll be searching through their archives for further sources that speak about the title to buff up the references section.--Coin945 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you Copy Edit good? or: How I Learned to Stop Refreshing and Love the Wait

I just added unrefined content to the reception section at Detroit: Become Human. The traffic has died down, but not enough for the Guild of Copy Editors, so I'm asking here - for someone who can look at it with a fresh perspective. (This is the only section that needs copy editing.) Cognissonance (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Now there is a plot section as well, which is a mess, given the amount of possible outcomes in the game. Does anyone have a solution to this? At Life Is Strange, we more or less avoided summarising the outcomes of choices, focusing solely on the overall story. Cognissonance (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorta emergency source request - Edge Magazine #200

Atari's co-founder, Ted Dabney, has died, and I'm trying to get his article up to snuff for an ITNR posting. There's a major interview with him in Edge Magazine #200 where he spoke out about his time at Atari which I think may be helpful but cannot find anything online for this. I know its Edge Magazine #200, published 2009. If anyone has any ideas, that would be great. --Masem (t) 23:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Anybody with translating skills?

I've just found this article that appears to mention something about Kazuya Mishima's creation (at least google translate seems to point out) but I don't even know if the content is okay or Japanese. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's Chinese, and it's a Taiwanese domain. I'd lean towards unreliable. TarkusABtalk 17:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears to be related to 4Gamer.net, which we consider reliable. Lordtobi (✉) 17:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. So does anybody know a user that might translate Kazuya's part? His article is quite big but lacks information about he was created.Tintor2 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have found that Google Translate works well when I need things translated. If there are parts you think are incorrectly translated, contact Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. Cognissonance (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Really? It works pretty terribly on Asian languages, and especially when you are translating prose instead of individual words/phrases. I'd try and get this translated by a human first. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I left a request in the China translators. The problem I had with Google translate is that they translated Kazuya's first name in the process. The only thing I managed to understand is that the designers were influenced by Yukio Mishima.Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If you put each instance of his name into quotation marks, it'll be translated correctly, and the surrounding sentence won't be altered by the inclusion of the translation of his first name.--Coin945 (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (May 20, 2018 to May 26, 2018)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

May 20, 2018

May 21, 2018

May 22, 2018

May 23, 2018

May 24, 2018

May 25, 2018

May 26, 2018

Turns out the weekly report took a holiday like the rest of America. Sorry for the delay! --PresN 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Date Vandal

Has anyone got bulk revert privilege to fix this lot in one hit? - X201 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edits; there is no bulk revert privilege, you can just get rollbacker rights, and then there's a script for that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This vandal has been fairly active on multiple IP addresses in the past month. I've reverted them 7 times on Fru (video game). They're easy to spot. But I don't understand this behaviour and why there are so many date changing vandals. Almost inclined to think it's just a bot because why would somebody waste so much time only to be constantly rollbacked. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How do you cite HTML files?

I have this computer game where the manual is only included as html file and I'm not sure if i should use template:cite book or template:cite video game. There is no paper version or pdf version of it exist, its only included in the game's files, but its technically not in the actual game.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I usually go with cite book for digital game manuals / catalogs. --PresN 17:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I was really stuck on this for a while.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, template:cite video game should only be used for information directly from the game itself. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   08:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict 2500

Does anyone know where to find sources for Conflict 2500, one of the first computer games released by Avalon Hill? They may or may not have released Lords of Karma and Midway Campaign first, I am not sure. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a review, but I thought this was interesting that the game was designed by William David Volk: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/william-volk 208.47.202.254 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
This link compiles ads from CGW, which shows that the game came out after Midway and before Lords, and Avalon Hill apparently had several games (Computer Football Strategy, Draw Poker, Guns of Fort Defiance, Dneiper River Line, B-1 Nuclear Bomber, Empire of the Overmind, Tanktics, Computer Baseball, Stocks and Bonds) before the three I mentioned above: http://www.8bitrocket.com/2009/05/25/the-history-of-8-bit-computer-games-in-the-usa-1-cgw-novdec-1981/ 208.47.202.254 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Ylee, do you have any sources for Conflict 2500, as I see you have worked on some of the other Avalon Hill games that I mentioned above? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Only what I see on Internet Archive. Ylee (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's not much there. But thanks for checking. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
May be of use, interview with William Volk on gamasutra, and obsolete gamer and manual of game (May have been posted above) on gamesdatabase. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Lee, I appreciate it! 208.47.202.254 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to try restoring and working on this one today or tomorrow, thanks! 208.47.202.254 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

20 Years of Tomb Raider

I've only just heard of this book. It's basically a summary of the entire Tomb Raider series with exclusive interviews and concept art. Sadly, I've entirely missed the chance of picking it up for anything less than £100 pounds, which is far more than I'm willing to pay. If anyone here has a copy of the book, then they have an invaluable source for improving the major Tomb Raider articles. I have an interest in this as I'm currently working on a rewrite of Legend with the intent of making it a GA, with an idea of expanding to other Tomb Raider articles and possibly tidying and slightly expanding Angel of Darkness --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Track it on Amazon with Keepa. It'll come back down. (Some libraries have it too.) czar 01:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

New Task Force?

What do you guys think about a Bethesda task force? I think they're a big enough company and have enough articles related to them for their own task force, but I want to know what other people think about it. I'm not quite sure how the whole creation process works or whatever, but I thought suggesting it here was a good place to start. --LichWizard talk 20:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"Having enough articles" is only half of the requirements for a task force; the other (and harder) half is "there's enough people who want to collaborate on those articles to justify setting up a distinct talk page/tracking page". Actually making a task force is pretty easy; even moreso in this case because one actually existed up until 3 years ago. So, are there several other people who want to jump on this task force? --PresN 20:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well if enough people are interested I think it'd be a great idea to revamp the page and get the task force started back up again :) --LichWizard talk 21:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the best thing to do is for you to understand and explain what precise goals you think can be accomplished by the existence of a Bethesda task force and we'll likely be able to provide you advice and guidance on how to meet these goals in a more efficient way. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Well I just thought that it would be good to have a task force focused on that company, seeing as there are task forces on other companies of the same size and notability. Also, I believe there is a lack of articles on Bethesda characters, locations, etc., so I thought bringing together a group of like-minded Wikipedians to expand and create those types of articles was a good idea. --LichWizard talk 22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"Good to have a task force" isn't really doing anything, it's not a badge of quality for any company to have a dedicated task force over another haha. As for finding like-minded Wikipedians to expand or create articles on specific topic, you'll probably find more help here on WPVG's talk page or on the Wikimedia Discord than on a taskforce talk page. Don't be shy! We're (probably) all gamers here. If you want a more personalized direct discussion maybe look at the biggest contributors of our best Bethesda articles and drop them a note with your article subject proposals. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It can be a good idea if there are enough interested editors, but most just use this WikiProject even with a Task force. I'm a member of the Sega task force and there are plenty of active Sega editors getting articles promoted to FA and GA right now, but the task force itself is inactive. It would be a bear to keep the pages maintained (trust me, I've tried) and people tend to just use the full project where there are more resources, and collaborate one-on-one when we do. Respectfully, coming from someone who's tried to keep a task force going, it's likely to do more harm than good as a time-drainer. That being said, certainly there are some editors here who would like to collaborate in the interest of Bethesda articles? Red Phoenix talk 22:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought there would be plenty as well. I thought a task force would be the best way to collaborate on a subject that wide, but that obviously doesn't seem to be the case :P --LichWizard talk 22:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Not to throw shade but "Bethesda" isn't that wide a subject :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Task forces are a relic of the past, and I'm not even sure if they were really active back in the day either. That being said, nobody will stop you if you try to create one, just don't expect a lot of participation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yea, last cleanup round I advocated against folding in WP:NIN but this thread has made me realize we don't really have any active taskforce at all, the level of activity on WPVG itself doesn't justify spinoffs. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to make it if it won't be active. If I want to collaborate with other people on Bethesda related articles I'll probably just end up putting a suggestion up on the WPVG talk page or on specific users' talk pages like Ben said (although I'm not even 100% sure how collaboration with others on an article would work :P) --LichWizard talk 00:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Realistically, from my experience, if you would like to set something like this up, you simply need to find people also interested in this. Best way is to look who is editing those pages, and shoot them a message. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that seems like a good idea. If I end up thinking making a Bethesda task force is a good idea, I'll probably do that ;) --LichWizard talk 11:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the best way may just be to edit Bethesda related articles for a little bit, and see whether or not you observe other editors consistently editing related articles or not. That'll probably be a good indicator of whether or not it makes sense. If don't see many others doing it, I wouldn't expect it to work out, it'd probably be more like holding a meeting by yourself in an empty hallway. But if you do see others around, then maybe it'd work. That being said, I personally wouldn't do it. It really seems like only the most popular and broad subjects work long term. Outside of the extremely rare and impressive Square Enix WikiProject, I don't think I've really seen video game related WikiProjects or Task Forces works for an extended amount of time. The best functioning groups are usually some of the most broad - video games, anime, music (specifically the albums project), etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed this with the Valve task force, although there are still plenty of editors working on Valve related stuff, the task force is basically dead, and most people just use WPVG for discussion --LichWizard talk 17:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For all intents and purposes, this talk page and your user talk page are sufficient if you're collaborating with other editors on Bethesda articles or topic areas. I'm also in favor of deprecating WPVG's task forces and converting this page into a topical noticeboard, which is already how it functionally operates. czar 01:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

How's this looking so far?

Me and two other users have gathered some sources over on Team Fortress Classic's talk page for a section on the brief period of time that Team Fortress was updated and renamed Team Fortress 1.5. I began working on a draft for the section in my sandbox and asked for some opinions over there, but didn't get a response. I thought this place might get more traffic, so I've decided to ask for thoughts on how it looks so far over here :)

Cheers,

--LichWizard talk 18:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@LichWizard:I have horrible grammar and make a bunch of typos, so I don't know if I'm qualified to review. My only critique is to remove "thus far" for the first version of Team Fortress. Thus far is usually used when you are talking about the latest version, not the earliest.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Thank you! :) --LichWizard talk 23:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Too much detail for a general audience, so can scale back some of the specifics. I'd also drop that third source and stick to reliable, secondary sources. (If it's important, a reliable source will address it.) Otherwise, in the right direction. Keep going! czar 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Edited this slightly, removing what I would consider not wikipedia style information. Rest is fine. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. --LichWizard talk 11:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I've added the section to the article. I think it could do with a bit more work and expanding, but I thought it was good enough for the article at this point. --LichWizard talk 13:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I merged "Team Fortress 1.5" and "Development" since that's what it looks like it is. The original development information could be more clear though. I don't understand what it means by "the game was originally a Quake. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Atari games

I was wondering what qualifiers should be used on this category? Because it could be hugely populated with games, we have Atari games divided into systems which I prefer, I also wondered if we should get rid of this category... Govvy (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The qualifier is at the top of the category. Games published by the Atari company, as opposed to games for Atari consoles. Other publishers have categories of their work, why shouldn't Atari? - X201 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Publishing is different to developed games, I was thinking the qualifier for this cat should be developed Atari games, because Atari published thousands of games. Govvy (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
An alternate thought that immediately hits me: Why not split the category so that each company with the name Atari has their own category? After all, Atari Games and Atari Corporation have no real relation to each other apart from ownership of the Atari brand.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Advice for reception section

I have been working on most of Kazuya Mishima's sections but I'm not sure if the reception section is well arranged. Should it be trimmed despite having multiple "Best Character of X"? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried some sort of rearrangement:

1.General response 2.Characterization 3.Devil form 4. Gameplay 5.Other media Do you think it works better now? Still, I think the section abuses too many quotes.Tintor2 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Ideally, you would want to summarize and group similar opinions without using any direct quotes, which would help with the bloat that the section currently has. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see what I can do with it.Tintor2 (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I trimmed more of the section. What do you think? I already requested a copyedit in the guild though.Tintor2 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Still way too bloated, IMO. Stuff like the "47th greatest fighting move in video game history" really doesn't need to be directly quoted, nether does commentary such as "There have been multiple responses to Kazuya's appearances outside the Tekken games". I can try and fix some of the issues if I have the time later. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I see. A hand with it would be gratefully appreciated.Tintor2 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018's TFA

It's June and we got another article coming up as Today's Featured Article. On the 12th of June, Cloud (video game) will be that day's Featured Article. Congrats go out to PresN for getting it to that status. GamerPro64 17:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a short article on a small subject, check it out! --PresN 20:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the use of game manuals permitted on video game articles here on Wikipedia?

Hi! I've this question that has been bugging me and more especially since this guy called StraightDown has been causing me problems in the articles I've tried to improve, only to have him appear and basically make a mess and blaming me for "vandalizing" and "altering the truth" when it comes to references i've cited on various articles i've edited and even created. But getting to the point, this is my main question: is the usage of game manuals allowed to be taken as references for video game articles here? As my main basis for citing them is Dino Crisis. Thanks! KGRAMR (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you'd just cite it like you'd cite book/printed media type sources, and use it sparingly in compliance with WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 03:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Better to cite a review or a vetted player's guide, when available. Those are better at presenting the broad strokes of the game. The manual tends to go into unnecessary depth on subjects that don't matter to the audience of a general encyclopedia. czar 04:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I used game manuals for Every Extend Extra and Lumines: Puzzle Fusion, from my experience they really helped make it simpler and shorter.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
As long as you have other sources as well, and you don't go too in depth, then you're good ;) --LichWizard talk 12:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
You do have to be a bit careful about what information is used though, don't want to fall foul of WP:GAMEGUIDE. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RM for Open world

Talk:Open world#Requested move 4 June 2018, as info. The project's view on "open world" as a game feature versus a genre may be important here. -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (May 27, 2018 to June 2, 2018)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

May 27, 2018

May 28, 2018

May 29, 2018

May 30, 2018

May 31, 2018

June 1, 2018

June 2, 2018

  • Nothing
Late, for no particular reason. --PresN 03:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Xbox Play Anywhere games

The redirect of List of Xbox Play Anywhere games is a terrible edit. The list is not Xbox One related but both Windows 10 and Xbox One release dates as well as defining the Play Anywhere program. Windows 10 dates are not defined on the mass Xbox One list. Not to mention trying to read about just PA titles in the massive list, even sorted, is extremely difficult, not to mention the references were not merged. It is also useful to reference cancelled PA titles for those still expecting a title to come to the other platform and looking for answers. PA is a distinct platform. Thanks. --2603:3023:10B:D100:F81B:97DE:8CD0:E2FF (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No immediate comment on whether that merge was proper or not, but I can point to this discussion that concluded a few days before the list was merged that reviewed several similar lists of Xbox games that only focused on one feature, which was agreed by consensus to be merged to a master list. I do note we have a category for Xbox Play Anywhere games. --Masem (t) 23:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Borders for Timeline of release year template

User:Izno asked if there could be a border option for the vertical timeline template navbox. I recently noticed it and a couple of others agreed it should be implemented, including myself. the discussion is here Template talk:Timeline of release years#Borders. Could more people contribute to the discussion and make it a reality?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

More Dark Souls spinoff cruft

So now we have an article on Dark Souls II's DLC, Dark Souls II: The Lost Crowns (a name that isn't even mentioned by the game). As with Dark Souls: Artorias of the Abyss, I vote that we merge them back into their main articles, as there is no reason we should split info off when the main articles need expansion. There is no real commentary on either DLC either, besides announcement and reception. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have to agree that a bar for DLC should absolutely be separate reception and development sections, unless there's a serious size issue with the main game (which there isn't with DS2). --Masem (t) 00:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be more notable if it was moved to the title Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin and incorporated reception of the Scholar edition, which bundles the game's DLC, as well as the original "crowns" DLC which soon after became a part of it. Talking about deleting it, though, seems to me as abandoning WP:COMMONSENSE as it is a well referenced and written article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
But the majority of the info could just belong on the primary article. We don't need individual articles for every single edition of the game, unless their content is large enough that it requires a split for readability. And nobody is saying to delete it, but rather take the same prose and merge it with the Dark Souls II article, under a new section or whatever. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we do something about this? @CelestialWeevil: just made Dark Souls III: The Ringed City, when I still fail to see how any of these belong as separate articles. Just check their sources, it's mainly just its reception that could easily be merged back to the main article. I fear that if we don't come to a consensus soon, then we will just have more of this spinoff cruft to deal with in the future. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I wish you guys would have let me know there was a discussion before I worked more on these. I'm in favor of separate articles. The Lost Crowns DLC (which is named that by plenty of official sources) has plenty of information outside of reviews, mainly in the form of interviews and the Design Works book. There's lots written about all of these packs, and I think it's valuable information. CelestialWeevil (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
95% of the same writing can just be directly merged back into the main article under the respective sections, meaning your contributions and time spent weren't wasted. The problem is there is no real reason for having them all forked off, as the main articles need expansion and doing this just harms both. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but really I do believe there's enough content for Lost Crowns and Ringed City to remain individual entities, especially with the Dark Souls III Design Works coming soon. The Lost Crowns article has more than half the number of references (all reliable, by the way) of the full-game Dark Souls II article. 40 references is certainly enough commentary for a distinct game article (Wikipedia:Notability (video games)). Really, there's an abundance of info on this DLC, and I plan on expanding each. CelestialWeevil (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The total number of references shouldn't be used as an argument, because anybody could add 2-3 (or more) citations for every sentence and then claim it's notable and should remain standalone. What actually matter is the content and scope of each reference, of which these articles have half of their citations being reviews, and the other half taken directly from the main article. I still think you are better off expanding the main article and not these spinoffs, per my original argument. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I just checked all 39 of my references and not a single one is used on the main Dark Souls II article, unless those references omit author names. I could also reasonably be overlooking a few, but really, "half"? CelestialWeevil (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I was mistaken (they are used on Hidetaka Miyazaki's article), but this doesn't change my other points. In fact, it maybe even helps as there is no reason to fork articles like this if the main articles need expansion (which you pointed out that they lack). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting point. But, as Wikipedia:Notability (video games) says, "Most derivative releases should be covered at an article about the original release, unless there is significant distinct game content (and reliable commentary about those differences) to treat the new content as a separate game." To me, both Lost Crowns and Ringed city absolutely fit this. There's a surplus of info on both, there's a lot of content in both (in the packs, I mean), and there's no shortage of solid references. Reviews are important, after all. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • These articles look good to me. The Lost Crowns is one article for three separate content packs, each of which got independent reviews by all the major outlets. I don't believe it is a good idea to merge these three reception paragraphs into the main article, and I wouldn't know what to do with the plot section either. Artorias of the Abyss is rather short and could be merged, but I have no strong opinions. The Ringed City looks like a very good article, with the game getting reviewed independently by plenty of source, several news articles noting that it is the last DLC pack for the game. Of course more development information would be interesting for all of these, but two of them do really well as stand-alone articles already. ~Mable (chat) 14:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I agree that the Artorias of the Abyss article in its current state could be resorbed into the Dark Souls article, but the rest, I think, are best left independent. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly think they're necessary, when again, the Dark Souls parent articles aren't especially long - usually around 30-40k with formatting. But they still aren't as offensive as those location and concept spin-outs. Bloodstain (Souls series), Bonfire (Dark Souls), Sen's Fortress, are still far worse examples of unnecessary spin-outs and that are half cherry-picked passing comments from game reviews and half Wikia style mundane descriptions, all of which that have seen no noteworthy improvements since their inception. Still shocked they were both created and existing in 2018 Wikipedia, when we've upped the quality and standards so far from the late 2000s era writing on games. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I was confused by those articles when I decided to make the Lost Crowns article; I figured since I could make a much better, more well-referenced thing, surely it was acceptable. But please, take a look at the Lost Crowns article and its breadth of references. There's so much information to pull from, and I'm far from done expanding the various sections. Surely three sizable, widely reviewed DLC packs warrant their own single article. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I'm with you guys. I still don't get the other spinoffs like Bonfire and Bloodstain, but the DLC articles CelestialWeevil made look fine. The majority of the sources are actually solely about the DLC. Mind you, I haven't actually read the articles to see how well they fare prose wise, but from a sourcing standpoint, it looks fine. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How to convert percentage to numbers?

In Vampyr (video game), I added information about how many worked on it. The source said 70% of their 120 overall staff members. I just used a website to calculate that figure to around 80, but that might just be WP:OR. Is there a template that can automatically convert percentage to numbers, like Template:Convert does with distance? Cognissonance (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

{{percent and number|84|120|suffix= employees}} gives 70% (84 employees) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Simple math from figures in the same source wouldn't be original research. I see the 60 vs. 80 people is mentioned in the article comparatively now, but if it were a standalone figure, I'd even rephrase to something along the lines of "about three-quarters of the studio worked on the title", but depends on the point you're trying to make in the paragraph. czar 01:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
If it isn't original research, I'll just let it stay like it is. Thanks guys. Cognissonance (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cognissonance: Btw the specific content policy material is WP:CALC. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Review Thread No. 37: In like a lion, out like a lamb

Spring's coming to an end but that's not going to stop us from squeezing in one more review thread for the season. And there's a lot of stuff that hasn't been reviewed.

FAC/FLC
GAN
Reviews and reassessments

It's a lot more than last time. JOEBRO64 20:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd contribute a lot more to the process but I personally prefer just doing the edits that improve the article rather that suggesting/reviewing them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll do some GA reviews when I've got a bit more time Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: I'll review anything in return for a review of one of my noms (Sonic Gems Collection, Batman: The Dark Knight, and Sonic Dreams Collection). JOEBRO64 19:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I just made the Lumines article, and I need some help with cropping and uploading a non-free image. There's this logo here: [5]. Does anyone here have photo editing skills? I just need it for the infobox but I need the "Remastered" to be removed. I'd appreciate the help.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: The Remastered logo is more recognizable for the series in my humble opinion. All the titles use similar font from the original/remastered [6][7][8]. The only ones that deviate from the standard font is the vita version and the smartphone version you provided. but they both have their own subtitles attached, wouldn't we need to crop it out anyways? Metroid uses partial logo from previous titles. I don't think it would be a problem to crop out "Remastered", but if others feel the same way, then we can use the logo you provided. I may be a bit bias because I really like the remastered logo.
@TheJoebro64: Orly? That would be great if it was considered free media. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It Mayamaya7 looks like the decision was made without consent to just use the other logo. I understand I don't own the article, but it would've been a good idea to at least voice such opinion before making the decision to use that version. Well it is, what it is.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It was changed again, but i'm still willing to accept majority vote here if they prefer Lordtobi's choice. if others feel strongly about it, it can still be discussed here.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A reminder with E3 around the corner

Let's remember that an announcement of a game is not sufficient for starting a new article, particularly if we have a suitable target article to point to. (Eg, all we know about Fallout 76 is a teaser trailer, not even a release date, so a standalone makes no sense). We should have at minimum a release date/windows, planned platforms, some concept of gameplay and plot, and ideally some development details for a standalone. --Masem (t) 19:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The notability should still pass WP:GNG for a stand alone article, as well as the above. There will be some games that have all of the above at E3, but not have enough press from the event. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
But if all we know is a name and platform (so like Smash Switch currently), how could you even write an article on that? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
When in doubt, redirect. Cognissonance (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure many of the upcoming games announced, like Smash Bros Switch and Fire Emblem Switch, which are still due out in 2018, will have plenty of details revealed and will easily be able to have their own articles. Masem's more talking about your Untitled Pokemon Switch 2019 and whatever the name of the Metroid game for Switch that was announced a year ago and still nothing is known about it. Its those sorts of announcement games that don't need articles yet. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You mean Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee and Metroid Prime 4? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Pokémon Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! article has plenty of information for a standalone, it's the unnamed game that we should be on the look out for. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Salvidrim!, Lee Vilenski - Yeah, I meant the core Pokemon game announced for Switch in late 2019. It doesn't even have a name yet, so it shouldn't have an article. I did mean Metroid Prime 4 though. There's been so many (fake?) rumors about it having different subtitles that I had forgotten that so far it just has the simple name of Prime 4. And as you can see, Metroid Prime 4 is a redirect, as it should be. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
My concern is more that when all there is a teaser trailer, with possibly release date and platform, that that is not enough to start a new article for a game, assuming there is nothing else out there. Fallout 76 is exactly that. There's tons of speculations and more than a handful of rumors of what the game will play as, but nothing has been confirmed. Since we have the Fallout series article, everything confirmed about the game can be inserted into the series article, and yes, then likely more details will come out of E3. --Masem (t) 13:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Or to be more exact: A game simply being announced at E3 through one of the major press conferences is not sufficient for standalone notability, through creating redirects to series or dev's pages where appropriate makes sense. There's a good chance that a title shown at a E3 press event will end up getting more covered in the week that follows, which will then be sufficient to create an article on the title, but that doesn't always happen. --Masem (t) 13:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
And just pinging this again since E3 "starts" tonight with EAs press conference. --Masem (t) 13:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hitman video game characters

Redirects from the names of several characters from the Hitman series that currently target Hitman (franchise) have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 9. Most of these previously targetted List of Hitman video game characters, which has been redirected and unredirected several times over a couple of years, apparently without discussion. I've left a comment with a suggested way forward at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 9#Hitman Agent 17. Your comments on the individual redirect discussions and on my linked suggestion are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WP:VG_Sources

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WP:VG_Sources. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolving Rhythm vs Music video game

In trying to update categories for Beat Saber, I found we don't have a category for rhythm game. We do have Category:Music video games, but that seems based on Music video game. I feel we're double-covering things here, since outside of "music creation", everything else in Music video game is essentially covered by Rhythm game. I'm not 100% sure what to do here, but it does need some resolving. --Masem (t) 16:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft E3 Presser

I was out working during EA's bit but from what I heard it was kinda...eh. So, T-90 minutes for this one. See you soon for all the fun! Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Halo Infinite is...uh...a sequel or...something? Not sure if it's a Halo 6, but it's a thing. John-117 is present, so it could be anything.
  • 50 Games, 18 Exclusives, 15 World Premieres. I'm going to be busy.
  • Ori and the Will of the Wisps. Sequel.
  • Sekiro Shadows Die Twice. From Software, Activision and Xbox One X Enhanced. I'm getting a bit of an Onimusha vibe.
  • Fallout 4 for gamepass. Fallout 76 in West Virginia, four times the size of Fallout 4. Preorder starts on the 15th. It looks a lot cleaner and more pristine.
  • A Life is Strange side story. Available for free starting June 26? I'm not sure what to make of this. Single dad. The Awesome adventures of Captain Spirit.
  • Crackdown 3 is still a thing. February 2019.
  • Nier: Automata is going to be a GotY edition including all DLC.
  • Metro Exodus. I don't see gas masks. What's up with that? Artyom returns.
  • KH III. The hair looks terrible and...the voice acting is lackluster. Release is January 29th.
  • Sea of Thieves is getting a couple expansions.
  • Forza Horizon 4. Britain. Oh hey, there's the adaptive controller. Props to MS for actually including there. Feels like it has some persistent world like Sea of Thieves. Includes season changing. October 2nd. Game Passed.
  • New studio. The Initiative. In Sana Monica. Undead Labs has been purchased by Microsoft. Also Playground games. AND NINJA THEORY!!! AND COMPULSION GAMES!!! Wow. MS is throwing money everywhere.
  • Winter 2018 is bringing War Mode to PUBG. Probably a 50 vs. 50 mode.
  • Tales of Vesperia is getting a remake/remaster...something. Definitive Edition. Winter 2018.
  • The Division 2. Yay? Can't get enthusiastic about this.
  • Session. (Spelled with the period it seems.) A new skateboarding game. Didn't think the market would be into this sort of thing after TH kinda died.
  • Black Desert. An MMORPG.
  • Devil May Cry reboot is getting a sequel. But its just titled Devil May Cry 5. I'm rather...confused. I think we're getting a continuity fusion here. I do think Shootie HG is doing the music again though.
  • Cuphead is getting DLC content. 2019.
  • This feels like a 2D Zelda type game with an isometric viewpoint. Name is Tunic.
  • I don't know what the fuck this is?! But this feels like the Shonen Jump Mash up I always wanted! Jump Force. Includes the big three, DragonBall Z, Naruto and One Piece, will also include Death Note. I was screaming when that got announced.
  • Dying Light 2. World will change as you make choices. Could be interesting.
  • Battletoads is getting a sequel! 2019. No subtitle.
  • Just Cause 4. It seems to have weather effects. December 4th.
  • Wait, is Gears of War getting a Funko Pop game?! "Gears Pop!" for Android and iOS.
  • Gears Tactics. Looks like an XCOM-like title. Could be fun.
  • Gears 5 is in progress. You play as Kate it seems. It looks very different to previous games. 2019.
  • Streaming of games might be a priority soon. Also, they vaguely announce Xbox 4 (ish, a sequel to Xbox One X).
  • Cyberpunk 2077 looks pretty snazzy. Can't say much on that.

And I think we're done. Lots of unexpected surprises and great looking stuff here. Bethesda is tonight. Let the games begin. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I was updating E3 as it went, and creating redirects as appropriate, as well as the studio acquisitions. (Did so for EA too). --Masem (t) 21:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

New Articles (June 3, 2018 to June 9, 2018)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 Generated by v1.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 3, 2018

June 4, 2018

June 6, 2018

June 7, 2018

June 8, 2018

Missing: June 5, June 9. 5 was empty, but the bot appears to have shut down somewhere in the "U" projects yesterday, so 9'll be on next weeks list. --PresN 02:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
PresN - Looks like I've been credited for three articles on here that have simply been accepted on WP:AfC. Is there any way to get the bot to read the creator? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I've asked the same thing before, and it only credits people who added the WikiProject Video games tag on the talk page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Not quite, it's tagging whoever moved the article from draft space to article space (which is Lee). I'll drop names from that case until I get the script to pull the first editor instead. --PresN 12:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi all,

I've gone through some of our backlog, and have now successfully added an infobox to those in Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes (Awaiting the AfD result for Celeris).

Anyone know what tags etc. cause an article to be listed under Category:Video game cleanup? It seems to be pretty variable. For instance Ghosts 'n Goblins (video game) is listed in the category, but doesn't have any tags, on the talk page, or on the article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ghosts 'n Goblins has a {{game guide}} tag in the Ports section. As far as I know, to get into Category:Video game cleanup an article needs a template/tag that puts it in that (hidden) category, though occasionally you'll see someone put something in the category manually via the categories at the bottom of the article. --PresN 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That said, which templates put it in that category is variable; Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Backlog lists a lot more than 27 articles with issues. --PresN 15:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
PresN Indeed. I was planning on working my way through some of the easier to fix categories first when I get a spare 5 minutes from time to time. However, it's a lot easier to solve if the issue is known. I'd also mention that the article in question is rated as high importance to the project, but the article is very, very poorly written. I've done a little cleanup, but I know next to nothing about the subject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

peer review for Edge (video game)

I don't know where to post this,. made a peer review request for Edge (video game). if anyone wants to take a look, I'd appreciate it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

EGM award scans

No idea if anyone else needs this, but I just scanned EGM's 2005 award ceremony for another Wikipedian and thought I'd drop the results here, in case anyone has a use for it:

  • "EGM's 2005 Games of the Year". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 201. March 2006. pp. 80–84, 86, 88–91. - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

it's probably not necessary at all, but do you happen to have the ISBN number or ISSN number? Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Definitely not necessary (I've been through many an FAC without ever needing them for magazines), but the ISSN is 1058-918X. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
OK. then I'm good. thanks for all the help.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Article question?

Is Defiance 2050 an upcoming game should be separate article to the current Defiance??? 122.55.51.147 message 03:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

IP user, not all games need to be made into standalone articles. usually, we require a lot of information to be published about a game, and it pass WP:GNG before a game article is potentially made. I'd recommend expanding the section where it is now before moving it to a stand-alone article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Image Problem

I have been uploading some images on video game articles but some of them today disappear and I tried to put it back the image but still can't be put into an article? when the file still exist, I and already tried to put images on the newly uploaded but still can't used the image on article. Mayamaya7 Poke! 06:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Getting TFC to GA

A couple other editors and I have been collaborating over on Team Fortress Classic's talk page to try and get the article ready to be submitted for GA review. We're currently working on expanding the gameplay section and doing general cleanup. If you would like to help anything would be appreciated! We've come pretty far already, and I think we're almost there :)

Thanks,

--LichWizard talk 17:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not trying to be harsh here, but there's some pretty glaring issues apparent right away. For example, Team Fortress Classic#Classes and Team Fortress Classic#Reception aren't even written in paragraph form... Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Trust me, you're not being harsh, I understand that ;) Anyway, are they supposed to be in written in paragraph form? The classes part of the gameplay section looks best when put in bullet points imho, and I feel like I've seen other reception sections formatted in that way (maybe I'm wrong, however). I honestly don't know how it's gone this long without anyone pointing these things out though, lol. --LichWizard talk 18:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Sonic Gems Collection is a good example of a reception section (that's partially because I wrote the article though :P) JOEBRO64 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
We've been struggling to find more sources for the reception section, so I'll see if we can't put it in a different format with what we have. --LichWizard talk 19:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think there's some rare cases where bulletpoints are used in gameplay sections, but the "one standalone sentence per review" format you have going in the reception section is definitely not something I've ever seen in anything GA article. You definitely want to write that in paragraph form and try to have some flow between ideas/sentences/reviewers. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I think the bullet points are probably fine considering Team Fortress 2 uses them in a similar way in it's gameplay section, but I'll change the reception section. --LichWizard talk 19:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above and in the talk section, we're working on expanding it. I came here mainly to see if other's would like to help work on the article, not necessarily for advice (although advice is always good too :P) --LichWizard talk 19:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI, Team Fortress 2 may not be the standard to be striving for, considering it was revoked of its GA status in 2015. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize that :P I mean, I still think it looks fine how it is, do you think it would be better if it were written a different way, though? --LichWizard talk 20:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, well I've hopefully made the reception section a bit better. --LichWizard talk 20:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
You are better to structure paragraphs for reception sections. Even something like this, they could mention what reviewers liked in one paragraph, and then what's been said that's bad. I'd also check out mobygames, as there is sometimes information that you can get from the blurb they have. Was there any publications you'd want the full review from? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I've already restructured the reception section (hopefully the way it should be :P), and we've already found pretty much all the sources we can for it, but that link seems like a pretty good resource, so I'll see what I can get out of it :) --LichWizard talk 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dark Souls "Bloodstains" and "Bonfires" merge discussion

Since this has been discussed multiple times in various discussions here, I decided to start up a formal merger discussion.

Should Bloodstain (Souls series) and Bonfire (Dark Souls) be merged into the Souls (series) articles? Please discuss here - please leave input/comments there. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The only argument to me, is if the spinoff articles do not pass WP:GNG. Everything else is irrevelent. The Bloodstain article doesn't seem to, but the Bonfire one seems to make a slightly better case for notability. As much as it is a niche topic, if it can make an arguement that it is notable, it shouldn't be merged. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Please comment there, but know that in merger discussion, you can discuss aspects beyond the GNG. It is a valid argument to say that both the parent article and the split article are very short and entirely overlap each other in content and coverage, so they should be merged. That said, I feel like either would be a pretty hard sell for meeting the WP:GNG either... Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While it may be too early to talk about a "Souls-like genre" (how long did it take for Metroidvania to be a thing?), there are definitive gameplay elements that are being used recurrently over multiple games and genres, bonfires to save/level up, "bloodstains" to pick up dropped XP-like resource.... (Salt & Sanctuary, Lords of the Fallen, The Surge, just off the top of my head) -- there might well be enough for a "Gameplay of the Souls series" article. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • At the discussion, Masem also noted that a lot of the location/level spinout article could be consolidated into a "Locations of Souls games" type article too, rather than all of the individual spinouts. I'd be...more okay...with these sorts of solutions, but even still, the series article has plenty of room for expansion in these areas. The "setting" section is a single short paragraph, and the gameplay section is three paragraphs. The page sits at 38K with formatting included. So we're still well within WP:TOOBIG there too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2018

The title was relaunched on May 8th 2018, following its own reception: http://pr.funcom.com/pressreleases/conan-exiles-out-today-over-1-million-sold-2501619 77.126.27.7 (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Devil May Cry organization

See Template talk:Devil May Cry series#Organization of games about whether or not the reboot DmC deserves its own section.Tintor2 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A valuable tip when writing articles using sources in another language.

In the past I have typed out sources word by word into Google Translate when the information is within unsearchable content (such as an photo from a Polish gaming magazine). This was the only solution I could think of that didn't require a poor Polish Wikipedian to manually translate the thing. These days I now have a much better solution.

I would recommend that Wikipedia users instead use this (free) website https://ocr.space, which turns an image into text. You choose the language / languages contained in the image, and the algorithm does the rest.

When copy/pasting the output to Google Translate, I've had issues with sentences being broken between lines, so you might have to manually go through each line, deleting the dead space and ensuring the sentences are being translated whole rather than in out-of-context fragments. It may be annoying but it's certainly better than the other way.

Just wanted to throw it out there because it took a bit of sleuthing to come to that solution and I think it should become standard practice here.

--Coin945 (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You can also download the Google Translate app for your phone, and use your phone's camera to take pictures of text. The app will automatically transcribe and translate the text. Really handy if you have physical printed materials in other languages.
Typically I do the same thing you said: manually go through and ensure it was transcribed correctly. If a period or comma was missed, it messes up the translation. With Japanese, sometimes the kanji are misinterpreted but it's surprisingly accurate for the most part. TarkusABtalk 02:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

How to address "hero shooters"

An edit war is presently going on regarding the handling of the term "hero shooter" on Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch. According to Solino, "hero shooter" is a proper genre while others disagree. So to seek clearer consensus, how should we address these games as "hero shooters"? Lordtobi (✉) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I think we should handle it in the same way we do with open world as a genre. Meaning, we'd avoid using it as a replacement for first-person shooter (in the infobox and opening sentence), but still allow prose to say "Described as a hero shooter, the game..." This is, of course, if sources even consider the game as one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Considering hero shooter only shows two sources as a section of Shooter game, I find it hard to believe it could be considered as wide as a genre of game. I agree with above, it's not a genre. These games are online multiplayer third-person shooters. If a RS calls the game a Hero Shooter, than can be placed in prose Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This - it's presently a WP:NEO term that is useful to document but not yet established as a genre. It's also still a relatively new thing. (Contrast to Battle Royale, in that while PUBG popularized it, the concept had been around for a while but not really formalized as a genre until PUBG). --Masem (t) 14:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that it can be added exactly the way open world is treated, not as a replacement for first person shooter, but an addition to it. The term is mentioned by several game websites, including IGN and PC gamer, specifically for TF2, Overwatch and Paladins. So I don't see why its addition would be a problem. Solinothe Wolf 14:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Here are the sources I used when I wanted to add it to the lead, of course not replacing any of the existing descriptors.
IGN prominently uses this term for Overwatch and other games on multiple articles and reviews.
PC Gamer has a dedicated article about the Hero Shooter genre and its future Here. The article mentions a list of games including Overwatch, TF2 and Battleborn.
Gamasutra published an article about Hero Shooters.
I'm sure there might be more sources. But these are the ones I initially used. Solinothe Wolf 06:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If multiple of the more prominent sources are using the term "hero shooter", we can certainly include it one way or another. But it is not a genre, should not be in genre field in infobox, and it should definitely not replace any of the existing genres or descriptors. In other words, I guess similar to open world. I don't think there's anything wrong with using it in lead, as long as later overview and/or history sections make it clear how sources are describing it as such. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

E3 Press Conferences, 11 June

There are three press conferences planned for today at E3; Square Enix, Ubisoft and Sony. I'm definitely going to cover the Square Enix event, which is happening shortly. I may not be able to cover the others due to time zone differences. If anyone wants to cover the others, they're welcome. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

PC Gaming Show is today too. --Masem (t) 17:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Square Enix

  • A feature on Shadow of the Tomb Raider, featuring the opening cutscene, gameplay sequence. Very much more stealth oriented compared to previous entries. Full underwater exploration confirmed, plus second trailer.
  • A trailer for the newest content for Final Fantasy XIV Stormblood.
  • Developer comments and short piece of new footage for the Life Is Strange 2 free prequel.
  • New trailer for Dragon Quest XI. A new collaboration with Brave Exvius.
  • A new game titled Babylon's Fall, coming in 2019. Looks a little Dark Souls-ish.
  • Reprise of Nier: Automata for Xbox One.
  • A new short trailer for Octopath Traveller.
  • A short piece on Just Cause 4.
  • A new game titled The Quiet Man for PS4 and Steam. Looks like an action game with deaf protagonist.
  • A remixed trailer for Kingdom Hearts 3. Frozen, Ratatouissle, Rapunzel, Monster Inc, Toy Story worlds shown.

And that's it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Maybe this is off-topic, but we should really move all the Electronic Entertainment Expo pages to just E3, as that is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME for the event. "E3 2018" on Google received 24 million hits on Google versus just 286,000 for "Electronic Entertainment Expo 2018". I'm surprised this hasn't been done yet at any time Wikipedia's history. If it's too much work to do during the event, then we have all the time to fix it afterwards. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It won't be too much work. A bot will automatically fix all the double redirects after the move. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sony

Why are we in a church? (I'm on this one.) Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 01:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The Last of Us Part 2. So Elle has a romantic relationship with another woman and goes around brutalizing people while being brutalized herself. Okay...
  • Destiny 2: Forsaken. September 4th. Expansion, perhaps?
  • Ghost of Sushima (probably spelling that wrong) looks like a Samurai game...or something. I'm very confused.
  • Control by Remedy and 505, out 2019.
  • Resident Evil 2 is getting a remake, January 25th, 2019.
  • Bathtub guy, playing a game with the creator of Rick and Morty. Missed the name.
  • And another KHIII trailer. A single package of all KH games will be available at some point.
  • And there's Kojima's thing, Death Stranding. Still no idea what this game is, what its about or anything.
  • Nioh 2 will be a thing.
  • Activision's Spiderman is up. It feels very much like Arkham based on the combat but they have the UI off screen too much to tell. Also, he seems to have been at this for the last eight years, which is an interesting detail.
  • New VR title from FromSoftware and JapanStudio. Deracine? Spelling that wrong I think.

Are we done? This presentation style is very confusing. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

E3 renaming

(apologies to Dissident, this deserves a higher placement for discussion)

  • Maybe this is off-topic, but we should really move all the Electronic Entertainment Expo pages to just E3, as that is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME for the event. "E3 2018" on Google received 24 million hits on Google versus just 286,000 for "Electronic Entertainment Expo 2018". I'm surprised this hasn't been done yet at any time Wikipedia's history. If it's too much work to do during the event, then we have all the time to fix it afterwards. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It won't be too much work. A bot will automatically fix all the double redirects after the move. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
My concern is that in while "E3 2018" is easy to link and remember, "E3" is a very narrow term within video games and technology (It is not as ubiquitous as "NASA"). On any linked page, we are going to need to spell it out first use. I think renaming to E3 will encourage sloppiness in VG articles, and while the full name is a PITA to write out once, it's more proper. (Obviously, redirects back and forth deal with linkage issues). --Masem (t) 04:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
But if it's not the common name (and it clearly isn't), why bother? We could just keep the base article at Electronic Entertainment Expo, and move each individual show to E3 YEAR. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem that we should keep the pages at "Electronic Entertainment Expo" rather than E3. The "Google test" is a poor indicator of proving notability—the "search result" might be a random number generated by a process that nobody understands (see this article). Not everyone knows what "E3" means (it isn't as big as NASA, PETA, DC, etc). It's helpful to a general audience. "E3 20XX" already redirects to the respective pages. JOEBRO64 12:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Does lack of knowledge by the general population override the common name? The entire purpose of Wikipedia is about educating people about new topics after all, so I don't think this should be used as an argument. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I think its important to keep the name "Electronic Entertainment Expo" for the main article because it educates readers what it stands for. However, I do believe that the individual E3 articles like "E3 2018" should be renamed to "E3 2018" not "Electronic Entertainment Expo 2018".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Bad handling of important subject: VG remastering

We have Video game remake as a stand-alone article. We also have Remaster#Video games, a section that is poorly written and researched, and is treating the concepts as if synonymous when they are not. (I caught the Video game remake article doing this in a handful of places, too, and fixed it).

We either need to have a Video game remaster article (presently a redir to Remaster#Video games), or a section at Video game remake that is all about remasters in particular and is more detailed and accurate than the WP:SUMMARY material at Remaster#Video games (which needs revision no matter what direction we go in).

See also User talk:Interqwark#Remasters and remakes for some background discussion, stemming from a terminological dispute about this stuff.

PS: The material also needs to distinguish these concepts from a) porting; b) emulation (including packaging of a game inside an emulator as a quick-and-dirty porting alterantive); and c) creation of alternative game engines for original game content (e.g. OpenMW, which comes with no game content, and uses the original content files of Morrowind but any of its .EXE, .DLL or other related code).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 05:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The difference between a remake and a remaster are extremely subtle that they don't need separate articles and should be described within the same one. However I know from my own research that getting very exacting terms (such as how to distinguish this from an emulation, or the like) is not well sourcable. "Everyone" knows it, so no one documents it. --Masem (t) 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The two phrases are for different things, and certain games have both (Potentially Final Fantasy VII for example). Remasters are generally graphical updates, wheras Remakes generally work on new engines, or have vastly different gameplay. Obviously an article on the subject would be nice, but surely it's just a glossary type thing? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
We here at VG all know that, but try to reliably source that. That is not easy. Because they are close-enough terms, they should be in the same article, and we should describe the differences, but there's so little sourcing to explain those differences to justify two separate articles. --Masem (t) 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This is another one of those things that is less about our bad handling of it, and more about the industry's band handling of it. The lines are often blurred or distorted for marketing purposes. Argument often break out in articles. I'm sure it could be improved (so go for it) but some of the larger issues are easier to talk about than actually resolve. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Remastering, remake, reboot, reimagining? My 2¢:
  1. Ratchet & Clank (2016 video game) is a reimagining; it tells pretty much the same story as the original and goes through story and gameplay beats intentionally calling back for nostalgic players but is a completely new game, new engine
  2. Tomb Raider 2013 is a reboot -- not only is it brand new gameplay and engine, it's also a brand new continuity and basically exists completely disregarding any prior games
  3. The Last of Us Remastered is a remaster, it's the exact same game and engine with a renewed coat of paint; pretty much a port on newer gen
  4. Pokémon FireRed is a remake, in that it is fundamentally the same game, with the same design core, same elements, but practically every bit of graphics and sound was redone, there's a few additions to gameplay.
Seems quite subjective IMO. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Dangit, I know I found an academic source at one point for an article that described these terms well that I used here, and now I can't remember where. --Masem (t) 14:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Here we go [12] (It's an open access paper) and this book The Game Developer's Dictionary:: A Multidisciplinary Lexicon for Professionals and Students (google books has preview pages), but when checking, they don't differ remaster from remake. (But I'll link these as decent references). --Masem (t) 14:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • One of the problems with defining a rerelease is that sources typically use words like "port", "remake", "remaster", etc. interchangeably. I've seen sources refer to Super Mario 64 DS as a port (not a remake), Sonic Adventure DX as just a straight-up rerelease, and the PS2 version of Nights into Dreams as a remake (not an enhanced port). As Serge says, it's less of our handling of it, more of the industry's. JOEBRO64 19:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there a generic, encompassing word we can settle on when sources use different terms interchangeably, such as with the Crash and Spyro remakes? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Another point is that "new engine" isn't a dividing line. E.g., OpenMW is a new engine for Morrowind but operates on the original game data (you have to own the original game). It is not a remake, remaster, reimagining, or reboot. Some of the earlier Half-Life games were also remastered to run on a later game engine, with improved graphics, and were made available as DLCs for the later game in the series, without significantly changing their plot or gameplay. Those are remasters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

DirectX lists

Are these lists silly? I thought DirectX was a fairly common API used for Windows games.

TarkusABtalk 02:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Too commonly used, these are indiscriminate lists. Categories are fine. --Masem (t) 05:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct, it's extremely common. I don't think they're necessary either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
OK I sent them all to AFD. TarkusABtalk 14:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably would have made sense for this to be a multiple deletion topic, rather than 4 seperate ones. But, yes, this is pointless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinion requested

At Talk:Fortnite#Making a possible "Fortnite: STW" article?, I offer a solution that may be need to stop an endless string of requests to mark the game as for Switch (when only the Battle Royale version is) and clear up confusing that was created by the naming schemes. It's a bit unusual solution so would like a few extra eyes. --Masem (t) 05:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to add a little bump to this so it can get more attention. it does sound complicated.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Anybody has this?

I just found that Udon's artbook for Street Fighter X Tekken has a lot of information about how the staff handled the cast. I am primiraly searching for information of Kazuya Mishima but I managed to find somethings thanks to a blog focused on Nina Williams. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic & GameRankings

Hello. Is there a way to add or submit a review for a video game to those sites ? Regards. --Archimëa (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No. These sites have set reviewers that they take scores from. See The MetaScore explination page for details. What were you trying to do? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I found some review for few games that don't have score review on those sites. But well, if it's impossible...
Thanks for your help. --Archimëa (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Metacritic uses a list of reviewers that it scores from. If it is a review from one of these sources, and it's not listed, you could potentially email them (It may simply be an oversight!) But, if it's just a review from a site they don't take reviews from, that's deliberate. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Lee Vilenski : Do you know were i can email them ? --Archimëa (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_138&oldid=1137359547"