Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 123

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 130

Microsoft to release the Xbox One "Scorpio" in late 2016

It says so on Polygon, The Verge, Kotaku, and many others, so I am currently working on a draft called "Draft:Xbox One "Scorpio"", and I am currently awaiting further news to be released. Currently, it would be inappropriate to review the draft and then declare it as "accepted", so we can only wait for more information (likely at E3) to be announced. This is just a notice. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a new console, per se; we don't have special articles on the Xbox 360 slim, or the PS3 slim. Making a new article doesn't make sense here. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This sounds as though I were writing about the Xbox One Slim (which I am not), and I thought for sure that, based upon the data, it would be the new Xbox, but I guess that I will just wait and see what happens. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess that we both have different views. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If Masem should be right and Gamingforfun365 should be wrong, could the entire "History" section be merged into the Xbox One article? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". At the moment Scorpio is all speculation and rumours. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Later then if it should become notable and/or confirmed. (EDIT: Akin to the Apple electric car project, which is notable.) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
And, yes, I have known the guideline. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime, I will continue editing Doom and likely wait for more news concerning Scorpio. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Last thing: is the consensus that Scorpio is fairly notable, but just not notable enough to be included in the Xbox One article yet, given that the information is relatively new? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be added until officially confirmed by Microsoft. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Back to my point: the issue is that all rumors point to a reversion of the Xbox One hardware that will still be marketed as the Xbox One and play all Xbox One games, just with more powerful components. In the past, we have not had separate articles on hardware revisions within the same platform - the updated tech specs are included in the console article (once properly announced). --MASEM (t) 01:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, then, I do not know what to say other than that I have wasted a huge amount of time. Anyway, if the rumor were to be added to the Xbox One article, am I right that it would have to be notable (like the notable Apple electric car project) or confirmed? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess that that is all which I needed to know. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Question about the draft. Why "reportedly" being developed by Microsoft? And why is it listed as "ninth generation" if it's just an upgrade? JAGUAR  11:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe it's still not officially confirmed my MS, so that's why it's "reportedly". But 9th generation is definitely wrong for a hardware revision, in the same way that New 3DS isn't 9th gen, PSP Go isn't 8th gen, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia REALLY needs to stop being in the business of "calling" a new generation of consoles. Seriously. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, based on research I've done, I think we sorta created it. Nearly all sources that discuss the console generations lead back to WP, to the point that it's all now circular references. That said, going forward we'll have the press to help determine when the 9th generation starts; that said, for all the rumors about the new Xbox console revision, I've seen no one suggest its a 9th gen (heck, with the Nintendo NX, I see that still considered just nintendo catching up to 8th gen). --MASEM (t) 15:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We tried, but after extensive arguments around the start of the 8th generation, there was no consensus to make any changes to it. I've given up on changing it - there's just too many differing thoughts on it to come to an agreement - and instead focused on doing the best on managing what we've got...because that's kinda what we're bound to for the time being. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Naming the generations on Wikipedia was pretty much inevitable, since as far as I've seen no one in the gaming press was bothering to name them. They just said "the last generation", "this generation", or "the next generation", and while it's perfectly clear what they're referring to from the time the article was published, you can't name a Wikipedia article "The generation of video game consoles referred to by the gaming press as 'this generation' from 1989-1995".--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Post-announcement

Coming back to this, there were two announcements: Xbox One Slim and the 2017 reversion codenamed Scorpio. The former should definitely stay in the current Xbox One article, but as for Scorpio, there's no many extra details now that I can see a brand new article at this time - perhaps in time it might make sense but I think everything we know can fit in the current Xbox One article. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And with Scorpio too soon to split it out to an article now, especially since it looks like its going to be released "late 2017", not 2016. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That said, knowing that Scorpio is targeting VR support, I would not be surprised if we see a new VR gear from MS soon to go along with that, which would make the reasoning to have Scorpio as a separate article make sense. Not now, obviously. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

E3 2016 - Nintendo Presser

Probably short, but whatever.

  • No female Link confirmed. (Worth noting - people have some strong feelings about this.)
  • RPG like elements added - number values for equipment, weapons
  • Has a fully 3D world map for first time in series.
  • Mario Party: Star Rush was announced.
  • Out November 4, 2016.
  • Paper Mario: Color Splash shown.
  • Out October 7, 2016.

Looks like that's it... Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Or why I didn't bother basically. I knew it was going to be too insubstantial to note. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't expecting anything either, I just thought I'd do it for completeness sake. In case someone's ever rummaging through the archives some day and wondering why there wasn't a Nintendo section. Also, thought there was a fraction of a chance for a surprise announcement. (EDIT: There was - the Mario Party: Star Rush reveal.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Finally, the article I made five years ago has a name ;-D JAGUAR  18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was excited for that too. No more arguments on how to disambiguate it's prior, overly generic name. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
To be precise, there is no confirmation either way about a female Link. They did not confirm that there does not exist an option for a female Link. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel like they've been pretty clear on it... Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Turns out there was a lot more than they originally said there will be. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 05:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about WP:JOBTITLES

Hi everyone,

Per WP:MOSCAPS, we try to avoid the use of unnecessary capital letters (like first-person shooter, not First-Person Shooter). Is there a reason why there's an exception for an executive producer? @Gamingforfun365: linked to WP:JOBTITLES, which in fact does say:

"Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically (...) They are capitalized only in the following cases:
  • When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon".

Except for "executive director" these are all (elected) public offices; Queen Elizabeth II makes sense to me, Video Game Developer Shigeru Miyamoto or does not. The all-caps acronym CEO redirects to chief executive officer which also isn't written with capital letters. Isn't it odd that we maken an exception for directors/producers? Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, we don't make an exception for "executive" producer/director - I've never actually seen that capitalized like that in an article. I think there's a much simpler explanation here- Gamingforfun365 is wrong in their interpretation of JOBTITLES here. It's not "(id Software) (Executive Producer Marty Stratton)", it's "(id Software executive producer) (Marty Stratton)". Executive Producer, unlike the White House Chief of Staff example in JOBTITLES, is not a named, singular position. --PresN 14:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I did read a GameSpot article written by a staff member, and it was capitalized. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So, maybe, I am right after all. Also, I would rather not be called "wrong", but rather "mistaken". Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
However, I would not capitalize words which would make reading look weird. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
And I would also not capitalize those in front of possessive nouns. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Lastly, MOS:JOBTITLES really needs to make interpretation clearer. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The capitalisation on a GameSpot article should have no effect on our guidelines. – Rhain 21:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, if this type of capitalization was common practice we should easily be able to find more than a single GameSport article that employes it.--67.68.29.34 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
— Deor to Gamingforfun365 on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#MOS:JOBTITLES is misleading. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I really do hate being called "wrong" because it makes me feel naive or unintelligent and is therefore offensive, so I would prefer mistaken in place of wrong, and, lastly, I thought that titles should be capitalized when they do not follow possessive nouns. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Try not to get offended by little things like that on here; our main goal is to improve the encyclopedia, not to tiptoe around people's perceptions of rudeness. There's a difference between being rude and being truthful. Besides, there's nothing wrong with being wrong, it's learning from your mistakes that counts the most. – Rhain 04:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say @Gamingforfun365: was "wrong" in their interpretation at all; WP:JOBTITLES clearly says "executive director" and I think that's where the issue lies. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about order of franchise VG templates

Hi everyone,

I came across {{James Bond video games}}, which orders the games by publisher; {{TMNT games}} does so too. {{Jurassic Park games}} first has the ones based upon films, with a separate group for individual games. {{Sherlock Holmes video games}} first has the individual games, then two groups of two series. {{Barbie video games}} makes a distinction between console, PC and LCD games. Lastly, the huge {{Star Wars games}} has them order by genre.

With PC, console and handheld games, canonical and non-canonical entries, reboots and spin-offs, I know that the order of templates can often be a tricky thing ({{Metal Gear}}, {{Assassin's Creed}}). What do people here think? What is a reasonable way of having these? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Case by case whatever works for the template in question. If a particular organization is not useful for a particular template, then change it. --Izno (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Move request input

Hi everyone,

I believe that God of War (PlayStation 4 video game) isn't the correct title. Please see Talk: God of War (PlayStation 4 video game)#Requested move 15 June 2016. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolver

@Lordtobi is edit warring with me on Absolver, removing all references and expansions on an article I marked as in progress. Could use a third party. czar 15:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: I think you're in the wrong here, per WP:DATEVAR and WP:CITEVAR, and Czar's other items are generally better phrased than yours. Please step back from the article per WP:EW. --Izno (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Czar and Izno: Explanation at Talk:Absolver#Reverts. Lordtobi () 16:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Others: Please respond on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

For Honor

Hello everyone, I need some input on For Honor#Innacuracies from using vikings as a reference for the game. The discussion can be found here. Thanks. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Table of release editions

Oh, another question, with the E3 announcements, we've got Watch_Dogs_2#Release now. Wasn't there a discussion a while back about the kinds of release tables? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably--which probably resulted in 'do any major diffs in prose' and ignore the others. We should remove that table. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
To be honest I think the list is the most efficient way to cover these release editions. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I'm also not opposed to it. It'd be a mess to explain in prose, it's useful info, the table isn't unduly huge (especially when thinking of what the complete post-release article will be like), and there is (and will be) enough coverage to justify it. Maybe we could have it default to collapsed though.  · Salvidrim! ·  15:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The last major discussion that I'm aware of was regarding this monstrosity, on the first Watch Dogs game. I think the table at Watch Dogs 2 is fine for the time being (making it default to collapsed sounds like a good idea though), just make sure it doesn't get out of hand. – Rhain 02:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't collapse article content. If it's important enough to be in our articles, it's important enough not to be collapsed. --Izno (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's an idea. What if we... didn't exhaustively document every type/edition of the release? Should Wikipedia be in the business of providing minutia about the dozen different SKUs of a product that almost certainly will become unavailable to readers within months of the game's release? I don't think there needs to be a hard number above which we start omitting things, but something to the effect of "customers who preordered received X. Various special editions included items such as remote controlled robot, a statuette, and Marcus' iconic hat" might be the extent of what should be said in prose and then omit the table entirely. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't worked on games with a lot of editions like this, but I don't think this would be "a mess to explain in prose", because I don't think it should be explained in detail. "Watch Dogs 2 was released in six editions, each containing different addons to the base game. These addons include additional missions, artwork, and figurines, with most addons, including a 64-page artbook, included in the The Return of DedSec Collector's Case edition." I feel like any more detail than that is running into a WP:CATALOG issue. --PresN 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The Times archive search no longer lists any results

Something's terribly wrong in The Times' archive. When I try to type in a word for, say "Tourist Trophy PS2", for example, the search results no longer turn up with anything! This stinks! Now what?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Now... just like all the other times, you wait for the search to start working again. the VG project has no insight or ability to fix the archive searches of newspapers around the world. Unless there was an announcement, I'm sure it will be fixed sometime in the next few days. --PresN 20:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm doing it differently, but it seems to be working for me. – Rhain 00:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I never noticed that you are "doing it differently". How so, since I'm in the U.S.? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No idea; when I searched, it went to this URL. – Rhain 05:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I can see that the search may work in your country (Australia), but not in mine. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, it works! Thanks, Czar. I will do that the next time I search for other video games that are reviewed by The Times. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about developer/publisher name change

As well all know, Sony Computer Entertainment is now Sony Interactive Entertainment (which just took effect a couple months ago). On older games that were released when they were still SCE, does that name remain on those older games' articles, or should it be changed to SIE? I've run into this issue with the God of War (series) article, and since a new game is coming, it will be SIE, but I'm not sure how to address that on the series page. Should I change all instances of SCE to SIE on the series page? Should I make a brief mention that the name changed and that all future games will be SIE? How do I list this in the infobox (Sony Computer/Interactive Entertainment; Sony Computer Entertainment (2005-2016), Sony Interactive Entertainment (2016-))?

I'm sure this also effects other first-party Sony franchises that have older games with newer ones coming out.

In a general question, how does this effect other games whose developer/publisher's name changed sometime after the game was released? Does the old name remain on the article or does it get changed to the new name? --JDC808 22:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep old name. Whatever reliable sources called the company during its development/release is what should be used in the article. I don't think company name changes need to be mentioned on the game article unless there is a worthwhile reason. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (EC) For a game wholely in the past, it stays as it is (SCE)- you say the name of the company as it was at the time. For an ongoing game/series, in text it would be something like "published by SIE (formerly SCE)" and in the infobox just "SIE", or possible SIE (formerly SCE) if there's space. For precedent, see Final Fantasy (Square -> Square Enix), and all other SE properties that got published on both sides of the company change. --PresN 23:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the old name, and if there is new information that requires the reader to recognize the new name, then you can include it. On the other hand, for the series page of GoW which is now an ongoing series, it is probably good to start with the new name and note the old name. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Category:Sony Computer Entertainment games‎, Category:Sony Computer Entertainment game studios‎, Category:Works based on Sony Computer Entertainment video games‎ and Category:Sony Computer Entertainment stubs‎ all be renamed accordingly? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Besides the fact that two companies were merged into one, as well as it having a new headquarters, yes. But I don't see anything wrong with having a new category for games published under the new SIE brand, as we already do this for the example above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think moving all of them to Category:Sony games will be better, similar to Category:Microsoft games works. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao had already moved the parent cat and Category:Sony Interactive Entertainment games‎, so I did the rest. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 09:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible lists

  • Hi, welcome to the Video games project! Both of the issues you two are talking about have been discussed in depth before; while you can find articles that haven't been brought in line, the general rule is a) don't include emulated releases in the infobox; while they're fine for text, the lists get incredibly long if you include every platform that a game was emulated on without any changes such as virtual console releases. b) Similarly, if a game was released in 4 regions on 5 platforms, them you get a 25-line, 20-date list that's largely superfluous to most readers, so the standard is to collapse the list down to just one date, and have readers that are interested click on the "show" button to see more. --PresN 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • They are still doing it, even after being told by me and TarkusAB on their talk page and PresN in this thread to not do it without consensus, and without even acknowledging Tarkus AB's message.--IDVtalk 14:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Ping me if it happens again czar 15:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: This user continues to remove collapsible list templates. TarkusAB 22:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours czar 22:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone here has got to have one...

Can anyone grab a free photo of a Battle.net Authenticator keychain thingy and put it to Commons to be used on Battle.net? --MASEM (t) 18:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've found this CC-BY-2.0 picture, which could be cropped and rotated a bit to be tigher on the authenticator; it's more of a depiction of the authenticator's packaging than the item itself. If nobody here has one, asking one of the most approachable pros on Twitter for a good freely-licensed picture might be an option.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I did see that box on Flickr but figured it should be really easy to get a picture of the keychain thing on its own. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The packaging designer would own the rights to that depiction of the product since they designed the packaging (regardless of the secondary photo's free use license) czar 19:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That's always a thing with pictures of stuff -- wouldn't Blizzard still own copyright over the dongle's design and visuals (because each version has unique visuals) even if a CC-BY-SA-X.X photo was a taken?  · Salvidrim! ·  21:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
That would be my understanding. Otherwise who bother with copyrights if someone could just photo it. One exception is freedom of panorama. Яehevkor 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If the image, say, this one [2], where the front was just the Blizzard logo (PD-textlogo), the unit itself is for utilitarian purposes and its shape and design thus cannot be copyrighted. The only copyright that thus exists is the photographer's choice of angle and lighting, hence why if someone here had one, that would assure a CC-BY or PD image. There are ones with different designs (like a Diablo III-based version) that the imagery would be of a same problem. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over at WWDC...

Apple has rebranded "OS X" as "macOS". That is, a version going out today will be compatible with OS X, but now Apple can move onto larger changes with updated version numbers like macOS 11 when that comes. So macOS is not a new OS but a rebranding. This might affect more than just us, but right now I'm thinking that where we have used OS X to keep it that way (basically for any game already released on that platform) but any upcoming game can switch over to macOS as the term. Note that here OS X is still there, but leads off with "macOS". --MASEM (t) 19:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As it's just a rebranding, won't the two terms become interchangeable? Although, I agree that it should be left as-is and games released for Sierra onwards should be classed as released for "macOS" instead of "OS X". Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The major problem is that macOS is easily confused with Mac OS, the more DOS-like Macintosh OS from pre-200(3?, 4?). Mac OS games, AFAIK, no longer work on OS X, but OS X will definetly continue running on macOS, as the OS core tree is kept (hence just a rebranding). For example, article for games that were released for Mac OS and now receive a port for macOS, would it list as "Mac OS, macOS"? That is ridicolous. As Template:Infobox video game says we shall use the Operating System family, thus we use Microsoft Windows instead of Windows 10, I would say we should keep OS X that way. Lordtobi () 17:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it NOTE?

According to many, many sources, Dog Star Adventure is the first adventure game to be published in source code form - specifically in the May 1979 edition of SoftSide. As such, it spawned dozens (hundreds?) of similar games based on its basic principles. But the only sources making the "first"claim are modern web sites talking about interactive fiction. Can any of these be considered good enough to provide NOTE?

Interactive Fiction Legends IF archive

And there is of course the magazine. Normally one would consider a major multi-page article about a single topic to be pretty much the definition of NOTE, but that seems very wrong in the case of type-in games.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Both Computer and Video Games and PALGN websites are blocked by the Wayback Machine "due to robots.txt"

I have a problem. I wanted to use either the archived CVG link or the archived PALGN link in the MotoGP (2006 video game) article. But now both websites are blocked "due to robots.txt"! It seems that the Wayback Machine is trying to censor archived links that we want to see for references in future articles! Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wayback is not censoring archived links. Computer and Videos and PALGN are. They have set the robots.txt on their web servers to forbid Wayback from creating archives. -- ferret (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh great. More sources that are unusable now. Thanks Future and whoever owned PALGN. GamerPro64 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't archive.is circumvent robots.txt? Only problem is that it's blacklisted... Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Archive.is doesn't do wholesale website caching as archive.org does; archive.is is more like WebCite in function in which you say you want to cache a specific page. Both ignore the robots.txt here because it's not doing the whole-site archiving, just specific pages which has legal justification to an extent. We just don't use archive.is as their owners have questionable motives and at one point they were using a botnet to spam WP with their links, while technically beneficial, not acceptable practice. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4 has resulted in archive.is being removed from the blacklist. Cyberbot II has already begun removing the blacklist notices that it placed about 2-3 months back. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, well I guess it's all we've got. At least for some of the URLs. Hopefully, Future and PALGN owner will switch back to allowing Wayback. This robot block happened once with IGN so only WebCite could archive it, but now it's the other way round. Maybe something similar will happen in time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:VenturianTale. --Izno (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Heads up on what looks to be another school project article

Games and learning is by far not in bad shape and is well-referenced, but does have all the signs and some issues as a school project, particularly considering the talk page feedback. I think this article absolutely has potential (I was looking where to place news about a rework of Civ V for educations purposes just announced today), but needs some TLC and other fixes. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This also might be an opportunity to merge with Video games in education. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Worth pointing out Gamification of learning as well. All three articles seem to cover the same rough topic. The early history of Gamification of learning is very similar to Games and learning and suggests it was a earlier class effort from another semester. Gamification might also bare reviewing, though its broader. -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I added a message on the talk page. Let's wait for a response. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A ton of similar articles

Per above, the article scopes of educational game, video games in education, games and learning, gamification of learning, gamification#education and g-learning are all rather too close for comfort, and susceptible to content forking (assuming there's none already). Educational game can stay where it is but the others should be all merged imo. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that educational game is a stand-alone topic - there are games made to be educational but not necessarily as any structured learning program (eg Carmen Sandiego titles). Gamification is also a different aspect as it applies general game theory (but often using video game concepts like achievements) towards education. But video games in education and games and learning (at least, with the latter's focus on video games) are very much overlapping. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What will become of Eurogamer now that Brexit has taken place?

I read that this morning the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union. It kinda breaks my heart that these yahoos would do something so cruel. Here's the story coming from Eurogamer. Speaking of Eurogamer, what will happen to the website? Will it change its name? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

My guess? Nothing. Nothing will happen to the website and it won't rename. Not sure why you're concerned about it. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Why would something happen? Europe continues to be the name of the continent. --PresN 17:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Angeldeb82, I've said this multiple times that you should not be worrying about websites all the time. These trivial things are not that important to make threads about. GamerPro64 18:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I see. Well, thanks anyway. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Confirming "nothing", so did Eurogamer themselves today. Lordtobi () 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Genre by year categories

Do we sub-categorize/diffuse game gernes by year and use that as the main category in articles? I'm looking at this user's contributions and it appears they are replacing all instances of Category:Role-playing video games with one of the Category:Role-playing video games by year ones, such as [3], without edit summary. Since their edits trail back over a month without reverts, I'm unsure if I'm missing some new policy/guideline/discussion here or elsewhere? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This sort of thing is ongoing. It seems the CfD basically got closed on procedural grounds. Can someone handle the .... large... effort of getting the proper discussion opened? -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Years removed from categories by Special:Contributions/Chocolatejr9, not sure if this is correct or not. But some other edits have been vandalism. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, Salvidrim!, and Czar: Just pinging a few of the regular admins, could any of you review the contributions above and consider whether any role backs are appropriate? About 50 edits ago as of this writing, Chocolatejr9 switched from adding "genre by year" to removing it, along with default sort templates. He's never been very responsive on talk pages, etc, and many times WP:VG editors have had to revert his category changes. This whole section is basically dedicated to him actually... -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked it over and I think that editor needs to just hit the pause button until we're sure about these categories. They clearly want to help with categorization, but the approach is unclear of how to get there. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
A note in case everyone missed it—before Jonpatterns had posted here, I had left a link to Adrian's CfD on Choc's talk page and asked Choc to (1) stop adding RPG by year, and even (2) revert those edits. Choc appears to have done that, which is what we wanted in the first place, so consider this thread successful. A spot check of their recent contribs looks like this is right, but it still leaves many categories to change back once whatever ultra-CfD we need goes through. And of course others are encouraged to leave a note on Choc's talk page with suggestions for future category changes. czar 15:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

An anon just proposed to merged Rufus (Street Fighter) into the character list in Talk:Rufus (Street Fighter)#Merger proposal. Please join to discuss. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There is also a proposal form the same person at Talk:Oro (Street Fighter)#Merger which has so far received no responses.--67.68.29.34 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Speedy closed them both, the rationales aren't policy based and it's obvious a merge is not going to happen. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 19 June

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles being created that fall under this project.

8 June

9 June

10 June

11 June

12 June

13 June

14 June

15 June

16 June

17 June

18 June

19 June

Salavat (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Uh...is anyone familiar with DerpyCon? I've never heard of it, and am noticing that every source is first party... Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject My Little Pony can help us out with that article. If not, it doesn't seem that notable anyway. AfD possibly? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I know Masem edits in that area sometimes. Perhaps he has some insight? Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As best as I can tell, Derpycon in NJ (what the page is about) is not MLP related, its multi-genre (though have had MLP-related events). There is a different, solely MLP con, DerpyCon South, in New Orleans. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, the small number of hits on Google News are all for DerpyCon South. I see a case for an AfD. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lego Island sock puppetry edit war

Over at Talk:Lego Island, user Taokaka purposefully edit wars over forum content, which belongs deleted per WP:FORUM, and had also been discussed at the admin's board once. The porblem is that Taokaka is a sockpuppeteer, weilding one different IP address after another. Is there an admin who can check the article's hisotry and ban every IP address adding masses of content, past, present and future? Many thanks. Lordtobi () 19:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

My IP changes when I am on the go, as I am using mobile data. As long as I am not using it to vandalise, it is ok according WP:LOGOUT. Taokaka was already banned but still does periodical changes to their IP to persue the same kind of vandalism. Furthermore it is, for me, not the question how old it is, but that there is a guideline that should be considered for that content. All I am asking for is assistance to wipe out a suckpuppeting vandal. Lordtobi () 19:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like a pretty trivial thing to edit war over, especially considering the talk page had 0 activity until you blanked its contents. You should have just archived it, so there would be less reason for other editor to continue restoring it. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me like the editor is willing putting the content to disrupt the talk page, considering that they just copy the entire old page and paste in anywhere, atop, at the bottom. They even re-paste the "Sales" section, which was the only to seem actually appropriate. If I was to archive it, I bet that s/he will just take the content and put it back there. Lordtobi () 20:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've decided to repair the content as best possible before edit warring (going back to February. It's edit warring even if the IP is wrong). I've also added an archive config, so Lowercase sigma should clear all but the Development section later tonight. Let's see how the IP reacts to the archiving (It's really the preferable approach), then can seek blocks if they continue. -- ferret (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP came to my talk page to say he was happy with archiving and would not revert further. Case closed. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Come on, Lordtobi, I was just instructing you on this a week ago. Stop wasting your time blanking old talk page messages, just archive them. That's the preferred approach anyways, unless it's something really bad, like blatant personal attacks or BLP violations. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with Virtue's Last Reward's plot summary

So, Famous Hobo, ThomasO1989 and I are working on the article Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward, hoping to make it a Featured Article. We think we need some help with the plot summary, namely: is it comprehensive enough, and does it make sense to people who not played the game? If anyone has the time and wants to help us out with this, I would be very grateful.--IDVtalk 20:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

List of "Free-to-Play" games appropriate for Wikipedia?

As follow-up here: Talk:List of PlayStation 4 games#Merge Free-to-play games into the main list?. Does the list of "Free-to-Play" games against the 8th bullet in WP:GAMECRUFT as I think it is? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

A list of notable F2P games (where notable = has a reasonable standalone article that meets the GNG) seems reasonable to have. Details like if it 100% truly free or has a freemium model or the like could be outlined. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Since f2p is also a type of game style/mechanic, it wouldn't violate WP:GAMECRUFT or WP:NOPRICE. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so, is it a good reason to have games removed from the main List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc and List of PlayStation 4 games then add to the secondary table "Free-to-Play" under each respectively? I originally tried to merge them back into the main list then label them F2P, but was undone. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 24 June

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

16 June

18 June

19 June

20 June

21 June

22 June

23 June

24 June

Salavat (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Skyward Sword help

Hi. I've been doing work on The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword as a one-off project. I'm planning on doing what's left of the work when I've taken a short break, but I'd like someone to check over the images and make sure the usage licenses are in order before I take this anywhere near GA (my eventual plan). --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. The cover is a little large size-wise. You should try to find a source which is not Wikia since that source is not an originating source.
  2. The first thumb (the gameplay image) is too large and needs shrinking. It would be good to have a link to the press kit but that shouldn't be particularly worrisome. The fair use rationale on the image page could stand to mention the same topics as the article does, which will very-much strengthen the fair use claim. The "other information" item doesn't seem to follow the guidelines as in the template documentation, though I suppose it is nice to know who does own the copyright. I might add the text from the cover images "other info" here.
  3. The second non-free thumb (the promo artwork) has the same fair use rationale as the other two images, to display the art style, apparently. This could stand to be removed, I think, if that's the only reason the poster is there.
--Izno (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mean just advice but actual editing help. But thanks anyway, I guess. I was actually planning to replace the gameplay screenshot anyway as it's from the 2010 version of the game, rather than the finished product. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
"make sure the usage licenses are in order" is a little ambiguous. I would always prefer to provide input to making the edit myself in this case, since that spreads the knowledge... and then maybe I'll work myself out of a job. :D --Izno (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Images aren't even in the GAN criteria, so no worries there. They look fine though. I don't think the poster was necessary, though the custom controller might be a better addition than the regular Wiimote. I had this on my list too—the article doesn't need that much more for GA status. czar 02:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Old draft notification (21 June 2016)

Hi, I'd like to bring some attention towards some of these old drafts that I found in the list of stale drafts, along with manual seearching. Maybe some people will want to work on these. I understand that some of these are unsalvageable and WP:MfD looks like a viable option, but I'd like to share them just incase there's a few salvageable ones.

Old drafts (21 June 2016)

Currently at MfD

General discussion

Hope this list is helpful! This is not a complete list. This contains a very small amount of the drafts, if requested, I can possibly create a longer list (it'll take me time, though). Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I just say I love this idea? Let's go through some of the drafts here first, and then we can go through more drafts later :) ~Mable (chat) 11:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I might do it monthly or whenever-I-feel-like-it-ly if it's successful. I just felt like listing out some drafts which looked like people forgot about. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea too, thanks for doing it. Its very interesting to look over, much like the weekly "articles created" list too. I've deleted a few of the G13's too, by the way. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I have another list, if you want me to post it, just ask :) Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
All watching this page, please take a moment to comment on the MFDs. --Izno (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised you guys didn't just G13 them all instead of MFD. They're all old and worthless. I would have deleted them. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: G13 doesn't apply to non-AFC articles, I thought. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Huh, it appears you're right. I didn't realize, I don't really do much in the way of nominating articles for CSD, I usually just do the deletions themselves. Guess I hadn't noticed the G13's were only from AFC in the past. Still, isn't there a faster way to get rid of these? All five are complete garbage and not worth saving... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I seemed to recall G13 was for AfC'ed userspace drafts & all draft-space articles? But maybe it's just a point I made in some RfC that ended up swinging another way.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Likely to have been a point you made, indeed. --Izno (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't realize this. At least I've learned it now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No, there is no faster way to delete a draft, and there are even some vociferous opponents lying around of even a G13-light/extended draft prod/insert-name-here process to remove stale drafts. --Izno (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I would have liked to, but G13, as above, is indeed only AFC submissions at this time. --Izno (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
On a semi-related note, does anyone know if this GamesRadar source regarding CrazyBus is real or an April Fools Joke? It sounds too crazy to be real, but if it was, I'll personally work on improving that one out of draftspace.... Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: ProbablyGuaranteed an Aprils Fools joke, if you've ever heard the music it's pretty obvious. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, upon a slower, more thorough read, and some source hunting (very little out there), its become rather apparent its a joke source. If that's the case, I've lost all interest - its just a run of the mill, garbage homebrew game. I'm content with it being deleted...or just rotting away in draft space forever. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Please leave a comment to that effect on the MFD. :D --Izno (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Old drafts notification (24 June 2016)

Sorry for bombarding this talk page with more drafts, but I'd like to clear my stickynotes . Anyway, in this list there are video game-related draft articles which I've found in the list of stale drafts and through manual searching/stumbling upon them. Some or many of these may be unsalvageable, but I'd like to bring attention to them just in case there are a few salvagable ones.

Old drafts

Undiscussed from the last list
New list

Currently at MfD

From the old list
From the new list

General discussion 06-24

I'll try to wait a little longer next time if I post another list. I won't wanna spam this page too much . Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a few drafts in my userspace in which I have very little to no interest in working on. I might just get them deleted at some point in the future, but I figured I'd share them here first. They are: Guxt, video gaming in Cuba, and Arena.xlsm. I may work on video gaming by country again in the future, but I don't know for sure. I'm also strongly interested in User:KraigWalker/Coming Out Simulator 2014, but it is not the kind of article I like working on. I was hoping someone might pick it up sometime. It wouldn't take that much work to get it to start class, I suppose. Just wanted to share these here as well, as we're talking about drafts anyway. ~Mable (chat) 09:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Screenshots of Fallout 4: Far Harbor

Hi, would anyone happen to own the game Fallout 4: Far Harbor? The article is lacking screenshots and will greatly improve if there were some included. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't, but I tagged it as "needing a screenshot" on its talk page, at least. That usually works with varying degrees of speed for me when looking for box art and screenshots... Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've added a screenshot. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Third parties required

I've having an edit dispute with @Lordtobi: over at VA-11 HALL-A. Basically this is a game that been released for the iPad (and not iPhone or iPod, which it is incompatible); thus, as per WP:COMMONSENSE I put "iPad" in the platform field of Infobox video game as it's the least confusing. However, Lordtobi wants to change it to "iOS" and has done so multiple times. Third party input(s) required, also pinging @Opencooper: and @Czar: since they've worked on the article. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you've been discussing it on their talk page. Their main argument seems to be that Template:Infobox video game calls for the |platforms= parameter to be the "operating system family" (so "Windows" instead of "Windows 7" or "Windows 8"), but it does make a distinction between strictly incompatible systems like the Playstation 2 and the Playstation 3. I think this is a tricky one since they both fall under the iOS moniker, but the two aren't really compatible unless the developer explicitly targets both.
At the end of the day, we have to remember that articles are written to best serve readers with accurate information. If I as a reader come to this article and see iOS in the infobox, I'd be mislead if I had an iPhone, especially since these days it is reasonable for ports to be made for both variants. While this rule was likely written with backwards compatibility in mind, the two are not "compatible" in that sense. Thus I would side with Satellizer's appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE in this case. Lastly a slight segue, my Humble Bundle copy of Cave Story+ doesn't work on the later versions of MacOS, a known issue; they should really call these things simplifyboxes because they lose all nuance. Opencooper (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You've brought up some interesting points, Opencooper. The software designed for consoles is pretty much guarenteed to work on those platforms (except for the occasional requirement of a Rumble Pak, Kinect or light gun), so it makes sense to make the distinction between PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3. Platforms like iOS and Microsoft Windows are continuously updated platforms and are available on several generations of hardware, with different kinds of requirements. For instance, while Tomb Raider II and Tomb Raider both list "Microsoft Windows" as a platform, I'm pretty sure you can't play the 2013 game on Windows 98. Perhaps it's time to rethink the "platform" parameter. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I would think it is implicit that with PC-based games that games don't always work on older versions of the OS that it is supported, and often there's no exact line where that's drawn; white-hat hackers can get a lot of things done if they are insistent on it. So we should take it as implicit that if we say "Windows", that there are going to be limited versions that the game will likely run on, but those details are beyond the scope of WP's game information. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyone recall how we've handled this in the past? I cant imagine this is the first time we've had an "iPad only" game article. I do understand Satellizer's frustration though, I find it equally vague and unhelpful when I come across articles that just list "PlayStation Network" as a platform or release parameter, when that can mean many different platforms now. (PSP, Vita, PS3, PS4) Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There was another game that only played on the iPad (can't think of it at the moment). I tried to edit it to just say iOS, but I couldn't justify it enough and left it alone. Infoboxes need to be generalized without being misleading, and I think this falls into the misleading part. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
What if we were to add a footnote on the information in the infobox so that if one saw "iOS [a]" they would recognize there's something not standard about that, explore the footnote and learn about the device exclusivity. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That seems like a needlessly complicated solution to just bending(/ignoring) the rules and listing the thing it's actually available on. Never forget the reader. If absolutely necessary, we can rethink the label of "platform" to accommodate this. Change the presentation to suit the data, not the data to suit the presentation. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I really think this is something WP:VG needs to update their approach with, to get with the times of digital distribution across multiple platforms... Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

When to not use an aggregator score?

I happened to review Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, and caught that it had a lowish MC score of 66%, which seemed odd given that while there hasn't been much talk of the game, it seemed to be favorably high (it's been out for half a year so plenty of time for serious reviews). Checking MC [11] I see it only has 5 scores, and there is one score there from a Russian site called Riot Games that is bringing it down (a 20 among the others in the 80s). Now, we shouldn't necessarily try to mask a game with poor reception and artificially remove information to make a game seem better, but this is a situation that using MC as a metric with only 5 data points, whereas a typical indie game of note gets 15-20 some reviews at minimum; and one of those data points is from a site that would not be considered an RS by ourselves. Note that neither GR works out (they only have 3 reviews between VR + PC version), and OpenCritic has none, so its not like a separate aggregator could be used. And what makes it difficult here is that because that site is not an RS, the discrepancy between the average MC score and the apparent praise from the usable RSes can be a bit offsetting to the reader.

In such cases specifically where the sample size of reviews is small, under 10, I'm wondering if should forgo including the MC and just address the reviews from our RSes directly. But I could see this, in the case of a game like Keep Talking, purposely removing something that might be negative about the game might be taken as biasing the information too. I'm looking to get input on how might be best to approach this. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So if less than 10 reviews are made of a game on Metacritic, or maybe by extension any of the other approved aggregate websites, we shouldn't include it? I'm all for this. GamerPro64 22:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Just as a side note, GR and OpenCritic only have two reviews (Same two). I think it will be very difficult to police this. On one hand though, Metacritic at least doesn't calculate a score until there are at least four reviews. This puts it ahead of GR and OC which will show a score for a single review. -- ferret (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, OpenCritic needs three numeric reviews to set a score. Its in their FAQs. GamerPro64 22:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Ahhh, I misinterpreted their presentation. The score break down in the lower left had me thinking a score was assigned. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Ten isn't so bad, but I personally usually remove it if it's less than 5. Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd been wondering about this issue myself for some time. I always remove aggregator scores which are based on only one review, since in such cases they're not only misleading, but blatantly redundant. But beyond that I've been hesitant to remove them without knowing what the general consensus is. Less than five reviews sounds like a good general cut-off point to me. I can see the reasoning behind having ten as the cut-off point, and for the most part I agree with it, but one concern I have is that among pre-information age games, there seem to be extremely few games which have ten or more scores. So that would mean pretty much dumping review aggregators for that era, which might not be undesirable, but it's something to think about.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 1 July

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

24 June

25 June

26 June

27 June

28 June

29 June

30 June

1 July

Salavat (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Re:Both Computer and Video Games and PALGN websites are blocked by the Wayback Machine "due to robots.txt"

Remember when I said that both the CVG and PALGN websites are blocked "due to robots.txt"? Well, it seems that the CiN Weekly website is now blocked due to "robots.txt" too! This stinks! It seems that some websites are trying to prevent us from archive crawling for future references at Wikipedia! Why?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Now it's so annoying! I really hate it when Cyberbot II archives dead links despite the fact that many archives cause blank pages or dead redirects or even get blocked by robots.txt like in this example! So annoying! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can answer that question, since (to my knowledge) none of us work at the place that owns CVG, or PALGN, or CiN. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Esports notability

There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump regarding notability guidelines for esports players. Figured some of you may want to check it out. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting comments on requested move: ESports

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The present name of the article (on a general topic, professional video-gaming competition) coincides with a commercial trademark (in that market sector).

Over the last year, there have been 6 or so requested moves and other renaming discussions at what is presently Talk:ESports, most of them poorly attended, with mostly WP:ILIKEIT votes, mis-citations of policy where any was mentioned at all, and closure reasoning problems (while only one was an admin close), resulting in the name flipping around all over the place.

I've opened a multi-option, RfC-style requested move at:
     Talk:ESports#Broadly-announced and policy-grounded rename discussion

It presents four potential names, all with some rationale outlines provided.

Input is sought from the community to help arrive at a long-term stable name for this article, based on actual policy and guideline wording, and on treatment in reliable and independent sources (i.e. not blogs or "eSports" marketing).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

most of them poorly attended, with mostly WP:ILIKEIT votes, mis-citations of policy where any was mentioned at all

(1) Totally unsubstantiated and (2) wholly inappropriate to generalize any value-laden claims at all when canvassing to an RfC czar 07:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple box fronts?

If a game is republished by completely different companies, can an article on that game include more than one non-free box image? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally no. Pick the most recognizable or iconic box. The only situation in which having two box arts MIGHT be acceptable fair use is if BOTH the original's and the other release's box art are discussed critically as box art (that is, the capital-A Art of cover images). Axem Titanium (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok got it.Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Or as "art" (air quotes included) in the case of Ico's NA cover... :) --MASEM (t) 19:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Okami is always my go-to example for that too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

VG Backlog

I was trying to add Category:Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Backlog but whenever I used the catscan, it came up with 0 results even thought I knew for sure that out of the 125k articles inside the category, some had the WikiProject Video Games templates on them. Here's the CatScan that the template generates:

  • Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links: 0
  • The code being: {{WPVG backlog count|Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links|0|0}}. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

    @Anarchyte: Don't know how it translates to the template, but in catscan uncheck the "Use talk pages instead" box for the VG templates- this category is on the talk page to start with, so that was trying to look at Talk:Talk:whatever. I'm getting 2106 results. --PresN 14:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    I jury rigged that template together. It uses a default for catscan that works for the vast majority of the backlogs, but sometimes you need to play with the "depth" number if there isn't a general category that holds everything czar 07:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    I see no way in the template to change the way it searches, so if this is to be added to the list:

    1) it can't be automatically dotpointed because apparently that breaks the next bit and
    2) use the HTML <abbr> template next to the listing.
    Something like <abbr title="The option for searching talk pages must be disabled for this to show results">?</abbr> (that'll generate ?)

    Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    Feel free to add that next to the entry on the Backlog page. Likely easier than working it into the template czar 01:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

    eSports WikiProject

    I had an inclining that there might be some use for an eSports project, after the lengthy unproductive discussion on policy at the Village Pump, and what seems to be a completely wild-west goings on at the main article for eSports.

    Of course, immediately after creating a placeholder I find the eSports task force here, which is pretty much the same thing.

    So I figured I'd post here before deleting and moving on in case there might be some support for transition to a stand alone project. I fully expect strong opposition.

    I suppose the main argument in favor would be: increased visibility of the project, stand alone discussion board, and (my personal concern) stand alone guidelines such as an eSports MoS.

    Thoughts, comments and gratuitous references to snowballs welcome. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

    If I remember right, it's just that, the last time it was proposed, I think Prisencolin was the only active "edit-every-day" type editor who would have joined. There wasn't really enough people to really discuss things, set up guidelines, discuss with clear consensus, etc. The task force is pretty barren - I'm not sure why a WikiProject would be any different. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    WP:ESPORTS is still a thing and you're welcome to use it and liven it up if you can get other people to collaborate with you. There was never enough discussion to justify an independant talk page, but if there is, then unredirecting it into a standlone talk page is always possible.  · Salvidrim! ·  13:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    Hmm...well, my original thought was to try and start discussion on small things like how names vs. pseudonyms appear in the first line of player articles. I'm not sure that this board would be appropriate for such a discussion, but as has been pointed out, there may not even be enough editors to have it. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    By the way, those discussions have happened here at WT:VG both recently and historically. You can break them out to the private eSports talk page if you want, but this talk page is likely where you'll get the most feedback. czar 21:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    If you're talking about those discussions we had about article titles, it's not the same thing. To my knowledge there has never been a discussion on how player names are represented in the lead.

    Just so you know, a Wikipedia:WikiProject Pro Gaming has existed in the past, and twice been merged into WP:VG.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

    New articles - 8 July

    New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.