Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 144

WP:GT's need articles within to be GA or above, I believe. I'm not sure you'd need a list of Sakura Wars video games article, as they are quite well explained in Sakura Wars

. There's also only 6 games. I believe you could do something like the below:

edit | discuss

Sakura Wars

5 articles

Sakura Wars

Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die

Sakura Wars 3: Is Paris Burning?

Sakura Wars 4: Fall in Love, Maidens

Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love

Project Sakura Wars

So, you'd really only have to get the main article and the new release to pass the GA threshold Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair deal. The new release won't be until winter 2019, so I think that we may need to work on the main Sakura Wars page and get that up to GA/FA at the very least. Also, if the first game passes the FA threshold, would that count towards a featured topic? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sjones23 and Lee Vilenski: Principle sounds great, but better focus on getting the main article to GA and handle the sixth game's article when the time comes. Small update; there's also going to be a "Music of the Sakura Wars series" article at some point in the near future. I'm working on it in my sandbox. That's not really relevant to a GT for the series, but it's still something that will appear and result in some new additions in the near future. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe there's quite a few non-video game articles, such as the one on the movie. I'd suggest working on the main article (it's clearly not too far away from GA) and it could be potentially nominated. If it were to be an FT, you'd still need 50% of the articles (so, 4 of them) to be FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I am also working on my own draft, which is located at User:Sjones23/Music of the Sakura Wars series and like I said, I plan to merge both drafts at some point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You can also nominate Project Sakura Wars for Peer Review and that can be good enough to have the topic be nominated. GamerPro64 14:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I'm sure the Sega task force might be able to help here. I'll go ask around. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

My random input:

• It seems like generally editors are against promoting unreleased games to GA status, so I think my thinking is similar to ProtoDrake's - for now, focus on getting the series article up to GA status, and Project Sakura Wars up to B level (if its not already) which is realistically probably the best it could be pre-release, and then worry about getting Project up to GA once it releases.
• If there's only six titles, then it may not need a "list of games" spinout, but if its like Final Fantasy, Tales of, etc, and has a bunch of non-notable or semi-notable entries like mobile spinoffs, fan-discs, low budget obscure spinoffs, etc, then it could be worth creating, both from an informational standpoint, and a redirect target for non-notable entries. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

My input as well:

• There's historical precedent for having topics that are just "the games in the series" as well as "all the articles related to the series". If "all the articles" is just 1 or 2 more than the games then GT reviewers frown on skipping them, but in this case there's a bunch of non-game media articles so I think the 6 games alone is fine.
• Final Fantasy has a list of games because it has 100+ games, as well as a media list because of all the non-game media. Sakura Wars appears to be able to support a "List of SK media" list due to all the shows and printed material around it (example: List of Mass Effect media). It is not required to be created, and even if created it is not required to be in the topic- you need a single lead article/list, which can be either the series article or a media list. The series article seems to be covering things well and in detail, so I'd say you can skip the list.
• Historical precedent at GT/FT is that if a piece of media is unreleased, you can just get it PRd and include it without having it be GA+, as it's not really possible in almost all cases to get an unreleased game to pass GAN. That said, once the game is released, you have 3 months to get it to GA without the topic being demoted, so be aware you're signing up for that.
• So, yeah, focus on getting the series article to GA, I think. --PresN 16:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Section break

Unfortunately, the

Could someone look at the above article and wikify whatever is salvagable in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping expand Splatoon articles. I feel that a series article could be justified, and an article about the music in the series (or individual games) could be really valuable. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a lot of coverage of the music to justify those separate articles? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there just 2 entries, and 0 spinoffs/animes/etc? The general consensus is that we don't need a series article until there's at least 3 entries, with an occassional exception if its some massive multimedia thing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't this done before and deleted due to the same reasoning? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was redirected in the past, though technically, it looks like it was created and redirected after Splatoon 2's announcement but prior to its release. But yes, we've had a number of conversations here and at AFD about the topic in general - usually we wait until at least 3 titles are released. The most recent example I can think of, since I was involved, was

Xenoblade (series), where discussions prevented its creation after 2 titles, but allowed for it after the third entry was out. Sergecross73 msg me

17:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The music is one of the most discussed aspects of the game. A Music of Splatoon / Music of the Splatoon series article would absolutely be justified. They have an entire virtual concert series! With multiple bands and acts! Axem Titanium (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point on the series topic, but I would agree that a music article has a good basis - I just don't really have the chops to make a good one, so I was hoping someone with experience and knowledge could give it a try if they had interest. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Having an article about the music from the series without having the base series article itself seems odd. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why that is the case. For instance, in theory, a single game could have enough music, performances of the music, and coverage of the music to justify an article, correct? After all, multiple Final Fantasy games have music pages all their own, so it's not unprecedented to get an article about a series' music. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I also think that there's no connection between lack of series article and discouraging a music article. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree too. I've neither done the research nor done much in video game music articles, so I can't verify specifically about Splatoon, but if the sourcing and content is there for a music article, I'm fine with going for it without a series article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If there really is enough content to justify a series or music article, you should prove it by adding

split that content out if/when the two articles get too big. Color me skeptical that such actually does exist with the need to be its own article. --Izno (talk

) 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We seem to have strayed from Bryn's top post, which was to gauge interest among editors in just such an endeavor. I don't personally have the bandwidth to help but I did indicate that I believed it's worth doing. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My answer still applies:

WP:SPLIT the content. --Izno (talk

) 18:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Listen man, I don't know about you but I'm as wikidragon as they come. My first and only instinct is to just do it. The premise of this thread is explicitly to solicit a collaborator to work together on a thing. Saying JUSTDOIT isn't really a productive response to that, and neither is quoting obvious guidelines like RS and SPLIT at an editor who has been around the project longer than both of us. Feels of-a-kind to

WP:DTTR. Let's keep in mind that we all have the same goal here, shall we? :) Axem Titanium (talk

) 20:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Axem that you guys have sort of gone off topic. Abyrn was asking if anyone was interested in helping her improve and/or create Splatoon-related articles. Stuff like Music of Splatoon absolutely seems like a worthwhile topic to pursue, and TBH I wouldn't oppose a series article since it seems like a major Nintendo IP at this point (the two games, the expansion pack for Splatoon 2, amiibo, Smash, manga, merchandise, etc). JOEBRO64 20:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

But we explicitly don't have the same goal besides that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The thread started with a solution ("let's have an article on music or the series or both") when the problem otherwise unstated ("we should have more coverage of these things") does not by necessity lead to new articles. That is why I cited our basic policies and guidelines :). Add the content and sourcing first to the existing articles, and then split the article if and only if it is necessary at that time, not before.

I don't assume anyone's experience, especially with faces I've somehow missed even though they've got 2 years more on me :). Everyone makes mistakes, forgets, never somehow learns in the first place, and more-normally, disagrees with interpretation or basic policy and guideline rationale. I've been in the bad position of another senior editor not citing the actual policy/guideline direction (i.e. without helping blue links whether caps-locked or not) from which they've been arguing--it's not fun. Better to explicitly cite the PAGs of interest and if someone disagrees, then we can have a discussion from a shared point of view rooted in what Wikipedia finds important. --Izno (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

But I mean... I was just asking if anyone wanted to collab lol - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

My answer still applies: The most charitable reading of your response is that it is wholly unproductive to the explicit task at hand, namely finding a collaborator. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as an aside - I've never played the games, but if the music is notable, not having a series article shouldn't be a stopped. If a game on its own had music that was notable in of itself - say

music of Undertale (for instance), we shouldn't also need a series for this.I'm not suggesting the above article mind Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 20:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

By any chance does somebody know about critic Hiroki Higashi? I found that he made some analysis in regards to fiction but I guess he is not notable because I can't find an article. I found an analysis about him in the Italian Wikipedia but the source might not be notable.Tintor2 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I was one of the facilitators at this event: Wikipedia:Meetup/Irvine/Gender equity 2019. A newbie created this article, User:BrunoMLB1/sandbox on Atsuko Nishida. Can someone please review the article and confirm if it meets notability standards within the guidelines of your WikiProject? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel that it does, one of the major issues is that while it has sources, at least some of the sources have to be primarily about the subject rather than mentioning the subject. If the person is simply mentioned in the context of the Pikachu character, then that is information that belongs in Pikachu instead. If you can find more sources that are about Atsuko Nishida's life and/or work then it would pass notability standards, otherwise any pertinent info should be merged into Pikachu._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion Talk:Joker (Persona)#Akira Kurusu. I would discuss but I don't have too much knowledge about Persona 5.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was thinking of setting up a proper RfC to settle this, with the three following options:

1. List Ren Amamiya only (the previous way)
2. List Ren Amamiya but mention Akira Kurusu in a note (the current compromise as of the time of typing this)
3. List both Ren Amamiya and Akira Kurusu

For anybody who isn't familiar with the character, he does not have a canon given name in the game (players can freely name him, but voicelines refer to him by his codename Joker). Ren Amamiya comes from the game's anime adaptation, and was later officially adapted by Atlus (the original game's developer) in a few recent spinoff games, as well as in a separate spinoff manga series. He is only known as Akira Kurusu in the game's manga adaptation, which is where the weight argument of listing both/only one name is coming from. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm uploading cover art and adding it into the infobox of the relevant article but wanted to double check that the images I'm uploading conform to all guidelines including using correct fair use statements and licensing. I want to avoid them being removed if I've misunderstood anything or prevent double work to fix them. Would someone be able to check the cover art file on Cyclone (video game) please, and let me know if everything looks OK? Nealbo (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not that familiar with the free use image policies (as I should be), but it looks fine and properly attributed to me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yep, looks good! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks guys! Nealbo (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that my poorly thought-out category was deleted, I think it's valuable to talk about a better solution to the problem. Much like we have a category for fictional black people in general (for instance), I think we could justify a category for fictional black video game characters. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I just rewrote all sections of the Casual game article to bring it from a ~2007 perspective to ~2019, if anybody's interested in reviewing the update. I also created 8 redirects for terms now used in the article.

"Casual game" is a term that has changed since the mid-2000s so it's now wanting material on how "casual" is part of a continuum from "casual" (or, I guess, "hypercasual" now) to "hardcore", which is briefly mentioned in the Gamer article. I'll get to this someday if nobody beats me to it. On Sober Reflection (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_30#Template:Vgy and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_30#Template:Gy TarkusAB^talk 12:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

After working on some Fate/stay night I wonder if the characters Shirou Emiya and Saber (Fate/stay night) could have mid importance. Saber is also quite the mascot from the series. Both have a big popularity section while Shirou has been studied by some scholars which seems really surprising based on my experience with character articles. The Italian Wikipedia has more analysis of Shirou but I don't know if they are notable although they mention the character has a big impact similar to the first Gundam main character Amuro Ray in regards to how the player can or not be immersed in their stories due to their personalities. Any idea? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to have mid importance for Video Games in general? I don't see it. Never found the mid importance to be particularly helpful mind, so it could be biased. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Mid importance to me is a little nebulous indeed. I don't think it's useless, but I think it depends on the impact. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

These characters are probably mid-importance in anime spheres, but the visual novels aren't nearly as big and influential in the video game world. Either way, though: it really doesn't matter at all. You could have sneakily changed these to mid-importance and I don't think anyone would have bothered to change it back. I don't think you should do it, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I'll leave them in low status. I wondered about asking here due to the many analysis the visual novel got.Tintor2 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO they should be low importance in the VG Project but possibly Mid in the Anime project. They are not so much well known because they are in a game, as they are due to the franchise as a whole, including manga and anime adaptations._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Belated, but you shouldn't spend any time whatsoever worrying about the "importance" field, which is of itself of no importance. In fact, I'd argue that it should be entirely removed from the template.

(For those curious, the original goal behind the importance field is moot - picking which articles appeared on a "Wikipedia CD" intended for computers without Internet, but with access to a CD drive (very rare). The entirety of Wikipedia can easily be transported on a thumb drive these days and Internet penetration is very deep, so this doesn't matter, and to the extent it does matter it's not driven by importance ratings anymore.) SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You know, that's a good point. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

After an

It's really inappropriate that he is engaging in this behavior. When multiple users don't agree on the change he made, discussion needs to be had. @SNAAAAKE!!: - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Especially considering violates his unblock condition of following 1RR. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oof - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Which SNAAAAKE!! thread # is this? Feels like there's been a lot. JOEBRO64 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and I’m pretty sure the worst era was before you were even editing, sadly enough. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

He’s blocked for a week, but regardless, please keep contributing to the talk page discussion on it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I am mass-verifying List of Electronic Arts games, and I look at one of the entries that Electronic Arts is said to have developed or published: Boulder Dash. First of all, according to issue 53 of Retro Gamer on page 35, Electronic Arts did publish (later) versions of the first two games in the series.

Secondly but the reason I am here, the Boulder Dash Wikipedia article is a joke. To name one of the problems, it seems as if its topic is awkwardly alternating from the original video game to the series and then back to the first game. And speaking of series, I am programming a navbox pertaining to the Boulder Dash series for Wikipedia articles about games in the series, but that is where I run into trouble. My experimental navbox contains 9 games that I am positive based on my brief research are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but only 3 of them are actual links to articles; the rest are either redirects to Boulder Dash or nonexistent articles. A navigational box containing 3 entries is not likely to exist for long, but it is more convincing if there are 9 of them.

If I am right that all the subjects of the given entries in my navbox are notable, a navbox creation seems inevitable, which theoretically means that I could just create the navbox as it is and then create or let others create the articles the entries are red-hyperlinked to. I am hesitant to create the template and add it to its respective articles, and before I obsess about Boulder Dash and lose interest in List of Electronic Arts games (as I did with

Boulder Dash is of that generation of games like

✉

03:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Avoid navboxes without true articles. The rough rule of thumb is 5 articles. --Izno (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The battle cats article was fixed alot and should be resubmited for importance and quality ratings. — Preceding

Reassessed. No change. Still a start class, will always be low importance. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Today, it was announced that Cuphead was being ported to the Tesla car OS to be run on various models. While this is certainly interesting info for the body, I would not consider the Tesla as a "gaming platform" as for inclusion in the infobox at this point, though some IPs have tried to do so. I think we should be clear that while the OS (like iOS for Apple TV) can be considered a platform, these non-traditional gaming devices should not be included in the infobox. Tesla, the TI-80 calculator, etc. --Masem (t) 19:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I had to google what you said here to see if it was actually true because that sentence doesn't sound real. Secondly, I think it should be mentioned, but I also don't think it should be mentioned. If it only runs one game, it's definitely not a gaming platform, but that's just me. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel like frankly given Tesla's current leadership and news it might be simple to just wait for the thing to actually ship before worrying about sticking it in the infobox. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Some early issues (1974-80) of the Japanese coin-op magazine Game Machine have been scanned and are now available here. TarkusAB^talk 17:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@TarkusAB:I've checked it out already and it's a pretty neat magazine from the '70s that lasted until 2005 surprisingly! There's more video games talked about in their following issues... Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The July 1997 issue of GamePro reports that Interplay announced

So we had consensus last year to move all the E3 articles to their common name of E3 YEAR instead of their full official name, but it seems like nobody ever got around to doing it. I'm just bringing this back up in efforts of hopefully getting them all moved before E3 2019 starts, as doing it during the event would just cause a lot of issues. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that E3, like KFC and other “brands”, no longer actually stands for anything as an initialism. E3 is the “full official name”. The move sounds uncontroversial. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This means it should only apply to the post 2008 shows (eg after the "media summit" days). Early days was still Elec. Entertainment Expo, only more recently has E3 been the name. --Masem (t) 17:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't commonly called "

E3 1996" back when the event was ongoing, but it is when people discuss it in contemporary times. Due to that and the inconsistency issues, I still say we should move them all to the same format of E3 YEAR. But at the very least yes, post-2008 articles should definitely be moved. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk

) 17:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it was commonly called "E3 1996" back when the event was ongoing, since all the contemporary sources I've seen refer to it that way.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'v gone ahead and changed all the individual year articles. I am not sure if we should change the main E3 article or the History of E3. (Actually, I would prefer to see those merged...let me look at that...) --Masem (t) 17:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. The last discussion we had said to keep the general E3 article at Electronic Entertainment Expo, which I'm fine with. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have created an article on Frank Cirocco, a comics artist and video game designer. Within the comics industry, he is best know as the co-creator of the Alien Legion series for Epic Comics. Cirocco has worked in the video game business for several decades but I have no proper reference sources for his extensive contributions in this field. Anyone who has reliable sources pertaining to him is welcome to expand the new article. Your assistance is greatly appreciated! Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Apple's WDDC is today and they've announced they are splitting the OS for iPad from the normal iOS to its own iPadOS. Obviously far too early for any games unique to it but we should start thinking if this is a platform to list or not. --Masem (t) 18:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

*massive eyeroll* So back to iPhone vs iPad days. -- ferret (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I switched when to Android when they decided to change their cable port arbitrarily to some other version of Firewire. You deserve no sympathy for how Apple treats you. :) --Izno (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There was never a version of Firewire for iOS... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of the transition to Lightning. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• iPadOS appears to just be a branch from iOS, so I'll expect that iOS games will remain 'iOS games', comptaible with both kinds of devices. We also don't list Ubuntu as separate OS when it is available on general Linux.
  ✉
  ) 20:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Just like we don't separate Windows 10 games from just the general Windows branding (at least in the infobox; the distinction should still be made in prose). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yep. I don't see a need to split it out unless it's commented upon for some reason. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Notification: there is a discussion at

Just a heads up that print magazines and books are copyrighted materials, and only the rights holder has the right to distribute these magazines. It will take decades for these magazines to enter the public domain. That means that these scanned magazines cannot be linked to, either in references or external links, on Wikipedia.

Is there a specific problem with people linking to copyrighted scans that prompted this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

While I’m not aware of any specifics, I’ve found quite a few in articles I’ve reworked. Might be a good message to send that links to scans of copyrighted material should be removed as we clean up and work on articles. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't link to material that violates copyright. The emphasis is the material is violating copyright. That is, some website hosting scans with no permission and no applicable exceptions, like fair use. This is not the same as something like Internet Archive that acts as a library and is in fact not (usually) violating copyright even while hosting scanned material. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe he wonders about Googlebooks?Tintor2 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If you use Special:LinkSearch, you can find hundreds of pages, including quite a few GA rated pages. The internet is pretty loose with copyright, and in practice things are taken down only when someone complains but Wikipedia adheres much closer to the letter of the law. Just look at the hoops you have to go through just to upload game cover art. You could justify a very short quote of copyrighted material, but not linking to an entire scan. Also, Archive.org operates like Youtube in that anyone can upload anything, and it's only taken down if someone complains. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind there are also valid uses of archive.org (notable, for citation backup). Weneed more specificity. --Masem (t) 00:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Well just now I cleaned up

Lone Soldier, and a few days ago I cleaned up Lucienne's Quest

. A lot of GA articles on older games rely on print sources, and link to full scans. Going through all these is on my to-do list. If you use linksearch and search for urls of any of the big mag scan project sites (like ninretro, retrocdn, etc) you can find a lot of pages. I don't mind cleaning these up myself, but it will take me some time.

I do encourage people to use print sources, since they're higher quality than websites. I am not going to ask questions why a bunch of English speakers suddenly have access to German, French, Spanish, and Japanese gaming magazines from 25 years ago. But talk of scans, and linking to scans should be kept off of Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There's an RFC regarding a possible implementation of character guidelines here. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we be including the number of reviews Metacritic is using to cite their score in the article, even footnoted as shown by the Team Sonic Racing article? Personally, I think it doesn't make a difference if a game had 40 reviews or 45; anybody curious enough can simply click the Metacritic link and check for themselves. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not much between 40 and 45, but 10 and 45 may give further context without being disruptive to the flow/quality of the article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, but then we'd have to make guidelines to only mention it if the number is sub-20 or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As much as it needs to be updated, does it matter if the amount is there? Seems like completeness. After a game release, reviews come in pretty soon after. I'd be against simply removing the amount of reviews, as if nothing else, the score needs to be updated at the same time a new review comes in anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As a statistician, I have very strong feelings about always including the number of reviews that the number summarizes. An average (which is not what a metascore is, but that's a separate discussion) without knowing what you're averaging over is throwing away more than half the information value. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Without the number of trials, the score is just a number. I thought for a while that metacritic should have some sort of range/standard deviation metric. I didn't know you were a statistician Axem Titanium! As a poor-mans statistician (maths graduate), that makes me happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Statistician by training, not my primary occupation these days. I've proposed standard deviation before as a routine

WP:CALC and I still think it's a good idea. Range would also help. Anything to provide more context to a bare number. Axem Titanium (talk

) 18:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's generally of interest. When its a really small sample (5 reviews), it places less important on the score, and conversely, when something has a 97% based off of 70+ reviews, then you now how consistently it is praised. I think its good context. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I would honestly have huge reservations even listing the score if it's only based on 5 reviews. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My issue with that is that Metacritic deems four reviews to be an acceptable amount of reviews to justify providing an aggregate score. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Metacritic has a vested financial interest in displaying a minimally 'viable' score, even if it does not make statistical sense to do so, because that's how they drive traffic to their site. I understand that we go by what reliable sources say, but in this particular edge case, I don't trust the reliability of the source to provide honest information, even if it is 'reliable' in a broader context. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought we had a guideline saying that 5 was acceptable, but I could be wrong. I don't really add MC score much, usually drive-by editors add and maintain them in the articles I create. I don't think I usually add them unless its a really obscure

JRPG and I think it may help dissuade people from questioning its notability. Sergecross73 msg me

18:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:VG/REC states: "do not include aggregate scores when there are fewer than four reliable outlets used in the aggregate" TarkusAB^talk

19:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Axem and Serge. It helps the reader understand how Metacritic is determining the score. JOEBRO64 19:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well it seems like there is consensus for it to be included, but I still think that it should be footnoted (like in Team Sonic Racing) just for template readability. Anybody disagree? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve simply listed it in the prose summary of the review aggregators but I have no problem with footnoting it if that’s what you prefer. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ditto.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added it to

MOS:VG. JOEBRO64

21:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm slowly working through this IP range's contributions. I could use some assistance if anyone needs something to do :) The edits generally pertain to changing platforms around, removing Xbox/PC/Microsoft and replacing with Wii/Wii U, adding categories for various "cancelled platform game" (i.e. saying a game never announced for Wii is a cancelled wii game), etc. I've spotted and blocked this user several times over the years I believe, but this range was active for a while and I haven't had time to fully go through it. There seem to be a tiny handful of good (at least not disruptive) edits mixed in, but there's a lot of unsourced stuff, clearly incorrect stuff, removing sources to replace pro-Nintendo stuff, etc (I've seen multiple cases of removing Xbox as a platform entirely, or replacing it with Wii, in direct contradiction to sources) -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there no bot-assisted revert process? I don't think any minimally non-disruptive edits from an otherwise vandalism-only account are worth saving in terms of effort to benefit ratio. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost certain there's a way for admins to mass revert vandalism from accounts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass rollback doesn't work if newer edits have happened. If there's another script or tool, I'm not personally aware. I've reviewed and reverted if appropriate the newest 50 contribs so far. But I'm busy RL with something I have to finish by next week. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The Undo button usually works except in cases of heavily changed text in the relevant spots. Specifically, is there a bot that will push the Undo button for all edits and throw up an error for all pages that it didn't work on? Anything to decrease the amount of manual hunt and peck work would be a help. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've been preparing reception/creation sources for existing and potential video game articles. If you are looking for a project or think there might be something you're working on that might be here, you can give it a look. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

To note, some of the sources aren't on WP:VG/RS (either ones I gathered a long time ago or ones I found that seemed to pass the smell test but I'm not sure). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

So with the larger Stadia reveal today, it is clear that it is a unique platform - its not a streaming subscription service, you are going to have to buy games to play on it (you also pay for the higher-quality stream capabilities). There are at least two Stadia exclusive games.

This begs the quesiton if Stadia (and only Stadia) should be considered a platform for infobox/category purposes. I have a feeling that unlike Onlive or other services (like with Sony's or MS's offerings) that Stadia is unique enough to require it. --Masem (t) 17:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's still just a distribution service like Steam or Epic Games Store, in my opinion. I say for now, that we do not add this as a platform and wait to see where the service ends up in a few months. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Stadia is platform agnostic. The service is available across different form factors, including traditional PC platforms, but also on TVs and mobile devices. If we don't acknowledge Stadia as its own platform, does that mean that we should add all platforms Stadia can be used with to the infoboxes of Stadia games? I think the best and easiest option is to recognise Stadia as an independent platform, just like Nintendo's, Sony's and Microsoft's operating systems. Stadia is a console without a box in my opinion. TheLegendaryN (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • deep breath What if we added a service field? Not really advocating for, just pondering. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • How would this work exactly? Do we even have enough of other similar non-emulated services to warrant such a thing? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm with Dissident on this one. I don't think it's warranted to rethink the entire way we do platforms just because Google said "jump". For Stadia "exclusive" games (if indeed those remain exclusive for a noteworthy period of time), I'm open to being convinced that Stadia should be listed under platform. For all the rest, it's a PC game distribution service just like Steam or GoG or itch, which we don't list. It runs on a PC, just not your PC. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm curious about how the mainstream media will factor in this decision. For example, marketing for Square Enix's Avenger title has begun, and it lists Stadia as a completely separate platform from PC. See: https://twitter.com/PlayAvengers/status/1137531517972799488 Sucoleo (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It's different from Steam/Origin/Uplay/Epic GS as you play directly on the platform, unbound from the actual platform beneath it. This would, technically, warrant inclusion for this, but then we would have to allow OnLive again, which opens another can of beans. Otherwise, we can still list Linux as the platform .
      ✉
      ) 21:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • It's the same as Steam/Origin/Uplay/Onlive in that you exchange money for the opportunity to play a video game on a device that is not expressly built to play video games. That you don't "own" the game is immaterial---we already don't own the software, merely limited licenses to use code that has been downloaded to our computers. This is just removing the download part; the end-user experience is the same: you play a thing for money. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What about this prose? -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Borderline ok with this, but would prefer a category or something. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I’m for adding Stadia as a platform. Anything else is going to be one of those “large time-sink for minimal benefit” maintenance things I generally advocate WikiProjects to avoid. It’s way more effort than it’s worth to keep it out. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't not-adding-Stadia an even less effort? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Let's take one of the Stadia known exclusives, Gylt. We're going to have to call out its platform as "Stadia" in the infobox - we have no idea if the base version of the game is closer to a PC or a console (which is something we CAN say when we were talking OnLive or with Sony/MS's streaming options). People will see that and will say "Oh, Stadia's a platform" and will fill out the 20+ some other games already confirmed with Stadia as a platform. It's already being done by IPs on Borderlands 3.
    • Another take here is that you have to buy games to play on Stadia. You are buying the Stadia version, not the PC one, not the Xbox One, etc. Whereas with Online or those other services, you don't buy the game, you subscribe to the service and happen to get access to that game. So Google and many sites are treating Stadia as a platform. It would be easier to "give in" and use Stadia for these games (and being strick that this same thought doesn't apply to Online or other streaming services) than to keep fighting IPs adding it. --Masem (t) 22:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) If Wikipedia was edited 100% by WP:VG regulars? Sure. The rest of humanity making passerby edits all the time? Absolutely not. I mean, you maintain articles...you must know what I’m talking about here...? Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I misread your statement; I thought you meant the opposite, which is to manually add it to articles. I agree that it will be nigh impossible to stop drive-bys from adding it, for now, but long-term as it becomes a more Steam-like platform (or else implodes in a few years, like so many other Google products), I anticipate that the zeal to do so will decline. In other words, there's no point trying to make an effort to stem the tide now, but I believe it's worth establishing that we as a project do not agree that it fits in the console field of the infobox, as we have for Steam and GoG and OnLive and Origin and etc. etc. before it. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• So at this point, it sounds like Stadia should not be considered a platform for purposes of infoboxes, unless the game is exclusive to it (ala Gylt). Stadia can otherwise be used in the body. This can be subject to change once Stadia is out and we have a better sense of how much attention it draws. If a flash in the pan, then we did right; if it greatly expands, that might be reason to reconsider. --Masem (t) 14:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would even disagree with that. I don't want to police dozens, potentially hundreds, of articles to remove Stadia from platforms every week or so. You know less veteran editors will be constantly adding it. A better route would be to look at what mainstream media is calling it. For instance, Kotaku called it a "Streaming platform". Still sort of grey with only one example, but perhaps it would have some merit to look at what the precedence is in media, especially as that's what most of the world is going to use as their personal take. --Teancum (talk)

• I'm also unfortunately leaning towards a "why bother approach" My watchlist this morning was already flooded with at least 15 new articles getting Stadia added, both as category and infobox, including by some long standing editors. Mostly unsourced too. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• If we want to take a "Why bother" approach (which I can agree with too, for those reasons) we should establish why Stadia is fine but things like Onlive, PSNow, the MS version, etc. do not. Which to me at least starts that those others are subscription services to the library of games, whereas Stadia is only a cloud-enabled solution that you still must buy games for to play on. --Masem (t) 15:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't read all the details, but doesn't Stadia still offer a monthly subscription feature? Seems like the only difference between it and other similar services is that it also offers a per-game purchase feature. Or am I completely wrong here? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Base service is free but comes with no games and limits on the quality of the streaming. The subscription Pro tier gives you higher stream quality, a potential library of free games (But Google's suggested this is a small library) and pre-orders get Destiny 2, but otherwise you still have to buy the games. Online, PS Now, etc. all give you unlimited access to their libraries with the subscription. --Masem (t) 15:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry but that still doesn't exclude OnLive, which allowed you to purchase games on a per-game basis. I'm broadly in support for a why-bother approach, with the understanding that we will revisit it in time when the dust settles. If/when Stadia has 3000 games on it with another 300 coming every month, I doubt driveby IPs will be as thirsty to add it to every single article. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just as a further point, Stadia is known to be based on open-source software with a Linux backbone. That's a potential option to say "linux" instead of "Stadia" but that might be too confusing or will be fought over (back to the "why bother" approach). --Masem (t) 20:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• That is sort of why I’m in favor of mentioning Stadia in infoboxes. Steam releases are still represented in the infobox in the form of listing “Windows” at least. With PS Now, there’s still PS3/PS4 representation. With Stadia, there’s nothing. And that’s why there’s going to be endless attempts to add it. (Though I agree adding Linux is confusing and not a good idea.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• It will be available on the Google Chrome web browser. Should we use Google Chrome instead of Stadia?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not exclusively the Chrome browser - it will also be available on Chromecast, on Pixel phones, and more devices in the future. And so it would be wrong to present it as a browser game. --Masem (t) 23:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Too radical?

How about for infoboxes, we mention "multiplatform", and only list a platform when the game is exclusive to it? Actual release platforms can be in the lede or in the "Release" subsection.

• This has been proposed before, and I actually don't dislike this idea. We already have the release section mentioning each platform anyway, so it's not like we're really loosing any information by doing this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Doesn't this defeat the purpose of platform field entirely? The only way this does not say "Multiplatform" is when it just released on one platform, and every PC game released on Windows and macOS/Linux is suddenly 'multiplatform'.
  ✉
  ) 21:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I do dislike this idea. The infobox has a very specific purpose, which is to provide "at-a-glance" information. Our duty as editors (in the editors of a publication sense, not the editors of Wikipedia sense) is to make value judgments for what type of info should be there and cull info that shouldn't, in order to preserve the at-a-glance-ness of what remains. Replacing the actual platforms with the word "multiplatform" in the infobox forces the reader to hunt through the prose to find information they expect at-a-glance in the infobox, which I strongly disagree with. There exists a tiny minority of games released on dozens of platforms which makes listing them all in the infobox burdensome, but I do not think these exceptions warrant eliminating the rule. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well, here's my thoughts: if there's one type of service like this - there will be more. It's highly likely that the market will come up with its own naming convention regarding these types of services. Changing our practices seems silly if there is a good name for these "multiplatform" games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I’m strongly against this. Platforms are the definition of the type of thing that infoboxes are meant to capture at a glance. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Also strongly oppose this. What platform(s) a game appeared on, in my opinion, is one of, if not the most critical piece of information in the infobox. JOEBRO64 23:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm also in the "strong oppose" camp here. Platforms are among the most essential pieces of information about any video game. Phediuk (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You guys do realize that they still are listed in the release field, right? I think the thing we could at least discuss is how to eliminate them being mentioned twice somehow. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The release field is completely separate from the platforms field. The release field tells the reader when the game was released, while the platforms field tells them what it was released on. Also, the majority of games nowadays are released on all platforms on the same day, so listing the platforms in the release field is often unnecessary. JOEBRO64 17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • (ec) Not every release date field lists out the platforms, especially those that simply list the one multiplatform release. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
      • That's true, but I still think that having them repeated twice is redundant, so this is still a problem that could use a fix if anybody has a better solution. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I recently created a new article Lone Soldier (video game) with 6 (now 7) supporting sources. I received an alert that the "This article needs additional citations for verification." template has been added to the top of the article. My goal is obviously to put together good quality articles, so my question is, what exactly is a sufficient amount of sources? Looking at the verifiability page it all seems very vague... For a relatively short article I feel like 7 citations are sufficient and that there is nothing "contestable" that does not have an associated source. Also as far as I can tell there are no other good sources of information other than what I've added already so I feel like I'm at a bit of a dead end with this. Nealbo (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've untagged it. Of course more sources and content would be great, but nearly every statement has a source at the end of the sentence or paragraph, so exactly what is the tag trying to accomplish... -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, good to get a second opinion on it, I was going around in circles trying to understand what more I could add! And thanks for removing the template, didn't feel comfortable removing it myself seeing as I'd created the article.Nealbo (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Avoid linking to copyrighted magazines, and use the cite magazine template. Also, get some more re-views. This lists 3 French magazine review scores. Moby games and other sites will list more. There's other sites for german mag review scores. Famitsu likely reviewed it too. The page is also formatted like a game guide right now. Game guides are great sources, but the WP pages shouldn't be formatted like them. There shouldn't be a blow by blow account of the levels and the enemies in them. Look at how some GA articles are formatted, like Shinrei Jusatsushi Tarōmaru. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The copyrighted magazines for Lone Soldier (video game) linked to scans from the internet archive, which as far as I understand it, and from previous discussion in the archive discussion here, archive.org acts as library so is not violating copyright by hosting these scans, so is an acceptable source to cite. With that in mind, I can't understand the benefit of replacing a reference to scans on archive.org that can be instantly verified by clicking a link, with some reference to a 20 year old physical magazine that 99% of people viewing or reviewing the article will not have access to. Nealbo (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In fact, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library - the reference library for this Wiki Project it actually recommends archive.org for scans of magazines. Nealbo (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not much, but I did a quick search.

Abryn (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Internet archive operates the same way as youtube (see

WP:COPYVIOEL

The only person who has the right to distribute these are the copyright holder. These works were scanned and uploaded to the internet Archive by "some guy". "Some guy" is not the copyright holder. This is pretty straight forward, and copyright doesn't magically vanish on IA. Until these magazines enter the public domian, or the rights holder makes them available, these can't be linked to. Short quoations and small images can be justified for educational purposes, but not full scale linking to copyrighted works.

IA also doesn't operate like a library. Libraries get special permission and an agreement to lend out books. IA does no such thing. As I said, anyone can upload anything to IA, and they have it freely available for anyone to download. I can take books out from my local library, but they don't host those books on their site for everyone to download. The Tokyo National Diet Library that has an archive of every single Japanese print gaming magazine ever. They don't scan these and make every single one of these for download because actual libraries don't do that.

There's also no exception for convenience. WP policy says that everything has to be cited and verifiable, not that it has to be instantly verifiable. If Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't count it to say that Nintendo was necessarily in the right to do what they did. For instance, there is no legal cause for companies to remove let's plays from YouTube. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Who owns Nintendo Power? Nintendo. There Nintendo was 100% in the right, as they own that magazine, and they can control what is done with that magazine.

Actual copyright law is very strict, it's just rarely enforced and that means that people online have adopted a very loose understanding of copyright. Tomorrow if Square wanted to, they could take down every single video that uses audio or video from their games if they wanted to and they 100% would legally be in the right. It's more hassle than its worth though so they don't bother. Again, because someone isn't taken down, doesn't mean it's legal. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at your link and agree that it does say that linking to copyrighted material is not allowed unless there is a case for fair use. This is very disappointing to me as I find it extremely limiting and harmful towards being able to verify statements in an article, and impedes readers themselves from being able to get more detailed information from the sources directly. I feel as though we're enforcing a loose "law" Contributory_copyright_infringement to the detriment of articles. But if this is the policy I'll begrudgingly accept that magazine scans cannot be used as references. Nealbo (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no legal precedence on such a thing as Square Enix DMCAing all audio and video from their games. Anyway, my point was that Web Archive complying with Nintendo does not mean that Web Archive had a legal obligation to do so. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

IA is a library. The Wikipedia article for it describes it as such, and it's even a member of the American Library Association. Linking to defunct publications from IA isn't violating copyright. JOEBRO64 19:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

IA operates more like a file sharing site or Youtube than a standard library. They let anyone submit anything. I just checked and they have the entire Cowboy Bebop, and Magic Knight Rayearth series on there. Is this not copyright violation? They sure aren't public domain. At no point are the rights holders contacted in any way about material uploaded, and when any of them complain material is always taken down. A real library has agreements to hold and lend out material. They don't let anyone download it from their site. Thinking that IA is a magic place where copyright just magically vanishes would create a loophole to get around the rather strict WP rules about linking to copyrighted materials. I upload a book to media fire, that's "copyright violation" but if I were to upload that same book to IA, and link it, it's somehow not? Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Note - Just because an article can add more citations, that's not the usage of {{
  refimprove}}. That tag is generally used to note articles that have only a few citations, or if large parts are unsourced. Sure, the article could have been improved, but not just to tag all articles that are missing possible citations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}
  ) 11:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Data Design Interactive has a list of 15 games that link to their own articles. A musician is notable for their notable songs, an actor for their notable acting roles, a writer for their notable books, etc. Shouldn't any entertainment company be notable for what it has created? Dream Focus 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The games look like shovelware. At least a couple of those games aren't notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED. That some notability guidelines say otherwise is not something we need to allow here. If the company is notable, it will have sources dedicated to it. --Izno (talk

) 17:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

So I tried, and there are MORE THAN 600 I made a prototype page on my sandbox; User:Talkkaris/sandbox

Now, my problem is this;

1- It's Wikipedia so I need reliable sources.

2- Literally almost no one cares about the first generation of consoles, half the consoles on the list I got from blogs and eBay/sales sites.

3- A picture of the darn thing is good proof that it exists, it's harder to ignore it, but only around 80 have a picture, the rest is blank

4- Searching their names online they show up with pictures (some are harder than others), but on Wikipedia there's nothing

So without pictures, how can I source their existence? I think I can't simply link to whatever blog has one, or a YouTube video, or an eBay listing, so I'm a bit stuck. How can I complete this page before creating it? If any of you can help with his it would be very much appreciated. Talkkaris (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well, if they lack good sources then they most likely lack notability as well, meaning they don't really belong on Wikipedia anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lists don't require notability of all items necessarily though, just
    WP:V, unless there's consensus for a tighter inclusion criteria. -- ferret (talk
    ) 18:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That's true, I was just speaking from a general logic perspective. But even then, for the ones that can only be verified via a blogpost, eBay, or photo, then they should fail
      WP:V and thus be omitted from such a list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk
      ) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Go to https://www.uspto.gov/ for the American government's patent and trademark office and you can prove they exist. Be an interesting article, showing just how many people tried and failed to get a successful console out there back then. Dream Focus 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Writeups are going on its page from now on. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Did I dream or there was an EA thing yesterday?
  ✉
  22:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • They just showed off some new trailers and features of games that have already been announced. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• New Smash character finna be Big Wheel from Spider-Man. You all owe me $50 if it is. JOEBRO64 02:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd sooner believe Grand Wheelie :p

✉

03:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Also does anyone find it a bit suspicious that Microsoft is telling Xbox fans to watch the Nintendo conference? Don't want to jump to conclusions but if it's Banjo I'm actually going to pee my pants. JOEBRO64 03:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Master Chief lands from orbit. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Dream: a new Rare game on Xbox and Switch. Plausible: new Smash character, potentially Minecraft Steve or Banjo. Probable: some news about Xbox Live on Switch.

✉

07:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

My expectation is that we might see Banjo and Kazooie in Smash and Rare Replay on Switch. A new multiplat Banjo game though would be more than welcome. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd a new Rare original, not necessarily Banjo ;) If Microsoft and Nintendo are collaborating mightn't we even see a Rare-made DK spinoff/3D sequel

✉

12:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on this article here and there, but it's a tall order, so I was wondering if anyone was interested in helping with setting up a draft on this. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Oversexualization is a very subjective term. I would more go for Sexualization of women in video games. There's already info on it in

Portrayal of women in video games.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk

) 09:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that, as we're discussing the perception of characters as oversexualized. It's subjective, but it's not our subjective classification. A lot of characters I would not agree for instance are oversexualized where others might. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The topic of "Sexualization of women in video games", with the article presenting both opinions about oversexualization and dissenting views.

✉

12:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I reckon I'm not opposed to that idea. My main point on oversexualization is that it is a specific topic, one discussed and debated, so it exists as a concept. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Also

Agreed, I don't really see what it could add to what already exists in well sourced and researched form on the topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Its that time again boys and girls. We got articles for review. Here they are now:

FAC

• South Park: The Fractured but Whole (nom)
• Sega (nom)
• Super Mario All-Stars (nom)

GAN

• The Crystal Key (nom)
• The Nomad Soul (nom)
• Spider-Man (Insomniac Games) (nom
  )
• Winning Run (start)
• Pokémon Sun and Moon (nom)
• Gee Bee (nom)
• Tonic Trouble (nom)
• Safecracker (nom)
• Until Dawn (nom)
• Go Vacation (nom)
• Second generation of video game consoles (nom)
• Warcraft (film) (nom)
• Shadow Hearts (video game) (nom)
• Isle of the Dead (video game) (nom)

FAR/GAR/FTR

• Apple TV (nom)
• Key video games
• Age of Empires II (nom)

And, as always, we still have the Requests Board with a huge backlog that needs assistance. Got three requests left for 2016. We can knock those off before years end if we get some volunteers. GamerPro64 23:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a new article for World of Warcraft Classic. It's a video game and all the other WoW-related articles are under this WikiProject, so perhaps it should be too. I have no knowledge of this WikiProject and frankly am too lazy to figure out the due process, so please tag the article to be part of the project appropriately. Thanks. —turdas^{talk - contribs} 09:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• For anybody else reading this and wondering, you simply have to add the WikiProject video games banner to the talk page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey all, for the past 24 years, Seiken Densetsu 3 has been a unique entity- a relatively well known, underground hit, champion of the SNES RPG era, with no non-Japanese name (it's never "Mana 3") and no official non-Japanese release, but instead just a well-regarded fansub. Until yesterday, that is, when the pre-existing JP-only Seiken Densetsu Collection for Switch was abruptly released in NA as Mana Collection, complete with the renamed Trials of Mana, corresponding with the announcement that a full 3D remake under that title was coming worldwide in early 2020. You'll notice which title I linked- because of course someone has already moved it. Rather than revert, I'm bringing it up to a wider audience: what title should it be under? I personally think that 24 years of articles and discussion in English beats a single one-day-old collection release (though the remake, as it's likely to get its own article, should take "Trials"), which is exactly the decision we made last year that Mother trumped the johnny-come-lately "EarthBound Beginnings", but I acknowledge the added wrinkle this time that the "English" name of the game has been... in Japanese. What are y'all's opinions? --PresN 20:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• We should prefer an English title to a Japanese one whenever possible, as we are the English Wikipedia. I'll cite
  ✉
  20:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As long as that's an official engine title. For example, Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan remains at its JP title even though we have a reasonably straightforward English translation. In the case of the Mana games, I would say we have official English titles so they should be named as such. --Masem (t) 20:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Also I agree about the case of VC 3 - we know the official translation for the fourth game, so it is easy to extrapolate the general series title to the others. --Masem (t) 20:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In this case, go with the official English name. As it's being released as both a straight port and a remake under the title Trials of Mana, I'd go with that title. It's not like we're effacing the Japanese title, as that's distinct and important enough to be included in the lead outside of a footnote. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I also support with using the official English names. It'll also be less confusing because this has also been known as "Secret of Mana 2" by some fans. Using the official name makes things simpler and easier to follow the series naming conventions for the English side.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 21:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm probably in the right place to discuss this in detail.

But I want to see if we could start improving game titles. Most of the titles use a colon symbol after a series' name or game. But not every page uses them. I find it very, inaccurate not using them. It just feels wrong and incomplete with these type of lists. Like how Mario Kart uses them, or the whole Super Mario franchise. So, could we use them? It doesn't seem right not to. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume we defer to

MOS:TITLEPUNCT with regard to the use of colons in titles.--Martin IIIa (talk

) 03:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no consistency to be had here, so forcing consistency is incorrect. Games, novels, movies, etc. legitimately all use different ways to set off a series prefix, anything from no punctuation but a space, a dash, a colon, suggestive capitalization, whatever. Maybe it "feels wrong" but it's accurate. SnowFire (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Colon or dash or whatever is used is based on what RSes go by, which will lead to disparate styles throughout different game series. --Masem (t) 15:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Right. If the majority of RSes don't use one, we shouldn't either per

WP:COMMONNAME ~ Dissident93 ^(talk

) 16:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t really see the point. It doesn’t really matter due to redirects. Whether someone searches for “

Fire Emblem: Awakening” or “Fire Emblem Awakening”, it leads the reader to the same article, and neither name is different in meaning or recognizability. Sergecross73 msg me

00:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Remember that if they announce a new game and have NO Details about it (development specifically), try to find a redirect target rather than making a new article (I'm going to try to be on top of that here...) An article that just says the game was announced is not helpful and may be deleted. --Masem (t) 19:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't all the games announced there have people writing about them in the game review media? I see most of them have articles already. Any that don't will have enough information tossed out there soon enough I'm sure. Dream Focus 20:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but just writeups of a game with nothing else known about it besides a title and maybe a general release window is not enough to warrant a separate article. See Elden Ring. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

IMO, Elden Ring has enough references now to merit an article. [5] [6] There are a lot more details than simply the title and release window._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

After the interviews, possibly. But even then it would most likely be just a stub for months. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is enough about it. Look at this significant coverage I found after taking a moment to check. [7] It passes

WP:GNG so make an article if you want to. I already made one for Minecraft Dungeons days ago. Dream Focus

03:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but I need to stress that better care on image use from trade shows for VGs is needed. [8] is NOT a free image, even if it was licensed freely by the photographer - its a clear derivative work of Nintendo, for example. We can use small portions of copyrighted elements in a

de minimus defense as free images, eg [9] this is probably okay since the copyrighted elements are too small and the focus is the general display itself. That onus on copyright is on the uploader. --Masem (t

) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a literal Wikia watermark on this one! Niemti for the love of God you are abusing the image system here. GamerPro64 16:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It's CCBYSA2.0, just needs to uplaod a version cropping out the watermark (and maybe other enhancements reducing the flash glare if possible).

✉

22:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

✉

) 22:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed the onus should be on the uploader to clean-up their uploads *shrugs*

✉

22:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a Commons Admin should be contacted or something? Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to. Not sure who to ask. GamerPro64 04:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Started to have a look ; to be honest it’s not very inviting: beyond the copyright issues (derivative works), I’m also not convinced many of them are in scope ; and I have some concerns regarding Photographs of identifiable people (I let SNAAAAKE know as much on his commons talk page). It’s not quite enough to simply Special:Nuke all of them, but well… Jean-Fred (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I told myself not to post here anymore but he's been pestering me on Wikimedia Commons: Wikia (Fandom) is literally a part of Wikimedia. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

✉

) 12:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Snake, you've been here for years. Haphazardly uploading copyright violations is your problem, not other people's, and you should know this. You're brushing up against basic

WP:COMPETENCE issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk

13:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's still free so I just don't understand the problem, that it's an advertisement for them? Wikipedia itself is a money-maker for The Foundation, and of course is privately-owned too, so I don't really see a difference. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, you want to crop just the images that are to be used here, right? That much can be done. Also, anyone could just do it instead of complaining, no I don't care about the integrity of their watermarks. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Watermarked images = against

✉

) 16:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!, there are hundreds of images to sort through and fix, people do not have the time or interest to deal with your issue. You can, and should, be the one to fix these if you want to have them on Wikipedia. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You've uploaded more images without careful overview and have again added images that we cannot take as free, SNAKE. You need to stop. This is a blockable offense. --Masem (t) 13:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've warned Snake on their talk page, after seeing a clearly copyrighted image that they had put to commons used on mainspace here. Several of their last contributions on en.wiki involve using these images , even though through this they know there's copyright problems with some of them. This is clearly at a point a block may be needed. --Masem (t) 16:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't even explain to me what is the problem. OK, I'm not uploading any galleries anymore. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you not read anything that has been told to you? Because there has been multiple explanations from multiple people about the multiple problems your multiple images you uploaded have accumulated. GamerPro64 17:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi all! While slowly working through the massive backlog at Category:All articles lacking sources, I've run into a number of video games related articles that lack references. Some are probably good candidates for merging or redirects, while others might just need a moment's TLC. If someone with a bit more video game know-how than me could take a look, that would be super. A handful are listed below:

There's about a zillion more for anyone interested, though I'll leave it here for now to avoid being obnoxious. Feel free to edit this post or strike-through entries if you get to them. Thanks in advance! Any help is much appreciated. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• ✉
  20:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That article needs work. It doesn't fit as a dab or even a
    WP: CONCEPTDAB in it's current form. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}
    ) 21:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• (
  List of PlayStation 2 games for PlayStation 4 and sourced. That's just from my quick look at the list. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?}
  20:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)