Review thread...I don't know, but there's a lot.
Following on from a suggestion made above, I've decided to create a review thread. Things have been...complicated in the world over the past several months, so it's not all surprising that there's been a bit of backlog building up. But I think it's best to set to and make sure we've all got some idea of what ones still need tackling.
- FAC
Donkey Kong Country (nom)- Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine (nom)
- BioShock 2 (nom)
Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash (nom)- Fallout (video game) (nom)
- Lumines: Puzzle Fusion (nom)
- GAN
- Rockstar Vienna ()
Sucker Punch Productions (nom)- Rockstar Vancouver (nom)
- Rockstar Lincoln ()
Rockstar Dundee (nom)Trails (series) (nom)- Rockstar New England ()
- Panzer Dragoon Orta ()
- Plok! ()
Crash Bandicoot: On the Run! (nom)- Syndicate (Internet personality) ()
Sacnoth (nom)- Rockstar Leeds ()
Serious Sam: Tormental (nom)- Mercy (Overwatch) (nom)
Dragon Quest IX (nom)
- PR
- Article assessments
- Mother 3 (nom)
- Tifa Lockhart (nom)
As per usual, there is a backlog at the Request board, pushing six to seven years now we're in 2022. My noms in the list above are Orta, Sacnoth and DQIX. I'm already reviewing Forza Horizon 3 GAN. ProtoDrake (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- A great deal of the request board should be purged. Many of the entries simply link to Mobygames or even archive.org searches, rather than presenting the exact sources that would represent in-depth coverage per the request board's instructions. If a game linked to mobygames for 6-7 years still hasn't been created, the bottom line is no one who reviews that board or works to create articles felt the sourcing was there. We certainly have plenty of people who regularly create stubs for older games, and yet these don't move. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. There's really no realistic expectation that someone is going to come along and create an article for an inconsequential 20 year old edutainment game that scraped by the bare minimum of the GNG. I dont care if we delete it or not, but I don't think any real importance should be placed on it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think the requesters should at least explain to people what the game is and why they are significant. Simply putting down the name of the game and then adding a bunch of sources next to it is not enticing to anyone who is looking to create articles. I believed most editors have no intention of clearing that backlog anyway, especially when the requesters themselves don't even bother to explain why they should be created. OceanHok (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. There's really no realistic expectation that someone is going to come along and create an article for an inconsequential 20 year old edutainment game that scraped by the bare minimum of the GNG. I dont care if we delete it or not, but I don't think any real importance should be placed on it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Donkey Kong Country was promoted to FA just today, so it can be crossed off this list. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I decided to assist with Dragon Quest IX, Crash Bandicoot: On the Run, and Trails (series).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- What's the record for open FACs? Should I add one? czar 01:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Video Games Publishers
A submission was declined on 23rd August 2022 for Numskull Games. This is quite a reputable publisher who has a close working partnership with Spike Chunsoft. Is there anyone out there who has experience with Video Games publisher pages? The sources used here do seem in-line with other Publisher articles on Wikipedia. (Rising Star Games, Wired Productions, Super Rare Games for example are all existing with similar sources cited.) Markflynn000 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Other people will probably chime in but I wanted to stress that a reputable company can still absolutely fail Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations, because trustworthiness and notability are two totally different things. I can run a neighborhood plumbing company that always does the job incredibly well, but if local newspapers have not mentioned me beyond my own advertising or passing trivial mentions, I would not merit a Wikipedia article, it would simply be WP:PROMO for my company. All I saw with the current sources is simple announcements without WP:SIGCOV. If others disagree, however, they are welcome to mention the sources I am missing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think the confusion on my part is largely stemming from other publishers existing on the platform following almost the same criteria. Hence my post here to try and determine if there's something else the original page could use based on others experiences... Markflynn000 (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just because something is "there" doesn't mean it is notable or would stay on Wikipedia if given a WP:PROD or nominated for deletion. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles for Creation is just a way of confirming up front if it's acceptable rather than waiting for the inevitable AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think the confusion on my part is largely stemming from other publishers existing on the platform following almost the same criteria. Hence my post here to try and determine if there's something else the original page could use based on others experiences... Markflynn000 (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't really help that they're mostly just distributing and not developing or publishing most of their games. That's not going to lead to very good coverage, as there's probably not a ton to say about them. This aligns with the current status of the rejected draft, where you couldn't even really write in paragraph form because it's mostly just a listing of disparate factoids. It's just a bit under-developed. I'd look to some better examples for help. Look for WP:GA articles like Rare (company) or Monolith Soft for guidance, not the fringe examples you listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 11:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- "it doesn't really help that they're mostly just distributing and not developing or publishing most of their game"
- Numskulls most recently fully published title (Final Vendetta) has a lot of coverage from big sources (Gaming Bible, The Mirror, The Star, NME, Nintendo Life) etc, from previews, to reviews, to features on its soundtrack. Could that help the pages chances? I was under the impression that I needed to try to keep the page company specific. I think the biggest level of confusion is stemming from some of our sources being deemed 'trivial' whereas by that nature every single games publisher on Wikipedia should not be using PR related news beats. Which in itself is where almost all games news originates from. Is it possible to have guidance on this?
- It's not that I couldn't write in paragraph form... I wrote in that style based on the similar companies that I saw had approved pages... To me it made sense to look at what similar companies were doing rather than monoliths such as Rare and well, Monolith. I could also add sections dedicated to partnerships with Independent studios and Spike Chunsoft similar to how the Rare page is structured if you think it could be beneficial.
- Appreciate the advice. Markflynn000 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think the primary issue is, whether the sources are mainly about the game or the company developing or publishing it. Final Vendetta does not have an article yet, but it's undoubtedly notable and should have one. In those sources, the publisher is only mentioned in passing and the announcement is that the game is getting something like a boxed release. Sources that would indicate notability for the company would need to be predominantly about the company itself. I can't really find anything like that, since it's largely just "Numskull Games announces X" where the article is about what they announced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like we are arguing semantics slightly.
- Final Vendetta is a product of Numskull Games, its marketing, distribution and coverage is as a result of the efforts of Numskull Games. How can that be undoubtedly notable when the publisher is not? The game does not exist in its current state without the publisher.
- As a games publisher press will be solely related to game launches (games press don’t often write about companies individually unless lets face it, they are bought or acquired, you will see in the draft that Numskull Games was mentioned as a company when it was created, in fact this article is actually referenced in Rising Star Games verified Wikipedia page too [3] in the references). Numskull Games in its current form can really only provide press for its game launches (such as with Final Vendetta, where it was digital and physical distributor), partnership announcements (like w/ Spike, Limited Run Games) etc. I can provide these for more titles & others if that will help the pages chances. Markflynn000 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of the creative aspects of video games, the publisher has little input into them so we rarely give the publisher much attention. Hence just claiming they had a major role in marketing the game doesn't help. We need independent secondary sources that talk about the published more than a name drop as part of a game release. Publishers like Limited Run Games have that as there has been interest in their release model. Masem (t) 13:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- We aren't talking purely creative or marketing. We're talking physical production, adding the product to digital store fronts, selling it to wholesale and retailers. Can you explain how Final Vendetta is notable but the company isn't? Markflynn000 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources that go into depth about this distribution and marketing? It is assumed that distribution and marketing is always part of a game's release making the publisher's role trivial, and hence non notable. The cases of pubs like Limited Run, Devolover, or Annapurna all have in depth discussion of the unique roles in financial and development support, or marketing, or distribution. That is what you need for thus publisher. Masem (t) 13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I was going to touch on this point some too. Take Anonymous;Code for example. It's an interesting game with an interesting development history. But Numskull didn't make the game or make any decisions on it. They're merely distributing it in Europe. There's really little relevant there as far as notability or content goes for Numskull. And I think that's kind of a recurring situation... Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73 You are credited in the edit history of this page. Can you explain what is different about this page that makes it suitable for approvable? It's genuinely very confusing at this point, given all the responses above. If someone is able to explain the distinction it'd really make this clearer. Seems random at the moment. Markflynn000 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- If you're referring to this edit, I believe that was just me cleaning up after an editor who was spamming an unreliable source (Nintendo Soup) back in 2019. I don't think I was really checking the article over for notability when I did that. I'm not 100% certain that article would survive a deletion discussion if it got proper scrutiny, honestly. Like I said, I think you should focus less on trying to emulate these D- level articles that may not be safe themselves... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73 You are credited in the edit history of this page. Can you explain what is different about this page that makes it suitable for approvable? It's genuinely very confusing at this point, given all the responses above. If someone is able to explain the distinction it'd really make this clearer. Seems random at the moment. Markflynn000 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think the likes of Atlus West are worth comparing to. They are known for their approach to localizations and the care they take over them. If Numbskull also have a reputation for things like that, and it can be sourced, that would be something to raise them above being just a publisher. - 13:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- We aren't talking purely creative or marketing. We're talking physical production, adding the product to digital store fronts, selling it to wholesale and retailers. Can you explain how Final Vendetta is notable but the company isn't? Markflynn000 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of the creative aspects of video games, the publisher has little input into them so we rarely give the publisher much attention. Hence just claiming they had a major role in marketing the game doesn't help. We need independent secondary sources that talk about the published more than a name drop as part of a game release. Publishers like Limited Run Games have that as there has been interest in their release model. Masem (t) 13:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think the primary issue is, whether the sources are mainly about the game or the company developing or publishing it. Final Vendetta does not have an article yet, but it's undoubtedly notable and should have one. In those sources, the publisher is only mentioned in passing and the announcement is that the game is getting something like a boxed release. Sources that would indicate notability for the company would need to be predominantly about the company itself. I can't really find anything like that, since it's largely just "Numskull Games announces X" where the article is about what they announced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
A lot of people have already given good advice from other angles so I'll just put this off to the side. It appears that you have declared a connection to the company so it behooves me to point you to Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing#Articles about companies and organizations. Having a Wikipedia article is neither a badge of honor nor a promotional tool. Your COI declaration means that any text you add will be more scrutinized than most to root out any hint of self-promotion. If you still wish to continue, I would search for third-party sources (i.e. no self-published press releases or game website articles that are lightly edited press releases) that describe the unique role that Numskull Games plays in the development process that is not merely the routine business of game distribution. Routine mentions in articles that Company X published this do not establish notability unless they actually make note of some unusual and noteworthy aspect of the business. Finally, notability is not WP:INHERITED from notable products that the company has published/distributed, nor is it inherited from notable people involved in the company. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that "Rubber Road is the mother company to the Numskull brand" [2] as well as numerous other brands. Numskull themselves describe Numskull Games as a 'label', meanwhile Numskull is owned and operated by Rubber Road. For this reason I suggest turning the article into one about Rubber Road as the collective sources on this company should be sufficient rather than a 'label of a brand'.--Coin945 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Numskull (or Numskull Designs) (2012): Designing, manufacturing and distributing licensed gaming, movie and music merchandise globally.
- Numskull Games (an offshoot / label of Numskull) (2019): Publishing, marketing and distributing unique video games digitally and physically.
- Quarter Arcades: Creates replica range of Arcade cabinets by renowned collectors.
- TUBBZ: Range of duck-related collectible products.
- Pin Kings: Premium hard enamel pins covering brands in pop culture.
- 4 other brands [3]
- That would be contingent on the question of whether Rubber Road is itself notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, neither are particularly more or less plausible in those terms - the deciding factor of which one(s) have the reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- That would be contingent on the question of whether Rubber Road is itself notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The top 10 most cloned videogames
Some video games were so influential they spawned entirely new genres. Some of these genres have distinct names, others are called "____ clones", and others still are on Wikipedia with the suffix "(video game genre)". Generally the original developers created sequels/ports of the game which can live in a "(video game series)" or "(franchise)" article, but also if a core design mechanic became copied by numerous others devs there should be way to house them all under the same roof. I'm listing here the 10 articles in Most Clones Videogames article by Den of Geek so we can explore how these genres are represented on Wikipedia (which ones require their own articles?) and perhaps create some consistency: --Coin945 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Space Invaders - Fixed shooter [redirect]
- Pac-Man - Maze chase game or Dot eat game (Japanese name)
- List of maze video games Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
- maze chase (Q11322721) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Qix - Line-drawing puzzle game OR Puzzle arcade game OR Qix (video game genre)
- Tetris - Falling block puzzle game [redirect] or Tetris clone [redirect] or
Tetris (video game genre) - Defender - Side-scrolling shooter [redirect]
- World Of WarCraft - MMORPG
- Commando - Run-and-gun shooter [redirect]
- Kung-Fu Master - Side-scrolling beat 'em up [redirect]
- Donkey Kong - Platform game
- Chess -
Computer chessor Chess (video game genre) or Chess in video games- Chess is not a video game genre, or a series of clones, it is just a real-world game that has several dozen digital versions. Computer Chess is not about a specific computer game adaptation of Chess, it is about the history and concept of the ability of computers to play the real-world game of Chess. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
- Note: Currently we have List of chess software and Comparison of chess video games--Coin945 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Chess is not a video game genre, or a series of clones, it is just a real-world game that has several dozen digital versions. Computer Chess is not about a specific computer game adaptation of Chess, it is about the history and concept of the ability of computers to play the real-world game of Chess. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
(Please note: Lunar Lander (video game genre), Snake (video game genre), Monopoly (video game genre) and Olympic games (video game genre))
Coin945 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I would be very careful of using Den of Geek for an RS for this purpose. Also being from 2011, this doesn't b account for a lot of mobile games (eg Flappy Bird). --Masem (t) 19:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's not meant to be comprehensive, but an opportunity to look at some case studies. I analysed other media for the genres they spawned and potential article titles. Definitely think there's a place for Flappy Bird clone.--Coin945 (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- You need to be really careful with what you are prposing as genre names. Whike there are a lot if Tetris clones, the genre is properly tile-matching game. Masem (t) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think that Tetris has been so influential that the 'genre' deserves its own article, rather than stuffing it into an article with other games like Bejeweled which operate very differently and don't have the exact same lineage. We actually already have Category:Falling block puzzle games for this genre.--Coin945 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- You need to show sourcing exists, not that there are a lot of clones. Eg we can get away with GTA clones due to numerous sources discussing it like a genre. Or Soulslike for dark souls styled gameplay. Some you are proposing I am doubtful that sourcing exists for those terms in depth. Eg as discussed above Tetris in classified already as tile or falling brick game. Masem (t) 19:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- That being said, I'm absolutely willing to consider that there might be enough sigcov in RS'es and academic research to make Falling block puzzle game into its own standalone genre article, spun out from its "parent" genre Tile-matching video game. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- That or that we need to identify these categories like falling-brick, match-3, and merge style in sections on Tile-matching video game... but thats beyond the scope of this discussion ...though several possible categories Coin has identified could be added to broader genre articles in that same manner Masem (t) 20:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- That being said, I'm absolutely willing to consider that there might be enough sigcov in RS'es and academic research to make Falling block puzzle game into its own standalone genre article, spun out from its "parent" genre Tile-matching video game. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- You need to show sourcing exists, not that there are a lot of clones. Eg we can get away with GTA clones due to numerous sources discussing it like a genre. Or Soulslike for dark souls styled gameplay. Some you are proposing I am doubtful that sourcing exists for those terms in depth. Eg as discussed above Tetris in classified already as tile or falling brick game. Masem (t) 19:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think that Tetris has been so influential that the 'genre' deserves its own article, rather than stuffing it into an article with other games like Bejeweled which operate very differently and don't have the exact same lineage. We actually already have Category:Falling block puzzle games for this genre.--Coin945 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- You need to be really careful with what you are prposing as genre names. Whike there are a lot if Tetris clones, the genre is properly tile-matching game. Masem (t) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's not meant to be comprehensive, but an opportunity to look at some case studies. I analysed other media for the genres they spawned and potential article titles. Definitely think there's a place for Flappy Bird clone.--Coin945 (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Added a few inline precisions above. Monopoly (video game genre) probably should go IMO, and redirect to Monopoly (game), for the same reasons as Chess above, it's just a bunch of adaptations of a real-world game, not a "genre". At least if it made an argument about it being a "genre" by including Monopoly-inspired games like Itadaki Street and such... Also my instinct was that Olympic Games should just be a niche subset of Sports Games but the article seems fairly robust so it's not an obvious case at-a-glance. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Following on this, I would recommend the following moves: Monopoly (video game genre) --> Video game adaptations of Monopoly (or simply List of Monopoly video games) and Olympic games (video game genre) --> Video games based on the Olympics. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is already such a list at Monopoly in video games but it's only for officially-branded Monopoly games and not the Monopoly-style games like Itadaki Street, Dokapon Kingdom, etc., although that topic is kind of covered at Sugoroku#Other Sugoroku games Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Following on this, I would recommend the following moves: Monopoly (video game genre) --> Video game adaptations of Monopoly (or simply List of Monopoly video games) and Olympic games (video game genre) --> Video games based on the Olympics. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't particularly think any of these are generally considered their own genre. They do happen legitimately sometimes, but I think most of those instances are already taken care of - Soulslike, Metroidvania, etc. I don't particularly think any of these need to be created, and suggestions like Chess or Monopoly as a genre are particularly confusing to me. They already fall under the banner of a digital board game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- It could also be that many of these genres were created such a long time ago and have evolved over the years that it no longer feels like platformers are 'Kong-style games' as they were originally called [3], but just part of the platform game genre. This was a time when video game literature was still in its infancy and larger historical significance of game genres and broader trends in mechanics wouldn't have been as acknowledged. For comparison, Metroivanias became popular in the 2000s while Soulslikes began after the game's release in 2011.--Coin945 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
- In the very short period after a games release there may be a number of pieces that call them X clones...but if such games continue to evolve but the term never comes up again then its probably not a recognized genre term. Eg. They may have been "tetris clones" but clearly other terms have been used. Note that I have no problem with pages like the list of Tetris variants. On which dozens of notable versions cane out, even though that is not a formal genre. Masem (t) 20:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- More precisely, Digital tabletop game Masem (t) 20:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the solution is Monopoly in video games ala Middle-earth in video games, or List of Monopoly video games ala List of Batman video games? A large subset of a franchise that has its origins in a different medium? Basically a long list of tie-ins to another product that doesn't have a consistent throughline.--Coin945 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- More precisely, Digital tabletop game Masem (t) 20:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- My stance on the video came concept of a 'clone' is ambivalent, but I don't think Den of Geek should be used as the only source, or the primary. I've used it once or twice for interviews, nothing more if I could help it. Besides, we already have a Video game clone article which can be expanded and sourced. I agree that it's a topic that merits discussion, just not splitting off into its own articles except when they go beyond the scope of clone such as Serge's examples above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- As a side point, it's also worth noting that {{Video game genre}} and {{Video game lists by genre}} are quite messy and bare little resemblance to each other. I've tried to tidy it up a bit.--Coin945 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, we currently have a move discussion over at Minesweeper (video game). We are really unsure whether to rename it to "Minesweeper (video game genre)", "Minesweeper game", "Minesweeper clone", etc. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- The point that our coverage of genres is all over the place is well taken, though this particular list is a little nonsensical in terms of defining genres—maze games existed before Pac-Man, MMORPGs predate WoW by 13 years (and were a natural extension of MUDs, which go back 13 years prior to that), and Chess isn't so much a genre as it is a game in and of itself. Also odd to talk about game clones and not mention the most famous ones by that name, Doom clone and GTA clone, and much more so roguelike, which is still the name of the Rogue (video game) clone genre. --PresN 13:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the above that if we're going to start pages on "clones", there needs to be enough news coverage and preferably scholarly analysis to do it. Many games typify a genre for a time and other games are referred to as that (such as "Halo clones" and the attempts at "Halo killers" back in the 2000s before Call of Duty) but that doesn't mean that the game itself is standalone notable outside of its own existence to such a genre-defining degree we need an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- In case that would be of interest to anyone else − added to the list at the top links to the Wikidata items, when they exist. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Seems like the other discussion on this was archived, but should other forms of images (in this case, non-logos) also be removed from navboxes like at Template:Sega Genesis? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, for the same reason. Why does every case of this involve the same editor? -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed the images from the rest of the game hardware navboxes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback on the Antimatter Dimensions draft?
This is a draft I have been working on. Unfortunately there are not that many good resources on the game. Most of the relevant information is in the fan-made wiki.
I tried my best to describe the outline of the game. I did try to make sure most major parts were included. Unfortunately that's pretty much the only section of the game which appears to be documented. Most of the aspects of the game is community-based, and there is pretty much nothing online from any publishing, nevermind reputable ones.
I'm sure this article can be made better, but resources have completely stumped me.
This is the right talk page for asking about this, isn't it? If not please direct me to somewhere better. Tungster24 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Tungster24 The most severe issue is that not a single reliable secondary source is in use. The custom google search at WP:VG/S may help you find something, but most likely the game is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG. (I've actually played it). -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I looked through all of the resources, and then looked at the ones in other languages with the equivalent of "Antimatter Dimensions" in their language.
- The only thing I found was a single source talking about the very beginning part of the game. Well... if I find something relevant, I'll try to add it. Tungster24 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- From the existing sources, and a general search for sources, the game seems non-notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool whether for yourself or others, so no matter how good a game is, it requires mentions in reliable sources that Wikipedia cannot provide on its own. That is the job of the game's creator and how well they can market it or otherwise make it better known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I Oppose this article creation. It looks like a neat game with a dedicated fan base. But until it is covered in third party reliable sources, we can't write an article about it. As Zxcvbnm said above, it's the job of the game's devs to promote their game, not us.--Coin945 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- You're right. Can I keep it as a draft? Tungster24 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- YOu could as a memento of your work, but unfortunaly it looks like it won't become a mainspace article anytime soon and will have to stay in Draft-land.--Coin945 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Drafts are eventually deleted if left as-is. Per WP:STALE, you should also not keep a draft in your userspace if it has "no potential" for a viable article. You can always just save the WikiMarkup in a document somewhere on your computer in case it ever becomes notable and request deletion of the draft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- YOu could as a memento of your work, but unfortunaly it looks like it won't become a mainspace article anytime soon and will have to stay in Draft-land.--Coin945 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- You're right. Can I keep it as a draft? Tungster24 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
How should we handle Seasonal updates?
I'm currently reviewing Crash Bandicoot: On the Run!, there is a section dedicated to updates. Some of them are substantial, while others are just seasonal events. In this situation. How should we handle them? Depending on what we determine, we may need to update the MOS for these kinds of things.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Usually such things would count as WP:GAMECRUFT unless they are major updates that add significant things to the game. However, Wikipedia is not for exhaustive logs of software updates. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- A little bit of synthesis can also be acceptable in a case like this, along the lines of (for example, I haven't read much) "every month in 2021 saw a DLC update featuring new skins." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- if secondary sources cover the seasonal content, then its fine for us to detail it as with Fortnite or Overwatch. but if it happens with no fanfare in the media, it should not be documented heavily and summarized as suggested above. Masem (t) 09:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
New Articles (August 22 to August 28)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Articles deleted/removed: Draft:HuniePop 2 - Double Date, Draft:Rebecca Ford, Draft:Beatstar, Draft:Kolex, Draft:The Phoenix Project Software, Z Sculpt Entertainment, Draft:10B10T, Draft:Gamcore, MPL Indonesia Season 9, Mythic Table, Vlak (video game), Draft:Wheel Rider, Draft:Battlestate Games, Draft:Venture Valley, Draft:Alter(Apex Player), Draft:Collister Johnson, Draft:Jill Murray, Draft:Native Darkness Productions, Draft:Project Quantum
- Articles redirected: Easy Trigger, Full On Games, Geometry Wars: Waves, OpenRails, Steph Gingrich, The Dark Eye: Herokon Online, Ulala's Channel J, Arunodoyer Agnishikha, J. League Live 64
- Articles moved to draft space: Bidoof
- Categories deleted/removed: Atlanta Reign templates, Boston Uprising templates, Chengdu Hunters templates, Dallas Fuel templates, Florida Mayhem templates, Guangzhou Charge templates, Hangzhou Spark templates, Houston Outlaws templates, London Spitfire templates, Los Angeles Gladiators templates, Los Angeles Valiant templates, New York Excelsior templates, Overwatch League team templates, Paris Eternal templates, Philadelphia Fusion templates, San Francisco Shock templates, Seoul Dynasty templates, Shanghai Dragons templates, Toronto Defiant templates, Vancouver Titans templates, Washington Justice templates, Hand-controlled rhythm games, Prince of Persia characters
- New categories: 2022 fighting game tournaments by Shellwood, Bethesda Softworks employees by Mika1h, Black Bean Games games by Waxworker, CI Games games by Waxworker, Next Level Games games by Waxworker, Papaya Studio games by Waxworker, Crawfish Interactive games by Waxworker, Digital Eclipse games by Waxworker, Nonviolent video games by Bawanio, Wicked Witch Software games by Waxworker, DC Studios games by Waxworker, Davidson & Associates games by Waxworker, Firebrand Games games by Waxworker, Outright Games games by Waxworker, The Game Factory games by Waxworker, Video game companies of Maryland by Vandelay99 (newly tagged - originally created 20 days ago), FIFA (video game series) user templates by Catfurball, Media lists by video games franchise by Bibliomaniac15, NBA Live user templates by Catfurball, NCAA Football (video game series) user templates by Catfurball, Sports video game user templates by Catfurball, WizardWorks games by Waxworker
- New templates: {{Activision compilations}} by Nall, {{Atari compilations}} by Nall, {{Operation Wolf series}} by Nall, {{Rastan series}} by Nall
August 22
- — Eviolite (was previously a draft)
- Dissident93 —
August 23
- — DaFederal (newly tagged – originally created 16 years ago)
- — Damnedfan1234 (newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)
- — Angeldeb82 (newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)
- — Vrxces
August 24
- EntertainmentZ (was previously a draft) —
- Coin945 (was previously a draft) —
- — BOZ (newly tagged – originally created 8 years ago)
- — CodyNichoson (was previously a redirect)
August 25
- — LABcrabs (was previously a redirect)
- — Dumelow
- — KGRAMR (was previously a draft)
- — Jm6852
- — Jm6852
August 26
- — Masem (was previously a draft)
- — GiantSnowman
- — Thepatrick01
August 27
August 28
- — Painapple (newly tagged – originally created 14 years ago)
- — 142.166.239.107 (newly tagged – originally created 17 years ago)
- — Dawson (newly tagged – originally created 16 years ago)
- — OceanHok (was previously a redirect)
PresN 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Expected year in short description for upcoming videogames?
The manual of style states that the common short description for a game is "<year of release> video game" (WP:VG/SHORTDESC). What about upcoming games?
I would argue that since an upcoming game should be categorized with "Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2022" and not "Category:2022 video games", it would be coherent to avoid mentioning the expected year of release in the short description.
What do you think about it? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think there's always a level of uncertainty with the release date of an upcoming game. You can't communicate whether a date is 10% certain or 99% certain in the short description. I recommend just sticking with "upcoming video game", though personally I would've been fine with slightly more specific short descriptions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed — and what's more a shortdesc like "2022 video game" might look like the game has already been released. Popcornfud (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think that mentioning the expected year in the description would be useful to the reader, if the description manages to communicate some level of uncertainty, like the "scheduled for" in the category name does. What about:
- Video game set for 2022
- Video game planned for 2022
- ► LowLevel73 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any harm going with "Upcoming 2023 video game" as we already have a category for that exact thing. Omitting the year also makes it seem like it doesn't even have a release window. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
VG Banner - Cover art request tag
I've recently been going through the cover art request backlog and think that the cover tag on the banner could do with being updated. With the increasing number of digital only games and when the digital art is a better option than physical cover art (lack of logos, platform etc.), the wording could be more suitable and clear. I propose simply changing it to "A request for identifying art has been made to help better illustrate the article".
MOS:VG already touches on using alternative identifying art and Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art, which is populated by the tag, is already worded as such. Regarding the tag itself, it could be depreciated and replaced with a different tag to reduce future confusion but may be unnecessary if the wording and documentation is sufficiently clear.
Figured I'd post it here for more eyes before posting anything on the template talk page. CrimsonFox talk 17:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- If the need is necessary. Most people understand not everything is technically cover art. Not to get sidetracked.but a lot of these requesting cover/promotional artwork are for articles in their stub/start that haven't verified notability. I'm curious if we can have a BOT clear out the request until it verifies notability. Just a thought.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the need but I think being consistent with the terminology across the project is important. Regarding the notable articles, there's definitely some that are questionable but not as many as I thought there would be. Even so, I'd much prefer to have the list include articles without identifying art that may not be verified yet rather than rely on someone adding the tag back in later. CrimsonFox talk 19:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- I dont think it will be an issue. Maybe someone who has authorization to the template can update it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Video Game console Generation sales table clutter
In History of video game consoles#Console sales and Home video game console generations#Sales comparison, both have similar tables that I consider difficult to read for the average reader. To resolve the issue, I decided to make this version of the table. I didn't want to step on anyone's toes on this and thought I propose the change here first. Sometimes the most efficient table isn't the most liked.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Sales rank | Generation | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First (1972–1980) |
Second (1976–1992) |
Third (1983–2003) |
Fourth (1987–2004) |
Fifth (1993–2006) |
Sixth (1998–2013) |
Seventh (2005–2017) |
Eighth (2012–present) |
Ninth (2020–present) | |
1 | Color TV-Game series 3 million |
Atari 2600 30 million |
NES 61.91 million |
Super NES 49.1 million |
PlayStation 102.49 million |
PlayStation 2 >155 million |
Wii 101.63 million |
PlayStation 4 108.9 million |
PlayStation 5 17.3 million |
2 | Telstar 1 million |
Intellivision 3 million |
Master System 10–13 million |
Genesis 33.75 million |
Nintendo 64 32.93 million |
Xbox >24 million |
PlayStation 3 >87.4 million |
Switch 103.54 million |
Xbox Series X/S est. 12 million |
3 | Odyssey 330,000 |
ColecoVision 2+ million |
Atari 7800 1 million |
TurboGrafx-16 10 million |
Sega Saturn 9.26 million |
GameCube 21.74 million |
Xbox 360 >84 million |
Xbox One est. 46.9 million |
|
4 | Home Pong 150,000 |
Odyssey 2 2 million |
Videopac+ G7400 NA |
CD-i 570,000 |
Atari Jaguar 250,000 |
Dreamcast 9.13 million |
- good here ( though the Xbox one numbers went up a bit with recent news related to acts blizzard buyout, though still an estimate). Masem (t) 23:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- It might just be me, but with the added small text naming each manufacturer, this feels even more difficult to follow. I don't really see the point in classifying "Sales rank", even in the existing tables; most generations only have four consoles anyway, so it's not too difficult for the reader to look at the sales figures and work out the rank themselves—especially when we have tables like this and this which are even easier to parse. In any case, listing by manufacturer instead of sales rank seems much more efficient to me. – Rhain ☔ 23:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, I'd nix the far-left column, but otherwise it looks fine. The ranking is implied by the order. Listing by manufacturer might be tricky because not every manufacturer appears in each column. Also, Switch numbers look low here, 111 per nintendo.jp[4] Andre🚐 23:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- You can see an example of listing by manufacturer here. – Rhain ☔ 23:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's the "confusing" one. It is definitely harder to read but if everyone prefers that one, I'm not against it. This one is simpler though. One thing I like about the by-manufacturer one is that Switch spans 2 generations, which seems accurate. All of the numbers across both of the articles linked probably need to be updated, for 8th and 9th gen. Andre🚐 23:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- You can see an example of listing by manufacturer here. – Rhain ☔ 23:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- given where these are used, could not the manufacturer be cut from each cell? the console link still provides that. Masem (t) 00:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, I'd nix the far-left column, but otherwise it looks fine. The ranking is implied by the order. Listing by manufacturer might be tricky because not every manufacturer appears in each column. Also, Switch numbers look low here, 111 per nintendo.jp[4] Andre🚐 23:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- The small dates size should be bumped up to 85% per MOS:FONTSIZE. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the parentheses are doing anything in either the current or proposed tables. We're here to see the sales. They don't need to be displayed as an aside. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Masem:, @Axem Titanium:, @Rhain: and @Andrevan:, I made the changes that I believe are reasonable. i also removed the line-height, as it really made things smaller than they needed to be. I'm hesitant to remove the left column. You never want to imply the order of the table, and that's what causes unnecessary things like color-coding cells. The goal should be easy to understand for new readers and those familiar. As far as Nintendo Switch, being the 8th and 9th generation. History of video game consoles and Home video game console generations reflect that the 9th generation has PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. The table can't contradict the rest of the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to keep the rank, which personally I don't think is necessary, I think you should at least render the plain digit "1" and not "1st place." I'm confused by what you mean about the unnecessary color-coding of cells, since the cells are already color-coded, which I agree is not really necessary or useful as done - I assume the green means "current" which is fine I guess, but the generations could already tell that info, and IMHO I don't care for the color coding of the gold/silver/bronze, I think it'd look better and easier on the eyes if that column was all the same color. Also, what's the source for the figures. As mentioned, Switch passed 111 million[5][6], PS4 was above that number as well, around 116-117.[7] Since the Switch is still on the market, it has a shot at surpassing the PS4. Both are on [8]. Personally, since Nintendo is keeping the Switch on the market, I think it should be counted as both 8th and 9th generation, in those articles as well as the tables. Andre🚐 16:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The colored cells of Sales ranking were a compromise and I have no attachment to them. I removed the color coding and changed the rankings to just "1/2/3/4". So once again, the table reflects the content of the article. So long as the article reflects that Nintendo Switch is not 9th generation then the table will continue to reflect that. So it's not relevant to this topic how Nintendo Switch is recognized as.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. Looks much better IMHO. And yes I know the chart is based on the article, but this is WT:CVG so if both should be updated, it's fair game to suggest. And don't forget about updating the numbers and adding a source to the table. Thanks! Andre🚐 18:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not fair game on this thread, you'll have to make your own topic about it if you want the change to reflect across the articles and table. And the reason why I'm hesitant to talk about it further is because its been discussed multiple times, and it usually leads back to the status quo. So for now, for this thread, I rather just focus on we can approve the layout of the table (content in them will again, vary based on what the article reflects).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. Looks much better IMHO. And yes I know the chart is based on the article, but this is WT:CVG so if both should be updated, it's fair game to suggest. And don't forget about updating the numbers and adding a source to the table. Thanks! Andre🚐 18:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The colored cells of Sales ranking were a compromise and I have no attachment to them. I removed the color coding and changed the rankings to just "1/2/3/4". So once again, the table reflects the content of the article. So long as the article reflects that Nintendo Switch is not 9th generation then the table will continue to reflect that. So it's not relevant to this topic how Nintendo Switch is recognized as.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- That table above... where is Wii U? MilkyDefer 04:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good call. It should be added. Andre🚐 04:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would add in the 3DO, too. Seeing the Atari Jaguar listed as 4th in worldwide sales is rather odd; it didn't even make it to 5th place. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good call. It should be added. Andre🚐 04:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like an improvement, but I don't think anything will change the fact that I simply prefer the current tables more. (BTW, I didn't get this ping (and I doubt Axem or Andrevan did either) since there was no new signature on this diff, per WP:MENTION.) – Rhain ☔ 09:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- So, is anyone against the layout itself? if not, we can implement it as quickly as possible, any updates or fixes can be made.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Video game source
Hello! I noticed someone added information to the Splatoon 3 article using the source "tuppence magazine". I took a look at it and I"m not sure if it can be considered reliable. Heck, when I went to their about us page, there's literally a spelling error on it ("...then flash out your tyoe writer skills...", "tyoe" is meant to be type). I'd like to get other people's opinions on it as it doesn't look all that professional. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Unreliable. Can't find the source anywhere in WP:VG/Sources. No credentials or any sort of fact-checking reputation or policy listed anywhere on their pages. Sparkltalk 15:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree with you Blaze Wolf, I wouldn't consider this a reliable source, taking a quick look at the page. Their "content club" appears to be a glorified blog style self-submission. I would support adding the site to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources, as websites have been added for much less. Skipple ☎ 15:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, unreliable. Appears to be spam (user who added it was "T.Editor10."...), as they have added specifically that website that several other pages as well. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- That username makes it seem like they're paid by that website. "T.Editor" could probably be interpreted as "Tuppence editor". ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Why is Ser Amantio di Nicolao removing all the video game articles from the "Video games developed in Japan" and "Taito games" categories?
I have a problem. Lately Ser Amantio di Nicolao is removing all the video game articles from the "Video games developed in Japan" and "Taito games" categories, and it really bugs me! If he keeps this up, pretty soon none of the video game articles will have any categories left. Can you please do something about the category remover? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, Category:Video games developed in Japan is looking pretty populated, so I doubt that's the case. Did you try...asking them what they were doing first? That should be step 1. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ser Amantio di Nicolao better explains his reasoning sooner than later. These edits are extremely petty, if i'm being honest... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Probably need to properly @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: ping him then. It looks like he's removing articles based on being in subcats, but I'm not sure these are all diffusing categories. -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ser Amantio di Nicolao better explains his reasoning sooner than later. These edits are extremely petty, if i'm being honest... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I believe these removals were based on whether or not the "Video games developed in [country]" categories were already present in the company categories in which a given game was included; the problem with this approach is that the companies were often categorized erroneously and, therefore, should not have been the basis for removing the "developed in [country]" categories from individual articles. For instance, Category:Taito games formerly was placed in the "Video games developed in Japan" category, even though not every game published by Taito was developed in Japan (for example, Qix) , so that category should never have been there. This is even more egregious for Category:Sierra Entertainment games, which had the "Video games developed in the US" category attached, even though Sierra didn't develop most of the games it published at all. I have gone through all of the big publisher categories and removed any "developed in [country]" categories in them to ensure that no more mass category removals from individuals articles happen; hopefully the ones removed earlier today can be restored. Phediuk (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Angeldeb82, Sergecross73, KGRAMR: Ferret has hit the nail on the head - they're all in subcategories of the parent categories. And unless I've overlooked something, I saw no evidence that any of the subcategories are non-diffusing. That said, I'll hold off on doing any more for now as the edits have been questioned, but that's the reasoning. Should the categories be non-diffusing? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can you restore the removals you did today? They were based on "developed in [x]" subcategories being present in publisher categories (an old oversight I've now corrected), which is going to lead to problems. Would be much appreciated; thank you. Phediuk (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Phediuk: Sure. It'll take a few minutes to set up, but it shouldn't take too long to undo. Or re-do the categories, rather - it'll be easier for me to re-add them than to undo the removal, if that makes sense. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, add them back in whichever way you'd prefer, as long as they're restored. Many thanks. Phediuk (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think there's plenty of work to do in the WP:VG space for you category wise, but I might suggest as this is a fairly large and active project (Probably top 3, if not top 2, behind MILHIST), you might float the categories you're planning to work on so the project regulars can take a look and see if everything is in order. In this case it brought to light some inappropriate mixtures of publisher and developer regions. -- ferret (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Phediuk: Sure. It'll take a few minutes to set up, but it shouldn't take too long to undo. Or re-do the categories, rather - it'll be easier for me to re-add them than to undo the removal, if that makes sense. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can you restore the removals you did today? They were based on "developed in [x]" subcategories being present in publisher categories (an old oversight I've now corrected), which is going to lead to problems. Would be much appreciated; thank you. Phediuk (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Angeldeb82, Sergecross73, KGRAMR: Ferret has hit the nail on the head - they're all in subcategories of the parent categories. And unless I've overlooked something, I saw no evidence that any of the subcategories are non-diffusing. That said, I'll hold off on doing any more for now as the edits have been questioned, but that's the reasoning. Should the categories be non-diffusing? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ferret: Sure, I can do that - and I'm always happy to assist on anything else that needs doing. Feel free to ask and let me know. @Phediuk: Lists are generated - I'm beginning the restoration now. Should have it done by the end of the night. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks for the prompt responses. Phediuk (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Phediuk: Sure - any time. I'm usually around, except when I'm not. (Parse that however you wish.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I feel grateful that you're doing the restorations. Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Phediuk: Sure - any time. I'm usually around, except when I'm not. (Parse that however you wish.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
List of PC games with force feedback support and Category:Games with force feedback support
I noticed this category being added to quite a few articles recently, apparently based on their inclusion on the list. The list is entirely unsourced and based solely on user-set attributes on MobyGames. Should we keep lists like this? Do we have comparable "List of games with [mundane feature]" articles? It seems unlikely that sources would cover force feedback support for most of these games. IceWelder [✉] 12:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not a defining feature as scoped. should be removed. Masem (t) 12:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Right. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PC games with force feedback support. IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Should this lead provide detailed information, quoting people?
I'm working on improving Return to Monkey Island and a good percentage of the lead clarifies a misunderstanding about the game, quoting the developers from an interview and even adding an even longer quotation in an associated reference.
I think that it would be important for the article to report the clarification, but I also feel that quoting people in the lead is a bit excessive. It is my understanding that the lead should serve as a quick introduction/summary without going too much into details and I've not seen many leads, especially short ones, quoting people.
My question is: are quotes generally acceptable in the lead? Would it be better to simplify the text removing the quotes? Would you move the details elsewhere and, if so, in which section?
Thank you! ► LowLevel73 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Quotes can be used in Ledes but they must be immediately cited unlike other lede material. That said if you are talking about the "final game" stuff and clarification, that is really too fine a detail for the lede. Maybe a few people got confused but tats far better in talking the announcement for the game. It is likely more important that this is the new third chronological game in the series and not necessary holding to the Curse and latter game canon. Masem (t) 13:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. I am the anonymous user who added the direct quotes to the lede of the article. The third section of the lede is currently dedicated to clarifying a series of misunderstandings and speculations that were spread by certain newspapers but disproven by the developers themselves in interviews, namely that Return to Monkey Island would be the third chronological game, that sequels to Monkey Island 2 would be out of canon, and that Return to Monkey Island would be the "conclusion" of the entire series and/or of the "first trilogy". All these speculations have been declared false by Ron Gilbert and David Grossman, and the official website and Steam entry of Return to Monkey Island have recently changed the words "exciting conclusion of the Monkey Island series" to "new chapter in the Monkey Island series". The quotes can be reworded as prose, if this is more appropriate for the lede. 37.163.43.189 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- i think its probably important to document that, and direct quotes are probably more appropriate here...its just not something I would expect to see in the lede. The final "state" of the fame relative to the series should be stated, but not these misunderstandings. Masem (t) 14:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Should definitely be in the article, but in the body, not the lead. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- i think its probably important to document that, and direct quotes are probably more appropriate here...its just not something I would expect to see in the lede. The final "state" of the fame relative to the series should be stated, but not these misunderstandings. Masem (t) 14:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! From your words I gather that the temporary misunderstanding about the "conclusion of the series" wouldn't even deserve a place in the lead section, even if it was an official statement and even if more than one reliable source found the topic interesting and wrote about it; have I understood correctly?
- Finally, I'm trying to grasp the "philosophy" of editing: are there guidelines or essays that specifically address how an editor should approach and handle the evolving reports of an upcoming piece of work (video game, movie, etc.)?
- I addressed the "conclusion of the series" topic in the article because it came from an official statement and because sources reported it, but maybe it would have been better to not address the topic at all and just wait for the game to be released? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- that philosophy of editing is just something that comes with experience. we have tried to make our MOS streamlined so that if you follow its basics you will have a good starting article, but each game can be different. Masem (t) 14:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- oh and in the lede, you should still say, using Grossman's final say in the matter, where the game sits relative to other games, just dont worry about the mistaken claims that were refuted by Grossman. Masem (t) 14:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think I'm starting to understand how to approach the lead issue. I'll sum it up what I gather from this discussion.
- In the lead, I think that it's possible to provide to the reader a sourced and factual statement about where the game sits relative to the others but... it needs to be a generic statement. The developers have not provided clear and detailed information on this topic and, for us, trying to combine the "pieces of the puzzle" would be speculation and WP:OR.
- It's better to move the information about the misunderstanding from the lead to another section.
- Regarding MOS:VG, it's a great resource and I've used it extensively to make sure that my edits were compatible with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide guidance about how cautious editors should be when handling information about upcoming games. I hope that my understanding of this aspect will improve with experience. :) ► LowLevel73 (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think I'm starting to understand how to approach the lead issue. I'll sum it up what I gather from this discussion.
- Hello. I am the anonymous user who added the direct quotes to the lede of the article. The third section of the lede is currently dedicated to clarifying a series of misunderstandings and speculations that were spread by certain newspapers but disproven by the developers themselves in interviews, namely that Return to Monkey Island would be the third chronological game, that sequels to Monkey Island 2 would be out of canon, and that Return to Monkey Island would be the "conclusion" of the entire series and/or of the "first trilogy". All these speculations have been declared false by Ron Gilbert and David Grossman, and the official website and Steam entry of Return to Monkey Island have recently changed the words "exciting conclusion of the Monkey Island series" to "new chapter in the Monkey Island series". The quotes can be reworded as prose, if this is more appropriate for the lede. 37.163.43.189 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, the lede of Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge should also not mention Return to Monkey Island as "taking place immediatly after" its plot, as it is still unclear how the plot of RtMI unfolds. The directors have ascertained that it starts after the end of MI2 but at the same time it is not a sequel to it and all the sequels to MI2 remain in the canon. This could mean that the plot of RtMI starts at the end of MI2, in what could be a flashback part, but then continues after MI3, MI4 and MI5 (which would explain the presence of Murray and possibly Morgan LeFlay).--37.163.43.189 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- i have reworked the lead of mi2 to reflect thgat Return is meant to address the c!iffhanger, but nit implied to start at the same point mi2 ended...just that Cyrse was far far afiekd in time Masem (t) 16:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- In this interview Gilbert confirms that Return does start at the amusement park from Revenge's end, even if it does take "lots of weird twists and turns" afterwards. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Another: "this game really does pick up where Monkey Island 2 ended. But how it all weaves into the whole world… that’s something that’s been a lot of fun to figure out, and I don’t think we’re ready to really talk about the details yet." --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- the key problem word is "immediately". its definitely read to take the slate of where everyone was (eg guy brush still a child, everyone at the amusement park) but could be a few hours or a day later. Masem (t) 16:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this helps to get a more precise understanding of when the story starts, but (emphasis is mine):
► LowLevel73 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)"One of the things that was very important to me about this was that I did want the game to start right at the end of Monkey Island 2, when you walk into that amusement park. I wanted the game to start there." (Source)
- Ron Gilbert has never said that RtMI "won't follow the canon" of the "previous sequels" to MI2 (as currently reported in the MI2 article's lede), quite the contrary. According to what has been declared, the new game both starts after the end of MI2 *and* comprehends all the other games as canon, thus continues the series in sequence. This is all we know for now. Based on the quotes reported by LaukkuTheGreit we could deduce that part of the plot takes place after MI2 and the other parts of the plot take place either after MI5 or across the entire series. What is clear is that Gilbert has used some narrative technique to weave the plots of all the series' chapters together, but we still have insufficient information to give credit to any theories in the articles. Therefore, in my opinion it would be better to exclude any reference to RtMI in the MI2 article's lede.--37.163.43.189 (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I hold that no mention of Return in the lead is going too far. Even if conceding points regarding "immediately after" and unspecified further chronology (as an aside, if we want something more specific than Masem's current wording, something like "picks up where Revenge left off" would work - note the use of "where" not "when" - and leaving further continuation unstated), it is highly expected[9][10][11][12] to address Revenge's infamous ending and that's a major relation. Just state the relation without straying from known citations. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think the best thing to do is to avoid any attempt to explain what the developers meant and how the two games will be connected; the information currently available is simply too vague. I fear that attempting to elaborate would increase the chance of WP:CRYSTALBALL and lead to unnecessary work, considering that RtMI will be released in about two weeks and editors will get solid information from reviews and other sources.
- Instead, my suggestion is to simplify, for example mentioning that the two games are connected by the ending of MI2, without giving details about what exactly this connection is or implies. Another way to reduce the risk of falling into speculation is to quote exactly what Ron Gilbert said, which is that RtMI will start "right at the end" of MI2. In my opinion, no further details would be necessary. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- This was precisely the spirit of the simplifications I made to the lede here. However, a user has reverted them, despite the current revision makes some statements which are not supported by the given sources, namely that MI3 would take place "well after the open ending" of MI2, that "further sequels were developed by other creative teams, who had to deal with the game's ambiguous ending on their own" (only MI3 tried to explain the luna park and child-Guybrush thing), and even the claim that "Return may not follow the canon" is unclear and not reported in the sources.--37.163.43.189 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure that you made that edit in good faith, but I'm afraid that its execution was problematic, because you also removed key content about MI2 from the lead: production, commercial results and how it connects to MI3. A few suggestions to avoid reverts by editors that monitor the quality of the articles:
- Removal of a substantial quantity of sourced content is always a delicate decision. If existing content conforms to Wikipedia guidelines, you shouldn't delete it without a very good reason. Instead, try to integrate what you would like to add with what the article already states. See WP:REMOVAL.
- Since the removal of existing content is a delicate affair, it's likely that an unexplained edit that removes sourced content will be challenged or simply reverted. Instead of deleting content directly, it would be better to propose the removal to other editors in the article talk page. See WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.
- Edits that remove content should always provide an explanation in the edit summary. In your edit in MI2, you didn't explain why erasing the statements about game production, commercial results and connection with MI3 was an improvement to the article.
- If you have already discussed the removal of content with other editors and consensus has been reached, you can make the edit and link the discussion in the edit summary. In this way, other editors can check that the removal of content is not the arbitrary action of a random user.
- Try not to mix unrelated modifications in a large single edit. Instead, separate them thematically in more than one edit. In this way, if only part of your edits are problematic, other editors can fix or revert only the problematic edits.
- You have also removed from the RtMI article sourced information that was there to provide different point of views on a topic. Again, I have assumed good intentions because you have also contributed in positive ways. Nonetheless I invite you to adopt a more cautious approach to editing, especially when it comes to removal of content. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Continuing 37.163.43.189. The removal of the following part <The development team for Monkey Island 2 was largely the same as for The Secret of Monkey Island. The project was led by Ron Gilbert, who was again joined by Tim Schafer and Dave Grossman. The game was a critical success, but a commercial disappointment.> was an unintentional mistake due to the fact that I had to copy and paste the paragraph due to a connection problem. All the rest was modified to match the lede of the MI6 article, nas the sources currently used do not support what is stated (based on a quick read). 37.163.138.215 (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure that you made that edit in good faith, but I'm afraid that its execution was problematic, because you also removed key content about MI2 from the lead: production, commercial results and how it connects to MI3. A few suggestions to avoid reverts by editors that monitor the quality of the articles:
- This was precisely the spirit of the simplifications I made to the lede here. However, a user has reverted them, despite the current revision makes some statements which are not supported by the given sources, namely that MI3 would take place "well after the open ending" of MI2, that "further sequels were developed by other creative teams, who had to deal with the game's ambiguous ending on their own" (only MI3 tried to explain the luna park and child-Guybrush thing), and even the claim that "Return may not follow the canon" is unclear and not reported in the sources.--37.163.43.189 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I hold that no mention of Return in the lead is going too far. Even if conceding points regarding "immediately after" and unspecified further chronology (as an aside, if we want something more specific than Masem's current wording, something like "picks up where Revenge left off" would work - note the use of "where" not "when" - and leaving further continuation unstated), it is highly expected[9][10][11][12] to address Revenge's infamous ending and that's a major relation. Just state the relation without straying from known citations. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ron Gilbert has never said that RtMI "won't follow the canon" of the "previous sequels" to MI2 (as currently reported in the MI2 article's lede), quite the contrary. According to what has been declared, the new game both starts after the end of MI2 *and* comprehends all the other games as canon, thus continues the series in sequence. This is all we know for now. Based on the quotes reported by LaukkuTheGreit we could deduce that part of the plot takes place after MI2 and the other parts of the plot take place either after MI5 or across the entire series. What is clear is that Gilbert has used some narrative technique to weave the plots of all the series' chapters together, but we still have insufficient information to give credit to any theories in the articles. Therefore, in my opinion it would be better to exclude any reference to RtMI in the MI2 article's lede.--37.163.43.189 (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- the key problem word is "immediately". its definitely read to take the slate of where everyone was (eg guy brush still a child, everyone at the amusement park) but could be a few hours or a day later. Masem (t) 16:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Another: "this game really does pick up where Monkey Island 2 ended. But how it all weaves into the whole world… that’s something that’s been a lot of fun to figure out, and I don’t think we’re ready to really talk about the details yet." --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- In this interview Gilbert confirms that Return does start at the amusement park from Revenge's end, even if it does take "lots of weird twists and turns" afterwards. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Infobox video game or infobox online service?
I'm currently looking through articles related to Club Penguin, and I noticed the article's infobox looking a bit different. Instead of using infobox video game, it uses infobox video game online service. I brought this up because I'm working on a draft for Club Penguin Rewritten, and I'm wondering which infobox is best to use for not only the draft, but also for the Club Penguin article. I am also curious about any thoughts on the draft, particularly the lead section; I'm not sure about the MOS:VG formatting for fangames. Sparkltalk 21:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
New Articles (August 29 to September 4)
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Articles deleted/removed: Club Penguin Rewritten, Draft:Devil Spire, Draft:GameMill Entertainment, Jawaker, Draft:Luma (Mario), Draft:Asphalt Nitro, Draft:Joelle Silverio, Draft:Devil Summoner, Draft:Rron Gjigolli, OneTo11, Draft:Simple Sandbox 2, Broken Crayon Games, Gravity Wars
- Articles redirected: Tweenies: Game Time, Gebeta (video game), Cinematech, Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes
- Categories deleted/removed: Beatmania user templates, Songs about Minecraft
- New categories: 1C Company games by Mika1h, Digital Jesters games by Waxworker, Frogwares games by Waxworker, Games with force feedback support by Bawanio, Telecomsoft games by DigitalIceAge, Wizarbox games by Waxworker, Action role-playing video game user templates by Catfurball, Gran Turismo (series) user templates by Catfurball, Positech Games games by Waxworker, Racing video game user templates by Catfurball, Tactical role-playing video game user templates by Catfurball, Chrono (series) characters by Zxcvbnm, Dead by Daylight characters by HadesTTW, Platform video game user templates by Catfurball, Rock Band user templates by Catfurball, Super Smash Bros. user templates by Catfurball, D.I.C.E. Award for Action Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), D.I.C.E. Award for Adventure Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), D.I.C.E. Award for Family Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), D.I.C.E. Award for Fighting Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), D.I.C.E. Award for Online Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), D.I.C.E. Award for Racing Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), D.I.C.E. Award for Role-Playing Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories, D.I.C.E. Award for Sports Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), D.I.C.E. Award for Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year winners by Nice Stories, Music video game user templates by Catfurball, Tri Synergy games by Waxworker, Cat Daddy Games games by Waxworker, Global Star Software games by Waxworker, Akella games by Waxworker, Atomic Games games by Waxworker, Matrix Games games by Waxworker, Slitherine Software games by Waxworker, TalonSoft games by Waxworker, The Bitmap Brothers games by Waxworker
- New templates: {{NBA ShootOut}} by Mika1h, {{This Is Football}} by Mika1h, {{Nitroplus}} by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4
August 29
- — Vrxces (was previously a redirect)
August 30
August 31
- None
September 1
- — Masem (was previously a redirect)
- — DigitalIceAge
- — Zxcvbnm
- Timur9008 (newly tagged – originally created 5 years ago) —
- — ProtoDrake
- — Rhain (was previously a redirect)
- — Sorry20
- Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games/Video games/Franchises/Sonic the Hedgehog ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Ahunt
September 2
- WikiCleanerMan (was previously a draft) —
- — 007sak (newly tagged – originally created 10 months ago)
- — Phillyphil99 (was previously a draft)
- Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games/Video games/Franchises/Elder Scrolls ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Ahunt
- Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games/Video games/Franchises/Fire Emblem ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Ahunt
September 3
September 4
- None
Lots of categories this week! I'm a little leery of Lavos - I have the book that's the sole source for development, and that whole section is just the author's speculation, which doesn't leave much out-of-game information. --PresN 14:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I added a more direct development source, hopefully that allays concerns about speculation, although I am sure there is probably more out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I saw that CLub Penguin Rewritten had been deleted an recreated and I was about to go and request it to be deleted but I saw that it was accepted by ZXCVBNM via AFC so I guess the original version must've been promotional or hadn't demonstrated the subject's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- It pains me to say it, with my namesake and all, but I agree that Lavos is looking pretty iffy... Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Newer Super Mario Bros Wii
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, i was the person who remade the Newer Super Mario bros wii article. As of now, it has been Marked for deletion, and i wonder if you guys can help me fix the article so it can exist on wikipedia? TheSecondComing10 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like they were right to mark it for deletion. It doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article. Considering you are calling people "freaks" in the discussion, I imagine you should probably brush up on a number of areas of Wikipedia policy instead. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Despite the personal attacks, I have done several articles on obscure fan mods, so I made a check for sources... but there is literally nothing there to go on. There was a bit more coverage in reliable sources about the DS version, but even in that case, it fails WP:SUSTAINED with only a flurry of announcement coverage but no actual reviews or anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Proposed new CSD
This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Linking to magazine scans
I assumed there was an established consensus on this considering many GA and FA articles link to external magazine scans, but some of the discussions I've read in the archives concerning this practice seem to be polarized. Speaking for myself, I believe it's important for both editors and readers to be able to readily check these sources, and I don't think linking to scans of issues from 20+ years ago is endangering Wikipedia. Still, I can't argue with this being considered a violation of copyright. Nintendo (of course) has been stringent about scans of their magazines, but otherwise I feel most of the other older publications should be fine. Anyone want to weigh in? LBWP (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you're linking to an established library such as the Internet Archive it should be fine, but I don't know what our standards should be overall. Linking to a scan on, say, imgur, would seem very odd. I agree that linking to scans is extremely valuable and I would love it if we could always do this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The Internet Archive isn't fine. It can host copyright material, and hence linking to it breaches WP rules. The Internet Archive only takes stuff down when publishers complain e.g the recent removal of Retro Gamer scans. In short linking to scans is not worth the risk, because someone somewhere owns the copyright, even if the magazine/publisher is defunct.- X201 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the WP policy that says that we can't even link to copyrighted things. Which one is that? That seems overbroad to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:COPYLINK is the relevant policy. It describes this exact issue, but the issue is more about whether digital libraries are legal, which is something the jury is still out on. It does explicitly allow the Wayback Machine, which doesn't even hold physical copies of the texts. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- You can also link to Google Books if they have the scans. Google specifically won its case related to how GBooks was created and its limits on access, whereas the Internet Archive's ability to "check out" books is under current legal fire, and that there can be user contributed works that do not go through the copyright check process, it is a big iffy thing to link to. You can 100% use IA for "research", we don't care if you saw page 50 in a 1990 magazine from the print version or a digitized version as long as you have validated it and provide sufficient citation details that identify the work specifically for WP:V purposes. --Masem (t) 12:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think the core of the question is whether it's acceptable to link to the digitized version within the reference itself, not how a researcher is obtaining the information they are referencing. Skipple ☎ 12:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Masem is answering that question. He's giving background info as to why it is a and isn't okay to link to various websites. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think the core of the question is whether it's acceptable to link to the digitized version within the reference itself, not how a researcher is obtaining the information they are referencing. Skipple ☎ 12:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- You can also link to Google Books if they have the scans. Google specifically won its case related to how GBooks was created and its limits on access, whereas the Internet Archive's ability to "check out" books is under current legal fire, and that there can be user contributed works that do not go through the copyright check process, it is a big iffy thing to link to. You can 100% use IA for "research", we don't care if you saw page 50 in a 1990 magazine from the print version or a digitized version as long as you have validated it and provide sufficient citation details that identify the work specifically for WP:V purposes. --Masem (t) 12:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:COPYLINK is the relevant policy. It describes this exact issue, but the issue is more about whether digital libraries are legal, which is something the jury is still out on. It does explicitly allow the Wayback Machine, which doesn't even hold physical copies of the texts. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the WP policy that says that we can't even link to copyrighted things. Which one is that? That seems overbroad to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The Internet Archive isn't fine. It can host copyright material, and hence linking to it breaches WP rules. The Internet Archive only takes stuff down when publishers complain e.g the recent removal of Retro Gamer scans. In short linking to scans is not worth the risk, because someone somewhere owns the copyright, even if the magazine/publisher is defunct.- X201 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a news / media article be equally "copyrighted" whether it was published online or on paper? Both seem equivalent in the eyes of the law. If we can, for referencing, link to an archived version of one, we should be able to do the same for the other. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm not seeing how linking to a scanned book/magazine is legally distinct from linking to a news article published online. They're both copyrighted to the same extent under the law. In the absence of a finalized legal ruling on the matter of IA, I think maximizing readers' ability to verify cited sources is more important than the other considerations. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- The news article is on the website of the copyright owner, they have published it and are OK with links to it. Magazine scans are copies and they are an unauthorised publishing of copyright material on unauthorised third party sites. - X201 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Besides considering the costs of linking to copyright violations, I would like to question the supposed benefits. I've lost count of how many times I've run across a questionable claim cited to an online source, checked the link to discover the source very clearly says the complete opposite of the claim, and took a look at the article history to find that false claim has been cited to that source for ten years or longer. That suggests to me that even when a source is linked, Wikipedia users for the most part don't bother to check it. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- The news article is on the website of the copyright owner, they have published it and are OK with links to it. Magazine scans are copies and they are an unauthorised publishing of copyright material on unauthorised third party sites. - X201 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Assistance with merging
Hello! After seeing a sock that was blocked (Who I thought had already been identified as a sock but that's besides the point) I decided to check the master's contribs to see if there might be anything still lingering around. While I didn't find anything that should be deleted from the master (Besides maybe a few redirects), I discovered that there was consensus found to merge Wii Menu into Wii System Software. I would like some assistance in merging this article since apparently the consensus was found a little over a month ago. Also, I noticed that in the top... bar (I dunno what it's called) on this talk page, there's nothing for "Articles that need merging". Maybe this should be something that should be added so articles don't get stuck in merge limbo because no one wants to undertake the task of merging (or they just don't know it needs to be merged). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf:, sure I can give you a hand. I'm sure there are some things that are going to need a trim, but I'll start by copy / pasting, and organizing and we can go from there. Skipple ☎ 19:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Skipple: Alright sounds good! I know there might be some redirects that will need to be cleaned up (since I recall having a page merged into Wii Menu via a merge discusssion) but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Spelling within video games articles - variety of English
I would like some input regarding variety of English used in video game articles.
The underlying principle is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic. That is, whether a video game has a strong connection to a particular English-speaking country. This can be seen in three ways: where the developer of the game is from, where is the game setting (if set in real life), and the vocabulary used in the game.
This creates conflicts in some game. For example, the first Forza Horizon game, made by UK-based Playground Games, is set in Colorado. The talk page of that article states the article is using British English. I am not sure if that is appropriate. (Similar issue arises in the third game, which is set in Australia. The fourth Horizon game does set in UK, so British English should definitely be used there.)
I recently switch the PowerWash Simulator article from American English to British English, as the game is made by a British company. The game itself uses British English (uses the British spelling "tyre"). I am not sure if that establishes strong tie to a English speaking country. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Developer country if English-speaking, but it really doesn't matter. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I am not completely sure on Wikipedia official policy. But my first instinct feels like the developer/author/creator is more important than the setting. There are a few hypothetical examples why I think the setting may not always be the best idea. There could be multiple settings in one game. If There were an overview article of the Horizon series, which there could sensibly be, with a section on every game, I wouldn't feel it right for each section to have different regional spelling due to the game setting, and it would feel slightly odd, but not as bad, if the section of the overview article used a different spelling to the main article of a game. Games in the same series are more than likely to have the same developer, although not always. Also if a game were set in Medieval England, no one would suggest the article use Medieval English. It would feel right to me to use the same regional spelling as the game uses in its in game menus, instruction manual/packaging, or promotional material. Although I'm not sure if the packaging or game may differ or not from USA, UK, Australia, does each country have an identical game or tailor made and slightly different to each nation? Carlwev 09:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- As a note, be careful about changing varieties of English within an article. WP:RETAIN says that we use the style set by the first major author, if one was clearly set, otherwise whenever the first variety was established. A long-developed article should not be switched between the English variants without getting talk page consensus support. --Masem (t) 12:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Using different regional spelling in each section due to the game setting would violate consistency principle so that is out of the question. Since many current games are sold digitally there may not be manual and/or packaging to speak of therefore I suggested using in-game vocabulary approach. SYSS Mouse (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Do not rely on developer's nationality. Past discussions within this project was that "Developer's nationality" does not represent a STRONGTIE. The video game industry is incredibly international, and has only become more so. The easy examples I like to bring up are: Lara Croft, a character who undoubtly would be seen as British and STRONGTIED, is now developed by US studios. Watch Dogs, for the first two games, was set in the US but developed by a Canadian developer. Using the developer's nationality in either case makes no sense. Look for thematic or cultural ties instead, otherwise, stick the the first used per RETAIN. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is how I view this as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Another Question on Streaming Platforms
Hi all,
I know there’s been several topics about streaming platforms such as Stadia and Luna. Just to confirm, it was agreed upon to include these platforms in platform lists, correct? Dug through some archived topics and seemed the general consensus was games running on them require enough changes compared to something like OnLive that they’re ok to include in platform lists in infoboxes. Additionally, if they do get listed, do they simply get listed as “Stadia” and “Luna?” Guess this is similar to the Windows vs Microsoft Windows thing, I’ve just seen some pages where, for example, it’s listed as “Amazon Luna” and some where it’s just “Luna.” Wondering what the correct version to use here is, guessing it would just be “Luna.” VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)