This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
WP:ABOUTSELF and say that this is correcting a mistaken belief by the press. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
) 02:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks like they only removed the videogames.si source in that edit, keeping all the other sources prominently describing it as an indie game in the title. If we can confirm that the interview is properly legitimate, I think it's reasonably to at least omit "indie" from the lede section. We can still write about it having indie aesthetics for sure, using indie as a sort of movement of game design. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I would tend to agree it is not an indie dev. First, there is the quote posted on the talk page. Through my own research, I found a separate quote directly from Nexon saying that Mintrocket is an in-house division. "Had 'P3' been developed normally inhouse, it would have been presented to users under the name Mint Rocket". It appears this could be a case of an editorial mistake by Sports Illustrated because of the game's indie-esque appearance.
Obviously this is problematic but per
WP:IAR, Wikipedia is not required to state anything a source says if there's clear evidence it could be wrong. I would err on the side of removing the indie game mentions and referring to it as a Nexon subsidiary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ
) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I don't care whether individual Wikipedians think Mintrocket is an indie developer. There is no question that they are a subsidiary of Nexon; however, that is irrelevant to the question of whether they are an independent developer. On Wikipedia, the only relevant criteria is whether reliable sources identify them as such, and multiple reliable sources have said this is an indie game, and one explicitly identified them as an indie developer. Eurogamer themselves have said that it is an independent game made by a Nexon subsidiary; this is cited directly in the article. So, we don't need editors to come to their own personal conclusions. Eurogamer has already done it for us. What I am asking is not "do you think this is an indie developer?" I am asking if the Korean website is a reliable source. If it isn't, then the interview could be faked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Ignoring the question of whether the talk page interview is an RS, because I am unsure, and looking purely for English sources that might be relevant, there is an alternate Eurogamer article in which Eurogamer says: "Do you find it as fascinating as I do how every now and then you get a whiff of VERY NOT INDIE BUDGET peering out from behind its indie facade? [...] It's published and perhaps made by Nexon, right, who are completely huge? I would love to know how this game came to be!" It's possible that when Eurogamer said "indie RPG" they meant "indie-style RPG" or that they simply contradicted themselves due to a misunderstanding. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of Korean sources, I am currently working on Blue Archive, another Korean game, in my home wiki. A quick glance of the kowiki shows that they list the following websites:
I have no knowledge of Korean, but I believe this could help. MilkyDefer 05:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
And it is a pity that the Korean source claiming that Mintrocket is not an indie, is not in that list. I think we cannot jump to the conclusion that the site is unreliable -- we might need to find someone familiar with Korean games. MilkyDefer 05:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
As I'm sure some of you may have noticed in the Wikipedia Discord, I'm planning on working on making Splatoon 3 an FA. However I have absolutely no clue what I need to do to get it to FA status. I'm fairly sure that even though it's a GA right now, it's definitely not ready to be an FA. So is there some sort of way I can request feedback on what to do to work on getting it to FA status without actually requesting an FA review? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That's what I thought, and yet I recall being told in the Discord server that it isn't good idea. Or maybe they didn't. I have terrible memory. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 01:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
How's it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to bother, but it appears Suika Game is missing from this week's report. CaptainGalaxy 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Added, sorry- when an article gets created and then moved the same day, the script doesn't always recognize it as a new article. --PresN 17:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That's all good. Thank you for adding it. CaptainGalaxy 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey, SNAAAAKE!! is back! Panini!•🥪 03:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh just a new tag of an old article. Don't jumpscare me like that. 😅 Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Suika Game, a game that became popular out of the blue around me two years ago and faded in popularity after, suddenly go viral again worldwide - all happening too fast for me to grab an understanding of the situation.
The corresponding article in zhwiki is still "合成大西瓜" (synthetic big watermelon) rather than "西瓜游戏/西瓜遊戲" (suika game). Yesterday I made a distinction between these two games in Wikidata, please double check my work in Wikidata. There are several media coverages on the original "synthetic big watermelon" that I have no idea how to incorporate into the current article. MilkyDefer 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Currently Synthetic Big Watermelon is mention in the English article as being an origin of the gameplay seen in Suika Game. Currently it has notes about the different fruit in that version as well as release date. CaptainGalaxy 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I meant more than that. For example, Chinese Academy of Sciences released an article detailing the internal mechanics that make "Synthetic Big Watermelon" addictive. There are also other reports focusing on the original "Synthetic"'s advertisement fraud. You may want to incorporate these sources about the original game into the current article but the problem is how. MilkyDefer 05:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, the article more talks about the Japanese game. The mentions of "Synthetic" is due to sources delving into the origins of the concept, alongside just a brief mentions on what makes the two versions slightly different in visuals. I don't think more is needed about Synthetic, but if you can think of a good way to incorporate it then you are more than welcome to. CaptainGalaxy 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I am trying that in my home wiki. I will consult my fellow editors for a resolution - keep the two intergrated into one article, or boldly split them up. MilkyDefer 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
UPDATE: My idea of merging the two games into one article has been met with unprecedented and universal ridicule. I am forced to split them up. MilkyDefer 03:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
CNET archives
Resolved
I would not be surprised at all if any of you are aware of this problem, and certainly this talk board is aware of CNET having deleted articles earlier this year, but I have just discovered that not all the content from the 2000s was archived, or so it looks. I discovered what appears to be the only evidence that a CNET review for M&M's Kart Racing, a Wii and DS piece of shovelware that has been called one of the worstgames of all time, ever existed. Attempts to connect to the review page by reconstructing the link based on cues from the ABC mirror and the CNET website as archived in the Wayback Machine in 2008 and accessing it in the Machine have failed. Granted, I realized I was looking in the Wii section of a list of reviews when I should have been looking in the DS area since the review is for the DS version, but now my access to the Wayback Machine is throttled again, and I cannot continue browsing the archives to dig up the article. Is unsaved CNET content a real problem that anyone here can attest to, or is it just the Machine denying me access again? P.S. No amount of my research on the Internet can uncover answers as to why access to the Wayback Machine periodically goes offline. FreeMediaKid$ 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, I got access to the Wayback Machine again before getting it cut again. During that time, I was able to ascertain what the URL was. It is http://reviews.cnet.com/M_M_s_Kart_Racing_DS/4505-10068_7-32632053.html. Needless to say, it is a dead link, and apparently a permanent dead one, too. Maybe the review has survived with a later URL, but again, I will not be able to find out until I regain access or someone else finds it. In the meantime, feel free to confirm from your experience whether CNET reviews have been permanently lost. FreeMediaKid$ 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Found it. I had to look inside the ds-games path of the domain and look at a list of websites with that path archived in the Machine, and that is how I recovered it. I have tagged this discussion as resolved. FreeMediaKid$ 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I would have proceeded to add the CNET review, but it came to my attention that it it identical to the one by GameSpot. I am only just learning this, but is it not true that, since the closure of Gamecenter, all CNET reviews for games are GameSpot reposts? FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Months ago, I uploaded nearly all of the 100 issues of Computer Entertainer, identified by
Reference library to include mentions of Computer Entertainer, and 3) to encourage users to find the missing issues, namely Nos. 1 to 3 and 95 to 100. Given its copyright holder's failure to crack down on online scans (they can be read here and here
, to name two websites), I calculated it unlikely that the submissions would ever get DMCA'ed, so I hope that, along with the two other purposes of this discussion, someone will upload the remaining issues to the Web. I will then submit them to the Archive and use my privilege to group them into the Computer Entertainer collection.
And now for my rambling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It may be imprudent to bring these years-old events back into light, but I feel that I must clarify some of my demeanor then, and I feel that I have failed to provide the community with adequate explanation during the time those events involving me were unfolding. These explanations are long overdue.
A user named Gamingforfun365—naïve, a little rude, relatively inexperienced, and undecided on how he wanted to edit until years later—decided to undertake the task of reviewing articles. For context, I was that user, but since I am personally better off not tying myself to my past, I shall refer to him in third person. One of these articles was Crispy Gamer, which he helped pass. Then, he sought to elevate it to feature article status. The fatal error he committed was being oblivious to the requirement that he be a major contributor. Accusations of stealing credit from the user who submitted it as a good article nominee were levied against him. The accusations were unfair, given his, Gamingforfun365's, inexperience, and he never forgave them for such libel. In the midst of a heated argument, Gamingforfun365 then posted what, in retrospect, turned out to be his biggest blunder in the history of his Internet use. He stated that "I am actually having fun from how lousy this discussion is going." He thought that his comment was clear in illustrating that the discussion had engaged in drivel and that all editors needed to move on, except that that comment was itself drivel, and so led to a long-shot ANB discussion after he neurotically talked incessantly about the article. When he confessed that he had not actially reviewed the articles appropriately, that may be true, but it is possible that he had also deliberately minimized his reviewing efforts in a gesture of self-berating.
Part two of that event pertains to how he tried to meet the requirement that he be a major contributor to the Crispy Gamer article. He realizes that, beyond minor edits, thr article could not be improved much further, which led him to the conclusion that whoever reads this rambling will find silly: that an editor for an article becomes a major one because they would have made the substantial improvements. That was why he believed he could renominate the article. He likely assumed that other users on this talk page would infer his reasoning. It never occurred to him that others would not, and so the bickering resumed, hence the ANB incident. He came to regret failing to explain himself. It is not the first time on the Internet that he has been falsely accused of eschewing norms when in fact his actions could simoly have been seen as misguided, and it would not be the last, either.
In a second event, in 2019, in a discussion about an article on Birdo, he posted his view on whether to keep the sources describing the Nintendo character as transgender. He then committed a blunder by expressing a political view about lifestyles like this. One may find the following reasoning ludicrous, but he posted that message for fear that right-wingers would bombard him with admonition and charges of immorality, just for making an edit suggestion about the article. That message was intended to placate those right-wing concerns, except, to his horror, that there would be no such right-wingers. There was admonition and charges of immortality, but it came from the wrong type of users. He did not forgive those, like last time, who claimed that he was trying to tout straight cisgender mores, and, as a realist, it made no sense to him anyway. If he had understood what response he would receive, why would he post it? What practical benefit would that have served him? He apologizes for the confusion, but laments the moralizing aspect that played out.
In both cases, he could have littered the talk pages of the users who cried foul, and given his current personality, he almost regrets not doing that. A man looks effeminate if he lets false claims about his state of mind run across. On top of that, he also legitimizes these claims if he does not refute all of them one by one. However, he would likely not deign to post harmful messages on one's talk page if one questioned his motives, instead refuting those charges. The point is that his, Gamingforfun365's, early experience has left him indignant over his treatment—which he feels to this day–and he hopes to alleviate that feeling by expressing this clarification. In case you thought this post was just me rambling, there is a reason I collapsed it.
Nice work here; these look like gold mines for articles on old games, especially the release schedules. Phediuk (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I added Computer Entertainer to the Reference Library TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
About game categories by decade
Numerous categories subdividing games by decade were created last year by
WP:OVERCAT that should be reverted or was there a consensus to do so? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ
) 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Why would one need a consensus to create a category? Its no different than the Category:2020s horror films or Category:2020s horror novels trees (that also exist for other genres). By far more people are going to be interested in seeing media listed by date and genre than alphabetical order.★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
No games are categorized that way, so one would assume that a massive change to the categorization scheme would merit discussion. From what I've seen, films tend to be talked about far more in terms of the time they were made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally I don't understand why video games would be different than any other media really, I've for sure seen people discuss video games from when they came out.★Trekker (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories are meant to be defining about a game. A game can be well known for the year it was released, or the genre, but whereas films and television shows are often talked about by their decade, I just don't see that with games. Perhaps its because changes in games move much faster than other products or due to the new-ishness of games compared to other media.
If one does want all horror games in the 2020s, that's what cross-categorization tools or Wikidata are for. Masem (t) 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
99.999% of Wikipedia users don't use cross-categorization tools or even Wikidata. I'm not seeing any convincing argument for video games being different than every other media.★Trekker (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not defining. One may describe the 2023 Resident Evil 4 remake as a "2020s game", or a "horror game", but not really a "2020s horror game". Games aren't usually defined by decade-genre like that. I've seen platform-genre more often, like "PS1 horror games" or "N64 platform games". It's difficult to say why this is. It could be because games are still a relatively new format, and have evolved so quickly that say, horror games in 1991 have little in comparison to those in 1999, for example. There may be exceptions but I don't think 2020s horror is one of them. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I've also seen things like "PS2-era platformers" which are not just those on the PS2 but in the same general generation as they often use the same gameplay elements. But that's harder to nail so even that I would not use. Masem (t) 04:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I mean, going on that sort of logic, a similar percentage of general, non-editor readers probably don't even know categories exist in the first place. Not that I'm opposing you on those grounds, just a note that every part of this effort and discussion is probably not worth the time. Sergecross73msg me 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with TarkusAB, the important aspect that distinguishing video games by other media is the platform. If we had created 2020s horror video games, we could create a bunch of intersections (like 2020s video games developed in the United States, horror video games developed in the United States...). And by the same logic, we would have 2023 horror video games, 2023 PlayStation 4 games, PlayStation 4 horror video games, etc. Unlike other media, a video game may have multiple platforms and multiple genres (and other characteristics), so the cartesian product result may be awful. For the certain readers, the intersections are somehow useful; but it's really hard to be maintained, and make the category bar mess. --Lopullinen 03:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question. I plan on working on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King article in the future and putting it through the peer review process prior to a potential WP:FAC. The game apparently received a review in the August 2003 issue of NGC Magazine, but I cannot find anything about it online. Just for clarification, the information was already cited in the article prior to my editing.
I was wondering if there was a way to request for this particular source or if anyone had any pointers on finding information from the magazine in general. I could ask on
Aoba47: I have access to it. I can send to you later today. TarkusABtalk/contrib
22:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I was going to say that they are on the Internet Archive, but it appears they've been nuked since I last checked. You can find the August 2003 issue at Sega Retro / Retro CDN; the review is on page 66. Other than that, this page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reference library are definitely the right places to ask. IceWelder [✉] 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both for the responses. I am still new and inexperienced when it comes to video game articles so I was not even sure where to look outside of the Internet Archive, and even then I sometimes miss things on a first look. Hope you are both doing well.
I've recently created Regent Bakery and Cafe. I'm struggling with how to expand the entry re: Portal (which also happens to be a Featured article) and the Internet meme The cake is a lie. Both articles reference Regent, and I'm confident all three topics should be covered in each, but I'm not exactly sure what's best. Hoping some folks here might be interested in helping out via article improvements and talk page feedback. Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk) 18:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I'm not sure it should be expanded much, to be honest? Like, it's certainly interesting that the cake in Portal (and thus the meme) was based on a cake from a real bakery nearby, but beyond a sentence saying that in the three articles, there's not much more there to be said. The provenance of the cake isn't that meaningful to the game or meme. The article for the bakery should extending the sentence to mention the meme (now done), but that's about it, I think. --PresN 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Nobody can keep you from using anything as a personal resource - you're free to get "ideas" or "leads on information" from wherever. But as ferret notes, it'd fail USERG as an actual source. Sergecross73msg me 22:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ferret and Sergecross73: I also wanted to ask you guys an idea i have for the Atari Jaguar list (and sorry for the somewhat late reply!): since the list for Atari Jaguar CD games just encapsulates 13 games, i was thinking of merging it with the titles on the main list but i also had an idea of making it a separate list within the main Jaguar game list page. Does it sound like a good idea or do you guys have potential suggestions? Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I like the idea of it being a separate section at the main Jaguar list, if that's what you're saying. Sergecross73msg me 02:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Aftermath is a new site from four former Kotaku writers under their control. [1]. Content looks potentially useful for article but probably give it time before using. Masem (t) 14:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. It'll be a good one to keep an eye on. Judging by their introductory article, on one hand, there's a lot of credentials to writing at other RSs. On the other hand, we'll have to see how they handle their "interest in freelancers" too, make sure it doesn't just turn into a user blog platform. Sergecross73msg me 15:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The Escapist and Zero Punctuation
The Escapist has imploded again with the entire video team either being fired or quitting. [2]Yahtzee Croshaw of Zero Punctuation is leaving too, so the site might be dead for real this time. I see escapist references occasionally in articles (usually Yahtzee's work) so if any bot wranglers want to archive anything worth archiving, now is probably the time to do so, just in case. Meanwhile, the former escapist team seems to be launching their own independent site/channel, so keep an eye out for Yahtzee producing new episodes of not zero punctuation on not the escapist. I was going to ask if Yahtzee keeps his "reliable" status at whatever this new outlet is, but per Masem's post above, it sounds like they would still need to be evaluated as a new source, regardless of the reputation of the existing contributors. CurlyWi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Escapist and Yahtzee are on the fringe of usability as it is, so any future output would certainly require a new evaluation. Sergecross73msg me 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Geoff Keighley's Behind the Games
Behind the Games was Geoff Keighley's series of long-form articles on GameSpot. I found this in my notes and wasn't sure where to put it, so I'll list it here. The topics covered are:
It's truly a shame GameSpot has wiped these, and its many other feature ariticles, from its website. IceWelder [✉] 20:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Infobox platform control for VR games
With so many VR headsets out there, and the amount of games that support each, I feel that the platforms parameter of affected infoboxes could become overloaded with the different headsets that support it. A prime example of this inevitable overload is VRChat, an article where editors constantly update the infobox with new supported headsets. Is there a way, where necessary, we can condense this parameter into a more generalized term for the VR space? Jalen Folf(talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
For VR games we generally try to use the platform it launches from (Windows for the most part), rather than the headset brand. Masem (t) 20:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Time for a fresh coat of paint on our article box arts?
This is something I've been poking at off and on, but project wide we do have a large number of video game articles with box art that's honestly not aged well:
Many are in JPEG format, which scales terribly as is and leaves artifacts. Even if the original is based off a JPEG scan, scaling it down as one for fair use purposes tends to compound just how unclear things can look
Many are far smaller than current fair use standards will allow. Heck some are smaller than even Fair Use standards at the time would have been okay with.
As time has gone on, scanners have gotten better and we have better resources to draw covers from.
So an idea was to possibly take a particular platform, and start going through and systematically tidying up any old arts that could use better counterparts. Upload them in PNG, let the bot do the resize, and help a lot of older articles maybe look a little better in the process. What do you guys think? Is it worth possibly sitting down as a project and coordinating? Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
We still have hundreds of articles that require box art and almost 10,000 that need screenshots, so I think the priority should be on adding that before going back and tidying up older ones. It's a good thing to do if the article is being improved but... I feel like the insane screenshot backlog takes priority. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Er, our non-free policy limits non-free art to 0.1MP, which is what nearly all of our cover art is set to. That cannot change without a change in policy.
And while we can talk about moving from JPG to PNG, remember that JPG can be better for art that is closer to photo-realistic due to how it compresses info. Masem (t) 03:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Where is this "JPEG scales terribly" idea coming from? That's not true at all. The artifacts are just from the overly strict resolution rules rather than the format itself. PNG is a fine format too, to be clear, but if you think you can determine whether a particular bit of box art is a JPEG or a PNG at a glance, I doubt you would do better than 50/50 at some sort of
Pepsi challenge of guessing whether an unknown image is a PNG or a JPEG. Anyway, if there's poor quality scans or under-min resolution scans to update, sure, but merely switching image formats is probably not worth anyone's time. (Especially if you just take a JPEG and convert it to a PNG.) SnowFire (talk
) 08:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay well it seemed like a good thing to get everyone working on a tangible goal so we could give things a shot in the arm but clearly a bad idea, nevermind.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I do think that there is the germ of a good idea here - if we ever look into updating our max resolution without need for a non-free no-reduce tag, then that increase will provide an appreciable improvement (and be good for accessibility!). 0.2 or 0.3 megapixel images will look better no matter what format they're in. But I think we need to look into the potential policy update first, and a hypothetical image refresh only later. I have a half-written proposal from a year+ ago on the topic that our current image resolution limit only makes sense for such narrow and rare use cases that we should really change the default; maybe worth digging up again. SnowFire (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I feel like if that was going to go through we'd need to get more projects on board with it. I agree it would be nicer, but I feel there's going to be an argument for necessity depending on how some projects are so expect that to come up.
As for the idea it was a matter of looking through some old articles I wrote and realizing we still had images from 2005 in stuff like Game Boy covers. And honestly it felt like such a small thing to try and coordinate with folks on to give things a shot in the arm because realistically things have slowed down, while this is something anyone with a decent eye could contribute to. But yeah message received, forget I mentioned it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
About the Koei Tecmo article
So, I wanted to bring this up. But the article Koei Tecmo is almost exclusively about Koei Tecmo Games, not Koei Tecmo Holdings. despite being titled as such.
But it just... mixes and matches information from both companies. Including, relatively, "false" information on location, stock exchange, subsidiaries, etc
Some of the information is outdated as well.
In Japanese these are two separate articles Koei Tecmo Holdings and Koei Tecmo Games.
It's worth noting, Koei, as a corp, was just renamed into Koei Tecmo Games upon fusion with Tecmo, while Holdings was an entirely new corporate entity. This is reflected in their IR page. KT Games only includes the, well, games. Not KT's other businesses which are listed as well.
Should something be done about this or just leave it as is. I'd be up in "splitting" or creating a separate article for the two. ►Kyo ►Talk 18:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that KT doesn't have much on the way of experienced editors regularly editing/maintaining it. (Nothing against them, I've noticed that sometimes that just randomly happens in both video games and music areas I edit in.) So I'm guessing this was just a result of negligence, and you're probably free to fix it as you please (within the usual confines of sticking to what sources say, etc.) Sergecross73msg me 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
This kind of mixing has happened before at Square Enix as well- like KT, Square Enix is actually since 2008 a holding company that then has a bunch of confusingly-named subsidiaries in different countries, and the article wasn't clear when it was talking about the holding company or the Japanese subsidiary that contains all of the actual notable work. Sorting that out isn't trivial. That said, keep in mind that readers really don't care one bit about the holding company, or the precise regulatory/financial arrangements made within. It's true that KT Games is a subsidiary of KT Holdings, but it's also true that KT Holdings does nothing of note and just exists as a shell around KT Games and its sister companies for legal/financial reasons. So, while I agree that you should go ahead and fix up the article however you see fit, I'd recommend not spinning off an article on the Holdings company, and instead just focusing the article on KT Games while making it clear that the parent holdings company is the one with the stock, and the other studios are siblings of KT Games, not subsidiaries. --PresN 23:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree this is probably a better approach too. Sergecross73msg me 23:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
yeah, I suppose this makes sense for cleaning up the article. ►Kyo ►Talk 00:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Refideas edit notice
Hello! :) I would like to make a notice here that as of this week, if an editor clicks "edit" on any article that uses the Refideas template on its talk page, they will see an editnotice above the editing window indicating that there are sources on the talk page that are not currently in use in the article. This would be especially useful for anyone with an active interest in improving that article, and it would also be useful in helping gauge the notability of an article. :) BOZ (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, is it reasonable to leave out the "graphic" in the leads for graphic adventure games. I feel it would be more concise, especially when they are episodic adventure games, and it may be assumed that not to be text for modern games. Asked specifically for Life Is Strange (video game). (If a prefix is needed, I would go with narrative adventure or similar) By the way, I'm wondering if listing publication awards like Top 20 games becomes excessive here. (cc @Nyxaros:) IgelRM (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
(
graphic adventure games are part of adventure games, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be used. It's more specific and defining than a general term. Why would the sources and statements about publishers choosing game of the year or any related content be excessive? While we are on the subject, it would be better if you convert these expressions to prose after removing them from the award lists instead of deleting them completely. ภץאคгöร
11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, do not remove multiple reliable references without giving a valid reason. ภץאคгöร 11:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Simply "adventure game" is usually used, with "graphic adventure game" being somewhat redundant, at least when talking about video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Adventure games have predominantly been graphic for the past forty years. A text adventure in the 2010s is an exception; complex graphics can typically be assumed unless specified otherwise. "Graphic adventure game" is probably a more reasonable label in the 1980s. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with these - today "adventure game" is generally meant as a graphic adventure game, and we only need to distinguish when talking text adventure games, or the early establishing graphic adventure game titles like Mystery House or King's Quest. Masem (t) 13:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
"Narrative adventure" is placed under "graphic adventure" so it may be used instead (but the only source on the page describes it as "narrative games – specifically choice-driven interactive fiction"). ภץאคгöร 13:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
My edit summary said "Please list publications instead of combining with EFN." The "Attributed to multiple references" style is not helpful for readers and I did not see what the references were bringing to the article. We would have to see which sources may be integrated into prose and aren't passing mentions.
Edit: On the top 10 lists, they are generally low notability; if I reasoning is given, I would move it to the reception paragraphs.IgelRM (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not the same topic but anyway.
exceptional claim. I don't know how lists are "generally low notability" and how you came to that conclusion. It seems to me these are your personal opinions/preferences. ภץאคгöร
16:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I was replying to "remove multiple reliable references", I think we got confused here. I cannot imagine the style is preferred but I realize I'm not the best source here. I have not seen it used recently. I would also disagree that citing listings are mentions for acclaim is preferable. IgelRM (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Reference Library rework
I have completed the first phase of rebuilding the
Reference Library
. I have more work planned, but I wanted to notify the project that this rebuilding is underway. Feel free to help if you want.
The goals of the restructure are as follows:
Shift the focus from editor-owned materials to online archives. Many of the editors who listed themselves as contacts for magazines or books are no longer active. It was a good idea in the beginning, but it's showing itself to not be sustainable. I don't see many editors taking advantage of this anyways. There are also many more scans available now than when the library started, and most of us use archival websites anyways, so that should be the focus.
List more material: Magazines were only listed before if editors owned them. I'm slowly adding more magazines that are available elsewhere online. I've also added a section for television shows, and the books list will be expanded in the future.
Simplify navigation: There were too many links before and they were poorly organized. Links to magazine archives were hidden in subpages and poorly formatted. Now, links to archive sites and indices are presented up front in an organized table.
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Could use some input on a question related to corporate overview tables over at Microsoft Gaming, which would have relevance to many of the major publishers in VGs as well. --Masem (t) 05:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Tagged as G4. IceWelder [✉] 10:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Help with finding a source for a release date
Apologies again for the random question. Does anyone have any general advice on finding an appropriate citation to support a game's release date? I am currently rewriting the article on
featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions
) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Maestro2016/Jagged 85 video game related edited articles
Hi all. I've been trying to remove content added by User:Maestro2016 for a while now. Would love if someone would give me a hand and look into these gaming-related articles
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
So for those unaware, Chrono Cross recently went through a FAR, and lost it's Featured status. However it's also part of a larger Good Topic on the series. If it doesn't hit Good Article status within the next few months, the topic itself will come under fire and may be removed. While I'm not saying everyone drop everything and try to fix it up, there are at least cited issues that can be addressed slowly that we can try to get it back up there, if anyone else is willing to help. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Might as well crosspost what I said a couple days ago on discord, just some summarizing of the issues:
some of the issues highlighted in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chrono Cross/archive1 seem remarkably solvable. a lot of citation formatting and parameter-filling. a few files with iffy FURs. a handful of borderline sources needing better justification.
however there are some major prose issues to address too: gameplay isn't all properly supported to sources, characters / synopsis too hefty and almost only cited to game text, reception needs major expanding, legacy is disorganized. and "extreme overquoting" throughout.Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Requested move at
Talk:Acclaim Studios Austin#Requested move 18 November 2023