Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 546: Line 546:
:I'd say that DreamWorks Super Star Karts is the exception and not the rule we should follow, so no. By the way, you removed this comment somehow, so be careful next time. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<font color="#66000">'''''Dissident93'''''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<font color="#D18719">'''''talk'''''</font>]])</sup> 03:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
:I'd say that DreamWorks Super Star Karts is the exception and not the rule we should follow, so no. By the way, you removed this comment somehow, so be careful next time. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<font color="#66000">'''''Dissident93'''''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<font color="#D18719">'''''talk'''''</font>]])</sup> 03:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
::Yeah, honestly, I'm surprised "Dreamworks" is even part of the "Super Star Karts" name, but as Masem says, it was probably to help with identification - ''Super Star Karts'' is an extremely generic name without it. Not the case with a name like ''Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors''. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
::Yeah, honestly, I'm surprised "Dreamworks" is even part of the "Super Star Karts" name, but as Masem says, it was probably to help with identification - ''Super Star Karts'' is an extremely generic name without it. Not the case with a name like ''Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors''. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
::The real issue here is whether or not reliable sources regularly consider DreamWorks to be part of the games' tile. If they do we should use that even if films such as Kung Fu Panda are not referred to as such.--[[Special:Contributions/72.0.200.133|72.0.200.133]] ([[User talk:72.0.200.133|talk]]) 15:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:28, 17 January 2017

New articles - 23 December

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

8 December

16 December

17 December

18 December

19 December

20 December

21 December

22 December

23 December

Salavat (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New articles - 30 December

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

24 December

25 December

26 December

27 December

28 December

29 December

30 December

Salavat (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God of War: Ascension FAC

Could use more comments. Only have one set of comments (who ended up supporting). Much appreciated for those that do. I'll even do a trade review per se for anyone's GAN or FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JDC808: I'll leave what comments I can, and I'll take you up on that offer for a GA review in return. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which GA? --JDC808 ♫ 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got Soma Bringer (been there since November), FE Binding Blade (again since November), Pandora's Tower, and Flower Sun and Rain. You can take your pick. :) --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will take a look at them tomorrow afternoon and see which one I'd be more interested in reviewing and begin shortly thereafter. --JDC808 ♫ 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any other takers? --JDC808 ♫ 19:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it. GamerPro64 21:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects on WP:VGBOX by Tales of Eternia decision

Just for the heads up for those interested in the results of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1#Tales of Eternia, the Japanese cover art for Tales of Eternia is retained, while the European PSP and North Am. (Tales of Destiny II) PS box arts were deleted. How would this affect WP:VGBOX? --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't as far as I'm concerned. VG BOX says "English-language covers are preferred for identification". Although that was a Japanese cover, it is in the English language. - X201 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I wouldn't draw any precedent regardless, as that title is a very bizarre case when it comes to naming and boxart. Sergecross73 msg me 11:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy IV, and Final Fantasy VI. However, the ordering of FF series is different. Meanwhile, Eternia is... Eternia. I guess VGBOX is not affected at all by Eternia case, though... bizarre as you said. There must be other examples. --George Ho (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, a rule stating a "preference" as WP:VGBOX specifically allows the possibility of exceptions such as Eternia. Preference is implicitly not an obligation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, what about cover arts at Soul Hackers, Dragon Quest V, Innocent Sin, Star Ocean (video game), etc? --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of VGBOX (prefer English when it exists, and logoless), then for Soul Hackers we should use the 3DS NA clean art, right Sergecross73? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, in my opinion/interpretation. Some people dispute this though due to the scenarios that exist on many of these examples - namely that they went untranslated for around a decade and were only translated for a remake on a different platform with a different cover. Even I supported the use of the original JP region cover for Star Ocean, but that was because the original version received so much coverage for being one of the most advanced SNES games ever created, a "lost game" never released in English, and a prominent early example of fan translations, while the PSP version was more of a "just another PSP port" release, so the recognizability factors are different there. It's JP cover does have the name in English though, so again, not a crazy overturning of precedent or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, File:ToE Cover.jpg has a big English title and minuscule Japanese subtitle, making it "primarily in English", while http://www.giantbomb.com/images/1300-2530831 features more prominent Japanese text (including the series name). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a link to the Nintendo DS localization cover? I think you meant the Sega Saturn cover, which has "Soul Hackers" in big text. George Ho (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, he probably did. But anyways, with Soul Hackers, the original JP release featured very little coverage in the English press - it was an obscure JP-only release for an low-selling system. English readers are far more likely to recognize the 3DS release, which also more prominently features English text. The 3DS cover seems like a far better choice. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect your opinions, I'm a little worried about involvement and inconsistency. Also, I did not originally upload both covers. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per Soul Hackers#Release, the game was popular in Japan in Saturn (and probably PlayStation). George Ho (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by your concerns of "involvement" - what is that supposed to mean? I also did not say or think you uploaded any images in particular. And yes, it may have done okay in Japan, but we're talking about the recognizability of images for general English readers, and this game siimply barely showed up as a blip on the mainstream's radar in English regions. We also do not need absolute standardization on this. Honestly, you seem to be the only one stirring up trouble with all of these nowadays - you seem to be making "a mountain out of a molehill" over this. That's probably why it takes an upwards of 6 months to scrounge up enough participants to draw up the weakest of consensus in your discussions you keep starting. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do I undo and fix the trouble? George Ho (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right. If it pleases you all, I'll remove the Saturn cover and then put the 3DS cover back in. Fine? George Ho (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would support this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Saturn cover of Soul Hackers. What about Innocent Sin covers? George Ho (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the extra covers of Tales of Eternia were deleted, shall I remove the European PSP of Star Ocean or leave it alone? I did upload it. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Star Ocean, my gut says the PSP cover, while probably not as good a choice for the infobox as the SNES cover, still does serve some identification purpose and should be kept. Both the cover art and the game itself are different enough from the SNES original, and if the SNES version did not exist First Departure would still merit an article on its own. Innocent Sin I am less familiar with, but I think we can safely eliminate the Japanese cover and put the PSP cover in the infobox. The PlayStation release was not well known outside Japan going by anything I've read.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ProtoDrake, thoughts? George Ho (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: In the cases of both Star Ocean and P2 Innocent Sin, I'd use the cover for the available Western version, in this case the PSP version. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-removed the original PS cover from "Innocent Sin". What about Tales of Hearts and "Tales of Graces"? The Japanese DS version of Hearts ([1]) and the Japanese (Wii) cover of Graces, which have the very big English-language title (and some tiny Japanese text), were originally used until replaced by the English "R" re-release covers. Weird that Tales of Zestiria uses the Japanese version of the worldwide artwork, but changing the image is not necessary (unless someone else wants it changed). George Ho (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it makes sense to generally use the boxart of the first English release on the ground of better recognizability for the general reader. They both passed GAs with those images, so I think we're fine with keeping them as is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Input on Triforce

This isn't meant to necessarily be a deletion/merger/redirect discussion, I just wanted to get some thoughts on the article before I take any action on it. See Triforce.

Its a lengthy article that's existed since 2004. However, its pretty weakly sourced considering its size, and overly focused on in-universe story content. But at the same, it is a symbolic part of the series. But then again, there is a Universe of Legend of Zelda article. But then again, that article's pretty awful shape too. Who knows if that's even warranted.

So what say you? Worth cleaning up? Or worth persuing a merger somewhere? I'm completely neutral at the moment, and haven't done much source hunting yet, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked into it too in-depth, but two quick thoughts: 1) surely the Triforce has enough sigcov to justify a standalone article, and 2) Universe of Legend of Zelda is crufty as fuck. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've always been surprised that despite the franchises immense popularity in general, and relatively well-maintained game entries on Wikipedia, the "universe" and "characters" have consistenly been pretty awful. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly had no idea that the Universe article existed, and I watch and maintain most of the big name Zelda articles... ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Its not very well wiki-linked to any of the major Zelda articles, nor have I felt any need to add links to it myself, considering how awful it is. Same with the Tri-force article - was shocked to see it's existed since like 2004 when I've been active in the series and don't recall ever seeing it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and merge. It may meet the bar for WP:N but only in the presumed sense and not in the displayed sense. We can WP:SPLIT it later. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our own Ferret is currently up for being made an admin at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ferret, with the goal of joining the handful of editors in this project (including myself) who are admins. They're currently one of five editors up for adminship at the time of this writing. --PresN 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generational reassessment: Neo Geo CD and Phillips CD-i

Currently, the Neo Geo CD and Philips CD-i are both categorized as fourth generation consoles in all relevant articles and templates. I'm not sure if there's a strong basis for this, or if it's original research that simply hasn't been challenged, and my increasing suspicion is that these consoles are actually fifth generation. My initial impetus for this is that the Neo Geo CD and CD-i are both reviewed in the 1995 Next Generation article "Which Game System is the Best!?", which pretty explicitly covers fifth generation consoles only (the magazine cover says the article "details the pros and cons of each next generation system", and the absence of the Super NES and Genesis from the article is pretty telling). But gaming mags in general from the era tend to refer to the Neo Geo CD and CD-i as part of the new generation rather than the old. For the record, my own gut analysis is that the Neo Geo CD is fifth gen (doesn't make sense to me for a console which was announced at the same show as the Sega Saturn to be lumped into the same generation as the Genesis, and lack of polygons notwithstanding the NGCD's specs and features seem fifth generation) and the CD-i is fourth gen (an effective lifespan of 1991-96 seems too far back for a fifth generation console), but naturally I'd like to categorize the consoles based on what notable/reliable sources say. Thoughts?--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IEEE has them both as 4th generation, and that's the most authorative source we should be using. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should keep in mind that generations weren't numbered yet in the 90s. Every new console was quite likely considered "next generation". I agree with Masem that using the IEEE source is probably the best thing to do right now. ~Mable (chat) 10:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Every new console was quite likely considered "next generation".' - That hypothesis doesn't hold up, though, since the Next Generation article doesn't cover the Sega CD, which was just as "new" as the CD-i. "New" is in quotation marks because the CD-i had been around for over four years at this point. I have two concerns with the IEEE: One, the Neo Geo CD is actually sorted as fifth generation in the timeline. You have to click on its specific entry to see it listed as fourth generation, and even there it provides more justification for categorizing it as fifth generation. Two, I don't see why we should look to it alone as the definitive source on console generations.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if there are modern sources referring to it as a fifth-generation console, then the situation is different. I just advice against using contemporary sources to define what "generation" a console belongs in. But looking at Neo Geo CD's listing in this thing, it is indeed a curiosity, and it may be a mistake on IEEE's part. ~Mable (chat) 13:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you propose we use as a more authoritative source? Because last time I checked, virtually no others exist. The "generations" as they exist now did not exist back then, so its not like you're going to dig up a source from the 90s or something, and the reason we have so many arguments about the generation articles is that very few sources actually outline them overall. Usually you're just stuck with vague "X console is last generation, Y console is next generation" type comments on individual consoles. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, but I personally find all of this debate over what system belongs in what generation to be silly and a waste of time, as it's all just a marketing term that has nothing to do with the systems themselves. Just look at the Nintendo Switch talk page, with the majority of it being back and forth discussion that hasn't helped the article one bit. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way. It's an awkward situation that we wrote ourselves into. It would be nice if this were the "last" console generation, and if the situation remains confusing, then it might as well be the case. When it comes to older devices, though, like the Neo Geo and the CD-i, the least we can do is to try to categorize them per reliable sources. ~Mable (chat) 09:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either, but it tends these discussions reoccur every 4-8 years when new platforms are announced/released, and if experienced editors from the WikiProject don't step in, then it's going to become unstable and be changed on people's whim over and over again, and create far more problems. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it always floors me how all these people pop up out of nowhere with these random, crazy theories about the VG generations when new platforms arise. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedians] pop up out of nowhere with these random, crazy theories about the VG generations when new platforms arise

Isn't that how we got this "X generation" scheme to begin with? czar 14:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm just saying I'm always surprised how much different viewpoints vary between editors. Left un-maintained and un-discussed, definitions and platform inclusion would vary on a weekly basis. I've maintained the 8th gen article since its inception, and seen it all. Is it time period that defines generations? Or system horsepower? Or Cost? "Is Switch part of the 8th gen or 9th gen?" "Is Scorpio actually 9th gen?" "Is my iphone 5 part of the 8th gen?" "What about the apple watch?" What about my graphing calculator? What about the 20th anniversary Digimon toy re-release?" It's insane. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that - they're not usually asking, they're usually stating it as fact. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's exactly the problem with it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The TI-73 is an excellent 6th generation handheld console and you can't tell me otherwise ;p This is a field that attracts a lot of original research because, though it doesn't make for great news stories, "gamer" communities really care about this kind of thing. Always awkward. I think we've strayed far from the original topic, though: what should we do with the Neo Geo CD? Keep it at 4 or consider it a gen 5? The IEEE source could go either way, so getting some insight from different sources may be useful. ~Mable (chat) 17:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent a source-by-source analysis, I'd recommend resisting the urge to lump consoles by generation. If reliable sources do it, we can cite them, and if they put the console in different generations, we should cite which sources put the console in which generation and why. (And if enough say that a console is "fifth generation" then we can condense those sentences into a single sentence with multiple refs.) Unless a console is central to the "generation" discussion, there is little use in shoehorning it into the "generation" terminology. A smarter way to go about these divisions of video game history, I believe, is to think of them as summary style expansions from the main video game (console) history article, whether those articles are organized by date ranges, "eras", or "generations". So when a section about 2010s gaming (whatever it is titled) gets too big, it splits out into its own article. If sources refer to our current age as "eighth gen" and include Ouya along PS4/XB1 then so be it, but more realistically, there are not neat eras (an American console war may be important, but not defining of all video game history in a time period) and we do history a disservice by shoehorning consoles into "definitive" generations. czar 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed that the articles on the individual console generations tend to be framed in a "console wars" kinda way; primarily comparing the different consoles and their hardware. In that sense, it seems quite different from a "2010s in console gaming" or something along those lines... or maybe not. I think this will always be a difficult balance. ~Mable (chat) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly didn't expect this level of response to this topic. For the record, I agree that the "console generations" system is fundamentally flawed and misleading to people who are not familiar with gaming history (for instance, I often find editors doing things like adding the 3DO to the list of the N64's competitors, which I can only imagine stems from the assumption that every console in a given generation was on store shelves for the same period). But WP already has quite a bit of framework built around the generational divisions, not just the history articles. We've got navboxes for each of the generations, categories for each of the generations, the List of home video game consoles is sorted by generation, the console infobox includes a field for designating generation, etc. My assumption was that I should be trying to do my edits within that framework rather than working to eliminate that framework. I am up for eliminating generation as WP's classification system for consoles, but doing that would mean a lot of editing and consensus building.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am up for eliminating generation as WP's classification system for consoles, but doing that would mean a lot of editing and consensus building

I would be too, but it's not like this is some Wikipedia specific classification system. Most gaming sources do mention a system's generation in one way or another, and if we were to remove that entirely form this site, it would just bring unnecessary edit warring, as stated above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, regardless of whether it's now an accepted system, the generations concept has a ton of problems, both for today and anything below 6th generation. I'll reiterate what I said in the 2015 discussion, though: "Other organization schemes, such as "85-90", "91-95", etc., where consoles get slotted in based on when they were first released could make sense, but... Revamping the 8 massive articles on the history of video game consoles into any other schema is a massive undertaking, to say nothing of all the side mentions of generations on any article that mentions consoles. Nobody even seems to have the energy to fix up the generation articles as they are, much less write the equivalent of a short history book to restructure the articles into a new schema, even if you can get everyone to agree on what that schema should be, which no one's been able to yet." --PresN 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you and Dissident cover it pretty well here. There's 2 major hurdles here. One being actually creating a consensus to make a change - every conversation I've been involved in with it in these last years has resulted in a no consensus/no change made result. Secondly, even if we did have consensus - it would be a massive undertaking to rework into anything else, and there's barely people actively maintaining them, let alone reworking them. If you look at the 8th gen article, the only active editors who maintain it still would probably be myself and Ferret - I don't mean to assume, but I doubt this a massive undertaking either one of us is interested in. None of the top contributors in the 7th gen article have edited in years either. Unless you've got some new person/crew who lacked interest in these articles before, but now is open to it, you probably don't have the manpower/interest to rework it either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New articles - 6 January

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

27 December

28 December

31 December

1 January

2 January

3 January

4 January

5 January

6 January

Salavat (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Boy article's lead needs expansion

We have a problem with the Virtual Boy article, and the problem is that the article's lead section needs expansion. I have already notified the Nintendo Task Force of this, but it seems that we have not many editors watching the page or even bothering reading it, so I thought that maybe it would be best to forward this thread to this talk page. In the meantime, I am going to be editing other video game articles, specifically those which I am interested in editing. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done TarkusAB 13:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article reassessment

Ayu_Tsukimiya, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FFVII possible FA push

Hi there. I'm wondering as, given that a huge new article has appeared on Polygon and it's the titles twentieth anniversary, there might be a collaborative effort between editors to bring this title to to FA standard, then return it to its rightful place. I must say here and now that starting from around mid-January I'll have very pressing real-world concerns that will bar me from extensive work on any part of Wikipedia until the beginning of February at the latest (not wikibreak strictly, just not much time to do long bouts of editing). I would be more than happy to take on the Synopsis (which needs trimming I think), Development and Release sections, and others can take on elements such as Gameplay and Reception. It's not a project for the immediate future, but at some point in the next month or two. Opinions? --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the reasons it was delisted and other reviews since, I'm guessing the big things are the rather large Synopsis section, and the use of a number of unreliable/questionable sources for the rest of the article, which should be aided by the Polygon piece. Is there anything major that i'm missing? (Obviously anything new from the Polygon article should be added). --MASEM (t) 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Yep, those appear to be the main reasons. I'll take great pleasure cutting the Synopsis down to size. As to dev sources, if there is anything missing that can be reliably sourced, I'll find it. Other VII-related articles (the whole project is at GA-status aside from Characters and Remake now) can also be mined for suitable references where applicable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in helping out as long as other editors are interested. Would be nice to see an article be worked on as a collective here in the project. Don't remember the last time that happened. GamerPro64 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GamerPro64: That's the whole idea.
I'd be willing to rewrite the lead and cleanup the infobox and images. TarkusAB 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: That would be a great contribution. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, and Tintor2: Thank you all, a much better response than I was expecting. If you could all chip in when I'm properly free again (which as I said would be beginning of February at the latest), then this article would be FA-ready before the year is out. I think, when the time comes, the article's talk page will make a good base for which to discuss things like what citation format we're using and such, or to request help from each other for minor points within the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in. I'll write the reception section as it looks like it needs expanding and paraphrasing, as long as others are dedicated in bringing this to FA too. It would be good to have a collaboration. Will we all be co-noms in the FAC? JAGUAR  11:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: That would be great. I'm not sure whether we'll be co-noms, but considering how this would turn out, I think it would be best. It would avoid the wrong people being called in as reviewers and show that it was a collaborative effort. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, I was just making sure as I already have another FAC running at the moment and will have another one soon. I'll re-write the reception section and will give it a lot more depth so that it meets the FA criteria, at least. I also wouldn't mind helping with anything else but I'm not a Final Fantasy expert! JAGUAR  12:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been maintaining it ever since around the Remake was announced, and will be around to continually do so. I don't get too into all the GA/FA stuff, but I'll be around to tweak parts and take part in discussions like usual. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've started with a minor re-write of the lead, and will later add a bit more to the music subsection (and the dedicated article for it). I'll also keep a lookout for any new images that would be relevant to the article, which the article could use a bit more of. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added new content to the music article, and will make a new summary section for the main FF7 article soon. May also revamp the music article; it's definitely showcasing the change in my article writing ability since 2008. --PresN 15:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting creating the expanded/tidied development/release sections in my sandbox for later application to the main article. I'll incorporate the Music article's tidying into it. Am I still handling the story section tidying? --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the Music section. --PresN 21:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, and Sergecross73: I've generally expanded and sourced the development section. Copyedits welcome. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Nice work. The only thing that bothers me is that the setting section has comparisons between areas from the game and real life places which count as WP:OR.Tintor2 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: It's pretty much sorted now. I've rewritten the setting section, redone the characters section, and severely trimmed the plot section. It's now a concise four-paragraph read rather than an eye-crossing four-paragraph read. Makes you realize how radical the plot was for the 1990s. I mean, it dealt with trauma-induced psychotic amnesia. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake:, lol and Square still revisited a decade later with Crisis Core. Still, I don't have much to say. You really nailed it. Also, I'll be on a wikibreak starting tomorrow due to holidays and I won't use my tablet due to the reverts you know I accidentally made. I think I may be back on February. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to work on the lead this weekend. Given the variety of topics covered on the page, there is a lot to summarize but may need a good four paragraphs. I may also do some work on the gameplay section, seems no one has touched it yet.TarkusAB 04:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Jaguar, and Sergecross73: I've finished what I intended to do with the article when I first proposed this collaborative effort: I've expanded and rewritten the Development and Release sections, and rewritten and trimmed the Synopsis section. This only really leaves the gameplay, reception and legacy. If anyone needs help with things like sources, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page, and I'll do my best to help. When the time comes for the FA nomination, I'll do my best to be there to help address reviewer issues. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treating a release on Steam (and therefore Steam Machines) as a "console release"

See Talk:List of Xbox One games#Steam Machine as a reason for a game not being .22console exclusive.22. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LÖVE

LÖVE, currently a redirect to Mari0, has been nominated at RfD. Your comments are invited in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 12#LÖVE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Word of caution regarding the Nintendo Switch

Tonight in about 13 hrs from my typing of this, Nintendo will be live-streaming its major Switch reveal (pricing, specs, etc.) followed by a Treehouse for games to be released. The usual cautions about rushing to create articles solely on a single announcement point should apply. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to keep an eye on List of Nintendo Switch games as well as the main article. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be keeping an eye on both. The games list is protected through the 17th because people kept on re-adding hoaxes or the unconfirmed tech demos in, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another set of articles to watch for is Eighth generation of video game consoles and potentially Ninth generation of video game consoles. Note that the media have yet to classify the Switch, but we have IPs and others trying to do so already. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Along with most of the video game console articles like home video game console and the (currently redirect) hybrid video game console. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the ninth gen page page was admin-level salted due to it being repeatedly recreated there and at some other name variations throughout 2016. It's still good to be on the lookout though, as people always try to start up pages at different variations of wording to get around the protection. (Like History of video game consoles (ninth generation), Ninth generation of video gaming etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To get a heads up on rumor control, we have a 4chan-claimed list of the EU titles confirmed for the Switch. There are some ones on there that look odd (Persona 5), so keep mind nothing has been officially stated yet. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, seems unlikely, considering the Atlus Community Manager said there was no Switch version last week. But I guess we'll see soon enough. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Masem - Did you mean Disgaea 5? (Which would be equally bizarre I suppose.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yeah. Getting my "5" sequels confused. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Handling different platforms in different regions

When a game is released for platform A, B, and C in Japan, but only for B and C in the West, what is the best way to present this in the infobox? I did it like this, splitting it into A and B+C, because I thought it was the simplest way to do it. The user Neverrainy changed it to list ABC together, with an "(excl. A)" added after regions where A was not released. I disagree with this, and think "my" way is simpler and easier to read. What does the project think about this?--IDVtalk 19:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely your way, which is used very frequently on the project. I have not seen Neverrainy's approach used much previously, nor would I prefer it. It looks sloppy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But mine is less duplicate. Neverrainy (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is confusing and unintuitive. It also adds 2 more lines to the field in the infobox, so you're actually making the infobox longer. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, usual standard is platform(s) as the top-level, subdivided into regions- that's why the VG release template takes regions instead of anything else. "These platforms (except not this one in this case)" is... awkward. --PresN 21:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying Game of the Year nom/winners for the YYYY in video gaming pages

While adding the DICE award noms that came out today, and recalling what pages like 2016 in video gaming looked like, I would like to suggest that like the film page do (see 2016 in film for example) that we include a short table that lists the games that were nominated and won for Game of the Year from the major awards, specifically the GDC, the AIAS DICE, the BAFTA Game Awards, the Japan Game Awards(*) and the Spike Video Game Awards/The Game Awards. I would strictly limit it to the GotY winner and nominations as there is a far gap of categories otherwise, whereas something like the film awards have a number of common categories. This gives an at-a-glance the top games, which works in association with the metacritic table that I see the 2016 year page has.

(*) While most of these other awards work on the calendar year, the Japan Game Awards works from April to March. But as the bulk of that is in the prior year, I would assign those to the previous year - eg the upcoming 2017 ceremony would be have the games included in the 2016 year page. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I threw something together for 2015 in video gaming (sans the Japan Game Awards), but I'm not sure if it's too convoluted or complicated. Game awards are definitely less straightforward than film awards. Perhaps, as you suggest, simply including Game of the Year winners and nominees is a better choice. I figured I'd share what I created though, just for discussion. Let me know. – Rhain ☔ 11:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like this table, Rhain! I'd be somewhat worried about what award ceremonies are the "major" ceremonies, because listing four awards this prominently would strongly establish them as "the four biggest and most important awards in the industry." I don't know well enough what alternatives there are, though, and as far as I know, this looks good! ~Mable (chat) 13:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

There is currently a merge discussion at Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2#Separation from main game articles. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TWINE disambiguation

Revisiting the decision to split The World is Not Enough (video game) into different Nintendo 64 and PlayStation articles, how should the remaining incoming links be disambiguated? There are several voice actors with credits for it, and IMDb only has one entry for all versions of the game. Is anyone familiar enough with both games to identify which actors worked on which version? What should be done in situations where links apply to both games? Add two credits? Nick Number (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think both games share the same actors and I wouldn't trust IMDb because it works like a Wiki and anyone can edit it. I'll try to disambiguate the above links by checking the end credits of both games when I have some time today or tomorrow. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they share the same actors, as per these two videos: N64 @ 2:15 and PS1 @ 0:58. So I would add two credits in every voice actor article. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've disambiguated the remaining links. Nick Number (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nice work. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New articles - 13 January

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

5 January

7 January

8 January

9 January

10 January

11 January

12 January

13 January

Salavat (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tron 2.0 and Alien Hominid keep getting vandalized!

I have a problem. It seems that the Tron 2.0 and Alien Hominid articles keep getting vandalized by IP editors! They keep removing almost all the reviewers and the "na = true" bit from Reception charts, and they keep creating the macOS redirects in the Tron 2.0 article! I keep trying to fix the articles by undoing their vandalisms, but these editors keep undoing my fixes and claiming I "butchered" the Reception charts! Here are the links for both articles. Can you please tell the IP editors to stop butchering both articles and protect them from vandalism by IP editors? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone listening to my plea? I truly hate IP editors like 213.233.149.22 and 178.167.254.101, who always undo my fixes and claim that I keep "butchering" the Reception charts when I do not! And they always recreate redirects to pages and sabatoge my good fixes! Can somebody do something? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried any talk page discussions with them? They've reverted you only twice on Alien Hominid, which isn't enough to warrant page protection yet. I'm not even entirely sure it's vandalism - they appear to have some issue with the formatting or size of the reception section or something? Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried blanking the Reception charts in hopes that the IP editors would see that the sizing issues with the Reception chart would disappear, but they STILL undid my hiding the Reception charts and sabatoging my good fixes, ALWAYS removing "na = true" from multi-platform Reception charts and recreating redirects to macOS in the Tron 2.0 article! What gives?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I stumbled across that. I found it very confusing. You both seem to be arguing over a variation of a review box, and then you put the "hidden comment" formatting around the whole thing? That doesn't really make any sense. If you're capable of starting a new discussion here, then you should have no problem talking it over with the actual IP. At least at Alien Hominid, their edits don't appear to be vandalism. Quite frankly,both versions of the review box look pretty ugly and flawed if you ask me. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Is anyone listening to my plea?" Why do you always do this? Being dramatic doesn't make things happen faster. GamerPro64 22:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These revisions ([2] [3]) have like 40 scores in the review table. That's too many. We don't need to cite every review in existence to write a well rounded reception section. Start by a writing a reception section first, then put the scores of the reviews you use in the table. Also having a giant table with many empty cells looks messy and unprofessional. The multiplatform table should just be scrapped imo, it's never looked good. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout covers

See: User talk:Mika1h#Wipeout covers. User:Jaguar wants to change the cover arts of Wipeout (video game) and Wipeout 2097 from PS1 ones to Saturn ones, because in his opinion they are "more presentable" and they "improve readability". First, "more presentable" is entirely subjective. Second, Saturn covers "improve readability" only because they are super high resolution which goes against the non-free use rationale. Third, there is guideline for not changing the cover art if a one already exists: WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. See images here: File:Wipeout cover.jpg & File:Wipeout 2097 cover.jpg. Original covers uploaded in 2008 were deleted for being orphaned. --Mika1h (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I requested File:Wipeout Coverart.png to be undeleted at WP:REFUND. I don't think this is a suitable venue. I thought whether FFD is needed probably due to edit warring. Meanwhile, I thought about pushing the Saturn image into the body for temporary use until the matter is settled. George Ho (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC); consensus speaks for itself. 20:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same for File:WipEout2097Cover.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The covers should be reverted to the Playstation versions. Not only were those covers uploaded first, Wipeout is more closely tied to the playstation platform anyway. Jaguar's reasoning is entirely subjective, and the change in cover is a waste of time. - hahnchen 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with @Hahnchen, they should be changed back, since both Wipeout and Wipeout 2097 were originally released for PS1 before they were ported to the Saturn. – Hounder4 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, my reasons weren't subjective in any way. I just have trouble understanding why people think retaining inferior cover artwork are a prima facie reason to keep them. JAGUAR 
At the same time, it seems hard to believe that the average, everyday reader would recognize the Saturn version over the PlayStation version... Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The PlayStation versions were the initial release, were in English regions, and the pictures were there first. They should be kept unless there can be a valid objective argument that these Saturn covers are more significant and a better representation of these games. Also high resolution cover art is against policy. Since it's non-free, per WP:IMAGERES it should be under 100,000 px (that is, the width times the height must be less than 100,000). TarkusAB 20:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I reinserted both covers per established consensus. Jaguar, can you relent to the establishment and allow me to add {{db-g7}} to both Saturn images please? --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the original concern was image clarity, I have uploaded new versions of both files for the PlayStation platform, with enhanced visual clarity. Lordtobi (✉) 21:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If another concern is excess, what shall the maximal size be if 325px is not suitable? George Ho (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's fine. I'm in the process of making the Wipeout series a featured topic, and the two Wipeout articles in question here are in pretty poor shape as it is due to them being among my first GAs. I'll get around to rewriting them in a couple of weeks or so. I could have had all of them submitted at GAN after Christmas had it not been for RL matters. The PlayStation covers do need enhancing somewhat, which was another reason why I initially picked the Saturn ones. JAGUAR  22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current res is too large. If there is concern about image clarity, replace the images with PNG versions. Those tend to have less artifacts than JPGs, but game covers are non-free copyrighted images and therefore should be low resolution. <0.1 megapixel is normally suitable unless consensus suggests otherwise. For a CD size graphic, around 300x300 is pretty good. By default the image is only 220px wide on the page so it's not like you're losing clarity. See WP:IMAGERES for more info. TarkusAB 22:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started the request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Wipeout video game covers. Go there if you may. --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old "Video game release new" redirects should be deleted, requesting aid

Hello, as seen in the merge effort discussion by Ferret above, we have deprecated the use of "Video game release new" and merged its syntax with that of the original "Video game release" template. The three redirects for the former are listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Template:Video game release new and #Template:Vgreleasenew. If you find the time, please leave a comment requesting their deletion in the respective sections. Thank you! P.S.: Unrelated to the above, but also to be deleted for the same reason, are Template:Vgrelease tbl and Template:Vgrtbl-nolink, if you feel like it, please also consider requesting their deletion. Thank you! Lordtobi (✉) 10:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for more opinions at Talk:Nintendo#Logo. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about generations of video game consoles and decades of video gaming

Aside from politics over images (which I have been [or had been before a short break] known for [quoting Serge] "making a mountain out of a molehill"), my bigger concern than images is the quality of general/broad pages about generations of consoles and separate decades of video gaming. I wanted to list a lot of links, but there are too many. "Template:History of video games" provides a lot of links, like First generation of video game consoles, Seventh generation of video game consoles (currently Good Article since 2008), 1970s in video gaming, etc. Some of the pages, like the 1st gen page and the 1970s page, may need substantial improvements. I don't know why the 1980s and 1990s pages are not considered GAs yet. I hope people here can put a lot of effort to make the pages GAs somehow, but I won't pressure you all to do it soon. Take time as you please and all that. To be honest, I did see discussions about NeoGeo and Philips CD-I, but I didn't care much for failed consoles. In fact, in terms of video gaming, I'm more interested in general topics, like the 1980s, 1990s, gens, and other general VG topics. George Ho (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion: Category:Visual novels by year and its subcategories

For those who wish to partake in the discussion, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Category:Visual novels by year.--IDVtalk 11:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Someone needs to describe the CAMERA. Nowhere can I find the specs or data concerning the MB etc pixels, I am not talking about the screenshots , the item I am speaking of is the IR Camera. 207.224.160.62 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I'm not sure what article you're talking about, neither this page nor the announcement template have anything to do with cameras. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title of games addition.

Since some Video games such as DreamWorks Super Star Kartz have the company branding in it, could we retitle Kung Fu Panda, Kung Fu Panda 2, Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors, and Kung Fu Panda: Showdown of Legendary Legends to have DreamWorks in the title on its respective wikipage? Obviously video game news articles such as IGN, Metacritic, Nintendo.com, GameFAQs and others, they list them with the DreamWorks name on the box art. So what's everyone's thoughts on the matter? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't make sense. I see the use in Super Star Kartz as to clearly identify the title as Dreamworks characters, in the same manner as PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale to identify the brand. The individual games like Kung Fu Panda have the key branding element right there in the title, which is associated already with DW, so the leading "Dreamworks" doesn't seem to be part of the title. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that DreamWorks Super Star Karts is the exception and not the rule we should follow, so no. By the way, you removed this comment somehow, so be careful next time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, honestly, I'm surprised "Dreamworks" is even part of the "Super Star Karts" name, but as Masem says, it was probably to help with identification - Super Star Karts is an extremely generic name without it. Not the case with a name like Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here is whether or not reliable sources regularly consider DreamWorks to be part of the games' tile. If they do we should use that even if films such as Kung Fu Panda are not referred to as such.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=760526353"