Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 113

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 110

→

Should Super Smash Bros. 3DS/Wii U somehow be exempt from article guidelines?

User:TheMeaningOfBlah insists that Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U should feature boxart of both the Wii U and 3DS versions of the game, and has been reverted by myself and other editors; despite the fact that such an inclusion would violate WP:VGBOX ("only one cover should be present, regardless of platform or regional differences").

I'll also copy-paste from his talkpage more reasons on why I believe two images to be inappropriate:

In other games with different "versions", precedence is that only one boxart is used. See Pokémon Black and White as an example.
Consensus was that they are pretty much the same game, and whether Sakurai thinks otherwise is irrelevant.
There is no need to violate WP:VGBOX for no reason, especially as having two or more boxart images is explicitly discouraged.
Multiple boxart images may violate the "minimal usage" and "minimal number of items" parts of WP:NFCC.

I have no intention to edit war over this. Should this one article somehow be exempt from guidelines that cover all other articles? Also the other party has so far provided no policy-based rationale except for "let's ignore it". Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Exempt from guidelines for the following reasons I stated on my talkpage:

While two or more boxart images are discouraged, its not a violation of either WP:VGBOX or WP:NFCC.
Sakurai explicitly stated that the games are indeed seperate installments.
The consensus to remerge doesn't matter. Nowhere in that consensus does it say that they are the same game.

Also, should does not equal must, according to the IETF standard. I'm still going to ignore it until a consensus is reached.

TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

From the NFCC side, yes, multiple covers are against NFCC; you get one cover to identify the work per WP:NFCI#1, but any additional cover-for-identification images that are non-free must be the subject of discussion (such as the Wii version of Okami). --MASEM (t) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The link you gave me doesn't explicitly state that multiple covers are against NFCC. The images used to identify the games aren't non-free, so that basically invalidates your argument. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

They are copyrighted covers and thus non-free. We seek to minimize the amount of non-free, and only allow a single cover image without discussion to identify a work. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In further response to your points:

Things are discouraged for a reason; it is obvious that WP:VGBOX states that multiple boxart images should not be used in the same page and trying to find loopholes around guidelines is unconstructive and undermines the purpose of the guideline in the first place.
This is irrelevant as I've pointed out multiple times - what Sakurai thinks isn't an argument and has no bearing on whether one or two boxart images should be used.
Again, irrelevant. Pokemon Black and Pokemon White are also "not the same game" as you put it, but they share the article and share the boxart - as does every other article on Wikipedia that I've seen. If the games are truly independent, than split the article, but previous consensus is against that.

Also, please don't take this as an attack against you, but referring to an IETF standard simply because not a single policy or guideline on Wikipedia supports it is an incredibly weak argument, if not a non-argument. Please provide a policy-based reason on why two boxart images should be used in the article. Saying "I'm just going to ignore it anyway" is disruptive editing. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For archival purposes, I'll point out that TheMeaningOfBlah changed their username to VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs232 (talk · contribs).--十八 10:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And the user also uses the IP 71.87.73.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--十八 20:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need two box arts in this case. The only reason that I can see that being necessary would be if a second box art received critical commentary, like the Wii Okami box art.--67.68.208.170 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a strong case to be made that these are two different products, each of which are notable enough to have identifying art. Each of the games will have had a separate (but concurrent) development process, each of the games will have significant reliable coverage dedicated to it specifically. A merged article can sustain multiple cover images if each are independently notable, such as New Super Luigi U or Bastion Original Soundtrack. I find the rationale for including identifying artwork for the notable 3DS game to be a lot stronger than the rationale for the second Okami cover (which was quickly replaced, and whose only notable feature (the IGN watermark) is easily described in text). - hahnch e n 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with your statement regarding this, Hahnchen. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please point to the guideline which states how "two different products" (this is contested btw) allows for multiple boxart in the same infobox. The first example doesn't even have a boxart for New Super Luigi U, while the second is a subsection - no article shares multiple boxart within the same infobox, which frankly makes it looks like shit. And all my previous points still remain unanswered, such as VGBOX and NFCC... Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason Super Luigi U didn't have any artwork is because two hours after I made my comment, the article was split. A guideline isn't policy, template documentation isn't policy. The NFC policy does not prohibit the use of multiple identifying artwork, as you can see in The Dark Side of the Moon and other articles implementing Template:Extra album cover. That it's not something usually done in video games does not mean it can't be done. The bar for inclusion isn't whether there's a separate infobox, or a separate article, but whether the subject is notable, and it can be argued that both the 3DS and Wii U games are. I agree with you that it looks shit, it's handled more elegantly in the album infobox, but that's not a policy argument. - hahnch e n 14:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, WP:NFCI#1 has a footnote to this extent, in that cover art is typically presented without additional comment about that, so beyond the one image allowance for identification, all additional cover art needs to have strong demonstration for its need to be there. The WP Music project has worked with NFC to establish the limiting cases where a second cover art can be used. (And "The Dark Side of the Moon" is a bad example, because the remastered album art is discussed in the body of the article, and not just thrown into the infobox without reason). Should the latest Smash game be split between the two platforms? I don't know, but the current way the development and reception is written, I'm not seeing a strong reason to split the two since the games are very much intertwined with each other. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to split articles in order to justify multiple identifying artwork. Going back to music, you see this a lot with songs, where the original and its cover versions all have identifying artwork, and without any critical commentary on the artworks themselves. - hahnch e n 17:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but more comparatively, in working with music album articles, I've seen far more situations where there is different/altered cover art for the same music album, and the extras are almost always deleted due to NFC concerns... Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying "a guideline isn't policy" does not mean you're allowed to simply just ignore it; especially since you haven't provided any policy-based rationale for inclusion whatsoever despite repeated requests to do so (additionally NFCC is policy, and having multiple boxart in one infobox almost certainly a violation of "minimal usage"). Saying "music articles do this so we're allowed to do it as well" is a weak argument because 1) WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, 2) the covers are never placed in the same infobox, and 3) it is a violation of policy anyway. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple subjects allow for multiple identifying artwork. In this case, there is critical commentary for both 3DS and Wii U games. The examples I've listed above are not a violation of policy. NFCC has nothing to say about infobox placement, if you think otherwise, you are wrong. - hahnch e n 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How is it "multiple subjects"? Is Pokemon Black and White also "multiple subjects" to you? How about the two different versions of Sonic Generations - do those deserve separate boxart images as well? Or maybe we should include boxart of all platforms for any game on multiple platforms? One image per infobox is a good way to ensure that the "minimal usage" requirement of NFCC is not ignored, as Masem as explained to you above.

So far, you have not provided a single policy or guideline that supports your side of the argument, despite the other side having already supplied several, such as VGBOX and NFCC, which supports theirs. Instead, your side tries to find loopholes around them, such as "we know VGBOX discourages this, but let's do it anyway!" If you choose to respond, please provide a Wikipedia guideline or policy which explicitly supports your side of the argument. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple box arts on Pokémon Black and White and there has been for years. NFCC is the policy that supports multiple identifying art for multiple subjects, I'm not sure how much clearer you need that to be. - hahnch e n 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Other stuff exists isn't an argument, but for the specific case of the Pokemon (1)/(2) paired games, the idea is that neither title is the landmark one (they are meant to be equal) so to put one box cover over the other is impossible to do. On the other hand, with Smash here, the Wii U version is clearly the flagship title, not that the 3ds one isn't as important, but clearly less important than the Wii U version, so we can make a selection as to one or the other. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the argument was the second sentence, the first was a refutation. Your "which is more important" argument is off topic. - hahnch e n 21:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I dunno where you pulled "NFCC is the policy that supports multiple identifying art for multiple subjects" from, especially when the page makes clear that a "minimal number of items" must be used (there is also absolutely no reason to treat them as "multiple subjects", especially since all other video games on multiple platforms are treated as one subject). VGBOX strongly discourages multiple boxart in the same infobox, as I've explained numerous times, and saying "let's ignore it" to a guideline, as you have done, is not appropriate. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

:As for Pokemon B/W, I wholeheartedly disagree with using the cover for B2/W2 in there. It won't be an issue once it's split out, but presently, there is a main subject, B/W. B2/W2 is a part of the article only because it's not yet notable enough to not be. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

B/W2 is clearly notable enough for its own article, and it has been since probably before its release. Just because it isn't in its own article doesn't mean it shouldn't have identifying art. We judge the requirement for identifying artwork on the subject, not where that subject sits. - hahnch e n 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but for the record I was talking about B/W, not B2/W2. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

So what is the outcome of this? Both images are still present. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To me, it looks like there's reasons why we could allow both, but not really any saying that we should keep them both. NFC and precedent (Pokemon and Sonic games, for example) are against it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A stronger precedent is Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons, which are two explicitly different games with only one cover. I don't see any real discussion over the second cover's design, so I don't really see why it needs to be in the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Two explicitly different games should have two explicitly different covers. Neither cover may be discussed, but a notable subject justifies identifying artwork. - hahnch e n 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a limit as to how many games can be the primary subject of an article before there are too many covers? Or do you feel that if Smash 4 had 10 different versions that were equal, we should have 10 game covers?

The problem with your logic is that if Smash Wii U was notable enough to need its own identifying cover, it would need its own article too. I mean, let's take Super Mario Advance for instance. SMA is a notable game - a launch title for the Game Boy Advance and the progenitor of a series of games - but it is not notable enough to need its own cover. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is not a clear agreement on having both, I'll remove 3DS by default since NFCC's is quite strict.

This is just a case of a home console game that has a handheld counterpart with or without other counterpart(s) released elsewhere. These counterparts would benefit the most having their exclusive contents described in text. If these counterparts have such stark differences from the home console version to the point of critical commentary, then consider adding another gameplay image reflecting that commentary. Writing up a fair-use rationale for that is more solid than additional cover art. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

NFCC isn't so strict that it disallows the use of multiple identifying artwork, which is why I dislike how it's thrown about as a trump card. The issue is whether the two products are different enough to justify two identifying artworks. I'm fine with how the article currently is, but I'd defer decision to the editors who have contributed content to the article, not just the NFCC gnomes. If you go with one image, I suggest the current 3DS lead. - hahnch e n 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Official "knows stuff about lists" position

This past week I was appointed one of the three FLC delegates, which means mainly that I close FLCs and FLRCs; more useful for WP:VG it means that if anyone has any questions at any point about lists, featured lists, or the featured list process, I'm not only knowledgeable but certified! Feel free to bug me any time. --Pres N 17:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

wat iz list Salvidumbass! (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

list iz tabuls. chairs optionul. --Pres N 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

what is game? (also grats) Axem Titanium (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Only a Featured List delegate? Shameful. GamerPro64 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked, you were only a delegate yourself, mister! And Lists is an older, more established project than your upstart "topics". --Pres N 22:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pokémon up for GA reassessment

Pokémon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. On behalf of @DragonZero, czar ⨹ 10:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential June TFA

God of War: Betrayal is up for nomination to be TFA on June 20, the game's 8th anniversary - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/God of War: Betrayal. --JDC808 ♫ 16:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Flight Unlimited is also up on the 7th for it 20th anniversary.--67.68.30.244 (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the Manual of style for Japan-related articles

Please come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Megami Tensei inquiries

This is a general inquiry/request for help from anyone who has an interest in the Megami Tensei series. I am clsoe to completing a major rewrite for the series article with the intention of bringing to GA, but I am lacking references concerning many of the subseries (Maiji Tensei, Last Bible, ect.) Could anyone provide me with GA-acceptable references giving reliable release year info and such. You cna leave them on my talk page and I'll take them into my sandbox for use. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, cancel this. I've managed it with a few miracle sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Bandwidth usage

Is there some accepted source of information on bandwidth usage of different online games? Is there a site collecting this information that can be used as a reference? I understand it can be different depending on the game modes. I don't think the game authors will improve bandwidth usage unless they are measured on it. Some games seem to take 100+MB/hr and others are KB/hr of game play. Bpringlemeir (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, though Wikipedia wouldn't be the place for it anyway- we don't cover specific technical details like memory usage, bandwidth, etc., or even system requirements. --Pres N 22:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I organize a development section properly?

So I started reading the dev blog for Thimbleweed Park, and realized that almost the entire development process, including a lot of detail about the budget, etc, is documented so far. I've never actually experienced that before (Broken Age comes close, though), so I'm kind of at a loss at how to organize all this information in the article. Do I do it entirely chronologically, and if so, would I make use of sub-sections such as "January 2016"? Or do I have one section about everything design related, then one about everything programming related, etc.? Are there any other games with heavily documented development processes, whose articles I could look at? --IDV^talk 07:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@IDV: Dev section structure changes based on the kinds of sources you have available. Is there lots of chronological dating in the material? You might consider something similar to what I did with Thief II: The Metal Age, where development is broken into several "stages". The older Ultima Underworld is very chronology-heavy, but without section breaks. If you have a lot of material but not a lot of dates, something like Flight Unlimited's structure could work. Or, if you're really swimming in sources, you could do a semi-chronological summary section that directs readers to a full "Development of" article, as seen in Fez (video game). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I'll have a look at these this weekend. In the case of Thimbleweed, there are new posts in the dev blog very often, with information on what the dev team member was doing on that day/week, and what they plan to do next, so... yeah, tons of chronological, dated information. Might do something similar to the article on Fez's development once there's enough to write. --IDV^talk 22:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread XIII: Unlucky Edition

It's been a while since this has happened and currently the project has a large number of outstanding GANs and other articles that require attention, so another review thread is definitely required. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests also has the usual backlog that can be attended to if anybody feels like it. JAGUAR 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

FAC

~~Children of Mana~~ ~~has been nominated since 2 March and would benefit from more reviews or a conclusion.~~
God of War: Ascension has been nominated since 27 April and has no comments.
SSX 3 have been nominated since 4 May and has no real comments

FT

~~Sega video game consoles has been up since 29 April and currently has three supports.~~

FL

List of accolades received by The Last of Us has been up since 3 May with one support and one set of outstanding comments

GANs

Dwarf Fortress (nom) - since 22 April
Kingdom Hearts coded (nom)
MediEvil 2 (nom) - since 28 April
Skullgirls (nom)
Asher Vollmer (nom) - since 1 May
Star Fox Adventures (nom) - since 2 May
TouchTone (nom)
Development of The Last of Us (nom) - since 3 May
Music of The Last of Us (nom) - since 3 May
The Last of Us: Left Behind (nom) - since 6 May
Syphon Filter (start) - since 6 May
Megami Tensei (nom) - since 7 May
Pillars of Eternity (nom)
Ellie (The Last of Us) (nom) - since 10 May
Injustice: Gods Among Us (nom) - since 13 May
Compilation of Final Fantasy VII (nom) - since 15 May

Peer reviews

Fire Emblem Awakening has been up since 18 April one set of extensive comments
MediEvil has been up since 29 April with no comments would you have it...
God of War (series) has been up since 30 April with one set of comments

Miscellaneous

Pokemon is currently up for a GA reassessment since 4 May. This would come to a lot of attention.

Proposal for new structure on Sega articles

OK, I restructured the main Sega article from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=next&oldid=639493832

To this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega

But have I couple more plans besides the initial main Sega article:

Currently these are pages for Sega "divisions and subsidiaries". Official companies like Creative Assembly, SegaSoft etc. makes sense but articles for what is considered internal such as SEGA WOW, SEGA AM2, SEGA AM3, Sonic Team, Amusement Vision, Sega Sports R&D have stuck around and were even created long after Sega announced absorbing it's developing companies: https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/ir/release/pdf/past/sega/2005/20040519_4.pdf Now yes, Sonic Team should keep their page, because they still have an internet presence: http://www.sonicteam.com/ Sega-AM2 is debatable since it has a japanese wiki site, and the palmtree AM2 logo has popped up a couple of times, but really it has no website presence, it now also consists of staff of AM3 too...plus it is called R&D2 now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sega_divisions_and_subsidiaries

Claims such as these also stuck around on pages for a while: "On July 1, 2004 Sammy merged the AM teams into three groups. The merge did not affect Sega-AM2 or Sonic Team." or ". Unlike most of the other old AM departments, it remains a separate division within Sega." All these are incorrect, Sega has been like Nintendo with internal EAD groups for most of it's life. Like most other companies there are simply internal R&D divisions.

There has not been an effort to simply make a list of all games Sega has published and documenting their internal developers from the beginning to now, similar to Nintendo. This has caused to make pages like SEGA PC.

I made this page containing all of Sega games, similar to page from Capcom, Konami, Square Enix etc. List of Sega games

Then there is my sandbox page that is a new version for the Sega development studios page

My plan is to have it similar to the Sega arcade games...one page for the system boards (in my case the development studios), and one page for the games. Except like Sonic Team (for previous reasons mentioned), the rest of the pages would be made redundant merged or redirected. Also this page is redundant too, with this template.

Opinions? Particalury asking the people who have been involved in previous dicussions: @Dissident93:, @Lukeno94:, @TheTimesAreAChanging:

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of your edits on the main Sega page were reverted or edited further by me or another user. Also, List of Sega games and Sega development studios are formatted terribly, and should be more like the Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And those issues with formatting, as well as the latest batch of rubbish without consensus, is why I've reverted. Again. Keep this up, Tripple-ddd, and I will be taking you to ANI to get a topic ban. Also, your ping didn't work. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Again, I question why you go so extreme, when none of these edits are vandalism and are with decent intent. Also use constructive claims and not "this is ridicilious" and "utter mess, you made it just worse".

And again, I just can't know what issues with formatting there are unless you specifiy, we have been over this on the reworked Sega article. Which yeah,as @Dissident93: said, might not have been me completly, but it was initiated by me, and through team effort of editing and advice it happened. I would like to do it again, but as I said, with specific input.

Here are the issues I could currently see with my articles, and then you can respond with your problems (again specify the problem do not generalize it)

List of games

Sega studios

The issues I can see with it: Needs more sources, however that has been a problem with many lists, and most of the aforementioned and current Sega articles are unsourced too. My intent isn't to make a GA article right away, as one editor put it, I just want change one bad article to another bad article I guess, as Lukeno94 would see it (where I believe my version is is better). However there is a reason why I tagged it, and the Sega Studios still has some sources I will add.

The list could also be structured better, yes, any advice?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked over this since it was last brought up here. I have a quick suggestion on the Sega article, remove some of the console images, at least temporarily. I know they're free images but they aren't really necessary. Currently, I think they are more detrimental to the article due to how they are squashing information between the long infobox (which I just shrunk a little in my recent edit). It's just making the page harder to read. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
A reply to your final comment. The List of Sega video game franchises page isn't redundant just because the Template:Franchises owned by Sega Sammy Holdings navbox exists. Navboxes and lists have different purposes, both can exist. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with this now, thinking about it, should be reworked rather...--Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Tripple-ddd, if I listed every single issue with those pages, I'd be here for a week. The biggest and most obvious ones, are, however;

A 90MB list of every single Sega game is stupidly oversized. Do you see one list of every Nintendo game ever? No, no you don't. Same goes for Atari.
Even if the list wasn't so oversized, it is largely redundant to the things shown in the Lists of Sega games article.
Merging every Sega studio into one article is dumb. You would end up with a grossly oversized mess, and we know full well from experience that you don't give a damn about whether they're independently notable or not, since you tried to argue that the Sonic Team should be dumped in there with everything else.
Your formatting just plain sucks - massive lists that just go across the article with nothing whatsoever to back them up.
Even worse, you removed tabulated data to create ridiculous numbers of one-sentence lines in the development studios article, and in the process, removed a whole bunch of references (yes, I know they were YouTube videos) without attempting to replace them.
In your development studios articles, the dates are all over the place, and many are blatantly in the wrong section.

So in short, no, your version is objectively worse in both cases, and I'm not being "extreme" when I talk about a topic ban - you are wilfully, and incompetently, messing up live articles because you don't have the slightest clue how to actually do things properly. And the fact that you've managed to make bad articles worse is equally ridiculous. I gave up making "constructive claims" when it became apparent that you don't listen, and guess what? Since you reverted back at one point, that only reinforces the "lalalala can't hear you" even more! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, there sure are lists of every Nintendo game ever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_published_by_Nintendo (not to mention there are many Nintendo lists, which by your standards would be considered redundant)
Sony and Konami also have massive lists over 90MB.

And no it isn't redundant at all, because the Sega arcade game list and lists of each systems, also cover 3rd party games unrelated to Sega, and there no lists for PS2, Xbox etc.

A grossly oversized mess? Are the EAD and SPD Nintendo articles or the Sega arcade system board page an oversized mess too, or any other long article? I just don't get what you mean. And I do care if the development are indepedently notable or not. Or else I woudn't have changed my mind on Sonic Team for example. OK, you say it is dumb to lump the studios together. What do you suggest then? Why do you find it dumb? Also the tabulated data was removed because the games would be in the list, and the there would be a link to the games. I explained how the strcuture wokrs (like the arcade pages, one page for system boards, one for the games)

Massive lists just go across the article? Uh, the list doesn't have any articles, and every list works like that. It is just a list. Again if the format of the list bothers you, suggest something.

And the dates, aren't all over the place. It goes in chronological order..when somone gets a producer or manager position, the persons biography gets quickly described, again if you have problem with this, suggest something--Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You clearly have no grasp of anything whatsoever. OK, perhaps there is a grossly oversized general Nintendo list (which still doesn't make me incorrect, since I was talking about a games list)... that hardly makes this any better. When the vast majority of the games list would be redundant, then the thing an intelligent person would do would be to create a "list of Sega games for the PS2" or whatever. Pages over 60 kB in size are generally recommended to be split up into smaller articles; the existence of other messes does not mean you should be basing your changes on them. You list articles tagged with multiple "this needs improvement" tags for your justification... that's just lame. As for Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development (for example), it doesn't have 6000 single line sentences! It has the relevant things located in tables! The size wasn't the issue predominantly with the Sega development studios article... it was the incompetent formatting that is just as bad as when you started. Something, I note, you still fail to spot. "Hiroshi Kataoka joined in 1992 working with Yu Suzuki since Virtua Racing. His debut as director was the Fighting Vipers series, Fighters Megamix and Sonic The Fighters." - this is in the 2000-2004 section. The grammar is hopeless, there is a distinct lack of punctuation, and last time I checked, all four of those named games came out well before 2000! That is ONE example of the complete and utter shambles you've made. You do realize competence is required to edit Wikipedia, right? Because you are perhaps one of the least competent editors I've come across. If you seriously think this standard of grammar and syntax is acceptable, then please exit to your right, and leave Wikipedia to people who are actually competent enough to edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: (and anyone else who wants to jump in on this): there's a difference between criticizing a proposed article and attacking an editor, and you've crossed it. Cut it out, now, or I'm going to have to start blocking people. --Pres N 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with list formatting, you say? If only some enterprising editor had written a guide to writing good lists of games. @Tripple-ddd: the formatting you tried on List of Sega games is bad (and so is the Nintendo one) - try going for the way List of Square Enix video games is formatted. Given how long your list is, you might consider breaking it up by year to keep it manageable- List of Sega video games (1980-90), etc. You might also try writing it in a sandbox and then moving it to article space only when it's done. --Pres N 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Another, even closer related example list- List of Sega Genesis games. --Pres N 00:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I overstepped the mark, and I do apologize for going too far. I stand by my CIR remarks (that they need to be wary of it as they appear to be fairly badly failing at it, not so much the hyperbole), which I think are pretty justified given all of the things I've seen from this user, but not the rest of the OTT bits. Breaking things into decade lists is probably a good idea, particularly as that would allow it to be more than just a list of articles with little else present. And I retain my strong objection to the arbitrary merging of pretty much every development studio into one big mess, particularly since some of them worked independently on some of the most important games Sega published (and this is disregarding Sonic Team). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: I explained prior how there is no chronological problem on the development studios page, and how it works. When the employee gets a producer or management position, his past biography get's mentioned.

You also provided no evidence of problematic grammar and punctuation. "Hiroshi Kataoka joined in 1992 working with Yu Suzuki since Virtua Racing. His debut as director was the Fighting Vipers series, Fighters Megamix and Sonic The Fighters." This sentence does not have it for example.

@PresN: Honestly I thought about doing lists like Square Enix and Atlus ones, with genres, release regions etc. But I settled for the method which I guess is not considered GA or Featured material.

What is so particulary wrong about having a set-up like this like this:

List_of_Sega_arcade_system_boards (list and description of arcade boards, in my case it would be the studios) List of Sega arcade games (list of games accompanied by the arcade board, list of each of the studios in my case)

One article, desribing all the departments and studios, and one listing all the games. They are lenghty articles, and yes it is not GA or featured, but the arcade pages have not had any complaints. All I would wanna do is change one mediocore article with another, really. Years of statusquo, yes, but it is not good statusquo, by not being attempted to be improved by anyone in years.

The problem is Lukono94 considers it objectively worse than the current slew of Sega articles. By which I mean the development team related ones.

I mean really, the current Sega development studios articles has claims like this "due to disagreements of where the Sonic franchise is headed, Naoto Oshima left Sega"...the current AM2 page has phrases from an 90's magazine and says "monster successes"...the current Sega Rosso page says that it is former Ridge Racer employess. And they are unsourced, at least I have one external source, that yes is just one, and a fanwiki (a japanese one that is considered fairly trustworthy, since the japanese have things like departments etc. readily avaible though hiring sites and magazine previews, and these magazines are probably old by now). But at least it's one source, as opposed to nothing.

And yes, some Sega Studios were notable when they were independent. But really it get's confusing, when putting a seperate article for a period of history of a studio, that continued afterwards with it's lineage but was broken up, and absorbed a different studio etc.

All I want to do is simplify it, and have structure similar to the other gaming companies on Wikipedia. Tripple-ddd (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How on earth do you not see the issue with "Hiroshi Kataoka joined in 1992 working with Yu Suzuki since Virtua Racing. His debut as director was the Fighting Vipers series, Fighters Megamix and Sonic The Fighters." Try reading it out loud (unless you're not a native speaker of English, in which case this may be the root of your problems) as it is written, and you'll see it's all wrong. "working with Yu Suzuki since Virtua Racing" doesn't make any grammatical sense whatsoever. There should be a comma after 1992. The entire second sentence is completely incorrect in terms of grammar (not to mention the missing accent on début). Bear in mind this is just one line of all of the changes you've made, and there are several glaring problems with it. And you're missing the point entirely; you've changed an article that already exists into an objectively worse version. It doesn't matter remotely that article X, Y, Z need cleaning up as well... that's hardly an excuse for butchering an existing article. There are substantially fewer Sega arcade games, to the point where that article is 35kB smaller than the games list mess you made, not to mention that it is below the 60 kB "you really should split above this" size. The List of Sega arcade system boards list is in pretty bad need of splitting due to being well over 120kB; some of those boards are probably notable enough for their own articles (I'm no expert). Besides, you're complaining that the Sega pages are bad, and yet you're using those bad pages as justification for you making one existing article worse, and a mess out of another article? That's mind boggling. We're not asking you to present a GA or FA standard article. Honestly, at this stage of proceedings, I doubt most of us are that bothered, and many of the articles wouldn't ever be able to be GAs, due to a multitude of reasons. We're asking you to provide changes that actually comply with the standard guidelines for basic articles, and so far, you've not only failed to do so, you've refused to even attempt to see where you're going wrong, but continue to insist that you're right. And worst of all, you're making these wholesale, totally-against-consensus changes in live articles - despite knowing full well about your sandbox/userspace, and despite being told for months that you should make your edited version in there! None of us are happy with the status quo, but when the alternative is your objectively worse version, which you keep reverting to over a long period of time... there's little we can do other than revert your mess. You should also note how various editors have cleaned up the main article after your various mess-making sessions with it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Defunct developers can be sufficiently notable to merit their own page. There are still multiple divisions within Sega, as there are within EAD, but their older names are generally better known. Ultimately, not every one of Sega's Dreamcast-era teams has a demonstrable need for a dedicated article, and general guidelines are less important than what works best for a specific topic. Tripple-ddd has certainly bitten off more than he can chew with regard to satisfying the sourcing requirements we would like to see.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the legal name more legit and important, than what they are known for? Anywho, I can add sources to most of the claims in my sandbox - if that is what the problem is --Tripple-ddd (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the most common name is. Sources are but one of the many issues with your mess. I agree with TTAAC that not all of the divisions are notable, but you've tried to say that every single one isn't notable, and only ever backed down on one, regardless of how wrong your position is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok you really can't compare celeberities or famous people that consistently have official media and so on calling them their "unofficial names". In japanese media and official sega japan's hiring sites and similar information it is clearly as follows: CS1,2,3 and R&D1, R&D2 etc. Like here the Linkeldn of Makoto Osaki does not say manager of AM2, but manager of R&D2, or the fact that official internet presence of R&D1, does not say AM1 or SEGA WOW. Or how Sonic Team is rather often referred to as CS2? (here is a japanese interview where this is the case: http://app.famitsu.com/20150203_489144/). And then there are Sonic Allstars Racing credits, which is an international released game if the japanese sites don't count (SEGA Corporation [2] section) which has no Sonic Team, Amusement Vision, SEGA AM2 etc. whatsoever.

Again, I stated that I think having multiple pages for a period of history for a variety of studios, makes it too complicated. Having it in one stream of information, makes it consistent and simple, seeing as they were always internal studios. Like, I mean there is no page for EAD3 or EAD Toyko, they are notable after all in some way. That is my argument, your argument is simply "it's worse" or "you are wrong".

At most, I could dig having time period pages...such as Sega Research and Development Development (1983-1990), and then Sega Subsidiaries (2000-2004), which also include the lists etc.

But then again objectively worse and all that, for now I'll try to add more sources and improve the writing and propose it again later.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for Sega article

This discussion is getting long and confusing so I'm creating a separate subsection just for improving the Sega article. I've been doing some tidying up and sorting out the references. Additional verification is needed in a bunch of places. Reading through it though, I think that some text should be split out of the History section. Some of the information isn't relevant to the company's history and would be better in a separate section titled "Products and services". Does anybody have any suggestions for the article? --The1337gamer (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I could see a justification for an in-depth History of Sega article, myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a seperate history article is too much, someone could write a good in-depth piece with the "Console Wars" book as reference, but then then it could fall of a cliff, with Saturn, Dreamcast and Third-Party section being not as in-depth. Splitting legal name changes, financial performance, buyouts etc. and have a sections for Products and services where there are the notable consoles, games, arcade cabinets, amusement centers etc. would be a decent idea yes. I think however, that the products and services in the article included are noteworthy to the history of Sega, as they either made an impact in international gaming culture, or had impactful financial performance for Sega --Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect

Should redirects like Grand Theft Auto VI, Mafia 3 exist? None of these games are announced or confirmed. Will these redirects violate WP:TOOSOON even they are just redirects? AdrianGamer (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of getting rid of them. Looking at the revision histories for both redirect pages (GTA6, Mafia 3), they were initially created as hoax articles or crystal ball articles (e.g. "Grand Theft Auto 6 will be coming in 2017. On YouTube, theres videos of Grand Theft Auto 6 and mysterys. Make sure to check it out. If you are reading this, this is for real.") by new and single-use accounts that have been untouched for years (Boygamer2014 (talk · contribs) has 9 edits, inactive for 1 year; Spanky666Sic (talk · contribs) has 4 edits, inactive for half a decade), and were subsequently redirected when discovered by new content patrollers. I don't see much purpose of these redirects, until such games are actually announced officially by developers. Plus, they'd be article namespace squatting, and this somewhat discourages content creators who find such things annoying. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I nominated them for RfD. Mafia 3, Grand Theft Auto 6, Grand Theft Auto VI listed here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_9. I also nominated Team Fortress 3 yesterday, listed here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_8. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, rather than looking at whether these are Crystal Ball, it might make more sense to see if people actually use these redirects and think about whether it is useful for them to be redirected in such matter. Around ten people every day "view" Grand Theft Auto VI, meaning that all those people end up at the Grand Theft Auto (series) article. Is that what we want? I don't really know why people look for Grand Theft Auto VI, though - it could even be a typo of Grand Theft Auto IV. Might be useful to at least get them to the main article. Hard to say. ~Mable (chat) 10:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

But they clearly are WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don't know anything about them, and there is no information on the series article about them. If somebody was searching for Grand Theft Auto 6 then they already know about the series and can find the series page easily. We don't create redirects for every other unconfirmed future iteration in a video game, movie, or entertainment franchise. Having a page just means inexperienced editors will remove the redirect and speculative rubbish to it for the next several years. Delete it and page protect creation until the time is right. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

They're not articles, it has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL. If someone forgets the number of the latest game, they should be redirected to where the article is most likely to be found. - hahnch e n 15:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if the person forgot, appropriate search results would appear. A redirect isn't needed. There is no content on any of these titles in the corresponding target article. Portal 3 was deleted on 3 occasions, even after redirection to the series article. Article creation is protected. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

GoNintendo hardware failure, lots of news articles lost

So yeah... GoNintendo had some hardware problems during a server move or something, and as a result most articles from 2014 and all from 2015 except today's and yesterday's, are gone. Additionally, old articles seem to have new URLs. I am aware that GoNintendo isn't considered a great source for WP's purposes, but it it still being used in a bunch of articles here.

This is a good opportunity to take a look at articles using GoNintendo refs and either replace them with a better source or update the URL/add an archived link. Is it possible to get a list of some sort of all WP articles that link to GoNintendo? --IDV^talk 01:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayback Machine appears to have archived much of the site, but as noted by the faq, it might take 6-9 months for the first cached version to appear. I can see September articles but not December ones, spot checking. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo Power Ratings

I was visiting my folks for Mother's day yesterday and had a chance to browse through some old Nintendo Power magazines. I noticed that as I found an old one from 1994 reviewing Donkey Kong (Game Boy), I discovered that game rankings gave it a full rating of 4.1/5. However, Nintendo Power wasn't giving overall ratings at this time, only ratings based on graphics, fun, play control, etc. There was no overall grade, but I think gamerankings was using an average of their scores. Could we suggest not using this site for older Nintendo Power ratings? Or does anyone have any other thoughts on this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a half-dozen pages full review, a shorter review in the "Now Playing" sections, but the only place a score is mentioned is in the summary table at the end of the "Now Playing" section (see here); the average of all four category scores does add up to 4.1, but it appears this "synthesis" averaging is done by GR, and not provided by NP. It's a pretty factual thing but it may, indeed, warrant discussion amongst ourselves as to whether using an average provided by an aggregator instead of the reviewer itself is appropriate. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen this issue before when Wikipedia editors synthesized an average of such a review themselves, but this is slightly more complex. How much impact does the Nintendo Power score have over the total average given by Game Rankings? Seeing as 4.1 is pretty close to the average anyway and that it only constitute of one-eighth of the average, I guess you could argue the impact is minimal. But it isn't entirely right either. "Taking out" the Nintendo Power score would create even more issues, partly because aggregations keep the manner they calculate averages somewhat secret. Our only other option seems to be to take the Game Rankings score out entirely. It doesn't impact the prose, so it's a fair solution, but it might be a bit overboard for a slightly skewed score that is largely subjective anyway. ~Mable (chat) 20:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Eventually NP do go into an overall rating for a game, but I would use their prose for our own and maybe noting specifically higher scores. If we can determine when NP changed their scoring, we can figure out when it would be appropriate to use gamerankings. If it was more modern games that had pages and pages of review I'd be okay with it, but when you only have 8 reviews for one game, one incorrect review can slide the scales a bit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Eight isn't even that bad - I'm sure there are quite a few games in the late 80s and early 90's that got four or less reviews, one being from Nintendo Power. In that case, I guess using an aggregator that doesn't keep this in mind wouldn't be a good idea. ~Mable (chat) 04:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The choice of GR to summarize the NP score this way isn't a problem as long as it is done in a consistent manner for all other games from NP that were scored in the original manner. For us, if we cite the NP review, obviously we should not say it is 4.1/5 because that is OR, just as averaging the 4 Famitsu scores to get one would be too. But for GR to do that it is fine as long as they did it consistently. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015's TFA

We have two Featured Articles that will appear on the main page this month. On the fourth we have Secret of Mana. And on the twelfth, Batman: Arkham Asylum. Congrats to the editors who got the articles to what they are now. GamerPro64 15:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't know who those editors are, though. It's a secret. (Darkwarriorblake did Batman: Arkham Asylum - congrats to him!) --Pres N 17:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

New addition: Anachronox will be up on May 26. Congrats ZeaLitY and GamerPro64! --Pres N 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I just realized you're the only person so far to acknowledge that Zeality did the most important stuff to Anachronox. I just spruced it up and nominated it. GamerPro64 20:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with deletion

I have some articles that I think should go through the AfD or ProD processes, but I'm not sure what checks I need to carry out first. The articles in question are:

I feel that there is no value to having these, and that they violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I find it difficult to describe exactly why. My reasoning for picking these articles out is that they seem to just carry out the function of their respective categories, Category:Video games developed in the Czech Republic, Category:Video games developed in the Netherlands and Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom, and that having articles containing these types of list is clearly not seen as necessary for other countries. But is this enough of a reason? I felt that they might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but when I looked into that it seems that I would have to conduct a search for sources myself in order to justify requesting deletion. This seems wrong, as my issue is that I think the article couldn't be notable, regardless of sources. So is it not a notability issue? And therefore, is it even valid to ask for deletion at all? Hopefully someone here will be able to help me or take up the cause and add these to articles for deletion so it can be properly discussed.

Communal t (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories do not make lists redundant. Beyond that, I would strongly disagree with any deletion proposed along these lines, and I find it baffling that you think that a list of game companies from the United Kingdom would not be notable. For someone who seems to have an immediately strong grasp of Wikipedia procedure for such a new account, your interpretation of notability is miles out... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Even if I am wrong about notability, there are guidelines in place to stop lists like this from being on Wikipedia. It is the reason that the (now defunct) Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat was created, and why terms like Wikipedia:Listcruft exist. What happens in 20 years when 100 more UK developers have entered the market? I could literally incorporate myself today and produce a terrible, unlicensed copy of Candy Matcher and be eligible for inclusion on this list. And I don't believe the fact that I am new here is relevant. I've clearly tried to do some research, and posted this to what (I hope) is an appropriate place to get some advice. What happened to WP:BITE!? Communal t (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Check out WP:CLN, it has a run down on the purposes of lists, cats, and navboxes. Note that the overlapping category argument should be avoided in a deletion discussion (see WP:NOTDUP). --The1337gamer (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to keep an eye on this gigantic list which has survived four AfDs. In this case lists can make finding stuff easier and having what something is known for at a glance. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"e-sport"

The stylization of 'eSport' is under discussion, see talk:electronic sports -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Time Warp

Cor, have a look at Lost Saga, its like articles used to be in the olden days; its even got flagicons in the infobox. - X201 (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

All it needs to be complete is a Trivia section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Kamen Rider: Climax Heroes has got a massive Playable characters table - X201 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at CSR Racing: challenge list, car list, separate tier car lists, crew member lists, boss car lists, vehicle stats and upgrades listed, season rewards list, campaign tour list, bosses list, microstransactions list, achievements list. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Video game template changed again

I noticed that the data in the video game reviews module has changed the long pipe names, so that means that I no longer have to use "width=26m" anymore, right? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You should never really have been adding such style, but sure, if you're happy now with the width, do stop. :) --Izno (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it, Izno. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Vagrant Story edit dispute

There is a dispute going on between an IP user then ‎User:Mimic716 and myself on the Vagrant Story article about tweets from the game's developer Matsuno. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the developer's statement based on his tweets. The game seems to be retconned by Square Enix as being part of Ivalice, when originally it was intended by Matsuno to be on a separate universe, and any Ivalice references made is intended as a trivial allusion or "fan service" as quoted from the developer's tweets. However, User:Mimic716 insists that "...this does NOT mean that the games take place in different worlds or universes..." but fails to cite a reference. I've been going back and forth on this, close to 3RRing. I'm requesting ways to address this dispute better. — Bl ue 。 20:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Game Club - Insurgency (video game)

I've been in contact with the Insurgency developers regarding a free media release, but have been too busy myself to write even a half-way decent article. Insurgency is a multiplayer first-person shooter for Windows and Mac, it is a standalone sequel to the mod, Insurgency: Modern Infantry Combat. The game has a score of 74 on Metacritic[1], and is quite popular for an indie FPS with 1k-2k concurrent players daily[2]. It was released in 2014 and is actively supported.

I thought that other editors would be interested in writing an article, and the developer has donated 5 free copies of the game for this purpose. If you'd like a copy, send me an email. Each key will only go to an active editor who has previously worked on video games content. It requires Steam.

Please don't send a request if you have no intention of editing/creating the article in the near future, and please don't send a request if you don't have the hardware to run it. The developers are also interested in having editors upload screenshots and video in future, and then releasing those as free-use, but I haven't formalised this yet. - hahnch e n 21:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Composer/credits in remakes

Quick question I wanted to confirm the answer to before I start addressing this. I've got an IP going around and removing composers from various HD/3D remakes, like this, stating that because the composers didn't compose new music for the new release, they shouldn't be listed? Is that how we do it? I wouldn't think so, as it in no way implies that they did create new music, only that their music was in fact featured, which is true. An HD/3D remake with the original game's music is still featuring the composers work, right?

Anyways, just double checking in case there's a thought process I'm not aware of here. Let me know. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Template doc says "List people who contributed significantly to the soundtrack." If the remake uses the original composer's music then I think they should be listed. Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary lists the original composers even though the music was rerecorded and transcribed by different people. Whether they created new music for the remake or not is irrelevant in my opinion. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my thought process as well, and its also how it seems to be handled in general prior to this IPs actions, but I just wanted to double check... Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and The1337gamer: The template needs to be updated badly, to be honest. I think that if a composer did not directly contribute to the project, even as a supervisor, he/she shouldn't be credited. Do we add Koji Kondo to every game that has a single Mario jingle, even if wasn't apart of the project at all? Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary doesn't use any original music AFAIK, so I think it's fine they credit the original composers (same with Kingdom Hearts HD and Wind Waker HD), but if it had around 50:50 on new music, I think we should only credit the new guys, especially if having every composer listed would be more than 5-6 people. I've been trying to build a consensus regarding this field (and other personnel ones) here, so if you could leave any suggestions, that would be great. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Dissident93, my particular issue though, is with remasters. If a game is remastered, but the soundtrack isn't altered, why wouldn't we credit the composer? The music may not be new, but they still composed it. They are still credited. Why wouldn't we list it as such on Wikipedia? New or old, it's still their work. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Maybe I didn't word it correct, but I agree with you. Games with just "remastered" music should credit the original guys (unless it also had new music by new composers, then they would be credited as well) If a game only has, let's say, around 25-50% of "old" music, then it gets a bit difficult on keeping the old composers, especially if they didn't work on the project at all. Most remastered games these days have the original composers actually doing the arrangements themselves, or at least serving as a supervisor on the project, so it's not an issue here. I should also add that for games with many arrangers, such as the Smash Bros. series, we only list the game's original composers in the infobox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you said. I'm glad we've got a consensus going here, though the IP refuses to comment here, or stop reverting... Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes to developers/publishers and related categories by IP

Earlier reports

176.248.107.108 (talk · contribs) has been making quite a few changes related to publishers and their categories, such as "rolling up" publisher/developer credits from the subsidiary that made the game to the parent company. I've reverted some of it myself, such as including Activision Blizzard as a developer on Blizzard games. Another example would be where they removed Sierra Entertainment from some older games as well as new ones since it's reactivation and replacing with Vivendi and Activision Blizzard. Some of their edits appear to be straight up improvements, and everything seems to be 100% good faith, though I did do a warning after they repeated some of the changes once I'd asked them to stop on Blizzard articles. The user has edited under multiple IPs and I believe maybe 2 registered accounts, based on some page histories.

The IP is also adding categories for publishers to the articles, and I'm not 100% sure what the stance here is... For example, should the Ubisoft video game category contain games developed by Ubisoft, or also published by? Category:Vivendi video games was apparently created and populated by this user, but I do not believe Vivendi was ever a developer directly.

Someone else may need to review the edits and see if any other cleanup should be made. My watch list was mostly related to Activision Blizzard games. -- ferret (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was recently having a very similar problem with 31.52.7.7 (talk · contribs), who was going about adding Nintendo as a publisher or developer to virtually every game that's ever been on a Nintendo platform. I just recently blocked them because they refused to stop or discuss, and keep introducing a lot of errors into articles. They were non-negotiably wrong, things like Nintendo developing Sonic Colors or Disney Infinity. So, I guess keep an eye out for it in generally, everyone? Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User is now editing as Zachary rules (talk · contribs). I'm at 3RR on my watchlist articles.... -- ferret (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked both the IP and ZacharyRules, Ferret. The IP has been making the same sort of erroneous edits without stopping or discussing as the IP I came across, as is Zachary, who just happened to create his account right at the time I blocked the first IP address... Sergecross73 msg me 04:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

86.139.95.89 (talk · contribs) is now engaged in this. This time adding Vivendi Games as the developer for multiple games, even those released long after the Activision Blizzard merger. Edit history behavior suggests it's the same user. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across another one earlier in the week too. They must be the same, as I can't imagine multiple people would have the same basic fundamental misunderstandings as to what it means to be a publisher. (For instance, seemingly thinking every game on a PlayStation console should list Sony as a publisher.) Blocked both for block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

176.24.181.122 (talk · contribs) and 176.250.202.128 (talk · contribs) may be worth a look as well. Seem to fit same pattern - X201 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Crash zachary (talk · contribs) as well, though now "dormant". -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeesh, I didn't realize how much of a problem this was. Those three are all dormant now, but still, this has been going on since February... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to even begin to really clean this up. The user, over multiple usernames and IPs, has made hundreds of changes. One I just noticed on the latest IP was adding XBox 360 category to games that aren't released on 360. Finding the usernames/IPs involved can partially be solved by looking at the edit historiies for some of the (partially valid, partially not) categories they have created, such as Category:Vivendi video games and Category:Activision Blizzard games. Category:Microsoft games is another, the user has made it a sub-cat of 5-6 other categories, such as the Xbox category. -- ferret (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ferret and Sergecross73: Got a new one for you: 77.96.101.235 (talk · contribs). They made these changes on Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix and Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Behavior looks the same to me. Adding Sony as a publisher for games just because they are released on Playstation. I cannot block, not an admin. Probably needs entire edit history reverted.... -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Now operating as 90.220.112.68 (talk · contribs)... are these proxies or something? Exact same behavior. -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you filled an WP:SPI yet? It might be worthwhile... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Rolled back. Salvidrim! - is this something your amazing check user/range block skills could help us with? Otherwise, everyone just keep notifying me of them, and I'll keep blocking and rollbacking... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so I'm a Checkuser now, ain't I? Bloody marvelous! I wish someone would've told me sooner, I could've squashed more ne'er-do-wells. More seriously though -- IPs are across many ranges, so a simple admin range-block won't help. Filing an SPI might help documenting things and blocking accounts, and SPPs are likely to help too. Sorry I can't be much more help! ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I was thinking you had CU rights. Anyways, if someone wants to file an SPI, that's fine, but I have no problems with blocking per WP:DUCK and documenting it here or my talk page personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Now operating as 2.126.202.120 (talk · contribs). Just started up looks like... -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted most of those edits. Found another from two days ago while checking article history: 67.255.219.44 (talk · contribs). – The1337gamer (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked both IP addresses. --Pres N 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone involved, I missed this one. I was about to say "you guys can just report it straight to my talk page" if you want, but I suppose if its posted here, there's a chance someone else like PresN could help. Whatever you guys prefer works for me. I'll keep helping with it regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Newest IP: 86.163.219.42 (talk · contribs). Same behavior patterns. Mixture of good category updates with bad changes to infobox fields and inappropriate categories. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was unsure at first, but then these edits cemented it for me, as this person was once again proposing that Nintendo published all these Sonic and Crash games. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: 2.126.56.27 (talk · contribs) appears to be the newest incarnation.--十八 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Serge blocked him, and I rolled back all his edits. --Pres N 23:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I only had time to block him and rollback a few edits at the time. Found another one today by myself - 90.195.158.128 (talk · contribs) - too. Already blocked and reverted. Same kind of issues, misguided category choices. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another: 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs). The1337gamer (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Tag teamed by PresN and myself again. Thanks all! Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible new hit, 90.222.22.159 (talk · contribs). Primarily adding Japanese publisher categories, i.e. adding "Sega video games" to a game publisher in Japan by Sega. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught that one too, since I have most things Sonic on my watchlist. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@PresN and Sergecross73: another new "90" IP 90.208.223.148 (talk · contribs). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Found another, 86.163.219.23 (talk · contribs). -- ferret (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, no, I see this one is a return visitor after block expiration. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't been blocking the IPs for very long because they've never returned to an older IP/Account so far. I kind of assumed they were doing that thing you can do in FireFox where you can hit refresh and get a new randomized IP address, in which they can't/won't usually return to the old IP address. I'll start blocking for longer if they're going to return to old ones... (Also, re-blocked and cleaned up.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Another User:2.220.194.151 - X201 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

And another User:2.126.57.175 - X201 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and rollback'd both. --Pres N 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Found another today, cleaned it up already. Another returning one, so I'm starting to make the blocks longer. Also thinking of starting to protect some of the pages that are repeatedly being targeted. Some of the Crash/Sony/Nintendo related pages. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another User:94.10.4.121, could we add any of his usual edits to the edit filter? - X201 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:90.222.19.240 is today's. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted both yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:90.222.57.67 is today's. -- ferret (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Second of today, actually, I was alerted of one directly on my talk page. Both blocked and reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon! User:90.222.19.1 is today's. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Pres N 22:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Another I think. Only 4 edits but they seem to be the same as the previously blocked users: 2.124.56.69 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, same type of mistakes in regards to video game creation, like listing listing Square Enix a developer for Tomb Raider). Blocked. (There were over 10 by the time I saw this- they move fast.) the issue hasn't been slowing down, I've found 2 or 3 IPs in the last few days. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This one seem to have been missed. 90.222.58.107 (talk · contribs). Hasn't been active for a week but making the same publisher changes, and listing Sega as a developer on Sonic articles when Sonic Team is already listed. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, what you listed above, in addition to a number of the other edits the IP made, were all classic traits of this same vandal. I've cleaned up and blocked. Side note: I've never seen someone so misinformed about video games, yet so stubborn and adamant in trying to make their changes anyways. And they refuse to engage with any discussion beyond "I think this is good" type generic edit summaries. Is this person really that misguided, or are we getting trolled? Regardless, I'll keep cleaning this up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've collapsed the older reports, and slapped together a consolidated (and sorted) list of the past users:

-- ferret (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

2.124.58.118 (talk · contribs) just started. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Pres N 15:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, he actually left a comment on his own talk page. That's the first time this person has actually tried to communicate with us, and based on how its written, I imagine its the same IP hopper. I've left a message on the talk page, we'll see if we get anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, probably not. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Move this from talk page

@Ferret, X201, Sergecross73, PresN, The1337gamer, Juhachi, and Favre1fan93: Can we either move this to WP:SPI or WP:LTA or set up a separate subpage (at e.g. WP:WikiProject Video games/Abuse) for this? Given the continuing activity, this talk page is probably not the best location for the continuing reports, which are are mostly being made experienced users. Or look into an WP:Edit filter for this continuing behavior? --Izno (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I guess? I don't see a problem keeping it here...what are we, short on space or something? I don't really see any other avenue working any better. As you said, a lot of experienced users are already on this, and no ones got anything better than this, which I don't personally mind - it's easy to clean up with rollback. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My point is that this is becoming routine and does not (particularly) impact the work that one would use a page like this talk page for, which is for (variously) collaboration on articles and discussion of contention on articles. Since these reports/problems are routine at this point, I figure it should get its own subpage (or otherwise) for interested users to track to let the rest of us who use this talk page for more substantive stuff to do so. (If you want the really sad answer, it clutters up my watchlist with stuff I really don't care about--I suspect a number of other users don't care either--and I figure the people who do could stand to have this on its own page so they can have their regularly scheduled WT:VG back.) Besides which, a talk page really isn't the best place for this kind of stuff. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the discussion of cleaning up the work of a vandal recurring exclusively on video game related articles isn't appropriate for the WPVG talk page? If you're not interested in it, just ignore it everytime that section title shows up on the WATCHLIST edit summary. That's what I do every time someone starts up another GA Review begging thread... Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. (Don't get snippity.) My point is that the collaboration is becoming a routine factor on a day-to-day basis, making it a better fit for its own page. Other abuse might also be able to go on a page like the proposed /Abuse, though I can't think of any off the top of my head (I know we've had a few cases of continuous abuse).

I had little difficulty ignoring it when it was still a new topic of interest, but its continued presence on this page day after day is obnoxiously wearing. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any bad faith assumptions towards you, its just that I think you're way off base here - anything affecting video game related articles/issues on Wikipedia is allowed to be discussed here. Beyond that, this issue happening across such a large number and variety of video game articles, so its helpful to have a lot of visibility on the problem - moving this to a sub-page no one except a few people monitor is counter-productive to the efforts to monitor and combat this. Like I said, I see plenty of topics that come around on my watchlist that I don't care about, but I don't have the audacity to go in and say "Hey guys, don't really care about this, so go somewhere out of my sight to deal with this so I don't have to keep ignoring you." I'd understand if we were talking on your personal talk page or asking you for help or something, but that's not the case, I'm merely asking you to ignore it, which is hardly placing much of burden on you here. Just remember the section titles you don't care about, and don't check those ones pop up on your watchlist. Super simple. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

One suggestion I will make is that this should be a new topic every month. So that the older stuff gets archived. - X201 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest this because of two reasons: a) it's still on this talk page, and more importantly b) the information is not collocated. I don't think anyone wants to go digging through archives to understand the history of the problem. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

10 Featured Topics

With the passing of Sega video game consoles, WP:VG now has 10 featured topics in total! Congratulations to Red Phoenix, Indrian, SexyKick, and TheTimesAreAChanging! (and me, I guess.) And thanks to all the contributors to the previous 9 featured topics, as well as the contributors to our 14 good topics. --Pres N 05:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty impressive milestone. Closing in on MILHIST's count of 14! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Though it doesn't help MILHIST that they keep combining their existing topics into supertopics like Battleships of Germany and Battlecruisers of the world. --Pres N 21:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality over quantity when it comes to topics here. GamerPro64 23:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Roman numerals vs Arabic numerals on The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Should the article title use Roman or Arabic numerals? An editor pointed out that cover art now uses Roman numerals so I moved the page to The Witcher III: Wild Hunt. But another brings up the point that the official website uses Arabic, I've noticed that a lot of other sources seem to use Arabic numerals so I've moved it back to its original location. Are there any other examples of this where both styles are being used in different places, which should it be here? --The1337gamer (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We do mix and match roman/arabic in running series (see GTA for example), so I would say to use the website/box cover take, which seems to be most official. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Default to what the established video game journalists use. I don't see any outlets using "Witcher III" regardless of how the box art is stylized. As Masem mentioned, the refs in GTA IV all use "IV" rather than "4". If the refs used "4", we'd go with that. – czar 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the Polish title does use Roman numerals. Not sure if that's the actual Polish title though. --Soetermans. T / C 16:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed it back. The Polish version of the website uses "3" as well. It seems like only the cover art uses Roman numerals. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Task force cleanup re: genres

Following up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 106#moving forward on task force cleanup consensus, I see two options on ways to handle the remaining, dead task forces:

Create new genre task forces, e.g.,
Action & adventure (merge adventure, Castlevania, Devil May Cry, Mega Man, Mortal Kombat, Silent Hill, Soul), FPS (merge Call of Duty, Gears of War), Retrogaming (merge arcade, retro), RPG (merge D&D, not the separate project), Strategy (merge C&C)
Deprecate the above task forces instead of merging into new genre task forces.

Salv mentioned last time that genre TFs would be vague and I can easily see the genre task forces being template work that doesn't actually help anyone. Genres TFs could be useful if editors needed to coalesce and unify article style/jargon... but I don't see a need for the above genre TFs. If there was a need (and, again, these TFs have been inactive for years so I don't believe there is one), company-based TFs would be easier to organize than franchise-specific TFs. So while I was more for option #1 a year ago, I think option #2 (deprecate the above TFs) makes more sense now. Thoughts/consensus? – czar 22:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Gears isn't an FPS. Merge it with Xbox instead seeing as Microsoft own the IP now. --The1337gamer (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe not calling it FPS but Shooter, as it is much closer in gameplay and nature to Call of Duty and better handled there than by everything Xbox/Microsoft. Not that Gears games can't fall under both task forces, but I would say that the Shooter/FPS/TPS task force is much closer to task than Xbox. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  - Also, Arcade =/= Retro, and MK/Soul Calibur are fighting games, not action-adventure (seriously!?), and technically any of these series can be argues as unfitting to the "act-adv" genre archteype -- Castlevania is a "metroidvania", a specific subgenre with RPG elements; DMC is a brawler-adventure, Mega Man is a platforming-adventure, Silent Hill is more horror than act-adv. Act-adv is the most ill-defined archetype ever. I think some genres are explicit enough that a TF for them would work (RPG, Platformer, FPS), but then where do you stop? Are SRPG/MMORPG/JRPGs separate TFs? An MMORPG would be under MMO & RPG? These sound more like categories than useful taskforces. I would be in favor of deprecating all but the most active and current ones: Nintendo, Valve, VN, Sega, Rockstar, Indie, eSports, Arcade. The rest seems like it is more used for mere categorization than for actual project coordination. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't my idea of genres—the above is adapted from comments made in the last discussion. The "action & adventure" TF is not action-adventure but action and adventure, so as to include "fighting" and "platforming" (action genre games), which editors did not want as separate genres in the last discussion, if I recall correctly. Anyway, I don't see the use in such sorting for WPVG's purposes, which is why I agree with you on deprecating all of the block quoted, inactive TFs. (On what basis are you calling Arcade active? I've seen no activity there and its line is also blurry in including arcade-genre/style games and not just games released in dedicated arcade cabinets.) If you think we should deprecate Atlus, BioWare, etc., I say we leave that to a later discussion as they are more useful than the ones block quoted above (baby steps). – czar 04:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Salvidrim- most of the existing task forces are dead, and it would be better to just deprecate them than to try to merge them into over-broad category task forces that would then themselves die off. --Pres N 04:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

All right—option two is the clear favorite. – czar 18:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Task force cleanup pt. 4

I cleaned the low-hanging fruit from last year's cleanup. Here are a few more that have been inactive for years. Should be uncontroversial, but wanted to make sure there is no final objection before clearing them out:

Atlus, BioWare, id
arcade, retro, strategy
The Sims, Ultima

We could also deprecate MUD, Atari, PlayStation, and Xbox, but they see more occasional activity. Thoughts? – czar 18:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a Console taskforce might be worth while as a merger of Atari, PlayStation, Xbox, especially if used to help maintain the growing number of hardware console articles and the related templates. We did a fair amount of work on the main Video game console template a few months back, but it was all on the template talk. A console task force might have been useful there as we merged and redirected a dozen or so templates in the end. -- ferret (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As a request, can you archive this/related discussion to WP:VG/IPC/WT:VG/IPC? --Izno (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. And the Atari TF is more focused on the company than the console, apparently, but let's see if there are any takers. I'm afraid it'd be a lot of merging for a lot of maintenance (what is the scope—console hardware?) and little ultimate benefit. – czar 19:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup category of the week

Hey all, since we've done a great job in the past few months knocking out some of the cleanup categories, I thought I'd bring to y'all's attention one of the smaller ones remaining: Category:Video games articles needing attention. Only 20 articles in it! This category is intended for articles "needing immediate attention"- which means that there's some major issue with it beyond just "it's a start-class article". maybe a section needs to be deleted, maybe a table is terribly formatted, whatever. It doesn't take much to clear this category- pull up an article, look for the major flaw that requires "immediate" attention, and remove the category (or |attention=y from the talk page template). Don't see anything you think is worthy of "immediate" attention? Go ahead and remove the category anyway- it's certainly an easy category to abuse. If a few people poke at this, we could be done in a day.

On a side note- does anyone know why Category:Video games with 3D graphics exists? Ran into it when knocking off a few articles from the attention category. It's... certainly under-populated for what it says it is. And pretty unusable if it was actually populated. --Pres N 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across Category:Video games with 3D graphics a while ago and thought it should probably be deleted. Seems pretty useless with the abundance of 3D games. Another one I came across that is massively underpopulated is Category:SteamPlay games. Any game released on Steam for more than one operating system is classified as a SteamPlay game I believe, so that means +1800 games, a significant proportion should have articles on Wikipedia. I was thinking it should probably be deleted as well though as I can't find many articles mentioning SteamPlay, it seems like a non-defining feature to me. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see either of these as being needed. Category:Video games with 3D graphics could have made sense in the 16 bit era where these types of games where they were quite eare but now they are a dime a dozen.--67.68.30.244 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ done – czar 15:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I finished the Category:Video games articles needing expert attention cat too. The only ones left are the Warcraft characters that I have already said I think should be merged as not independently notable. "Expert attention" isn't a great backlog category—I was cleaning out stuff from six years ago... If someone wants input, the best way to handle it is to start a thread here and ask people to watchlist the article in question or to do something specific to the article. I think we should be looking at deprecating this "expert attention" category as duplicating the function of the "attention" category (which itself should really be named "immediate attention"). My own take would be to phase out both "expert attention" and "attention" cats altogether as both poorly scoped, do not entice editors to adopt articles, and never adequately explain explain the perceived issue in need of an expert. The video game cleanup and normal tags suffice, and posting at WT:VG is even better. (Also see Template talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 10#Proposal_to_remove_the_attention_tag.) Thoughts? – czar 00:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove both - neither the "attention" cat nor its "expert attention" subcat get any attention at all- there were things in there from years ago, and clearly no one is monitoring either one. Additionally, no one seems to use it combined with an actual explanation of what needs attention- slapping "|attention=y" on the talk page doesn't say anything, and most of the articles I saw had the same issues as any other start-class video game article. --Pres N 02:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy Forest land before dragons

I have made a site called Fantasy Forest land before dragons. I don't think you have talked about this game yet. Please visit the page. Click this link Fantasy Forest land before dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsliangel (talk • contribs)

Hi there. Some opening thoughts:

You need to write article with the use of reliable sources. Some commonly used ones can be found at WP:VG/S. I've found one usable for you, its: http://www.148apps.com/reviews/fantasy-forest-story-review/
Secondly, is the game's full name Fantasy Forest Story: Land Before Dragons? That's what its showing up as for me on the App Store. If that's correct, we should change it to that. If your title is correct, then we just need to fix the capitalization - titles are supposed to be in capitals, except for a few words, like "and" or "of"... Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-titled the article for you, assuming that's the correct title. Another user ended up moving the article to the draft area, as the article was pretty short and didn't have any references. You can still work on it there until you get someone to review it and see if its ready to be put in the Wikipedia mainspace. It can now be found at Draft:Fantasy Forest: Land Before Dragons Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy Story, another one of your one-line, unreferenced creations, has just been deleted also. You are welcome to draft it at Draft:Fantasy Story with reliable sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Year of release in lead

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before (and searching through the archives I couldn't find anything) and WP:VG/DATE didn't give me a clear answer, but I was wondering if there's a guideline or even a clear consensus if the year of release should or shouldn't be mentioned before the actual genre and before the full release date. See for instance Call of Duty: Black Ops III: "(...) is an upcoming 2015 first-person shooter (...) and is expected to be released (...) November 6, 2015" or Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag: (...) is a 2013 historical fiction action-adventure open world stealth video game (...) a sequel to 2012's Assassin's Creed III‍ (...) The game was first released on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and Nintendo Wii U in October 2013 and was later made available on the PlayStation 4, Microsoft Windows and Xbox One in November 2013", mentioning 2013 three times and 2012 too. Articles like Battlefield 4, Mass Effect 3 or Super Mario World also put the year first. A lot of articles do not have this however. Any thoughts? --Soetermans. T / C 06:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems redundant to me because the full release date is usually always mentioned in the lead and often in the following sentence. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just omit the first "2015" so it just says "X is an upcoming (genre) game set for release on (date)". (Is the redundant wording just a leftover from an era where no release date was known other than the year?) Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't we use [[2003 in video gaming|2003]] a lot back then? --Soetermans. T / C 13:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:VG/DATE has a little bit on this. (Note that it recommends not using the full release date in the lede at all, though I imagine it is important for a game that has not yet been released.) There isn't one set style for your question, and that's all right. I prefer to put the year in the first sentence because the first sentence of the lede is where most readers and crawlers are looking for basic information. It isn't redundant because I normally put the release date after the lede's Development summary, which usually gets its own paragraph. As long as there are several sentences between the first sentence and the release date, I think it's fine. I agree on removing the release year redundancy from Black Ops III's opening sentence. – czar 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It does seem a it redundant to me as well. There are also some cases where saying "X is a 2013 game" is also not entirely helpful; games with HD remasters, or games ported to newer systems with significant, noteworthy changes being made. Describing GTA 5, for example, as a 2013 game would not fully reflect the history of the game, particularly due to the fairly major changes made when it was ported to the next-gen consoles (e.g. first person mode) in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Would the reader know immediately from reading the first sentence that it is in fact the year of release? Black Flag starts with "a 2013 historical fiction", I can imagine that for someone not familiar with Black Flag (or just the term 'black flag') might think for a second that it a historical fiction set in 2013. What Lukeno94 pointed out, it doesn't reflect the history of the game. Some are years in development, some MMO's are still actively being developed further after release. --Soetermans. T / C 13:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The Early Access side of the coin is also worth considering, and it's a particularly pertinent question for, say, Minecraft. Is it a 2011 game, as that was when it was released on PC in a "finalized" version? Or is it 2009, as that's when the public alpha came out? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This particular issue also extends to categories and episodic video games (Telltale stuff). Minecraft is categorised as 2009 video game, Broken Age categorised as 2014 video game even though second half came out in 2015. Many early access games are categorised by version 1.0/final release date instead. I've been thinking of creating a category for games publicly released in early access/alpha/beta but that's a different topic altogether. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:Video games with an open beta and Category:Video games with a closed beta, etc? Sounds like an interesting facet, but not a particularly defining characteristic. I'd like to see that information captured on say, Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
To me, the year of release is an important factor as a quick read on a game particularly now that the industry is 30+ yrs old. But I do think we need to normalize it on the year of release of the first non-beta/non-early access title (eg Minecraft is 2011, not 2009). Noting things like remakes or original betas/early access, or anything else of course should be documented, and in the case of Minecraft, it should be noted as having been in beta for 2009 (or earlier), since that's a key part of its development. But the "X is a YYYY game..." that year should be a standardized pick. Noting on Broken Age above, if we follow the Telltale games example, episodic games are listed as the year of first episode release, so 2014 is fine. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If we are to retain this sort of style, then I think "2013 video game" should be replaced by "video game released in 2013", or something similar. "2013 video game" is too ambiguous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason that "2013 video game" came to prominence was that the alternatives are either long-winded or grammatically mediocre. "Video game released in 2013" has the second problem: it would by followed by "developed by X and published by Y"; the structure insinuates that we're talking about 2013, rather than the video game. I would be strongly opposed to any systematic attempt to retire the current standard. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

While I wouldn't mind if this stops being a thing, I'll just mention that most film articles on Wikipedia also have a year in their lead listed, both new and old. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I began noticing an IP editor going through articles adding "is a 20xx video game" about a year ago, and have typically reverted it, since the lead sentence was almost always in the format of "is a video game published by xyz in Month, 20xx." In most cases, if the lead sentence itself didn't have a date, the second sentence did. -- ferret (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on this template.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I made a template but I don't think I have made it specific enough. I want to find out if the majority of people think it should be deleted. --☣Anar chyte☣ 06:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The page in question: Template:Navbox video game topics
Talk page: Template talk:Navbox video game topics

Keep

Sign here if you think it should be kept.

Delete

Sign here if you think it should be deleted.

Every game, franchise, company, platform and genre can be a topic in video games. If a template called "Topics in video games" is created, it should contain all articles that are related to video gaming. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete – "Topics in video games" is too vague. Doesn't satisfy the guidelines listed at WP:NAVBOX. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A bold try, but it is way too broad for a functional navbox. There's already {{video games}} used in general articles on video games. --Soetermans. T / C 13:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking consensus from other members

The current Infobox animanga/Game template doesn't include the same personnel fields (director, composers, artist, etc) as the normal video game infobox. As a result, I attempted to add them in, so it would be more consistent, however a user has reverted me, stating that it bloats the infobox. What I'm asking for is for VG project members to help me with a consensus, so I propose three different options:

Leave it as it is currently. (Not something I'd personally want, as it's inconsistent with both the VG infobox and the main animanga infobox as well. Not to mention many games using this template already have personnel listed, such as the directors and composers, but because the template doesn't support it, they don't show.)
Merge all the same personnel fields as the normal video game infobox to this one. (What I attempted to do, although the user does have a point in that it would be bloated, which hopefully brings us to option three)
Only include the main roles, including the game's director, producer, and composer. (Would solve both problems of the listed options above. The main animanga infobox for anime series and films already has these three listed, why doesn't the game one as well?)

Any thoughts or suggestions? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think option 3 is a good compromise. I would go with Director, Producer, and Writer, personally. "Bloat" is a fairly valid issue with the way that animanga infobox templates get stacked on top of each other. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I still think the game's composer should be listed as well. All the other templates listed there have the "music" field, including the audio drama one. But if only these three would be included, it's still an improvement. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is actually in the wrong venue as this is an anime/manga infobox template sub-component. This discussion should have been held at WT:A&M whom covers the primary topic area in which this template is used. Second, your only argument so far has been that these fields exist in other templates, however, you never explain why these fields are even relevant in this particular template. Unlike how director, writer, and music composer have huge impacts on the look, feel, and pacing of an anime television series, film, or OVA, this is largely not true for minor video game spin-off. I'm not talking about the various shōnen inspired fighting games that often get their own articles, but the ones that cannot meet the notability requirements or whose anime/manga spin-offs are far more notable. How is naming these individuals important for ... Shugo Chara! Three Eggs and the Joker in Love!?

Second, bloat is a very real issue for the anime/manga infobox. There could be fields in the other sub-components that can be removed to reduce the bloat. However, that is outside of this discussion and again, just because these fields exist elsewhere is not justification to include them in this sub-component. The fields that should be in any of the anime/manga template sub-components are the ones that are most relevant to the general topic. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"The fields that should be in any of the anime/manga template sub-components are the ones that are most relevant to the general topic." So director, producer, composer, and writer? I understand what your point is, but how come audio drama gets these, when most of the time it's unknown who the director/producer were, and the music was re-used from the game/anime it's based on? Is adding three more values really adding to bloat? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's try this again...new Sega article structure

So my previous proposal got shut down by @Lukeno94:, due to, in his view, poor grammar and no references.

So I redid mainly the first article to meet his standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox

Purpose: Replacing content of Sega development studios, and also merging it with following pages Sega AM2, SEGA Hitmaker, Amusement Vision, Sega WOW, Smilebit. The above has a better detail and sourced content of it's material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox2

Purpose: Actual list of all Sega games, Sega developed and published, as a previous one did not exist. Highlights the above mentioned departments and studios and accompanies them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox3

A new list for Sega's arcade games, replacing the former List of Sega arcade games. This will the List of Sega arcade video games, developed or published by Sega. It has no medal games, photobooth machines and prize games, or mere distrubution of titles unrelated to Sega. These games will be featured in their own respetive articles such as medal games, where all of Sega's (and other companies) medal games will be included. Same goes for Purikara machines.

Opinions?

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 1: I'm still objecting to your arbitrary merger. Sega AM2 received coverage of their own and worked on a huge number of major Sega arcade games. You've never once acknowledged this. This means they easily justify their own article. Hitmaker are smaller, but as the developers of Crazy Taxi and the Virtua Tennis series, they probably justify their own article. Amusement Vision were owned by Sega but weren't a Sega development studio, so that's hardly an appropriate merger. Sega Wow may justify a merger, as may Smilebit. But with other companies, even the minor subsidaries often get their own articles (see EA Montreal and various other EA ones), and I see 0 value in having one ridiculously oversized article which will be poorly structured and make very little sense. Your modified article is as bad as it ever was, with dates that are absolutely all over the place, lots of single-sentence lines, tables with totally unstandardized widths and laughably obvious grammatical issues ("non-japanese company" is in the first freaking sentence of the article!)
Proposal 2: Terrible idea. As has been explained to you before, a list like that would be grossly oversized - and indeed, the article in your sandbox is just that. Plenty of totally arbitrary sections as well. As was pointed out before, if you must make these lists, then have them by decade.
Proposal 3: You're replacing a poorly formatted and thought-out list with another poorly formatted and thought-out list. Bad idea.
In conclusion; please make proposals with things that meet Wikipedia's standards, and please actually listen to people's responses - in the first draft, I'm struggling to see how you've changed anything since multiple editors (not just me, and stop trying to make it look like I'm the only objector here) pointed out how bad your formatting was, and even after we pointed out specific issues... issues which you've blatantly ignored. Short form; sort out your mess, or stop mucking around. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For the 2 game lists (sandbox2 + 3) you should probably take PresN's suggestion from the last discussion. Break them down into multiple articles "List of Sega video games (1980–89)", "List of Sega video games (1990–99)" and so on. Might want to use a sortable table instead of just bullet points for them as well; then readers can sort by year, title, platform, development division, etc. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Well I'm not seeing the issue with grammar and formatting in the first article, all I can do is to leave it someone else to fix that, as I pretty much did my best. Your point on "non-japanese" also makes pretty much no sense. And I did change stuff: do you not see the over 100 citations I added? Regarding the importance of each studio, AM2, AM1/Sega Wow/, Hitmaker/AM3 are all equally important in arcade games, and Amusement Vision was a Sega development studio, got a source on that? The EA studios are different, because they were always official subsidiaries, housed in different locations. The Sega studios were always in Tokyo, and effectively only the names changed, like I said it is complicated and treating it the same as Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development is the better solution. And the article does make sense, dates aren't all over the place, I already mentioned how it works. When an employee gets a producer or manager position, he gets a quick biography. I also don't see the oversized issue, I have yet to come across videogame articles or lists where this is an issue, so please point me to one. Articles that have been around for year upon years, without much complaining that you are judging as a "mess". But I already said this, like you said we are repeating ourselfes. What gives you authority on reverting anyways and judging long-standing statusquo articles such as this one as a mess? You haven't created a single video game article, and neither contribute much. My articles are sourced, and are just "different" mediocore articles, neitehr striving for GA or FA status. Nobody but you is objecting, and insist that they are objectively worse. I might have to talk to an Admin if you continue to be unreasonable.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

How does my point on "non-japanese" not make sense? Anyone who understands the English language knows that it should be Japanese, not japanese! And that's the first sentence - if you are this incompetent when it comes to writing, then what are you doing here? The issue is not your referencing, it's the fact that you are not listening to anything people have to say about the issues with your grammar and syntax, even when we repeatedly tell you what is wrong. Amusement Vision was a second-party studio as the article describes, and Sega development studios would be first-party companies. It doesn't matter one jot where the subsidiaries were housed. The dates are all over the place, and because of your hopeless formatting, it makes it a nightmare to read. "You haven't created a single video game article" - sorry, but you're totally and utterly wrong there. In fact, it's hilarious that you can say that, because it just proves your incompetence further. Colin McRae Rally (video game) - note the lack of two hundred thousand single-sentence lines there. "Nobody but you is objecting" - probably because most people have given up on you and your WP:IDHT ways, but people certainly have objected in previous discussions. You keep saying the same rubbish about GAs and FAs over and over... but your proposals are objectively worse in numerous ways that I, and others, have repeatedly described over and over. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and trying to force your changes in in the middle of this discussion is just plain dumb. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So, it doesn't look like any of these proposal's are picking up any steam. I know there have been a lot of changes and reverts, but is it possible to bring things back to however they were prior to all of Triple ddd's changes, and just work on sprucing that up, rather than all of these major restructures? Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

On the articles in question, I don't think there's any major difference right now - indeed, one of them is simply a redirect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So the articles' current status is largely how they were before Triple ddd started all of his restructures? Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Seems like you are continuening to judge things personally and not make proper arguments. You are the only one claiming that the articles are a nightmare to read (and you can't compare your game article with my article documenting employees), and you are also the only one who keeps reverting articles (with a couple of exceptions on Sonic Team and Sega AM2 articles). Also nobody else said that the article is objectively worse. Who else said so? Point me to it. You say it doesn't matter that that the subsidiaries were always first party in-house studios located in the same place, well to your standards what does matter? You are claiming that AV is a second party studio, but do not provide a source. You clearly don't even seem to care given you never give suggestions to anything, but rather just complain. Thanks tough, for pointing out the issue of capital letters in instances, that is indeed a problem, tough I can't see others.

@Sergecross73: It is not very likely that people will participate in improving the current slate of Sega articles, given their state for more than 5 years now. I hear the suggestion of making multiple articles per decade (for both lists of games and studios), which I'm seeing as inconsistent personally. No other article is set up this way. So why should the Sega ones be the exception.?

I'm saying, if no one can agree on major restructuring, then I believe the focus should be to improve the content/sourcing of the articles as they currently are. All I know is that I've seen a lot of editors opposed to your ideas for one reason or another. At least one has contacted me directly about it. There's not consensus for your proposal, and it seems you're relatively new to the website - because it takes quite a while to understand all of Wikipedia's nuances, I don't recommend new users move into massive overhauls so early on. Its not a hard rule, I can't force you to follow it (though you can be forced to abide by consensus in general), but usually when newer editors try to make drastic changes, they come up on a lot of opposition, which is pretty much exactly what's been happening here... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it is not a major restructuring really. I added to the current articles with content/sourcing, and didn't remove anything, or at least the content did not receive complaints. And then there is new one that did not exist before (list of Sega games). If I would try from sratch again (as most likely nobody else would try), the articles would end up the same as my proposed ones. @Lukeno94: has made intangible claims, such as formatting and inconsistent dates, so I can't really base anything of this. User:PresN suggested to make an a split for articles on studios and a list for games. Which is what I did. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So let's get this straight; when presented with evidence that I have written video gaming related articles (which is what you said I'd never done - I'll quote you directly: "You haven't created a single video game article"), your defence to having your bare-faced lies called out is "not relevant"? Good one. Almost every single person who has commented on the state of the articles themselves has said your formatting is poor. I've documented multiple issues with it several times, including right here in this thread. The very first line of text in the main body had an obvious error in it, when you displayed a nationality using a lowercase letter. I've pointed that out several times as well, and not only have you failed to acknowledge it until now, the mess you dumped into mainspace (AGAIN) still had that very same error! If you are incapable of spotting such basic errors, then you shouldn't be editing. Period. Oh, and don't try and call the "no one else has reverted" card... plenty of people did earlier on, and the only reason that no one else is right now is due to the fact that I'm getting there first. Go ahead, look at the history of Sega development studios; you'll see that, in March, Dissident93 and TheTimesAreAChanging were reverting you, not me. You can also see how it didn't take me long to spot that you were adding your mess into mainspace before I reverted you, meaning no one else had the chance to. AV's own article describes it as a second-party studio, use your damn eyes for once! Stop lying, stop bullshitting, and either actually listen to people who have replied here, or leave Wikipedia to people who actually do listen. But look at this the other way - not one person has, as of yet, reverted back in any of your wholesale changes. Whilst multiple editors have reverted you across various articles. That says EVERYTHING about the mess you're making. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

- You are the only to revert articles that I made after PresN suggestion (who made a clear suggestion unlike you) of splitting studios and list of games. Also no proof on if you would have truly been the only one to revert these articles. Again give suggestions, on the supposed "poorly formatted article", which goes to @Dissident93: as well. Tell me, how would YOU format an article that decribes divisions and their employees and managers and what they have done?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tripple-ddd: I would format it like the Nintendo EAD article, personally. I'm aware that Sega has many more 2nd party divisions than Nintendo, but your sandbox versions are terribly formatted. First of all, list games by order of release, not alphabetically, Secondly, remove the "Western Publishing" subtitles, as only Sega developed games should be included (to simplify things). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and if you look at the time stamps, you'll see that I reverted each time soon enough that no one else would have chance to. I constantly point to how many single sentence lines there are, or otherwise ridiculously short paragraphs, and you keep ignoring that. The only reason my suggestions aren't clear to you is that you're deliberately ignoring them. On one of the previous discussions, I laid out in fairly great detail the issues with your structuring, and you haven't solved any of those issues. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

How would single sentences and short paragraphs generate a problem for the person reading it? This is made to highlight each person, and not get lost in a jumbled mess. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing that is written to anything approaching an acceptable standard relies heavily on single-line paragraphs. That's "acceptable", not "GA/FA". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to see a rule on Wikipedia on this. Point me to it. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's just a general English writing rule. Sentences are supposed to be bunched together on a single topic, and even they can deviate some and still remain relevant. You adding multiple single-sentenced paragraphs looks both ugly and unfinished. Try to read WP:MOS to get a better idea of how the ideal Wikipedia article should be formatted. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Silly Dissident- don't you know everything is in the MOS? WP:PARAGRAPH. --Pres N 21:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, good find, I didn't know that one either, I just knew basically what Dissident said - it's basically considered good writing with the English language. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not surprised at the existence of that link, I didn't know about it either - as everyone else has said, it's considered good writing etiquette to use paragraphs properly. And, I would expect, the same thing applies to most other languages as well, at least for those that use the same character set as we do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)´

"One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." So there is seemingly still the exceeption rule; and one sentence paragraphs ARE used sparingly. Why can't my article be an exception due to the way it is structured? @Dissident93: Again, explain how the formatting is terrible. I see no particular difference between the EAD article and my articles on how the user can read out information easily. I see this Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development#Software Development Department section in the EAD article as worse. It documents departments and personell is one jumbled parapgraph, how is that better for the reader? How about bullet lists for each of the employees, would that be better? Why remove Western Publishing? This is a list of Sega games, like the Konami, Sony, Microsoft etc. lists. Why should a Sega be structured differently? It is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and would actually make it more confusing. Also it would require alot of effort from to reorganize hundred of games in chronolgical order again. The List of Sega arcade games is also in alphabetical order, and it has stayed this way for years now. Aagain I don't plan to really improve the article dramaticily, my main intent is to simply seperate developed and published games. Years ago, someone added the entire Sega development studio to the main Sega article and it has stayed there for years, why are my, in comparision, reasonable changes suddenly such an issue? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no fucking way they are used sparingly. Sparingly means once or twice in an article. Even when your paragraphs are longer than a single sentence, they're generally only a couple of sentences long, and that happens over and over and over throughout the article. Just because other articles are worse does not mean that you get to lower this article to a standard below that! We've already pointed out that there are many issues with some of those articles, and some of them, yes, -shock horror- need splitting up into smaller articles as well. I'm going to make this even blunter than usual; if you can't see just how your formatting is unacceptable after a multitude of editors have pointed it out, please go and find something else to do. You're wasting our time now by saying the same thing over and over again, and not seeing just how much of a mess you're making (or listening to 75% of what is being said). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't be asking "Why can't my article be the exception?" - you should be explaining "Why should it be the exception." Just because you could, doesn't mean you should, you know? Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: The rule is that articles can still consist of short paragraphs, if there is a good reason, and have yet to see an argument why this could not be the case of my article. And my article being a standard is hyperbole. Provide constructive arguments instead of lamenting everything as bad. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "short paragraphs", which are perfectly fine, and consistently using paragraphs that consist of one to three sentences, and take up one or two lines. That is not how things should be written in English encyclopaedias, or any English language source that even attempts to be of an acceptable quality. It is hardly "lamenting everything as bad", it is you consistently failing to understand how the English language works, and how you could possibly be wrong.Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: What does formatting have to do with the english language? So what do you think the Google or Disney articles with their short paragraphs around the end of their history sections? In my opinion just doing one paragraph like this Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development#Software Development Department, is worse. Tell me you think this its better. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Those articles are just as poorly formatted in those sections... as has been said multiple times, the fact that other articles have the same problems does not mean that you can make the same mess here. Oh, and their problems are still smaller than the ones you created, because the quantity of super-short paragraphs is far smaller. Quite what you're pointing to with the Software Development Department section in the Nintendo article there is beyond me, but there's very little wrong with it. Imperfect, yes, but a darn sight better than your mess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I don't want to get too involved but short paragraphs in any article is considered bad formatting and I would certainly fail a GAN if any section contained many one sentence paragraphs, such as those in Google and Disney. Triple D, I would strongly recommend familiarising yourself with WP:PARAGRAPH or even the GA criteria to help you with formatting things smoothly. There's actually nothing wrong with that short paragraph in the Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development article as it it serves as an opening to a table section, which is the only exception. JAGUAR 16:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: So I made a revision on my sandbox. Is that better? What else would you suggest?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The paragraphs are no longer an issue. The table formatting still is; it's inconsistent in the extreme, none of the title field entries are actually sensible word choices, and the fact that they're fairly aimlessly dotted around the article is not good. Nor is the fact that there are persistently single entry tables everywhere. Whilst the tables were not great before, they are certainly more consistent and more informative. To be perfectly honest, the tables already contain all of the information that there needs to be in the original article anyway (although I'd trim the titles present); most of the studios have their own articles or would justify their own articles. There are numerous issues beyond just that, including things I've documented for a long time, but other things include the ridiculous listing of every affiliated company, which appears to be highly inconsistent with the one in the existing article; just having a plain list like that gives no context whatsoever (particularly a totally unreferenced list), whilst the existing article uses tables to give context. In my opinion, these would belong in a separate article regardless - but your version is certainly worse. Quite frankly, I don't see how your version is ever going to really be an improvement, due to excessively duplicating existing articles which have every right to continue existing. Your article is still oversized at 80kB as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94:Tables? What tables? The article consists of words, not tables. Information that is already elsewhere? The current studio list article and current studio articles document next to nothing and not as in detail as my article does (with the exception of the Sonic Team, which might be the only duplicated thing). But so what? Shigeru Miyamoto and EAD articles duplicate certain information. No context for affiliated studios? They are affiliated studios, I could add that these companies that Sega partnered up for published releases, would that be ok? Please respond back about the following things:

Explain yourself again, but do not use the worlds and the phrases "tables", "single entry tables", "field entries", "dotting around", so someone could make sense of what you are saying
What info have I duplicated aside from the Sonic Team articles?
Are you ok with the content of article, or do you not like the way it is written? Because I can make little sense of what you are complaining about
Are you actually aware that "List of games" is supposed to link to the actual list of games of my other sandbox articles?

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Anything in a class="wikitable" thing is a table. That's kinda implied by the name. It is impossible for me not to use the words/phrases that involve tables, because that is exactly what they are. Every other editor here should understand exactly what I'm saying, and it is hugely concerning that you cannot. The larger amount of detail you've gone into on some of the companies is better suited to the main articles. A list of development studios should be a summary, not in-depth. Yes, I'm aware of exactly what the List of games is supposed to link to (I'd already checked), and it's not appropriate given that the massive List of games article you're proposing is not appropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: This is a table:

Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

This is a text:

Wikipedia (Listeni/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or Listeni/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ wik-i-pee-dee-ə) is a free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Those who can access the site can edit most of its articles. Editors are expected to follow the website's rules.[6] Wikipedia is ranked among the ten most popular websites[5] and constitutes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[7][8][9]

Tables are barely relevant in my article so I just don't get what you mean, especially not in the context of what you talk (dotting around, what do you mean by that?). Also the article is not supposed to be a list of studios but more like the EAD article, which I already established.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know what a table is. I'm not a moron. Your article is full of those, but with only one entry. How the hell are you not seeing that? I'm aware it's not supposed to be a list of studios, I just didn't describe it properly. The article should summarize each company, not describe everything about them, and it should do so in as coherent a manner as possible. The "dotting around" is a reference to the fact that the tables are not well positioned within the article, particularly in the 2000 onwards sections. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been lurking around this conversation for a while and I'm surprised this hasn't really been brought up for a while, if at all. @Lukeno94:, while it may be frustrating that @Tripple-ddd: is breaking rules outlined at WP:MOS, you are breaking rules outlined at WP:CIVIL, specifically name calling ("if you are this incompetent when it comes to writing") and being too intense ("That says EVERYTHING about the mess you're making."). We are meant to be helping this user improve his lists, not make him feel more agitated; at the end of the day, that approach will get us nowhere. If you have frustrations, please try to walk Tripple-ddd through what you're saying calmly, and if that doesn't work, ask for some help from other editors. Wikipedia is meant to promote a cooperative environment, and your tone is going against that. BlookerG ^talk 20:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried walking them through calmly. They have selective reading. It doesn't work. Look above at what happened when I tried - their response were some blatantly ridiculous questions, such as what a table was, and when I pointed that out, they still didn't think they were relevant. Talking to this user is like talking to a brick wall, and it's been the same with everyone who has tried... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice that @Tripple-ddd: has also broken at least one WP:CIVIL rule about acting superior ("You haven't created a single video game article, and neither contribute much"). Although, I believe that @Lukeno94: should not have continued to instigate further disagreements. BlookerG ^talk 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, in your first response to this thread, you called one of Tripple-ddd's ideas "terrible" and said that their grammar had "laughably obvious" issues. That doesn't constitute as calm to me, and I'm sure it isn't seen as calm by others. Try saying that an idea is "flawed" or somebody's grammar has some problems. The "laughably obvious" part is unnecessary. Secondly, asking questions no matter how simple they may seem to you is never "ridiculous" as you say, and you have continued to call them another name ("brick wall"). If there is absolutely no way you can talk to this person, then discuss what action should be taken with others in a calmer manner. If you feel like Tripple-ddd is problematic, then more serious but civil action can be taken. I think you are somewhat missing my point. BlookerG ^talk 21:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite how you think doing this is going to help ease tensions is beyond me. I attempted, at points within this thread, to point out the obvious issues in detail and as neutrally as possible. I then got the responses that I mentioned above. You're not helping matters here, but are now causing another side distraction. And quite frankly, if you think that me saying that talking to Tripple-ddd is like a talking to a brick wall is "name calling", I don't know how I can help you - it's a well known phrase and has absolutely nothing to do with name calling... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that both @Tripple-ddd and @Lukeno94 need to calm down. I'm considering pushing for an interaction ban; every conversation between the two of you is incredibly heated, even ignoring actual CIVIL violations. Yes, Tripple-ddd's proposed changes have numerous grammar, formatting, and logistical errors. No, I don't think they should go to mainspace in the state they are in. No, that does not mean that either side needs to be this angry or contentious.
Going forward- if I continue to see CIVIL violations (from either of you) I'm going to start on escalating blocks. Given the intense opposition to Tripple-ddd's proposed changes, however, I'm also going to consider any attempt on Tripple-ddd's part to push his proposed articles into mainspace as vandalism, and react accordingly. --Pres N 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

An interaction ban would take me out of any discussion for the future of the Sega articles right now. That would not be helpful or fair. I'm also displeased that you also appear to have ignored the fact that I have tried, several times, to recollect myself and start stating things in detail and as neutrally as possible, and yet I still have to say the same thing three times before it is actually acknowledged/understood (if it is at all). For what it's worth, if I had the time, I would set out my own sandbox proposal, but that is not something I will have for another week. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

An interaction ban would take me out of any discussion for the future of the Sega articles right now - yes, that's what an interaction ban means. I know that this discussion can be (very) frustrating. It still needs to stay as a (relatively) calm discussion, without excessive anger or namecalling, no matter how justified you feel you are or actually are. There is a line; don't cross it. I'm just making sure that you know what the potential consequences could be if you do cross it; it's up to you to police your own actions. It's okay to just not respond to Tripple-ddd if you are feeling angry; it's not like you're the only person who thinks his proposed articles need a lot of work to not be reverted. --Pres N 22:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tripple-ddd: What sandbox did you edit recently? Your sandbox2 should not include the titles that Sega published, only developed. And why are there "era" subheaders, but the games themselves are not in chronological order? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: So I don't know what you mean with the tables, the only thing I can see is that some aren't 100% in width? Is the existence of the tables not justified, due to just linking to a list? If the latter is the case, I revised sandbox1 again, to see if you like that approach better. About the detailed "company descriptions", have you actually read the content? I might actually explain it further, in case you didn't get it. Sega has always had "divisions" not "companies" for most of it's life (which went largely uncredited, making seperate articles and attaching games dificult). It steadily grew into 9 divisions, and became "companies" in 2000, but even that is questionable as these companies were never actually officially shut down but continued to exist, just without names. Mergers that happened in 2003 and 2009 makes matter even more complicated. For example, the Initial D Arcade Stage game went through 4 divisions - first Sega Rosso, then Hitmaker, then AM3, and now R&D1. Having the information (as a history article) of a singular group that spread apart and got singular again makes sense and is coherent. Expalin to me why that isn't the case @Dissident93: The era subheaders contain games within that era. I ask again, why does Sega need a seperate list for published releases when other companies don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripple-ddd (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the other big game company articles are just as badly written, it's just that nobody has gotten around to them yet. Having every game a huge company ever published seems way too bloated, especially for one like Sega. I think that info would be better suited for a Sega specific Wikia. Listing every game they developed, (based on the Nintendo EAD page), would already be big enough, but wouldn't be as badly formatted as your sandboxes are. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again; the fact that other articles aren't done in an optimal way does not mean that this article should be done in a sub-optimal manner. Those can be improved as and when people get around to it. The existence of the tables is justified, but the way they were structured in the existing article is much better than in your proposal, as they actually served a purpose there, and are informative - more so than your proposal is generally. The way that article is structured is generally better as a result. It doesn't matter exactly what the exact buzzwords for each division/section/whatever of Sega were; if they worked independently on major titles (not talking about gaming franchises, but individual games), as most of them seem to have done, they justify their own articles, just like the divisions of any other company. It also doesn't matter where they were based, for that matter. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: My proposal is not informative? What do you mean? It is sourced, it describes personell and the games they have worked on. The tables describe the division head and the division. Explain yourself on why you find things "uninformative" or "incoherent".--Tripple-ddd (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not as informative, because the tables give no context whatsoever, and the prose focuses far more on personnel than such an article needs to. I haven't once used the term incoherent in this particular discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: You said this: "and it should do so in as coherent a manner as possible", implying you think it is incohrent. The tables give no context? What? The table contains information about the division, the division head, and links to the list of games. What does context even mean in this case? You are complaining that it focuses too much on personell, what else should it focus on? This is a history article. Should there be a page for all thirty of producers and managers? Not every person on Wikipedia that gets mentioned gets an article. Can you explain to me how this article is more informative, or how it is better formatted? The tables aren't 100 width either (if that's what you are complainining about). I just don't understand. Am I assuming the right things? Tell me. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a history article, which means that it should focus on what was produced, not anywhere near as heavily on the people. The tables before showed exactly what each division did; right now, most of the divisions have been anonymized into very little within your version. No, there shouldn't be a page on every single person involved. I already said the tables weren't perfect in the main article, but they're a darn sight more consistent than the ones in your version are, and actually serve a purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Anonymized? PresN disliked the featured lists in the current version, as it overbloats the article, do you want a list in the article and oversize?. What should the tables in your mind feature? Represntative games?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've already said, several times, the existing tables are too detailed and the number of games mentioned should be trimmed down to just a couple of particularly notable titles, but the tables in your version are pointless and serve no purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

But you said a while ago that the existence of tables is justified? The tables should have significant games, and be more fleshed out, I can manage that. OK, now what else don't you like about my version?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the tables existence is justified. No, the versions in your version don't serve any purpose. These are not mutually exclusive things. I've already documented plenty of other issues with your version on multiple occasions; I am not going to repeat them for a third (at least) time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The only things I can understand from this far: 1. You don't like that the tables are bare 2. You don't like the excessive detail in describing different people (in which you haven't provided suggestions about) 3. Grammar issues (you say it generally, not spefically) Sorry you have to repeat yourself. Just bare in mind, you have to be clear in what you are saying, make suggestions, not generalize, and reference the content within the article in the clearest and most understandable manner possible. Thank you.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Specifics are inappropriate when there are issues that are widespread. I recommend you actually read what you've written in the article, rather than just glancing at it and deciding that everything is perfect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And you generalizing again doesn't help futher. Nobody can know what the problem is, unless you specify it. I spent several months putting and researching this together, I know it in and out. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The information is generally accurate (only had to correct you on certain things). The main problem with your proposed edits is that it's extremely bloated and contains way too much information, albeit mostly accurate, along with being badly formatted according to WP:MOS. If you just followed how the Nintendo EAD article is formatted, I don't think anybody would have an issue with that, honestly. So if you want to know directly how to fix all these issues, here is what I (and others I suppose) suggest:

Get rid of all games Sega simply published. Make a separate article if you must, like List of products published by Nintendo (although this article is formatted even worse than your sandboxes, ugh. Might be the next thing we work on after this)
Only keep games they directly developed for, and try to keep them grouped under the specific team if possible, like the EAD article. I know Sega's dev groups can be confusing though, so this could be a problem perhaps.
Omit stuff that separate articles could handle (I.E. Sonic Team wouldn't have their games listed, so just add a redirect link to simplify things). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to note here that I now definitely intend to knock up a draft of my own once my exams have finished. This will only apply to proposal one, as I remain firm in my belief that neither of the other two proposals are good ideas. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Why do you think having no duplicates makes things less complicated? It's not a practice I see on Wikipedia. 2 articles can cover a different subject but feature some of the same games. And while I can see splitting western and japanese published games, the japanese games are still ihrerently linked to in-house development (producer in Sega Japan).--Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It matters when the article is massive, that's the entire reason separate articles exist. Sega published hundreds of games during the Mega Drive/Saturn era, so I'm saying to omit all of them and just list the games they (and their 2nd party companies) directly developed for. Does anybody else disagree? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: A decade split would be fine by me. For arcade games that would be four decades, and for other games that would be three.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Some offensive stuff

Wasn't sure what to do with this, so I figured I'd note here that User:Andiar.rohnds was doing some odd stuff here (where he went back and forth with some rather offensive content) and more notably, here. I'm not particularly fond of our "buzzword" articles either, but this isn't exactly the kind of behavior we want. ~Mable (chat) 18:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you let an admin know about this? I bet PresN or Sergecross73 would be interested. GamerPro64 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked him for a month, though given he appears to be, like, 12, I expect he'll get a permanent block soon after showing up again. --Pres N 19:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

They also have been blocked twice before. Probably for the best the next one will be permanent. GamerPro64 20:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. A month is good this time, but after his third block, with the next one, I'd support an indef too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Italics for websites

Casting a wider net on this issue, after a disagreement at Talk:Kotaku#Italics. Historically, WP:VG has drawn the line for using italics on print sources (magazines, books, etc.) and no italics for all websites. This is reflected in the usage of italics at Template:Video game reviews since at least 2010. Recently it has come to my attention that the line "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." has been added to the MOS:TITLE page. Should the project revise our current italics guidelines on video game websites? I don't have a strong horse in this race, other than my desire for consistency. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We should take our cue from WP:MOS regardless. And I suspect that on MOS:TITLE (or WP:Article titles?) that such a guideline may not be here to stay in that exact form. Or even, that there should be an RFC at some place more public, because that's a pretty far-reaching change. I.e., defer until the issue is certainly settled. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a disagreement. Italics have been used for Kotaku since 2014 and aren't suddenly in question because of BRD. The line at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized" has existed in the MoS since 2011, but lived at WP:ITALICS before its more recent move to the /Titles page. What italics guideline do we have that needs to be updated? The MoS supersedes any guideline we'd need. I'll add to the point that "Kotaku is a blog" that (1) it is a news blog, and (2) that blogs are still creative works like magazines and are italicized by Chicago, the only stylebook I know to address blogs specifically. And there is precedent for using italics for websites in the reviews template, though it was inconsistent before all italics were stripped in the transition to Lua. WPVG has not in any recent history drawn the line for italics at print sources, and if anything, there is an already acknowledged, clear case based on the MoS (and WTVG discussion history) to update the reviews template with italics for online vg news sources—it's just a matter of someone drafting the code. – czar 06:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not bothered which way this goes. My concern on this matter is the same one I raised ~6 weeks ago, and that was some game websites were italicised and others were not. As long as the result is applied consistently across all game websites then I'm fine. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm with The1337gamer. I was not aware of the MoS guideline until Czar brought it up, instead assuming that the precedent set at the Reviews template would hold. As I said, I'm not strongly in favor of one or the other, merely that we formalize our usage. It's slightly disappointing that The1337gamer's thread from six weeks ago did not result in a consensus; hence I bring it up again here, not knowing of the prior discussion even! Axem Titanium (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else interested in chiming in? This might have an impact on you! Axem Titanium (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for consistency, so I'm fine either way. If you're asking for my opinion, I am leaning more towards not using italics for websites, just so it easier to see in a glance what kind of source it is. --Soetermans. T / C 06:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

My proposal would be to add "* Use italics for online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content" to WP:VG/GL beneath the bullet about italicizing video games. This would bring it in line with the exact language at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works. {{vg reviews}} should be updated accordingly as well. – czar 05:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of this proposal: As stated above, WP:MOS supersedes any WikiProject's style guidelines. My interpretation is also that it's already conventional for the reviews template to be updated such that the titles of online sources with original content are italicized. —zziccardi (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Wikiproject Proposal

I have just proposed a YouTube Wikiproject that would cover any Articles relevant to YouTube People, Culture, Organisations and Business

I would love to get lots of support for this --- :D Derry Adama (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

RMCD Bot malfunctioning

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Electronic sports to be moved to ESports. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BioShock to be moved to BioShock (video game). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) to be moved to Final Fantasy VII (NES video game). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Star Wars: Battlefront to be moved to Star Wars: Battlefront (2004 video game). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Batman: The Brave and the Bold – The Videogame to be moved to Batman: The Brave and the Bold – The Video game. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Survival mode to be moved to Survival game. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for MediEvil (video game) to be moved to MediEvil. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Marcus "Dyrus" Hill to be moved to Dyrus. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within nominated for TFA

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, the first video-game inspired film to be promoted to featured status, is now also the first video-game inspired film to be nominated for TFA. All comments on the nomination are welcome, see here. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I supported. Could also use some comments on God of War: Betrayal's TFA request. --JDC808 ♫ 16:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Game DLC Tables

Did we get rid of these? I was reading this today and thought "does a table exist for this article?" (no) and poked at a few other games that I thought had one, but I didn't see one. Did something happen? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If we're talking all the special releases, I don't think we should document these releases that heavily, particularly with all the various retailer incentives (though however, if there are commentary on the aggressive splitting of content here, that should be highlighted in the article.) --MASEM (t) 18:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember Watch Dogs had a huge table with all the different retail editions and content listed but that got removed. Assassin's Creed Syndicate currently has a largish table which should probably be removed. I think it is more appropriate to just summarise the key content in prose. We don't need to list every little piece of content (like character skins) individually. I think the way that it is presented currently in Batman: Arkham Knight#Additional content is fine. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Japanese games and English covers?

My intention is not to call attention towards a discussion outside this project's scope. It is mostly on how I should handle future works. I was told a Japanese cover is always preferred since it's the original work. However, in the VG articles I've seen, there is always the English localization's cover in the infobox. Why is this the case? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:VGBOX - X201 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, it was a project decision. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in helping with a push to bring GLaDOS to GA?

Basically as the title says. Not only do I want to have some serious cleanup done to the article, but I also want to go through and find sources to expand upon the reception, analysis, and concept and creation sections (since I'm sure that a lot of commentary has been made that hasn't been put in the article as of yet). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind helping out a bit… I started working on the lead last night, but the second paragraph could probably be condensed more. —zziccardi (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, there's MORE for the Development section? I swear, Valve must've had the son from The Purge taking notes the whole time. (Granted, it looks like a good amount is redundant or overly wordy and could be condensed.) Tezero (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests page

Backlog

So this month alone the backlog for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests has gotten three months taken care of. 2011 still has a month in there but I believe that with the summer upon us, articles can be made with the choices presented. And who knows? A new Good Article (which has been done before) or a Featured Article could be made from one of these redlinks. GamerPro64 21:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Redesign

Sorting through the requests (here) is difficult because of the way it's laid out. Would it be possible to make it so this page is laid out similar to this and this? Those pages have them alphabetically and in sections instead of by Month+Year, which can get out of hand very easily. --☣Anar chyte☣ 03:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, December 2014 is out of control because Coin, after he (a) made several hundred sub-stubs of iOS games based on/copied from Metacritic and (b) got a bunch of them deleted due to the whole copying thing, made a giant list of article requests there. I'm not unopposed to redesigning the requests page, though it seems like we've preferred (due to design or inertia) to keep it chronological so we could prioritize the older requests. If we no longer care about that, then we might as well change it. --Pres N 05:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

(I don't really see how adding requests to the requests subpage is a bad thing - after all if it is long then it gives passers-by lots of great ideas for articles to write if they want to try something new. But if you think my additions are "out of hand", then by all means delete them. :) )--Coin945 (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@PresN:I made a very basic idea page that can be improved on as time goes on, here: User:Anarchyte/sandbox/WPVGR. Have the year+month still but include genres inside each year if need be (small things like August 2011 probably wouldn't need it).--Anar chyte 08:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the page is fine as it is, but if we were going to change, I'd prefer that we don't have so many needless headers that will probably be ignored anyway. More useful would be splitting the page into something like Companies, People, Games, Concepts or similar. Sam Walton (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Inception in video game series template

Hi everybody,

Seeing ProtoDrake's message, I checked out Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy. In the infobox, it mentions "year of inception". I didn't notice that field before and I looked up in the {{Infobox video game series}}. The description says "Year of first release in the series", but there's already a field for first release. That's a bit redundant, right? Now, Fabula Nova Crystallis uses the inception field as when it was announced in 2006, which makes more sense to me. But the field is still called 'inception'. Doesn't that sound like when the developer came up with the idea, before it was revealed? --Soetermans. T / C 11:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Compilation

Does anyone know what the compilation field was for on the Video game reviews template? - X201 (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly for aggregate scores. (archived discussion) --The1337gamer (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it is. Having that date allowed me to find it in the source code. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Beyond Eyes

Not sure how to proceed with this problem. The developer of Beyond Eyes, Sherida Halatoe, has expressed a desire to delete all mention of the PlayStation 4 version from Wikipedia. A number of sources say the game is in development for PS4 (including IGN, GameReactor and TheSixthAxis) and Halatoe herself acknowledges a PS4 version is planned, both on Twitter [3] and her talk page, but I assume, due to Xbox One timed exclusivity, she would now prefer we ignore the PS4 version until the exclusivity period expires. How should we proceed. Do we ignore reliable sources and pretend a PS4 version is not planned, or politely decline the request? — TPX 21:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We can't put the cat back in the bag for her if the information came from reputable sources via normal channels. If instead, even if IGN reported it but as a rumor with no point of confirmation, that would be actionable. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. We go by what third party reliable sources say. If sources report on a retraction or something then add that too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The PS4 version is planned, but not officially announced. The article should reflect that specifically. "Removing all mention of PS4" is a completely ridiculous idea. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 TFAs

Coming up on June 7 is Flight Unlimited, while on June 20 is God of War: Betrayal! Congratulations to JimmyBlackwing and JDC808! --Pres N 15:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad that Flight was allowed to hit the front page on its 20th anniversary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That's two God of War TFAs this year so far. Going to try and get God of War III in July and Ghost of Sparta in November. --JDC808 ♫ 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamecruft

If anyone fancies a bit of hack and slash on a list of game items, take a trip to Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 3. Special offer: also comes with a free cast list as long as your arm. - X201 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread XIV: A Thread Reborn

This has not appeared for yonks, so here it is again as bright as ever. As usual, listed are all the pending Featured, Peer and Good Article reviews. The number of GAs is quite high at the moment. As usual, I draw people's attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests, which is still suffering from backlog. Contributions welcome and gratefully received.

FAC

Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy - Nominated June 1, and has three Supports.

GANs

Begging thread

As the creator, I'm starting this. Here we go: I will trade someone's GA game review for a review of Megami Tensei or a comprehensive review for Fabula Nova Crystallis. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Will give you a review of either, your choice, in return for a GAN review of Dawn of Mana. --Pres N 20:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@PresN: Done. Will properly review in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Colons in video game titles

I think this needs standardisation. It seems like there has been a recent trend in not including colons for certain video game titles. As an example, the Assassin's Creed series: Assassin's Creed#Release_history. A bunch of articles titles have colons and others don't. I've seen this with other video game articles as well. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that standardization is needed. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (with colon) and Assassin's Creed Unity (without colon) are their actual name, as well as their commonly used name. This shouldn't be changed because of standardization. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't something that we can standardize unless we can get the video games industry as a whole to standardize. No one uses them consistently- even games where it's "title (line break) subtitle", it's a coinflip whether the company uses a colon or a dash or nothing when they put it in text. it's aggravating, but there's not really anything we can do about it. --Pres N 03:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it started beforehand, but it seems this whole colon issue started with Star Trek Into Darkness where J.J. Abrams intentionally left out the colon. Since then, it seems that video games have adapted this concept of not using a colon (e.g. Killzone Shadow Fall, Infamous Second Son, etc.). It's not an issue of standardization, it's developers intentionally leaving off the colon for whatever reasons. --JDC808 ♫ 03:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's been around for years beforehand. Colons, dashes, nothing- games have mixed and matched, not being consistent with each other, within a series, or in unfortunate scenarios switching between them at will in various promotional materials. --Pres N 05:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well it's become more apparent since then (at least to me). --JDC808 ♫ 05:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's not true. Black Flag doesn't have a colon in officially. None of the Assassin's Creed games have colons on the game cover and official website. What makes Brotherhood and Revelations (colon on articles) different from Unity and Syndicate (no colon on articles)? --The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If that is true for Black Flag (and the other Assassin Creed games), then those articles need to be changed accordingly. A lot of game covers usually don't have a colon because there's a line break, which usually indicates a colon, but a line break on the cover does not always mean there's a colon. The game manual or the copyright info on the back of the cover will confirm if there's a colon or not. Also, when the game is in the system, it'll show up either with or without a colon. What X201 said below me are other indicators to determine if there is or is not a colon. --JDC808 ♫ 18:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A good source for name formatting info are annual reports, investor relations releases and trademark applications, as these avoid the demented styling of the advertising dept. and have to display names in plain typed text. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Small question

For a game that has personnel added over time, I.E. Terra Battle adding composers/artists from Kickstarter stretch goals, do we add the year the game was released (so it would be 2014 on everybody's article worklist) or the year their contribution was added (so 2015 for all the extra composers). MMOs do the second option don't they? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Task force cleanup pt. 5

Consensus from prior discussions was to deprecate all inactive task forces. I wanted to run the next and hopefully final inactive batch past WTVG just to make sure there were no final objections: PlayStation, Xbox, Atari, MUD, Strategy, Adventure. – czar 04:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Annual E3 reminder

With E3 next week, we can expect around 50 new games to be announced (if not already teased/announced already). As in the past, we should discourage new articles on these games unless there is sufficient information beyond the announcement to be written; redirects to existing articles are fine of course, and discussing a sequel or related game in a previous game or existing series article is fine too. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy. E3 again. Let's see if there's going to be more gaffes this year from video game websites. Looking at you, IGN. GamerPro64 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is someone going to be compiling a report of all the announcements like last year? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia or just in general? Pretty sure most game websties these days gives a detailed recap of everything announced. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about summaries like 2014's Xbox E3 Show or Nintendo E3 presser. I probably won't be able to watch the shows live, or I'd volunteer. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Good luck enforcing things - I already see all sorts of super short stubs popping up with all these pre-E3 announcements. This time of year, I find it to be such an uphill battle that I just roll with it... Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The other thing I'm a bit worried about is an uptake of vandalism on certain articles. I recall that the Animal Crossing: New Leaf article got shafted around E3 2012 when no release date for the game was announced then. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

ThomasO1989 - Yeah, I remember that. As always, feel free to alert me on my talk page of stuff like that, I'll gladly look into it and protect it if necessary. I do try to be especially proactive with the vandalism and misinformation going on around E3 at least... Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to help here if I can. I plan on watching the Square Enix livestream (it's happening in the afternoon in my timezone), if that's of any help. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RfD notification

Atsushi Seimiya has been nominated at Redirects for discussion. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 10#Atsushi Seimiya would be appreciated. And while you're there, there's Wort, wort, wort! right below it. --BDD (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For a 3rd time...Sega article proposal

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox This is supposed to replace Sega development studios, making it fuller with more sources.

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox2 Full list of Sega titles, could split it into two if it's considered too big (one article for Sega systems, one for non-Sega systems). With the list of PC games, the current Sega PC article should also be merged/deleted.

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox3 A revamped Arcade list, with purely video games developed and published by Sega. Other arcade machines, verion updates etc. are covered in other articles.

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox5 So this is rewritten text for the current crop of Sega studios, also with sources...I won't replace any of them like I said before, just changing the content within them. Instead of six tough, there should be five (Amusement Vision and Smilebit merged)

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox6 New list, purely for mobile, similar to Square Enix

So again, asking for opinions from @Dissident93:, @TheTimesAreAChanging:, @Lukeno94:.

I know Dissident, said that my articles are not in Manual of Style, referring to bad formatting. But that is still a rough suggestion that I can't make much out of, what are you exactly referring to? Maybe point to something from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting --Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Only going to assess the first one right now, but there are still various glaring typos (Japanese being written in lower case, "Deticated"), there are ref formatting errors and inconsistencies (see the references section whilst viewing the article), the tables are still all over the place, occasionally with row titles that make no sense ("titles" for the Consumer Research and Development Division table), a lot of sources that look unreliable (pointing at random Japanese Wikis), and there are still sentences that make no sense at all ("Once again headed Hiroshi Uemara (Manager), the department further developed more children's card arcade games."), and it still focuses far too heavily on personnel. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94:

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox: In addition to what Lukeno94 said, the tables are also confusing. I mean what does this mean to the average user?

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox2: Again, get rid of all the published titles, it just bloats the article, and should be included as it's own (List of games published by Sega). It should also be listed in chronological order, not alphabetical.

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox3: This is better, but it still has errors such as unused comma marks, and the intro needs to be redone (Remove the whole star system, it's trivial in my opinion).

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox5: What's the purpose of this? Another list of the same games?

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox6: This article could probably just be merged with sandbox2. If you really want to have this as it's own article, then make it more like the List of Square Enix mobile games article you mentioned. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: 1. Well I fixed the nationality capitilization, and added the missing word from that sentence. I don't know what you mean by ref inconsistencies and errors, how should they be implemented better? How can they implemented differently? (can someone edit someone elses sandbox? if that works, why don't you that, and show me directly what you want) I don't know what you by the tables, since the "titles" row, doesn't even exist anymore. The Japanese wikis are still the only reliable source for that content, and there is little reason for distrusting it. The information is from job ads, magazine information and interviews, as well as analyzing credits. Alot of which is unaccessible now and is in japanese. That is still better than the current crop of Sega Studio articles which have no sources AT ALL.

@Dissident93: 2. How are the tables confusing, at most I could see them being redundant...what you are linking in particular just lists the studios, and how they changed. The studios would then have links which are the articles in the fifth sandbox.

3. Why get rid of published titles? Especially the Japanese published games are linked with developed ones, as I said before. Why don't you think an article For List of Sega video games (Sega systems) and List of Sega video games (non Sega systems) is better?

3. I only see one unused comma mark. Question: do all of you talk about errors that are visible or also ones that only can be seen if you edit the source? Why does the introduction need to be redone? What would you suggest? How is the star system trivial? Do you want to bloat out the article with all the update version like the current one? Why not let the reader immediately see which games are stand-alone and which got updates?

4. The purpose of the fourth sandbox is to show the content I plan to revise the current crop of Sega Studios with. I explained this.

5. Well first you say that the previous article is bloated but now you say all the mobile games should be there too which is what would result of what you are against. Overall yes, I probably agree that making an article which contains fully informative tables, as well as a chronological order is better. There are some things that "should" happen, but as it is I see little wrong with the current sandboxes going live without major overhaul. This Sega development studios article has pretty much no sources, and the articles linked within them do neither, really how is anything not an improvement?

And unrelated to the articles in discussion, could you also explain why you consider this article article worse than my sandboxes? As I stated that one has clear errors, or do you mean that just because of a fuller table?

And why have you removed the financial information on the Sega Sammy Holdings page, when Disney has it? And about the company history, do you think the reasons of the merger (the first couple of sentences), are still appropriate to include and should be rewritten or does the current info need to be rewritten? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two obvious ref errors - that's what the red text means in the references section when you're viewing the page. Some of the refs have no formatting whatsoever (they're just bare URLs), others appear to be missing things like publishers. Yes, we can edit your sandbox, but I'm still failing to see how this particular version is ever going to be an improvement over the current one without a total rewrite from the ground up (which reminds me that I really should start my own version). Wikis that can be edited by anyone/almost anyone are never reliable sources, and if they're the only source for something, then the information has to be removed, it's that simple. You can use the sources they cite, but not the Wikis themselves; and citing another wiki is not actually any better than having no citation at all (particularly ones that are in both a foreign language and character set, where most of us cannot translate them, and online translators struggle - so we have no idea whether they're making things up or not.) If you can't see the "titles" column/row in the "Consumer Research and Development Division" table, then I can't help you... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm still under the general impression that this is too big of an undertaking for such an neweditor, and that Triple ddd should slow down a bit and learn how Wikipedia works a little more before taking on these massive changes. That's not something I can enforce unless it somehow elevates into disruptive editing, but I think that's the best route to take. Otherwise, there's just going to continue to be opposition at every turn, and lots of these arguments popping up. Triple ddd, please try to find a smaller project/article to work on to familiarize yourself with things a little more, and then in the future, try to take this on, using what you've learned in the meantime to make a better approach. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It's worth noting here that, having completely failed to get their way in a discussion, Tripple-ddd did this piece of blatant vandalism, converting the article into nonsense. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a textbook example of disruptive editing. Absolutely not acceptable. Tripple-ddd, any more of that and you're going to receive a block. Do not make edits just to "make a point". Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

_{@Sergecross73: he may not get that notification. I've seen reports that corrections don't work, you need to get the name correct at the first attempt.} - X201 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I didn't know that one. The conversation has moved to his talk page, and I've said it to him there too, so he should be aware, but that's still good to know going forward... Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to all: for notifications to work, the edit that you link to their (correct) user page must also be an edit in which you sign (~~~~). So if you mess up their name, and make another edit to change it, you need to sign again in that second edit. --Pres N 14:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

After all this time, Tripple-ddd continues to make the same mistakes over and over again, with basically every editor here having to fix, revert, or just remove the info he keeps adding onto these articles. I've been patient with him this entire time, but I think he's getting close to being a disruptive editor and should be handled accordingly. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting there is an(other) edit war involving this user at Sonic Team, which is getting pretty lame, and some of it seems to have been very similar to their ridiculous claims about Sega Sports. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What? The reasoning behind Sega Sports and Sonic Team edits are completly different...Sega Sports is about the existence of it, and Sonic Team is just an argument about some styling and content. Making the same mistakes over and over? So far all I have done in live editing is the Sega Sammy page (which I still didn't get an answer about the removal of financial data), Sega itself (which in the end went well, with multiple rewriting the content that I intented to add) and now Sonic Team. I just want some answers to my questions. But I guess with the cryptic messages that Dissident is leaving about leads to maybe a hint what I'm doing wrong with editing? Is it because I do everything with Visual Editor that my text sometimes ends up looking messed up when editing the source? Is that the whole problem the entire time?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

All I know is there is constant opposition and complaints about your edits, which is why I wish you'd slow down a bit, and familiarize yourself with how the website works. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be cryptic or make this difficult for you. You've been told by me and other editors on what mistakes you continue to make, I.E. bad formatting, spelling errors, arguing very literally statements such as what is Sega Sports, etc. And I wouldn't personally use Visual Editor, but that's just me. As for the Sega Sammy financial info, you're only argument in keeping it lies in how some other articles have it. Most other large game company articles need to be rewritten as well, and would probably have their financial info removed too. Nobody else seems to be against the revert, either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want clearer communication, and I'm not the only thinking this, as BlusterBlaster who also edited the Sega article had a had time figuring out what Luken94 or what you are trying to say. It took this edit to understand one facet of what I'm doing bad, why you coudn't told me this directly, I do not know. I understand bad spelling and grammatical errors, and I appreciate everyone smoothing out writing, but removal of information (that is not irrational and is clearly trying to add something), needs more justification, explanation and perhaps suggestion than what you are giving. Also an argument that get's a counter argument is expected to have a response. And it's wrong to hold one of the most visited sites on Wikipedia as a standard? (Disney).--Tripple-ddd (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I should not have to teach you how to use Wikipedia. You've been told by many users what you continue to do wrong, if you don't understand by know, how else can we help? If any of the edits I did are controversial, then another user has the right to revert whatever I changed, but none of them have thus far (for these Sega related articles). And just because the Disney article has something you like, doesn't mean every article should. I haven't taken a look at that page yet, but it could be just as wrong, but nobody has gotten around to fixing it yet. I don't have anything personal against you, but you really should not be trying to rewrite all these major articles at your current state. Some of the sources you use, should not have been. (Mobygames for example), and some of the sentences you put are either too trivial to remain in the article, or badly written enough that I couldn't figure a way to rewrite it to make sense. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm personally tired of telling you to write articles according to what third party, reliable sources say, and to avoid original research. Too many of our your arguments have problems one way or another with those 2 areas... Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Stella Deus help needed

Hi there, all. I'm preparing a rewrite for Stella Deus: The Gate of Eternity and have encountered a serious problem: I can't find a story synopsis anywhere beyond the bare-bones setting given in the publicity blurb and what little is there one the page at present. Can anyone help give me a synopsis of what happens? Or direct me to a link where the English script is archived, or even a translation of the Japanese script so I can make a rough setup? If anyone could that, it would be most helpful. I've got everything else about the article all wrapped up and ready to write in my sandbox. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This and that review talks a fair bit about the plot. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I played this back in the day. I don't recall the story, but I'll read it over and help some like I do the Tales games articles. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  - Thank you hugely, Sergecross73. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Shenmue III

Shenmue III

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pardon my criticism, but that's not a very readable article. It really needs a cleanup. I've got a couple of actual development interviews if needed by anyone. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just a start. It's gotten tons of press coverage and the fans will sort it out. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

God bless E3 where new games cause new articles that will become a playground for destruction. GamerPro64 02:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Article is in better shape. Development section still needs trimming and reorganization. The game has spent 14 years in development hell. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding page name

With the recent Virtual Console release of the original mother as EarthBound Beginnings I think it is worth considering moving Mother (video game series) back to Earthbound (series) since two of the three games in the series now use Earthbound. Granted there was a successful request to move it to the current title last October but I believe that this new announcement could change things considerably.--67.68.31.244 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also talk:EarthBound Beginnings currently redirects to talk:Mother (video game) can someone please fix that as the Mother talk page has all previous discussions and there is no reason that the talk page should have a different name than the article nor do I see any dispute regarding what the title should be.--67.68.31.244 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What a mess. The common English name for the game is still Mother despite the rerelease by a different name, and the series is still known by the reliable sources as the Mother series. All of the page moves and renames right now are for naught. – czar 23:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we really sure that Mother is the common name for the game, one can easily argue that it was known as EarthBound for years due to the EarthBound Zero fan translation? Also, more importantly, we need to take into account that this announcement will likely attract attention of people who are not as familiar with the series as you or I and therefore would only know the game under the current name. I don't think that keeping the title as Mother (video game) will serve the general audience.--67.68.31.244 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There is now a formal request to move the article to EarthBound Beginnings, imput would be appreciated.--67.68.31.244 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking to it usually increases participation. - X201 (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the influence of Wikipedia itself is behind a lot of the first game's continued referral as just Mother. Tezero (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I do believe that the decision Wikipedia makes for the title of an article like this influences how people refer to the topic in the future. That's a big part of the reason why titles need to be either neutral or based on what things are commonly called. This is particularly important when making articles about criminal and political events and controversies, but extents to things like this. When we don't change the name of Mother to Earthbound Beginnings ourselves, that might make it less likely for other people to make that change, while the opposite also goes. However, if we start thinking about this as "how do we want the world to call this game" rather than "how does the world call this game? Let's adopt that," we're thinking the wrong way. ~Mable (chat) 11:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Exclusivity columns on more consoles

So I know almost nothing about wiki editing (I know how to indent, sign, bold, hyperlink, make new sections... that's about it), which I'm sure you can tell by my lack of an account here, but I'd be willing to help out on this (despite my lack of an account here), especially since it's generally as easy as opening the game page in a new tab and spending three seconds looking for the info. In the age of the Glorious PC Master Race this particularly comes to mind. Perhaps even make separate columns to distinguish multiplats grounded on consoles from multiplats grounded on PC. Details such as "on SNES and Amiga" aren't a big deal and probably don't need distinguishing from "on SNES and PC", especially since porting between IBM PC, or computers of any kind, is generally more of a rarity the further back you go. My main concern is games that play like shit (can I say that?) due to lack of analog stick support on PC/lack of multiplayer/whatever else, and these would be easier to distinguish if, for example, Playstation 1 told me which games were also available on PC. I'd go to Mobygames for this but it seems like different platforms have linked separate entries for each release- rather unfortunate, and makes simply generating a list harder. Because of the analog stick thing I mentioned, I feel like the fifth and sixth generations are the most pressing, or at least the ones I'm the most interested in. 2602:301:774A:D980:84A5:4316:F8AE:A589 (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, accounts are free to make, and if you're wanting to help out, it would be much better to have one. --JDC808 ♫ 18:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Amiibo waves

There's a discussion that I was beckoned to on the Amiibo talk page. It's discussing the release wave terminology, specifically prompted by Falco's release window. —Ost (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Twitch as a source

Hi all. I'm wondering if there is any consensus with the project on using a Twitch video as a source (with {{cite av media}}). I'm not too familiar with the service to know if posted videos (theoretically) stay on the site until the user possibly removes them (thus being a viewable source in the future, like say YouTube), but I am looking to use an official channel's video as a possible source. For those interested it is this video for the content starting around the 05:20:28 mark until the end. It would be used on the Kingdom Hearts III page. I have not watched the content yet myself, but am just wondering ahead of time if I find anything useful I can take note to add it to the article. Thanks. (And apologies if this has been discussed, but I didn't think it was, based on a quick search of the archives.) This also may be a mute point shortly if Square Enix uploads this content to their YouTube channel, as they have with previous E3s, but I still think this is a good discussion to have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'd say a video review or a written one weigh the same, and same goes for interviews. You might want to cite tertiary sources though (articles about the video), or at least some transcription if at all possible. Unless you know of a way to get the video "archived" to make sure the source survives. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think we'd handle it the same as we do Youtube as a source - it's not acceptable if its some rando on the internet reporting out of their parents basement, but if its directly uploaded by a reliable source, like IGN or Eurogamer, then its usable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about a primary source here, guys - a press conference rather than a report or review. ~Mable (chat) 13:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. So it would be okay to use in this instance, because, regardless of medium, SE is a usable source for objective details on SE. Or are you trying to say something else here? Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, just wanted to note the difference between this situation and the given examples :p The only real issue is archiving, it seems. Secondary sources are always preferred, though, as they also establish notability. ~Mable (chat) 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A predominant issue is archival, so it would be good if you could provide a transcript/link to a transcript/relevant passages from the interview itself, should the video ever be removed. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. I felt the same way, but just wanted to double check. When I get around to watching it, I'll see if I can use anything, and if so, figure out a way to "archive" it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

...and as I thought, the same video is available on Square Enix's YouTube channel, so I will use that url if I do decide to use the source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Before you use the video as a source for anything, check if any secondary sources have covered that specific thing as well. Those are generally preferred. There's nothing wrong with the video, though :) ~Mable (chat) 10:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup! Since my last comment, I have found a secondary source that has transcribed the interview (I believe, still getting around to watching it), so I will ultimately use that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of Nintendo Life

Whenever I use the website [nintendolife.com] as a source, the question rises: should I cite it as Nintendolife, NintendoLife or Nintendo Life? Furthermore, is it a good idea to put square brackets around the website's name when I cite from it? I would love for it to have an article because it is comes up so often when looking for sources, but I know there aren't any reliable sources to base such an article on... But yeah, what are your thoughts? ~Mable (chat) 20:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It says Nintendo Life on the titlebar, so I'd go with that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do they consistently spell it a certain way when referring to themselves in the prose of one of their own articles? I'd go with that I guess. I usually use "Siliconera" instead of "SiliconEra" because that's what they usually use... Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't actually check, I just went with what I saw first on the title bar. Anyway, Nintendo Life should be fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I do now see that on the about page, they are calling themselves Nintendo Life. I was mainly confused by the logo (Which says Nintendolife), and I don't know what you mean with the title bar? Anyway, seems like this page was wrong as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. I'll fix that too.

Well I don't know the proper name for it actually, lol, but the very top of the browser it says "Nintendo Life @ E3 2015" ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You might be looking at "Nintendo Live @ E3", though, which isn't about the website, but about the live event XD ~Mable (chat) 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus change from "Shin Megami Tensei: Persona" series article to "Persona (series)"

So the recent Persona games (Persona 4 Golden, Persona 4 Arena, Persona Q: Shadow of the Labyrinth, Persona 4: Dancing All Night, Persona 5) have/will all be released outside of Japan without the Shin Megami Tensei moniker, so would be right to move to the article to Persona (series)? It's always simply been Persona in Japan, and now it seems to be the same worldwide. Some discussion of this is already on the talk page there, but was ignored, so I'm posting this here for better visibility. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the bulk of the reliable sources call it. - X201 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The game's themselves lack the Shin Megami Tensei title now, and even before this change, some sources just referred to it as the Persona series, if that's what you mean. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Go with what a wide range of sources call it, if there is no clear winner then leave the status quo as the name. Don't give weight to "official" names, go with the sources. - X201 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources have gone with just the Persona name long before it was ever official in the West, but I don't see why we are disregarding what the games are actually titled. The Shin Megami Tensei moniker has not been used on Persona games in the West since 2011, so it's not like this is recent. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we have a confirmed official name in the west for Persona 5, from a website or substantial press release. If it does not have the Shin Megami Tensei moniker attached. A lot of sources I've found refer to them as SMT Persona and Persona in equal measure. I realize that the YouTube trailer from Atlus USA uses Persona 5, but the one from Nintendo for Genei Ibun Roku uses its translated Japanese title, which has been confirmed as a placeholder until its western title is revealed, so I don't think it's a definitive source. In addition, won't moving the page mage the GA nomination invalid, meaning it will need to be done all over again (although that entails relatively minor fuss, I think)? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Googling "Persona series" gives me plenty of results calling it specifically that, for what it's worth. I honestly still don't really know what Shin Megami Tensei is... ~Mable (chat) 08:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: Shin Megami Tensei is a sub-series of games within the larger Megami Tensei franchise, and is also the title of the first game within that sub-series. Atlus USA tags "Shin Megami Tensei" onto most Megami Tensei games' titles, but that's purely a marketing thing. --IDV^talk 09:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is about them NOT having done this since 2011 (with the sole exception of the Persona 2 PSP ports) The games I listed above lack the SMT title for the Western releases, but previous titles before 2011 did. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was just responding to Mable's "I honestly still don't really know what Shin Megami Tensei is...", not commenting on what the Persona articles should be called or whatever. As a side note, Atlus USA still does it with non-Persona titles, such as this year's Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2 Record Breaker. --IDV^talk 10:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't noticed they used that for Record Breaker. Makes you wonder why they stopped using it for Persona then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've generally looked round, and Dissident93 is right. The general popular name is Persona without the SMT moniker. I've done most of the moving, updates, ect. on the Persona articles, but there was some things that I can't do or really can't face alone. I really need help. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I support the move to Persona. Let me know what I can do to help, especially if there's anything you'd need an Admin for (like deleting for moves and whatnot.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, I think it's just the WikiCommons media page now that has the old title, but maybe looking around to check for any link/category corrections I missed would be very welcome. And it's actually looking better as it stands. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, very nice work in rewriting the series article. It looks way better than back when I maintained/monitored it a few years back. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamecruft/gameguide question for Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn‎

Does the collapsed table at Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn#Armoury and job system fall under WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT? --The1337gamer (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be. It is also unsourced, so I'd say it should be scrapped. ~Mable (chat) 22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo World Championships

Is this the appropriate level of detail? Should the event series article be separate from the individual event articles? A discussion is open on the talk page about separate event articles as well (2015/1990) at talk:Nintendo World Championships

-- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing GameSpot article

I think it goes without saying that GameSpot links can get spotty. There's a link used for the The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay article that I cannot find on their site since its dead and at one point there was a robots.txt issue with it. This isn't the first time this happened, see here, but I'm not entirely sure how this can be resolved. GamerPro64 20:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just a press release.[4] Some old references may be lost forever, but new references can be archived through WebCite. Wikipedia did use to benefit from User:ThaddeusB's User:WebCiteBOT, not sure what the plans for getting that going again are. - hahnch e n 23:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh. The Wayback Machine is more my cup of tea over WebCite. But thanks for the archive. GamerPro64 00:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

GameFoxy.com?!

I noticed something while I was browsing the Google website. I was browsing to find the GameRankings website, and then I noticed that, instead of www.gamerankings.com, it just leads me to http://rankings.gamefoxy.com. It seems that GameFoxy.com is taking over GameRankings. And there are also GameFoxy.com replicas of Giant Bomb (giantbomb.gamefoxy.com), G4TV (g4tv.gamefoxy.com), GameSpot (gamespot.gamefoxy.com), and GameFAQs (www.gamefoxy.com), and other gaming websites I know of. I don't know if the GameFoxy.com website is safe or not. I'm so curious. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Its dodgy. It appears to clone existing sites and then, when you click the search bar, it hits you with adverts and unclosable pop-ups. Avoid. - X201 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed they're all CBS sites as well. - X201 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I'll only go to the GameRankings website when I feel like it. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)