WT:WikiProject Video games/Archive 104#Important website message

I don't fully agree with this project's importance standards, but they are fairly consistent and well-maintained compared to those of most other WikiProjects. One garish oddity, though, is the inclusion of a few individual people, such as Nolan Bushnell and Shigeru Miyamoto. I advocate partitioning these real-life figures off into the High- and Mid-importance classes for the following reasons:

• They are not well-known outside the gaming community – certainly not compared to subjects like certain individual consoles (Xbox 360, Nintendo DS), games (World of Warcraft, Super Mario Bros.), and characters (Pac-Man, Yoshi, Link), all of which are High- or even Mid-importance.
• Because of the limited amount of media it is humanly possible for one person to work on, none of these people have the extreme influence within the industry that seems necessary for Top-importance. Sure, Ralph H. Baer created the light gun (Mid) and worked along with others on the Magnavox Odyssey (High). What else? Even if he had not only created the Odyssey by himself, but was literally synonymous with both products, he wouldn't have any more influence on the industry than, say, Super Mario 64 (High) or Grand Theft Auto III (High), games that are brought up near-constantly when developers discuss what inspired their creations.
• I contend that most of these people aren't even that well-known inside the gaming community. I hadn't even heard of most of them before browsing through WP:VG's Top-importance articles a while ago, and I'm fairly knowledgeable about games. The only Top-importance people I've ever heard mention of in a conversation or even gaming publication are Miyamoto and maybe Suzuki once or twice. (This is also true of Will Wright [High] and Phil Fish [Low]). If the rest of these people can really be quoted without hesitation by any segment of the game community, that segment consists of veteran executives and maybe some well-educated older players.

I propose that each Top-importance person be reevaluated. Tezero (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:I disagree - I don't necessarily know all the people listed in Top, but reading their contributions, we're talking key figures that have helped to shape the nature of video games (hardware and software) today. I'm not saying all the present top-listed ones need to be there, but I think there really aught to be more - eg Will Wright, Sid Meier, Ken Levine, Gabe Newell, and I'm sure there's plenty of others. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::They're not at all insignificant; I just dispute that any of them alone have changed the industry more than things like Super Mario 64, which we can't list as Top-importance right now as it's an individual product. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Given that Miyamoto's page starts off by saying that "Sometimes called "the father of modern video gaming," he is best known as the creator of some of the best-selling, most critically acclaimed, most enduring, and most influential games and franchises of all time.", yes, I think we can say that he has changed the industry more than one of his creations alone. On the flip side, though...

:::Does it matter? I mean, I've never once seen the importance ratings have any effect on any editor's work. People might be more or less inclined to work on an article about an important figure/game, but they determine that based on what they hold important, not what the tag actually says. We could downgrade all 30k articles to Low, and nothing would really change for us. (the WP1.0 project, on the other hand, might complain) --PresN 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Therein lies the caveat; since WP1.0 is intended for students and laypeople, privileging certain game designers and other people as Top-importance is even more egregious, though I'm not sure how much time they actually spend looking at our importance categories. But if it doesn't matter that they're Top-importance, surely it wouldn't matter if we changed them.

::::As for your first point, though, I contend that some of Miyamoto's creations are more influential (as well as—and I don't see this being contested—more well-known) than the man himself, because he didn't create them himself, and because it's entirely possible (and likely common) to be influenced by something like the level design, gameplay, and open-ended structure of Super Mario 64 without knowing or caring what Miyamoto or anyone else contributed to the project, or even that they did. And Miyamoto's probably the most influential and well-known of any of these people.

::::The "father of modern video gaming" bit is important, but similar accolades have been bestowed on Mario and Super Mario Bros., for example. Tezero (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::The reason we opted to keep any specific video games, characters, and hardware out of the top tier is to have this project keep its focus more on the history of the medium, and less "games", making the overall effort more encyclopedic. No one doubts the importance of Mario the character, or Super Mario 64 to the overall industry of VGs, but it's not those games but their creators that are the ones that should be the focus of the education of VGs. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::But we're allowed to list specific people, companies, and console brands? (But only some brands: PlayStation > Xbox/Game Boy line?) That seems really screwed-up. Tezero (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would remove all individuals from the Top importance. - hahnchen 02:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::Since we have this much, and I don't see any strong opinions against de-Topping these people, here is my proposition:

::Ralph H. Baer → High

::Nolan Bushnell → Mid

::John D. Carmack → High

::Ken Kutaragi → Mid

::Shigeru Miyamoto → High

::Yu Suzuki → Mid

::I'll just change them to this at an appropriate time if no one objects. Tezero (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Good idea and list. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Alright. Done it. Tezero (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Mid-class is way too low for these. They all belong to at least high-class. Nolan Bushnell, one of the fathers of video game industry, mid class? Same assessment for Kutaragi who changed the whole industry with PlayStation? Suzuki has worked on 9 mid-class games and 1 high-class game. I think that makes it a high-class article. Sorry but you don't know anything about the history of video games if you haven't heard about these people. --Mika1h (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::I already changed Nolan to high. As for the others, It depends on how other designers on wikipedia are rated. Ken Kutaragi and Yu Suzuki are both extremely important, but they are less important than Nolan Bushnell or Shigeru Miyamoto. If other designers of similar stature are rated as high though, they should be too. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There is some dispute on the Knuckles the Echidna and Sonic & Knuckles pages. A user is claiming that Knuckles was playable in Sonic the Hedgehog 1 by locking the cartridge onto Sonic & Knuckles, citing a scan from a 1994 issue of MegaZone as evidence. However, another user asserts that Knuckles was not playable in Sonic 1 via lock-on, and that the only feature the two games unlocked when combined was an expansion to the Blue Sphere special stages. Until the first user's edits, all prior revisions of the page have only stated that Knuckles could be used in Sonic 2 and 3, not 1, supporting the second user's claims. Please advise: which user is correct? -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:Retail copies will only use the bonus stages by design (iirc sonic 1 is supposed to offer 1000 of them or something like that). I have a feeling Sega made some form of statement to say Sonic 1 wasn't technically possible, but unfortunately I can't provide evidence. A scan can be used as evidence they attempted it, but it wasn't present on retail copies. The mag scan is clearly from before the game was finished so using it as proof of a feature that was never released publicly is a bit odd. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:* It would be interesting to add it to the article as a planned feature. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::I think it's pretty essential if the article was to be properly improved. I would imagine there should be another magazine with a similar aspect, much how we learned a little about the Sonic 2 beta partly because of magazine coverage prior to release being rediscovered through the internet.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::(Edit conflict) I'm the user who added the Knuckles in Sonic 1 claim; I did add it newly to Knuckles' page, and I thought Sonic & Knuckles{{'}} page already did, but looking at it now I must have misinterpreted what was said. However, I do recall there being a screenshot of Knuckles in Sonic 1 on Wikipedia—I'm not sure which of the three articles (Knuckles, Sonic 1, Sonic & Knuckles) it was in—circa 2008-2009, though that may have been with modding. Further research (into clearly non-reliable sources like old forum posts and user-made guides) gives conflicting information.

:::And it is essential, since I'm working on Sonic character articles for a likely Good/Featured Topic in the future.

:::What seems like the least offensive option is to simply say that he was playable in Sonic 2 and 3 and appeared in some promotional screenshots of 1 released around the time of Sonic & Knuckles. Tezero (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::"Early development screenshots" seems a bit closer to the truth. Promotional screenshots is a bit of a minefield and could easily suggest they were marketing materials, which is jumping the gun.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::It's worth noting that all the game cases ([http://info.sonicretro.org/File:Sk-box-jap.jpg JP], [http://info.sonicretro.org/File:Sk-box-us.jpg US], [http://info.sonicretro.org/File:Sk-box-eu.jpg EU], [http://info.sonicretro.org/File:Sk_md_au_plat_cover.jpg AU] for example) only advertise lock-on functionality for Sonic 2 and 3, while ignoring Sonic 1 in any capacity. If Knuckles was playable in Sonic 1 via lock-on, it seems odd that they would omit that from the box. Additionally, Sonic Mega Collection features Blue Sphere, Knuckles in Sonic 2, and Sonic 3 and Knuckles, but no Knuckles in Sonic 1, and the Wii Virtual Console version of Sonic & Knuckles [http://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/2010/02/sonic_and_knuckles_virtual_console can "lock on"] to the three numbered titles to unlock the same three bonuses, but (again) not Knuckles in Sonic 1. Given this, combined with the existence of the scan, it's probably best phrased as such:

:::::"Early development screenshots suggest Knuckles was planned to be playable in Sonic the Hedgehog via Sonic & Knuckles{{'}} lock-on technology, but this feature was removed prior to release. However, Knuckles was later added as a playable character in the 2013 Remastered release for iOS." -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::"but this feature was removed for unexplained reasons." - implies that the reasons aren't explained, but it's really just that we personally don't know. Better I think to say "but this feature was not present in the released game." --PresN 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Edited accordingly. -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2010/02/22/sonic-knuckles-review source] seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the lock on situation. Яehevkor ✉ 22:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, any comments ? I've added recently GameRankings reception, Hahnchen considered it as "bloat". Sir Lothar (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:Adding GR isn't bloat at all for the table at its present size, and actually should be used alongside MC to show another way aggregators break it down. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

::Agree; it's a rather small table even with GR. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:Why don't you add Official PlayStation Magazine or PC Gamer or Kotaku? At least those would be introducing new opinions from reliable sources. Metacritic is the industry standard. In the discussion above, editors are implored to stick with the industry standards, the most influential opinions. So why is it that we keep on pandering to GameRankings, CBS's secondary aggregator.

:*'"Metacritic" video game' on Google News - [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=metacritic&safe=off&tbm=nws 9 pages of hits]

:*'"GameRankings" video game' on Google News - [https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&biw=1280&bih=681&tbm=nws&q=%22gamerankings%22+video+games 0 hits]

:*'GameRankings' on Google News - [https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&biw=1280&bih=681&tbm=nws&q=gamerankings 6 hits]

:It's Metacritic ratings which [http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/ developer bonuses rely on], it's Metacritic that is quoted in [https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&q=%22ubisoft%22+earnings+%22metacritic%22 corporate earnings reports], it's Metacritic that sits on the [http://store.steampowered.com/app/239250/ Steam product pages], it's Metacritic that reliable sources [http://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218 complain] [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/07/16/is-metacritic-ruining-the-games-industry about] [http://www.gamesradar.com/how-metacritic-rules-the-games-industry/ as] [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-13-defining-success-why-metacritic-should-be-irrelevant a] [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/436900/lower-call-of-duty-ghosts-review-scores-wont-enormously-impact-sales/ shorthand] for review aggregation. I wrote about about how Gamezone spam gives undue weight to Gamezone's point of view. Yet we do the same thing on almost every video games article when we place GameRankings alongside Metacritic. Metacritic is a reliable source, it is the industry standard, we should trust it to do its job - we don't need to hold the readers hand and show what is almost exactly the same score from another source. In almost all cases of a game released today, Gamerankings is redundant. - hahnchen 23:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

::Metacritic is certainly the most important for the industry, but a key factor that everyone knows about MC is that they weight scores depending on sources. Gameranking may not have the weird of being a source, but it is much more obvious they do not employ any weighting in their score balancing ([http://www.gamerankings.com/help.html]) while MC does have some unknown factors. As such MC is important as the industry metric, but GR's better as the balanced average (it's also part of gamespot's network so it doesn't have the GameZone issue. This is why both should be used. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:::(Edit conflict) GR introduces more opinions from sources (in that it tends to contain reviews Metacritic doesn't, and vice versa), if the user cares to click, and calculates its scores differently, as Masem mentioned. It's not as widespread as Metacritic, but by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine as long as there are a couple of reviews by IGN and GameSpot. Tezero (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

::::How does it not have the Gamezone issue? Gamezone is a reliable source, but whose opinion is over-expressed in our articles, same with GameRankings. That GameRankings does not weight results, or contains sources which Metacritic omits is irrelevant, because the industry has decided on a standard, while the use of GameRankings is just down to the OR whims of Wikipedians. The aggregate score is there to show the critical consensus, and the critical consensus is Metacritic. I'm not against using GameRankings if there is somehow a disparity between the two, there are games pre-Metacritic for which GameRankings is the only option. But for every game coming out now, GameRankings is bloat, you might not add much to each article, but you're doing so across the entire encyclopedia. - hahnchen 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::GameRankings is providing no opinion on the reviews, just a summary of scores and because it catalogs scores differently, provides a different way for a reader to look at other reviews for the game. GZ is providing opinion, so whether we include it should be based on whether their review offers anything new (and certainly not on it being forced into the article by a COI editor). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::GameRankings is providing an opinion, it has an inclusion criteria. It's decision not to weight those scores is an opinion. We give GameRankings significantly higher weight than the rest of the world does, we shouldn't. - hahnchen 23:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::GR has a very straightforward, mostly fair objective means to include reviews, see the link above. They are not subjectively selecting sites, though they do want to make sure they are dealing with professional sites and not blogs. However, they aren't excluding sites that otherwise meet their requirements. That's objective for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

::::As for "by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine", we wouldn't use those if they did not add any specialist knowledge or unique opinion to the article. If RPGFan said the same thing as IGN aside from a few words every time, we would never use it, it would be redundant. I asked at the beginning, "Why don't you add Official PlayStation Magazine or PC Gamer or Kotaku?", because at least those would be original. - hahnchen 23:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:Why don't you just add new sources and let others add GameRankings? It doesn't hurt the articles one bit. It's not a commercial site either. My two cents. --Soetermans. T / C 23:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

::Despite having written the reception section and cleaned up the article, I'm told by User:Sir Lothar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castlevania:_Lords_of_Shadow_2&diff=prev&oldid=598617598 start working on articles]. This is despite Lothar's only contribution to the article being the addition of GameRankings to the template. There's a 0.71% difference in the PlayStation 3 score, and a 0.31% difference in the Xbox 360 score. Undue weight given to an opinion which is largely the same as the Metacritic standard. Why should I let others add Gamezone spam, any other table bloat or any other instances of undue weight? My argument for Metacritic is that it is the industry standard, the argument for including GameRankings too is ILIKEIT. - hahnchen 00:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:::The point is that using both MC and GR is a standard for most VG articles, and thus the addition of it to a table that is not bursting at the seams is not hurting anything. If GR was not a standard across most VG articles, yes, that would be possibly pointy, but really, this isn't harming anything. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::::The argument that I am making, is that ILIKEIT is a poor standard and one that should be changed. GR should not be standard, giving it undue weight across the entire encyclopedia is damaging, in the way that undue weight is damaging anywhere on the encyclopedia. This Wikipedia standard was set, when? 2007? Maybe before Metacritic had established itself as the industry standard. I removed GameRankings from Lords of Shadow 2 because the critical consensus had already been provided by the industry standard, an industry standard that is not being challenged. I'm challenging tradition, the argument "it's traditional" is not much of a counter-argument.- hahnchen 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::That's fair to challenge the tradition - I'd start a separate subsection to call for removing GR links. But it is standard tradition to include them so until you can should consensus is against them, it's not harmful to add the link. Remember, MC is criticized at times for bias, this is why a site like GR which does not bias scores at all is also useful to show what an unbiased score aggregiation is compared to MC (and the industry metric) --MASEM (t) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Believe me, I disagree with plenty about WP:VG's current standards (I think it should be okay to add as many reviews to a table as are available as long as it fits in a reasonable-length Reception section, for example), but I'm not about to challenge them on a pointy basis. Tezero (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::OK, I won't argue. Removed GR from table - ain't gonna provoke conflicts. As I see Hahnchen still hasn't read those pages WP:CIV, WP:AFG and of course WP:EQ. Sir Lothar (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I'm going to have to call you on that one, Sir Lothar. What we have here is a standard editorial dispute-turned minor scuffle, and you're just as guilty of etiquette violations as he is. I recommend you leave a comment at the "GameRankings standard" section below, and then walk away. {{u|Hahnchen}} would probably best be served doing the same. What's needed, I feel, is for the two of you stay away from each other, and this discussion, for a few days. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Make GR optional (i.e., based on the article's local consensus). I've never seen it differ significantly from the MC score and have always added it begrudgingly. czar ♔ 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Discourage the use of GameRankings - Template:Video game reviews/doc is out of date, which is why it suggests using the standards of 1UP.com, GameSpy and GameRankings. In general, tables should have one aggregator - Metacritic, which no one doubts is the industry standard. GameRankings should only be included on an individual basis when there is a strong consensus to do so - such as for old games, or in a case where there is a wide disparity between it and Metacritic that is noted in reliable sources. Arguments for GameRankings seem to stem from an ILIKEIT principle, but its use is not supported by reliable sources (compare the Google News hits above). For too long, Wikipedia has given undue weight to GameRankings, it's an anachronism, it's inertia. - hahnchen 12:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep GR Standard - This is one of those "we need to pick and choose our battles better" type scenarios. It's always going to be a uphill battle to try to remove it, and there's nothing overtly against policy with it. I prefer being more productive with my efforts, rather than trying to constantly enforce/explain such a stance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:With you there, Sergecross. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:::User:ProtoDrake, your first userbox is User:Axem Titanium/User nospoilertags, Wikipedia has made bigger changes. - hahnchen 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::::User:Hahnchen Erm, I don't follow. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Spoiler tags used to be everywhere. And in this case Wikipedia is behind the rest of the world, if they can move on, so can we. - hahnchen 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::My proposal is to make it optional, which doesn't require removal or enforcement. It just kicks it down from a WPVG standard or expectation to a local consensus discussion. czar ♔ 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Even that's going to lead to extra arguing and debate over something that has no real detriment to article if it's there. Subjective arguments over whether it necessary in one scenario, but not another. It's a timesink with no real benefit. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::::WP:UNDUE is policy, our continued inclusion of GameRankings is ILIKEIT. I'm not proposing systemically wiping all uses of GameRankings, just that removals aren't reverted without a consensus reason. That "it might be difficult" doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, I'm proposing that we rewrite the guidelines at Template:Video game reviews/doc (and possibly introduce clearer guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Review_sites). So that if anyone removes a redundant GameRankings link, we don't get this pointless back and forth - and can just point to the guidelines. I'm giving solid arguments that we change our guidelines to reflect policy. The counter-argument has to be more than just inertia; the rest of the world has accepted Metacritic as the industry standard, we should. - hahnchen 18:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::::*I don't personally like or use GR, so to keep quoting "ILIKEIT" isn't my point at all. (Though if we were to play that game, your stance could just as easily falls into "WP:IDONTLIKEIT honestly.) My point is that, while less popular, there's no actual problem with it. If you find an actual fault with it - flawed calculations, incorrect info, etc - that would be one thing. But your argument seems to be largely "its less popular than Metacritic". Valid point if we were using it instead of Metacritic. But no one wants that. Its not that it's "too hard", its that its not worth the effort. In fact, its probably pointless to argue about, because it'll be borderline impossible to enforce. Kind of like not using Gamefaqs for release dates for games in the 1990s. Regardless of what we deem here, its use is so widespread that its not like a divided fragment of WP:VG could ever really enforce it. I imagine any supporters of what you're saying will largely get burned out, or lose out to consensus most of the time. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::*No actual problem (apart from the WP:UNDUE). Placing GameRankings alongside Metacritic is exactly undue. The same reason that adding GameZone to every table is undue. We wouldn't accept the latter and we should treat GameRankings the same way. From the outset, my argument has been THEGAMESINDUSTRYDONTLIKEIT, which is significantly different to IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think anyone disagrees that Metacritic is the industry standard. The reasons for giving GameRankings equal prominence stem from Wikipedian's original arguments about aggregator quality, arguments that the rest of the world have brushed past. We shouldn't use GameFaqs for release dates, WP:VG/RS states this explicity. Even if it isn't actively enforced, it's better than having a guideline that states the opposite. - hahnchen 02:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::*Um, there is zero UNDUE aspects here, and the GZ issue is far far far far different from the GR issue. Your argument is more akin to "Why should we include a Eurogamer review if we have an IGN review?" which of course is not going to happen. GR is a different way to finding reviews from MC. Just because the game industry doesn't hang its hats on it doesn't mean it is a bad source. There are other valid reasons for not including it, but is has zero comparison to the GameZone issue. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::*{{EC}} I just don't see it as much of a UNDUE problem when its usually a fraction of a sentence and a place on the review chart. Its effectively a very tiny part of the reception section, which is a small part of the overall sentence. Its not like we have a "Gamerankings" section or analysis or something. And yes, I know Gamefaqs is unusable, I'm relatively active at WP:VG/S - you missed the point. Its was an example of something that goes so strongly against a vast majority of editors in VG articles that its rendered useless. Much like this proposal would be. But you don't seem bothered by creating standards that aren't actively enforced, so I suppose you don't fear time wasting like I do. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::It's a fraction of a sentence across the entirety of the encyclopedia, which our guidelines actively enforce. I'm not asking you to actively enforce any new standard, just for the standard to be removed, so we don't (even on paper) unduely endorse GameRankings. There are valid reasons for including GameZone, it is not a bad source; there are valid reasons for including Eurogamer, it is not a bad source. But neither of these are given the kind of "protection" that GameRankings has. Template:Video game reviews reads "Every single-site review source should be used within the reception section", but GameRankings gets a free pass. - hahnchen 12:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::GR is not providing a review, however. They are a neutral aggregator, with a better-documented process of how the review scores are included and aggregated compared to MC, but they make no subjective claim about the work. As such, aggregate scores do not have to be cited in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:::(unindent) GR is providing an opinion, there is no such thing as a neutral aggregator. Its criteria for reviews is subjective, sites "must be visually appealing", sites "must publish a minimum of 15 reviews a month", yet they include Edge scores, which this month published 8 reviews. Regardless of Metacritic's opacity, the games industry has adopted it as a standard, if the games industry is not calling for GameRankings, we shouldn't, we certainly shouldn't give it special protection. - hahnchen 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:Weak Support to keep GR as a standard when it exists. Starting from the point that MC is necessary, I've pointed out my arguments how GR is a more objective, though less industry-significant, measure of aggregate score, I agree when there's 20+ reviews the numbers difference is statistically insignificant, and thus would be duplicating the MC, hence why I won't strongly defend retaining GR. However, that said, this should either be "must be used" or "never to be used", and not an optional thing, only because I can any "optional" option leading to editing warring on people inserting GR where it was chosen not to be used, or removing GR where it is used, based on their opinion. If we have have to spell out cases where its use must be or must not be used, that's fine, but this is a situation to avoid sitting on the fence towards. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::I mentioned - "GameRankings should only be included on an individual basis when there is a strong consensus to do so". If there is an individual case where GameRankings should be included, it can be, but the default position is for it to be excluded. (this is the same as any other website parameter, you wouldn't go adding GameZone to everything - default is excluded) We should state this in our guidelines so we can refer to it hereafter. - hahnchen 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on bold text - {{ping|Czar|Hahnchen|Sergecross73|ProtoDrake|Masem}} Normally bold text is used to let people know, at a glance, what the opinions are. In this case, however, it's rather confusing because people are answering the question from different standpoints (I 'oppose' getting rid of it and I 'support' keeping it are opposite bold texts that mean the same thing). Can we relabel the bolds to "Keep GR as standard", "Make GR optional", "Discourage GR", and "Disallow GR", so that we can go back to knowing what everyone is saying from looking at the bold texts? Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep GR Standard I often hate how Metacritic weighs the scores giving more weigh to some sites than others. I find that GR is a safe and healty alternative that provides an actual averaged score from all the publications which reviewed a game. I do find the argument that GR is less reliable than MC a bit empty. Both websites belong to the same company, CBS Interactive, and so they should be held to the same standard. → Call me Hahc21 02:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• It's not a question of reliability. My argument is that the games industry (reliable secondary sources - [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22castlevania%22+%22metacritic%22&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=nws Metacritic] vs [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22castlevania%22+%22gamerankings%22&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=nws GameRankings]) do not value the alternative that GameRankings supplies, and it is only included per the whims of Wikipedians. This whim should not be enforced as a standard. - hahnchen 12:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep GR standard per GR's different methodology, potential addition of further reviews not suitable for the table, and minimal bloating effect. Tezero (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep GR standard. Until there is a demonstrated harm that comes from its use - actual harm to the article, not minuscule maybe harm - I can't see the justification for this proposal. If we make it optional, it's just going to make the video game articles worse because all that will happen is that editors will focus more and more on bureaucracy and arguing than content creation - and Wikipedia could use far less as it stands. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Every single review source in the table is optional, and should generally only be used when cited in the text. I don't believe removing the special protection for GameRankings (and it's the only website that gets special protection, because unlike Metacritic, it is not the naturally used industry standard) would not add to the bureaucracy, any more than adding a new parameter would. - hahnchen 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep GR standard. If we are talking industry standard, then besides the aforementioned sources using MC as a benchmark, there are many articles criticizing MC and how it hurts the industry and its employees by their magical "number". Reliable sources that call out on over-reliance on MC! Exactly what we should avoid -- preference to and over-reliance on MC. If anything, I consider it biased to only including MC over other aggregators. There is nothing wrong about GR and it is a healthy alternative. Or, from the other view, GR should be as optional as MC should be. I even wish there were more aggregators with different criteria to place as a summary. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• I linked to critiques of Metacritic above, showing how Metacritic for good or worse is the industry standard. None of those critiques suggested the use of GameRankings as a solution. Your solution to the industry standard aggregator is to use a non-standard aggregator - a Wikipedia-original solution. It's not much of a solution either given how similar the GameRankings score is. But this Wikipedia-original solution is enshrined at Template:Video game reviews. No other parameter on the table gets that level of protection. Removing it from an article where it adds nothing and essentially duplicates Metacritic should not be as painful or contentious as it currently is. - hahnchen 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Come on, stop hounding every single editor. Its pretty clear there's no consensus for this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::I'm responding to arguments made that have already been countered and are yet still proposed. My reading of Hellknowz argument above would be ILIKEIT, is yours? I'm considering opening this up to a wider RFC - I do not believe the wider Wikipedia community would allow their personal appraisal of specific aggregators to override secondary sources, I don't think any other project on Wikipedia offers special protection to a non-standard measure to the degree that WP:VG has. - hahnchen 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, it was starting to look a bit like badgering. And I still don't understand why you would even care that much, but to each his own. Good luck with that. If this discussion is any indication, you'll need it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::"I do not believe the wider Wikipedia community would allow their personal appraisal of specific aggregators to override secondary sources" -- uh what? If we were saying, "Screw MC, we only using GR", then that would make sense. We're talking about adding a second aggregator which is known to be reliable but not as much of a standard compared to MC to be included on review tables. You're overthinking this way too much. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::No, but "Screw MC, we'll force GR" seems to be a prevailing argument at WT:VG. If it's not a standard, why is it deserving of special protection? - hahnchen 17:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::No, we're not saying that. We are saying you should use both, not GR over MC. MC is clearly the standard, but GR provides a different cut of the scores (including reviews GR might omit) so it's a reasonable resource for a reader to look for more reviews. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Uh, yeah, that's what I'm saying too. Just use both. Its really not that crazy of a prospect. WP:FILM does it the same way - they use Metacritic, and the more movie-specific Rotten Tomatoes. (MOS:FILM for details.) We use Metacritic and GameRankings. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't want to use both, I want to use the industry standard, which if sufficient for the industry, should be sufficient for us. Rotten Tomatoes does a different thing. It categorises reviews into Y/N rather than coming up with a weighted average. And both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are cited by reliable sources - [https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&tbm=nws&q=%22rotten+tomatoes%22+%22need+for+speed%22 Rotten Tomatoes], [https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&tbm=nws&q=%22metacritic%22+%22need+for+speed%22 Metacritic]. Metacritic and GameRankings do pretty much the same thing, only one of them is the standard, yet it is forced because you have to go through this entire wall of text to remove a redundant score only for it to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castlevania%3A_Lords_of_Shadow_2&diff=599168576&oldid=599010876 reinstated in a drive by]. The wider Wikipedia community decided that Infoboxes were optional, yet GameRankings isn't. - hahnchen 02:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::I don't see why categorizing reviews as Y/N vs. gradient scores is so much more significant than weighting them by perceived use vs. not. And are you criticizing the fact that WP:VG consensus gets reinstated quickly and efficiently? Tezero (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::You might not see that, but it's there. Compare the scores, they're different, the two scores tell you something different about the film. If everyone rates a film 7/10, that's a 100% fresh, but a 70 Metascore. If everyone rates a game 7/10, that's a 70 Metascore and a wasted row for Gamerankings. - hahnchen 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::RT has to do some OR for some reviews to decide if they are fresh or not, so that's a lot more subjective than GameRanking's neutral approach. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::OR is exactly what reliable sources are allowed to do. It's what we trust them to do. GameRankings value Digital Chumps opinion the same as IGN's, it might be more transparent (despite an arbitrary application of their approval criteria), but it isn't neutral. - hahnchen 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You do know that RT also consider small newspapers and magazines on the same order as NY Times and the like too, right? And unlike most VG reviews which have some type of score, RT frequently has to read between the lines to determine the fresh/rotten rating since many film reviewers have forgone the star rating system. Am I saying that RT is a bad source? No, it's a good companion to the MC rating for a film. My problem is if you say RT is "fine" and then complain that GR is introducing OR and opinion and shouldn't be used, that's hypocritical, as GR is far more unbiased and objective than RT. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::You have totally misrepresented or just plain misunderstood my argument. My argument never had anything to do with OR - only yours did, and I punched a hole in it when I showed that GameRankings was subjective and non-neutral. Rotten Tomatoes is not fine because it has its own methodology, we're not in a position to appraise methodology, Rotten Tomatoes is fine because there are [https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&tbm=nws&q=%22rotten+tomatoes%22+%22need+for+speed%22 reliable sources] that say it is. The only OR that GameRankings introduces is that reliable sources never mention it because it's not the industry standard. It's not GameRankings OR, it's yours. - hahnchen 15:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::You haven't shown anything how GR is subjective and non-neutral, and to say that it is more than MC or RT is a very large stretch based on GR's published metrics for inclusion and calculation. And it is not OR for us to use a source that reports exactly how it is compiling scores as an aggregator alongside the industry standard as to provide a second reference for these scores for a video game article. That is the flexibility we have as WP editors in choosing what we consider as reliable sources - those decisions might involve some original research but that's not the OR that WP:NOR disallows. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::You point out GameRankings objective selection criteria - I point out how they're not objective and unevenly applied. You point out how RT weights each score equally, which is their judgement call - I point out how GR does that too. Not a single reliable source mentions Castlevania and Gamerankings. Plenty of them mention Castlevania and Metacritic. Who are we to say that GameRankings is mandatory? How can that possibly be construed as flexibility? - hahnchen 04:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::(Edit conflict) GameRankings also sees some use by companies like Take-Two and Activision. [http://flowtv.org/2012/12/ranks-and-files/ source] Tezero (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Nice find. It further drives the point home that both are valid. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::And it even further emphasizes that both should remain mentioned until a time at which a specific, significant reason is presented to remove either MC or GR. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep GR Standard because there is nothing against policy in keeping it and there is no obvious reason to remove it, thus every time you were to make an edit to remove it, you would need to explain why. That is neither productive, nor is there a serious reason to perform this change. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• No. Every time you make an edit to remove it, there would be no need for an explanation. You would need an explanation to add it, just like the rest of the reviews. - hahnchen 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• I have to disagree with that. For instance, GR adds to an article, many articles already include it and it is an improvement to having just Metacritic as it provides a different view. If you remove that, you are taking away from the article, which needs explanation. Either way, there is no serious reason that I have seen provided that would make me want to remove GR. Just like the point made above by {{ping|Sergecross73}}, whereas movie articles include both RottenTomatoes and Metacritic, I think it is an enhancement to the article to have both GR and MC, whereas removing GR detracts from the article. I also dislike how every time a USER makes a vote, you decide to refute it. It seems like badgering. Agree to disagree, I guess. It just doesn't seem at all productive. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I just removed a ridiculous succession box on the Doom article. Talk:Doom_%28video_game%29#why_is_there_a_succession_box_for_a_minor_achievement.3F I'm wondering if there is a bot to remove this pointless succession box from all pages its own, to save time. Does anyone believe that mentioning what games were number one for a single month in the UK should be in all of these articles? There are dozens of other game articles that have it still in it. See Alien Trilogy, etc. I don't think that's a significant achievement, and if we had one for every nation it was number one in for any month, and for each platform it was released on, it'd take up a lot of space. Dream Focus 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:I also removed it from Ridge Racer Revolution Alien Trilogy Actua Soccer FIFA Soccer 96 and finally Tekken (video game) since I also don't see that as necessary. I lost track after Ridge Racer since the entry after that was a siccer game thot does not have an article so there may be more.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::I managed to find out that all of them were added by the same IP address in June 2012 meaning that I was able to find all of the pages with box. Some had already been removed some time ago but I did remove the rest. This should be over unless the user in question decides to return. however, since they did not readd the box to the articles where it was previously removed I think there is little to worry about.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion 1, Previous Discussion 2. My tuppence on the matter is that they should be binned; and that we need a consensus and a note in the guidelines to stop the damn things coming back. - X201 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:Count me in for removal. They were added over a year ago so hopefully that peraon has moved on.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A user insists there is too much spoilers in the lead. Requesting a third opinion at Talk:Tales of Symphonia#Third opinion March 2014. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, following the discussion regarding Flappy Bird being a Good Article a while back, I have put up my thoughts in a Good Article Reassessment. Your comments regarding the article fitting (or not) the criteria are very much welcome. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Spring is coming soon so we might as well get some cleaning done. Currently we got:

• Six articles up at FAC: Dishonored, God of War III, Proteus (video game), Pokémon Channel, Grand Theft Auto V, Menacer. The Dishonored review being up since January 24th.
• A FTC for the Sega Genesis.
• Ten articles at GAN: Big the Cat, The Castle Doctrine, Drakengard 2, Blood Knights, Charlie Murder, Tales of Xillia, Invader (artist), Development of Grand Theft Auto V, Seiken Densetsu 3, Yu Narukami. Blood Knights and Charlie Murder articles are currently being reviewed.
• Two Peer Reviews: Drakengard 2, Nuon (DVD technology).
• And there is an FAR for Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening and a GTRC for Broken Sword.

GamerPro64 00:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:If it matters, I've given my thoughts at all of the FACs except Menacer's, and that's because I passed its GAN and feel strange about the prospect. I agree that this is quite a backlog. Tezero (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::I don't like the fact that the one who started the Nuon (DVD technology) article is a Jakandsig sockpuppet named AustralianPope. IX|(C"<) 18:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::His edits were all un-done and the page is at the same state it was before AustralianPope ever edited it. We should probably just remove the request for a peer review. I tried to help him along by improving his references, grammatical mistakes, etc. not realizing he was apparently a sockpuppet. --Nicereddy (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If they're even aware. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:You'll need to ask them, I imagine. -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I've always been impressed with the WikiProject. Our talk page is far more active than many I've looked through or been a part of. I've come across many where they are relatively desolate, and there's little answers to questions or concerns. Almost everything here gets responses/discussions. Also, I don't believe its very common for a project to have such an extensive list of reliable/unreliable sources like we do at WP:VG/S, or one at all. (There is WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, which I've tried to help them with some in the past, but its far behind what we have here.)
• That being said, in passing, I've somewhat gotten the sentiment that what we consider a reliable source is a little too loose compared to other projects. I feel like sometimes someone from somewhere like a literary background would scoff at us using sources like Kotaku or GameZone. Just as well, I'm not sure I'd care about Kotaku's thoughts on Shakespeare - but that being said, sources need to be experts in their field, not necessarily for everything. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:*I've never noticed that about sourcing, but now that I think about it, our guidelines are fairly loose, in that a source doesn't have to be too well-established. I can't speak for literature articles, but I know that biology ones, particularly about diseases and disorders, have extremely strict guidelines. (Not only do sources have to be from widely known, reputable, and old publications; they have to be secondary, or in some cases have to be primary.)

::My overall impression is that our project is rather centralized; while ones like Military history and Film also get large numbers of GAs and FAs, they appear to run on individual members doing their own things rather than consulting one another like we do. I could be way off-base on that, though. Tezero (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::*Yeah, the statement about sources, seems to occur more so at AFD. So it could be just more of a "they wanted the article to be deleted" than anything personal against our source standards. And as you were kind of getting at, we don't need sources written by scientists or anything, because most of our article don't have any danger of falling into pseudoscience or fringe theories quite like other topics.

::*You're right, I think we collaborate/consult a little more than other WikiProjects, but I think there's a number of reasons for that. 1) We're very active, so there's many people there to consult, or be a hindrance and need consultation on. 2) I'm not referencing anyone in particular, but to be quite frank, I believe that, with the subject matter, we deal with a lot of immature adolescents that are either out to start trouble, or have strong (yet questionable) opinions on things. The console war-mentality of the industry doesn't help either. So I think we need that sense of collaboration to keep our articles from constantly being in the state of an edit war. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::*I don't think we're more lax on sources. Most of the sources we use are respected within the industry. Kotaku might be a bit more gossipy than others, but I've still found it to be very reliable. I generally consider a site reliable if it's been used as a reference by a well-respected news source. You can see my findings at User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:*I'm really not sure any WikiProject worries about the others. If you're not interested in, say, movies, then you probably won't pay the respective Wikiproject much attention. The biggest visibility factor is the ratings on the talk pages, but past that? I don't think so. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The rest of Wikipedia looks down on us in the same way we look down at those who work on Pokemon articles. - hahnchen 04:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:*cries* Tezero (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:D: bbbut.... _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:Somebody doesn't liek Mudkips D: Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously though, unless there is a case of overlap and or a case whete there is a direct conflict brtween different Wikiproject rules

I doubt that other Wikiprojects give us much though and vice versa.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:I've seen non-trivial disdain from people when articles appear on the front page by us, but never have I seen organized disdain. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::True but from the discussuons at main page (whuch seems to have gone down since its seems to no longer seems happen every time a game is on the main page) most of the negativity appears directed at games in general that the Wikiproject itself.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Even that though, isn't that more of the "Kids these days play too many video games! They need to go outside!" or the "Video games aren't art! I'm so sad that Final Fantasy is a GA while this Mozart's Mitridate, re di Ponto is in shambles!" - type mentality. Which is crazy - people should write about what they like and know, not what is deemed a "legit" medium. But regardless, my point is, its more about the topic than the Wikiproject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I find WP:VG much more active and friendly than other projects. I tried to participate in one or two others in the past, but found it much less welcoming. Recently I tried looking for an active project about books. I guess the popularity (video games vs. books) is reflected in the activity of the projects: video games are very popular. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• The Novels WikiProject is not at all active compared to ours. I nominated Fight Club (novel) for GAR a while back, and no one ever responded or tried to fix its numerous issues, so I had to remove it. Tezero (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference between these two genres? I noticed that while an obvious game like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is called an FPS, Metroid Prime isn't. How do we decide which is which? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:It's a thin line but I would argue its based on the idea that there's elements of an RPG or similar game that the player goes on specific quests and missions and improves over time via RPG/Metrovania-like elements - while playing from the first-person perspective - as opposed to be funneled down a map shooting just anything that moves. The FP-action adventures will also tend to have more integrated story than just cutscenes at the start and end of a level. It's not an easy line to define however, and generally best left to make sure reviews and third-party sources classify it one way or another. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

::Another option is that there are instances where we can switch from third person view with Metroid, such as getting into her ball form to manuever. It has to do with what elements they chose. FPS do indeed have story, but the objective is still usually killing in first person as for Metroid Prime is also about exploration (adventure). Lucia Black (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::This is also a good distinguishing point, the emphasis over exploration rather than just racking up kills. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody would think of CoD as an adventure game; it's a shooter. Metroid Prime is a near-perfect example of what an adventure game is. That they are both played from first-person view is coincidental. You could call Skyrim a first-person view RPG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• What about BioShock? Despite frequent commentary on its adventure elements in reviews, when I edited the genre field a few months ago to include "action-adventure" and "survival horror" as well as "first-person shooter", my changes were quickly reverted without explanation. Tezero (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Because there's not as much exploration as there is shooting as the means to the end. It's also far from what survivor horror is. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• To answer the question directly, we should only be using the classifications made directly by the reliable sources. Shouldn't matter how we'd classify it. czar ♔ 18:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Admittedly, few reliable sources class them as survival horror, and I didn't bother checking this at the time (it had been in a previous revision since the article had been FA promoted, so I decided to just bring it back). But plenty have noted the adventure elements and called them action/adventure, particularly Infinite. Yet we refuse to mention this for some reason. Tezero (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• I do think bioshock infinite could be classified as an action game if sources say so (which i dont doubt at least one source will classify it as an action game). Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• On the specific issue of BioShock, we've had to deal with an few IP editors that saw exactly one mention of Bioshock being a "survivor horror" game (from an MSNBC review) and no other reliable source mentioned that - they note elements of survivor horror but do not call it as such. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• In my opinion, an adventure game focuses on exploration and interaction with the environment; an action-adventure game focuses on combat, exploration and interaction with the environment; a shooter focuses on aiming and shooting; and a first-person shooter focuses on aiming and shooting from a first-person perspective. Personally, I would call Metroid Prime an action-adventure game since the term "first-person adventure" is not widely used. Also, at the GameSpot's Best of 2002 Awards, the game [http://web.archive.org/web/20081203191147/http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/bestof2002/gc9.html won Best Action Adventure Game on GameCube] and wasn't even [http://web.archive.org/web/20081203190731/http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/bestof2002/gc10.html nominated for Best Shooter], so it clearly isn't a shooter. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Then i suggest we go by sources, if sources claim it is a first person adventure, then so be it. Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Isn't Metroid Prime an action-adventure game played from a first-person perspective? The game's genre and the game's camera mode aren't interchangeable right? I noticed that sometimes the camera mode is added to the genre the mode field in the infobox like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Clancy%27s_Splinter_Cell:_Conviction&diff=prev&oldid=586646194 here], but the camera mode doesn't say anything about the gameplay itself. I would be cautious when combining existing genres (and camera modes) into a new one for Wikipedia. Like BioShock is rarely called a survival horror, I doubt that many RSes would call Prime a "first-person action-adventure". Explaining that in the article's body is okay though I think. --Soetermans. T / C 11:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::::The camera mode actually says something about the gameplay; there is a significant difference between a first-person shooter and a third-person shooter, but these two genres are much more used by the video game industry. I think we should use the industry standard when adding video game genres to the infobox; action-adventure is clearly the standard, while "first-person action-adventure" isn't. Otherwise by that logic, we could say that Ocarina of Time is a third-person action-adventure. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Exactly, that's what I'm trying to say. First-person shooter and third-person shooter are actual genres, while first-person action-adventure is a combination of a camera mode and a genre. --Soetermans. T / C 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I need some reference-hunting help: My AfC for John Cooney (former Head of Game Development at ArmorGames and maker of some pretty well-known games) was recently declined due to not having enough notability. It said that the best way to help it out is to get more refs to reliable secondary sources. Can anyone see about helping me handle that? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:After looking over your submission, remember that your sources need to be INDEPENDENT of the subject. For example, one of your references comes directly from his profile at AG. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::These might be useful:

::http://www.indiegames.com/2010/09/browser_game_pick_flock_togeth.html

::http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/11/the-joystiq-indie-pitch-armor-games/

::http://www.ex@miner.com/article/iphone-game-developer-to-watch-armor-games (replace the @ with an a – it may be, though, that citing a source from Examiner is blocked for some reason) Tezero (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Examiner is blacklisted. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Alright, thanks. I removed all the first-party sources from it and found a bit more stuff about his work, but I'll keep looking for more information before I resubmit. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As I'm preparing the article for GAN, I'd like some comments on a few issues:

• Is the image that loads automatically an outlined, drawn one or a CGI one? It should be the first of those; my iPod still loads the latter but that could be due to me not having cleared its cache.
• Is the section "In video games" too detailed? She's the first character whose article I've worked on substantially and who's been this major a character in this many games, but perhaps it's still too much.
• Does the second paragraph of "Reception and impact" seem neutral enough? I don't want to piss anyone off, as I personally find a lot of these criticisms of her to reflect a poorly researched understanding of her and the series, and the same is true of a large number of gamers, but at the same time I am obligated to mention it all, regardless of how vitriolic it is.

(And yeah, I know I still need to de-cruft "In comics" and expand "In animation".) Tezero (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

::The reception section could really use some work. It doesn't flow at all, and some parts ought to be removed outright. (That Kotaku/comic strip bit is entirely pointless and without any sort of actual commentary, I'm unfamiliar with the reliability of websites like "Gamemoir", etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yeah, it is pretty haphazard now, at least the first paragraph; I'll have to reorganize it. Gameoir I'm not sure about, but the comic I think offers commentary and, as Kotaku publicized it, is notable. Tezero (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

::::I know gender issues are a big thing right now, but really, is "Whether furries of each gender wear clothes or not?" really one of them? It seems more like one of those age old jokes that date back to Donald Duck or Winnie the Pooh. That's really a stretch... Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Is it up to us to decide how important a gender issue it is? It's not universal, either; it's not even true in Winnie-the-Pooh (Kanga's naked, for example), while it's only partly true for the classic Disney characters (in that I think most of the males are fully clothed, while a few like Donald don't wear pants). Seems more like a commentary on Amy/the series. Tezero (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Uh, so any other sources chiming in on this ludricous debate? The "helpless female" or "scantily clad female" are highly discussed issues. Do you have any other sources for this so-called "clothes on furries" debate? Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::What? You're the one who implied that was a well-established debate. I don't think it is that much, but it's something that a source decided to bring up about Amy. Tezero (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Actually, Sarkeesian may have mentioned it. I know she had a spiel about the "Ms. Main Character", but I don't remember whether she extended that to clothing in general or just stuff like bows. Tezero (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::You must of misunderstood me. Gender equality is a big debate. Whether or not furries wear clothes is definitely not. Making females wear sexy clothes? Sure. Clothes or no clothes. Definitely not. Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::Who cares whether it's a big debate? Amy Rose being cute doesn't seem like a big debate, either, nor is 99%+ of the reception of her or any other character. Tezero (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well, otherwise, I have no idea how you'd argue its a noteworthy part of her as a character. At least it would it would give done context/importance to an otherwise pointless, stupid bit of "reception". As is, it's nothing more than "some rando on the Internet noticed she usually wears more clothes", and Kotaku published it. Not every passing comment warrants inclusion. It shouldn't be in the article at all, let alone would it last through a GA review. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::If you think it's not notable, just say that. I'll get rid of it for that reason. Tezero (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Does the section read better now? Tezero (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Yes, it looks better now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've tried loading the article on a few separate computers, and it looks like only my iPod, with its non-empty cache, loads the old image. Still like to know what anyone thinks of "In video games", though. Tezero (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I recently been looking for information on the wonderswan/color/crystal and accessories. I thought perhaps these articles be upto GA considering how much attention they had received despite being a japanese-exclusive console. I posted some refs here in talk:WonderSwan and talk:WonderWitch although depending if any more information can be found, the article may be merged to Wonderswan.

Still it would be great to see this particular article upto GA. Lucia Black (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:Huh. Didn't realize much of anyone else cared about the WonderSwan. I haven't even heard of the darn thing here since List of Digimon video games. The WonderWitch is still new to me. Tezero (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::I'm particularly interested about it because of there were special editions for Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy II, and Final Fantasy IV. And of course Final Fantasy III was cancelled. What got me more invested was that i found out that there were also special editions for Gundam series aswell. Still, its an interesting console and i think it could potentially be a very informative article. Lucia Black (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Could, yeah. One thing that worries me is that there might not be enough reliable English-language information. Tezero (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::::That's a given, but i'm finding quite significant ammount of information on the wonderswan color and crystal, the original is a little harder to find. Lucia Black (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::There's a Retro Gamer article in issue 36 that I can provide scans to if you like. - hahnchen 16:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::That would be most helpful. if you like to send it over to my talkpage. Speaking of Retro gamer, they also had another issue covering the wonderswan which i believe is issue 136 (126) as well [http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2305804/knight_lore_game_boy_and_wonderswan_in_retro_gamer_126.html Retro Gamer 126]. However i dont know how much information is repeated from issue 36. but it would still be a great help to have that info. Lucia Black (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Send me an email, I will reply with the article this evening. - hahnchen 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::I have 126 (My subscription arrived 3 weeks ago but I never opened the wrapper!), it's the current issue so 136 doesn't exist. The article is only a couple of pages of meaningful content. I can take a look at the article later and add anything missing.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::It was a typo. its fixed now. if you could send me the scan covering 126, that would be great. Lucia Black (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am curious whether this is allowed either on Wikipedia or in academia in general. I'm trying to prove Algae fuels are an important element to the plot of Metal Gear 2:Solid Snake. I know instruction manuals can be used as a reference but why not the video games themselves? Using supporting lines of dialogue or mentioning something is visible on screen is not original research; unless you just hate pictures as a medium for communication for some reason. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:As is often the case, OR can depends on the context. Template:Cite video game is the template you would want. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::Citing the game should be fine unless you are trying to analyze or read between the lines since in that case the source is not the game itself but you personal interpretation of it.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Technically, plots are allowed to remain completely unsourced. Quotes are considered quite helpful, though. Tezero (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

::::{{edit conflict}} It'd be a primary source, which wouldn't be as good for Wikipedia as a secondary one, but it still works (I've seen it a lot on pages like Amy Rose and various Pokemon). Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::A primary source would be fine for a basic plot summary though.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I imagine you're partly asking on principle, but [http://kotaku.com/5960782/heres-how-metal-gear-2-predicted-the-future this source] would fit your need. I personally wouldn't cite anything not mentioned by RS by virtue of the principle that it's important for an encyclopedia article only if it's important enough for secondary sources to mention. czar ♔ 03:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:I'd agree with Czar for general trends; analyzing something's significance in a work, even with quotes, seems like OR. I think it's fine to cite specific events with quotes, though, as secondary sources often won't mention them because (1) they might not be relevant to the specific review or point they're trying to make or (2) it's obvious and well-known enough that they don't bother. It should be okay to simply mention when Algae fuels appear without judging their significance one way or the other, if no secondary sources do. Tezero (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

From time to time, I notice that anon editors have the tendency to add the literary and film genre psychological horror to the genre field in the VG infobox. For instance, I had to remove psychological horror a couple of times on the article on Alan Wake. I've expanded on the article of psychological horror itself, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_horror&diff=598247892&oldid=597097511 trying to show] that it's not a video game genre, as they are based upon gameplay. I just stumbled upon a category listing, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Psychological_horror_games "psychological horror games"] (not sure if there's a wikilink for categories). Is this helpful, having such a category? Or could we rename it to psychological horror in video games (I also prefer video games to 'games', because that can mean so much more), to emphasize here also that it's the narrative and not gameplay? --Soetermans. T / C 21:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

:Wikilink: :Category:Psychological horror games czar ♔ 21:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

::Seems pretty subjective. It might be a good idea to require at least one source mentioning psychological horror aspects. I agree about adding "video" before "games"; I'm neutral on "in". Tezero (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So I recently noticed that the Microsoft article is tagged for the group. I remember a discussion about this before (Coincidently started by me), but we never really got an answer to that. What do you guys think? GamerPro64 21:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:I just added it a bit ago because we already have Nintendo, Sony, Atari, and Sega, and there's no appropriate "totes hardcore Microsoft console development studio" article that would be analogous to Sony Computer Entertainment. Tezero (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC) I didn't realize, but there is one: Microsoft Studios. Should Microsoft be removed, then? Tezero (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::The Xbox is an important VG-related article, so by extension, Microsoft should be tagged as well, just with a lower importance. with a pretty high importance due to how much they do in the industry. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:They created the Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One, DirectX, Kinect, Windows, Games for Windows - Live, Microsoft XNA, they've had a large amount of oversight in the Halo series, and are the parent company of Microsoft Studios. I think they have a huge amount of relevance to the project. However, I do think that Sony should be tagged for our WikiProject as well, assuming we choose to keep Microsoft. --Nicereddy (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::I went ahead and tagged Sony as Top-importance as Microsoft was, please correct me if I'm wrong. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Honestly if we add Microsoft and Sony to our project we might as well also at Philips and Panasonic and any other other company made a console. GamerPro64 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Possibly, but if it was only one a long time ago, I'm not sure it'd be relevant anymore. Microsoft and Nintendo and everyone else are/were recently involved in the video game industry, so that's why they get tagged. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::I definitely agree that Microsoft and Sony should remain tagged.MrAdaptive343 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::I suggest we get some kind of established and agreed-upon threshold for making distinctions for this kind of inclusion though and formally note it someplace in order to avoid the obvious fan conflicts this may instigate. Just a suggestion.BcRIPster (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

With GDC here again, they are again providing lots of good CC-BY photos over on Flickr. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/with/13229722545/]. Just remember to double check the descriptions to make sure there is not any additional copyright notes to a third-party photographer (that would make them inallowable), but like this one [http://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/13230700263/] has no additional information about copyright and works fine for us. Also I'm seeing a lot of good board game shots that work well in a de minimus aspect to show the tableau of the board game without being a copyright problem (assuming they lack the copyright note, of course) --MASEM (t) 02:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note that we mostly forgot to upload pictures from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/collections/72157633058882769/ 2013 GDC] with a paltry 2 files. Remember, you can use the [http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload Flickr Upload Bot] to make the process less boring/annoying. - hahnchen 13:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::Got some more in commons:Category:Game Developers Conference 2014 (using UW Flickr − makes it even less boring ;). Will go through 2013 one of these days. (hardest part for me is to recognise the superstars ;-þ). Jean-Fred (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:Masem: not sure what you mean by « good board game shots » ; but generally speaking if the shot is good enough to see anything meaningful of the game, then it can hardly be considered De minimis. De minimis is not really about the percentage of the file occupied by copyighted material ; it is about how accidental its inclusion is. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

::Something like this: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/13300149975/] would be de minimus as the focus is not on the game's pieces but on the people playing the game, the game's setup incidental to the photo. (This [http://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/13255578563/] is another example in terms of a video game - the photo's focus is on the presenter, not the game.). On the other hand [http://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/13232700035/] is not going to be free for us to use because it is the game set that is the focus. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, Zelda, pong, Mario, etc. Why isn't there a category. Are these called legacy? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

::Category:History of video games plays a similar role. I'm not convinced I agree with the use of either on individual game articles, because there's such a continuum. Is Final Fantasy VI a legacy game? How about The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker? Why? Both seem rather influential to me, but not quite as much so as those you mentioned... yet I don't see a good place to draw the line, nor do any reliable sources I know of. Tezero (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

:What is a legacy game? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

::Agree with Samwalton's question. Legacy is an industry term for when you're stuck with an outdated system (Hardware or software) and continue using it when new versions are available. I don't think games could really be viewed in this fashion, anymore than a movie from 1980 is a "legacy" movie.. You could perhaps say a certain patch or version of a game is "legacy" (Say, people who prefer an earlier version of Starcraft). -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

While perusing the history of our "Things you can help with" template, I just noticed that {{user|GamerPro64}} questioned Invader's relevance to our project. I was the one who added it (not to GAN - I don't recall editing it once): I was bored one day and clicking the various links up at GAN, and I thought it curious that he wasn't already part of our project. Is Invader outside our scope, though? Tezero (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

:I haven't seen a definitive scope for the project. Based on the "related to video games" assumed scope from the WP:VG main page, I say Invader fits. (However, I don't think the article's main picture is suited for Commons since it contains the copyrighted Pac-Man ghosts. Right? Might be okay if moved to fair use.) czar ♔ 22:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Struck since the photo appears to meet FoP in Spain, and I tagged it as such czar ♔ 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

::Its a tough call, no video games are really being called to mind. He's more inspired by the 8-bit style of the games, rather than the games themselves. Lucia Black (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yeah, the Pac-Man ghosts are shown and labeled, and Space Invaders is mentioned, but I think that's it. Tezero (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey there. I currently have an ongoing GA review for the article Blood Knights. {{u|Tezero}} has been kind enough to pick up the review after the original reviewer disappeared, but I have run into a snag and could use some help. Tezero would like for me to expand the plot section, but I am at a loss as to how to go about it. He recommended that I go through the "let's play" videos and build it from there, but it's not something I've ever done before and I'm unsure as to how sourcing would work in that situation. Additionally, I'm not sure how much more "plot" I can put into the game's article, seeing as most of the reviews I read were of the mind that there really wasn't much of one to begin with. If anyone could offer me advice or assistance, it would be greatly appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:Similar to our conversation about Hell Yeah, the article starts off with that the game is for PlayStation Network and Xbox Live, which I consider to be the distribution channels, and not the platform it is for. Maybe others here can shed some light on this? --Soetermans. T / C 01:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

::That is totally unrelated to what I was asking for in this thread. I will make the same change I did to Hell Yeah!, but this isn't the place we should be discussing this. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

::Since you're working on a GA review, I thought that "If anyone could offer me advice or assistance, it would be greatly appreciated" goes beyond advice about plot. But I guess not. Terribly sorry for trying to help out. --Soetermans. T / C 11:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

:You don't need sources in a plot section. Sticking in quotes from the game (via {{tl|Cite video game}}) is always nice, but not required- most video game articles, even GAs, have completely unsourced plot sections. As you have it, you seem to have the setup for the game, but not what actually happens- so Jeremy must attempt to reverse his transformation and break his bond. Does he? What happens while he tries? --PresN 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I recently been working on the Gunpey article, and need some additional referencing for the gameplay section. Fortunately i found the instruction manual of the original version, but i can't understand it. I need someone who reads Japanese.

If anyone knows Japanese and is willing to help, please check out the talk page for more information: talk:Gunpey#Ref(s). Thank you. Lucia Black (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The site previously known as [http://www.squareenixmusic.com/ Square Enix Music Online], which has been a useful source of music intel for multiple articles, has shifted over to a new site: [http://www.vgmonline.net/ Game Music Online]. The old site will remain active for a few months while the material on it is transferred over to the new site and archived, but this is an advance warning of a change in address for where to go, and that the old site will not be available for much longer. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

:Wait, what? They've been saying they were going to do it for 2 years now, with nothing to show for it. I thought the site was dead for a few months now. Anyways- the whole SEMO site is at archive.org, so even if everything doesn't make the move to GMO, it should all still be accessible. Pop in some archiveurls to your references, everyone! Reminder- if you archive stuff proactively, you'll never get screwed over by site moves. --PresN 22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In the vg articles I write, I try to quote the short text Metacritic writes next to its metascores ("universal acclaim", "generally favorable", "mixed/average reviews", [http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores etc.]) as a more objective characterization of the reviews overall than my OR judgement on the matter. {{u|CR4ZE}} offers several counterarguments against this File:Farm-Fresh eye.png in the Threes! GA review. We're looking for external input, if you have a moment. czar ♔ 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could create an article listing all games offered in Microsoft's [http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/games-with-gold Games with Gold] program for Xbox 360 (and Xbox One in the future)? I'll start a draft at Draft:List of Games with Gold games, although if someone has a better name please feel free to suggest it. PlayStation Plus' "Instant Game Collection" already has a list and I think people would find this useful. We may also wish to add a "Games with Gold" section to the Xbox Live article. I don't think there are enough differences between regions thus far to warrant separate articles, like PS+'s separate PAL and North America lists. Thoughts? --Nicereddy (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:Though I was initially sceptical (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), I actually think this would be quite alright as an article. Which games are part of the program are regularly covered in sources so it could easily be done. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Samwalton9}} Thanks for the support! I've created the full list of games with dates, I just need references and the replacement titles for some games banned in other regions and I think it can be moved to the main namespace. --Nicereddy (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a cross over category to cover these free/discounted games from console subscription services? (eg. List of Instant Game Collection games (North America)) Not sure if there is a page like this for iTunes/Steam/Amazon... of maybe this is overkill. Thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• File:Farm-Fresh eye.png The article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games With Gold games (North America) czar ♔ 00:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Who decided to move this article in the main namespace? Of course it's nominated for deletion, they removed the platforms, notes, and added a bunch of sub-par references. The "Notes" should include games which have been switched out for others in certain nations and the Platforms row is future proofing for the Xbox One. I'll improve it as soon as I have time, but I don't see why anyone would have moved it out of "Draft" in its current state. --Nicereddy (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

there is only one list that involves "Game Boy" games alone. and that is the original. So i don't understand why we have to redirect people to a disambiguation page just because many share the "Game Boy" title. There shouldn't be confusion between List of "Game Boy" games from "Game Boy advance". I think the only possible confusion there is, is the Game Boy and Game Boy color. But that should be the only issue. We can still clarify on top of the list. Lucia Black (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

:It is because "Game Boy" refers to the system, as well as the family of systems that includes Super, Color, and Advance. So, someone may want to search for a list of all games released for the Game Boy family (List of Game Boy games) and by taking them to the disambig page, they see that such a list does not exist, but there are multiple for the different systems in the Game Boy family. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

::Again, its not a strong reason. The Gameboy line barely divides itself into 4 lists. Here's an example: List of PlayStation games. the playstation has had possibly more list articles than the gameboy line and its mostly divided by numerical or handheld. Lucia Black (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

::Anyone? Lucia Black (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to direct people to the Game Boy List, then have a "Series" template to direct people to the others? I'm not sure what precedence there is for such a small group to have a series template, but it would aid navigation. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had some 1UP links start to spit back 403 errors, and I can't get an archive from web.archive.org because there's a robots.txt file preventing an archive. Is there another alternative, or did I just lose all of those sources? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• You can try searching Google for the article title. Also see if Google has a cached copy of the article. Though they may very well be gone. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is why I hate references to 1UP. I've been going through all Valve-related articles and adding archives just in case sites go down (and many of the links to GameSpot, etc. have broken over time), and the inability to archive 1UP articles is pretty frustrating. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, I've had a few like that. I can't archive my video game lists for Sega either because Allgame does the same thing. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• This is really serious; a good number of GAs, FAs, and FLs rely on such sources. It might sound outlandish, but could we email the companies to ask them for archived copies? Tezero (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• I think that's perfectly reasonable. 1UP may not even mean to do this, seeing as their parent site IGN doesn't. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• This is bad. This is really bad. The 1UP links on Pokémon Channel, which is at FAC now, are already gone before I could find a way to get them archived, and I can't find anyone to contact at 1UP because the contact page is down. Any ideas? (slams head on keyboard) Tezero (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• No worries- I managed to get the page to load for me. Webcitation wouldn't archive it (it kept timing out) but archive.is seemed to have a more forgiving archiving style ([http://archive.is/3bg1z]). I've added the archives to the article. --PresN 20:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• I take it back, archive.is is apparently banned from article space. Got it with archive bay, though, though no promises that it's a good permanent solution. [http://archivebay.com/archive/12b]. --PresN 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Is Archive Bay built to last? Looks sketchy czar ♔ 21:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note that if the link is still good you should be able to archive links manually with webcitation.org, sometimes. --PresN 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• That's incredibly helpful. Are there bots that could help us with that, if by nothing else than giving us links to 1UP articles that are still active and sourced in Wikipedia? Tezero (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia has an inbuilt tool for finding external links. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.1up.com%2F There are 5855 links to www.1up.com]. - X201 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, they did announce their closing in February 2013, guess they decided to shut down the site now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like the site's back up but who knows how long it's going to last. webcitation.org is my go-to archiver and it works with 1UP. (Edit: Actually it only appears to be working on half of the links—not sure why. [http://www.webcitation.org/6OLbtBvuz This] is my workaround.) You know, I'm curious whether [http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/21/4014196/ign-layoffs-1up-ugo-and-gamespy-shutting-down IGN] and [http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/6/5183840/the-penny-arcade-report-is-shutting-down Penny Arcade] have considered donating their site archives to the public domain, especially if they don't plan to import the content. I can't say I've heard of such a move before, but it would be a great contribution to posterity. I can try making inroads to this effect unless someone has a better idea. czar ♔ 21:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know what you mean by "inroads", but go ahead. I wonder if there's a way to archive 1UP articles while taking out robots.txt. Tezero (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Clarified above. Also: {{talkquote|i=y|The site's been turned into an archive a while back, but some services seem to have gone MIA. I'll check. Shouldn't happen.|source=[https://twitter.com/peerign/status/448595829972938752 Peer Schneider]}} czar ♔ 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the biggest clean-ups in the history of WP:VG is starting.

User:TeleComNasSprVen had the idea of adding a tracking category to the Infobox template, to categorise all articles that contained infobox code for defunct fields. With additional technical gubbins by User:Technical 13, we now have a very large administration category that contains {{PAGESINCAT:Infobox video game with deprecated parameters}} articles.

Help is required in a number of ways.

1. There is an AWB file available so that any AutoWikiBrowser users who want to help can get straight to work.
2. I'm fairly new to RegEx, so anyone who can provide technical help to improve the above file is welcome to do so.
3. Check the infobox on pages you watch for the following fields (picture format, aspect ratio, input, license, resolution, ratings, requirements, version, preceded by, followed by, latest release version, latest release date, latest preview version, latest preview date, website) and remove them.
4. Bake a cake for when we cross the finish line sometime next year.

My main reason for taking part is to make life easier for new editors, templates are confusing for new editors, and having loads of redundant fields around only makes it harder for them to open an existing article when looking for a few pointers.

Please help if you can. The AWB code is available here. - X201 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:I'm kinda wondering why some of these fields have been deprecated. Ratings, website seem moderately useful and informative, preceded/followed by is very useful for series Infoboxes... were these all discussed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

::Were all discussed and have been dead fields for between 1 and 3 years. - X201 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:Pass. Why can't we have a bot do something like this? Editors shouldn't have to waste their time on monotonous tasks about parameters that are no longer seen anyway when they can be adding real value to articles. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:::Because not all editors are good at creating article content. If the Gnomes find nothing to do that interests them, they wither and die. - X201 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

::A bot definitely could do this, though I would have the bot leave any of these old alone if they contain references or links, so that we can then filter the much smaller set to make sure if there's anything to keep worthwhile. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree a bot should be doing this once the rules have been properly vetted and debugged (there are still a couple minor issues according to {{U|X201}}). I wonder if any of the {{Pinggroup|bot writers I know|Theopolisme|Hasteur|Legoktm|SigmaWP}} could write up this bot for this and get it through WP:BAG since there seems to be a consensus here for that. Technical 13 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:: I could do this manually, I like such projects. If BAG will take a long time to clear, why not just do it manually - saves hassle in the end. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:::I could also probably run an AWB routine for the simpler cases over the weekend (such as simply removing fields with no information to keep). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

::::Most of them are simple removes, it just needs the human eye to spot the oddballs. - X201 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

::{{ec}}*2 Definitely doable with a bot. Just enumerating the requirements so far

::*For each transclusion of {{tl|Infobox video game}}

::::For each parameter in the template

:::::If the parameter is on a blacklist of "deprecated fields" fields

::::::If the field's "value" has a URL, reference, or internal wikilink, don't strip

::::::Else strip the parameter

::::Save the modified template with a summary that is distinctive, and gives a link to the consensus for removal. Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:*Thanks to User:X201 for his work. Someone who is familiar with the videogame infobox issues should look at the last hundred entries in Special:Contributions/X201 to see if those changes look correct. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:::*{{ping|Hasteur}} I don't think internal wikilinks need to be included; for example, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disciples_II:_Dark_Prophecy&diff=prev&oldid=590509554 this edit] which removed defunct parameters and plenty of wikilinks that didn't need to be kept. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Do it with a bot". I've done about 400-500 articles with AWB while testing my RegEx code. I think a bot could do a large proportion of the fields, the problem I have with letting a bot loose on it is that users have come up with their own styles for actually laying out the field data, - especially in the requirements field, where I've had to rely on the fact that its usually the last item in the infobox and implement an open bit of RegEx to select everything between the field start and the end of the template. - and I'm fully expecting to find more. Plus I'm also finding totally made up fields like site, time limit and numerous others where people think that just adding something in the correct format will make it appear in the template.

I'm fully in favour of the human approach to this, checking as each edit is made and spotting anomalies. There is no urgent reason that means the job must be done in a week, I'm fully happy to do the whole 12,000 myself with AWB, I've done similar with large categories before, its not a problem for me. The main reason I posted here was to let everyone know what was happening and get a bit of help if anyone is interested in joining in. - X201 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know There is a new version of the AWB code on the template talk page. It contains a bug fix for the website field and Izno's template suggestions below. - X201 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do not remove deprecated parameters - In many cases, they contain accurate referenced material, which although decided that they are unsuitable for the infobox - may still be useful elsewhere. If not on Wikipedia, then on Wikidata. - hahnchen 16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

::Well, I won't remove deprecated parameters in the future, I can't promise I'm going to go back and restore all the ones I already removed. :S — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

::The 600-ish articles that I've so far processed don't back up the claim that many contain accurate referenced material. On the rare occasion anything has had a reference in it, it's been the Ratings field. - X201 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:::Lists of age ratings are exactly the type of thing that Wikidata can and should cover. - hahnchen 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

::::They rarely have a reliable reference. That was one of the reasons the field was removed from the template. Is WikiData just being populated with whatever happens to be in Wikipedia when it makes a pass? Surely they would be better off doing a look-up to the actual source of the info, the ratings bodies? - X201 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::It's a lot easier to scrape Wikipedia than it is to scrape external sites. Each video game article already has a link to Wikidata so you know you're dealing with the correct subject. And a lot of system requirements information never needed sourcing because it was taken as read that the source was the game itself. Wikidata is still in its infancy, it'd be better to keep the information stored in deprecated infobox fields until that data is transferred across. - hahnchen 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::Not sure if its possible, but a better solution would be to remove the deprecated fields from the Infobox, and put the ones that do have data in them into an invisible template at the bottom of the article. That way the template is cleaned of redundant code and Wikidata still has the info to mine at some point in the future. - X201 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Agree. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::::That would work. - hahnchen 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything else that WP:VG could use this large a run to do other changes with, besides gen fixes? Running it over 12k articles is an excellent time to poke away at other things that could use a mass-tweak and which are otherwise banned as "solo" edits per WP:AWB#Rules of use #4. The example off the top of my head would be to change all instances of Infobox VG to Infobox video game. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

: Good thinking Batman. How about sorting the fields into the same order? - X201 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:: That would be nice, but there are some who would see that as controversial, which would fail rule #3. --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

: {{ping|Izno}} Isn't bypassing template redirects part of AWB genfixes? I see it happen all the time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:: T:IVG isn't one of them apparently (though it's not the only template I have in mind)! We can add templates to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects so long as we can show consensus. On that note, I'd probably say that the following are good ones to add: {{tl|Video game reviews}}, {{tl|Infobox video game}}, and {{tl|System requirements}}, with their respective redirects. (I would expect T:System requirements not to be removed in an AWB run per AWB usage rule #3.) --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:::And I've gone ahead and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAutoWikiBrowser%2FTemplate_redirects&diff=590699799&oldid=590692262 added the above three]. Are those replacements taking place? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

:What about