Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 152

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Coin945 in topic Living Books both a company and a series - question
Archive 145←Archive 150Archive 151Archive 152Archive 153Archive 154Archive 155

Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury's viability

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I discovered that the redirect I made for Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury was changed to an article. Judging by the previous discussion I had on Pikmin 3 Deluxe, I'm pretty sure Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury it doesn't need it's own article. Also, we don't know much about the extra expansion for the game yet making it fall under WP:TOOSOON. Finally, the article itself if it is viable, definitely needs some changes as it's too personalised. I only bring it up here because I just want to make sure with others that it is the right call to make. CaptainGalaxy 21:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah this does not need to be an article, I can't imagine this would be more than a subsection in the Super Mario 3D World article. Best to keep it as a redirect for now. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I could actually see a case for keeping this one IMO. I think we should merge for now, just to be safe, but apparently the new game is going to be substantially different from the Wii U version (not to mention it's 5GB instead of the original's 1.7GB, which is odd because usually Wii U-to-Switch ports tend to be smaller than the Wii U versions). JOEBRO64 22:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
How much extra development information can be written about it? While I expect a fairly new reception, the gameplay is going to be essentially the same, and that begs why a new separate article is needed. We need to be much more selective when we spin off separate articles on re-releases and remakes. There may be potential but not at this time. --Masem (t) 22:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the only part that is notable enough for an article is the Bowser's Fury part of the game as it seems to be on a similar route to the Pokemon Sword and Shield DLC, however that's just speculation as we barely know anything about it at the moment. So in my opinion, just merge it into the original article in a new section until more is known about it. CaptainGalaxy 22:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I clearly said that I am in favor of merging for now. We just need to wait and see how it pans out. JOEBRO64 22:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A possible infobox video games idea

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion

Extending from the above, an idea I mentioned there is possibly have additional "modules" in way that the {{Infobox animanga}} uses, but obviously in a slightly different way here for video games. Specifically have two "modules" that could be added to a game, one for "remakes and remasters" of the base game (eg Okami HD over Okami), and another for republication in larger named collections (such as the today's announcement of the Super Mario 3D All Stars for SM 64/Sunshine/Galaxy). (no box art, just data fields) The idea would be to move things like the platforms, release dates, and developers and publishers (if different) to these sections so that we can try to declutter the infobox and make it simpler, so that the main infobox stays to the base games and its original ports. These new sections should be collapsable (optionally) if there's potential issues. So taking something like Shadow of the Colossus, it would both a module to point to its remaster Shadow of the Colossus (2018 video game), and box for the The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection. Or for the Bioshock series, which is where unraveling things would be easier, both a remastered box and a collection box that points to BioShock: The Collection.

I want to stress this would only be for remakes/remasters and collections. Ports of the base game are still to be kept with the main game. No simple Virtual Console-type releases that are just emulation releases of single games, and these should be official collections. I do think this does mean that there may be due a third possible module for a "collections list" for the more classic games that have been on multiple collections, eg like how Sonic the Hedgehog has been in several of the Sega compilations, so where we are just listing out the complication title and year of release, or something like that. Or alternatively, just have a simple "Also included in" collections box, so that only notable collections are listed that would list out the platforms and other details on those separate pages.

As these would be optional modules, you would not need them unless evoked (eg I would not have the example template include the language to avoid newer editors from being tempted to fill these in).

But before I even start testing how this work work or look, I'd want to see if this would be something we'd want. Too much work for too little gain? I dunno. --Masem (t) 17:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Never use animanga as an example. :) it basically does everything wrong, IMO. What you're really talking about are child infoboxes. IBVG technically supports them, as it's a 100% standard infobox. (Unlike animanga). -- ferret (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
That's what I really should mean, that these would be child modules. The better starting point is {{Infobox album}} with examples of {{Extra chronology}} or {{Extra album cover}} being these extensions I'm talking about. --Masem (t) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
And to add: This would not change existing uses of IBVG, as is only would add new parameters to use these child boxes (at least, I can't see why this would impact those). --Masem (t) 18:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This could benefit the Kingdom Hearts titles, Final Fantasy III, and a few SaGa titles. Spyro games, Crash Bandicoot games. Even Tony Hawk Pro Skater games.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea of having child infoboxes, but I don't think listing remakes and remasters in detail is really a good idea. For remasters, some remastered games are just ports with minor graphical updates (e.g. Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition), and it doesn't really make much sense to discuss it outside of the general infobox. For remakes, they should have their own separate pages and it seems like the information is being repeated (e.g. Ratchet & Clank 2016, Resident Evil 2 Remake). Some games were remastered multiple times (Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, Age of Empires II) and this just makes the infobox even longer. OceanHok (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I would absolutely want to be clear that remakes/remasters well after release that are more than just spit and polish graphic updated, but there is something to be said of identifying repackaged versions now that I think about it (packages that include all the DLC, etc.) Again, my thinking here is try to make the main part of the infobox less complex for the base game's release. The platforms it was originally released on and release dates including direct ports. Releasees as packages, remasters, and collections we have always treated separately, but these are still "infobox" type items. (also, I don't think we ever require or even push for remakes having their own pages. If they can, great, but most of the time, since plot and gameplay will be the same as the original, there needs to be significant development and reception differences to support that separate article, which often don't exist. ) --Masem (t) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this is beneficial because it will help distinguish ports from the original and from the remake/remaster. For example: Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories was never ported onto any other system, but the remake was ported onto Ps3 and ps4. Some things to consider.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree with this idea. Most remasters I don't think are worth noting in the infobox, since they're just the same game with graphical updates or other minor features, and those that aren't have their own pages. How this is beneficial, exactly? Doesn't this just increase the size of the infobox? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, not all remakes necessary get separate pages - you need to have significant departure information on development and reception, and I would argue that its more exceptional that remakes get enough for a separate page than not. (To add: the distinction between remakes and remasters, while somewhat concrete, remains vague that we should keep these as relatively equal terms, and secondly, we should always presume a remake/remaster is not notable on its own and should be discussed as part of the original game until it can be proven it can be broken out. Thinking the other direction will cause too many premature breakouts.). Eg, the page on BioShock oddly has to omit the fact the game is available for the PS4 and Xbox One in the infobox because it is only available on that through the BioShock collection. Adding a child infobox for the Collection will make it clear in an instant it is available that way, as well as the fact HD remasters are available for the Switch and PC alone. Or to take the Sleeping Dogs (video game) example, if we also include "repackaged/GOTY" editions that include all DLC, this would should the game's release on the PS4/Xbox One separately from the base release. (I am not 100% set on the "repackages" box yet,).
As to explain another reason for this, this ideally would help cut down on lede kudzu of list out bazillion release bits of information. I dont think the lede needs to be have an exhaustive list of every release date and every version, though identifying when repackaged, remasters/remakes, and collections were generally released and for what platforms still should be included, but when you get to complicated situations like BioShock, that complicates matters. All that the general non-gamer reader really needs to now is initial release for what platforms, and a broad stroke of general releases. Having these child infoboxes helps push that detail information there (But this all should still be in the body too!!). --Masem (t) 21:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
As to give an idea of what this might look like, here's a sandboxed version of Bioshock, though as I worked through that, that one has a bit of a few issues with it User:Masem/sandbox/ibvg/tests/Bioshock. If anything, pulling out "collections" as a child/module box makes a lot of sense, and I can see the benefit for at least remakes when they are clear separate pages. But the idea works at least. --Masem (t) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Strictly limiting this to collections (in infobox) for now...

I can see a few problems trying to distinguish remakes/remasters out the main infobox for now, but that said, I can see the value of distinguishing release in a separate notable collection as a module for an infobox. Using Sonic as the example where a lot of collections could be heavy, here's a sample page with this 'collections' child box. User:Masem/sandbox/ibvg/tests/StH. (it supports 9 collections, but easily can add more). I have it collapsed by default but I can add a parameter when expansion is reasonable. --Masem (t) 19:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I like this. This may be a matter of personal preference, but I prefer finding ways to reduce infobox size rather than expand. (I fall on the no infobox side of the Kubrick debate). If we don't list the collections in the box, it invites the reader to actually read the article and they'll get more information like what version, bonus content, features, other games are included in the collection. I don't want to take the conversation off track too much, but if there is hunger for infobox renovating, I think there could be discussion about removing some fields: Mode(s) isn't particularly helpful (I never read it), Genre(s) is unnecessary as the lead sentence covers it, and the arcade specific ones (Display, CPU, Sound, Cabinet, and maybe Arcade System) are unnecessarily technical for the average reader and should probably be deprecated. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Tarkus. We should be finding ways to trim down the infobox size, not make it larger. There's games like Pac-Man and Galaga that have appeared in dozens upon dozens of collections, so trying to list all of these will just make the infobox needlessly long as a result. I also vote to remove a lot of these more trivial fields; particularly the ones relating to arcade games, because outside of naming the system board I find all of that to not be helpful for the reader and 99% of the time it's never sourced. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 03:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't going to chime about this subject but here my two cents: While i'm in favor of deprecating the Display, CPU and Sound fields, i do not agree with removing the Modes, Genre and Arcade System fields from the infobox. What i do most of the time now is that once all of the systems a certain title was published are talked about in the release section, i remove them from the infobox + their release dates to make it short (even if they're ports). If a game was released in arcades, for example Metal Black, i only list the original arcade release, as the Saturn version is already mentioned in its release section + the Saturn port is already mentioned in the article's head. Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Why even have a platform section if we're just gonna list the one system, then? I don't follow your reasoning. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I just look for ways to reduce the load on infoboxes when i work on articles. That's it... Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
My concern with all this is, for example, we have people adding the Switch for the three 3D Mario games that are part of the new 3D All-Stars. But we purposely do not list collections currently in the infobox. This will keep on being and forth fight with editors that think these types of games should be listed there. --Masem (t) 05:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to put it this way: List the original version and its subsequent port. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. A mention in the release section its all the 3D All-Stars collection needs. Not a full-blown listing in the infobox of Mario 64, Sunshine and Galaxy... Roberth Martinez (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement with Tarkus here, infoboxes should be as concise as possible. The sandbox version Masem provided looks too bloated in my opinion. What good does having a "Included in" sub-box when that same info can go in a single sentence or two? I also agree that we should remove the Display, CPU, Sound, Cabinet, and Arcade System parameters (they're leftovers from an over-technical era), but genre should be kept as it's a fundamental part of every game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo Direct

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Do we need an article for this? The sources are overwhelmingly just WP:PRIMARY sources to individual Nintendo Direct videos. It mainly comprises a list of everything announced in various promotional videos by Nintendo over the years. Popcornfud (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the concept is notable, as a move for Nintendo toward delivering news and information on semi-regular basis that other companies later adopted as well, but I'm also not too stoked about the way the article looks right now.--AlexandraIDV 12:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. Potential, but poorly executed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe this article should be kept, it just needs a citation readjustment. I have proposed one on the talk page. CaptainGalaxy 21:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The concept of a Nintendo Direct is fair enough, its like Iwata Asks, but I don't think every single ND is notable, particularly with the various "types" (partner-oriented, indies, etc.) Noting they have used these for 3rd party announcements, sure, but not listing each date of those. The big ones - like the recent 35th Mario one, I think , is about as far as I'd go with lsting these. --Masem (t) 01:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
There has been some discussion on the Nintendo Direct talk page recently about potentially removing some of the information from the article, but attempts to discuss towards a consensus have reached something of an impasse. If anyone here would be willing to weigh in over there, that would be appreciated. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Super Buster Bros. or Super Pang?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move request about this game The request is here: Talk:Super Buster Bros.. Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you help me find reliable sources for these two claims?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It's about MOBA origins so we talk about very old game. Problem is that Future Cop: LAPD is one of the originators of the genre so it's not the best idea to remove information about it from the article. EchoBlu (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"... making Future Cop: LAPD the first MOBA game released as, unlike Herzog Zwei, it meets the criteria of an online battle arena." [citation needed]

  •   Comment: Any reliable reference about why is Future Cop: LAPD a (first) multiplayer online battle arena game is welcome. EchoBlu (talk)

"Aeon64 stated that he was attempting to create gameplay similar to that of Future Cop: LAPD's Precinct Assault mode." [citation needed]

  •   Comment: This statement will be removed if reference can't be found, but it will be interesting if this claim is true. EchoBlu (talk)
I'm not convinced either claim is perfectly accurate. Herzog Zwei has been cited as an early MOBA(-esque) game, as the article attests. Furthermore:

Technically, ​Aeon of Strife​ itself wasn't the first example of this [MOBA] gameplay exactly, that honor would go to either Technosoft's ​Herzog Zwei​ (1989), quoted as directly inspiring the original WarCraft​, or EA Redwood Shores's ​Future Cop: L.A.P.D. ​'s (1998) 'Precinct Assault' mode depending on your definition of the genre ...

  • Lopuszanski, Stefan (4 July 2019). "It's Mods All The Way Down". University of Connecticut. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.25818.08644. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
As for the claim that Aeon of Strife was modeled after Future Cop, USgamer notes that:

Eventually a mapmaker even created a custom map for StarCraft that was rumored to have been inspired heavily by Future Cop 's own Precinct Assault called Aeon of Strife.

(emphasis added)
I could find no reliable sources that confirm either claim, rather speak against them. Another good source I found on the topic in general:
Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Related to this type of claim, I was thinking of making a table at video game genre to list, where we can, the first known and the "accepted" defining game of each major genre. Some genres, like adventure games this would be one and the same (arguably Colossal Cave Adventure, but I'd have to check), but you get to these more advanced genres and you have cases like MOBA where here, Aeon of Strife is recognized as the defining game, but you have one or two examples of games that may have proceeded it but didn't define it. Same with roguelikes; Rogue's the defining game (dur), but there's a few known preceeding games that got lost to time. Anyone see an issue with this? --Masem (t) 15:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (August 31 to September 6)

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

August 31

September 1

September 2

September 3

September 4

September 5

September 6

I also have my doubts about Narnia in video games especially since it only has one sour3 (a review of one of the games).--67.68.208.64 (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • List of rumored video games looks like a good deletion candidate. While Polybius is a long-running urban legend, the others are unnotable joke games (e.g. originating from 4chan) cited to unreliable sources (e.g. KnowYourMeme). IceWelder [✉] 12:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Is there a general possible page of "Urban legends in video games"? This would be a broader than just games, such as the idea that the Atari video game burial had "millions" of games there (when only ~750,000 were actually buried). Mind you, we'd have to avoid forum fodder so this may be a bad idea. But if we have more like this, then yes, this could be a page to work from. --Masem (t) 15:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Bug report

  • @Salvidrim!: Ah, that bug. Yeah- you created it and moved it on the same day; the 1.0 bot report just listed the creation of the final title, and then when my script checked for page moves it saw the move and skipped it, as usually a "creation" of a moved page is just the 1.0 bot misreading things. The script needs to check deeper on the "moved from" page history to see if it was a recent creation itself. --PresN 15:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

League of Legends: Wild Rift merger

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there! I've been fixing up League of Legends, and submitted it to WP:GOCE a few days ago in prep for GA, but there's something on my mind: a proposed merger with the mobile/console counterpart has been unresolved since July. I don't mind if the vote goes in either direction. I just want to be sure that, if is going to be merged, I can implement the section before it goes through GOCE. Imaginestigers (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ghosts (Pac-Man) AFD

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just thought I would inform that a related AFD is being discussed here. Any improvements or discussions are welcome. Jhenderson 777 01:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It has been made into a redirect via this discussion. Yet, it is still classified as a featured list. The other redirects can simply be reclassified, but what do we do here? (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll sort it out. --PresN 15:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC) (FLC delegate)

POV pushing on Battlefield V

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed some biased, POV pushing language on the Battlefield V article and tried to reduce the amount of undue weight in the article. Unfortunately it was quickly reverted by a "new editor" and additional POV language was added on the side as well disparaging the game. I have nothing for or against the game, but it's clearly undue weight. One can check the edit history to see the details. Seems to be an ongoing problem on the article that might require some form of protection or intervention from an admin.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Title of Health (game terminology)

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Is there something I'm missing? I thought that WP:VG overwhelmingly voted to make the disambiguation for game terminology "(video games)" back in January. However, this page was moved away from that disambiguation "per WP:VG". No other page on game terminology shares this title, so it definitely goes against WP:CONSISTENT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's fine. The page is about health in role-playing/table-top games as well as video games.TarkusABtalk/contrib 10:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
This, when we share the concept with physical games, "game terminology" is a better disambiguation term. --Masem (t) 13:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't just "Health (games)" be better? Popcornfud (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Bumping this, no thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing TarkusABtalk/contrib 13:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is "Health" to be consistent with "Magic", which apparently experienced the same move. "Magic points" would not be natural. "Hit points" and "health points" are pretty much equally used, though I think the latter would be slightly less confusing because "hit points" can sometimes imply attack value rather than health. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Are these two articles potentially viable?

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

I tried to restore the previously redirected articles Killer Bees!, and M*A*S*H (video game) after finding some additional reviews for each. Are there other sources that will help to establish notability for them? 2601:249:8B80:4050:6539:4448:B880:8EE (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As is, most are going to say they’re going to fail our standard for having their own article - the WP:GNG. Find some more sources and you could be okay, but not as is. Not sure how easy it would be to find more sources - games that old are often locked away in physical paper magazines... Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I found additional reviews and sources for both, so hopefully that is enough this time. 2601:240:102:E4CA:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sergecross73 or anyone who can answer, I found a few more sources in addition to at least three reviews which I have linked to for each of these - Killer Bees!, and M*A*S*H (video game) - but they were still reverted again. I might be missing something, but how many more reviews beyond three do we need to meet the GNG? I can probably find more if needed, but I don't want to waste my time if I am just going to be reverted no matter what I do. 2601:240:106:ECB6:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hang tight, I’ve talked to an editor who has found a bunch of MASH sources. Sounds like it won’t even make it a close call. If there’s still issues after that, we can have a discussion with the editor who keeps reverting you and see if we can come to an consensus on it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You rock, thank you. :) I will see if there is anything more that I can find for Killer Bees! then. :) 2601:240:103:C47F:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I found a link to the third review for Killer Bees!: [1] 2601:240:103:C47F:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, there are a few more modern reviews listed at MobyGames, but I have no idea if they are WP:RS: https://www.mobygames.com/game/killer-bees 2601:240:103:C47F:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Good morning Sergecross73 or anyone else who wants to chime in, I restored Killer Bees! once more with a note that the article now links to four reviews as well as other sources, so if that user feels that it still does not meet WP:GNG hopefully they can explain what else they are looking for. I also tried to make an article out of Atari 2600 game Sorcerer's Apprentice with links to three reviews, but guess what, same user reverted that one as well - which is kind of surprising because the same user also accepted Mazogs with the same number of reviews. 2601:249:8B80:4050:EDA7:14E1:E7C0:5A51 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think the hang up may be this - even if you can prove notability through coverage in reliable sources, some editors can still legitimately push for redirection because of a lack of content. Everyone has different standards, and there’s no real right answer. (My personal goal is a page size of 5,000 - I feel like that is around enough into to have a stand-alone article.) Anyways, rather than having to continually wrestle with that editor, you can creat a WP:DRAFT. As long as it’s not grossly inappropriate, you can work on a rough draft without any concern about being redirected. That way, you can get it in peak form, and then publish it. You can ask here for input before publishing it too. I can take a look at it when you think it’s ready if you like, though I admit that much of my video game knowledge is 1990s and onward - I’m less familiar with earlier games and sources. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, gotcha, I see. I tried the same thing with Lifespan (video game) and got the same result with a different editor. I will have to see what else can be done to appease them. 2601:249:8B80:4050:E1A4:1AFE:32AC:E2CB (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I recreated the M*A*S*H article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Abryn, thank you! It looks much better now. 2601:249:8B80:4050:69CB:A787:B76E:BF3C (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Fate/stay night

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

See Talk:List of Fate/stay night characters#Merge 2. I've been trying to clean up the main list especially now that every heroine as well Kiritsugu got their own articles. Please join to discuss.Tintor2 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic comment: The name of the article (and its parent article) will probably need to be changed to "Fate/Stay Night" in accordance with MOS:CAPS. I don't know the series so I cannot comment on the matter at hand, though. IceWelder [✉] 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
RS categorically use Fate/stay night. RS use is an exception to the capitalization rules. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Rintaro Okabe

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Normally creating article takes me time but Rintaro Okabe was quite easy since all of his games and anime article appearances from (Steins Gate) were quite well written. Still I haven't been able to too much about his creation or role in 0 in contrast to his large reception section. If anybody found another source about his original role or the "sequel" 0 it would be helpful.Tintor2 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for review of a page

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there! A while back I created a page for the indie company Soma Games. Red Phoenix suggested that I should bring the article up here on the Project to have people look at it and give feedback so that it's not all written by one person and to ensure we clean up any traces of inccorect tone or Peacock words. I highly recommend reading through the article's Talk page before reading the article so you can get an understanding for the context that the article was written in and not accidentally assume bad faith :)

It's been a couple months without anyone organically finding the article to read it over, so that's why I'm bringing attention to it here to make sure it can be totally shaped up to align with all of Wikipedia's standards! I just want to emphasize one more time not to mistake accidental ignorance for intentional promotion or disregard for rules in the article and to assume good faith about everything that was written.

Thanks a ton everybody! Emitewiki2 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little out of it right now as I deal with a personal crisis, but I'd like to encourage someone to help Emitewiki2 with this. He is a disclosed paid editor on the Soma Games article, and I did advise him he needs to suggest on the talk page from here on out since he has previously been paid for the work. That being said, because I'm out, I would appreciate if an experienced Video games project editor can help Emitewiki2 with his suggestions to be in full compliance with WP:PAID - he has shown a commitment to abide by the policy. Red Phoenix talk 18:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Master Chief (Halo) TFA

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey all, Master Chief (Halo) has been scheduled as today's featured article for October. I've been doing some overdue cleanup (with Halo Infinite getting delayed guess I couldn't procrastinate any longer.) In the process I heavily cut down the appearances section. Any eyes on the article, especially in regards to whether the appearances section still reads logically for the layperson or if I need to explain things (or cut further) would be welcome. Posting to Talk:Master Chief (Halo) would probably be best. And if there's newer sources that haven't been incorporated, etc. I'd appreciate the heads-up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Given how convoluted the series lore is, I think that bit reads reasonably well for newcomers and such. The rest also flows reasonably well. I corrected a link issue related to the UNSC's first mention, but that's the only thing that stood out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Japanese translation help

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A fellow user just created the article Akira Nishikiyama. I found this interview about the character but it lacks translation. Is there anybody who could translate Nishik's part?Tintor2 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Rez issue

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there. I think something's wrong with the GA bots. Rez has been passed by Indrian, but it's still up in the GAN section in the top box as if it were on review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Legobot hasn't edited the GAN page since the 8th, so it's safe to say it's broken. IceWelder [✉] 19:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Legobot is working again, it seems. IceWelder [✉] 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

New template feedback before making it live

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I was looking to try to condense the game list info on articles like Far Cry and Assassin's Creed but recognized that the templates we have to these aren't as flexible as needed, so I reworked a bit of {{Video game table}} to make what is presently in my sandbox as User:Masem/Video game table ext: it allows for 1-4 regions to be listed for release as well as a ratings column. I'd like input if there are any other features to add before I bring it live (as "Video game table ext"). --Masem (t) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm personally a-okay with the existing format on both example articles, but surely this template will find a suitable use somewhere. The template itself is fine, though I fixed a minor mistake in the docs. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel like the column labelled "Ratings" with platform abbreviations and two-digit scores is a bit vague or lacking contextual clues for the average reader to understand what is the information being presented (the Metacritic score out of a hundred derived from an aggregation of review scores). Like, we get it because we know what it is, but someone not familiar with video game scoring would be confused. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't "fully" fill in this, it could be labeled "MetaCritic Ratings" and then the systems spelled out. And obviously references included. The idea is to take the ratings table, particularly in a case like for Assassin's Creed article, and give it better context without it making this big long floating thing that just sits there. On series articles like this, a "reception" section can be difficult to summarize up when the game series runs this long. (And as noted, that ratings column is an optional thing for this new template). --Masem (t) 17:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
One concern that I have is that the {{Video game table}} template (and by extension this extension) puts a lot of focus on exact release dates in multiple regions; for most franchises (e.g. ones developed outside of Japan or where the release dates are usually worldwide-ish) that's a misdirected focus. In your example here, 3/5 of the table width is dedicated to making sure that readers know whether there was a (0-3) day gap between regions, while what platforms a game was released on gets short shrift. I don't have a great solution; maybe basing it on {{Video game titles}} instead? Or just combining the columns into one "original release date"; maybe then with one row per platform, so the title gets a rowspan and then the rows are "original release date" / "Metacritic rating", with notes below or as a third column. --PresN 18:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, the table can be configured for just 1 release date column if it makes sense for that series. But the widths are all fixed to be equal columns for that. I was thinking of a series that might be so long that it went from segmented regional releases to a worldwide single release (Far Cry may not be representatively good here for that and I'm welcome for a better example). Again, that's the type of thing that I liked to get input on if there's any suggestions on flexibility here and why it's not "live" yet. --Masem (t) 19:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@PresN: going to your idea on using {{Video game titles}} as a starting point, would you think it reasonable to add a optional "Ratings" column to the end of that? Then I Can see a way forward to make that template work grandfathering in old uses, I think ... --Masem (t) 14:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Potential of Video games that are no longer available category?

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Would there be potential in a category for digital games that are no longer legally available to buy on any platform, such as Meme Run and Flappy Bird. There is even potential growth with Super Mario Bros. 35 and Jump Rope Challenge. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The Great Giana Sisters, the cover alone could have been grounds for withdrawl from sale (Nothing controversial, just bad). - X201 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The de facto category that is used is "Products and services discontinued in..." and the year. Those categories already contain a lot of games by the year they were discontinued from sale.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • P.T. is the classic example. I would almost say one could write an entire article about discontinuation of digital games. I do think the category is already covered by the overlap between "Products and services discontinued in..." and "video games", as ZXCVBNM said. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear that games that are no longer available for sale due to the fact that the storefront or platform no longer exists is not the same thing as games specifically discontinued due to the removal of the games from the specific platform or due to servers being shutdown and thus no longer able to be played period (in a legal manner). The former is just obsolescence that happens, and so like while there are Wii Ware games you can no longer get because the store is dead, if you have a Wii and you have the games beforehand, you can still play they, they weren't discontinued. We want to focus on known titles that were pulled or shut down on purpose. --Masem (t) 14:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that both are notable for categories, as both games that are fully unavailable, as in the game's servers are dead, and games that are mostly unobtainable, as in the only way to legitimately obtain them is gone, are both notable and seemingly large enough for categories. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That creates a problematic standard. For example, does that make, say, all Atari 2600 discontinued? One arguably can say they are, but I know you can likely not find any source to confirm any of those games being formally discontinued. Since WP is driven by sourcing, we want to stick to conditions that can be sourced, and that's when games are known to be pulled from stores or when servers are shut down, and not simply because the game or the system go stale. --Masem (t) 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Reselling used games is still legitimate, I was speaking of digital distribution being made unavailable. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
        • I would still be careful as just because a storefront disappears doesn't mean the game was discontinued. The developer may be trying to be bring it to other systems, for example. Again, I'd rather keep this to WP:V-meeting conditions where we know something happened. --Masem (t) 16:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's put it this way: it is reasonable for a category Category:WiiWare games, for example (argubly, we shouldn't have a separate mainspace listing, they should be incorporated into the list of Wii games, but that's not here nor there for this). By implication that Wii shop is closed, it can be taken that all those games can be presumed "no longer accessible" unless they have been ported elsewhere. We shouldn't explicitly make that statement, though, though on the category page, we can say that the Wii Shop was closed on such-and-such a date and thus games on this list, unless available via other means, are no longer accessible. (I just added that to be clear). I don't think we want to further categorize on a implicit fact for a specific game, if that makes. eg, it can be seen as snythesis to say "Game X was a WiiWare game. The Wii eShop was closed in 2019. Thus, Game X was discontinued in 2019." --Masem (t) 16:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (September 7 to September 13)

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

September 7

  • None

September 8

  • None (bot failure)

September 9

  • None (bot failure)

September 10

  • None (bot failure)

September 11

September 12

September 13

Wow, that fell through the cracks- you did, and no one ever responded until September 6, 2020‎, when your tag got reverted. I don't know why the 1.0 bot thought this was a creation- your talk page tag was there the whole time. Removed. --PresN 19:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems like it was actually deleted and then restored for this (arguably laughable) rationale. The question is what the intended behaviour is here. Should recreations be shown? Maybe with a special "(restored)" tag? Depends on whether the bot actually catches such changes. IceWelder [✉] 19:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, forgot that wouldn't show up in the regular history. The bot doesn't catch it, it just says "created". Adding "(restored)" is a good idea, though there's not an easy tag in the page history to catch for this particular case; there would be for un-redirections, though, so that'd be useful. --PresN 19:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Bug report

I don't know why it says the 11th, but Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary became an article on the 13th. Even if the bot was going for the date the article began as a draft, that was on the 8th. CaptainGalaxy 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The bot was down for a few days, so instead of the 8th it got the 11th (the next time the bot managed to run). --PresN 20:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok thank you for letting me know. The only thing I don't get though was the page didn't become an article till the 13th, between the 8th and the 12th it was a draft. CaptainGalaxy 21:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
If an article gets created as a draft and moved to article space in that same week, then the script treats the original draft date as the "creation" date. Only if it doesn't see a "creation" line in the logs but only a "reassessed from Draft to whatever" does it treat the move date as the "creation" date. It's a bug, I suppose, but not a big one. --PresN 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

A reminder...

Remakers/remasters and other rereleases should not be presumed automatically notable for a standalone article (Collections are different), especially after just being announced. There needs to be significant develop details specific to the rereleases, otherwise the game can be covered in the original game's page, until such a point that the rerelease is released and we can judge if the reception deems a new article appropriate. We are looking for development details at a level of detail like with Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 + 2 remake as an example of the reasonable minimum to expect, not just "the remake will be makde by Studio X and released on such-and-such a date". (This is because someone make an article for Demon's Souls Remake on bare information... --Masem (t) 02:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tron: Solar Sailer

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Tron: Solar Sailer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Should be redirected to List of Intellivision games or Intellivoice. No reliable sources cited, and there are unlikely to be any given the age of the game.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Resident Evil 4 genre

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a debate happening at Resident Evil 4 over what genre to report in the lead sentence. See Talk:Resident_Evil_4#"Third_person_shooter". Further input would be appreciated. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Metacritic

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

There appear to be many editors accidentally misquoting Metacritic. Metacritic describes games as having a "mixed or average reviews" but Wikipedia articles, have many cases where it has been misquoted as "mixed to average" (the correct version uses or not to).[2] I don't often edit game articles, so I hope that maybe those you who do edit game articles can keep an eye for these misquotes and fix them as you edit other more important details. Thanks. -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Still wish we'd get rid of this copypasted format and just cite them at the end of the general consensus of the game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Summarizing critical consensus is far more useful at the beginning of a reception section than the end. I don't think you have to spend much time singling out Metacritic's summary, though. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
That's what I mean though; instead of just copypasting the same "general positive reviews according to Metacritic" line, we should have a summary of the game's general reception there instead while still using Metacritic (and perhaps OpenCritic) citations. Of course, its inclusion in the review template box would remain unchanged. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Good WP:PROSE is the most important thing in a quality encyclopedia article of course, but as a starting point boilerplate generic information from Metacritic is better than nothing (and Metacritic is better than the Rotten Tomatoes that the film articles use so much). Aggregators are a crude tool and copypasting is not ideal but it has the advantage of being consistent, objective and easy to check that editors aren't just making things up (I've seen a lot of very bad summaries). -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course it's better than nothing, but any article that inspires to be well written (think GA/FA) should really avoid using that style in my opinion. Those articles would usually have a proper summary anyway, making the Metacritic leadoff sentence unnecessary. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but yeah, it’s a constant, ongoing problem. Similarly, we’ve got a consensus on not using the awkward phrase “”mixed to positive” too, yet you still come across people using it a fair amount. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I also expressed similar issues. The aggregated score gives us an "idea" of how it was received, but it doesn't paint a clear picture on what the common opinion is nor does it reflect the reception accurately when we actually start using the reviews in prose. I think listing their score is good, but not mentioning how Metacritic defines that score.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, it helps a lot to know about WP:VG/MIXED. I hate when film articles do that, and I had not learned that Project Video games had a clear guideline explicitly telling people not to do that for game articles. (Project film only seems to have an informal consensus against it, and other people have a general objection to it as terrible writing). Similarly project film frequently has discussions where people complain about how they dislike Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, there was one just this month, and again plenty of talk about GA/FA articles needing to aspire to better things. -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we could have some sort of cross-project consensus on it one day. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (September 14 to September 20)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

September 14

September 17

September 18

September 19

September 20

September 21

Wikidata in infobox

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, I noticed Flameeyes (talk · contribs) has been removing data from some video game infoboxes so Wikidata populates it instead (e.g. diff). Our MOS has no guidance on this, but I don't see any benefit in doing this, and wanted to engage the community to see if others agree something should be written about this. I feel we would want to retain infobox data already entered manually on Wikipedia, and only treat Wikidata as a fallback. Reasoning being it is easier for editors to notice changes to those fields, the edit pencil icons in the box are really ugly, and WP:FORKS might not pull wikidata. Thoughts? TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If an editor on Wikipedia spent the time to populate an infobox field with something, I think it's slightly more likely (in the absence of other evidentiary factors) that it's true than an auto-populated field from Wikidata. It also might be customized in some way, such as piped links, to better meet the needs of the article at hand. I certainly don't think people should be spending effort to remove existing fields as a matter of policy. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
My reasoning to do it this way is to make sure that the Wikidata information doesn't fall out of date. I made sure that anything I'm removing is up to date in Wikidata — and if there's any conflict, or disagreement, between the two, I've been sourcing references to choose between the two. There's a number of information that is not possible to express in Wikidata, for which I'm definitely not changing the Infobox info for, but there's also a few cases in which non-base-latin spelling of names is skipped in the infoboxes, but is easily sourced from Wikidata (namely for Future Wars comes to mind). Flameeyes (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
For things that should have easily singular values with no variance in how they could be presented, Wikidata is good (for example, console sales numbers), but VG Infobox is often "variable" in its approach due multiple regions, multiple platforms, etc. It makes it rather difficult unless we can do more hierarchical means. That said, we should be trying to populate Wiki Data more with sourcing - much of it seems sourced to Russian's Wikipedia, and not hard sources.--Masem (t) 16:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think as much data as we can move to Wikidata and retrieve from there should be retrieved from there (per the multiple RFCs).
As for forks, those aren't our problem or concern (and the data is still there regardless). --Izno (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree that we should be doing this. Wikidata has its own guidelines that differs from MOS:VG and thus some values may be violated if we fully went to Wikidata for this sort of thing. And even if this isn't the case, I don't see much point in going around 100s of articles and doing this for no net benefit. Certainly that effort can be better used elsewhere? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
We are all WP:Volunteers. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't change how this has basically no net benefit while possibly breaking things. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion or say of it as a matter of policy, I just have some personal interest in some of the games I know of, and been spending some "thinking" time by looking back at old magazines to ride the nostalgia. So my edits have mostly been to keep the data in sync between the two, but only for values that 'can' be represented directly from Wikidata, as Masem (talk · contribs) and Izno (talk · contribs) suggested.
If you have any example of these violations, I'll pay more attention not to change stuff around that might cause that. In the edit you reverted, the values were all single fields (developer, producer, director, composer, genre, mode) that were pointing at the same values. I explicitly didn't change publisher, because despite Wikidata being able to express the information, the infobox wouldn't know how to represent the conditional value (one publisher for Japan, one for the rest of the world).
I don't really have much of a ball in the game — I just thought I'd "clean up the room" after using it as a pointer to old magazines of my time. Flameeyes (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It's more about the different guidelines and MOS of Wikidata/other Wikipedias than anything else. Sure, most of the values will be the same and would likely not cause any issues, but even in those cases it still creates additional overhead for no real benefit other than a tidier local infobox. I won't oppose any more edits of this going forward (I didn't see the discussion here before I reverted on Tomba), but I also won't personally be doing this unless it has more support. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll reiterate that I don't think it should be removed as a matter of policy. An affirmative edit including text has more editorial oversight than something auto-populated from another source. If an editor takes the time to verify the wikidata and decides to remove text to let it autopopulate, I wouldn't revert, but again, we shouldn't mandate that behavior by policy. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing to move data as a matter of policy (though I have advocated somewhat the opposite, that people should not be forbidden from doing so, as a matter of policy). --Izno (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Image source

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

While rearranging the large creation section of Dante (Devil May Cry) I wondered whether or not this image was official. I used Tineye Tineye but I have no idea if any result is okay to use in Wikipedia. I mean, since the creation details some parts of each incarnation of the character I wonder if this image is good to use or it's a fanmade collection. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It is fan made. This full version [3] shows the fine print. It would be better to take the individual official character graphics and make a new image but without the stylized background. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I see. Then removing. Then again, I sometimes don't know what images should be used in infoboxes. The latest version or the first one.Tintor2 (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Depends on the needs of the article and local consensus. Sometimes the original design is the most iconic, critically discussed, and notable. Sometimes the latest design is included for recognizability, or because it's higher resolution and there have been minimal design changes. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I see. It kinda tends to happen to Cloud Strife among others but I'm against using Dante's DMC1 look since it covers his actual face. If his classic look were to be used, I would suggest his Project X Zone since it's more recognizable.Tintor2 (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keeping with topic of images of Dante. Whilst using Bing, this is the portrait for the character [4]. It seems to only be on Bing and it doesn't show up anywhere else, but it's just a bit weird. CaptainGalaxy 08:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That's his new look for DMC6, it just leaked. TarkusABtalk/contrib 11:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Wow, Capcom is awesome.Tintor2 (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this notable enough?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would think that I found more than enough sources to split Temple of Apshai Trilogy (as seen here) from the main game article, with 19 separate citations, but it was reverted. Am I assuming incorrectly? 2601:243:1C80:6740:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely notable per WP:GNG, I have found tons of decent contemporary magazine reviews in a span of few minutes: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Even newspapers gave it in-depth coverage: [14] and [15]. If this happened to be just a normal port, sure, but considering it's a remake, I see no reason for it not to have a separate article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, that's great! I restored the article, let's see if it is reverted again or not. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

So now that Xbox Series S has been revealed...

Latest comment: 4 years ago44 comments16 people in discussion

MS officially revealed the Xbox Series S this morning, so that puts a lot of speculation to bed.

But that now creates one of the expected headaches of this upcoming launch. Not the question of 9th generation, but to name the Xbox line now. I have moved things to what I had been expecting as early from 2019 when the naming of the Series X, based on this article and this article, in that the family name is just "Xbox" and since that's all sorts of conflicts, that's WP internally "Xbox (fourth generation)". (This is why I was cautioning against the category name change , because of this.

I do think this means that the OG Xbox pages should be moved to Xbox (first generation) respectively as well, IF we keep this, but I think I want to make sure if there are no other concerns or options here.

Also, this will affect many games announced already for the Xbox Series X. All those will be playable on the Series S (though many will be Optimized for Series X, hence that branding, again, MS wasn't being obtuse here). Obviously it doesn't make sense to list both Xbox Series X and Series S in infoboxes, so trying to make sure how to name this to be clear, at a glance, that we are distinguishing that Xbox from OG Xbox. I am going to suggest for simplification in the infobox purposes (or wherever else simplification can be made, but not in prose context where it should be obvious) that we use "Xbox (2001)" to refer to OG Xbox and "Xbox (2020)" to refer to the Series X/Series S line. (We could use "first gen." and "fourth gen." but I think that will be too long and too confusing particularly with the console generations). --Masem (t) 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What if we named it Xbox Series X/S ?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a strong likelihood more consoles will be in that family. --Masem (t) 15:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Related question, how do we abbreviate this? Xbox, X360, XONE, now...? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
We wait to see how sources abbreviate it. I love the idea of "XBSEX" but that's obviously not gonna be what sticks. It seems to be leaning to XSX but with the Series S now being a thing, maybe XSER (for "Xbox Series") will be the predominant choice. But even XONE/XBONE still has some using either so it's never super "clean" in the end. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
While it will obviously depend on coverage, given how different the Series S and X are from each other (presumably given the capabilities at a deep technical level as well), it might make sense for them to have different articles (versus something clear-cut like the PS5 where the only difference is a diskless SKU, or the many variants that were just hard drive and model revisions.) You're going to have different specs to talk about, and presumably reviews will be talking about them as substantially different devices (the same way you wouldn't merge the iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro into the same article despite their releases.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Right now, we have a fair amount of specs on both and they are practically the same in terms of the components outside of specifics of GPU, memory, internal storage, and size, so if we have a separate article it definitely will have to be due to these being treated as fairly distinct hardware products. (which they aren't right now). We still have the issue though of, on games that are going to be released on Xbox Series X and Series S, how to refer to the platform and make sure it is distinct from the OG Xbox. --Masem (t) 13:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Xbox Series

  • Isn't the name of the fourth generation of Microsoft consoles "Xbox Series", with an X and an S model announced so far?
  1. Xbox, sometimes called "OG Xbox" to differentiate from the family of consoles
  2. Xbox 360 – (Xbox 360 S · Xbox 360 E)
  3. Xbox One – (Xbox One X · Xbox One S · One S All-Digital Edition)
  4. Xbox Series – (Xbox Series X · Xbox Series S)
It seems fairly consistent with how Microsoft has always handled its branding and is easy to undersand & present, at least to my eyes...... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
No, its not "Xbox Series", the two articles I link show it as just "Xbox". I know just reading the names it looks like "Xbox Series" but that doesn't match what they've said in detail. --Masem (t) 16:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
4th gen or not, it’s certainly not the COMMONNAME to call it Xbox 4th gen. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
No, it's "Xbox", the (4th gen) coming from disambiguation at this time with the OG Xbox. --Masem (t) 17:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess we’re not alone in the confusion and disagreements... Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
How about "Xbox Series X and Series S"? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Or even just Xbox Series. I just feel like anything is better than the current, which has a significant WP:RECOGNIZE problem in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I think addressing this name issue without addressing how to name them as a single title in game infoboxes, is not as helpful. They are connected problems. But I will stress that "Xbox Series" is wrong, that's simply not the name for them from Microsoft. --Masem (t) 22:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m open to other solutions, just not the current name. I know it’s disambiguation, but sources don’t refer to it as just “Xbox” or “Xbox (4th Gen)”. It’s a confusing article title. As I’ve said, it’s got a real recognizability issue. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The only other option, and this might be something, is that whereas that that MS originally talked "Optimized for Series X" branding, they are now talking "Optimized for Series X/S" [16]. So, a reasonable name that is concise at this time would be "Xbox Series X/S" , which would also work for the infobox. But I'd like to see a few more days of coverage to see how sources converge. --Masem (t) 04:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, until MS either gives us a better name or releases more consoles in this same "family", I'm thinking that the article should be at "Xbox Series X and Series S" , but in short form we can refer to it as "Xbox Series X/S" like in infobox, or in a list of platforms, eg, "Assassin's Creed Valhalla will release for Windows, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S on November 10, 2020." (though one can always say "X and S" too) Article titles should keep to expanded "List of Xbox Series X and Series S games" as well as "Category:Xbox Series X and Series S games" make logical sense from that. --Masem (t) 06:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. It’s kind of how we handle the dual Pokemon game article titles at least. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"Xbox Series X/S" seems sufficient per WP:OFFICIALNAME, it fits nicely in infoboxes, and it has been adopted by some reliable sources as well (ex. [17][18][19][20][21]). I'm also speculating that, should this naming scheme persist, the next generation will be "Xbox Series X/S 2", which we could neatly apply 1:1 (instead of "Xbox Series X 2 and Series S 2"). IceWelder [✉] 14:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Formal proposal re Xbox Series X and S

So given the above, I propose:

  • Xbox (fourth generation) goes to Xbox Series X and Series S , and this would follow for all titles; the family for all purposes should be called "Xbox Series X and Series S" in titles.
  • In running prose or in infoboxes to describe the family in articles elsewhere (eg generally in game articles) where there's no distinction made between either console, the family can be referred to tersely as "Xbox Series X/S".

Obviously, redirects for the existing titles will be in place. (eg Xbox Series X to the new Xbox Series X and Series S) Any issues with these? --Masem (t) 14:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fig. 1) Microsoft has discussed their intention to shift to a multi-platform content delivery approach for their family of platforms, those currently being Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows. All first party games will be on both consoles and Windows. Third-party publishers will almost certainly follow. [22]
Fig. 2) Microsoft has also confirmed first-party games will continue to be released on Xbox One for the next two years. Third-party publishers will almost certainly follow. [23]
Fig. 3) I skimmed through List of Xbox (fourth generation) games and all the games I saw were also available on Windows.
Fig. 4) I can't think of what incentive publishers would have to release games on Xbox consoles and NOT on Windows.
What I'm driving at is: most games on Xbox consoles going forward will also be on Windows. There has to be a better way to write "Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows" for the next two years, or longer if/when Microsoft releases another model. Think of multiplatform games which will list "PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows" in prose. I was thinking something like "Microsoft platforms" (don't know where to link it), or "Xbox platforms and Windows" in lead and infobox with further detail on supported devices in the release section, but I'm not confident in either suggestion. I'll just end my rambling on this: the notion of a hardware device being the "platform" as we've known it forever will morph over the next few years and we may have to rethink MOS in the future when it comes to what is considered a "platform". TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Second choice to Xbox Series X/S, which is used more often than the suggested title. Also this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page with a notice atop the article. czar 03:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • As this is more than just one page but how we refer to this across multiple pages in this project, its less a formal move request and more establishing a principle for the VG project. But the page has been notified (I should have done that, Favre has done so) --Masem (t) 03:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for now. I can see Microsoft adding further console at a later date which complicate this naming scheme (e.g. Series Xs or Series L) which might necessitate a later move. That being said, we're not psychics, so I see no issue with a move to Xbox Series X and Series S until such time that it is no longer appropriate. As a fallback, I wonder if Xbox (2020 consoles) might work? Yes, it's innevitable that we'll get consoles released after this year, but since the article will predominantly cover the two current versions, I think this could work.--Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support giving the page an appropriate name. I still prefer Xbox Series X/S per my points above (WP:OFFICIALNAME, concision, used more frequently) as the target name. IceWelder [✉] 09:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm conflicted. Depending on whether later models get their own articles or are just put in as additional sections of this one, I think the name could go either way in terms of "Xbox (fourth generation)" or "Xbox Series S/X". That's on top of the whole "(fourth generation)" moniker to begin with, considering this family is actually for the ninth generation of consoles even though it's the fourth Xbox generation. I feel like a better term for this entire "Series" generational family for Xbox - including later models - would be "Xbox Series 4", but absolutely nowhere is that name used officially and so it's completely conjectural. It feels like the "Super Smash Bros. 4" debacle all over again. VinLAURiA (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • As there is no major objections here, and I'm seeing nothing in the media to counter this but only to continue to support this approach, I'm going to go ahead and rename the two articles, and file in the request on the category renaming for speedy change. Obviously, if MS adds a third console, that will change things but unlike what we knew 2 years ago about 2 consoles, we haven't heard a peep yet of a third console yet. --Masem (t) 17:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And on a wholly separate area - the dreaded "ninth gen" discussion

No, we're not going to start it now, but I think Tom Warren's article here has extremely strong points that I think can be and will be iterated that once we have a few months into the consoles, that this is definitely a new "generation" because it also couples with the new generation of video cards that have just been announced. [24]. Coupled with strong industry rumors that Nintendo had a Switch Pro version in the works, I think we're going to need to consider this by early 2021. --Masem (t) 17:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Both new console dates have been fixed now (Nov 10 for Xbox, Nov 12 for PS5) so now the "fun" begins. No, 9th gen does not start yet :P --Masem (t) 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviation

I don't think one exists yet, so can I propose XSER? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I personally was going to go with XSX for Xbox Series X. The S model is really considered a low-tier version of the X model, so i don't really see a need to include it as part of the abbreviation. What do you think?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I prefer this one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

An addition note on the pipe symbol for the short name

As the pipe symbol can mess up links, a reminder that we can mark up the pipe so it doesn't screw up the wikicode , as such: [[Xbox Series X and Series S|Xbox Series X{{pipe}}S]] gives: Xbox Series X|S --Masem (t) 13:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's discuss this further at the talk page of the article before writing it in stone. I feel this runs afoul of COMMONNAME and TMRULES, nevermind the syntax nightmare it represents. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
A note that said discussion appears to have arrived at avoiding using the pipe. X/S should be used. -- ferret (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

League of Legends rosters navigational boxes

Latest comment: 4 years ago36 comments5 people in discussion

Regardless of my opinion, I do understand the argument that using nav templates for LoL rosters is not appropriate if there isn't a substantial amount of Wikilinks for users to navigate with since that's the purpose of navbox. I have no issue if a majority of people in this discussion agree that "non-notable" teams should have their templates removed, but my concern is where the line should be drawn. I do take offence to the idea that a majority of the templates I created were for rosters of "nobody players"; just because they don't have an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean they're not notable, but that nobody's made them one yet. So again, this goes back to the concern of where do we draw the line? Many of the teams compete in prestigious leagues for hundreds of thousands of dollars, have huge sponsors and are well-known globally throughout the League of Legends community—examples that were given like Edward Gaming, Flash Wolves, and Gambit Esports have been known worldwide in the League of Legends scene since before I even joined Wikipedia. But of course this doesn't necessarily mean anything when dealing with Wikipedia's notability standards for the players.

Back to where we would draw the line—how many players would have to be proven notable for a navbox to be considered "useful"? If a template had a majority of players with Wikilinks to well cited articles with established notability, does that make it a useful navbox? What if a team is one of the most well-known in the world (e.g. FunPlus Phoenix, Fnatic) but doesn't have enough players with proper articles? Does that make them not notable? This paragraph is just my response to the question, "Don't all the notable teams already have templates?" Not necessarily. Again, it depends on what we mean by notable. If the issue was solely the number of Wikilinks, I would be happy to make dozens of quality articles for well-known players to prove their notability—but that would take time and understanding from fellow editors.

Lastly, a reminder that the template creations and this comment were all done in good faith, so point out any unsound arguments you may notice and I'll respond to them or correct my position. Honestly, I would be 100% onboard with obliterating them all if 1. Somebody suggested an alternative template that is similar and can be used without creating new articles ("Similar" is ambiguous, but I am hoping for any suggestions in the discussion below) and 2. I was given prior warning so the information can be retained some where to be remade according to whatever consensus is reached. Pinging @Axem Titanium:, @Dissident93:, and @Namcokid47: to request for comment. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe they were created in good faith. Looking back, I'm seeing no one pinged you in the previous discussions. My broader position on navigation templates and templates in general is 1) templates that are only used in one article should be hardcoded on the page, not templates, and 2) navigation templates are for navigation and should be motivated by that fact. Red links, non-links, and article content do not belong in navigation templates, with rare exceptions. For this particular case, it is not at all self-evident that these players are notable and making elaborate navigation trees for them is putting the cart before the horse. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: That makes sense to me. If you or anyone else does begin tagging the templates, please ping me so I may copy the information to an external archive. That way, when I buy my horse, I'll have a deposit for my carts. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome to WP:USERFY them now rather than go through a formal deletion process. Use the WP:SUBST function to create a hard copy of the code in the one article where it's currently used. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
CentreLeftRight, if a team has no notable players they do not deserve a navbox, as it fails its in sole purpose of navigation. And just force-creating articles for them to bypass that should be avoided too. The whole esports side of Wikipedia needs way more attention in terms of standards, because right now the vast majority of them use unreliable sources and blogs and is maintained by a small group of editors. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: In regards to "the vast majority of them use unreliable sources and blogs", it's true that a lot of player articles were rushed four or five years ago and may fail notability, but I disagree that a majority of esports-related articles, including teams, are non-notable and poorly cited. In my opinion the issue with esports is not a lot of mainstream media covers it (at least in the West), even if more people follow their favourite teams online than the news. If I recall correctly this WikiProject has its own set of what it considers reliable sources for video game articles, but still the idea that may arise from people who aren't familiar with esports is that it's a small group of editors using niche sources for niche topics—an understandable conclusion given that, again, mainstream media almost never covers it. I'm sure most people who don't play League of Legends only know a few historic names, like Faker, Uzi, Doublelift, and Rekkles, but perhaps not Caps, Doinb, or Rookie, despite being world champions and finalists. I'm definitely not suggesting I or someone else flood Wikipedia with poorly cited and written articles of players to keep these templates; that's a repeat of an attempt by another editor a few years back that I myself dislike. But I do think a lot of people in this discussion and beyond have differing ideas as to who and what are notable in this topic of esports. Anyways this was a little off-topic by me, all the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Coverage in mainstream (or even games industry) news sources is an indication of notability and lack of coverage is evidence of lack of notability. If the issue is that your favorite source for coverage of esports people isn't currently considered reliable, go to WT:VG/S and start a discussion about whether or not that's the case. Wikipedia is not the place to break new ground or make a statement about what ought to be covered, it is a place that documents already existing coverage. It's definitely not the staging ground for a campaign to encourage more coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: My concern is not that a blog or analyst website I frequent is not considered reliable; the sources I use are already listed at WP:VG/S. When I say "mainstream" I don't mean websites in the video games/esports mainstream like Dot Esports, ESPN, Eurogamer, Polygon, etc, I mean mainstream news sites like BBC, CNN, CTV, Reuters, etc. My concern is that for example, a new article will have several citations of "Dot Esports" and "Eurogamer", and an editor will wonder if it is truly notable because it isn't covered by the aforementioned news sites or similar ones. I do agree that a lot of esports articles have sourcing issues (e.g. Primary sourcing, citing wikis like Leaguepedia and Liquidpedia), but a lot of them also do not have these issues unless an editor does not account for WP:VG/S. None of this is a suggestion for a policy change or addition, just a concern I have had while editing. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion is that because it appears that the number of notable players is very few (less than 25% of the total players), then you can make a total navbox template for all League teams and in the team's area, include a list of just the notable players for that team, as a starting point. Things would be different if it were less than 25% of the players were NOT notable, then a per-team navbox would make sense --Masem (t) 18:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
If most or all of these templates are deleted, would anyone object to me moving the code to the articles themselves? I might try to change the navboxes' source code to a non-navbox format. In other words, the roster boxes will still be displayed, albeit not as navboxes, and the multiple template pages I created will be deleted. CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
A listing of people is usually fine. Doing so as a navbox or table is not usually. --Izno (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
What I would like to see is an imitation of how rosters are displayed on traditional sports teams' articles (e.g. FC Barcelona#Current squad). I do not know how broad "table" is, but I would prefer the amount and style of information displayed with the current navbox template. However, I am fine with the result of this discussion being a mass conversion from these navbox templates to a wikitable list format on the article itself, like in the example I gave. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Sports articles are quite possibly the worst categorically. Let's not. --Izno (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If the discussion boils down to "[For now] which templates do we delete and which ones do we keep?" my opinion is that "notable teams" would include all (or most) of the current teams participating in the major LoL esports leagues (i.e. LCK, LCS, LEC, LPL, PCS). The Overwatch League and Overwatch Contenders teams also have multiple navbox templates whose creations pre-date the LoL ones I created; I'm wondering if there was a previous discussion regarding them that can serve as insight or precedence. Again, my most preferred result is that none of these templates (LoL, OWL) are deleted, but I understand that whatever the consensus is among us will be the result in the end. CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
CentreLeftRight, it's the team's roster that is the problem. There is no point in making a navbox for teams if 90% of their members are not notable and thus lack articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: The issue as I have understood since before starting this discussion is that I created navboxes that list players who don't have articles, and thus the navboxes don't fulfill their intended purpose. In that case, the main question I have for everyone in this discussion is, if we delete most or all of the navboxes, would anyone object to me moving the list of players to the article itself? The intended result would be that 1. All the esports navbox templates containing non-notable players are deleted and 2. Each list of players being kept on the article itself, but not as a navbox (like on sports articles, but per above, I've been discouraged not to follow what is apparently a bad example). My most preferred outcome (that of all the templates being kept) is not my expected outcome, because I am not the sole voice in this discussion. I have much more broader questions for everyone, as some people seem to dislike the ideas of players being listed on team articles in general, and also if the LoL navboxes are deleted, what happens to the Overwatch League ones?, but these are not necessarily in the scope of this discussion. Again, the question I would like a response to from everyone is the second sentence of this paragraph. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
CentreLeftRight, I have no issue with the team's article itself listing their roster, although some might. Also, you keep bringing up OWL navboxes but from the ones I've seen, they only include links to existing articles and omit any roster members. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: If the consensus is to delete most or all of the LoL navboxes, the fate of this category Category:Overwatch League roster navigational boxes is of concern to me. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
CentreLeftRight, oh you mean these? Well since they aren't navboxes they don't fall under the same issues I brought up (which is mainly WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). The only thing I'd really say about these OWL ones is I don't know why we're keeping track of previous teams, as that's not something you see in other team roster templates, esports or not. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Could you expand on that? I'm not sure we're on the same page here. The proposed deletions brought up in the beginning was for the templates I have created in the past couple months, a majority of what is in Category:League of Legends roster navigational boxes and its subcategories. Two points were made to me in the beginning: 1. These templates are navboxes that don't serve their purpose because 2. They're for teams with rosters of "nobody players". I'm not sure how Template:Guangzhou Charge roster for example, is not a navbox, but Template:Hong Kong Attitude roster is, when they both use the same skeleton coding. The formatting and use of both are identical, and most of the OWL templates also do not have wikilinks to players. If the main issue is WP:BIDIRECTIONAL ("Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."), then all the existing OWL templates I based the LoL ones on don't have bidirectionality, but thats a problem that can easily be fixed for all of these templates by adding a wikilink. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you thought I was creating templates like Template:Team SoloMid? CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
CentreLeftRight, exactly. I don't really have an issue with these independent roster templates, assuming the team itself is notable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

CentreLeftRight Have you had a chance to convert these templates to hard-coded tables in the respective team articles? Let us know so we can send the templates to TFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: May I first extend the same question I asked Dissident93 to you? Any decision moving forward will also set a precedence for all the templates at Category:Overwatch League roster navigational boxes. These templates use the exact same skeleton code as the LoL roster navboxes I created, and similarly, despite using the navbox format in its coding, are intended for arguably decorative purposes. If we completely ignore that however (or argue that the decorative aspect is why they should be deleted), and stick to the principle that these are navboxes not fulfilling their sole purpose (i.e. navigation through articles), what will be done to these Overwatch roster navboxes? A more general question I have is what are you (and those who agree with you) intending to tag? Do you have your own guideline or are you intending to tag all of the templates? I would also like clarification from other users involved in this or the prior discussion (Dissident93, Izno, Masem, and Namcokid47) that they all know what the templates being proposed for deletion look like, and what their opinions are on the questions I just asked. When I have an idea of what the consensus is and what will be proposed for deletion, I will save the code some where in a very short time and notify everyone. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Template namespace, which states The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages, usually via transclusion. Any template that fails to be used in more than one place (can be multiple uses in a single article, or multiple uses across many articles) is a prime candidate for deletion. I presume the templates in the OWL navbox category will be TFDed at the same time. Some in this discussion have expressed a preference against fancy navbox-looking roster lists in favor of the more standard roster table approach, but I don't have a strong preference either way. I did not mean to single out LoL teams in bringing up this discussion. Any template that is only legitimately used once would draw this kind of scrutiny. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Sorry I forgot to ask this as well; would you object to the code being moved to the article itself? I'm trying to figure out how to change the source code so it doesn't use a navbox format. What would happen is all the templates would be deleted after the TFD process, but the rosters would remain listed on the article itself. I know people might object to the way it looks, which is fine, but that's for a different discussion. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I just figured out how to properly change the source code; the templates have been converted from navboxes to wikitables; i.e. they will not show up as navboxes at the bottom of the articles, but as wikitables within the articles. I am planning to move each template's code from the template pages (Template:) to their respective articles. After that the LoL roster navbox templates and categories can be mass deleted. Does anyone have an objection to that? CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. The aesthetics can be changed/improved at editors' discretion. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
CentreLeftRight, sport team rosters are usually standardized by using a single template, so I think I actually disagree with this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I'm not quite sure what that means. Can you wikilink an example so I can base my proposal and subsequent actions after it? Thank you and all the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
CentreLeftRight, well you said you wish to delete the in-article templates. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Here is an Imgur album with screenshots of what I intend to do. Hope this clears up my intentions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
CentreLeftRight, so it will keep the same header? That's perfectly fine then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(←) Simple tables are best. You really don't need the templates or pretty colors (we're a generalist encyclopedia, not Esportspedia). Here's a basic gist of something that is simply enough:

Membership
Name Age Joined Left Game Role
Izno 12 2007 – Wikipedia: The MMORPG Admin
CentreLeftRight 5 2014 – Wikipedia: The MMORPG Editor

--Izno (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Izno, if we are only to add active members then we wouldn't need the "left" column either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure. I figured you could cover them all in one table, but that works too. --Izno (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for FAC review (Magnavox Odyssey)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all, I've got an FAC up, for Magnavox Odyssey, which is in danger of getting archived due to lack of completed reviews. Indrian has given it a pretty thorough working over and is about to support, hopefully, but it needs a few more critical eyes if anyone has the time. Thanks! --PresN 14:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (September 22 to September 27)

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

September 22

September 23

September 24

September 25

September 26

September 27

Comments

  • OMG that Vulkan list does not die!
Was at List of games with Vulkan support, then deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with Vulkan support
Was at List of video games using Vulkan, then deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games using Vulkan
Now at List of software that supports Vulkan
Is there any justification in keeping it? Is Vulkan that infrequently used that the list will remain small? It seems people keep recreating the list within Vulkan (API). TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The table is verbatim from the last deleted copy, which an IP reinserted into Vulkan (API) just after it was deleted. However, the text below the table is not in the past versions so I don't believe G4 will work. Note this was done as a bold SPLIT. -- ferret (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. It seems some person(s) really want it so I'm just gonna move on. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
If it's mostly the same and has two previous AfDs is at least worth rediscussing for sure. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Amazon Luna - also a platform like Stadia?

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Given everything I've read on Amazon Luna, their new cloud gaming platform, it falls into the same situation as Stadia in that it is not easily classified like xCloud or PlayStation Now as a extension of existing platforms, but a new platform (as developers have to tune games to work on AWS cloud services). As such, this seems to make it a valid platform to be added in platform lists, and thus should be added to our MOS, but I want to get a check before doing so. --Masem (t) 14:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I didn't follow the original discussion regarding Stadia that closely, but it was determined that it was different enough from OnLive to list it in infoboxes and related elements. Is Luna similarly different? It uses Windows rather than Linux (as Stadia does), is that relevant? Whatever the outcome, the decision (and subsequent MOS entry) should be consistent in why we list Stadia (and Luna) but not OnLive (and Luna). IceWelder [✉] 15:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    • With Stadia games, while the base game is programmed on Linux, there were enough backend changes that were documented in sourced that enabled certain features to make it a unique platform (eg much larger multiplayer support in games for example compared to typical online servers). Whereas OnLive was just the game running pretty much on a unmodified platform and cloud-streamed to players - this is the same with xCloud and PS Now. Luna falls more into Stadia's classification where devs can program the game to take advantage of AWS's cloud features to bring new features to the game, which is what I'd argue to be the "platform" distinction. --Masem (t) 15:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a tricky one, but I think Stadia is a good precedent. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Are games purchased separately like Stadia? If it's just a streaming subscription service like OnLive then it differs from Stadia and thus should not be considered its own platform. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Luna is going to have game channels (this apparently is also to avoid the issue that the other cloud services have with Apple), with games available on a channel via a subscription to that channel. So like there will be a Ubisoft channel, for example. There is no indication yet if you can buy to own games. --Masem (t) 21:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I stand by my previous stance that services like Stadia and Luna should be listed as platforms. Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    • If we make Stadia and Luna listed as platforms indiscriminately, then what's stopping us from calling Steam and Wild Games a platform?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
      • There is nearly nothing you do to make your game ready to ship for Steam or GOG or EGS or other platforms, though there are some libraries to help with things like matchmatching, etc. Stadia and apparently Luna have very different architectures from just Linux or Windows that requires more work to make it ready for the streaming platform. Hence these are far different from storefronts. --Masem (t) 21:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
      • You're asking the wrong person - I don’t oppose listing Steam or anything else either. But that said, Masem above explains how it’s different above. Sergecross73 msg me 22:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought the bright line we agreed on was whether or not you needed to buy dedicated hardware (whether that be a console or a PC) in order to play it. Steam, Stadia, EGS, OnLive, and Luna wouldn't qualify as "platforms" under this criterion. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GAN Backlog drive!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

-- Eddie891 Talk Work 16:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant WP:GAMEGUIDE discussion at WT:NOT

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wanted to notify the project about some meaningful changes to WP:NOT, which I've raised for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Gameguide_phrasing. (Please keep comments on the WT:NOT page for the sake of centralizing the discussion.) Shooterwalker (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hidden Runaway GAN help request

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi all. Just wanted to ask if an admin could fix an issue over at Talk:Hidden Runaway/GA1. An IP user started the review page with a nonsensical comment back on September 23, and hasn't returned since. Because of this, it looks from the outside like a review has started even though it hasn't, so other potential reviewers don't realize it's still open. If someone could delete the review page, that would be fantastic. No rush to review the article itself—there are plenty of others in line before it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, whoever handled this! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Tomb Raider issue

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm starting a discussion here in hopes of preventing future unpleasantness over the article Tomb Raider, which is currently undergoing a GA review. User Jess288 appears to have strong views on some aspects of the title's production, and did an effective revert of many alterations I'd made on request of reviewer Indrian (and reverted one of Indrian's own edits by adding back in what appears to be unfounded or inaccurate information about the game's platforms). These edits were made without any prior consultation, and I felt obliged to revert until a discussion around them could happen, as it has the potential of degrading into edit warring and crashing the GAN. I admit I've had to cope with Jess288's edits on the page while I was expanding and polishing it for GAN, but I didn't feel justified bringing it to wider attention until now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As stated on my edits, the gender of the Tomb Raider protagonist during initial concept is contended by Core Design personnel that were present at the time. Eg Adrian Smith here says it was always female https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9hMNR6cxU around 2mins in. Yet Protodrake insists on editing it to only *his* viewpoint - that the character was originally male. - Jess288
@Jess288: The edits you reverted were due to requests from the GAN reviewer Indrian, which he saw as confusing or conflicting. I was pleased to let the statements of contradictory origins stand since that was my finding. What I objected to was the edits being made during a GAN without previous discussion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The language is not final yet and open for further review, but the fact is that only Gard himself can contradict this narrative if he so chooses, and since he gives virtually no interviews that has not happened. All Heath-Smith has said is that when the basic concept was first presented, the hero was an Indiana Jones type. It is very clear that by the time this became a proper development project with a team, Gard had created a woman protagonist. But the testimony by Douglas, Smith, et al speaks only to when they joined the project, which is after Gard created the basic concept. People can only testify to their realm of personal knowledge. Indrian (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at the brief Toby Gard interview in RG 163, he CONFIRMS that in the original concept art he had a male protagonist. So that is pretty much settled. All that’s left is to continue tweaking the language, which is part of the ongoing GA review. That a male was present in the very earliest stages is no longer really up for debate. Indrian (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sargon III

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I thought that I had found enough sources for Sargon III (as seen here) with six reviews from WP:RS sources and three best-seller lists, but I was still reverted. Is there enough there to meet the WP:GNG or do I still need more? 2601:249:8B80:4050:E977:755E:1366:2AEF (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

2601, please don't post the same exact question in an entirely separate thread almost the exact same way as prior. --Izno (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that Izno, I don't want to cause any confusion, but I was not sure if anyone saw my prior question. Since the link I posted was an update from the link I posted previously, I am removing the old one now. 2601:249:8B80:4050:E977:755E:1366:2AEF (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, do you see any more sources for this one? 2601:249:8B80:4050:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I started a split discussion for this one at Talk:Sargon (chess)#Sargon III: Splitting proposal. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (September 28 to October 4)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

September 28

September 29

September 30

October 1

October 2

October 3

October 4

Final Fantasy X-2 FAR

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Final Fantasy X-2 is likely to be delisted as an FA in the next few weeks; while improvements have been made during the FAR, the reception section still needs work. Just alerting the project in case anyone has the time/inclination to help it. --PresN 13:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Terrible NES Peripherals

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have found two articles for notoriously terrible Nintendo Entertainment System peripherals, the Roll 'n Rocker and the Speedboard. They are both stubs right now and I am wondering if it is worth while to work on them. I have found one article focused on the subject for each and several listicles. Should I de-stub them or delete them? I want your opinion. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Are the sources "focused on the subject for each" the ones you put in refideas on each talk page? Those websites are Looper and GrownGaming, which are not listed or even mentioned on WP:VG/RS. That tells me they are likely not reliable sources. They are short sources too. I can't imagine the articles can be expanded much. I'd redirect to List of NES accessories. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking at them again, they both seem unreliable. They are very tabloid-esque in their articles. I will do a bundled nomination for the both of them. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Just boldly redirect the articles. Only start a discussion if someone reverts you. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic the Hedgehog/archive1

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey everyone! This has been sitting around for two weeks without much in the way of commentary. If anyone could try to give it a review I'd be grateful (and might throw in some QPQ) JOEBRO64 18:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I got Squirm up for FAC as well so I can do a review exchange with ya. GamerPro64 20:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm bumping this because the nom has been open for a month now and while it's not the end of the world I really don't want it to be archived due to inactivity. (So far there are two reviews.) If anyone wants to exchange reviews let me know! JOEBRO64 19:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting move of Wargame (video games) → Computer wargame

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey all. Having done some work on articles related to wargames, I've discovered that far and away the most-used term among sources to refer to wargame video games is "computer wargame", and has been since the '80s. Sources generally contrast it with "board wargame", a widely-accepted term that Wikipedia correctly uses on the relevant page. (Reliable sources occasionally use the term "video wargame" in place of computer wargame, although pretty rarely.)

WPVG's current naming convention for computer wargames is strange and confusing for people familiar with the field. It's also much harder to disambiguate from board wargames than it needs to be—just referring to something as a "wargame" leaves it unclear whether you're talking about a board or computer title, and there's a lot of crossover. I realize it may seem odd to change it, given that WPVG standardizes all computer games as simply "video games" these days, but the sources are overwhelming in their use of the computer wargame label. I personally think neglecting to take this usage seriously would be a mistake, so I wanted to get other people's views on the matter. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that we distinguish Tabletop role-playing game from (computer) role-playing game, I think there is precedent to have wargame be distinguished from computer wargame in this case, so I support this. --Masem (t) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of InnerSloth for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article InnerSloth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnerSloth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Would love for an admin to close this dumpster fire. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Professional voice, were on Wikipedia. Le Panini (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Early computer game reviews

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I had some difficulty finding sources for computer games from the early 1980s but as I search on archive.org more and more, I discovered that the magazine and other sources are out there, but they may not be well documented to find them easily. Mobygames seems to cover everything well from the mid-80s and on, in terms of listing magazine review sources, but not so well for the earlier games. Part of the reason for that seems to be that before computer game magazines were a big thing, computer games got most of their reviews in computer magazines, which are mostly not documented on Mobygames. To help myself initially, and now anyone else who is interested, I started User:BOZ/Early computer game reviews to find these computer game magazine reviews.

I found that in the early 80s, these magazines covered video games relatively comprehensively in their reviews columns. The problem is that they did not cover games extensively, because the games had to share space with hardware and other software reviews. By the mid 80s, video game magazines had begun to proliferate, so from what I have seen the remaining computer magazines almost invariably (Compute! being one exception) slowed and then more or less altogether stopped their coverage of computer games. My list is not fully comprehensive, but I did try to include every review I found.

So, you can make use of the information on this page in any way you like, move some of the data to the Reference Library if you think that is appropriate, or whatever you think is best. For the most part, I skipped educational games, but I listed just about everything else and gave bluelinks when I found an article (or redirect). I decided not to use redlinks, but instead I identified the publisher which the magazine listed – commonly enough, there were multiple games with the same name. Whenever there was an issue that did not appear to contain any game reviews, I just linked to the table of contents in case anyone feels like double checking.  :) I am going to continue to make use of this for a while, so please do not edit this page directly (unless you are adding or fixing a link to a game). That said, if you have suggestions on anything I have missed, I am all ears.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the scene, you can find lots of sources on archive.org. Category:Amiga magazines, Category:Atari ST magazines, Category:Commodore 8-bit computer magazines may help. You'll get better results if you restrict the search. Otherwise, the useful stuff will be buried under terabytes of junk that random people uploaded to archive.org. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Software Reviews On File ISSN 8755-7169 OCLC 11390111 is a pretty good index from 1985–1995. I found/used it on Gumball. Didn't see it in your list but Computer Gaming World also goes back to the early 80s. czar 02:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I know, CGW already has its own Reference library page, which I have been working on lately. I also started a page for Electronic Games magazine and literally just now started one for Electronic Fun with Computers & Games. Those are magazines specifically for video games, whereas the list on my user page was specifically for magazines that were not focused solely (or mostly) on games, which is why I did not start Reference library pages for any of those. :) BOZ (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Would be good to make your page be in the reference library, though, so that people know where to find it and so that it shows up in the library search. Maybe just one page for "non-game focused magazines" instead of a page per magazine? --PresN 13:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course, sounds good! :) I'm not sure of the best way to set that up, so I leave it available for anyone who wants to take a stab at it. BOZ (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Content now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library#Non-video game oriented / general computing magazines. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you.  :) That will help them show up on the search function too. :) BOZ (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I just finished Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Antic as well. I've got a couple of Commodore magazines that I'm planning to look at next. BOZ (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Finished those two: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Commodore Microcomputers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Commodore Power Play. :) Will see what else I move on to tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Finished Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/ANALOG Computing today! BOZ (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hoping to finish Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/PC World today; it was pretty sparse on game reviews, but there are definitely enough there to make it worth noting. :) BOZ (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't anywhere near as close to finished with that one as I thought... :) Finally finished it today though! BOZ (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Finished another one today, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Family Computing. BOZ (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Finished Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/InCider today! BOZ (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Finished another one today, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Compute!'s Gazette. Looking for at least a few more to do before moving on to something else. :) BOZ (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Re-evaluation of Super Mario Bros. 35

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Super Mario Bros. 35 before was a stub, but major work has been done. Could the article be re-evaluated, as it still says its stub-class? Le Panini (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's definitely a C article right now, not a stub. It has a relevant information, lots of references from reliable sources, and the writing is decent. I don't know if it's ready for B, but for now that's a C. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, not anymore. Rhain pulled a banhammer and deleted half of it. It's a stub again. Le Panini (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Validly. Either way it is a Start or C, definitely not a stub. It's definitely not a B, before or after Rhain's edit. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, alright then. I know it needs improvement, it still very small. Le Panini (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
A few comments. I don’t believe "generally favorable reviews" should be in quotes not should the hacking issue be in the reception section.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for InnerSloth

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of InnerSloth. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Right cite (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 4 games incompatible with PlayStation 5

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi   there is a new game list that was created called List of PlayStation 4 games incompatible with PlayStation 5 yesterday. I reviewed it in accordance with WP:NPR and reformatted the list to follow the style of other game lists by the project. However another user raised a concern on the talk page about the necessity of this list. Just wandering if more long term members of the project could review this list to see if it meets the project's guidelines and comment on the ongoing discussion. Thank you! Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It should probably be kept for now. Sony may have only listed 10 games that definitely won't work (for unknown reasons to us), but to quote Sony: "Although many PS4 games are playable on PS5 consoles, some functionalities that were available on the PS4 console may not be available on PS5 consoles. In addition, some PS4 games may exhibit errors or unexpected behavior when played on PS5 consoles." I think it's likely that independent journalists will discover more complete and partial incompatibilities among the PS4's 4000+ game library after the console's release. If that doesn't happen, merge into PlayStation 5#Backward compatibility as a collapsed table. TarkusABtalk/contrib 11:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Should it not be the other way around. There's not enough games to justify a standalone article. If the situation changes significantly we can consider creating an article. — Niche-gamer 10:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yea you're probably right. TarkusABtalk/contrib 10:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion - Kaio: King of Pirates

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I’m looking for more input on the merger of the game Kaio: King of Pirates.

Please comment here. Anything is appreciated. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (October 5 to October 11)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

October 5

October 6

October 7

October 8

October 9

October 10

October 11

Wait a second...

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

75% + 20% + 10% is 105 percent. Who made the milestones? Le Panini (Talk tome?) 16:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

They are more meant to be viewed individually. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
(Start+C+B+GA+FA) + (C+B+GA+FA) + (B+GA+FA) = .75 + .2 + .1 = 1.05 —Lopullinen 04:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
You both are reading it wrong. If we were to get all the goals at the same time, it would be 10% GA/FA/B, (20-10% "B or better")=10% C, (75%-20% "C or better")=55% Start, leaving (100%-75% "Start or better")=25% Stub. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Why would you add these? These milestones are additional, so if you have a GA, it's also start or better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello,
Please note that Reader Rabbit, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Help & Evaluation on Drafts

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, I've had two drafts sitting around for a while with barely any editing on my part. These are Draft:Ivysaur and Draft:Pauline (Mario). I created these under the assumption that these are notable figures in gaming history in addition to the idea that these were deserving on their own articles. To be fair, I was still quite new to Wikipedia at the time and didn't grasp the full severity of what I was doing. However, as of recently I've become preoccupied with projects on Wikipedia and real life. So I am asking for help from the community on here, if you have the free time and are more experienced with researching them. Firstly, are these characters notable enough for their own independent articles? I created the articles out of assumptions that they are, however, I feel like more research is needed. If they aren't then we shouldn't commit to them any further and I shall leave them to be deleted in a few months on their own. However, if they are notable enough, then I ask for help into raising the quality of the drafts into becoming article worthy. I should note one key point, though. Both Ivysaur and Pauline appear on other articles as mentions. Pauline appears in Characters in the Mario franchise and Ivysaur in List of generation I Pokémon. In addition, I did make two other drafts for the other Gen I middle stage evolution starters found at Draft:Charmeleon & Draft:Wartortle, I doubt these are as notable as Ivysaur but I felt they were at least worth mentioning. I'm not asking for you to help with this, it's there if you want to look into it. Anyways, I thank you for any help you can give to these drafts, it will help me quite a lot to remove these of my list. Thanks again! CaptainGalaxy 21:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what's in the Ivysaur article right now, definitely not notable. Listicles should be avoided if possible, as every single Pokemon is in one listicle or another, but Wikipedia is not a game guide and should feature more relevant real-world reception. It's safe to say that if you are writing an article about the middle of an evolutionary line, you should probably just see if the entire evolutionary line is notable instead, as it's highly unlikely the middle one would be independently notable.
As for Pauline, I'm leaning still no, but it might be a borderline case. It depends how much reception can be found.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Ivysaur will probably be a hard sell for people just because of WP:Pokémon test. Pauline, I have no idea, but it could be possible because I feel like I’ve seen some coverage on her in recent years with her revival in recent games like Super Mario Odyssey and Mario Kart Tour. Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (October 12 to October 18)

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 12

October 13

October 14

October 15

October 16

October 17

October 18

  • Yeah, bug- the source data often confuses moves with creations, so my script checks the page history for any move tags in the past week to double check. This page had more than 50 edits since the move, so it didn't see it (the script is only checking the first page). --PresN 15:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t believe we need a two entry template for the StarTropics series.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Living Books sources help

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Would you be able to assist me in getting access to the following sources?

Kind regards, --Coin945 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. --PresN 03:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Take a draft and user under your wing?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if someone could help out StevenTheCoolestSTC. He's a new user and is working on Draft:Five Nights at Freddy's: Security Breach. He's put it up for review at AfC a couple of times, however the game doesn't pass notability guidelines at this time since all that's really out there are announcements. There isn't coverage about the development process, at least not enough to satisfy GNG, so I've rejected it for the time being. When it releases it will almost certainly pass notability guidelines, so I was wondering if someone could take StevenTheCoolestSTC under their wing for the time being and help give them some tips and pointers on writing video game articles. They have good intentions, but just need guidance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I can help out. I'll teach them about notability and WP:TOOSOON. I left a message for them on their talk page.Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hostile Takeovers in the video game industry sources help

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I need help finding sources for this article that I will create. Hostile Takeovers in the video game industry.

I've only found these ones so far. Timur9008 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That title seems... POV. "Hostile takeover" already feels like loaded language. Also, are hostile takeovers in video games different somehow in a way that would be encyclopedic? A timeline of game studio takeovers feels like it could possibly be something, but that seems like it would be tough to piece together.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
A "hostile takeover" (which is a common financial term) describes a company aggressively purchasing stock of a public company from other investors to eventually get a majority ownership. The language is fine. However, I do agree that this topic might be too focused for a separate article. I feel similarly with Hollywood and the video game industry. IceWelder [✉] 11:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
IceWelder I agree the title could be different. A timeline of game studio takeovers is exactly what the article would be about, but I need sources for that. (difficult I know) It would mean much if someone could assist me. Timur9008 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There may be a topic here, between the Rune 2 situation as well as the situation around Kerbal Space Program 2, but I would definitely not call these hostile takeovers which has a specific meaning. --Masem (t) 13:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether cases like Human Head--Bethesda or Star Theory--Take2 can be described by one phrase, since they are each different. Maybe "controversial relations between video game developers and publishers" (which could also include Grin--Square Enix)? There are also actual (attempted) hostile takeovers, such as Ubisoft--Vivendi. Not sure if there is enough content or focus to warrant a separate article. I would also like to explore whether we should merge Hollywood and the video game industry with Film adaptation#Video game adaptation. IceWelder [✉] 15:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
IceWelder 1) "controversial relations between video game developers and publishers" I think is a decent title. we can also add stuff like the Gearbox-Bonuses thing [25] or Curt Schilling and 38 Studios case. 2) I don't think we should merge Hollywood and the video game industry with Film adaptation#Video game adaptation. I think there is enough content to warrant its own article. But I would like to hear your opinion on this. Timur9008 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If you're looking for examples of hostile takeovers, check out what SoftKey did during the mid-to-late 90's of gobbling up edutainment companies (through hostile takeovers) then dissolving them. It deccimated the industry. They acquired The Learning Company then took over it's name so you might find more things under that name.

--Coin945 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

More eyes at Untitled God of War sequel

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion

There has been consistent attempts by IP editors to change the info to be God of War: Ragnarok (the rumored, unconfirmed title of the game) in the lead, infobox, and by changing the DISPLAYTITLE code to attempt to make the article title this as well. As of this posting, I have made an RPP request for the article, but figured since there are admins/other veteran editors who are a regular part of this project, figured I'd make a post here too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I support this decision; it’s a good one. I think a title will come soon (and it’s likely to be what we expect), but protecting against the overly eager will help prevent warring on what is quickly becoming a popular page. ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but we need to have redirects to make it more accessible. Some people wouldn't think to search up "Untitled God of War Sequal" but rather "God of War Sequel", "God of War 2" or something along those lines. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 11:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks to me like this article was created too soon. There isn't a huge amount of content there yet, and what is there is kind of WP:RECENTISM - detail about announcements and trailers and fan speculation that will become irrelevant in the fullness of time. Popcornfud (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. This should probably exist as a section in the article about the 2018 game until more information is released. OceanHok (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe draftify the contents if this gets placed as a section? (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

With the amount of traffic / edits this article is seeing, and a bold redirect already reverted, this should move to the article's talk page and have a formal discussion on redirecting. A decision to redirect should not be decided at the project but at the article's talk. -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support a merge and redirect. It's far WP:TOOSOON. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Le Panini: God of War: Ragnarok and the correct spelling, God of War: Ragnarök (which is what the game will assumedly be called), are currently already redirects. God of War 5 is also a redirect, as had they kept with the numbering system on the 2018 game, this would be 5 (it has also been referred to as such). Also, God of War 2 would not work at this time as that is already a redirect to the game that carries that title, God of War II (of course if they do end up calling it "God of War 2," we'll have to disambiguate the articles, but let's not muddy those waters yet). Speaking in general, I disagree on TOOSOON and RECENTISM, but that's something that can be discussed at the article's talk page. --JDC808 ♫ 14:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Doom source ports

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

Having thought about Doom and the fact that its engine has been ported hundreds of times to the point that "Doom [almost] runs on everything", I thought I could take a look at the list of Doom source ports and see what could use some work. I knew beforehand that the list had many problems, but as it turns out, I did not realize it had so many problems.

To summarize the quality of the article, I have already as of this post made eight bold edits deleting a great deal of non-notable content and adding many secondary sources, and unfortunately, there are still more to delete and more to verify. It stinks to delete the work of other people, even when the deletion is constructive, but it had to be done. It is one of these Wikipedia articles from 2004 that regularly receive little editing and quality assurance, which usually means that the article still requires a lot of cleanup. To discuss the problems themselves, this list includes many source ports, most of which with their own sources, but many of these sources are WP:PRIMARY. This is a problem, because primary sources lack the ability to establish notability, and for lists like this, it is especially important that we find secondary sources that establish the entries' notability, or else the list will end up looking like a WP:DIRECTORY.

It has been challenging to determine which source port is notable, but the criteria I have been using are that they must have been covered extensively by the media and perhaps well-known among the Doom community. With that in mind, I do not consider single sources to be enough. Having multiple sources mention the source ports in their discussions in which they are otherwise not the subject probably will not count as adequate either. On the other hand, the ones that do count are the likes of ZDoom and GZDoom, as well as source ports that have been used by id Software themselves for their official ports of Doom.

At this point, I am not only wondering how much of the article would be left once all of the non-notable information has been deleted, but also whether the subject of the list is even notable. I can imagine a hypothetical Wikipedia article called "List of unofficial Tetris ports", but unofficial ports of games do not seem to receive media attention...except for Doom. This article may be the only one of its kind, but as I am writing about this, I am starting to question whether attempts to improve it are futile.

The point I am making is that it is the type of situation where I not only try to fix what problems I see, and succeed in doing so, but also become concerned that I may ultimately be wasting my time. I am not sure what to expect out of having written this post other than making me a little better, but I am hoping that I can be assured one way or the other that I am contributing something meaningful, by fixing the article or by bringing its problems to this WikiProject's attention. FreeMediaKid! 05:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I prefer to merge it with the main Source port article if notability is a concern. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That would be a horrible target. If anywhere, Doom or its friend articles would be preferable. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Not entirely sure it makes sense to kill "minor" secondary sourced listings yet. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think it would be better if that was in a list format. The current format suggests it's trying to be an actual article.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Might be shoving too much under one topic, but maybe merge both List of Doom source ports and Official versions of Doom into Development of Doom? It seems like two different tables with three to five paragraphs of lead information would be suitable for both articles. Much of the prose feels like fluff that could easily be condensed into much more succinct notes on the tables. TTN (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it should probably be merged with Official versions of Doom, or vice versa. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
List of Doom source ports (aka Unofficial version of Doom) and Official versions of Doom should absolutely be merged at minimum; even if the topic is notable it's way out of scope to elaborately describe all of the differences between different ports of the same game. If the result is small enough then maybe it could get merged to Development of Doom, but I suspect it would still be too large to fit, and I'm not sure it really fits the flow as that article covers pre-release development. --PresN 01:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Should List of Doom source ports be merged with Official versions of Doom and moved to List of Doom ports? FreeMediaKid! 10:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the two articles, as I have not read of any opposition to the merge request. We thereby have got an article with a mountainously rocky start, but like the merger itself, that will likely change over time. FreeMediaKid! 03:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

New Articles (October 19 to October 25)

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October 19

October 20

October 21

October 22

October 23

October 24

October 25

Cactuar and Tonberry have a merge discussion just started here at WTSE, along with a sourcing discussion above. --PresN 20:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Steve (Minecraft)

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

I was wondering if anyone would like to help the editor AlphaMaltar2005 with Draft:Steve (Minecraft). I'm fairly certain that the character is independently notable, but I think it'd be a good idea for someone from here to help provide guidance. I don't want this to get approved and then get tripped up somehow. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)

Hmm. I think there is the possibility that this character is not in fact notable. First of all there is a serious lack of reception in the article. It also seems like almost all of his mentions in the gaming media come at the heels of his announcement in Smash Bros. The article claims he is a "gaming icon" but offers no evidence of that fact. He might be notable in the future but I feel like it is WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not to immediately note every newly popular game character, but to mention ones that have been popular for a long, sustained period of time.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, Minecraft is huge, but Steve himself is really just an empty generic avatar in the games, isn’t he? Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
There's no story about Steve. No background to Steve. No character development of Steve. Steve is just the name of the default Minecraft skin. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the above. I can't see a standalone here as we have nothing on development or reception. The Minecraft article does need to be very clear who "Steve" is and obviously the appearance in SSBU is notable of where Minecraft has since appeared, but that's all within Minecraft, not a separate article. --Masem (t) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I mean, a character can be considered notable solely due to Smash. Wii Fit Trainer could be used as an example. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm gonna try to do a re-drafting (rewrite) of the article. While most of the sources do come from smash, they can be used for history, development, and reception if used correctly. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the key difference is that Steve has only been out a couple days. I doubt Wii Fit Trainer was hitting the notability requirements at that point on their Smash release. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually really struggling right now. There are so many sites talking about him, but they all say the exact same thing. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 16:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
A character wouldn't be notable solely based on the game per WP:NOTINHERITED. It needs to be independently notable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

People should start with a section on the Minecraft franchise article first before attempting any standalone article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we would be better off creating an article titled along the lines of "Minecraft player character", covering Alex and fanmade skins as well. This is basically how the Minecraft fan wikis handle this subject as well ([26] [27]). Still, it would be a difficult article to write, even with an expanded scope. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I started an article about that. I've called it Minecraft Avatar, but any better name will do. If this were gonna try to keep this afloat, it needs so, so much more, and we can merge info from the other article. If this won't work out, hey, we tried. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 12:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Still feels more like a section at Minecraft than a stand-alone article... Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. For now, this will be a side project of mine, to see if the concept works out. I'd appreciate any help. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I will try assist you. After all, I was the one who wrote the Steve article in the first place - I will happily assist in attempting to make the article stay afloat. I think Minecraft should have more representation, after all. Squid45 (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that the current article text is mostly copied word-for-word from the SSBWiki Steve article. Nearly everything is going to have to be wiped clean. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox question

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recently cloud versions of Control (video game) and Hitman 3 were announced for the switch and the infobox for the two game specifically mentions it’s the cloud version. The issue is that Resident Evil 7: Biohazard had a cloud version released for Switch in Japan in 2018 and that infobox doesn’t mention it’s a cloud version at all. My question is, should the RE7 infobox be changed to mention that it’s the cloud version or should the info be removed from the infoboxs for the other two games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.207.149 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't mention that a platform's version is a cloud version in the infobox; these need to be removed from Control and Hitman. --Masem (t) 02:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mr. Game and Watch

Latest comment: 4 years ago28 comments9 people in discussion

Right now, I'm writing a draft about Mr. Game and Watch. I believe this is a good idea, because wight now, he only has his own section in the Game & Watch article. My article is going to cover a more in depth description of his creation and appearance in Super Smash Bros., his development history in the G&W titles, reception, and appearances in other media, such as other Nintendo games and his amiibo.

From what I see, the last attempt of this character having an article was in 2008. He's now appeared in multiple games, has showed up in new titles, has an amiibo, etc.

Any thoughts or opinions, such as changes? I'm gonna do more in depth citation soon. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 18:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not liking the page. Everything there is about his Smash gameplay and appearances, with little real world stuff (character development/critical reception/legacy). I understand that he's not a character outside Smash in the traditional sense, and to that point, it would be better to talk about him within the context of the handheld system family. How about just rewrite the section Game & Watch series#Mr. Game & Watch? TarkusABtalk/contrib 11:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It has the same exact issues as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Draft:Steve_(Minecraft) above. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe he can be written as a standalone article, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE (I accidentally stumbled on this essay answering another question). Does the content provide additional context? I agree. This page is going to cover his account in Super Smash. Bros in a more detailed level, such as each individual game. The character has some good opinions, as well as controversy, such as racist judgments as well as him not fitting at all.
Will other related context be covered? I agree. This article will cover his reference to other games he's appeared in, his Amiibo too. His section in the Game & Watch article is a 1/3 of the page, and if gone into any deeper detail (which I believe it needs to), would become too unwieldy for the article.
Is he covered, and will there be more coverage in the future? I agree. He has his own coverage in third party sources, as well as sections in other sources, that go over his existence. There will be more titles in the Super Smash. Bros series, but for now, there is enough about him for a standalone article.
I also believe this is a different case than the Steve article. What made Steve notable is his appearance in Smash, even though his notability is obviously from Minecraft. Mr. Game and Watch was created for Smash, so having a major section about his appearance in the franchise is required. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 16:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I’m feeling doubtful too. Which third party reliable sources are covering him in significant detail, and saying something of substance. That’s generally what you need to provide to persuade people not to delete an article if it gets sent to WP:AFD. Not sure it would survive as is. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
To add, the size of Game & Watch itself is not so large as to make a split of the character info (already existing in that page) to a separate page if the notability is weak. Redirects of the search term works here. --Masem (t) 16:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm nowhere near done right now. Those sections are empty because I haven't gotten to them yet. Most of his significant coverage comes from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, because its the most recent title. Sources go over his strength, change of animation in his attacks, and, of course, his presumably racist Native American stereotype. I understand that the Game & Watch Series article is a start class, and removing this section would make it tiny. I'm not saying we need to remove his section in the article. We can just a (main article: Mr. Game and Watch) to the top of his section and keep it as a basic summary. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 17:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
As someone who is able to make some pretty strange articles, the notability does not seem to be there, at least not yet. The racism of Mr. Game & Watch's one attack should be discussed in the Game & Watch article and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, and the coverage of how good he is in Smash or how his design changed from Smash 4 to Ultimate is not really reception of any note. Perhaps it would be worth a mention of how strong Meta Knight was in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, or how powerful Fox was in Super Smash Bros. Melee, mainly because there may be reliable news sources talking about how they defined how the games' meta went, but even then you couldn't build an article just on reception of their viability in Smash. It has to have real-world reception, which you are honestly not going to find much in the way of Smash reception for that character. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, and I think it’s just going to continue to be difficult find noteworthy commentary RS coverage on these “empty shell” avatar type characters. I know from experience, I’ve never come anywhere close to being able to make an article about "me". Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, I guess the consensus is clear. I still think the article can be created if the sources are use correctly and sparingly, but the Game & Watch article is really lacking (Its still a start class, strangely). It's either make the Game & Watch article better, or make a standalone sub article, and I suggest the first option.
I am trying to become and AFC reviewer, and I dropped my other draft (60 Parsecs!) because I wanted to this one more. Now I have two deleted drafts and that might haunt me when I'm being reviewed to join the project. Wish me luck! Le Panini (Talk tome?) 22:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I still think the article has strong potential, as characters who were not notable due to articles relating to their home series can gain notable sources due to Super Smash Bros. There is potential here, specically [28] and with the controversy. I am up for helping this draft out. (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the interest, but I already had the article deleted. If you can somehow find a way to get it back, I'll keep it open. If not, I'll probably try to re-create it later. The info I added to the Game and Watch article I believe made it unwieldy, too. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 00:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Luckily, a user came in and shortened it for me. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Game and Watch and Notability (cont.)

So we've agreed (me too, don't worry) that Mr. Game and Watch is not notable enough for an individual article. But what about other fictional characters of the same premise? One of the best pieces of notability for him was the racial criticism, which a couple of you guys think is worthy being important to mention. Exhibit A: Vivian. So you wouldn't think an ally is notable enough for a second article, but due to the LGBT+ representation of her (she's transgender), its got an article (good job vivian, now olivia). What is the difference between these two? Mr. Game and Watch: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten criticism for racial stereotypes and existing in Smash Bros. in general. Vivian: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten praise from the LGBT community. She's also good article status, so what's the exact definition for fictional characters? Le Panini (Talk tome?) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no exact definition or line in the sand Panini. Generally, the more significant coverage a character has received, and the more depth and breadth in that coverage, you can make a better case for a standalone article. Looking at the two articles, Vivian has received a healthy amount of critical discussion from various journalists saying different things, and it would be undue to keep all that at Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. I'm not seeing this problem on the G&W page. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I thought the section in G&W was unwieldy, but the additional content you removed kept it to a minimum. Thanks for your opinion! It would be weird if she had a big section on TTYD, even though she's just an ally.
I would like to make a comment about the game-guidy stuff that was cut. The stuff wasn't there to necessarily show his moveset, it was there to show the references to other games in his fighting style. Can we add something along the lines of "His moveset correlates to Game & Watch titles, such as (insert some example). Le Panini (Talk tome?) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes if you can find a source that says so. (FYI, an ally is someone that supports LGBTQ rights, not someone that identifies as such) TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I think he was referring to Vivian being an ally to Mario in the game. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Ha! Now I feel silly. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Vivian Reassessment

  • There is a rule/line in the sand: If the topic's article depends upon "Top X" listicles, the subject matter is likely best covered within an existing article. If you have to cobble together brief mentions from sources, its Reception section will verge on trivia because the topic is on the outer cusp of independent notability. The Vivian article exemplifies this and would be a strong candidate for merger. czar 02:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • While I’m not particularly pushing of a merge of the Vivian article, I do wholeheartedly agree that it’s not exactly a “home run” when it comes to demonstrating notability. It’s more of a “C+” case or something. There’s much better examples out there. I’d look to WP:GA/WP:FA articles, or even ones that have survived AFD or merger discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I think an article like Vivian is questionable why its good article status, but its still fine nonetheless. Unless someone is willing to re-evaluate, its a good article. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 10:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I definitely think it needs a WP:GAR. Its notability is entirely dependent on listicles, which is a red flag in my book. I try to find at least a couple articles directly about the subject before making any fictional character/item article and Vivian doesn't seem to have any of that, only trivial mentions. It's unclear if it's standalone notable at all, but at most it's C class as Sergecross stated.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Well then, should we begin Re-assessment, or is this conversation just a thought? If anything, it should be a community re-assessment, as we have our opinions and the contributors to the article have theirs. I don't think I can list it, as I'm not a main editor on the article. @TarkusAB: I want to hear what Tarkus thinks if he stops by. He was the original reviewer, after all. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 11:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
So I have taken another look at Vivian and well there are some listicles, there are some actual articles about the character. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I made this list of references, for, well, reference.

Articles that are lists - (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, possible 16, but I can't access it. 8 out of 16/50 %)

Articles with small mentions of the character - (9, 14, 15, possible 16, but I can't access it. 4 out of 16/25%)

Articles with Trivial mentions/comes from the game itself - (7, 8. 2 out of 16/12.5%)

Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have created the re-assessment, you can state your opinion here. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 15:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Living Books both a company and a series - question

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Please can you assist me with something?

I am working on an article for Living Books, which is BOTH a company (dissolved in 1997) and a series (re-released in 2014 by a different company). I have attached the two infoboxes here, please can you offer your advise on whether I should use both or either?

And yes, I know the history looks very convoluted.. that's because it is. Many educational gaming companies were gobbled up by The Learning Company and handballed around to different companies at the turn of the century with their various assets split off and sold to the highest bidder. Only in Living Books' case it was brought back from the dead a decade later and re-released into iOS/Android.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts :)--Coin945 (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
Living Books (company)
GenreEdutainment, Interactive storybook
FoundedSeptember 9, 1993
FateDissolved by Broderbund on January 18, 1997
Headquarters
Los Angeles, California, United States
ProductsLiving Books series
Little Ark Interactive
ParentBroderbund (1992-1993)

Random House / Broderbund (1993-1997)

Broderbund (1997)
Living Books (series)
Genre(s)Edutainment, Interactive storybook
Developer(s)
  • Broderbund (1992-1993)
  • Living Books (1993-1997)
  • Broderbund (1997-1998)
  • Wanderful Interactive (2012-2014)
Publisher(s)
  • Broderbund (1992-1993)
  • Broderbund, Random House (1993-1997)
  • Broderbund (1997)
  • The Learning Company (1998)
  • Mattel (1999)
  • The Gores Group (2000)
  • Riverdeep (2001-2004)
  • Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2004-present)
  • Wanderful Interactive - under license from HMH (2012-present)
Platform(s)Windows, Mac
iOS, Andriod (re-releases)
First release1992
2012 (re-releases)
Latest release1998
2014 (re-releases)
Is the series or the company notable? Both? If only one, then the infobox for that one. If both, no problem, you have two articles then. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Couldn't both be incorporated into the article? It depends on whether the name was the only thing they shared, right? Many songs, for example, have separate info boxes for cover versions on their pages. ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I say rather instead of going over the companies that own it, the article goes over the history of Living Books as a series. Like, the company (history here), then a section that goes over its discontinuation, then a revival section, going over the re-release with a new company. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 14:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the article seems about the series predominantly, so two infoboxes isn't necessary. If the company is independently notable it needs to be spun off into Living Books (company).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone for your advice and feedback! For the moment I have the series and the company together in the same article as there is a fair amount of overlap and kept both infoboxes accordingly.--Coin945 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_152&oldid=1249261456"