Hi. I've become so fascinated with the work and life of Hironobu Sakaguchi that I've decided to try and improve his article, perhaps taking up to GA in the future. Most of it isn't going to be a problem, but I'd like some opinions about the list of games he's worked on. It's very large, especially taking into account the numerous roles he's credited under, including titles he wasn't actively involved on. Should he have a list of games at all? I know Akitoshi Kawazu and Yasumi Matsuno have them, but they've got a comparatively focused career compared to Sakaguchi. Also, should we really be crediting Supervisor and "Special Thanks"? Executive Producer I get, especially for his last few Square titles, but those seem farely innocuous roles compared to those as a producer or designer, if the list is kept at all. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think the list is too egregious, especially for someone with a 37-year career. In terms of length, it feels comparable to the filmographies of FAs like Sebastian Shaw or Nancy Cartwright. You could always consider splitting the list too; there's precedent for that, though it's not muchโfilms have many more FL examples. โ Rhainโ01:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine to leave in the article, it's not too long, and when you add more text it will balance it out. I'd be against splitting it to its own list. There's a precedent in film, sure, but I think that doesn't translate here; those exist because of two factors that don't apply in this case: 1) most of the time there's a solid throughline of the list: an actor acts, a director directs, etc.; sometimes someone will cross over between two roles but then they get two tables; Sakaguchi has worked in several different roles, often very different even though the title was the same. 2) Modern film criticism/cultural understanding holds that a recognizable result exists as its own concept that arises from the collective for films: "auteur" directors are seen as having a visible major role in creating the films, actors have a highly visible role. So, a list of things a director directed or an actor acted in are seen as a notable set, and sources treat it as such. Film producers don't get lists- their output is not easily visible, nor is the grouping of films they produced commonly seen as a "thing".
Someone like Sakaguchi worked in many different capacities, so you end up with something more scattershot, "products he interacted with" in several ways rather than "video game art pieces he created", and in many cases the result is not "a Sakaguchi game" the same way a film is associated with its director or actors. The counterpart to a film list is usually the gameography of a development studio- we commonly recognize e.g. Bioware's output to be a thing in a way we don't care about film studios' output, rather than any one developer/director/producer's ouvre. Maybe a few decades from now that won't be how the field is viewed critically- films certainly weren't always viewed as the director being an artist majorly creating the result- but right now I don't think [things Sakagughi worked on] as a set is a concept generally considered as a notable thing. --PresN02:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Since I didn't touch on it directly- I don't think the Miyamoto list should exist either. There's a stronger argument for it, since Miyamoto had a more stable role and had such a heavy influence on the game design of titles he supervised, but by the same coin his design sense was so pervasive at the company that a "Miyamoto game" isn't really very distinct from a "Nintendo game" after his early career, because Nintendo just made games that looked like the successful "Miyamoto games" they'd already made. --PresN02:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
A lot of entries on the Miyamoto list have no check marks across the board and/or are unsourced. Just eyeballing, I see quite a few "aspirational" entries where fans really would like to credit Miyamoto for a particular game when he actually had minimal involvement. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd agree with that. I can definitely see things changing in the future, especially with the more recent trend of games whose "personalities" are crafted by a specific person (Toby Fox, Eric Barone, Sam Barlow, Lucas Pope), but for now none of their careers are lengthy enough to justify a split yet anyway. Even Shigeru Miyamotoโwho I feel might be the closest thing the industry has to a film director due to his trademark high qualityโhasn't had as varied a career as one might imagine; he's "only" directed 15 games (the last one being 25 years ago), and only produced two in the last decade. โ Rhainโ02:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Damn it, I knew there was someone else. Thankfully, his Gameography section is short enough to not cause any concerns anyway. โ Rhainโ22:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Best of luck working on the article. Please do not split in the vein of actor/director filmography lists. I don't think we should start a new extraneous category of article that will proliferate when they don't need to exist. If one of the most senior designers in the industry doesn't need a split out list, no one does. Games take a long time to make, far longer than films to direct/act in, so a full career's gameography would be much shorter than for film. There's no need for this type of article. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Newspapers.com and BOZ's stub articles
Since High Beam Research was shut down, Newspapers.com has been a great alternative so far.(sadly it requires a subscription). I will be going through all of BOZ's stub articles, to see if I can update them to start class. Was wondering if anyone might be interested in subscribing and giving me a hand here.Timur9008 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could give some thoughts on this article. I was looking at cleaning it up after finishing some other dev articles, and I've found it questionable about whether she should have an article at all. Hitting research databases, I can't find a whole lot here, and some of the claims to fame I either cannot verify (she supposedly won an award from the United States Department of Energy, but can find no corroboration) or seem diminished when you take a closer look (winning an award from GDC at a talk sponsored by her employer feels a little suspect.) The biography (and the various unreliable sources that parrot it or predate the copy) sing her praises as super-important to a bunch of games, but sources aren't there that actually talk specifics, and perhaps the biggest example of where she got a lot of reliable source coverage was when she left 343 Industries, and there Microsoft ended up releasing a statement saying that the reporting overstated her importance. There's basically a lot of claims of importance but I cannot find real solid sourcing to back it up, which suggests to me basically that this is a career inflated by hype. Regardless, if we trim down what's there to what can be sourced reliably and without puffery, we're basically down to two paragraphs of text, which brings me around to whether or not we should have the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk20:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
A quick search of her name on the Custom Search Engine reveal several pages of results which are specifically about her or devote a substantial amount of coverage about her, from the 2000s until she left the video game industry a few years ago. Even then, I found this from 2018 which still makes a case for her relevance in her current field. I am unable to verify the actual statement by Microsoft which supposedly claims that her importance is overstated. All I could find is the IGN wiki about Halo 5 rumours, and some message board posts i.e. Neogaf linking to the IGN wiki page as opposed to an actual press release from Microsoft, where multiple posters take pot shots at her about being undeserving of coverage or fame in response, so that sounds to me like a falsified press release made up by some internet troll. The message from some IP editor on the talk page, during the height of GamerGate in the mid-2010s, is already a red flag. Otherwise, the page appears to be fine, even if it appears it can never be done up as a GA-class article. Haleth (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Episodic reception, notability of awards and regional releases
Only including complete season reviews: All episodes of the game have 10s of reviews listed on Metacritic and reception over time comes with episodic media, so I think we are missing relevant reception with this style. Additionally, some websites have not published a complete season review but 5 episode reviews. (Side note: Metacritic has wrongly categorized some episode 1 reviews as complete season reviews.)
Removing some notable awards: For example, the Pรฉgases 2020 were reported by multiple notable sources in French: Le Monde, JV (Others are: Gamescom Awards, Ping Awards, Titanium Awards, Games for Change)
Removing Japanese language dubbing: Following the original release, it received a physical PS4 release that newly included full Japanese voice-over. This is notable as it is the only other voice-over language apart from the original English and was reported by notable source 4gamer.net.
The article about its predecessor, Life Is Strange (video game), is also a GA-class article and presents a good precedent in my view on how episodic formatted games could be presented for the benefit of the reader. I honestly cannot fathom why, outside of subjective personal preference, that aggregate reception must only include complete season reviews only, awards covered by reliable sources are removed (??), and verifiable release information about its Japanese language dubbing that is again discussed in reliable sources are removed. Haleth (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Not every update to the game needs to be noted. Japanese dubbing seems trivial despite verifiable. As for reviewing the game as a whole, I can understand the reasoning. The gameplay doesn't change between levels and is ultimately the same game. Reviews for episodic games like this the only variation is going to be plot. There is probably some wiggle room there to add more episode specific episodes but I wouldn't go too much into detail. As for the awards. Maybe they're notable, maybe not. I am not familiar with French awards.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd just say that being consistent isn't all that big of a deal. The Japanese dubbing is hardly important for an encyclopaedic article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk โข contribs)07:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I never said it must only include complete season reviews. If you want to add something about the reception of individual episodes, feel free to do it. I didn't include individual episode's reviews simply because I don't think the game's episodic nature matters much (it is highly unlikely that you will only buy episode 4 but not episode 1). I have added some of the awards back to the table. If French RS wrote articles about them, then they are fine inclusion. There is no reason to include anything about the Japanese voice-over if it is not a Japanese game. I am the original GA reviewer for the first game's article, but I don't think it is a must for me to follow this precedent, and there are many equally valid ways to present information to readers. OceanHok (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Speaking generally, individual episode reviews naturally tend to drill into specific moments from that particular episode, more so than complete season reviews, so they're a better source for reception about a noteworthy moment that you want to cover in the reception section. I don't think there's a blanket preference or aversion to one or the other type of review. Both can be useful and used depending on the goal. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@OceanHok: Apologizes for mischaracterized the complete season reviews part. From the talk page, it seemed like there needed to be special reception of an episode to be able to note. (I will try editing the section later.) Thanks for restoring some of the awards (though the table is somewhat bulky, perhaps paragraph would be better). I disagree about the dubbing, I have described why it is notable in this case. This is an international encyclopedia; when the Japanese article on the game can mention both voice-over languages, why can't the English one? IgelRM (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
But then we would have to treat every dub the same way and every other non-English localization. I don't think it's relevant. Of course it's going to be more relevant in Japanese Wikipedia because that's the language they speak. Just like novels and movies we don't over every single release worldwide or every dub even if they only did it for one language.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@IceWelder: Hope you could comment on this, the Japanese point specifically. To add further, I think reviews of the said version by notable Japanese outlets aren't being considered when mentioning this regional release. In general, all French references were initially removed with the recent rewrite. Unrelated to this game, it seems there is a lack of references to French, German and Japanese (etc) outlet, even when they are highly relevant with e.g. an article about a French studio by a French newspaper. IgelRM (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
On the Japanese dub: This appears like a trivial fact to me, especially since the publisher is Japanese and you would assume it to create Japanese versions of its games to cater to its large Japanese audience. I would include this only if this adds to larger context (e.g. when there is more to be said about the Japanese release, how the Japanese dub affected sales, etc.).
On foreign-language sources: I tend to avoid them when the same information can be found in an equally reliable English-language source. Of course, there is nothing per se that stops you from adding them. Sources used here do not need to be in English, just reliable. IceWelder [โ] 11:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
However, not all "Western" games that get "Japanese versions" are dubbed. So this is somewhat notable, though perhaps still too trivial. Checking Famitsu sales charts, it debuted at 15 and got reviewed by 4gamer.net, Famitsu, Dengeki Online and IGN Japan. So perhaps adding something to the reception section would be more fitting than only mentioning its existence (though I still think the 4gamer mentioning of the dub should be enough in this case).
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN13:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
They are comparable to categories "Films scored by X". As long as X is a notable (standalone article), this is a fair category. --Masem (t) 13:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!:, @Masem:: I only do seven category tags for video game composers who have their own article per week. I know there's another guy here at Wikipedia who makes these category tags as well. Just dropping by to let you guys know. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
KGRAMR, I made this comment without looking at the templates, as they only sparked my suspicion. Looking at them they all seem to be notable and I see nothing unproductive with your editsย :) Panini!๐ฅช17:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The user you're looking for is Gorilli09. I've deleted/reverted a few category additions this week for non-notable composers, or categories with a single entry. -- ferret (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Should infobox content be cited?
I was thinking about my PMTOK FAC and I was asked to cite the infobox's writers, designers, programmers, etc. Is this optional/required? Or, possibly, required at the FA level? I don't believe I see this in every article. Panini!๐ฅช12:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The infobox is part of the lead - sources for the information should be cited somewhere in the article, and if it's controversial information or big/unusual claims, you should cite them in the lead/infobox, too. Ideally you'd mention the lead developers in the development section and cite the sources there.--AlexandraIDV12:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
It is fairly common that some credits do not appear in the body because they do fit nicely with any prose text. Since they are still part of the article, they should be sourced, though it usually suffices to cite in the in-game/in-manual credits. I've done this in some of my GAs. IceWelder [โ] 13:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This is generally why we really only want notable names or the like to be used in these infobox credit fields. Just because it is possible to list out all those people in those roles from game credits, that most game developers are not known and so that these lists appear as just random names to most readers. --Masem (t) 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with Masem that you should be considering if the infobox should be citing writers, designers, programmers, etc. before sourcing them (although, yes, they should be sourced.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk13:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I will also agree. Not every credit should be added and whatever is in the infobox, should reflect in the article as best as possible. I am fully aware that other wikiprojects don't follow this rule, but I believe they need to have the same standard WP:VG has with infoboxes, not the other way around.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Newsletter on hold?
Hello! So I signed myself up for the newsletter, however when I went to the latest issue and clicked on next issue, it said it's coming July 6, except that date has come and gone. So is the newsletter currently on hold or has the next issue just been delayed a bit? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as much as we're one of the most active Wikiprojects in existence, very few of us are actively looking for ideas of things to work on. We've all got our own interests and projects going, so the "suggested things to work on" type stuff generally falls flat. Sergecross73msg me15:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to check here to make sure I hadn't missed any discussions or anything as I couldn't find any from what I could see. I visited the Olympic Video games page to see that a month ago the page was changed to Multi-sport video game. I wanted to make sure this wasn't just a random move done by it's own as the article's opening paragraph still refers to itself as Olympic Video games. If this wasn't done without discussion beforehand, I feel like there should be as the name and the contents of the article don't seem to align correctly. CaptainGalaxy20:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The move has been reverted. If they want to move it again they will have to open a discussion as to its merits. ZXCVBNM (TALK)22:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Kingoflettuce, if you can't find it on Flickr under a CC license, then the next step I'd try would be to get permission to use a non-free use image of it (assuming that also exists). ~ Dissident93(talk)19:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Source question
Hi. I was vaguely thinking about what I might work on as a bit of light relief when my current rewrites are completed, and my attention drifted to Fairy Fencer F (I have the title on Steam). There's some sourcing problems, and one in particular was that the only interview I've so far found relating to its Advent Dark Force release is this one from DualShockers. I seem to remember DualShockers is questionable, but it's an original interview with it being the only source. Opinions? --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I seem to recall a discussion a while back regarding interviews in otherwise unreliable sources. I think there were at least some editors who favored allowing cites to a direct interview featured in an otherwise unreliable source. Unfortunately, I can't recall where the discussion was or what the context was. But for whatever it's worth, I personally would be ok with someone citing a direct interview in a generally unreliable source absent some indication that the whole thing was, say, fabricated altogether. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I concur. I'd still try to look for at least more reliable citations citing the interview in some way and then use them if at all possible. ~ Dissident93(talk)06:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
If an interview was posted verbatim to an indisputably unreliable source (like a Wikimedia project), I would be okay with that personally. I suppose the question is could an unreliable source fabricate an entire interview, and if so what would be motive? Plus it'd be pretty easy to disprove. So yes, I personally think it's fine.--Coin945 (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I would not use interviews published by unreliable sources, personally. Or maybe for uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF claims that fill in details already covered by reliable sources. My concern isn't so much about fabrication, but that unreliable sources are unreliable because they're amateurish and because they don't disclose issues like conflicts of interest. So you can get softball questions, questions that let the developer/publisher guide the narrative, paid coverage and affiliate ads disguised as interviews, etc. They're just another way to stuff articles with promotional puffery and sidestep our requirements for indedendent sources. (I know this isn't your intent, ProtoDrake. I'm just concerned with how this could be abused if it became a guideline.) Woodroar (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my comment was referring to interviews hosted by an unreliable source, not conducted by it.--Coin945 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
[1] This obviously will not affect its reliability, but this is going to be a PITA related to sourcing/citations. The change won't happen until Thursday, and we'll have to see if they do domain redirects. I assume they will. They are also archive.org friendly, so this isn't like "OMG rush to save everything". But I don't know if we can answer anything until Thursday and see how its all implemented. --Masem (t) 16:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Holy hell that author sounds like they'd be real fun to hang out with in person. Some high-brain power thinking going on there taking a unique name and turning it into the most generic form possible that will just incite confusion.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!16:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad they changed the name - I was always weary of browsing the website in public, as it kinda sounds like a sex/lewd/porn website...but I can't fathom why they'd change it so something so generic and confusing. I'd already seen this headline before coming here, but hadn't realized that was the actual name. I had read it as "Gamasutra rebrands as game developer." Sergecross73msg me17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
They're rebranding to have more association with Game Developer magazine. Magazines can usually get away with more generic names because people usually add "Magazine" at the end. Like Edge magazine. But I don't think it's going to have the same effect they're hoping for. Just adding online, or network at the end will help it. Or even just have the URL be the name of the site will help it significantly. Really hope someone from Gamasutra is reading this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree heavily that a name change was needed, but this was the worst possible name they could change to. I feel like it won't last very long before no one ever finds them in Google and they are forced to switch back. ZXCVBNM (TALK)18:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The article (now?) says that they'll be putting in redirects so that everything still works, though it might not all be up by Thursday. +1 on changing from a dumb name (and +1 on hopefully upgrading what is a fairly ugly, creaky early-2000s web design), but I also agree that "Game Developer" by itself isn't a great site name, regardless of what the magazine is called. Hopefully once we know what the new urls are, someone can do an AWB run to edit them all on-wiki. --PresN18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone ping that editor who freaks out every time a website is down for five minutes, let them know to not have a heart attack... -_- Sergecross73msg me19:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
As an early question: Should we consider retroactively changing the name Gamastrua to Game Developer (I've already seeded Game Developer (website) for Thursday), or are we going to state that articles published prior to this date should be sourced to Gamasutra and after to GD? This is not the same as changing the links, which we should do even if redirects are in place. --Masem (t) 22:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
There should be no changes en masse. We should simply use Game Developer when citing new gamedeveloper.com articles and leave Gamasutra where gamasutra.com is already used. Archives for the latter can be created as needed, which is better than unnecessarily altering links. IceWelder [โ] 23:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with this. I'm of the opinion that articles published before 26 August should be cited as Gamasutra, 26 August onwards as Game Developer. โ Rhainโ23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
They made the switch this morning, and my spot checks show no issues: articles at gamasutra.com still live there, just that the site has Game Developer branding now. If you try to go to Gamasutra directly eg [2] it will take to you the gamedeveloper.com website, but articles at gamasutra.com will still be at that url, so this has no immediate change we need to worry about. I would still keep our heads up if there are still potential changes in the future. --Masem (t) 12:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Going over the those cited in Rockstar San Diego, the articles appear to be all carried over. I just see some funny business regarding authors:
This article shows an image of Kris Graft for the author Todd Meynink for some reason (other older articles have image errors instead).
The search feature is also pretty bad. It took me several minutes of scrolling to find "The End Game: How Top Developers Sold Their Studios" because it was buried under a swath of unrelated news articles. At least multi-page articles are now conveniently on one page. IceWelder [โ] 14:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This list came up in an above discussion and I wanted to get wider feedback about where it should go as an article. The current title is "works by Miyamoto" and it has columns for Director, Producer, and Designer. When it comes to giving him "credit" for a game, it gets a little weird because he has such an outsize influence on development, even when he's just a "producer" or "supervisor". As PresN pointed out, "Miyamoto game" is often a metonym for "Nintendo game". Clearly a lot of entries in this list are a product of fanboyism---editors would really like their favorite game to have been designed by Miyamoto so they add it to the list, regardless of his actual input. Many entries have no checkmarks in any of the columns! Officially, he shifted away from hands-on directing and designing into a producer role for the company after SMB3 in 1988 and then shifted to supervisor/GM/"Creative Fellow" roles since circa 2005. So we have to make an editorial decision here about where to draw the line. Here are some off-hand suggestions to get started:
With few exceptions, all games with no checkmarks across the board should be removed. Yes, he probably had some input on the design in some soft-power/advice/tableflippy way, but I think it both undercredits the actual designers of those games and dilutes the idea of a "Miyamoto game" if every single game he glanced at gets called one (see this article for reference to how his influence actually manifests in recent years). I understand he had some more hands-on involvement than usual with Mario + Rabbids but I don't know enough to make the call as to whether that meets our to-be-determined threshold. Obviously any game can be added as an exception as long as sources support it.
We should be careful with producer-only entries. Pikmin probably makes the cut. 1080 Avalanche probably does not. My gut feeling is that most of these can also be cut and sources will be critical to determining if a particular entry had greater input and deserves to stay. I feel there is also a strong year bias with this---earlier producer-only credits (e.g. Link to the Past) probably stay, but later ones after let's say post-2000 probably do not.
I don't know how it'll end up shaking out, length-wise, but my suspicion is that after all the fanboy entries are cut out, the list will be short enough to warrant merging back into his main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I would agree that the list should be limited to where he is listed in a role that clearly would have day-to-day duties in the development or production of a game, and not simply a game that Nintendo released where he may have intermediate review or oversight. And definitely agree that once he was promoted in 2005 that unless there's specifically clear indication that he was involved in the game (eg Super Mario Run) that we should not include it just because his name may be on the credits somewhere. --Masem (t) 00:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Double agree. I would like to mention that somewhere in the lead it should mention his current position of "Creative Fellow" and his supervising duties, however. Panini!๐ฅช09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I've consulted an in-depth interview with Miyamoto from GamesTM's Issue 95 (April 2010), which states that his director credits by that point were only represented by the following works:
Donkey Kong (1980, Arcade)
Donkey Kong Jr. (1982, Arcade)
Donkey Kong 3 (1983, Arcade)
Mario Bros. (1983, Arcade)
Popeye (1983, Arcade)
Devil World (1984, NES)
Super Mario Bros. (1985, NES)
Super Mario Bros. 2 (1985, Famicom Disk System)
The Legend of Zelda (1985, NES)
Super Mario Bros. 3 (1988, NES)
Super Mario 64 (1996, Nintendo 64)
Wii Music (2008, Wii)
And that's where the man's directorial honors end, according to the article, which adds that the other entries of his gameography earn him more of a "hands-off Producer credit". Dunno whether this is of any help, yet I thought it would not be amiss to cite this article's take, just for the sake of clarity. Electroguv (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN14:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks the WP:BOLD merge of Sims expansion packs should be reverted? Per WP:NOTPAPER there is no need to condense articles if they are notable, and each expansion pack got many critical reviews. The resulting article is also much harder to navigate.ZXCVBNM (TALK)14:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Given the lack of any development aspects (on a spot check) and unsourced discussion of what's included, and mostly just summarizing reviews, I see no issue with the condensing of those to single articles. The infoboxes aren't required for each on the combined page (or least fully detailed ones, release dates are still helpful, covers fail NFC). Just because something gets reviews doesn't mean a standalone article is always required, we need to consider overall comprehesive presentation of material. --Masem (t) 16:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the creator of this article. Few of these expansion packs get many critical reviews, and many of the expansion pack articles were marked as stubs, hence there was a need to merge the articles. Theknine2 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The fact that they were marked as stubs does not mean they should be merged, per WP:NEXIST. A lot of the merged expansion packs got many, many critical reviews, in contravention of what you are saying. By any measure, the reviews are enough to indicate significant coverage. Just as one example, The Sims: Livin' Large got 23 reviews on Metacritic, including at least 8 from obviously major outlets. ZXCVBNM (TALK)06:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Lack of sources is an issue but it seems like a topic that is ripe for a reporter to do an epic oral history of in the coming years. My feeling is that the topic itself is notable but a list might not be the right format. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the creator of this article. I have since changed the lengthy list format into a table as it is more appropiate. If you can, I welcome anyone to help edit the article. Thank you. Theknine2 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
While it is presented better, it still personally edges on the border of WP:GAMECRUFT to me. Perhaps the table and a paragraph can just be merged into the main Windows article? ~ Dissident93(talk)15:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN12:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Found a new odd corner case this week- Glacier (game engine) was imported into user space from a different language wikipedia, complete with history, so the original creator gets credited by the script with illegal characters (as ru>XFI instead of just XFI). I've manually adjusted it to the translator, just thought it was neat that there's an "import all history from other language wiki" option now.
Most of the cited sources are reliable, some of it are mainstream news outlets. I can see that almost all of it is news coverage in relation to the controversy it generated with political and religious leaders in Indonesia as an online gambling game, so that is easily verifiable. None of the sources seem to contain any developmental info or critical reception, outside of the controversy and a vague claim of significance that it is very popular in the country, but the aggregate coverage does seem to meet the bare minimum of the WP:GNG threshold. Haleth (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Proposed Merge: Twin Famicom, Famicom Titler, and Nintendo Entertainment System
The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) ran the inaugurial Global Industry Game Awards (GIGA) in association with part of Gamescom this last weekend. (See [3] and [4] for example.
Given that we've gone through in the past to remove some of the lesser known awards, I ask if this if this award would be different given that it is by one of the larger organizations in video games rather than some small entity. (I've documented they do these awards but haven't made a separate page for them yet). --Masem (t) 05:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
No to maintaining an exhaustive list of winners/nominees on-wiki. Yes to including wins on individual relevant articles (at the local editors' discretion). No to mass inserting award wins/noms on every article. IGDA is the de facto industry governing body. It's not some no name award made up one day for self-promotion and profiteering. I feel comfortable including it wherever applicable based on this. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
From a very quick first glance, the sourcing in the gameplay section is rather spotty and the reception section is a WP:QUOTEFARM. The development section could probably use some expansion using the Retro Gamer source mentioned on the talk page. Regards, IceWelder [โ] 17:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@IceWelder: I've been trying to get my hands on the Retro Gamer source, but I can't find a copy. I'll keep digging around. As for the gameplay section, what is ideal sourcing for gameplay? Thanks for your insight! Vivatheviva (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I removed the extraneous entries per the above discussion and this list is now down to under 40 entries (~1 page of screen height). I think it might be worth merging back into Miyamoto's main page. Most game directors have their works list on their page itself so you can see it easily without needing to navigate elsewhere. I don't think the WP:SIZESPLIT reasoning outweighs the benefits to keeping the info in one place in this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
You're always welcome to ping for a response. I'd support such a merger with the caveat that we simplify it even further by just listing their role instead of having checkmarks on top of it (which is something that film director articles tend to have but seems tacky to me). Basically it would look like it does on Hidetaka Miyazaki's article, but I'm not sure if other editors prefer such minimalistic tables like I tend to. ~ Dissident93(talk)19:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Dissident on the ping, the merger, and the table. I'm familiar with the simpler method at Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley and I think it makes more sense for games (though I don't feel too strongly either way). โ Rhainโ23:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Just passing by, but I think the simpler method is better. It's more similar to filmography tables, and it doesn't require a forgetful reader (i.e., me) to scroll back up and down to keep track of which column is which. I also agree that a merge looks warranted. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol23:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Same here as regards the ping, it's a matter of course. As for the merger, I think that the issue needs to be considered beyond the question of simplifying the material's presentation. According to WP:AUTHOR's criteria of notability, a biographical article should underline the impact of the article subject's contributions to a recognized medium, as opposed to a citation of their assorted contributions, and, per WP:SUMMARY, the notability of the major subtopic (i.e. Miyamoto's softography) warrants standalone coverage. As it stands, the primary article about the creative professional seems to fufill the impact overview prong, and describes the career milestones of Miyamoto's work in extensive detail, so the inclusion of an embedded list would just come down to a derivative reframing of the information already stated in the body, essentially amounting to padding. Thinking in terms of the filmmaking analogy that has been suggested, this case bears comparison with the examples of Akira Kurosawa and James Cameron's articles, wherein the citation of works is either rendered as a separate article (as in the Kurosawa entry) or as an abridged article section giving only the directorial credits with reference to an isolated list of works (see Cameron's article). Methinks that the second avenue is particularly well-judged as a given model, as it doesn't overwhelm the reader with a barrage of items of information and manages to outline the essentials of an artist's career while suggesting that there is further substance within the separate topic about that person's body of work (as is clearly Miyamoto's case). So I'd suggest considering the merit of those alternative scenarios rather than going with the merger option headfirst. To put it otherwise, I'm rather inclined to think that less is more in the case at issue. Electroguv (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, I agree with merging. If the lead paragraph is gonna merge with the table, please mention his Creative Fellow role nowadays. It'll help explain some gaps. Panini!๐ฅช12:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
at Indie game#Successful indie games, I've started a table to list those games that are confirmed to have sales of 1 million or more (this is a starting cutoff - it may need to be pushed higher if many examples exist of that). Note that this should be sales confirmed through RSes - not only mentioned by twitter and not repeated in RSes, and not estimates like Steam Spy. Me and other editors have added major examples, but if anyone knows of other indie games that would fit this criteria, please add as appropriate. Again, if there's too many entries on this, I'm going to cut off the lower bound minimum (looking like this may be 2 million now) but to at least collect data, 1 million seems fair. --Masem (t) 23:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Digimon Survive release date
Digimon Survive was claimed to have been delayed to Q3 2022, however this was a misunderstanding by the sources. Toei stated the game had been delayed to Q3 2022 yes, but this means fiscal year, not actual year. in the report where toei stated that's when the game would release page two explicitly states that the time period they are reporting their earnings on is Q1 2022 with that period covering being April - June 2021. that means Toei's Q2 2022 is July - September 2021 and their q3 is october - december 2021. im listing here as people keep listing the game with a 2022 release date when nothing has stated this outside of people misunderstanding the difference between fiscal year and actual year including the sources. I brought here because ive already reverted this three times back to 2021.Muur (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Considering all of the other sources says 2022 and Nintendo Life theorized that the rating could suggest it may come out earlier we should change the date back to 2022 on the Digimon Survive page until we get something more concrete regarding a 2021 release.--67.70.24.141 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
the sources are wrong though like I said. and really, toei have nothing to even do with the game in the first place. they maek teh anime and have nothing to do with the video games. bandai's official website still only says 2021. the sources misunderstood toei's report and didnt read it properly. toei anitmation stated "q3 2022" which is the period I stated and bandai still list 2021 on their site. 2022 is just going with misinformation from one source reading the report wrong and the rest doubling down on it. like I said, toei literally state in their report that q1 2022 is april - june 2021. there's no "might", toei literally said it. "2022ๅนด3ๆๆ็ฌฌ๏ผๅๅๆๆฑบ็ฎ๏ผ้ฃ็ต๏ผthis translates to "First quarter financial results for the fiscal year ending March 2022 (consolidated)". they say 2022 and assumed, and assumed wrong.Muur (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The gematsu source does state that "Fiscal year 2022 ends on March 31, 2022.". so gematsu have pointed out the game will release in late 2021 or early 2022, based on that we should prob change it to "TBA" since it could be either year. what gematsu have sated here is that fiscal 2022 ends in march 2022, so going backwards thats jan - march 2022 (q4) and october - december 2021 (q3) like I said. gematsu's source actually backs up what I said.Muur (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Final Fantasy Tactics
I am hoping to bring Final Fantasy Tactics back to FA standards so that it can be Today's Featured Article on the game's 25th anniversary in June 2022. However, I have never written a video game FA and I don't know if anything is missing in the article. Can some experienced video game writers read through the article and either help fix it up or post their concerns on the article's talk page? If there are any concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to ping me. Thanks, and I appreciate the help. Z1720 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The only immediate thing on a quick glance (not detailed) is that for such an influential game, its development section is somewhat thin, and I would encourage trying to find more articles about it if you can to build it out more. It might be difficult given age and being a Japanese game, but that I would encourage. --Masem (t) 14:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN19:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I was checking Indie_game#Impact_and_popularity and I noticed Undertale was at 1 million sales, however on the article itself mentioned that the game had at least 3.5 million players with a source from here [1]. I was just curious and wanted to know do we count sales numbers and player counts as equals or mutally exclusive, at least with list like the one Indie Game. Thank you for your answers. CaptainGalaxy19:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sales and player counts are mutually exclusive, in that player counts will include sales, but also can include free giveaways, users that play the game via subscription services, and other factors that don't tie to sales. Also, with that specific list from Ars Tech on the Steam data leak, that's based on effective Steam Spy estimates which we do not want to use for counting sales on that Indie Game list. I do expect Undertale specifically to have sold more than 1M by now but we simply don't have updated valid data for it. --Masem (t) 19:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Best way to display complicated publisher information in Infobox video game
Hello all,
Bit of a painting the bikeshed question, but... how should games that have different publishing status by platform (rather than by region) be represented in the infobox? The documentation on Template:Infobox video game says to use {{Video game release}}, but that's really more set up for by-region explanation. This is especially notable for the various games that are released on Windows / Steam / GOG / etc., as Steam will only list a single publisher worldwide (and this is.. probably accurate? Although weird side deals may still be at work, so maybe Steam is Just Wrong in some of these situations, too, but then we'd need a reference for what really is correct.). For a FA example, Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward currently lists:
| publisher = {{vgrelease|JP|Chunsoft|NA|[[Aksys Games]]|EU|[[Rising Star Games]]}}
But that is arguably not quite correct, as the bundled re-release of it on Windows was solely done by Spike Chunsoft, at least according to Steam (but the North America PS4 bundle was still released by Aksys!). So should that really be something like:
| publisher = Nintendo 3DS / PlayStation Vita / Playstation 4<br/> {{vgrelease|JP|Chunsoft|NA|[[Aksys Games]]|EU|[[Rising Star Games]]}}Windows<br/>{{vgrelease|WW|Chunsoft}}
? This might be a lot less friendly for Wikidata or for algorithmic intake (e.g. Google search a game name + publisher, and if a single VG Release is used in the infobox, Google will understand it properly). Or should vgrelease be expanded to handle weird cases like this explicitly? Or should such technicalities be skipped? Or just use raw text input? I'm inclined to think that the above style should be fine, but happy to hear other's thoughts on this. Pinging User: MaksimFisher on this, who had another idea for how to handle publishers that I don't really agree with as far as using footnotes, but might be worth airing here to see if there's a consensus for it. Note that I suspect that this will be a fairly common issue, as many games have both a PC release (with a single publisher) and a console release with separate publishers by region. SnowFire (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If it gets more complicated than one or two publishers due to region/platform, I would stick all the rest into a footnote and leave only the publisher of first printing in there. This is pretty much true for any potentially busy field. --Masem (t) 23:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Generally would say Footnote as well, but if you really want to display all... {{Video game release}} is most often used by region, but can be any list of paired data. In a less complex example, you could do:
You could also nest, though this would be a tad ugly, and I'm not sure if the output is considered 100% kosher, though in the in it's all Module:List building the actual lists.
| publisher = {{Vgrelease|Nintendo 3DS / PlayStation Vita / Playstation 4|{{vgrelease|JP|Chunsoft|NA|[[Aksys Games]]|EU|[[Rising Star Games]]}}|Windows|{{vgrelease|WW|Chunsoft}}}}
More often, probably a {{Ubl}} with {{Vgrelease}} nested:
| publisher = {{ubl|Nintendo 3DS / PlayStation Vita / Playstation 4|{{vgrelease|JP|Chunsoft|NA|[[Aksys Games]]|EU|[[Rising Star Games]]}}|Windows|{{vgrelease|WW|Chunsoft}}}}
There's a couple ways. The last is what I'd expect to typically see. Also with the platforms generally bolded. If you use Vgrelease to specific platforms, I recommend linking them, as that prevents Vgrelease from trying to resolve them as country. See my sandbox for quick samples.-- ferret (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
It is my opinion that infoboxes should be as simple as possible, since it's one of the first places readers check when opening an article. I'd try to put the primary publisher and footnote any minor ones if possible. ~ Dissident93(talk)02:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, this isn't so much about minor publishers as it is about cases where the way the major publishers split their duties wasn't a simple region breakdown - in the example above (not actually the cause of the discussion, just a sample), Spike Chunsoft is the publisher in Japan for consoles, and worldwide for Windows, so how to express that (Spike Chunsoft overall is definitely too important to go into a footnote!). The argument might well be that the PC port is then too minor and should go in the footnote - but there's definitely plenty of examples of the reverse, where a game is mostly sold on PC and gets a minor console port, and then what? SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Having seen the example at Bravely Default 2 now in your contribs, there's also this path I've seen before:
I know this isn't the main point of this post, but I just want to add that per MOS:SMALL, we should avoid reduced font sizes in infoboxes for the sake of accessibility, since they already have smaller text than the article body.--AlexandraIDV03:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand your point, and see other contributors give valid suggestions. I just don't like seeing platforms be mentioned three (or more) times in unbulleted lists: platforms, releases, and now publishers.
See, the examples here just doesn't make any sense to me, where the regional publisher is hidden in a footnote. The entire point of the Publisher field is to say who the Publisher was. Why move it elsewhere? It's not like it's a long digression, either, that needs to be removed for space - it's just a single extra line. If Nintendo published Octopath Traveler outside Japan, then just say so. (Note that in the FA example above, which I was arguing should be expanded if anything, the NA / EU specific publishers were mentioned. If this is a common pattern with Square Enix, well, so be it. Say this at each of the SE / Nintendo published games, don't hide it!) SnowFire (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Realistically, a game only has one publisher -- and that publisher may have partners that helps with regional distributions (There are known exceptions here). Its similar to the idea that most games have only one major singular developer (again, with some exceptions), and while there are often handfuls of studios that help, that's just excessive detail for the infobox and why we recommend putting that to footnotes and the body. Remember that we're aiming for a general audience, not gamers, and most people only care about the basic principles here. --Masem (t) 14:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd think that the general audience would be more interested in the publisher than the "gamer" audience. (The gamers just care about the game, but random people who read the business press might want to know about the corporation that made money off of it - see the very famous mix-up when Nintendo's stock went up after the smash success of Pokรฉmon Go, only for stock traders to realize a week later that it was Niantic who was actually the developer & publisher.) Anyway, I think this could be an argument to exclude publisher entirely from the Infobox (as well as a lot of other "minor" fields like game engine), but if we mention the publisher(s), then I don't see the harm in listing all the publishers. The Infobox is exactly where all these details are expected to be stuffed: it should be complete and accurate. I suppose I will grant that in the cases where the regional distributor is truly minor in role, I can see the argument, but how frequent is that? To go back to the example from the start, Aksys did the English localization of the Zero Escape series, so they're a very notable player in the production of the games - especially since they did better worldwide than in Japan. Excluding them would be a mistake. If the publisher list truly does get long, then it can be a collapsible list. SnowFire (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
most of the time the publisher is more relevant than the developers. the publishers even do all the marketing and usually are the ones who own the IP.Muur (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Right but this is usually the main publisher where the game is first published. Eg for the Persona games, Altus does all the work where Deep Silver and Sega may have a very small hand in that factor. --Masem (t) 19:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
sega are actually worldwide publishers for all atlus games now that they own atlus. not that it matters i suppose in this, just wanted to clarify. it took them a while to start it, but they now are the sole publishers of atlus gamesMuur (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi guys, hoping someone might have some insight on this - anyone know where I can find some development or release info for Hogs of War? I took a look earlier, and found some basic press releases and one interview, but not much else. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk โข contribs)20:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. What is the notability guideline justifying the inclusion of PSG.LGD on the English Wikipedia? Otherwise I think it can be merged into PSG Esports. Please ping me when you answer, and if you have other questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Request for review at FLC
Hey all, in addition to video game editing I'm a delegate over at WP:FLC; over there we have a video game list List of League of Legends media, which has been sitting in the nomination list for over 3 months without a lot of attention. The nominator, Gultejp, seems to have vanished back in June, shortly after nominating the list. Normally I'd close the nomination at this point as a lost cause, but it's a pretty solid list as far as I can see that could easily be an FL, so I wanted to ask here first if anyone was willing to either review it or help fix any issues so we can push it over the edge? Also pinging ImaginesTigers, the resident LoL article expert. --PresN22:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN20:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Following a content dispute, I've created a talk page entry on the Mechwarrior Online article to explain my problems with recent additions primarily in relation to sourcing. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Eik Corell (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Wish to inquire about the reliability of NME
Last year in eraly October I wrote the article Celeste (video game) in my home wiki (zhwiki), which was promoted to GA in late December. Looking back at the article I wrote then, I find that I may want to further expand the development section. While searching for revelant news I came across a website called "NME". I have never heard of that website and I could not determine the reliability of this site. A quick search in WP:VG/S did not give me the result. The piece of news in question is this. I would like to hear your opinion about this website's reliability.
NME is a perfectly acceptable entertainment reliable source. It doesn't usually touch video games (hence not covered in VG/S) but they are well established in covering anything in the world of entertainment and arts, so go ahead and use it. --Masem (t) 12:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, its it's a long running print magazine too, that tends to cover music more than video games. Kinda like Rolling Stone magazine. Games aren't their focus, but they'd still be a reliable source for it. In the music world, they'd be comparable to how we at WP:VG would see a GamePro or Electronic Gaming Monthly type source - a veteran of the industry that started as a print magazine. Sergecross73msg me15:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Masem, Haleth, Sergecross73, and Panini!: Thank you all for your kind responses. Just hours before my post, WMF took unprecedented office action in my home wiki (zh:WP:OA2021). After the announcement of the user group in question, I feared that I would be caught up in a terrible maelstrom. I was exhausted and I decided to be inactive for a few weeks. I still would help with VG articles in both my home wiki and enwiki after all the turbulence. MilkyยทDefer >Please ping me while replying to me...07:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
International game releases
I have a question: is it acceptable to list non-English release dates? I see for games like Persona 5 Strikers, which had a non-Japanese Asian regional release (China, Korea, Taiwan), the release dates aren't listed in the infobox, but for games like Magia Record, they were listed anyway. lullabying (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
English regions only, except for the region of the developer. See {{Infobox video game}} for full documentation. Many articles list release dates in the infobox they aren't supposed to. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Lullabying, The big three I always go for are North America, Europe, and Japan. Other ones (like Australia, Korea) I shun against. Like ferret said, I only go for Japan because it's mainly Nintendo content that I write about. Panini!๐ฅช11:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
From the common practice in my home wiki - zhwiki: We usually always list Japan, North America and European releases if possible. We especially list releases in China, HK and Taiwan. Unless we are translating from enwiki (eg. Super Mario Galaxy 2) or the announcement has significance (eg. BOTW 's release in Korea because the news came along with Traditional/Simplified Chinese announcement), we don't list other regions. In the environment of enwiki, I think listing the above three regions should be enough. MilkyยทDefer >Please ping me while replying to me...08:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN12:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I once brought up Nintendo Australia for AfD for the same reason but it ended up being kept, despite none of the keep arguments really convincing me otherwise. If you'd like to bring it up again (it would be the third time), be my guest. ~ Dissident93(talk)18:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Isn't this getting a bit out of hand? We're all aware of the proliferation of "scored by" categories over the past couple months, but I really think something needs to be decided in regard to those and other credit fields. Is this truly a defining characteristic of almost any game? Most of the time the credits we put in Infoboxes don't even get brought up in prose, not in either the Development section or Reception. If reliable sources aren't saying anything like "Another game featuring composition by xyz".... -- ferret (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
At the very least the categories should only be created if an article on the subject already exists. But even then I'd prefer if we limit said categories to only the most well-known subjects in the industry, such as Shigeru Miyamoto or Hidetaka Miyazaki. Just because a composer or designer has an article doesn't mean we need a category for them, especially if their contributions were not a defining part of the game and thus would not be mentioned by sources at length. ~ Dissident93(talk)18:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
In agreement with above, and I would also tend to say that if a game has multiple producers/directors/composers, it really should only be the one identified as most senior/executive, unless it is known that all shared equal input into a game (rarely the case). It goes to the question above that just because, say, Miyamoto's name is on numerous Nintendo's games, that doesn't mean his credits here on WP should be for all those games but only the ones he was the principle lead in that specific role. We're not here to be a resume builder for those lesser known developers. --Masem (t) 21:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I only do seven of those VG composer category tags per week, BUT, only for those who already have their articles. I do know Gorilli09 also makes them but i can relegate myself to make them per 15 days (or a month) to avoid issues with y'all. It's a side project of mine here that i do when i'm not working on articles. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It's less a problem if the composer (or other position) is at least notable and has an article, but I'm worried it's setting a precedence for others to start apply it to anyone mentioned in the infobox. That appears to be how this editor took things to stand. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with the sentiment here that composer/director/producer/etc. categories should be restricted to people who have their own article, which is already how categories for film composers/directors/producers/etc., for instance, are handled here. Phediuk (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
There's a reason why most Pokemon articles are redirects to lists, because there's no substantial coverage of the specific species (exceptions being like Pikachu) That Bidoof was created from a long-standing redirect is a bit concerning, given that the only new piece of information is the "Bidoof day" joke that Nintendo pulled a few months back which doesn't lend much to notability. --Masem (t) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
That reception section is just awful. I started trimming but quickly realized I'd just end up trimming most of it out. It's truly that worst sort of cherry-picked, trivial, mundane passing mentions type stuff. "Kotaku called it 'kinda bad' while Eurogamer writer called it 'okay I guess'" type stuff. Sergecross73msg me15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The reception section isn't that bad, there's at least something be discussed in terms of design and gameplay which is a start. I get list and review snippets aren't going to be optimal but not every character is going to have a scholarly study.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a scholarly study, I'm asking for something of substance. I mean, read this paragraph.
On a less positive note, Despite Bidoof's popularity at the New Pokรฉmon Snap, Vice's Gita Jackson remarked that it remains unpopular,[12] while Jerrad Wyche of TheGamer called Bidoof as the worst normal-type Pokรฉmon at Pokรฉmon Diamond & Pearl.[13] Dale Bashir of IGN criticized and said that Bidoof is the worst feature as an HM Slaves.[14]
It's awful. Nothing is being conveyed to the reader. It's just someone trying to emulate a reception section without really understanding what we're getting at when we write them. Writing "Bidoof bad" conveys the same message. And we've already got WP:Pokรฉmon test for dealing with character articles like this. This fails it with flying colors. Sergecross73msg me19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't a mess, just it wasn't that bad compared to some articles of this sort. Tag it for cleanup, state why on the talk page and encourage people working on it to improve it, and if that doesn't happen merge it until it can. User:(Oinkers42) appears to be working on it as of the 24th, maybe involve him in this conversation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It was made from an abandoned draft I had, I only stopped the redirect due to there being little reason to redirect it, literally the only reason given was "There are too many Pokรฉmon articles" and not anything on the article's quality. I was also just making people aware the article existed. Also, WP:Pokรฉmon test is not policy, it is not even an essay about article inclusion. It is a historical record. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's an essay. We don't make website-wide policies or guidelines about gaming/anime franchises, lol. But like many essays, it's derived from policies and guidelines, and it does represent a wide and active community consensus on how to handle something. Sergecross73msg me00:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Except the Pokemon test "essay" isn't even that helpful for editors looking for guidance. It doesn't clearly list a selection criteria on how to assess the notability of a fictional character, only vague allusions to an "other stuff exists" argument or counterargument. It is pretty clear that the so-called Pokemon test was ultimately a deprecated "methodology", if we can call that, which was clearly rejected by the Wikipedia consensus more then a decade ago. What we are reading now comes across more like a historical account of community conensus. In any event, it is incorrect that essays have any links to actual consensus, and we have different levels of consensus across Wikipedia. Anyone can write and self-publish an essay, and some essays can be organized and graded by levels of "impact" which may indicate to what certain extent editors in the community are swayed by the argument, but that is in no way indicative of consensus the way guidelines are. Haleth (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Where the POKEMON test itself may be a deprecated test and really not applicable, notability concerns from both the broader GNG and from this project (knowing the type of sourcing and coverage Pokemon generally get) do still apply. We really want to avoid standalone articles on video game characters from any series where the content is the appearances and gameplay factors (presented without discussion or analysis from third-party sources) and then tacked on reception that is basically the type of mentions-in-passing that Sergecross is alluding to. We want more fleshed out of a reception section, which can be difficult for the non-starter Pokemon, and ideally want to see discussions of the character's creation or design from the developers if possible. If that can't be done, and we're simply basing notability on these one-off comments that lack in-depth coverage (from the GNG), then we shouldn't have standalone articles on these characters - multiple mentions in passing are not an equivalent for that. That's usually the problem here. --Masem (t) 13:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
POKEMON is obviously derived from all the consensus achieved at the merge/deletion discussions. And it's clearly derived from the WP:GNG and the concept of a subject needing independent notability through significant coverage. Regardless, you guys are looking at this backwards. Our standards and attitudes towards things like independent notability and GA standards were far more lax in the 2000s. Any of the veteran editors who have been around that long can attest to that. Take a look at some of the AFD and GA reviews from back then. Things that passed back then are often failed/deleted when reviewed again in the 2010s and 2020s. So this notion that POKรMON, conceived in 2007, is actually stricter than how we currently handle things, is ludicrous. I don't know how you dont see this. I've seen countless Pokรฉmon articles get merged back after weak attempts at restoration like Bidoof here. Unless someone's about to throw down with a serious overhaul effort, there's no way this survives an AFD or merge discussion. Sergecross73msg me13:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Sergecross73, I never suggested that the Pokemon test was "stricter" in any way then the guidelines we operate on nowadays, so please don't say I did, or that I am somehow advocating something that isn't supported by community consensus when I've said nothing of that sort at all. My comments were simply that the whole methodology behind the so-called Pokemon test was vague and poorly defined (and likely why it was deprecated by the community in the first place), and therefore, of little use to any editors looking for proper guidance in this day and age, because the "test" seem to suggest that it would come down to how good editors can come up with an WP:OSE argument for or against a topic. I also see no basis or evidence that the Pokemon test "methodology" has anything to do with WP:GNG, as claimed by you, which is the standard guideline the project operates on across the board. And yes, I am aware about a lot of stuff that has happened on Wikipedia, I've been a reader who is registered circa 2006.
I'll stress that the issue is less about "independent" here and more about the "depth of coverage" from the GNG. Adding up lots of sources that briefly touch on the character is not the same as a single article that is an in-depth coverage of the character, and that's where an article like Bidoof fails. Just having lots of brief mentions doesn't really help for GNG-meeting notability. --Masem (t) 14:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Masem, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I was under the impression that this discussion isn't specifically about Bidoof, an article I have no involvement in or interest in discussing. If someone feels that strongly about the article being brought back into existence, then an AfD or merge proposal is the way to go, and I make no secret that I do prefer the latter. Haleth (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Bidoof is the epitome of how most of these Pokemon characters , and even other VG character articles, have been or were before merging at times - heavy reliance on the one mention of the character in a review of the game overall, pulling that from multiple different reviews. It is good that Bidoof is presently there to show the issue (not to you but in general to this discussion) we want this in-depth coverage and not the splattering of mentions that might pull from dozens of sources that appear to give it GNG notable but really does not. --Masem (t) 14:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
When an article is redirected and cease to be on mainspace, are we supposed to rate the relevant banner templates as "redirect-class", or blank the templates entirely? Haleth (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I always change the template banner to "redirect" instead of blanking. It doesn't really matter that much as long as the current rating is removed/changed though. OceanHok (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, as Tarkus said it's rare that video game trailers really have much notability independent of the game and can't fit in a regular article about the parent game. Another one I'm aware of is "The Life", which is a bit scant but still has a substantial amount of coverage and definitely even if streamlined wouldn't fit a lot of the content appropriately in the main page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, taking a cue from the Film project, we should be aware that simple news about trailer releases tend to be trivial for WP's purposes. If there is not development information or addition comment beyond "the trailer was released" (which may see lots of news mentions), that's probably not worth mentioning. I dunno if that's the case here, though. --Masem (t) 19:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Just a suggestion outside of the box, after looking at the sources provided by Jeromi Mikhael. Perhaps a standalone article about video game trailers as a broad topic could be viable? There is a dedicated article to television advertisements which explores issues specific to TV ads and spots. I think there is enough material and unique issues about video game trailers (i.e. controversy over trailer contents which does not match the gameplay experience) that can be explored in a page which is distinct from the general trailer article. Haleth (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Battalion the General Manager of Spacestation Gaming. Looking for some help in regards to cleaning up the wikipedia page, want to update our logo, clean up the roster section to have colors and look clean like CLoud9's page, 100 Thieves Page, etc. and then also have some images to add for the history part next to each year if that's do-able too. Finally, want to add our COO, Kawai Goodman to the right side info box is.
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN12:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry it's so late this week- my graphics card died (and helpfully costs more to buy now than it did 4 years ago), so I had to find a new one. --PresN12:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Why is there a question mark next to Splatoon 3? I'm assuming that's its rating however both the article and Xtools say it's start class. โ Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
There's no need to apologize! You can simply stop doing this one day and there's nothing that's forcing you to continue. Panini!๐ฅช14:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
No, that's wrong, don't say that to PresN. He cannot stop.ย ;) Just kidding, but thanks PresN, I still appreciate seeing this list, late or otherwise. Sergecross73msg me14:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
No worries, at this point running the script/making the post just takes a few minutes once a week (just short enough that I keep procrastinating on making it fully automated). I like seeing what new articles popped up too, though it's nice to hear others like it as well, so it's more an apology to myself for being delayed. --PresN16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I met a newcomer somewhere, and he was desperate to have N++ in Chinese Wikipedia. I decided to help him with his draft the other day, and I found the logo image of N++ seemed to be a logo with a simple font, thus it could be transferred to commons. I am not an expert of such copyright problems, and I need your opinions. Thank you. MilkyยทDefer >Please use ping03:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello! So I decided to start Draft:Splatoon 3, however I'm having issues figuring out how to start the draft. I have some basic stuff in the article already, however definitely not enough for an actual article. โ Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Blaze The Wolf, I was about to politely shake my stick at this for the "there isn't enough information" thing like I did when I redirected this the first time, but with the new info I think it should be good. I'll leave some comments on the talk page. Panini!๐ฅช23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey! i assume i can request for assistance here too as well? i may have hijacked this man's thread but i would like to ask assistance on editing the main page of Renegades_(esports). this is rather rage inducing because it seems to be impossible to edit the opening paragraph of the page, which is the most read part anyway, and it is full of incorrect information. for example, it mentions that renegades has a roster competing in the team game paladins; but this game has discontinued its esports competitions since jan 18 2021 [1] the same goes for LoL lookalike "vainglory": [2] add on top of this that there is no mention of it's extremely succesful CS:GO roster, which recently qualified for the upcoming PGL stockholm 2021 major, (unless you scroll down to the main article) and you can agree that this heading area is hopelessly outdated. i thought adding things to wikipedia would be a short, painless, process, as long as I cited my sources and didn't leave stupid grammar errors. the reality is not so! so if anyone could tell me what to do so i can edit this page or request an edit or whatever i would be very grateful. โย Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooron101 (talk โข contribs) 09:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Dooron101! Thank you for updating this article, as it looks like it's in bad condition right now. Editing can be simple if you know where to look; please view Help:Editing for additional details. If you have other more specific questions, please ask me here. Panini!๐ฅช11:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Request board backlog
Just a reminder for everyone that we have a Request board for anyone who wants an idea of an article to write up. As well, it has nearly five years of backlog if anyone wants to help assess ideas that are not notable enough for their own pages. GamerPro6403:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, just wrote one up, with room for improvement of course. But the backlog list is just overwhelmingly large. Haleth (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how it always tends to be. We're one of the most active Wikiprojects on enwiki, but most of us really aren't looking for ideas of stuff to work on - we all seem to already have a wealth of pet projects going on. Sergecross73msg me20:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
It's generally pretty difficult to establish independent notability for something like a video game level, so I wouldn't list "Rainbow Road" like it's some sort of low hanging fruit or something... Sergecross73msg me03:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
It's only been a few days since the last post, but I wanted to pull these back to Mondays... and then the bot has been down for a few days anyway, so we get a short post. --PresN15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yep, KGRAMR does 7 a week for composers that have articles but no categories, has been for months. I think it's highlighting that the way WP uses categories instead of "tags" is very clumsy, and if we actually put things in all the categories they belong to according to the stated rules most games would have a giant block of categories at the bottom. --PresN15:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The good news about that subject is that I'm now at the very last tandem of composers. Once I'm done with that, it's pretty much it for me... Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I have added the multiple issues template to the page and have started a discussion on the talk page about a list criteria, with a baseline to go off of. โ Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I would rather have an incomplete list that looks nice and is appropriately referenced than an incomplete list that doesn't look nice and probably has many non-notable entries. โ Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello! So in the above post it was revealed that this article desperately needs some attention. So I am requesting assistance in establishing a list criteria for the article. I've already established a few baseline points however I would like to gain a more fleshed out list criteria that would adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. โ Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry, most of my comments were based off of the years I wasted spent maintaining that Nintendo template. My first inclination was honestly deletion too when it was listed on the "weekly new article list" by PresN, but there's some serious interest in writing solid inclusion criteria and cleaning it up, so I've been trying to support that instead. Sergecross73msg me19:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, please consider any discussion on that list to be the same for any console storefront nowadays that has a relatively low barrier of entry (pay a fee to get a dev license, minimal review by the console manufacturer). I don't think the present Xbox or PS stores have this problem yet, but there is potential for these consoles (and possibly others in the future) to have the shovelware problem that started with the Wii and now appears to be extending to the Switch. --Masem (t) 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Masem - This is just a "Nintendo Franchise" type list. It's only cover Nintendo developed/published series. Mario, Metroid, etc. It's just in terrible shape right now because of the original creator. Once the inclusion criteria is enforced, it'll be cut way down. Sergecross73msg me21:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Just as a note, I had already added about Valve's thing re cryptocoin/NFT under Quality Control in the Steam article. There were two post-additions of the same info to the article, hence why I removed those. Not because this was a skin gambling thing.
That said, an article about games involving blockchain elements (not necessarily as a genre) might be worthwhile, history and concerns. This is separate from skin gambling aspects. --Masem (t) 17:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Review Thread: Current number we're on plus one edition (Aka x+1)
Mind if I do this? Hopefully not. There are currently some articles that need good article reviews, but I'm mainly doing this to draw attention to the number of peer reviews and featured article reassessments that are currently deprived of attention.
I have a GAN up for Hunter: The Reckoning, a tabletop RPG, and as there are usually long waits for TTRPG GAN reviews maybe because they're categorized as "sports and recreation" and there's not that much editor overlap between sports and games I will as usual ask if anyone here is interested in a review trade (doesn't have to be a GAN either - I'm fine with FACs, FLCs, and PRs, too).--AlexandraIDV20:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Quake family tree diagram likely needs updating
Hi. I found File:Quake - family tree.svg which is used on a few pages here. It had not been updated since 2013. I added Titanfall's Source engine, Titanfall 2's engine, Apex Legends' engine, and Source 2, coming off of the L4D/Portal 2/Dota 2 engine, but as it's been so long I'm sure there's some stuff I missed that needs to be updated. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN11:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Bot came back up (was an api permissions issue), so we get assessments again, with a backlog all stuck together on the 16th. --PresN11:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fixed that PUGB Mobile naming issue already. There was an open move but that wasn't even needed for that purpose. --Masem (t) 12:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Source question
Hi. I've been doing (in my sandbox) a project to rewrite Far Cry 2 and get it to GA in the relative future. I've been finding sources for the music, and one I found was this article by a website called Brainy Gamer which recapitulated a GDC panel called "Far Cry 2: Creativity and the Musical Challenge". I've tried to find alternate sources, but this seems to be the only link to include even cursory summaries from this talk. Is this article all right to use it? If not, where would it be possible to find an alternate source? (Addition: this article describes what Brainy Gamer is) --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: Those links just lead to the panel's presentation images, which are useless. The question was whether I could use the summary, not whether I could find evidence of the panel. The information from the panel is what would be idea. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, apologies, misunderstood. The ability to use it would be based on if you can prove its reliability, like credentials and proof he's more than just a blog. Who's the author? As in, what's their background in professional writing? This really annoying question is what's expected at the FA level to prove reliability. And this would be real embarrassing if I misinterpreted your question again. Panini!๐ฅช14:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: According to sources (the link in the addition to my original post, this summary page), the author Michael Abbott is an alumnus of and professor of the Film and Digital Media Facility of Wabash College, chairing their Theater Department and having written and presented papers on storytelling and such in different media including games. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems alright. Go for it! Bring this to the people at FAC that question sources like these. In this case, you should be alright to cite it. Panini!๐ฅช15:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Commodore PET as a video game platform
Is it not true that the Commodore PET came to be seen as a notable platform for games, in the same way as the Apple II and TRS-80? The question is whether to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to the article's talk page, and if so, to have its importance parameter set to High like theothers in the "1977 Trinity". FreeMediaKid$23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
That is what I thought. It seemed strange that an article almost as old as Wikipedia itself would lack relevant talk page banners. I should not be so surprised, though, since this article does not have a large traffic and the subject performed the worst of the three computers commercially, from what I have been able to gather. FreeMediaKid$00:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I added the banner to the talk page. If anyone objects, feel free to revert and explain why. Otherwise, I will not be watching this discussion. FreeMediaKid$17:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Just be aware that several scanned video game magazines from the UK and USA that have been uploaded to archive.org have been removed upon request by publishers. I know Super Play, US Official PlayStation Magazine, and Saturn Power have been removed. These magazines are still copyrighted and this is entirely within the prerogative of publishers. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Wayback Machine has been broken for hours!
Please wait at least 24 hours before panicking about these sorts of things. Websites momentarily go down all the time and it usually requires no action or response, just waiting. Sergecross73msg me15:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems that the Wayback Machine is broken! And it has been broken for hours! I can't get to the archived link because of a 503 error, and the loading on the archived page takes forever! When will the Wayback Machine be fixed? Here's an example. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Angeldeb82: This happens from time to time with most websites, and isn't cause for any panic. Just wait until later today or tomorrow, and it'll probably work again. I'll also add that if information on downtime isn't made public, we won't know any more than you do.--AlexandraIDV03:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I strongly recommend patience on any issues related to Internet Archive - you've brought them up in a panic before. If there's an outage that lasts for a day or more, and there's no other news sites talking about it, then that's a point to ask for help, but not being able to access it for a few hours is not a reason to get panicked. --Masem (t) 03:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. This is a general request for help. I've just completed an expansion/rewrite of Far Cry 2. This is the first time I've ever done any work on a first-person shooter, so I just approached it as I had other Western game projects. Other eyes on it would be greatly appreciated, as it's well outside my usual Wikipedia territory. I was thinking of taking it to GAN in the near future. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where the developer lives. Just follow the manual of style and what the reliable sources say, and the article will write itself. When I'm bored, I sometimes click on random stuff on the internet until I end up on a page about a video game that doesn't yet have an article. Sometimes, I end up on a game that has a genre that I've never even heard of. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Never would have guessed it was outside of your area of expertise, it already looks better than 99% of video game articles out there. Nice work! Sergecross73msg me16:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
There is discussion on this talk page about whether Allegiance, Microsoft's 2000 video game, should be considered a free and open-source software or whether its license only refers to the game's source code (hence everything else is copyrighted). FreeMediaKid$03:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Requesting assistance with some covers
In August, Nintendo announced the Nintendo Switch Online Expansion Pack. Alongside this announcement, the company also released a multitude of official, high-quality cover art to its press site. A literal treasure trove, I uploaded all of these in September, replacing the previous unofficial, low-quality scans. Compare, for example, the original Star Fox 64 scan replaced with Nintendo's HQ, digital-first version. In some cases, this replacement meant that I uploaded a new file in JPEG format and tagged the older PNG as di-orphaned. These are:
Even though the former files were in PNG format, replacing them with JPEGs was no loss. Not only are the JPEGs of much higher quality, but the old PNGs were also more lossy because they were converted from some low-quality JPEG scan to PNG at some point. As you might know, JPEG->PNG conversion will never restore the quality lost through JPEG compression, just blow up to file size to no actual use. Aspects reverted my file changes on all seven articles, citing PNG as the "preferred format" and entirely neglecting my reasoning. While TarkusAB and KGRAMR defended my upload on MUSHA, the other six still retain the old, low-quality PNG covers (most notably, Mario Kart 64 featuring orange-skin Mario). Aspects has asked me to obtain consensus for these changes from "more experienced editors involved with video games". Although TarkusAB and I tried to explain how these changes were objective improvements, Aspects has thus far stayed silent (see discussion), causing the high-quality covers to be automatically tagged as di-orphaned.
Given the circumstances, and to formally comply with WP:BRD, I would like to obtain your opinion (and possibly, your action) on the matter. Regards, IceWelder [โ] 15:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I support your changes. I'm not aware of PNG ever being considered the "preferred format" on Wikipedia, except maybe for images with transparent backgrounds. โ Rhainโ15:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
JPG vs PNG Per WP:IUP#FORMAT, it is preferred for anything that isn't photographic in nature (JPEG), animated (GIF), or a vector drawing (SVG). The reasoning is that PNG is lossless; data is retained on a pixel-per-pixel basis. For video game articles, all screenshots and cover art should be PNG if raw PNGs are available. JPEG is lossy, which is great for photo compression, but would ruin the integrity of screenshots and cover artwork. In this case however, we have raw official JPEGs so we should use those instead of unofficial photographic scans converted to PNG. TarkusABtalk/contrib21:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
That's far too simple a line. You are right that computer-generated art is generally better in PNG, but I think really only extends to works that look like pixel or vector art to start. Photorealistic graphics of the last few generations cause PNG to lose the benefits over JPG's wavelet compression, and while elements like UI text and the like will come out looking poor, our images rarely are used to demonstrate the text on screen for readability, much less clarity. Same would apply to cover art where the graphics are closer to photorealistic than pixel or vector. So JPG for cover art for these games should be fine. --Masem (t) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Yea that makes sense. Actually most fine art is uploaded as JPEG so hand-drawn, photorealistic, or otherwise non-vector-like cover artwork should be treated the same. As the old adage goes: if it's good enough for Mona Lisa, it's good enough for Mario Kart. TarkusABtalk/contrib03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I was under the impression that lower quality is preferred for non-free files, which is why I usually tend to use JPEGs. I'm not sure about "all screenshots and cover art should be PNG", though: per MOS:VG, "For box art, JPEG is acceptable" and "JPEGs are usable for most 3D games and some 2D games" (games with emphasis on pixel art or sprites should use PNG). โ Rhainโ00:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
It is not that lower-quality is "preferred", lower resolution, absolutely, but if had the choice between (of the same pixel size) two images, one that showed at the small size artifacting, and one that didn't, we'd prefer the one without artifacting. And to the point of this discussion, we'd like the work that appears to be a digital version provided directly by Nintendo than what looked to be a scan by a third-party. But we would want (if it were possible), a lower quality free image rather than a higher quality non-free image. --Masem (t) 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Even if PNG is preferred over JPG, the actual content of the image in question and it's quality is critical. A bad PNG is not preferable to a good JPG. -- ferret (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I support the changes too. As a note JPGs are better for "natural" photographs due to the wavelet compression scheme used, while PNG is more suited for graphic arts (as most covers are). I think there also is the idea that while JPGs we can use are completely unburdened by patent issues, there's still some debate on that, whereas PNG is based on open sourced routines - but WP doesn't put a dog into that fight because it really don't affect the simple storage and display of JPG. --Masem (t) 17:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Support, but... - I agree that "bad png" < "good jpg". However, seeing as these are indeed non-photographic images, png really would be the preferred format. So I suppose it begs the question -- why not just upload the files as png? Scaling down these high-res jpg files removes most โ if not all โ noticeable artifacts in the process, so I don't immediately see a downside to saving the file as a png after scaling. โ Pbrks(t โข c)17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This may be a consideration for the future. However, at the resolution we need to display the images, this appears to make little difference. See comparison; the PNG becomes almost 3x as large (180KB vs 68KB) in this case. IceWelder [โ] 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Support Replacing the older PNGs with newer, higher quality PNGs. JPG should be avoided in every case, as it's a lossy and dated compression format. In the process of downscaling, the JPG should be converted to PNG when saving.ZXCVBNM (TALK)02:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I need to stress that JPG can be a more efficient format if the image is closer to photorealism. Eg the various EA Madden covers with photos of the featured player will likely have a better compression in JPG than in PNG. Ideally we shouldn't be changing the format that the image is provided in its default format. If the publisher puts out a JPG, we should be only reducing its size but uploading as JPG. --Masem (t) 02:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In regards to saving files as jpg vs png, based on what the publisher released it as, I don't think this holds much weight (unless there is already a specific policy on this). If the general idea is that we should be altering images as little as possible, then any kind of altering (e.g., resizing) and saving again as a jpg introduces new artifacts, which in turn alters the image even more. As a slightly fringe, but still very possible, case, suppose a publisher releases a 350px by 350px jpg file at a quality of 25% (which is very poor). We would need to scale the image down to 316x316, and then what? Do we resave the image at, again, 25% quality, resulting in an extremely poor image? Do we save it at 100% quality (jpg lossless), resulting in a very large image size for a, still, poor quality image? Somewhere in between? โ Pbrks(t โข c)04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
As Pbrks says, preserving the file type will result in, ironically, the image not being preserved. Since resaving it as a JPG will add new artifacts. Therefore PNG should be the way to go regardless of what type the original image was, in order to be as accurate as possible. ZXCVBNM (TALK)05:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Eh, PNG resizing uses interpolation algorithms to approximate new pixel values, so that's not "original" either. I don't think the concern is wanting images as unaltered as possible, but just ensuring the colors and cropping are "official", which another layer of JPEG compression will not tarnish. TarkusABtalk/contrib07:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Citing the Mario Kart 64 comparison again: A PNG version (source file converted to PNG, then scaled down) looks almost identical to the JPEG I uploaded. The resolution is low (the maximum allowed under NFCC) and the JPEG already uses little compression. The only noticeable difference is the red on the N64 logo being a little darker. IceWelder [โ] 08:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. From a NFC standpoint, the reasoning behind smaller images is to minimize damages to the rights holder's ability to sell the product by not serving as an easily accessed replacement for the product. By that logic, we should be striving for the highest possible quality images for the intended display size and no higher. Conversely, there is no reason to intentionally lower the quality of the image, introduce compression artifacts where before there were none, or otherwise mar the image on purpose. Indeed, one might argue that an ugly, lossy, artifacted image does greater damage to the brand and the rights holder than a clean one and we should prefer the latter on those grounds. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. The purpose of downscaling is to protect the owner's commercial opportunities. Wikipedia policy does not state that we need to degrade the files, just that we cannot show too much of them. Come to think of it, degrading the files may have subtle but unintended consequences of defaming the products. Regarding the use of JPEG, it is OK to use it if the video game covers have the element of photorealism, in which case JPEG actually reigns superior to PNG. FreeMediaKid$06:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN05:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, you read correctly- Popex has flown under the radar for 17 years without being tagged, by us or any other project. May 31, 2004. And now it's at AfD. --PresN05:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the continuation of a discussion I previously had with Spy-cicle that I would like to bring to wider attention. Several articles about video game compilations, including the FA Rare Replay, used to list "compilation" as their genre. The template documentation for {{Infobox video game}} states that the genre field should cover:
The gameplay genre or genres (such as first-person shooter, adventure, etc) the game is categorized in by its developers and publishers, or by reliable sources. (...)
In my opinion, the term "compilation" conflicts with this definition, given that a compilation is a form of release and does not, in any capacity, describe the gameplay of the collection or its individual games. Similarly, one would not put "standalone game", "downloadable content", or "expansion pack" as a genre. In instances where a compilation contains games of many different genres, I believe that using "Various" (or, alternatively, no genre listing at all) would be preferable. Believing this was uncontroversial, I aligned the articles I found to omit "compilation" where another genre is present or use "Various" otherwise. However, I have been reverted in this matter on Cassette 50 by MrMarmite, who stated that "the product is a compilation". I would therefore like to gather additional opinions on the matter. Regards, IceWelder [โ] 17:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the infobox guideline is quite clear. We want gameplay genres and not form of release. Compilation should not be listed in the genre field of the infobox. OceanHok (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree here. If the work is a compilations and no single (or two or three) genres readily apply to all titles in the package, just use "Various". --Masem (t) 19:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not have strong views either way, but glad it is something brought up centrally so it can be decided if does count as a genre (more of a type of product, but can understand why it may be useful to note in the infobox somewhere). Regards ย Spy-cicle๐ฅย Talk?21:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I have already observed IceWelder's replacement of "compilation" in the genre field and, while it's not something I had thought about before, I wholeheartedly agree with this approach. While "compilation" is often used in product sorting in the same way as genres are, it is still not a genre. I think the issue becomes especially clear when you consider single-genre compilations; would you really label the genre for Mega Man Anniversary Collection and Ultimate Shooting Collection as "compilation"?--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN20:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is. It is a case that is not of the type that WP:PARTIAL says to avoid - that these are all "Game Pak"s with potential confusion between them. --Masem (t) 23:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Game Pak currently redirects to ROM cartridge. I c/p'd the dab page to the redirect and CSD'd the current dab page, as "pak" is a Nintendo trademark (or so it seems) so would not refer to anything outside those Nintendo carts. TarkusABtalk/contrib00:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we can move the disambiguation page over the Game Pak redirect, since that dis. page leads off with "ROM cart" (a reader will still get there). --Masem (t) 00:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding 'Reception' sections, is it recommended that we only use articles from Eurogamer's editorial staff rather than their contributors? I ask because WP:FORBESCON seems like it might be similar to this case. Specifically, I'm referring to this article which could not only be used for attestation for an alternate name (the game is called Vegas Games 2000, among two other names), but also for the 'Reception' section. I'm going to use it for the former, but for the latter, I'm unsure. TheTechnician27(Talk page)20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The "Contributor" label is a side-effect of the tag system introduced in 2018. The article was written by a staff member at a time where many still used pseudonyms, including co-founder/editor "Gestalt" (a/k/a John Bye). This author simply left long before the tag system was introduced, hence defaulting to "Contributor" on the new site. When the review was published back in 2000, there already was an editorial team in place consisting of Bye and Tom Bramwell. Note that both of these are tagged as "Contributor" as well,[11][12] despite both having been editors, Bye a co-founder, and Bramwell later the editor-in-chief of Eurogamer. They left in 2002 and 2014, respectively. IceWelder [โ] 20:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, reviews at many RS sites are done freelance by (paid) contributors. To the extent that an established RS site is willing to publish and stand by a review (and not retract it), I am almost always comfortable to include it in a Reception section, regardless of who the actual writer is. I.e., the site proffers its credibility to the contributor by conducting editorial oversight and publishing it. The market reality of the industry simply does not support a site doing reviews with 100% internal staff. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a request for help as I've tried following instructions and gotten lost. The article Far Cry 2 has been receiving persistent edits from IP user(s) since 28 October, harping on a theme of rewriting the lead either by reverting to an earlier state, or removing/rephrasing out of existence genuine summary of the negative commentary from journalists about the game's AI. They have also been using poor grammar and unencyclopedic tones for their edits. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here to get a wider pool of opinion. Also @IndianEncyclopaedic: and Ferret, since they're two other party involved. IndianEncyclopaedic has been consistently editing or trying to edit in information into Far Cry 2 that runs counter to what I found in the citations during my rewrite/expansion. They insist that the AI was positively received; to quote their edit request, "it's AI has been praised by critics and audiences and if u don't believe watch Far Cry 2 gameplay on YouTube then u will tell who is wrong and right". All the review mentions I found show that it was criticised by journalists. They are also insisting on a point about the capitalization of the term "Buddy/Buddies". While that may be a valid point of grammar, their writing and grammar on this and other edits to the page is very poor quality. This is becoming a running issue, and I don't wish to be dragged into an edit war, so I'm asking for input on the matter. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I've pblocked IndianEncyclopaedic from the article as I believe they are the IP editor that I protected it from. -- ferret (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Protodrake you made a wrong mistake on Far Cry 2 article. Far Cry 3 released in 2012 not in 2013, Protodrake you make a wrong edit and you have to fix it in far cry 2 article. IndianEncyclopaedic (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake, Glitches are criticzed in Far Cry 2 by critics, not the realistic AI and I watched Far Cry 2 gameplay and its was so realistic and challenging and also had great physics, and realistic enemy AI, vast destructive environment and if you watch any Far Cry 2 gameplay video on YouTube you'll see in the comment section that the game, physics and realism/AI has been praised by audiences. But in main page, you forgot to wrote buddy system instead of Buddies. Ok, discussion is upto this. Sorry for my poor English IndianEncyclopaedic (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@IndianEncyclopaedic: Wikipedia doesn't use personal opinion and non-journalistic YouTube footage, it uses citations from suitable and reputable websites. The technical issues are already noted, and if you look at the actual reviews they do criticise the AI, not praise it. That's what I found in the citations, and that's what I put cited in the prose. Wikipedia is not a Wikia, so personal opinion can't be reflected beyond the usual critic bias, which in this case doesn't support your contention about the AI. (Buddy vs. buddy could be seen as a point of preference.) --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@IndianEncyclopaedic: Having reviewed the prose, technical problems are noted as negatives in the review section. Plus I don't see a line dividing "glitchy" and "bad" AI. They're technically one and the same, and since the critics spoke about the AI in those terms, I wrote about the AI in those terms. It's also not done on Wikipedia to use weasel words. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
โ BOZ
โ BOZ
โ FlyingKangeroo
โ Yukinotane (newly tagged - originally created 25 days ago)
โ Rogalian (newly tagged - originally created 13 years ago)
โ Haleth (was previously a redirect - un-redirected 11 months ago)
โ Haleth (was previously a redirect)
โ EntertainmentZ (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago)
ย Done for two weeks. I have it watchlisted and will monitor for reoccurrence. -- ferret (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
