Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 118

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 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

→

WP:NATURAL and disambiguation for video game players

I set up an entire RFC for you to discuss things like this, and you're asking about a scenario that that isn't picking up traction at the RFC, so its a null point anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

So its been a while since the last rounds of talks ended so I though I'd start another one. (The RFC can be found here). If we decided to use only aliases for article titles, probably 1/4 of all of the player articles would need parenthetical disambiguation. However I think first "alias" last is probably a more natural disambiguation than "alias" (gamer) or some other form of parenthetical DAB. Maybe its just me but Rapha (gamer), Reach (gamer) or Trump (gamer) seems a bit less optimal and perhaps recognizable to Shane "Rapha" Hendrixson, Park "Reach" Jung-suk or Jeffrey "Trump" Shih.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My cursory read of the last thread was agreement that this discussion is a non-starter. The guideline already says to use the name that our reliable sources use the most, whether that's First "Alias" Last or Alias (gamer). It doesn't need to be consistent across all instances, and in fact, it shouldn't be. czar 23:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as WP:CONSISTENCY is concerned, perhaps pro gamers articles should follow the same set of titling conventions, or at least players of the same game barring obvious exceptions.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, the conclusion was: don't use 'First "nick" Last' because it violates WP:NICKNAME, use either their real name or stage name depending on what RSs use (with no preference either way), and disambiguate with (gamer) if necessary. --Pres N 00:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

During the RCF WP:NICKNAME seems to have been changed as to no longer explicitly disallow quotation marks for BLP articles, but still recommends avoiding them--Prisencolin (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it says you can use them if the quotes are themselves part of the name- '"Weird Al" Yankovic' is, in full, his stage name; just 'Weird Al' or 'Yankovic' is not. It's 'Shane Hendrixson' or 'Rapha'; he doesn't go by 'Shane "Rapha" Hendrixson', so the article should not be named that, per NICKNAME. --Pres N 03:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

He's listed as Shane 'Rapha' Hendrixson here, here, and here, and elsewhere. There are also instances of him being named by either just real name or his gamer id. In any case even if this weren't the case you could say to make the artocle titlr consistent woth other like articles, first alias last could br used.Prisencolin (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you link those first two? My understanding is that Daily Dot is the only reliable source you linked and though they used Rapha in the headlines, they use his full name throughout the article. I'd name it First Last in that case. czar 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I too think we should either use the alias or the legal name, depending on which is used more by reliable sources. I'm personally more worried about the consistency of the disambiguator than of the name itself. I don't think the naming convention needs to be consistent, though I suppose it can be nice to have a consistent naming convention for multiple people in the same team. 'firstname "alias" lastname' still seems out of the question to me. ~Mable (chat) 07:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems like forumshopping. Please stop asking the question--this will have marked the 3rd or 4th time you specifically have decided to ask the same question. --Izno (talk) 12:17, 9 December 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.

Visual novel engines

More eyes on Visual novel engines, please. As discussed on my talk page, we couldn't find sources to form a basis for this article (VN engines as a topic in itself) and, as agreed, redirected back to the main engine. IPs continue to revert the redirect without response. @Calathan czar 02:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Atari joystick port connector images needed

I am looking for any images of the Atari 9-pin joystick port, both on the standard CX40 joystick itself, as well as any of the host-side ports from (especially) Atari or Commodore systems. Let me know if you have any of these! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If no one else can help, one person that you might try to contact is User:Evan-Amos who has taken and adjusted most of the photos for our VG hardware articles. There are numerous Atari CX40 images from them on Commons but nothing of the port directly. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have Atari 2600 controllers (and a console with a few dozen games :p) at home, so I'll try to get you some pictures later. Is it for personal use or to upload to Commons and use on Wikimedia projects? If it's for the latter I can try to make the pictures look somewhat good but never as good as Evan could. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

For the Commons - I'm writing an article on the port and it's wide variety of uses. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

here you go, I haven't uploaded to Commons yet but if it works for your needs I can upload them tomorrow. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: Those are just what I'm looking for, go ahead and upload! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: General note: pings don't work unless you do them in the same edit as a signature, so if you go back to edit in a ping you need to re-sign. --Pres N 22:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That deserves a rolleyes. Ahh the wiki! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, are you going to discuss them both together? I'm thinking of tightly cropping them together in a single file for simplicity, such as this; I could splice them vertically too if you prefer, depending on whether it's for usage in-line or for an Infobox. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: Yes, that combined format would definitely be useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz:, like the one I posted or vertically? Sorry for asking so many questions, I just do want to have to reupload multiple times and I wanna make sure I give you the best you can use. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: Ok the article is up: Atari joystick port. I have the joystick image in the infobox as a placeholder. I think the best solution would be smaller images stacked vertically, but I did not see those on your imgur page, I only saw the horizontal one. If you can upload it stacked vertical let me know and in it goes! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Done and done. I really do think you should pester Evan for him to eventually provide a picture of vastly superior quality. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there really enough reliable source coverage on the console's connector port to warrant its own article? Right now it's very reliant on primary sources for almost all info and a lot of that info is jargon... wouldn't such a page be better suited for another wiki? Or as a very small (trimmed) section within the console's article? czar 15:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, we looking at the same article? Sure the 8-bit section is jargon-y, and feel free to trim it. But the history section has multiple sources, and covers dozens of platforms and millions of machines. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It should be clear based on my timestamp that this was the version I saw, so there have been many edits since. But even still I'd categorize the history source as being more about the Atari console itself or its set of controllers than about the controller port. I could see these sources being useful on the existing Atari 2600 hardware article but we'd only need to split out summary style from there if necessary. I'd be interested in others' opinions, though. czar 18:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time getting an opinion on this. On the one hand, I like this article as the Atari joystick port as it is a pretty important port, but on the other hand, it seems like it would make more sense to make this a section on an article titles "Atari joystick". It seems most of the sources are either talking about Atari consoles or the joystick in specific. However, if there is too much meaningful, good information just on the port itself and its many uses, than I am completely alright with it having an article on its own. It still seems odd that Atari joystick doesn't exist, though. ~Mable (chat) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I can, the crux of the information about this 9-pin connector is already at D-subminiature#Game controller ports. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but that covers a number of unrelated ports as well. the 9-pin D-sub was a common cheap connector so it saw lots of use. Let's not confuse the hardware for the logic behind it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Tactical RPGs

Regarding this edit, I'm not sure games like Wasteland 2 and Divinity: Original Sin should necessarily be called "TRPGs". They are full-fledged CRPGs. Also, I take issue with the sentence, "Largely due to these games 2014 has been called "The cRPG Renaissance" ^[1]." Invisible, Inc. is not even mentioned in the cited article; and the article also talks about Might and Magic X, Dark Souls and South Park: The Stick of Truth, which does not support the idea that the article is somehow saying that TRPGs are creating a CRPG renaissance (though I agree with the article). Thoughts? SharkD Talk 01:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

^ Thorman, Peter (31 December 2014). "2014: the first year of the CRPG renaissance". PC Gamer. Retrieved 5 December 2015.

A question I'd have to ask is what are we called "CRPG" here? If we're just saying it's "Computer role-playing game", TPRGs are CRPGs, obviously, just one sub-genre of it. I can see the confusion on D:OS given that it's combat system is a turn-based/tactical approach like XCom (which I'm assuming we can treat as an ur-example of TRPG?) even though outside combat it is full exploration. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasteland 2 and D:OS don't belong to that sub-genre, though. My other point is that you cannot attribute the CRPG renaissance to TRPGs based on an article that also talks about Dark Souls 2 and Risen 3 in that context. SharkD Talk 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that source does not support that fact, as least as to ascribe it to TRPGs. It would be fine to use at CRPG itself. --MASEM (t)

@MrGWillickers: is citing some blogs in the article that I've never heard of. I think he may be a new user and doesn't understand WP:VG/RS. SharkD Talk 04:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Help!

My god, I just came back to check my video game featured lists and find out that Allgame is dead! Now, All of the references of List of Crystal Dynamics video games and List of The Elder Scrolls video games need to be fixed. However, I will be absent for a week and, as such, unable to do this task by myself. If somebody is willing to help I'd appreciate it a lot. It would be sad to see their featured status lost because of this. → Call me Hahc21 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

First, it is doubtful that being unable to fix up the links within the week will cause the featured status to be lost. Second, a spot check shows the links are still good at archive.org, so it's just a matter of adding those appropriately, so its relatively easy to save. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed they would be at archive.org. Still, I think it's better to do it as soon as it can reasonably be done :) → Call me Hahc21 06:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

JonTron Article

(Click for JonTron Draft) I was asked that I should start a discussion here if I've found good reliable sources for a Jon Jafari article. I believe I have. I had a draft going for one that I tried to move to the mainspace, but it was moved back to my userspace on the basis of past rulings. I was aware of those past rulings, but those were a couple years back, and were more based on the article itself at the time being poor, and that he wasn't that notable at the time. I think he is notable now, it is a frequently requested article, and that I have the startings of something acceptable. Does need work though. Thoughts? Disagree? If there is agreeance with me, could someone with permissions move it to the mainspace? Anyone is welcome to help with the draft if they wish. Elzbenz (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking through a Google News search, Jontron seems to have reached notability, though I have some trouble finding articles that are exclusively about him, or describe him in great detail. This one seems to have a lot of Jontron-related content. I think the article needs a bit more work and get some better sources, but I think it can be moved to the mainspace soon as well. ~Mable (chat) 10:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Note, this article was deleted after it's fourth AFD just slightly over a month ago... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron (web series). The sources don't look any better than before. There's a reason this article is salted. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, sorry - I didn't find that recent deletion. If I had seen that I wouldn't have attempted a move to the mainspace. I was seeing stuff from 2013. Thank you for that article, Maplestrip. The draft I have isn't that presentable right now, so; oh well. I'll leave it in my userspace I think, unless I can really get something readable together. Elzbenz (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting some of the unreliable sources out first may be a good idea. Are Girls in Capes and BGR reliable? Have these events from August 2014 and June 2015 been covered by any other news sources? Has any reliable source covered the June 2013 event? Are there any sources that describe Jontron's history or carreer?

Once the unreliable content is removed, you can fill it back up with more reliable sources, such as the Kotaku one, the Tubefilter source currently present, and websites where he is briefly mentioned (such as these two from TechnologyTell).

I found some more Kotaku sources through a Google News search, but most other content was from websites I'd never heard of before, like this one. I still think there is enough to work with for an article, but I'd rather see the article looking a bit better before it is brought to the mainspace again. ~Mable (chat) 14:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Tubefilter even a reliable source? WT:VG/RS#Tubefilter czar 15:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been in on/off discussions with Jon himself and his fan following for some months with regards to creating a well-referenced article for Jon, one who would demonstrate sufficient notability w/r/t our guidelines. Thus far there is no sufficient sourcing (although his ongoing Disney-sponsored "Starcarde" series might change that, with the coming release of the seventh movie). I'm quite displeased with the repeated shoddy recreations that only serve to lengthen the deletion log and only add obstacles that will need to be overcome once I feel there's enough sources to create a solid article. *sighs* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Tomb Raider world map and series timeline

Browsing through templates, I stumbled upon {{Tomb Raider series Timeline}} and {{Tomb Raider world map}}. They're not used in the article, and don't seem particularly useful to me. The world map is gamecruft, the series timeline is too cluttered and uses so many abbreviations that it isn't clear what's what. Improve or delete? --Soetermans. T / C 14:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The world map is useless gamecruft... The timeline is.... kinda interesting, but too cluttered with too many different formats and medias mixed together. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing two one-time directors doesn't seem necessary to me, or mentioning which engine is used, which doesn't have an article. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I recall these being in the article very recently, actually. Still, I'd delete. They don't contribute to understanding encyclopedic significance of the subject—the cast lists and in-game location maps actually show little continuity in need of explication. czar 14:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

ProtoDrake just recently did a massive rewrite of the series article, so he very well have removed them in his reworking of the article. I can't say I'd blame him, there's generally a consensus to remove this in-universe-based templates it seems...(EDIT: It seems the timeline one isn't what I expected it to be, and isn't in-universe...but its still pretty ugly. I'd probably remove/contest it if someone had added it to an article I was maintaining.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sort of in reply to Sergecross73, I felt that they added little to no useful data to the article. Plus, they made navigating through wikiscript while editing awkward, and looked out of place with the rewrite and rearrange I was working on. If anyone has differing opinions, I'm not averse to a conversation regarding it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

World map is fancraft, timeline is ... sort of fancrafty, but may be okay. Both shouldn't be templates though, there's hardly any reason to reuse them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I would split the timeline into separate Film and Video game timelines. Are these timelines generated by the WikiMedia software? They are really ugly. SharkD Talk 00:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I don't think reworking them is a sensible option. TNT for the series timeline. I've nominated them both. --Soetermans. T / C 12:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with screenshot

I want to use a screenshot of this game for the RPG article since it is GPL. I have the screenshot already. But I need help selecting a license and template to use. Which license template am I supposed to add to the screenshot? SharkD Talk 09:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

{{GPL}} for license. You might have to add it in manually if the wizard doesn't have this. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. SharkD Talk 16:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

just came

hey guys just got a mail by czar to come herechangeing pages as needed (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Truethgamer2013, welcome to the WikiProject! I look forward to seeing what you can contribute. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

hey rhain1999, thanks for the post bro I hope that we can all make Wikipedia's VG portal the best it can be :D

Welcome to Wikipedia, Truethgamer. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia myself (then again, it seems like it's already been a year, huh), and I can say that this is a great Wikiproject to be a part of. If you ever want to give your opinion on discussions here, feel free to do so, and be sure to ask questions or ask for help if needed :) Have fun ~Mable (chat) 15:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you think about making a better thread header next time. But welcome. GamerPro64 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create an infobox for fictional conflicts

I am proposing that an infobox be created for fictional conflicts, as currently many articles on fictional conflicts, as well as a real-time virtual battle, use Template:Infobox military conflict. To centralize discussion, please reply, if interested, at the infobox talk page I've linked to here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

How many fictional conflict articles are there? --The1337gamer (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

These seem to be this category. Battles in the Chronicles of Narnia is an example of an article that currently makes use of the military conflict-infobox. ~Mable (chat) 07:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There are more that aren't categorized . Also, the sole video game battle for which we have an article, at least that I know of, Bloodbath of B-R5RB, is categorized under Category:Virtual battles. There was an infobox on Clone Wars (Star Wars) for years until just a few days ago, when an IP editor removed it because the infobox wasn't designed for fictional --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The EVE Online battle isn't a fictional conflict, though. It's a real conflict that took place in a virtual world. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it could be considered a "pretend" conflict, as the parties involved were in a way acting to be at war with one another. It could also be a kind of roleplaying, which may be a form of fiction. Regardless of the terminology, it seems to me that the Eve Online battle would need the same kind of infobox information as any battle, fictional or otherwise, if covered by reliable sources. I don't think it is the name of the infobox that matters: it's the parameters. ~Mable (chat) 23:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Shoo yourselves over to that there template talk page, all ye' who comment here. --Izno (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A pondering on Starcraft "post-Void" DLC

Currently, the first post-Legacy of the Void DLC pack for Starcraft II has been announced, Nova Covert Ops. It has been listed in a section at Legacy of the Void. However, the DLC apparently doesn't require you to own Starcraft II, either Wings, Heart or Legacy, based on the sources I've found. You can purchase and use it even with Starter Edition.

I'm kind of curious on how this might be handled as Blizzard will presumably release more packs like this, which, if the above lack of base game ownership requirement holds steady, does not really belong in the Legacy article. There is no "meta" article for Starcraft II currently. StarCraft (series) maybe? -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Add it to the series article. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fact that there isn't a "meta" article for SC2 is a problem because Wings of Liberty is not the base game. As far as I know, neither Heart of the Swarm or Legacy of the Void require Wings of Liberty. They are simply 3 individual games that share the same multiplayer system. My recommendation is to create an individual "subseries" article for SC2, covering its gameplay, plot, expansions/episodes/DLCs/addons, development history, and competitive multiplayer in summary style; and then have an individual article for every notable expansion/episode/DLC/addon. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Originally Heart of the Swarm required ownership of Wings of Liberty. It was changed to standalone game at some point. --Mika1h (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the base series article can cover it rather than a new "sub-series" article. There's a lot of content in the Wings of Liberty article, because it was originally treated as the "base" StarCraft II article, that could likely be moved to some degree to the series article though. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Batman (2016 video game)

Hey all, Batman (2016 video game) was recently created but it's barely more than an infobox. Unsourced, of course, and at risk of deletion. If anyone fancies a challenge, getting it to stub might help it avoid the meat grinder. However, at a quick glance, I'm not seeing anything beefier than press-release-type-stuff. Godspeed! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Already R to Dev by Czar ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

History of video games being heavily altered

User @Indrian: has recently been making large changes to the History of video games article. I've been worried about losing sources during this process. Though I've vocalized my concerns on the article's talk page, I would feel more comfortable if more people were keeping track of the changes. Indrian said that they were planning to improve the article in multiple sittings, so I have no real reason to assume that the article will get worse, but seeing as they haven't added any sources to the article, it may just all be original research, and I'd like some verifiability. Recent changes. ~Mable (chat) 08:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That article could use a heavy rewrite. SharkD Talk 09:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, it is heavily flawed, but I just want to make sure no sources get lost in the process and that the rewrite isn't just original research ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 09:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Mable, I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2004 and have helped bring several video game articles to GA and FA status. The implication that I need to be "watched" or that I am flagrantly disregarding policy regarding verifiability and original research out of either ignorance or agenda is, quite frankly, insulting. Try to focus a little more on improving Wikipedia through editing and a little less on acting as the self-appointed Stasi of the video game project. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was just feeling alarmed... I learned that if I don't know how to deal with something, to bring it up here and let people more experienced handle it. I apologize for coming off as offensive and calling you out.. ~Mable (chat) 16:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Alright there, tone it down. There's no need for name-calling. That said, the facts are:

On one hand, you are very knowledgeable about video game history- your GA/FA reviews on the Sega console articles, or any article touching on video game history, are crazy-in depth, and the bits on the "history of" article that I've seen from you are really good. That said;
As a "Wikipedia editor since 2004", you know perfectly well that sources are required on articles; writing a long essay on a period of video game history and not citing any of the books that I know you've read is not actually good, no matter how true the results may be. Writing out a section and coming back later to fill in references is a perfectly fine way of editing, but I know for a fact that you've previously re-written the "early history" section and never came back to put in references. It's not "acting as the self-appointed Stasi of the video game project" to ask that you please cite your sources when you have a history of not doing so in that exact article. --Pres N 16:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I do understand and respect where you are coming from, and you do raise a couple of valid points. That said, no editor is required to source work as he goes with the sole exception of controversial material in the biography of a living person. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Feel free to add sources or citation needed tags anywhere in the article. That is exactly how a collaborative project works. Indrian (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

no editor is required to source work as he goes with the sole exception of controversial material in the biography of a living person, No, actually, WP:V basically says exactly that:

Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [...] All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

When you say that you don't think you need to cite "as you go", you are basically giving us carte blanche to remove the material you just added. That clearly is not what you or we want. Your comment seems also to come across as missing the importance of the first section of WP:V, which is WP:PROVEIT. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well sure, you are welcome to remove the material if you are really that against improving Wikipedia (I think you are exaggerating to make a point, though). Fact is though, none of the material has been challenged. Mable just wants to make sure any important sourcing in the older version is not lost. WP:V states that material must be verifiable in sources, not that those sources need all be present in the article at the time information is added. That's why it gives specific examples where sourcing is encouraged. Anything else would go against the entire nature of Wikipedia as a work in progress and make key provisions of the GA and FA criteria redundant. Heck, it would require every article to be FA-quality upon creation (in regards to sourcing, not prose or comprehensiveness), which is nonsense. Indrian (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that this is the collaborative process right now. The article gets over 1200 views/day. It's perfectly reasonable to ask that a major (but unsourced) rewrite be drafted in a draftspace so as not to remove, even temporarily, the existing, sourced version of the article. czar 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also a fair point. In this case, I feel the article is such a mess that my work in progress draft is a better course than leaving the article in its current state. This is certainly not true for all articles on Wikipedia. Also, the article as it stands already has pretty minimal sourcing, most of which goes to subjects such as release date and genre. In the sections I have removed so far, there was no particularly insightful sourcing. As to why I am not sourcing as I go, I fear more streamlining may be necessary as I get a sense of the overall size and scope of the article. I don't want to go through the pain of crafting a citation only to remove that material a week later. Indrian (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  I think it would be a fair compromise to edit in a draft and plop in the new version when it is sourced. No harm, no foul czar 18:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Defunct date in infobox

Under release date(s), I would like to see "Defunct:" followed by the closure date for one or more regions of an online game. This would make it easier to see the game was released and had a finite lifespan until it became no longer in service, as opposed to just cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technarch (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Shantae article assessment

Hello guys!

I've been working on the articles related to the Shantae series for some time and I'm asking for an assessment on the first game article, Shantae, that is, to know what you people currently think of it and what could be made to improve it further, if anything. Thanks in advance.90.10.154.138 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Rated to B, as it looks to be pretty complete and pretty decently sourced. However, I would note before you consider going for a GA assessment that you use a lot of sources I'm not very familiar with and may not be considered reliable. I would take a glance at the reliable sources listed at WP:VG/RS and see if you can flesh out a bit more variety in sources before GA attempt. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I second Ferret's comment. Never heard of "Girl Gamer" (Generic as that name is), "Gamercheese" and I'm not even positive "Tiny Cartridge" is reliable. Also the lead should have more information in it. GamerPro64 19:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it is also worth noting that there are three bare links among the citations, which would do well with a Cite web-template. There's also a source that has two ^{[dead link]} tags next to it, so I feel like it's really serious :p ~Mable (chat) 20:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The synopsis/plot section needs some rewrites too. It has very in-universe "back of the box" prose like "Shantae's life is fairly quiet. That quickly changes..." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO it's a C until such time as the thing gets a copyedit. I noticed the same issues in the gameplay section. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with a drop to C. :) When checking the criteria, I miss that note in class C about in-universe, but there is a somewhat conflicting criteria for B that states that MoS does not need to be rigorously adhered to. -- ferret (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the tips. Regarding the refs, I knew some of them might feel dubious, and I had no intention of running for GA anyway in the short term; I genuinely just wanted to know how to improve the article if possible. I've shot Gamercheese and Tiny Cartridge, as the info they provided were available elsewhere. The "Girl Gamer" interview is used to complete the list of influences behind the game, some of them being mentioned only there, but since most of these are also signaled in the other "The Mary Sue" interview, I guess it could be deleted without much info loss if necessary. The "dead link" ref (the fact that it's tagged twice is apparently a bug from the bot which took care of it, as both tags have the same date) is for a list of 12 classic Game Boy games GamesRadar wanted on 3DS which apparently took the shaft long ago, as it isn't even available on Wayback Machine. Perhaps deleting it entirely is in order. Any thought?90.10.154.138 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I just made various project guideline edits to the page, including removing the VC release from the infobox, rounding up the GameRankings score, and removing the MobyGames external link. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote the lead and some parts of the gameplay and plot segments so as to make them sound less like they're from an in-universe standpoint; I hope I was successful. I also deleted the dead link reference and the related GamesRadar list, as there's apparently no way of proving the point now. Any opinion?90.10.152.82 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, but I had to remove the VC release in the infobox again. (not sure who re-added that) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Impossible object

Can someone help explain Fez (video game) in this discussion? Thanks. SharkD Talk 14:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Project traffic statistics

Project page views per day.
(December 2007 to November 2015.)
Task force page views per day.
(December 2007 to November 2015.)
Sister project page views per day.
(December 2007 to November 2015.)

I updated the raw data and charts for the project's page view statistics. Not sure how useful they are. SharkD Talk 07:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Project page views per day.
(December 2013 to November 2015.)
Task force page views per day.
(December 2013 to November 2015.)
Sister project page views per day.
(December 2013 to November 2015.)

Here are some "short" views for just the past 24 months, and for just those pages active during that time. SharkD Talk 08:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is, but why is there such a big spike at the end of 2014 and the start of 2015? Both the Animanga WikiProject and most of our taskforces got a lot more page views those few months, it seems. ~Mable (chat) 08:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It may just be an issue with the database. SharkD Talk 08:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

See here. The database says they got over 8000 views on one day, and none on the rest of the days of the month. Something broke obviously. SharkD Talk 13:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense ^_^ Annoying to have an error like this, but otherwise, these are very nice graphs. I always enjoy seeing stuff like this~ ~Mable (chat) 13:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. I always find stats interesting (its why I track so much of my own), so this was interesting to see. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) SharkD Talk 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

An attempt to return to Wikipedia

I made a topic about my return, but due to certain circumstances, i need certain things to be worked out. if you want to make a discussion. The link to the discussion is here. Iff you have a thought, its greatly appreciated. Lucia Black (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that Lucia's AN topic is about reducing her Japanese Media topic ban. There is nothing to prevent her from returning to actively editing WP:VG on non-Japanese articles and I wholeheartedly recommend she do so. I will keep any further comments to the AN thread. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont think the comment was necessary in the first place, they can read it there. I'm not asking anyone to vote for me. But if they have their own personal thughts on the matter, they may choose to. I made a point on what you said. Whether you agree with it or not. I will not mention it here. Lucia Black (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Role-playing video game

Can we raise this article's rating up to a B? Actually, except for a few needed citations, I think it's close to GA status. SharkD Talk 20:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking through it fairly quickly, it seems like the article is in pretty good quality. Nice job, Shark :) I'll raise it to be, though if anyone sees any major issues, feel free to change it back. I recommend getting rid of a few of those citation needed-tags before putting it up for Good Article Review, but feel free to do so if you believe the article to be that good. RPG is an important article, so I'm glad to see this. ~Mable (chat) 20:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I helped some. I've barely touched it over the last three years except for today. SharkD Talk 00:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

One thing I noticed while looking through the article is that it often resorts to listing dozens of games in a row. See Role-playing_video_game#Tactical_RPGs, for example. Can't say I am a big fan of that, though that's partly because a wall of wikilinks could be discouraging. The easiest way to deal with that may be simply to remove examples or factoids that don't have a source. I don't think it would be a loss to completely remove "Examples of Western-style tactical RPGs for video game consoles include: Dungeons & Dragons Tactics (2007) for the PlayStation Portable, Gladius (2003) by LucasArts, and Rebelstar: Tactical Command (2005) by X-COM developers, Julian and Nick Gollop, for the Game Boy Advance", for example. ~Mable (chat) 20:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Example lists are something I encountered when doing roguelike and still need to handle at adventure game. I strong agree that lists of examples without any other context is poor prose. If an example list is needed, I limit it to three, and do try to include the year of the game to provide better visual separation of the titles. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Article has a bunch of linkrot ([1]). Someone should check and fix all the references before GAN. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: How do you use that tool? Does it provide shortcuts to fixing the citations, or do I have to edit the article manually? SharkD Talk 01:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Let me try pinging again. I always mess it up. SharkD Talk 09:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I only use the tool for checking and tagging dead links. I prefer to add and fix citations manually. The first column has plus icons for each ref, press that to expand some options. Under quicklinks there are Wayback Machine and WebCite links to quickly check if any dead pages have been archived. You can add replacement urls and archive urls using "Replace link". When you save changes it should run some scripts that add bot-generated titles to blank refs and archive parameters to the citation templates, but I doubt it will parse and fill all the citation fields. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, it wants to make a lot of other changes to wikilinks that i do not approve of. SharkD Talk 18:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Review Thread 20; Christmas edition

Here we are, the December/Christmas reckoning of current reviews. Please note that, from what I've been told, the PR closure bot is on the fritz, so some PRs may be a little over their date.

FAC

Seiken Densetsu 3 (nom): Up since 15 November with three Supports.
Jumping Flash! (nom): Up since 19 November, with one Support.
The Last of Us (nom): Up since 6 December, with two Supports.
Killer Instinct Gold (nom): Up since 6 December, with three set of comments.
Agar.io (nom): Up since 13 December, with two set of comments.
South Park: The Stick of Truth (nom): Up since 16 December, with one Support.

GAN

Dragon Age: Origins (nom)
Golem Arcana (nom)
Long War (mod) (nom)
~~Obsidian Entertainment (nom)~~
Tales of Destiny 2 (nom)
~~CD Projekt (nom)~~
Never 7: The End of Infinity (nom)
Iwo Jima (video game) (nom)
Remember 11: The Age of Infinity (nom)
Ever 17: The Out of Infinity (nom)
Pepsiman (video game) (nom)
Syndicate (2012 video game) (nom)
Nights into Dreams... (nom)
Final Fantasy Agito (nom)
Bismarck (video game) (nom)
Video game rehabilitation (nom)
Tobruk (video game) (nom)
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist (nom)
Evolve (video game) (nom)
Lara Croft Go (nom)

PR

Misc.

As with previous threads, a reminder that a huge backlog exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests which any editor may look through and decide whether to create a new article. There also exist over 200 drafts up at Category:Draft-Class video game articles, if anyone wishes to work on a pre-existing draft. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Begging thread

I'll start this thread, for what it's worth. I'll trade something for someone (don't mind what as long as it's not involved with Resident Evil 5, Final Fantasy or the FAC for Seiken Densetsu 3) in exchange for a review of FF Agito or Destiny 2. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I'll take on Agito for a review of any of the Infinity articles - Never 7, Ever 17, or Remember 11.--IDV^talk 14:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@IDV: I've taken Never 7. Once that's done, you can take Agito. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll happily trade any form of review in exchange for some comments on the The Last of Us FAC. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: Bingo! Jumping Flash's FAC is a bit dry at the moment. I'll happily start leaving comments at your FAC before tonight hopefully. JAGUAR 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Sounds good! I'll take a look at Jumping Flash! shortly. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking up the Syndicate review. Don't have an article up for GAN or anything, just feeling generous. I'll also take a look at TLOU and Jumping Flash FANs soon. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Thank you very much. If you have a video game related article up at GAN I will review it for you. I will trade a GAN review in exchange for a Dragon Age GAN review. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon everyone. I've decided that I ought to pitch a hand in here, but I have always been concerned that I may not fully understand the assessment procedures. If someone could link me to the appropriate reading, beyond WP:GAN/I and WP:VG/AI , I'll see about tackling one or two of these. I think I have the gist but want to make sure I don't miss the details. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I heartily encourage this. Reviews are what keeps good content alive. All you need to know is the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, which you can supplement with Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not (has some good advice). Otherwise the bar is set particularly low. GA and FA reviews are really about noting in what ways (positive or negative) you feel the current article meets the criteria and what would need to do to rectify any obstacles. Some reviewers use a template to help with this, but that's optional. And as you linked, the GA instructions page helps with the technical opening/closing of reviews, but the gist is really just changing the template on the talk page when the review is finished. In time, most editors add non-GA stuff to their reviews (about proper formatting in the infobox/reviews templates, about the project guidelines, etc.) but none of that stuff is necessary for the GA review, though I believe most editors appreciate the thoroughness. czar 17:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking a stab at CD Projekt. Check back shortly. ;) -- ferret (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Phew, that's a lot of work. First review ever started and posted. -- ferret (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good job, that's a pretty clear and clean review! Yeah, articles on individual games are usually the easiest; companies are a bit harder/longer, and hardware/concepts longer still, in my experience. --Pres N 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Your review of the article is excellent. Remember to put the review on hold next time though. :) AdrianGamer (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to come across Iwo Jima and thought it looked really nice, so I decided to review it. Just see it as a Christmas present, I guess :p ~Mable (chat) 12:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

New articles – December 18th

Hidden away in our subpages is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements, which lists new article created in our project. (Thanks to @Salavat for compiling!) I think these entries need more eyeballs and better publicity for cleanup, so unless there is any great objection, I'd like for them to be posted to WT:VG weekly for discussion and communal effort. Better than the rigmarole of taking it to AfD and whatever later, methinks.

New articles that were previously redirects don't usually get added to this list so more new pages get overlooked or are untracked by the WikiProject than what appears here. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Processed some—feel free to add your own notes czar 17:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say weekly is too often. Perhaps, (bi)monthly? Though my impression is that those interested in this list already use/watchlist it or at least WP:VG/AA. One issue with that page is that it's mainly the knowledgeable editors who add to it. If not for Salavat, it'd probably be terribly outdated and incomplete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Top video games lists

Is there any objection to having this page in the project workspace instead of user space before I have all the sub-pages moved? SharkD Talk 11:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Stub/start reduction campaigne

In the past, i made the campaign for working on stub-related articles. And if we couldn't get them to at least start-class, we would AfD them. ON the other hand if we did get them to start, we would work on them until they were at least C-class. I'm going to try to do this campaigne here. Does anyone want to join me?

We might not get a lot of articles up to C-class, but it makes it easier to search through the list and finding more. The good news is that there is no Top or High-important Stub-classes. So the rest is just Mid (still really low) and low-important. Lucia Black (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a list of stubs with {{notability}} tag:

Extended content

[[20XX (video game)]]
[[250 Mannin no Kanken Wii de Tokoton Kanji Nou]]
[[3G Studios]]
[[4D Rulers]]
[[4x4 Hummer]]
[[8Ball Allstars]]
[[8-Bit Rebellion!]]
[[A Dinosaur's Tale]]
[[A Week of Garfield]]
[[Aces & Faces]]
[[ACID64 Player]]
[[Aderyn's Cradle]]
[[Adidas Championship Football]]
[[Advanced Xoru]]
[[Afterimage (shader effect)]]
[[Age of Elements]]
[[Agent Armstrong]]
[[Agora Games]]
[[AirTaxi]]
[[AKB1/149 Ren'ai Sōsenkyo]]
[[Alarm für Cobra 11: Highway Nights]]
[[Alex Amancio]]
[[All Star Cheer Squad 2]]
[[Alltynex]]
[[Alternative Software]]
[[Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (video game)]]
[[AmeriDarts]]
[[Amusement Expo]]
[[Andrea Jennifer Shubert]]
[[Andrew Barnabas]]
[[AngelScript]]
[[App Game Kit]]
[[Aquarium (video game)]]
[[ARCA Sim Racing '08]]
[[Arcade Barn]]
[[Arcadia (TV series)]]
[[Arcadians (video game)]]
[[Arjan Brussee]]
[[Armin van Buuren: In the Mix]]
[[Artex Software]]
[[Ashes of Empire]]
[[Ashly Burch]]
[[Astro Battle (video game)]]
[[Asura (video game)]]
[[Ataraxia (gamer)]]
[[Atari (Jakks Pacific)]]
[[Atlantis Underwater Tycoon]]
[[Atomic Motion]]
[[Audio designer]]
[[Audition Portable]]
[[AvaGlide]]
[[Avenger (1981 video game)]]
[[Axiom: Overdrive]]
[[Ayami Kojima]]
[[BaboViolent 2]]
[[Baby Universe]]
[[Babysitting Mama]]
[[Backyard Basketball 2007]]
[[Baja Destruction]]
[[Baja Mania]]
[[Baku Baku Animal]]
[[Baldur's Gate (novel)]]
[[Balloon Man]]
[[Baluba-Louk No Densetsu]]
[[Bandai RX-78]]
[[Banishing Racer]]
[[Barbie: Groom and Glam Pups]]
[[Barrack (video game)]]
[[Battle Chess: Game of Kings]]
[[Battle Soccer 2]]
[[Battle vs. Chess]]
[[Bauhaus Entertainment]]
[[Bay Raitt]]
[[Bazooka Cafe]]
[[BBBeat]]
[[BeachWare]]
[[Beat Ball]]
[[Beat Ball 2]]
[[Beat Head]]
[[Beep Industries]]
[[Ben Bero Beh]]
[[Beneath Apple Manor]]
[[Benny Hill's Madcap Chase]]
[[BeyondSims]]
[[Bionicle: Matoran Adventures]]
[[Bionicle: Maze of Shadows]]
[[Birds of Prey (video game)]]
[[Bits, Sticks, and Buttons.]]
[[Bitsquid]]
[[Blaby Computer Games]]
[[Black Heart (video game)]]
[[Black Shades]]
[[Black Stone: Magic & Steel]]
[[Blitz Brigade]]
[[Blizzard Worldwide Invitational]]
[[Blobster]]
[[Bloober Team]]
[[Bloodbath Kavkaz]]
[[Blueprint 3D]]
[[Blue's Clues Kindergarten]]
[[Bola tangkas]]
[[Bonka]]
[[Bouncing Babies (video game)]]
[[Bret Robbins]]
[[Brian T. Delaney]]
[[Brigitte Burdine]]
[[Bunch of Heroes]]
[[Burning Monkey]]
[[Burning Wheels]]
[[Business in Gaming Conference]]
[[Butt-Ugly Martians: Zoom or Doom]]
[[Cameron Lee]]
[[Canary (visual novel)]]
[[Capcom Platinum Hits Triple Pack]]
[[Capoeira Legends]]
[[Captain Bible in Dome of Darkness]]
[[Captain Comic II: Fractured Reality]]
[[Cars: Radiator Springs Adventures]]
[[CarSim]]
[[Casey Mongillo]]
[[Casino Tycoon (video game)]]
[[Castle of Terror]]
[[Casual Romance Club]]
[[Caverns of Xaskazien]]
[[Celestial Digital Entertainment]]
[[ChargerCon]]
[[Chicago Gaming]]
[[Chivalry (video game)]]
[[Choplifter HD]]
[[ChoroQ (video game)]]
[[Chris King (game designer)]]
[[Ciaran Gultnieks]]
[[City Bus Simulator]]
[[Civilization: The Boardgame]]
[[ClanBase EuroCup]]
[[Classic Compendium]]
[[Classic Compendium 2]]
[[Cocoto Fishing Master]]
[[Colleen Macklin]]
[[Colorsport VIII]]
[[Combat Elite: WWII Paratroopers]]
[[Conan (2004 video game)]]
[[Coraline (video game)]]
[[Cosmic Family]]
[[CPAGE]]
[[CraftWorld]]
[[Crayon Shin-chan: Saikyou Kazoku Kasukabe King Wii]]
[[Crisis in the Gulf]]
[[Crosscountry Canada 2]]
[[CSI: Crime City]]
[[Cultures (video game series)]]
[[Curse of the Pharaoh: The Quest for Nefertiti]]
[[CyberMage: Darklight Awakening]]
[[Cyclone Studios]]
[[Cythera (video game)]]
[[Daikaijū no Gyakushū]]
[[Dance! Online]]
[[Daniel Remar]]
[[DarkMatter]]
[[David Rolfe (programmer)]]
[[David W. Bradley]]
[[Dawntide]]
[[Day of Love]]
[[DBPF (file format)]]
[[DC Studios]]
[[Dead Realm]]
[[Dead Space: Martyr]]
[[Deadline Games]]
[[Demon (video game)]]
[[Demonsbane]]
[[Destruction Derby (1975 video game)]]
[[Devan Leos]]
[[Diablo III: Book of Cain]]
[[Dicing Knight Period]]
[[Die Gute Fabrik]]
[[Die Hard: Nakatomi Plaza]]
[[DIFRNCE MGC01]]
[[DigiFX Interactive]]
[[Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei (Telenet Japan)]]
[[Digital Fiction]]
[[Digital Infinity]]
[[Dilbert's Desktop Games]]
[[Dinosaur Safari]]
[[Dirt Bike Maniacs]]
[[Dirt Dragons]]
[[Disney's Game On]]
[[Dive Alert: Matt's Version]]
[[Doctor Who: The First Adventure]]
[[Dokapon Journey]]
[[Dōkyūsei 2]]
[[Domo-kun no Fushigi Terebi]]
[[Doom 3: Maelstrom]]
[[Doom 3: Worlds on Fire]]
[[Doom Resurrection]]
[[Dovogame]]
[[Draconus Entertainment]]
[[Dracula the Undead (video game)]]
[[Dragon Age: The Calling]]
[[Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne]]
[[DreamWorks Super Star Kartz]]
[[Duck Maze]]
[[Duncan Botwood]]
[[Dungeon Siege: The Battle for Aranna]]
[[Dungeonland (video game)]]
[[Dust Racing 2D]]
[[DUX (video game)]]
[[E.S.S. Mega]]
[[Earth Shaker (video game)]]
[[Ecole Software]]
[[Eddie Wong]]
[[Eden Eternal]]
[[Eidos Hungary]]
[[Eikō no Saint Andrews]]
[[Elias Poutanen]]
[[Elite Warriors: Vietnam]]
[[Embedded Entertainment System]]
[[Emergency 4: Global Fighters for Life]]
[[Empire of the Ants (video game)]]
[[Empty Clip Studios]]
[[Endgame: Singularity]]
[[England Championship Special]]
[[Enigma Prison]]
[[Enigmatis: The Ghosts of Maple Creek]]
[[Ennichi no Tatsujin]]
[[Entertainment Software Rating Association]]
[[Entombed (1982 video game)]]
[[Episodic storytelling]]
[[Eric Holmes (videogame designer)]]
[[Erik Bethke]]
[[Ernest W. Adams]]
[[Etsunobu Ebisu]]
[[Eurofighter Typhoon (video game)]]
[[Ex illis]]
[[Extreme Gamer]]
[[Extreme Paintbrawl 4]]
[[F&C (eroge maker)]]
[[F.Godmom]]
[[F4 (company)]]
[[Fable: The Balverine Order]]
[[Falcon's Eye]]
[[Family Park Tycoon]]
[[Fantasy Software]]
[[Fates Forever]]
[[Fathammer]]
[[Fathammer Classics Pack]]
[[Fenix Project]]
[[First Kiss Story]]
[[First Kiss Story II]]
[[Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage 2]]
[[Flixel]]
[[Fluff (fiction)]]
[[Flying Shine]]
[[Flying-Model-Simulator]]
[[Folk Tale (video game)]]
[[Food Force 2]]
[[Forsaken World: War of Shadows]]
[[Frayed Knights]]
[[FRED (disk magazine)]]
[[Fred Haslam]]
[[French Bread (game developer)]]
[[Fresh Games]]
[[Frogatto & Friends]]
[[From the Bench Digital Entertainment]]
[[Front Fareast Industrial]]
[[Fuck This Jam]]
[[Full Fat]]
[[Future Racer]]
[[Gabriel Entertainment]]
[[Gadget & the Gadgetinis (video game)]]
[[Gadget Racers (2002 video game)]]
[[Gainward]]
[[Galaga X6]]
[[Gamania]]
[[Game Design Workshop]]
[[Game Factory Interactive]]
[[Game Party Champions]]
[[Game Party: In Motion]]
[[GameCrab]]
[[GameDev.net]]
[[Gamelabs]]
[[GameMill Publishing]]
[[Gamenauts]]
[[GameSoft Publishing]]
[[GameSpot shows and podcasts]]
[[GameSpy Technology]]
[[Gamex]]
[[GameZone]]
[[Ganbare Goemon: Karakuri Kiteretsu Rēsu]]
[[Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties (video game)]]
[[Garry M. Gaber]]
[[Gate Crasher]]
[[Gears of War: The Slab]]
[[Geila Zilkha]]
[[Gekkeiju Online]]
[[Genesis3D]]
[[Geoff Brown Holdings]]
[[Get outta my face]]
[[Gettysburg: Armored Warfare]]
[[GFI Russia]]
[[GH057ayame]]
[[Ghostfire Games]]
[[Girl's Club]]
[[Givro]]
[[Glass no Mori]]
[[GLAVE (software)]]
[[G-learning]]
[[Global Warfare]]
[[Glory of Fellowland]]
[[Gnop!]]
[[Go Figure! (video game)]]
[[Go! Puzzle]]
[[Goldfields (video game)]]
[[GooBall]]
[[Great Invasions]]
[[Green Farm]]
[[Gridlee]]
[[Grogger (video game)]]
[[GT-R 400]]
[[Guardic]]
[[Guido (jazz band)]]
[[Guimo]]
[[GunBeat]]
[[Gunlord]]
[[Gust Buster]]
[[Gustaf Grefberg]]
[[Gustavo Mendonca]]
[[Gyrodine]]
[[Gyroxus]]
[[Hackerence]]
[[Halcyon Days (book)]]
[[Hanagumi Taisen Columns]]
[[Hardy LeBel]]
[[Harry Standjofski]]
[[HDStarcraft]]
[[HeadFirst PD]]
[[Heavy Unit]]
[[Herbert (video game)]]
[[Herculean Effort Productions]]
[[Heroes of Might and Magic Online]]
[[Heroes of the Realm]]
[[Hero's Heart (video game)]]
[[HexaDrive]]
[[High School Musical: Livin' the Dream]]
[[Highway Rider (video game)]]
[[Hired Gun]]
[[Hissatsu Pachinko Collection]]
[[History of Biology (video game)]]
[[Hitman: Enemy Within]]
[[HIVE]]
[[Holy Beast Online]]
[[Holy Mission]]
[[Hoplon Infotainment]]
[[Hoshi wo Sagashite...]]
[[Hoshiful]]
[[Hoshiuta]]
[[Hot Chix 'n' Gear Stix]]
[[Hot Shot (video game)]]
[[Hot Shots Golf 3]]
[[HotGen]]
[[Hovercraft (game)]]
[[Hungribles]]
[[Hyperballoid HD]]
[[Hysteria Hospital: Emergency Ward]]
[[I-0]]
[[Ian Flynn]]
[[Ian Weatherburn]]
[[IDT Racing Simulations]]
[[Iggle Pop!]]
[[Immersion Games]]
[[Immoral Study]]
[[Imōto Jiru]]
[[Infinity Blade: Redemption]]
[[Inhuman Games]]
[[Initial D: Street Stage]]
[[InMomentum]]
[[Inspector Gadget: Advance Mission]]
[[Inspector Gadget: Mad Robots Invasion]]
[[Intense x]]
[[International Hobo]]
[[Irem M-107]]
[[Ironclads: American Civil War]]
[[Ironman (computer gaming)]]
[[IS – internal section]]
[[Islamic Fun]]
[[Island Officials]]
[[Italy '90 Soccer]]
[[James Discovers Math]]
[[Jankenman]]
[[Jason Merchant]]
[[Jeff Spangenberg]]
[[Jeff van Dyck]]
[[Jeffrey Anderson (game designer)]]
[[Jen Taylor]]
[[Jim Rossignol]]
[[Jinkō Shōjo 3]]
[[Johnny Nero: Action Hero]]
[[Jonah Lomu Rugby]]
[[Journey to Alpha Centauri (In Real Time)]]
[[JT's Blocks]]
[[JumpStart 3D Virtual World]]
[[Junebud]]
[[Jungle no Ōja Tar-chan: Sekai Manyū Dai Kakutō no Maki]]
[[JXD 1000]]
[[JXD S5110]]
[[K9.5: The Tail-Wag Tour]]
[[Kaiser (video game)]]
[[Kal Online]]
[[Kamidori Alchemy Meister]]
[[Kanagram]]
[[Kelly Slater's Pro Surfer]]
[[Keriotosse!]]
[[Kevin Schilder]]
[[Kikou Seiki Unitron]]
[[Killer Kong]]
[[Kimi ga Yobu, Megido no Oka de]]
[[Kingdom Conquest]]
[[Kingory]]
[[Kizuato]]
[[KnightCap]]
[[Knights (video game)]]
[[Kogado Studio]]
[[Kolf (video game)]]
[[Koramgame]]
[[Kowa-Oto]]
[[Krater (video game)]]
[[Kudos: Rock Legend]]
[[Kunihiko Tanaka]]
[[KwonHo]]
[[Last Flight (video game)]]
[[Learnalot]]
[[Legacy of Blood (novel)]]
[[Leland Interactive Media]]
[[Lenar]]
[[Lesta Studio]]
[[Let's Play Pet Hospitals]]
[[Level 3 (TV series)]]
[[Lightning Fish]]
[[Lilin in popular culture]]
[[Limelight Software]]
[[Lord of Souls]]
[[Luc Bernard]]
[[Ludometrics]]
[[Lupin III: Pandora no Isan]]
[[M.U.D.S. – Mean Ugly Dirty Sport]]
[[Madara (manga)]]
[[Magic Darts]]
[[Magical Chaser ~Stardust of Dreams~]]
[[Magicite]]
[[Mahjong Hishō-den: Naki no Ryū]]
[[Maid Marian Entertainment]]
[[Making History (series)]]
[[Malinche Entertainment]]
[[Marcin Przybyłowicz]]
[[Mario Wynands]]
[[Mark Harris (programmer)]]
[[Mark Lovegrove]]
[[Mark Pacini]]
[[Mark Randel]]
[[Mars Rising]]
[[Martin Alper]]
[[Martin Mystère: Operation Dorian Gray]]
[[Marty Stratton]]
[[MassBalance]]
[[Maxithlon]]
[[Maxum Games]]
[[Mean Hamster Software]]
[[Mech Mice]]
[[MegaMek]]
[[Memorial Series]]
[[Men of War: Condemned Heroes]]
[[Mercedes Rose]]
[[Mercenary Technology]]
[[Merchant Prince]]
[[Metal Gear / Solid Snake: Music Compilation of Hideo Kojima / Red Disc]]
[[Metal Gear 25th Anniversary: Metal Gear Music Collection]]
[[Metropolis Gameport]]
[[Mezase! Top Pro: Green ni Kakeru Yume]]
[[Milk Race (video game)]]
[[Mindcraft]]
[[Mini Kyodai Robo Goemon Compact]]
[[M-Inverse]]
[[Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends: Harvest Time Hop and Fly]]
[[Mission Against Terror]]
[[Mobile Suit Gundam: Try Age]]
[[Mobility (video game)]]
[[Monkey Shines (video game)]]
[[Monopoly/Boggle/Yahtzee/Battleship]]
[[Monster Paradise]]
[[Moon of the Spider]]
[[Morepork Games]]
[[MorphX (video game)]]
[[Mosaic Publishing]]
[[Motor Mania (video game)]]
[[Mr. Potato Head Saves Veggie Valley]]
[[MU2 (video game)]]
[[MumboJumbo]]
[[Music Monsters]]
[[My Disney Kitchen]]
[[My Life Coach]]
[[My Weight Loss Coach]]
[[Mystere incident]]
[[Mystery Case Files: Fate's Carnival]]
[[Mystery Case Files: Prime Suspects]]
[[Mythica]]
[[N64 Passport]]
[[Namco System FL]]
[[Naoki Maeda]]
[[Napalm: The Crimson Crisis]]
[[NASCAR Unleashed]]
[[Naughty Ones]]
[[NBA ShootOut]]
[[Necronomicon (video game)]]
[[Necronomicon: The Dawning of Darkness]]
[[Necropolis (browser game)]]
[[Neo Steam: The Shattered Continent]]
[[Nerlaska Studio]]
[[Nessy Learning Programme]]
[[Nester (emulator)]]
[[NetworKing]]
[[New in Town (video game)]]
[[NFlib]]
[[NHL FaceOff]]
[[Nightmist]]
[[Nintendo World]]
[[Nocturnal Illusion]]
[[Noddy's Magic Adventure]]
[[NoFrag]]
[[Novasa]]
[[Nunchuck Games]]
[[Nyko FrontMan]]
[[Obsession (video game)]]
[[Offbeat Guitarist]]
[[OGame]]
[[Olivier Hay]]
[[Onyx Project]]
[[OpenCity]]
[[Opération Teddy Bear]]
[[Operation: Desert Storm (video game)]]
[[Oppai Slider 2]]
[[Otona no Onnaryoku Kentei]]
[[Otronicon]]
[[Overkill (2011 video game)]]
[[Overkill 2]]
[[Painterboy]]
[[Pajama Sam 3: You Are What You Eat from Your Head to Your Feet]]
[[Panther (1988 video game)]]
[[Panty Raider: From Here to Immaturity]]
[[Panzar]]
[[Pararena]]
[[Patrick O'Luanaigh]]
[[PC Engine Best Collection]]
[[PC Player]]
[[Peer Schneider]]
[[Persuasive Games]]
[[Petz: Dogz 2 and Catz 2]]
[[Photo Hunt]]
[[Pick Me, Honey!]]
[[Pickle Wars]]
[[Pillars of Garendall]]
[[Pinball (Microvision)]]
[[Planet PSP]]
[[Platinum Hits: Adjustable Ratings Setting]]
[[Plus+]]
[[PMS Clan]]
[[Pokémon: Generations]]
[[Polystation]]
[[Poppermost Productions]]
[[Pop-pop]]
[[Power Chess]]
[[Power of Seven (publisher)]]
[[Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life]]
[[PP: Pianissimo]]
[[Prehistorik 2]]
[[Primitive Wars]]
[[Prince of Persia: The Graphic Novel]]
[[Princess Quest]]
[[Princess Waltz]]
[[Professional Gamers League]]
[[Proper Games]]
[[Pulltop]]
[[Punch Entertainment]]
[[Pure Pure Mimi to Shippo no Monogatari]]
[[Purple software]]
[[Puzzle Bots]]
[[QB-3]]
[[Quake 3 Fortress]]
[[Qubed]]
[[Quest for Magic]]
[[Radar Group]]
[[Radirgy Noa]]
[[Ragnagard]]
[[Ray Rizzo]]
[[Raycatcher]]
[[Rayman Junior]]
[[Rayman: Hoodlums' Revenge]]
[[Raze (magazine)]]
[[RealSports Volleyball]]
[[Red Stone (video game)]]
[[Red Thread Games]]
[[Resident Evil: Caliban Cove]]
[[Respecification]]
[[Retrovision]]
[[RHAON]]
[[RHEM 2: The Cave]]
[[RHEM 3: The Secret Library]]
[[Ribbon Hero]]
[[Ribbon Hero 2]]
[[Richard Rouse III]]
[[Ring: Infinity]]
[[Rise of the Video Game]]
[[Rising Kingdoms]]
[[Risk: Global Domination]]
[[Rivalry (computer game)]]
[[Rob King]]
[[Robo Rampage]]
[[Robot Battle]]
[[Robotfindskitten]]
[[Rock Band Mobile]]
[[Rock n' Bolt]]
[[RockAlone2k]]
[[Rocketbirds: Hardboiled Chicken]]
[[Rockman Theme Song Collection]]
[[Rock'n Wrestle]]
[[Roland Goes Digging]]
[[Roll 'n Rocker]]
[[Romancia]]
[[Rugby (video game)]]
[[Rugrats: Castle Capers]]
[[Rugrats: Studio Tour]]
[[Rupert and the Ice Castle]]
[[Ryan Lesser]]
[[S40 Racing]]
[[Saboten Bombers]]
[[Sacraboar]]
[[Sailing to the World]]
[[Saints of Virtue]]
[[Salammbo: Battle for Carthage]]
[[Samantha Youssef]]
[[Samorost (series)]]
[[Samsung SCH-B550]]
[[Samsung SPH-B5200]]
[[Samsung SPH-G1000]]
[[Samurai (video game)]]
[[Sand Storm (video game)]]
[[Sandbox Studios]]
[[Sangokushi Battlefield]]
[[Sarbloh Warriors]]
[[Save The Dinos]]
[[Saving the Port]]
[[Scooby-Doo! Who's Watching Who?]]
[[Seattle Retro Gaming Expo]]
[[SeaWorld Adventure Parks Tycoon]]
[[Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives]]
[[Sega Water Ski]]
[[Selatra]]
[[Sepia Tears ~midwinter's reprise~]]
[[Shadow Tor Studios]]
[[Shinji and Good Friends]]
[[Shizuku]]
[[Shouzou Kaga]]
[[Shrek Forever After (video game)]]
[[Silicon Sorcery]]
[[Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen]]
[[Simon the Sorcerer 5]]
[[Simplz: Zoo]]
[[Sintel The Game]]
[[Siobhan Flynn]]
[[Siroi Danmakukun]]
[[Size Five Games]]
[[Ska Studios]]
[[Skateboard Park Tycoon]]
[[Sky Target]]
[[SkyFallen Entertainment]]
[[Slender Rising 2]]
[[Slick Entertainment]]
[[Slithereens]]
[[Smashball]]
[[Smoking Car Productions]]
[[Snap! (programming language)]]
[[Snow (upcoming video game)]]
[[Sogna]]
[[Sokrates (video game)]]
[[Sonic & Knuckles • Sonic the Hedgehog 3]]
[[Sonic Boom, Inc.]]
[[Sonic the Hedgehog Boom: The Music from Sonic CD and Sonic Spinball]]
[[Space Pilot]]
[[Space Trader (Palm OS)]]
[[Spaceballs (demogroup)]]
[[Speed Freak]]
[[Spellcross]]
[[Spheres of Chaos]]
[[Spooky Castle: The Adventures Of Kid Mystic]]
[[Spore (1987 video game)]]
[[SPRay (video game)]]
[[Stair Dismount]]
[[Star Reach (video game)]]
[[Star Wars Galaxies: The Ruins of Dantooine]]
[[Star Wars Republic Commando: Hard Contact]]
[[Star Wars Republic Commando: Triple Zero]]
[[Star Wars Republic Commando: True Colors]]
[[Star Wars: Jedi Arena]]
[[Starpoint Gemini]]
[[Stephen Glicker]]
[[Steve Malpass]]
[[Steve Moraff]]
[[Steve Stone (artist)]]
[[Stoked Rider]]
[[Stones (video game)]]
[[Strange Flavour]]
[[Stratogon Entertainment]]
[[Subversion (video game)]]
[[Subway Surfers]]
[[Sudokuro]]
[[Super Chinese Land 1-2-3]]
[[Super Mario Bros./Tetris/Nintendo World Cup]]
[[Super Smash Bros. Crusade]]
[[Survival Island! Escape From The Desert Island!]]
[[Survivor (1982 video game)]]
[[Sushi Loops]]
[[Sweet Ange]]
[[SWIV 3D]]
[[Swoop (video game)]]
[[Symbiocom]]
[[Tactics (brand)]]
[[TAJ Productions (dubbing studio)]]
[[Take the Bullet]]
[[Tandy-12]]
[[Tasogare]]
[[Tasty Planet]]
[[TechRadar]]
[[Tengai Makyō: Daiyon no Mokushiroku]]
[[Tequila Works]]
[[The Adventures of Down Under Dan]]
[[The Adventures of El Ballo]]
[[The Adventures of Quik & Silva]]
[[The Basement Collection]]
[[The Clique: Diss and Make-Up]]
[[The ClueFinders Search and Solve Adventures]]
[[The Code Monkeys]]
[[The Cold War Era]]
[[The Curse of Sherwood]]
[[The Day the World Broke]]
[[The Dead Linger]]
[[The Game Show]]
[[The Golf Club]]
[[The Grail]]
[[The Guildhall at SMU]]
[[The Incredible Crash Dummies (video game)]]
[[The Kingdom of Shadow]]
[[The Last Eichhof]]
[[The Life Stage: Virtual House]]
[[The Lion King: Simba's Mighty Adventure]]
[[The Mask of Zorro (video game)]]
[[The Mighty Decider]]
[[The Most Addicting Sheep Game]]
[[The Oregon Trail: American Settler]]
[[The Princess Bride Game]]
[[The Quivering]]
[[The Reminiscence of Haruhi Suzumiya]]
[[The Scruffs: Return of the Duke]]
[[The Several Journeys of Reemus]]
[[The Slaughtering Grounds]]
[[The Strength of Nations]]
[[The Virtual Disappearance of Miriam]]
[[Theme Park Studio]]
[[Three Cards to Dead Time]]
[[Thunderhoney]]
[[TikGames]]
[[Time of Defiance]]
[[Timeline Interactive]]
[[Timon & Pumbaa's Jungle Games]]
[[TinyHELL]]
[[TipTop (video game)]]
[[Toby Ragaini]]
[[Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell (novel)]]
[[Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate]]
[[Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Fallout]]
[[Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Operation Barracuda]]
[[Tom Kerrigan's Simple Chess Program]]
[[Tomb Raider: The Action Adventure]]
[[Tomkorp]]
[[Topatoi]]
[[Torment (puzzle game)]]
[[Tornado Studios]]
[[Total Football (video game)]]
[[Tour de France (2011 game)]]
[[Tower Games]]
[[Toxjq]]
[[Train Tracking]]
[[Trenches 2]]
[[Treyarch NGL]]
[[Triotech]]
[[Troels Brun Folmann]]
[[Truck Dismount]]
[[Tsuyoshi Nagano]]
[[TubeTwist]]
[[Tweenies: Doodles' Bones]]
[[Twister Mania]]
[[Ubisoft Japan]]
[[Ukiyotei]]
[[Ultima Online: Samurai Empire]]
[[Umut Tarlaları]]
[[Under Fire (video game)]]
[[Universal Space]]
[[Unknown Worlds Entertainment]]
[[Vast Studios]]
[[VGN Radio]]
[[Video Game Vixens]]
[[Video gaming in India]]
[[Virtual Festival of Aerobatic Teams]]
[[Virtual Playground]]
[[Viva Cruiser]]
[[Viwawa]]
[[VOGL]]
[[W.I.T.C.H. (video game)]]
[[Wacky Races: Crash and Dash]]
[[Wacky Races: Mad Motors]]
[[War Leaders: Clash of Nations]]
[[War of the Grail]]
[[War of the Worlds (video game)]]
[[Warcraft: Lord of the Clans]]
[[Warcraft: Of Blood and Honor]]
[[Warcraft: The Last Guardian]]
[[Warcraft: War of the Ancients Trilogy]]
[[Warmux]]
[[What to Do After You Hit Return]]
[[Whirled]]
[[Wicked Monsters Blast!]]
[[Wii WAD]]
[[Winning Eleven Online]]
[[Winning Goal]]
[[Winning Post World 8]]
[[Wispin]]
[[Wizard Video]]
[[Wizards & Warriors (Windows video game)]]
[[WonderWitch]]
[[Woody Woodpecker: Escape from Buzz Buzzard Park]]
[[World Champ]]
[[World of Warcraft: Beyond the Dark Portal]]
[[World of Warcraft: Rise of the Horde]]
[[World of Warcraft: Tides of Darkness]]
[[World Snooker Championship 2007 (video game)]]
[[Wrecked: Revenge Revisited]]
[[Xavix]]
[[X-Plane Airliner]]
[[Yeti (company)]]
[[Yetisports]]
[[Yonezawa PR21]]
[[Yoostar]]
[[YoWorld]]
[[Yuji Himukai]]
[[Zeebo Extreme Rolimã]]
[[ZenGems]]
[[Zone 66]]
[[Zonic]]
[[Zoo Empire]]

Well, that's more than I thought... At least it's better than 13k for prioritizing. I'm not sure how to further filter them without overly complex logic. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That is definitely one way of doing it. I normally just do "Category:Stub-class video games" and "Category:Start-class video games". Makes it easier to find them. There are some that i'm surprised exist. I hope this campaign works out. Lucia Black (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Stub-Class video game articles, Category:Start-Class video game articles. These are the two populated by the project banner. There's also Category:Video game stubs which is populated by the Template:Videogame-stub template. -- ferret (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok i see how its done. Lucia Black (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we had a little miniproject a couple months ago to clear the 2 last high-class stubs. I think a more manageable project then the several hundred stubs with notability tags would be the 122 Mid-class Stubs - while I'm sure that "Mid" is inaccurate for some of them, it's at least a starting point that's not ovewhelming. --Pres N 22:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I was skimming through some articles and found that some labeled stubs were actually start class. So it might not be a bigger issue. It just needs people who gives them attention. Lucia Black (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We could come up with criteria for a list that scores/correlates things like visit statistics, edit statistics, importance, tagged issues, purpose (e.g. video game or person), content (e.g. lack of references), number of incoming links, involved WikiProjects, talk page activity, etc. It seems with some tweaking given raw data we could at least better estimate the top candidates. If someone has suggestions for criteria or what is most relevant? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The highest views, importance, and purpose is the ones i can think of. If there is a specific tagged issue that is a little too hard to handle, we can ask for additional help. I'm considering lack of references as part of the criteria. Lucia Black (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You could argue that those articles that aren't specific video games or people tend to be more important to Wikipedia. Take, for instance, power creep, point of no return, Wrapping (overflow), and zero-player game. Though they may be better off being merged with the Glossary of video game terms list. There are also the "Video gaming in.." articles (France, South Africa, and the UK) which I would personally give priority. Which specific video game stubs are more vital to improve than others, I have no idea. ~Mable (chat) 23:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well the ability to organize it by subject will make it easier. Finding out whether an individual game is notable or not is more easier to tell and improve. Its really just a way to get it there. I'm not dismissing any of the articles you presented, but if they involve heavy research then it might slow down the progress of reducing the stub/start count. But everyone is free to focus on whatever they want. Lucia Black (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Which Stubs are the most popular, you ask? PresN's got you covered! As per the popular pages tool, the top 10 most-viewed Stubs in November were:

~~WWE 2K16~~ (90,360, #65 overall)
~~Lego Dimensions~~ (64,748, #107 overall)
~~Street Fighter V~~ (51,524, #160 overall)
~~Ratchet & Clank Collection~~ (42,500, #229 overall)
Valkyrie Drive (40,204, #258 overall)
Brian T. Delaney (33,715, #339 overall)
~~Laura Bailey (voice actress)~~ (33,571, #341 overall)
Pokémon GO (32,787, #348 overall)
~~Dishonored 2~~ (29,620, #416 overall)
Anno (series) (28,760, #432 overall)
Subete ga F ni Naru (26,912, #477 overall)
Football Manager 2016 (26,544, #485 overall)
Gran Turismo 7 (26,160, #497 overall)
Lego Marvel's Avengers (25,591, #505 overall)
Treyarch (24,990, #519 overall)

Note that those are "Stubs as of November 1". Why yes, you do have to go down 65 places to find a Stub, and 432 to find 10. Position #1 is a GA (StarCraft (series)), and the highest FA is #31 (Grand Theft Auto V). The highest FL is #496, though (List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock). --Pres N 01:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Strike Dishonored 2... bumped it to start. Will review others later. -- ferret (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Lego Dimensions is also start. My main criteria for moving up to start is if they have some form of reception. Because that automatically makes it notable (feel free to correct me). Lucia Black (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Imoved WWE 2k16 up to start to. Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There were a few others that had been improved since November 1 already, so I've crossed everything not a stub off and added some more to bring it back up to 10. --Pres N 02:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe Street Fighter V easily makes start-class right now, and once the reception section grows, it would probably reach c-class pretty quickly. Crossed it out as well. ~Mable (chat) 11:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good Deal. i'm currently looking for info on Lego Marvel's Avenger. Lucia Black (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is actually really tough. With the few articles i can edit, i'm not finding much. And its most likely due to not being released. Is there a way to add "already released" into the criteria? Lucia Black (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be good criteria. After all, we could safely assume that Pokémon GO won't be nearly as popular an article a year from now. Meanwhile, the Anno series keeps going. The only real reason that some of these articles are both popular and short is because they are about recently announced content. ~Mable (chat) 08:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried the custom search? I left a few refideas on the talk page, that may have a few more details. Obviously gaming sites tend to say the same things, but there may be a few extra details. I think that's already a Start anyways. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I specifically have issues with games like Lego Marvel's Avengers strictly because its part of a series that is recurring. So the content i'm finding doesn't cover any of the more core aspects of what makes a solid video game article. Articles like Tony Hawk's video game series, every sports game out there. A game that recycles its game mechanics so faithfully, its hard to gain some more. I'm trying to work on Assassin's Creed Chronicles and i have to say, game reviews are being less and less clear. Its aggravating when you try to use the sources, but have a difficult time implementing it in an encyclopedic tone. Lucia Black (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I can relate! Is it possible to expand Gran Turismo 7? It's an upcoming game and all the sources I could find don't mention any reliable information, only speculation and anticipation. I know it's a high traffic stub but it's also an upcoming game and for the moment it's almost impossible to expand. JAGUAR 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

GT7 could probably be merged into the series article for now. The game hasn't even been formally announced as far as I know. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Role-playing video game vs Video role-playing game?

To me "role-playing video game" sounds funny. Also, it doesn't fit the pattern when compared to "computer role-playing game", "tabletop role-playing game", "pen-and-paper role-playing game", "live action role-playing game", "massively multiplayer online role-playing game", "online text-based role-playing game", "play-by-post role-playing game", etc. Would anyone else support a move? SharkD Talk 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're going to need a better rationale than "it sounds funny". "Role-playing video game" has over 450,000 hits on custom Google search on reliable video game sources. "Video role-playing game" has 2 hits... lol. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering that it is 225,000 to 1 against the proposed new title it should not be moved and likely have zero chance of success..--174.91.187.180 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think to check Google RS. :) SharkD Talk 01:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Was there any reliable sources that you found calling it a VRPG? If so, you can at least mention it as an alternative way of writing if sources do call it that. Some people and even professional reviewers and writers would say RPG-video game (g/game redundancy). And that's probably because RPG is a defined genre in games in general, its hard to separate it. And video games is never divided apart because its a completely different entity. So its no big deal. Lucia Black (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the Google RS, it's not worth mentioning. SharkD Talk 23:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Strongly against this move. No one calls it that. This would be a massive failure to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Italicizing website names

I notice that the cite web template now italicizes website names. The Purdue OWL also says that website names should be italicized. Is this a change we should make in gaming articles consistently? SharkD Talk 07:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally always do it. Seeing as a website constitutes as a "work", much like a journal or book, I believe it generally should be italicized. What I personally find most important, though, is consistency per article. Either put all website names in an article in italics or none of them. ~Mable (chat) 08:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this a long time ago and the consensus at the time was to use the publisher field in the cite web template for websites like GameSpot, IGN, etc. This seems to have been the wrong thing to do, and a huge number of articles still have citations made in this way. SharkD Talk 19:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I honestly tend to use publisher for those kind of names and then italicize the name anyway. Probably a bad habit ^_^" ~Mable (chat) 20:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, i tend to think that they shouldn't be italicized if they have ".com" or ".net" but i may just be wrong about it. Lucia Black (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

System requirements tables

Do they have a place in video game articles? --The1337gamer (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought the last discussion we had on it, a few years back, was basically "No", due to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:GAMECRUFT type reasons. I could be wrong though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Categorically no. System requirements have nothing to do with the game itself, and only to do with "can the reader play this on their machine" i.e "should I buy this". The fields were removed from the infobox years back, and should not be added to the article proper. Nothing more detailed than "The game was noted by reviewers as having very high system requirements for the time.[1]" should be included in an article. --Pres N 21:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@PresN:Can you try reading my argument below and repeat whether you think "System requirements have nothing to do with the game itself"? - hahnch e n 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hahnchen: "Heavy Gear II was one of the first games to require the player to have a graphics card to run effectively.[1]" "The game was very memory-intensive for the time, and memory management was a priority for the development team.[2]" "Reviewers noted that the game ran very well for the time on systems that only met its minimum requirements.[3]" - these are valid, excellent statements for an article, and none of them make a table of alphanumeric codes that are gibberish to most readers necessary. --Pres N 21:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't that already in WP:VGSCOPE -- "System requirements for a video game should only be mentioned if the requirements are in themselves notable". I find it hard to imagine each item in requirements is so individually notable that we want a full template table. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I remember reading a discussion that reached that conclusion, yeah. I also agree with it - system requirements are generally not notable. Well, unless some articles discuss them, I suppose. I imagine most places that give info on system requirements are websites giving indiscriminate data, such as systemrequirementslab.com. ~Mable (chat) 21:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As I thought. Can someone remove the system requirements table from Crysis and Heavy Gear II and tell User:Hahnchen to pay some attention to the guideline and consensus in future? --The1337gamer (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least he used good sources (such as 1UP). This info is better explained in prose, however, as these kind of system requirements data will be near-meaningless a few years after the release of the game. ~Mable (chat) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I was in the process of explaining why I've included system requirements in a new section on the talk page when I was beaten to the punch by the near meaningless discussion above which ignores all context. The above discussion merely asks what we do generally (which everyone already knows), instead of in these specific cases. - hahnch e n 21:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

System requirements, regardless of guidelines

I'm including system requirements in certain articles using Template:System requirements regardless of what our misguidelines say at WP:GAMECRUFT.

The target platform is important. For a console game, we can just say it was for Xbox 360, and readers will understand what level of hardware is required and the constraints the development team had to work to. For a 360 game, it means that the game had to run on 512MB RAM. To give the same amount of detail for a PC game, you need to state the requirements. If Batman: Arkham Knight had a 980ti was the minimum requirement, the nature of the backlash would be much different.

The reason I'm writing this is Heavy Gear II. The system requirements are referenced in the development and reception sections. It was one of the first games to require video cards, memory management was a priority in development, and the reception notes how the game runs well on minimum requirements.

But User:The1337gamer, who has not otherwise contributed to the article, and given their behaviour - hasn't read it, decided to delete sourced information. Sure, Wikignomes like to tick their wikiboxes, but you need significantly better reasoning than boxticking to remove sourced information when it supports the article. By removing that information, you have no idea what video cards they targeted, what constraints they worked to, and on what system PC Gamer tested it against.

That's why the system requirements are included in the article. And I'm using Template:System requirements because it's so much more efficient and easier to refer to than embedding it in prose. - hahnch e n 21:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good reason for inclusion. The general reader isn't going to understand the constraints a development team had to work with simply because a system requirement table is there. It would be better to explain that situation, if noteworthy and supported by reliable sources, in words. A table including memory capacity and processor speeds is of no benefit to the reader. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked both Crysis and Heavy Gear II and can confirm that the system reqs do mean something to the impression of the game, so that's fine. But taking Crysis as the example, where as it is noted that Crysis was often used as a stress test, I feel just throwing the requirements in a table without discussing the actual details is not helpful. What specific part of the Crysis requirements, at the time of release, were stressing most systems, for example? (I am a PC gamer and yet I don't keep track of all the alphanumeric soup that is required to understand CPU and video cards, so the table is useless to me). I think trying to capture those as prose is better. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Much in line with what PresN mentioned above, any abnormal requirements (as documented by reliable sources) can always be noted in the development or reception sections, but all of the requirements wholesale, is unnecessary, per WP:NOTHOWTO. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the difference here is between requirements as a whole being notable and actual items within requirements being notable. Unless reliable, secondary sources cover individual items, I feel it is undue to list other items just because the requirements overall or certain other items were significant. And if indeed every item is notable, then prose would already cover it in a much better way than a table could for a general reader with no frame of reference. As an analogy, just like every score in review table has a summary in prose, each reqs item should have a summary in prose. Except where a general reader understands 8/10 within a reference of 10 marks even after 20 years, they wouldn't understand 233 Mhz because there is no direct frame of reference. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is both a generalist and specialist encyclopedia, we're not writing exclusively for idiots. I have no doubt that featured article AdS/CFT correspondence reads like gibberish for the majority of readers. If a section of the article proves inaccessible to a subset of our readership, we really shouldn't care, that section was not written for them. It was written for an audience with the same technical knowledge as our software articles, the same technical knowledge as readers of 1UP.com and PC Gamer from where the information is sourced, and the same technical knowledge as the target market of the very subjects covered. We are not asking for much. - hahnch e n 18:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still an encyclopedia though. Do you really think that the ol' Encyclopedia Brittanica included the system requirements for any PC games it may have covered? System requirements fall out of the scope of the type of an encyclopedia article. 1UP.com/IGN type sites have a "cheats" section too, but you don't see us adding that. Because its outside of the scope. Much like this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How is Britannica a remotely valid comparison? Britannica is exclusively a generalist encyclopedia, whereas the point I raised was that Wikipedia is a specialist encyclopedia too. Britannica wouldn't even list the technical specifactions of the PlayStation if it is at all covered. - hahnch e n 17:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Per what you quoted above, Wikipedia incorporates elements of a specialist encyclopedia. It is not one itself though. Spec lists that go over a vast majority of the readers head is "too specialist" for Wikipedia. If that's too subjective for you, then all we need to do is rely on the consensus of discussion. I don't believe a single person has advocated it being appropriate except for you. So there's your answer. You're free to start up an RFC, but if the video game/tech savy group here at WP:VG is against it, I can only imagine what the input would be from outsiders... Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

While it is true we have specialist articles, it is generally considering the overall level of the article: if the article is all about a specialist topic then it appropriate to talk at a specialist level. Within the body of a more generalized article, that's something to avoid. For 99% of video games (including PC), we write these at the level of someone who may not even have played video games, not at the level of a gamer. As such, tossing in system requirements without any explaination to their importance should be avoided. If system requirements are part of the game's notability, as clearly a case with Crysis, then they should be explained at the generalist level, which means you need to have prose and not a table to give that context. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That we need to cater to a generalist audience does not mean the entire article is written for them, this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. Articles like HIV/AIDS clearly have sections which are more accessible than others. How is that an argument for deleting content for more technical readers? Following User:Sergecross73's latest revert at Crysis, the article explicitly asks, "Yeah, but can it run Crysis?", but never answers it. The system requirements are no more technical than the development paragraph where they sit, they answer the question in a succinct way that is readily understood by readers who can comprehend PC Gamer. - hahnch e n 17:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Then answer it - within the confines of the consensus forming here. As in, prose, not a wholesale listing of system requirements. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This. You have half the language in the prose for this already, but you can move some of the specs into prose that matter most. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I did answer it. It was deleted. Apparently we're deleting information if it doesn't conform to our aesthetic tastes. - hahnch e n 18:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't really answer it. You just listed system requirements without any context. It is seldom the case that all system requirements contribute to a game having abnormal system requirements, like hard drive space, that warrent the inclusion of all of them. If there are specific abnormal requirements, they can be listed in prose, the others can be omitted. You can't make blind assumptions on what the reader will know, including readers you call "specialists." Can you realistically expect anyone to know that "requires 12 GB of free space" was "abnormal" without knowing off-hand what hard drive spaces were common at the time, even 5, 10, or 20 years from now? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To add, even when you look at some of the articles from that time, you have an example like this from the BBC or this from the LA Times, they say "Crysis takes a lot of computing power" without actually talking about the specifics of the computing power besides what DirectX 10 offers, or that it look gfx cards with 256 MB, which is something those hardware pieces better enable, and that most standard pre-made computers didn't offer, hence why leading to gaming rigs. (To add): You're not adding it in a meaningful way, that's the problem. A table of gibberish to all but the most expert people on a topic with no explanation to lead them to that does not help. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing system requirements in a video game article is making no more "blind assumptions" as to what readers know than listing system specifications in a console article. In the case of Heavy Gear II, the system requirements were already significantly cut down from their originals, and the boxout format means you can present a lot of information in a very succinct, which readers can easily find from anywhere in the article. - hahnch e n 01:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at an example in Heavy Gear II's list of requirements: why do you need to mention how much RAM the game used on the two operating systems? The prose does not mention RAM at all, so why is it necessary to know this? Was requiring 64 MB of RAM unheard of in 1999? If so, that should be explicitly addressed in prose, with a source that directly addresses the game's RAM requirement. Without that frame of reference, including the RAM is completely useless. Same goes for the CPU requirement. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The RAM completes the picture of resources available to run the game, and shows the constraints which the developers had to work to. This gives the same amount of detail as for a console game, where the RAM would be listed in the console article. That might be useless to someone with zero technical knowledge, but it is valuable for anyone actually researching the game, and the processes which created it. The development section mentions C++, and that will mean nothing to someone without technical knowledge. But to a technical reader, it signals that the engine was built with an object-oriented approach, unlike earlier engines such as the Quake engine. That the CPU requirement is higher on Linux suggests to a technical reader that there are additional overheads introduced in the port. Whereas to a non-technical reader, a PC game is just a PC game. Not everything is written for a generalist audience, not every implication is spelt out. And that's OK, we shouldn't damage the information for specialist readers just so generalists aren't felt to be left out. - hahnch e n 00:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Zombies, Run!

Can I please get some feedback on the Zombies, Run! article? I've been adding sources and good information to it, but another editor doesn't think the cast list is appropriate and has told me to prepare to be edited, and has also given me a deadline of a day. I've been using the official website for things like the cast list, release dates, development inspiration, etc. I would appreciate some more eyes on the article to help facilitate things. Thank you. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the cast list per WP:VGSCOPE #11. It's not a matter of whether it's sourced or not, but we have guidelines in place that address the inclusion of cast lists. -- ferret (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Have to say, though, I went to the page expecting to see that 211.30 had just been adding sources to the cast list, but you've done a lot of good work on that article in general- nice job! --Pres N 00:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, no complaint about the general work on the article at all. Seems like the cast list is the only thing that was going back and forth. :) -- ferret (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @PresN:, I appreciate it. I was also told that primary sources were inappropriate for the article (although secondary sources far outnumber primary sources in the article...) so I was concerned about that as well. Are primary sources being used appropriately in the article? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are actually recommended. Perhaps you are referring to first-party sources? Which is anything official. They're not bad, but its preferred that the article contains more third-party coverage. So if you find websites with these sources, try coupling them with third-party sources (news sites) that cover or reported the information. For the cast, it sounds like there is aplot, and its heavily voice acted. So it might be worthy. but i recommend adding plot first. Lucia Black (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources (connected to subject in question) are inappropriate when they make unsubstantiated or controversial claims or if we interpret them. So it's fine if we quote the developer who says they made the game in their spare time, but it's dubious if they say their success is due to their free time, and it is wholly inappropriate to say their success is due to their free time if they only say that they made the game in their free time and it was successful. If there is any doubt, it is up to reliable secondary sources to fact-check and present the information. That said, primary sources are perfectly fine for things that don't require interpretation, like gameplay, if no secondary sources can be used. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 02:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I was concerned because the message I got stated that the primary sources needed to be removed. They're being used for release dates, episode count, design influences, gameplay, feature/special event announcements, how much money they made in the kickstarter, who wrtites Zombies, Run! and what free players get vs subscription players get (and how the people who bought the old app are grandfathered in). Do any of these uses seem inappropriate? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that it would make sense for release dates or episode counts. With the other sections: primary sources should be avoided unless there is absolutely no alternative. For example, if a game has been announced but there aren't any outside posts that cover it on reliable websites, then it likely shouldn't be placed in the article because it isn't notable enough yet (same with in-game events and such). The Guardian source you have about "Going Freemium" is obviously reputable for things like free vs. play, but you have to be careful that you're summarizing the topic at hand. I think the article looks great overall, but I'd say to cut the "Virtual Races" section unless you can find outside sources for it and try to limit the amount of blog posts that you use as sources to a minimum. Great work though. Nomader (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have found an external source for the virtual races, and I had thought that I was focusing on non-affiliated sources when I grew the article. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "you have to be careful that you're summarizing the topic at hand"? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How do I cite this?

I am trying to cite http://www.telespiele.info/index.html. It is ~~about~~ for an event held at Leipzig Games Convention in 2007. But what is the name of the website and who is the publisher? Thanks. SharkD Talk 17:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

{{cite web |url=http://www.telespiele.info/index.html |title=35 Jahre Telespiele - 1972-2007 |work=Telespiele |publisher=Arcadeshop.de |accessdate=2015-12-23}}</ref> --Pres N 17:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Arcadeshop.de is the publisher. The site just says "supported by Arcadeshop.de" at the bottom (according to Google Translate). I think it is the "official" site for the event. SharkD Talk 18:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The whois info for the site says that the domain name registered to René Meyer, who is the person who created the event. It's your call- if you think that stamp at the bottom was just saying that the event is officially associated with the convention, then the publisher and work are the same thing, just Telespiele (publishing information about themselves on their own website). The author is probably René Meyer, though not certainly. --Pres N 18:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Another thing that confuses me is that "Telespiele" is not the name of an organization. It just happens to be the domain name used for the site. The site doesn't seem to have a name of its own. SharkD Talk 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Release date reform

Let's talk release dates. We agreed fairly recently that we should not be dropping aggregator percentages in the Reception section a propos of nothing because it was devoid of context, signified little on its own, and made for terrible prose. What about release dates? We tend to dump every date into the late Development or early Reception section for all sorts of regions and for what? If, for example, a game released on January 1 in one region and in all the others within the month, why not just say it like that and let readers follow the source if they want more specific dates? This is also connected to the infobox, which collects all sorts of release date cruft. Is listing each specific date a form of overinformation? I know my eyes generally glaze over when I hit such a section and I actually try to be interested. Readers generally want to know when each port of a game was released—do we really need to specific each specific date or can we generalize? czar 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been doing this exact thing for a while without any controversy, so I had thought it was an unwritten guidelines. For example, when a game is released worldwide over the course of a month, we really should just state it was "released worldwide in December 2015" instead of listing each individual date, as the infobox covers that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The way that I've dealt with this, in the case of The Last of Us Remastered, is to place the separate release dates within a footnote. This hasn't been challenged in the past, and I consider it a good way to approach it. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

How do other WikiProjects deal with this? I checked some albums, but they only list one release date in the infobox, which I assume is the first release date. Same goes for film. This seems to be the case for American and Japanese material (the ones I checked). May it be proper to only list the original release date - leaving out all (other) English language releases? I suppose translation is often more a thing for video games than it is for film, so a localized release may be vastly different to the original and this leads to an "extended development" before a second release. That may be an argument to keep the first English-language release date in for non-English-games. Other than that, I really don't know a reason. If this were the German Wikipedia (for example), it would make perfect sense to list the German release date, but as the English Wikipedia, we should either list all English releases or none of them. I understand where this cruft idea comes from.

I definitely agree that specific release dates should generally stay out of the prose, but I'm still on the fence on whether we should be listing secondary release dates in the infobox. ~Mable (chat) 00:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with the idea to keep specific release dates out of the prose unless notable, but they definitely should be in the infobox. Video games, maybe more than any other media, are affected by regional release dates. While I can import a novel from, say, the US, instead of waiting and hoping for it to be picked up by a local publisher, I couldn't do the same with a region-coded video game. It would not be helpful to tell a European reader in 2013 that yes, Shin Megami Tensei IV is available in English now, without mentioning that it had in fact not been released in Europe yet. I think this is interesting with already released games, as well - at least I personally find it interesting to look back on when a game was first released and how long it took for it to make it to other regions. I am not sure if I'm making a particularly strong case for this, but I do find infobox release dates useful, and often go to Wikipedia to check when a game came out or will come out in my region.--IDV^talk 00:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Film project uses the following format: for the infobox and the lead, the earliest cited released date, plus the release dates for the country of the production company are featured. If there are additional notable release dates for a film, they are written in prose in a Release section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In prose, absolutely trim down. In the infobox, while we get specific on region and platform, I also see a lot of cases where, say, different platforms in the same region are marked even though the difference is just a few days. That's spammy. A difference of a month or so is definitely worth to point out but not a few days. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would say the exact opposite. In the hierarchy of data, I see the infobox summarizing the lede, and the lede summarizing the body. The body should include any detail worth mentioning, and the other two should summarize that information. Unless I'm reading your post wrong, you seem to be suggesting the opposite. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So you think writing "was released in Japan on December 1, 2015, in North America on December 2, 2015, and in Europe on December 3, 2015" is better than writing "was released worldwide in December 2015"? I disagree, and it seems others do as well. Exact dates should go in the infobox and release section, but having it in the lead? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the generalizing of release dates. Wikipedia is not paper; there is no need to be stingy with our documentation. Wikipedia should serve as an historical record and maintain the existence of this information. Just look at Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System#cite_note-NAReleaseDateNote-1---information from as recent as 25 years ago is already being lost to the digital aether and if it isn't Wikipedia's job to counteract this, then whose is it? We already have two perfectly suitable solutions for so-called "infobox release date bloat": using a footnote and using Template:Collapsible list. There is absolutely no need to excise this information completely. As someone who has spent countless hours tracking down specific reliable sources for actual release dates, no easy task for some older games, this proposal spits on that effort and I can't abide by it. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I should mention that I am referring only to preserving data in the infobox. In prose, use your best judgment w.r.t. "brilliant prose". Axem Titanium (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly what the release section is for? A lead should cover all information in the article, but in a generalized style with the detailed info in the sections below. Anything wrong with that? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Release sections are useful for this, but only if the releases are somewhat notable. Release events or long lines - stuff like that - is usually listed in such sections. If the only thing that is in the "release" section is three or four release dates, you might as well just keep that in an infobox. ~Mable (chat) 08:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The release section should be specific, unlike the lead and the infobox. That's the point of the release section. If the main article doesn't include all these release dates then the lead and the infobox shouldn't, as they are there to summarize the article. All release dates are notable as they are covered by reliable sources, and they shouldn't be excluded because they make for terrible prose. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the person who forgot to sign their post ("So you think writing ...") that the infobox should be there to deliver specific kinds of data regardless of whether it is also described in the prose. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my comment. Anyway, the best example of this in my opinion is Bloodborne. The lead says "worldwide in March 2015" and the release section gives the exact dates for each region. The game was released in successive days across global markets, but it's a mouthful to have that in the lead, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia

I think the bigger point to be made here is that we are an encyclopedia and not an archive of every release date on every platform. We are data in reader-friendly context, not every data point. This like when we realized that our articles should stop being gameguides and do the harder work of actually summarizing gameplay, development, and reception so as to tell the story of each release: our articles should be the simplest way of learning about each topic and not a collection of every technical detail. There are (or else, will be) other sites to fill the functions that WP does not. But we're more realistically looking at paring down our leviathan lists of release dates on some articles to reader-friendly prose. This might mean only including the first major releases (for each platform?) in the infobox and otherwise elaborating in the appropriate section and, as Rhain suggested, relegating nitty gritty date-by-date differences between regions to footnotes (or excluding them altogether) unless a source makes a point about their temporal difference. Something as simple as not giving the specific date of release in the lede would be an improvement here—we put more importance on saying it's December 17 in the first sentence than on saying what the game is actually about. Also, to be fair, we're not even that great at collecting the original release date for every platform in every region—but it's not in our mission and would be best left for some other site to handle. czar 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. In nearly all the articles I wrote, the only importance on the release date is the month/year (which gives a rough idea if its timed for the holiday rush or in the winter lull, for example, and gives an approximate time frame when the game was released on one platform or region.) We don't need this level of exactness in prose, and even in the infobox, trying to document every date for every release becomes silly. For nearly every game the key dates are the first release of a game in a region that seems to matter most. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So... Only list the initial (non-English) release and first English-language release in the infobox? Thus, for example, almost never listing Australian release dates? ~Mable (chat) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Australia/NZ should be singled out. This is more about using Wikipedia as a repository for exact release dates, when that is not the function of a general knowledge encyclopedia. I'd say that, like film and music, we should only include the original release date as a reference point in the infobox. Later releases, if important, can be elaborated in the Release section as appropriate. Some might propose, as a compromise based on how WP is currently used, that we pare down only to the original releases on each platform, to which I'd say that could be better described in prose in the lede and Release section. There are other sites better equipped to be almanacs for release dates—but it's beyond our scope. (If we can, however, reliably source release dates for multiple regions and express them in reader-worthy prose, I think they are usually best put in a footnote, as Rhain recommended above.) I'll add that most of my article steward work is watching IPs futz around with dates in the infobox instead of actually improving the article text. The proposal would be (1) to put less emphasis on specific release dates in the lede and Development/Release sections, so as to express the release window in more context-rich, reader-friendly prose, and (2) to use only the original release date in the infobox. My main example for the former: does it matter more, when explaining the Rise of the Tomb Raider development cycle, that we are providing the specific release dates for each region or that we are explaining the context of its release—before the holiday season but cannibalized by being released the same day as Fallout 4.[2][3] It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, but the latter is much more conducive to what we are trying to do with an encyclopedia. czar 22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I "singled out" Australia/New Zealand because it just happens to get games the last, while either Europe or the United States get games first. I believe listing the first English-language release of any game is definitely notable, especially if a longer amount of time was between a (for example) Japanese release and the first English release.

I completely forgot about multiple platforms, though. This complicates the matter quite a bit. I'm really not sure how to cut down on those. Of course, they should not be written down (in its entirety, anyway) in the prose. "Summer 2015 on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One" would do just fine, for example, as would not mentioning the release date at all in prose. However, I think they need to be there in the infobox... ~Mable (chat) 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SEASON ;) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Second quarter, 2015. ~Mable (chat) 22:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

New articles - December 25

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

Moved into draft space: Knee Deep (video game), Image & Form, Heroes of 71, Break Chance Memento, Glen Gabriel, Devilian (video game), Kenichi Tokoi, SNAFU Con

Number of new articles deleted: 10

New articles:
December 14

Atwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Hellykin (talk · contribs)

December 18

Olivier Hay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Achoral (talk · contribs)
Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Masem (talk · contribs)
~~Zombie Vikings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Crazybob2014 (talk · contribs)~~ redirected to Zoink Games

December 19

Nobunaga's Ambition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Daiquping (talk · contribs)
List of theme songs in Tales series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Easy-Normal-Hard (talk · contribs)
Badland 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ayub407 (talk · contribs)

December 20

Indigenous video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ostarkweather (talk · contribs)
The Cheetahmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Xaosflux (talk · contribs)
Draft:SNAFU Con by Esw01407 (talk · contribs)
Draft:Break Chance Memento by NoJoker (talk · contribs)

December 21

Warhammer 40,000: Space Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Sqwero (talk · contribs)
Star Trek Timelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ea2207 (talk · contribs)

December 22

Draft:Dragon Coins by Ae9000ae (talk · contribs)
Draft:CrazyBus by Jahuwuhire (talk · contribs)
Draft:Fighters Uncaged by 209.29.21.125 (talk · contribs)

December 23

Evoland 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by SwisterTwister (talk · contribs)
Draft:Video game gameplay by Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)
Draft:Glen Gabriel by Alfshire (talk · contribs)
~~Draft:Devilian (video game) by Aozz101x (talk · contribs), now Devilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), moved back to draft space: Draft:Devilian~~, reverted back to main space: Devilian
Draft:Kenichi Tokoi by DrDevilFX (talk · contribs)

December 24

~~Parkitect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Yoshiman6464 (talk · contribs)~~, moved to draft space: Draft:Parkitect

December 25

Hex Frvr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Hellknowz (talk · contribs)
~~Flight Rising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by NegativeHelix (talk · contribs)~~, moved to draft space: Draft:Flight Rising

Salavat (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation help

Can someone please translate this page? Google Translate is no help. It is being used to support the sentence, "[Bokosuka Wars is] a game regarded as the progenitor of the strategy/simulation RPG genre". SharkD Talk 17:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

New User & Help with Terms of Use Regarding Images

Hello. Just a new user trying to learn the basics of article improvement. I'm not sure this is the page I need to be on for help so I apologize in advance for this but if I could get some insight, that would be grand. I'm currently trying to focus on improving Prehistorik Man but I've reached a snag regarding image use. Could anyone tell me how I'm suppose to get permission to use images like the game cover and a screenshot or two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectHorizons (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

For the cover of a game, as well as one (or possibly two) screenshots, you can upload them under the protection of fair use. The images are to improve the reader's understanding of the game. I recommend simply following the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, selecting "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" in step 3. It can be a bit of a painful process to go through, but it is important that you give a good argument for why the screenshot helps the reader understand the game better. Lastly, I recommend lowering the quality of the images a bit, as we recommend not to use images "of higher resolution than necessary". I hope this helped - happy editing :) ~Mable (chat) 09:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

A rule of thumb for image resolution is that the total pixel count shouldn't be higher than 100,000 - so a 270x360 pixel image, roughly. This can be bent if the gameplay image isn't legible at that resolution, but it's a good starting point. --Pres N 14:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VGIMAGES has some introductory reading on this too czar 18:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Release dates in the body of an article

If you look at Role-playing_video_game#Tactical_RPGs, there are a lot of release dates in parentheses next to the video game titles. Is this excessive? Sometimes there are two or three in a single sentence. SharkD Talk 03:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to put the year next to a title for disambiguation reasons and to give a sense of where the game fits into a chronology. I also think that it should be done somewhat consistently. The real issue with this section is that it lists so many games. It feels as though the prose mostly consists out of game titles rather than actual prose. If you want to improve this section, I'd recommend to remove excessive examples and add more "prose-y" information to describe certain patterns. ~Mable (chat) 09:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is particularly odd to me that the section starts with giving Ultima as an example of an early tactical RPG, then states that tactical RPGs are descendants of traditional strategy games such as chess and wargames, and then goes on to give more and more examples, rather than actually describing what a tactical RPG is on its own right. ~Mable (chat) 09:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the article was pieced together by several different authors at different times. SharkD Talk 01:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that section better now? I've been reorganizing it. SharkD Talk 17:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm very fond of the changes you made :3 ~Mable (chat) 18:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Episodic games

I came into the game Life is Strange and noticed it has a specific section dedicated to "episodes" and its completely separate from Release section. When i asked about it, it was to resemble Tales of Monkey Island article where it list its chapters as well. I was wondering if this was correct because, it doesn't seem necessary to have it all alone separate from a release section.

However i can sort of see why Tales of Monkey Island did it because they tend to have "Release" as "Reception". I modified it however by changing "release" into "reception and the original "reception" section into "Critical". Lucia Black (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

King's Quest (2015 video game) follows the same format, but labelled as "Chapters" like Tales of Monkey Island. I'd say this format probably works. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need more. Its not like these are broadcasted. I think its very easy to organie these or integrate them into a "release history". I dont know, it just seems really odd to have a stand-alone section like that. It sort of there, but doesn't tell us why its encyclopedic. Lucia Black (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Zombies, Run! follows an episodic format as well. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The importance of Episodic games is that they aren't all released all at once. Which is basically what the episodes/chapters table is design to show. For that reason, i can't see Chapters/Episodes list just standing in the middle of the article. Lucia Black (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It is typical on Wikipedia for "List of tv series episodes"-kind of articles to describe what each episode is about, in short. I suppose this format makes sense for a medium where one may consume one episode, but not the other, but I am not sure if it makes perfect sense for a episodic game. After all, they all form a very clear whole, as far as I am aware.

That being said, I do believe a table of some sort is necessary, even if it's just to give the titles and release dates of the episodes. It's useful to indicate which creators worked on which episode (such as the "writers" in The Walking Dead (video game)), etc. The nice thing about episodical games is that they tend to have only a small number of episodes, making them easy to list off like this. ~Mable (chat) 21:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those who read video game related articles put as much importance as they do. Now, interesting thing about the articles like Tales of Monkey Island and The Walking Dead (video game) is that they don't have a Release section. So it practically serves for the same thing. And for Walking Dead with varying writers, it benefits it more. But do people who read video game articles want to know about the episodes first? In my opinion its important to have in the article, just not important to put it up there near story. I think if it was under "Release" it makes more sense, which is normally always underneath "Development". And for the record, even TV series articles do the same, they put Production first, over "Broadcast History". Lucia Black (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Zombies, Run! as episodic content

Zombies, Run! has over 200 episodes. :) --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well that is something interesting. Perhaps a separate list article ma deem worthy, but it depends on how much information can be found for it. Lucia Black (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

But still, i wanted to make sure we get this taken care of and perhaps incorporate it into the MOS to set a standard for these types. Lucia Black (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really not sure how to handle that aspect of it, because episode lists look complicated, and the way the seasons are released is very player-dependant - apparently you get the first few episodes at once, and then you can choose to unlock an episode per week. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A question to ask if secondary sources have commented on any individual episode, as there clearly is for the Telltale games or Life is Strange, above? If our sources do not break it down by episode, we should be careful to do so as well, though documenting episode titles and when they were released would make sense, but just not to the degree you can do with the Telltale games. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that I've found thus far - they mostly seem to talk about how immersive the game's story is in general terms - there seems to be a 'no spoiler' culture around the game. Adding to this is the complication that the episodes were switched around for season 1 at some point to improve the 'beat' of the story, to help the player get into the world before the plot thickened. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not knowng much else on the structure of the episodes, then, I would strongly caution against the episode list approach that were listed above. You might want to consider broad swaths of plot - if these have "seasons" like you say, maybe a season summary table, which I imagine will be no greater than 10-15 lines might make sense. However, I have not researched much on how this game is presented otherwise, just that I'm pretty confident you aren't going to be able to use the same approach as with Life is Strange or The Walking Dead. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'd rather not go for a table at this point - it's harder to format correctly than a paragraph. There is a wikia site for Zombies, Run! - is the Creative Commons license ok for me to re-use the text from there? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, are these "episodes" the "missions" listed on this page?

I personally don't believe that we should spend more effort on describing the plot of Zombies, Run! than our reliable sources do, so if they don't break the story down, then we should not do so either. ~Mable (chat) 09:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, those are the "story" episodes available for season one. There are a couple of other modes out there, but the devs often use 'episodes' when describing the story to media etc. because it's immediately understandable as to the structure of the narrative. Within the context of the storyline, they're called 'missions'. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about category

I recently noticed that Category:Nintendo 3DS eShop games is being placed on articles that have have physical releases. Is that category meant for any game that can be downloaded form the service or was it meant for games that are only accessible digitally? For example Bravely Default is listed.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This category and the other eShop categories should be deleted. I'm not sure how a game being released on the Nintendo eShop is considered a defining characteristic. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it would be a defining characteristic if it is exclusively available through that service. ~Mable (chat) 14:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It's equivalent to categorising PC games by Steam, GOG, Origin, etc, which we don't do. If it's meant to be for eShop exclusive titles then the category should be renamed to reflect that. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Glover review/production info?

Does anyone have any old magazines that talk about Glover (video game). I did some minor improvements but it's need of more sources. Primarily on review and production. Lucia Black (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There a bunch of stuff in magazines [4][5] and a bunch of more hits from scans, I can probably get you some of those relevant scans. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I was going to mention the fact that I've read of a cancelled sequel that was leaked in beta form, but that's already in the article and EL section, so you must know. Could be interesting to go into that further though, if at all possible. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be very helpful, thank you. O appreciate it. Lucia Black (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement at PlayStation 4 system software

Hello. Would a few kind editors please share their views at PlayStation 4 system software's talk page here? I'd be very grateful. There's been a bit of a protracted dispute (History). Many, many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass removal of GameRankings

There's an IP editor, 86.130.199.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), engaging in mass removal of GameRankings from video game articles. He claims consensus, but I thought it was decided not to remove GR from articles. Dunno what to do about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at the IP's contributes suggests to me that they are hitting a lot of older games where GR may (But not necessarily) retain value. The consensus does not really support that, especially as the IP is definitely moving too fast to be making a solid comparison and determination concerning MC versus GR for each of these.. In the end, all these removals may be correct, but I'm concerned that the IP is hitting 3-5 articles a minute so isn't really looking. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a mess. Best bring it to an administrator to fix. This is definitely serious. Lucia Black (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Left a note on their talk page czar 23:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That IP should have taken the advice on the article here. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As ferret said, they may get removed again in the future, since neo-consensus seems to be that articles concerning older games are not protected. SharkD Talk 02:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

RE: GameTrailers revamped, but old video reviews are gone!

You know, I've been thinking: it's nearly a month since all the old GameTrailers reviews from 2005 to the present disappeared. If the video reviews for GameTrailers aren't gonna come back, then I would rather if the "GT" code for GameTrailers were removed from the "Video game reviews" template. As Czar has said, "It's linkrot waiting to happen." So do you think the GT code should be removed? Because all that's left of the video reviews is linkrot, and we don't want this to be a burden on Wikipedia editors. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed lots of linkrot in general recently. I wrote some content in ~2010 and I could reference articles going all the way back to 2001 and earlier. But now they're all gone and I have to use archive.org. SharkD Talk 20:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I still think we should contact someone from GameTrailers on this issue. This is absolutely ridiculous for a website to suddenly have their work be unusable. GamerPro64 20:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So pretty much I recommend going into GameTrailer's search bar and look for their older videos. They have them but with a different url now. So its pretty much a scavenger search. GamerPro64 21:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I noticed something. In the years before the 2015 revamp, GameTrailers posted video reviews not just on their own site, but also on YouTube. One example is the Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate Wii U review, which I posted onto the Monster Hunter Tri article. So do you think it's okay to use GameTrailers' YouTube video reviews on video game articles as well? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Official YouTube links are fine but, again, I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would prefer a GT link/review over a more definitive source (see suggestions at {{vg reviews}}) czar 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I re-purposed an old project page to archive issues such as these. Link. SharkD Talk 09:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

TotalBiscuit

I would've used the sources page for this question but I'm not fully sure where to ask this. What's ones opinion on using videos made by Totalbiscuit for articles? I saw one of his videos being used on the Undertale page and am not positive of it being there. GamerPro64 22:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like we'd treat like we treat people like Anita Sarkeesan - probably just when he's be published by reliable sources. Otherwise it's a WP:SPS thing. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

How is his video being used in the article exactly? Is he being mentioned personally in the article, or does he merely appear within a citation tag? If it's the latter case, then yes WP:VG/RS is the place to go with this. SharkD Talk 00:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking a look the link to his video was being used in the awards section because he had named it the best game of 2015 in his video. For comparison the other entries were nominations from the game awards and Destructoid naming it the best PC game of 2015.--67.68.163.229 (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the award itself is notable (covered by third-party sources) then it could remain in the article without problems. It's up to the editors if that is the case. SharkD Talk 23:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar additions

(diff) I don't think the sidebar needs these links. Per BRD, they should have come here for discussion rather than reverting my revert. czar 00:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't very familiar with BRD, sorry. I will be more aware of it from now on. In neither case is adding the page offensive or detrimental to this project's users, IMO. SharkD Talk 03:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of aggregators as policy

I started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic regarding use of aggregators as a Wikipedia-wide policy, in case you would like to participate. SharkD Talk 04:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Platform-only cats & emulation

(diff) A game is only officially released on one platform (Game Boy Advance) but is later emulated (on Nintendo's Virtual Console). Shouldn't it still be categorized under Category:Game Boy Advance-only games? It's not actually on another platform. czar 16:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I always assumed that emulation (and similarly, backwards-compatibility) does not count as a platform. That is, listing games this way only pollutes categories with games that were never developed for the platform in question. It does not appear we have guidelines for this, so perhaps we can solidify this in written form (one way or another). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that emulation in this way does not count as well. Gameboy Advance hardware is emulated on newer software, thus it is still a Gameboy Advance-only game — even if it was technically released on multiple platforms. This makes me wonder, though: is being a Virtual Console game a defining characteristic? I don't really see that much difference between this category and certain ones related to distribution (Steam, etc) ~Mable (chat) 20:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favor of creating a Virtual Console category. You can't choose the emulator you want to install on a Wii, and the emulator is presumably the only one sanctioned by Nintendo for their platforms. But I agree it is problematic when you consider Steam and the number of other unsanctioned emulators that are out there, and the temptation among anons and other users to create a category for each. SharkD Talk 22:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we can limit it to notable emulators then, that is, the category must have a subject article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's true that we have multiple lists of Virtual Console games, and zero on Steam games. Of course, one could not make a list of video games available on unofficial emulators, as they tend to simply be all of the games available on the original platform. ZSNES, for example, can play all SNES games as long as you can find a rom for it somewhere. The same is not true for Nintendo's official Virtual Console. The category is pretty filled, though. ~Mable (chat) 22:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That may still be too lax, but I can't offer another solution. SharkD Talk 23:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

New backlog page

Extended content

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

List of video game websites

Is this list useful? The category (Category:Video game websites) seems to do it better—if the website is notable, it is categorized as such. czar 18:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

sounds like its better left as a category. But if others think it's useful, then at least turn it into a table and add additional info such as origin date, if the site is defunct or continuing, etc. Lucia Black (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As it currently exists, the list useless. If it listed origin dates, publishers and other such info, then it could be fairly useful. Otherwise, there really is no value to this list. ~Mable (chat) 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This list in its current state should be expanded if it wants to remain useful. SharkD Talk 23:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean with more data like publisher, start date, closure date, etc. SharkD Talk 05:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

AFD'd. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance

Page history. Is the fact that you can buy this game "important info" that should be included in the article? The fact that you can actually purchase this product is important according to "the player who bought that GoD version" but I dispute that so if somebody could voice their opinion that would be lovely. If you for whatever reason agree that the ability to purchase something is notable then at least clean it up (source it properly and word it better). If you do decide to visit the page, consider placing it on your watchlist. The only traffic at this article is IPs adding pointless junk every so often. This lovely bit of notable information is also being included at Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2. Now my question is: Should every single video game article be "updated" to include the fact that you can actually purchase the game in question? Something like "[Game] is a platform game that you can buy. It was developed by..." maybe? No need to post in this section. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"The fact that you can buy the game"? The addition pertains to the availability of downloadable content, does it not? If that is inappropriate for the article, there is preexisting content that should be removed as well. Reach Out to the Truth 23:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I see a difference between simply saying that a game available on a download service and that such service allows players to access content that was removed several years back.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

New articles - January 1

New articles from the past week. I also included articles from the New article announcements that have been moved into draft space over the past week and the number of articles from that page that have been deleted. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

Moved into draft space: Flight Rising, Parkitect, Piece o' Cake, List of games made with RPG Maker, Phantomers, AFK (webseries), Darci Morales, Bill Fiore

Number of new articles deleted: 3

Number of new articles redirected: 1

December 27

~~Quest of Dungeons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Zenion.d (talk · contribs)~~
~~Shinya Takahashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by You don't know who is Jack (talk · contribs)~~ → Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development
List of notable women in the video game industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Torchiest (talk · contribs)
Draft:Bill Fiore by Cfortunato (talk · contribs)
Draft:Darci Morales by Fleetingshadow (talk · contribs)
Draft:Positron (company) by GusCaplan (talk · contribs)

December 28

Alessandro Taini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Nariko2007 (talk · contribs)
Richard Honeywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Axem Titanium (talk · contribs)
Draft:Phantomers by Sercen (talk · contribs)

December 29

Swords and Sorcery (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Jaguar (talk · contribs)
Draft:Sparta: War of Empires by Tobo121 (talk · contribs)

December 30

Draft:List of games made with RPG Maker by Gorbrushthreepwood (talk · contribs)

December 31

Draft:Piece o' Cake by CiscoKid44 (talk · contribs)

January 1

2016 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Percivl (talk · contribs)
Draft:AFK (webseries) by NichelleMedia (talk · contribs)
Draft:Echospawn Studios by 74.95.49.194 (talk · contribs)

Salavat (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Shantae article assessment - GA candidacy?

Well, it's amazing how fast discussions die here. Second attempt:

In the first thread, Ferret has mentioned that a few adjustments were needed before a GA candidacy for Shantae. These have been made. Therefore, I'm now seriously considering a running for GA for the article. Any objection, remark or tips? I believe that as it stands the article is pretty on par with other GAs.

By the way, I'm still the same anonymous user - it seems my Internet box is giving me a floating IP for the last two numbers. 90.10.26.206 (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Although it's not among the GA criteria, I'm noticing that none of the sources are archived. Because of this, the September 15, 2009 Go Nintendo source is unavailable since their server problems earlier this year. Speaking of which, Go Nintendo is not considered a reliable source - it would be better to cite the Nintendo Power issue directly. I'm sure someone on the wikiproject has a copy of that issue. I do, too, but I'll be unable to get it until the 20th or 21st. Also unsure about the Trackerbase source - is it just a blog? Someone should go through the sources and check that they are all usable. I'm heading to the airport in an hour, so I don't have time.--IDV^talk 05:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you in advance IDV if you can retrieve the Nintendo Power issue - there apparently isn't another source on the Web that still covers this point. Otherwise it can always be cut; after all it's mostly about the sequel, so it doesn't directly relate to the subject of the article itself. As for the tracker source, it does look like a blog to me as well, and the only other source which confirms that Stephane Hockenhull was the creator of the tracker (apart from some wikis) is Stephane Hockenhull's website, which looks a lot like a blog as well. In the worst case, I believe this point can also be cut from the article; it's not essential data.90.10.26.206 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It was barely 24 hours so I'd hardly call the discussion dead.
Be consistent with using work+publisher (either use both together all the time or just do the work, which really should be sufficient here—"The Mary Sue. The Mary Sue." is redundant)
Avoid footnotes in the lede wherever possible. If the statement will be challenged, keep them in, but can they be better phrased? (e.g., "a critical hit"? Is that what GameRankings bears out? Or is 78% just plainly "favorable"? "nominated in some lists of the best Game Boy titles" makes us ask which. Instead you could phrase as, "Games journalists ranked Shantae" among the best releases for the platform.")
Why doesn't the gameplay have tighter refs? Are they really all equally spread between the three sources? Or should the footnotes be distributed (especially to the first paragraph)
Use the video game reliable sources custom Google search to find better sources. Remove music tracker base, big lion music (dead), ScrewAttack, vgmuseum, gonintendo.
Lots of extraneous detail in Reception. The scores don't need to be repeated from the review box, and they mean little without context anyway. What are the main take-aways from these sources and why is it important for us to know about them? Does it matter that it was ranked 7th or should we just know that Complex and GameInformer ranked it among the best games?
Overall, it's worth reading the prose out loud to find easy areas that need clarification. And the refs generally need to be checked—or at least spot checked—to make sure they still match the content. Not a strict GA requirement, but good measure.

czar 07:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Czar! In order:

That was just a personal impression; a quick look-through the other discussions on this page made me think that discussions hardly survived longer than 24 hours.
Fixed everywhere I think.
Refs moved and the third paragraph of lead was rewritten.
Well, I don't know why the refs were not better spread out. I worked on it, hopefully it's good now.
All wrong sources removed except the GoNintendo one discussed above with IDV; hopefully he (or someone else) will retrieve the Nintendo Power issue to replace it, else, the sentence will just be deleted I guess.
Scores eliminated, as for the rankings in best-of lists, I think having them doesn't really hurt; other pages on Wikipedia usually mention the exact ranking. If it's really necessary I will eliminate them.
All refs available, although some are only so through Wayback Machine. Only the Game Informer reference at #17 is uncheckable (I was not the one who added it), unless someone owns the paper issue.90.10.26.206 (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by checking the refs was to make sure the content matched the source, not just to make sure they're online

Yes, I understood afterwards. I'll check but there should be no major problem; a lot of them were my additions.

Done. Some adjustments were needed, but it should be OK now.90.10.154.148 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is short enough that you can just use level-2 headers czar 17:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean that it would be better to delete the sub-title Accolades in critical reception, right? Done. Makes sense.90.10.154.148 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't take this as a requirement in any way, but I want to note that with your IP changing frequently, it may be difficult for editors in the project to contact you with appropriate notifications, especially as you aim for a GA nomination. I hope you also have interest in sticking with the project and looking for more articles once you're done with Shantae. With that in mind, it may be a good time to register an account. -- ferret (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Ferret, I understand your point, and I've been thinking about this; I must even admit that it's kind of bugging me. However, I do belong to this sort of people who feels a sort of "freedom" linked with the anonymity of IP adresses. Not that I'd feel excessively bound by an actual account on Wikipedia, as I'm aware that the registration process is quite light, but in our days of increasingly intrusive surveillance people like me tend to cling to every piece of anonymity we're left with, even though it's more a view of the mind than anything else. With all that said, it's also possible that I'll change my mind in the future, but in the meantime, rest assured that I'll try to help the project anyway I can (in fact, I already did in the past at times) even when I'll be done with Shantae going GA - if it ever does. The thought of exhibiting an "I've got a GA on Wikipedia" on an user page doesn't really interest me anyway; I'm doing this out of pure selflessness and the eventual satisfaction of having such an achievement is not something I plan to brag about. About the notifications, I see your point, but I'm monitoring this page. If you're talking about notifications associated with the GA candidacy process, I'll see in due time.90.10.154.148 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI, an IP isn't exactly anonymous. In the case of Wikipedia, you're a number instead of a name (which your name can be anything, even just a bunch of numbers). Also, there are some articles that you cannot edit without an account. --JDC808 ♫ 03:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, this is why I said it was mostly a view of the mind. Call it self-conscious doublethink.88.182.48.88 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'll get the Nintendo Power issue tomorrow.--IDV^talk 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks IDV! Now that everything is fixed, the candidacy has been launched.88.182.48.88 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Original research?

This list is very cool: List of video games considered the best. However, I'm worried that the bulk of the list is original research. I mean, unless it's directly copied from a reliable source, it's entirely made-up, isn't it? What do you think? SharkD Talk 05:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, on one hand it's all extensively sourced as an aggregate of RS lists. On the other hand, the inclusion criteria for lists seems to be... completely random at best. Edge, but only the years 2000, 07, 09, and 13? Famitsu, but only the 2006 readers' poll? GameFAQs counts just as highly as anything else, but only the 2004, 05, 09, and 14 lists, apparently. Really, is the inclusion criteria "lists that have Ocarina of Time as the #1 spot"? Not to mention, apparently being #100 on 10 lists is better than #1 on 5, since only total list count is noted. --Pres N 06:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant the counting/ranking, specifically. Unless the cited sources are doing the counting/ranking, then the counting/ranking is original research. SharkD Talk 06:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not original research to say "out of these X sources that are top Y lists of vgs, that this game has been included on Z of X lists" and then sort on that. That is simple verify able math. I do agree partially with the concern above that it can create an apparent bias since this approach does not weigh where the game appears on the list, and would recommend a strict alphabetical sourcing. --MASEM (t) 11:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. To say that a game is A) ranked highly on one site, and B) ranked highly on another site, and then C) say or imply that the game is ranked highly on most or all sites sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. It is not simple arithmetic. SharkD Talk 22:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is OR because the overall content of the article is not a subject of any reliable sources, regardless how many individual references it has. "Video games by the number of "best games ever" lists" is certainly OR/SYNTH/UNDUE -- the number of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources is not a defining characteristic and every source we add or remove juggles the list entries around. It's cool trivia, but the fact that it needs to explain "methodology" with no reliable sources shows it is OR trivia. I could see this as an alphabetical list of "games that have featured on multiple 'best of' lists", but without any sorting by the number of sources. Oh, and the list should be called "List of highest ranked video games". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article title is simply to be in line with the lists of films, television series and songs considered the best (and worst). Not to mention the List of video game soundtracks considered the best. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 13:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's fine then, I didn't realize we had precedent to use "considered best". It seems like it makes a (small) assumption that ranking or "top" implies "best" in the same way. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

However, I do agree with Hellknowz' point that there's something amiss here. It's not failing NOR, but perhaps more NPOV, because unlike the lists Rhain points out, there's no equivalent type of table, but instead most straight up lists in alphabetical order. I would simply remove the sorting, and make sure the criteria for inclusion is something like "been on at least 5 of these 20 top lists". I do feel that of late, VG sites do not try to do as inclusive lists as they had before (GI's list last year or the year before notwithstanding), so there's a bias against more modern games too if we're going by sheer count on such lists.

An additional point to keep in mind: we cannot wholesale reproduce top X lists that are based on opinion (of the staff), as that is a copyright violation, though highlighting the top 10 of 100 titles, or mentioning in the context of one title where it falls on the list, is okay. Top X lists based on "data", whether that be sales, MC scores, or a user poll, are fine, as that's based on data and data is not copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at those articles, and they simply copy the ranks from the cited sources. They don't introduce and original metric or try to rank them as "best of the best" of all the lists. Note the use of bulleted lists instead of numbered lists in the majority of List of films considered the best. SharkD Talk 18:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The original research part is our use of the citation count within the article itself. We are in fact making some originally synthesized statement about a game by ranking it over another through our original metric (our original citation count). It's useful to keep track of these lists, if only for sourcing articles, but the list itself is outside the scope of our general encyclopedia (that is, we document claims made by reliable sources without making indiscriminate collections). I would be for moving it out of mainspace and into project space. czar 16:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Copy our analysis to project space, and replace with directly citeable lists like in List of films considered the best. SharkD Talk 23:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Remove the "Lists" column and order it alphabetically or chronologically. I much prefer the referenced table format to other lists such as List of video games notable for negative reception and List of commercial failures in video gaming. At least there is some semblance of an objective criteria in the "best ever" list, whereas the other two are just "whatever editors want to write about". - hahnch e n 12:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've always had the same issue with those kinds of lists: they feel rather arbitrary. ~Mable (chat) 14:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Asheron's Call.

I'm attempting to source some of the uncited content in Asheron's Call. Some of the information relates to game updates that have been archived. You can see the information here has been sourced from dead links. I was hoping for suggestions in order to close up all the missing citations. Dentrick (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You can check out this search from Blue's News. Seems to be well documented and informed about the game. GamerPro64 18:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Internet Archive seems to have those pages, e.g. [6]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. Dentrick (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

More eyes on Template talk:Final Fantasy series#FFXIV or ARR on main line?

Would love more eyes at this discussion. Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

South Park: The Stick of Truth

Now that we're passed the Christmas and New Year quiet period, I'd like to send out a reminder that the above Featured Article nomination is in progress and has received 1 review so far. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-free screenshot of game

I came across this file today, a screenshot from a copyrighted video game tagged as CC-BY-SA. I'm sure the tag is incorrect, but unsure what the correct response is—CSD? XFD? Change the license template? Notify the original uploader? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Since it is used once at Wizard101, it can be {{Non-free video game screenshot}}'ed and {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}}'ed once the resolution is reduced. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever gets the image to where it needs to go fastest. Keeping the image as fair use is better for the article than nominating it for deletion and reuploading it in this case, so I added the standard project screenshot fair use rationale. Hopefully the uploader sees that in their watchlist and adjusts their other uploads accordingly, but you can also ping them directly: @CatcherStorm. Otherwise, I'd tag this with CSD WP:F11 for lack of permission from the copyright holder. czar 17:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

However, Wizard 101 now has two non-free images, which generally runs afoul of WP:NFCC#3a, especially for an article of this length. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- One screenshot and one image of cover art/title screen is pretty usual for any Wikipedia article on video games, even short ones, and this article is of medium length in my opinion. However, it would be nice if the screenshot would be better used to explain the game's interface, gameplay, or aesthetic. Currently, it does show the reader what the game looks like, which is better than no image. ~Mable (chat) 21:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Carmen Sandiego Returns

Half a year has gone by since this article was turned into a redirect, and a bunch of new sources have come to light as a result of the game being released on iOS during the interim. So I buffed up the article a tad. Still not a perfect article, but now I think its notability is proven. Still, I wanted to run it by you guys to get your opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I took a glance at it and did some editing, like having a VG layout and trimming here and there. I do think notability is proven, thanks to The Huffington Post and VentureBeat, but the sources used for reception aren't notable. --Soetermans. T / C 12:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Without too much digging, it looks like it easily passes WP:GNG. And there's enough material to warrant a stand-alone article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any notability concerns, though as mentioned above, some of the sourcing and content in the reception section is pretty rough. It kind of devolves into "And then website X said Y.". Like literally, some are "TouchVision called both the PC and iOS versions "ehh". or " AppleGazette wrote "Who wouldn’t want this app? Seriously." What's the point of content and direct quotes like that? Is that all that was gotten out of those source's views on the game? Direct quotes are really just supposed to be used when its saying something that couldn't be conveyed with paraphrasing. Could we really not sum those sentiments up? Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Would this website be a good reference?

This is the page in question. Seeing as it's a blog, I don't think so but I'd like to get some more opinions. Ana r chyte 12:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Read:"Members are responsible for their own content, where applicable, and may update their Content at any time without notice and at their sole discretion." and "We do not represent or otherwise warrant that the information available on or through our Website will be correct, accurate, timely or otherwise reliable." make it pretty clear that the website has no editorial oversight. It's not reliable. ~Mable (chat) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As Maplestrip says, Blogjob is a hosting website and has no editorial control. So the One Angry Game is self-published and without any author (Billy D) credentials, unreliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, Billy D writes for Cinema Blend, which we found to be unreliable. So that answer reliability here. GamerPro64 18:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Referencing" synopses

I've been looking at some video game articles lately and noticed that many still "reference" the article topic itself for plot synopses. Just like with other works of fiction, the article topic is its own source and nothing in WP:V actually calls for additional specification.

Any transcription of dialogue adds nothing in the form of verifiability. If you want to provide readers with something that is actually useful, add links to video walkthroughs. They would provide a quick, convenient way of checking up plot details. Text references of game plots, though, are essentially just decorative.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide an example? SharkD Talk 04:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the game. Not all plots need to be sourced if the story is within the game, but for certain games where the details are in the manual or instruction booklet. I think its important to source. Other exception is if something left to be interpret and is confirmed outside the game. In my opinion i believe. Lucia Black (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Anything "confirmed outside the game" is de facto not part of the plot. Articles about works of fiction are supposed to be are self-contained in terms of plot summaries. If there is additional information added on, it should be treated separately since it would be the same as adding information from sequels or works on an expanded universe. This is explained in detail in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction.

Even if we extend a game's plot to include DLCs and the like, any detailed references would for the most part be unnecessary. Except for really complicated narratives, it's simply enough to specify the DLC (or the likes) in plain text. Articles about franchises and series might be more complicated, but they oughtn't contain much in the way of plot details anyhew.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A few points: 1) ShardD- like Seiken Densetsu 3, I'd imagine. 2) I hardly think that linking a random teenager in Norway's 12-hour-long playthrough youtube video is appropriate 3) Yes, it is just decorative. Plot citations are optional. Decorative things, like free-use images of developers or plot quote citations, that are of some limited use or interest to readers are not banned. A link to a youtube video would be just as decorative. --Pres N 05:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It always pains me to see a wall of the same video game citation repeated over and over again with different quotes. It adds absolutely nothing to an article. That being said, I also believe that articles should only describe the plot as much as reliable sources do, but oh well. ~Mable (chat) 10:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

When I was working on Ryse: Son of Rome I found Crytek making their own cutscene movie that was age-restricted. Therefore, linking to walkthrough isn't really a good idea given that viewers may not even view the content of the source. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no issue using an age gated source, see WP:PAYWALL.--MASEM (t) 12:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The only two times I see a need to include a quote cited to the game if it is content not explicitly encountered by every player that supports details of the plot, such as the audio recordings of the Bioshock games which are optional things to find; or in which there is a complex plot point that editors agree is not readily apparent from a standard playthrough (eg The World Ends With You). If it is obvious plot point, the citation quote is unnecessary, though a level, chapter, or act location cite can help. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

For plot and gameplay, primary sources (i.e. the game itself and its supporting documentation) are usually perfectly fine. Of course, reliable secondary sources make for much better sourcing and we don't have to choose which plot elements or gameplay features to include or exclude. And, of course, should there be disagreement, such as plot point interpretation, we would need sources per WP:BURDEN. In case of controversial material, they would also need to be non-primary. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Referencing requirements will not improve plot summaries. First off, Wikipedia's goals are completely different from virtually any secondary sources related to video games; secondly, interpretations of plot point is WP:POV or WP:OR and does not belong in a plot summary, ever; and thirdly, no summary of fiction could conceivably be "controversial" since it's a self-contained narrative. Occasional exceptions and disputes may arise, but asking for additional references every time editors disagree is pointless. People should work these things out on the talkpages between themselves rather than attempt to convince each other with dinky notes in article space.

If there are complexities and problems that apply specifically to video game plot summaries, then there ought to be better guidelines (see my comments below).

Peter ^Isotalo 14:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't say we need references for plot/gameplay. Your initial comment asked if they add value. Yes, they do. How much value -- usually not enough to justify them. Occasionally during disputes -- they are key to what gets included. WP:BURDEN is key policy -- sources determine what gets included if editors disagree. And if we use sources, then might as well cite them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

SharkD, the most recent example I've encountered was P.T. (video game). See the quotes attributed to "Fetus", "Paper bag" and "Voice". That was promoted as a GA in July 2015.
As for of what's of limited interest or not, I'm of the opinion that notes containing plot quotes are actually somewhat harmful. These notes contribute to an illusion of verifiability but are in reality a waste of time for everyone, both for contributors and reviewers, and for casual readers.
Considering how different video games are from print works or films, there ought be better guidelines. What's currently stated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines is quite vague. There's also this unfortunate statement:

It is very hard to find proper sources for sections about the plot or setting of a video game without using the game itself.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any requirement to reference plot summaries. That's kinda obvious when you think about it. No one who reads an article about a work of fiction needs to be informed that they have to actually read, watch, listen to or play that work of fiction to verify claims about the plot. I think we can safely assume that readers of video game articles are just as capable of understanding this.
Peter ^Isotalo 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources do not discuss plots and settings that much is, in my opinion, a reason not to go into much depth on plot and setting here either. That being said, per Masem, video game quotations can be useful if used sparingly. Having ten of such citations in a row is a waste of everyone's time and frankly, a waste of bandwidth. ~Mable (chat) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't stress this enough: there appears to be no requirements to reference plot summaries. Reviews of films and books don't go into much detail either, but that hasn't stopped anyone from writing perfectly good plot summaries without resorting to secondary sources. Video games are in many ways different from books and films, but they don't require completely divergent rules.

Both WP:N and WP:UNDUE seem to be applied here, but neither are relevant to plot summaries. There are separate guidelines for this, like WP:PLOT and WP:FILMPLOT.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm fine with completely unsourced plot synopses. If an article has a plot that isn't particularly complex, it can easily reach FA without any sources whatsoever. However, I've seen many plot synopses becoming rather big and unfocused. Citations to video games themselves really don't help against this issue, but citations to reliable sources may. ~Mable (chat) 14:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I, more or less, agree with Peter. The practice of putting lots of in-game dialogues as "quote cites" into plot sections is something I used to revert, but eventually gave up on as it just kept spreading. -- ferret (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Archive 3 #Unusable plot summary referencing which you primarily instigated. Nothing has changed since that discussion, so this seems almost forum shopping. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, I completely disagree with Peter, but the discussion you linked is literally from three years ago. Consensus can change over time, it doesn't take a specific, quotable event to permit a new discussion at a wider venue. --Pres N 19:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A) It's the same editor, B) it's basically the same venue (a handful of new faces above), C) the same arguments are being presented, and D) I've observed no other change in our understanding of plot sections, leading me to believe E) consensus has not changed enough to suggest that the subject needs to be rehashed. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

But I'm happy to ping all those from the previous discussion whom have not participated already: @David Fuchs, Torchiest, Odie5533, and ProtoDrake:. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the consensus of the above discussion is, actually. Are video game citations discouraged or not? ~Mable (chat) 21:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I remember of the last discussion on this subject, video game citations were purely optional or discouraged for things like action games/first-person shooters/other things like Journey, but for much larger games like RPGs/JRPGs, they are more permissible within limits (don't cite every sentence, things like that). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this I completely agree with. (Happy new year, btw) ~Mable (chat) 22:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I also belive that a three year gap is enough time for this discussion not to be considered fourm shopping even if it was the same person.--67.68.163.229 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the "almost" phrasing for the time and location piece of my original comment for a reason. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion. Maybe the synopsis citation stuff should go in a "Footnotes" section instead of "References"? I would support this, and leave it up to editors to decide if they're desirable in a particular article. SharkD Talk 22:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I love it when people do this and have done it myself for webcomics-related articles a few times. However, this shouldn't really be a guideline, and I wouldn't call it a "footnotes" section. ~Mable (chat) 22:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment i do believe just like images, even though some are decorative, they can also be informative and give further support. For example: Glover (video game) plot makes references to "Crystal Tower" and "Crystal Kingdom". The Story of Glover is completely silent so it doesn't tell us the story. Sometimes there is a game has all the details in manuals or outside of the story. When it comes to upcoming games, sourcing the plot is generally the standard option too. Most likely because the game has not released. I just want to say that adding refs to the plot (especially if we're using sources outside of the game) strengthen the articles.

I'm not saying all plots need sources. But some of them get more strength out of them than other. Lucia Black (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing better than citing a manual, as you generally get the setting and characters down perfectly and exactly according to author's intent, without going into too much detail about the plot. ~Mable (chat) 10:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding the abrasive meta-commentary about my engaging in "forum shopping", there's seems to be a pretty substantial problem with diffuse guidelines relating to plot summaries. Since video games are so inherently different from one another, there ought to be a minimum of suggestions on how to deal with, for example, non-linear narratives.

As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be overwhelming support for the idea that plot sections actually require referencing, but the current recommendation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Sources says pretty much the exact opposite. If you actually relate this to WP:V, transcribed quotes are pretty much useless to readers in terms of verifiability. Pointing to specific instances in a game (chapters, scenes, whatever) could serve some purpose, but they'd be no more reliable than simply linking to walkthroughs on YouTube.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It could technically be more verifiable, however, as video games themselves usually do not suffer from linkrot. However, you're right that the statements on WP:VG/GL#Sources are not entirely in line with what is being suggested here. ~Mable (chat) 18:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources do not discuss plots and settings that much is, in my opinion, a reason not to go into much depth on plot and setting here either.

Mable's got it right here. Our "plot guideline" is a travesty. We are the encyclopedia with verifiability as a core principle, but unlike all other encyclopedias, we concoct full plot summaries when no reliable source (or hell, even the manual) provides further detail. Player's guides are another thing—if they exist and have plot details, go for it, but source it. But most games don't have player's guides, most games don't have significant plots, and that is measured by its coverage in reliable sources. Sourcing to game dialogue is neither here nor there—it misses the larger point: "The fact that reliable sources do not discuss plots and settings that much is, in my opinion, a reason not to go into much depth on plot and setting here either." czar 18:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And when sources do go into plot in detail (as would be for a game like BioShock Infinite), then that's where more details can be added. But these points are right that secordary sources rarely drill further before the base details and as such as we should aim for our plots to be within FILMPLOT lines (700 words or less). --MASEM (t) 19:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Czar, what you're claiming here is not relevant to WP:V. The source for a plot is always the work of fiction itself and nothing else. How secondary sources choose to summarize a plot has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability; it still goes back to the same work of fiction. Different individuals can always disagree whether a plot is summarized appropriately, but that's a purely editorial issue. We deal with those kind of editorial issues all the time when we summarize sources we use for statements of fact or opinion. The only exception to this rule would be if parts of the plot are somehow hidden or if the work of fiction is extremely difficult to access or obtain. But claiming that a plot summary by Wikipedians is automaticall WP:OR makes no sense whatsoever. If that really were the case, it would be WP:OR to summarize any external source.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the type of "original thought" (not so much research) that we are required to employ to properly summarize a topic for an encyclopedia. While we require some original thought (such as for article organization, paraphrasing, determining which sources are reliable over others, predominance of what parts of a topic are more important to cover, etc.), too much original thought can give way to explicit WP:OR, and with plot summaries of any type, the longer the summary is, the better chance that OR can occur. Thus we prefer to have secondary sources to back up some points to help reduce that chance of OR but its not required; but if you can only summarize from the primary source, you should aim to keep the plot as concise as reasonably possible to remove any chance of OR leaking in. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering how varied game plots, there should be better guidelines for how they should be summarized. Adding notes doesn't solve the problem. Is anyone interesting in writing dedicated guidelines for plots?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is all plots are different, and how much detail you'll need, as well as what reasonable viewers/players would consider contestable, varies. No guidelines are going to really address the tension here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not going to solve all disputes in one fell stroke, but simply acknowledging that game plots highly varied is a good start. We could certainly provide some general hints on how to write on different types of plots (non-linear, user-generated, story arcs across sequels, DLCs, etc). Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines doesn't even have a section about plot summaries and very few suggestions on how to deal with them. Compare that with WP:FILMPLOT which has a very good summary of how to deal with film plots (which are usually far less complicated).

Peter ^Isotalo 18:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration - Women in Video Games

Also posted at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Women in Red#Collaboration - Women in Video Games

Fellow editors,
I have been working on improving our coverage of notable women in the video games industry, but have made slow progress as an individual editor thus far. I am seeking your collaboration, as well of that of the editors at WP:WikiProject Women in Red, to develop articles on the 20 women listed in two Fortune articles:

The influential women listed are:

Hope Cochran, Stephanie Barish, Holly Liu, Emily Greer^, Jessica Tams, Kate Edwards, Kiki Wolfkill, Amy Hennig, Lucy Bradshaw*, Jade Raymond, Kirsten Duvall, Tracy Fullerton, Chelsea Howe, Pauline Jacquey, Blanca Juti, Amy Jo Kim, Cathy Preston, Siobhan Reddy, Bonnie Ross, Margaret Wallace.
^ redirect to article on related subject; * link to article on similarly named person.

As you can see, we have articles on some, but not yet all.
To facilitate the collaboration, I will create stub or empty articles in Draft or Sandbox space. Editors can then add links to any promising sources to the Talk pages of those drafts. When we have enough, we can start working on the article text.
Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

First off, no Roberta Williams? What the heck? Secondly, I feel like the best to work on is Jade Raymond. She's possibly the most well known woman in gaming right now (in my opinion) so I expect she has the most coverage. GamerPro64 02:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

List of notable women in the video game industry is a relative new article, so any that are on these lists should be added to here once they have their article completed. Perhaps those two sources should be added to that list article too --MASEM (t) 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of those red links deserve to stay red. Business magazine listicles aren't the best place to start. We don't have an article on the Rovio CEO, let alone the CMO. The executives should generally just redirect to the article on the corporation, their "power" and notability is an extension of the corporation. You're more likely to find reliable sources profiling creatives in depth, not their managers; despite the latter having more power, it's the creative that will have the notability. Everyone knows who Hideo Kojima is, but do you know the Konami boss who fired him?

So, ignore those lists and start looking elsewhere. We definitely have gaps in our coverage of women and video games, here's some ideas off the top of my head -

Cibele (video game) - Semi autobiographical video game by Nina Freeman, a designer at Fullbright. Nominated at the The Game Awards 2015.Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Requests#December_2015 [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
Redshirt (video game) - A satire of social networks by Mitu Khandaker.[15][16][17][18][19]
Sophia George (game designer) - Victoria and Albert Museum game designer in residence in 2013. BAFTA One to Watch.[20][21][22][23]
Luxuria Superbia - Video game as sex by Tale of Tales.[24][25][26][27][28]
Videogames for Humans - Book on Twine games by Merritt k.[29][30][31][32][33]

hahnch e n 20:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for articles to create:

The 2016 IGF award nominations have been released [34], and of the non-student games (which are always iffy), we lack articles on GNOG, Oxenfree, Panoramical (presently a redirect to Phil Fish), and Lumini (video game). A spot google check shows potential sources for all of these, they are just not yet released. I've tagged all the other games with their IGF noms. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

SNES FAR

After being on hold for almost 3 months, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Super Nintendo Entertainment System/archive1 has been un-held... If anyone can help put some eyes back on it. The original FAR was opened without proper notifications in response to a large number of tags through-out the article. Those were resolved with the exception of Unreliable Source tags for the site "romhacking.com", which Anomie had uploaded technical information to... We need to either clean up the deep technical details or find new sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

MUD template

Is {{MUDs}} worth having? The template mentions programming languages, concepts and terminology, people and games. That's way too broad for a coherent navbox, right? I mean, Sherry Turkle, Dark Age of Camelot and Fazuul don't seem to have anything in common. --Soetermans. T / C 16:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely remove the list of games. A list of works of a specific genre, even if it's a "dead genre", should be outside of the scope of navboxes. I'd remove all the people as well, for similar reasons. However, once that is done, I think the navbox gets pretty reasonable. Articles such as "Chronology of MUDs" and "Comparison of MUD clients" are obvious ones to put together in a navbox like this. The minor branches, programming languages, and most of the terminology may be a difficult fit. "Lag" and "Kill stealing" are general online gaming concepts and are not MUD-specific. The template can use some trimming, but is definitely worth having. ~Mable (chat) 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

On a related note there is a proposal to rename Chronology of MUDs to List of MUDs.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead or Alive 5 discussion on "Sexualized boobage"

So there's a discussion going on at the DOA5 page talking about "Sexualized boobage" in the game. The article contains a section on Objectification of women which includes a link to a video by Anita Sarkeesian. Might be worth checking out and discuss. GamerPro64 21:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Is a tv show about video games covered under WP:VG?

The show Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything is about a sitcom about professional gamer and gaming culture in general. Just wondering if WP:VG covers this subject and other "game culture" related articles.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I would think so, as would any movie or work centered on video games (eg "The Wizard", "Tron", etc.) --MASEM (t) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Pretty sure yes, we're usually pretty generous in what we cover. Though I have to say, reading the episode descriptions in that article, that sounds like an absolutely terrible show. --Pres N 00:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I watched an episode. Makes me miss X-Play to say the least. GamerPro64 02:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it thanks for the answer. I gotta say parts of the show are actually portray the esports world surprisingly accurately. Worth a watch even if you're not a 10 year old.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Destructoid website is down!

Someting is terribly wrong with the Destructoid website! When I tried to go to its review here, I discovered that the website is down. In fact, it's been down for hours! When will it be back up? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Websites commonly mention this sort of thing on their social media. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see that the website is finally back up for a server migration. Thanks. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Rareware categories

Anyone know why Category:Rareware, Category:Rareware stubs, Category:Rareware games, Category:Rareware characters aren't named Category:Rare, Category:Rare stubs, Category:Rare games, Category:Rare characters. Is this a case of confusion with the adjective rare or did nobody really care about moving it to the correct name? --The1337gamer (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they're old. They should all be moved to Category:Rare whenever possible. I'm always having to correct 'Rareware' to 'Rare' in prose as well. JAGUAR 16:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian has shut down video game reviews pre-2015!

Now it seems that The Guardian no longer keeps video game reviews up to 2015! I tried getting to the game links like these two, but they all returned with a message of "Sorry, an error occurred"! Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be a temporary issue as trying to just go to any older page is screwed up. While Archive.org doesn't have this stored, I see Google does. [35] and [36] Note that you might have to look at the source to get the text but it is still there. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Archive.org has the archived versions seen here: [37] [38] Just trying to tell you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Just following up, it looks like it is back now, so it was a glitch like I suggested. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"

I noticed the article What Could Possibly Go Wrong? has been redirected because someone deemed it to be not notable. I don't think it isn't notable. I mean the article is about a TV cartoon that's based on a video game. Also there's a source used. 208.54.4.130 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's standard for having a standalone article. You need many third party reliable sources that cover it in significant detail. The article merely had one first party interview present. 90% of the article was unsourced and/or excessive plot summary. So basically, the sourcing and the content was in awful shape, so I redirected it to the series article (which has a section on it already.)

If there was better sourcing is found, maybe it could be written into a proper article, but a few years ago, I tried to find sources to make this article, and I wasn't able to find enough to feel confident in putting it into good enough shape to avoid deletion.... Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If some things require sourcing, rather than removing them right away, a {{citation needed}} could added to those words. That way, the creator of the article will have the chance to work on them. 208.54.4.220 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's more of an approach for an unsourced idea or sentence, not a almost entirely unsourced article. It was also almost entirely plot summary, which is not how articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be written. Plot sections are generally only a minor part of the article. If you or anyone want to work on the article, that's, fine, but it's definitely not ready to be in the main space. You can always start up a WP:DRAFT. If you do it through WP:AFC, they'll even review it and pass/decline it based on Wikipedia standards. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[1] Thorman, Peter (31 December 2014). "2014: the first year of the CRPG renaissance". PC Gamer. Retrieved 5 December 2015.

[1]