Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.157.254.92 (talk) at 18:10, 2 August 2020 (→Banjo-Kazooie Good Topic Potential). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Avoid ambiguation for the title?

Yesterday I created the article Ovan (.hack). Similar to Kite (.hack), I had to put Ovan with the hack sign as there was other places that have the word Ovan in their titles. However, unlike Kite which is a common name, there isn't a single person or character that also posseses the name Ovan. See here You guys think the article's title should stay in its current form or be moved to simply Ovan? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ovan was originally about the character but was merged in 2008, then much later repurposed as a 2DAB. -- ferret (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. When I was working in my sandbox, the link to Ovan took me there so I wasn't sure which action take in regards to the name.Tintor2 (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need the dab; there's Ovan Lake and the other link is a redirect to Avan. The .hack character can then be moved to Ovan, with a "for... hatnote" at the lake and at the character. That should be sufficient, right? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think a dab is necessary either, a hatnote will be more than enough.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: I tried but it's not allowed probably because that disambiguation page. Guess we need help from other editors.Tintor2 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge/moves/cleanup/etc completed. -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth generation article

I believe there is still consensus not to start this article, correct? Rreagan007 started the article here, but I have since reverted back to the redirect. Please undo if that is incorrect, but I've felt it is still believed an article for the ninth generation is too soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, there was a discussion similar to this where the consensus was that it was too soon to be an article. Very few sources I've seen actually talk about the "ninth-generation" of game consoles, so making a page for this I feel is way too early. Let's wait for sources to cover this generation in detail. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the wrong page title, as if/when this page exists it'll be at Ninth generation of video game consoles. But that is salted, so someone tried to go around it. -- ferret (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thought I already salted every likely variant... Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on generations

I've been working to prep Video game console to merge in Home video game console (massive redundancy), and came across this paper from a professor at U. Pitt that talks about the issues around generations, [1] which interesting discussion our (wikipedia)'s involving in the mess around generation definition. I am not at all suggesting we change this, but I have made a note of this on the console page, and I would suggest that we should have a footnote on each relevant page (the generation pages) that explain that we are using this scheme, pointing back to the section on Video game console generation section, so that newer editors and readers will understand the scheme, its origins, etc. --Masem (t) 20:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an issue for some time now, hasn't it? And it has always been WP:OR, as far as I can tell. The lazy way to fix this would be citing the Gallagher/Park one, which is both the oldest cited in the paper and conveniently similar to our listings. Either way, Wikipedia's involvement in the forming of these classifications should be mentioned. IceWelder [✉] 21:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we "fix" or change it, simply 1) acknowledge as this source says, there's zero consistency, 2) we (Wikipedia) have been part of the problem and 3) just to add a footnote to point to this common page to explain all that on the individual generation pages. I note this as there's a debate happening on Talk:List of home video game consoles that if we just said "Here's what we've decided and why" that closes these types of debates. Until we have clarity across academic and/or media sources as to a consistent system, we might as well keep something that is documented to be a system against other non-consistent systems. --Masem (t) 23:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On page 11 of that paper, there's a figure (fig. 2) that we should just screen cap and insert into the history of consoles article under fair use. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could probably be converted to a timeline/table/free image pretty easily. Something like this, perhaps?
I just went with the numbered generations, but it could be expanded fairly easily (with other sources too, including more recent ones). I think the main disadvantage is that it's missing the console names that the paper has; I tried to add lines for each console, but without the actual names, it was just messy and confusing. – Rhain ☔ 02:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All that's needed is to point out the differences between attempts to catalog by generations. I know that paper then goes on to argue a new cataloging that is yet different so I would not include it yet. But this definite can go in the section I've got set up in Video game console about console generations. If we could document the concept of console generations more, a separate article could be warranted but at this point, it is better there. --Masem (t) 02:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhain: I got it in place in Video game console and also was able to add the console names (within the ability that EasyTimeline could handle it). --Masem (t) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to go over it again, but while OR has crept into the articles' content, the generations themselves are certainly not "all OR", nor are they necessarily a "problem". You can argue that the titles were novel in ~2004 or so, with Wikipedia's arbitrary names inadvertently creating a new standard, but the titles are not the important thing; the concept is what's important. The gaming press of the 80s and 90s absolutely acknowledged the existence of generations, just with different terminology - NES vs. Sega Master System ("8-bit consoles"), SNES vs. Genesis vs. also-rans ("16-bit consoles"), PSX vs. N64 vs. Saturn, etc. SnowFire (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the modern concept of generations exists and it's the numbering that's OR. Also the exact membership of the early generations varies from source to source. An alternate suggestion to having a "Ninth generation of video game consoles" article is to punt the issue down the road and simply call it "Current generation of video game consoles (2020-present)" or something to that effect. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, the point more of the article above is that when you get to the lesser-knowns, like the 5200 or the Turbogrphx, and not the dominate players of each generation, the conflicts in generation naming may place them differently between these. But, it is always the PlayStation competing against the N64, as you say. That's why, as the graph shows, there's certain things that clearly line up (those rivalries) but the edges are a bit harder to define. Also, I'm trying to add a media stance to this (in more than the media has followed Wikipedia if that is the case, I think), which keeps us justified to use what we have, even more going forward. If at some point, the Ultimate God of Video Games tells every to us a specific grouping and everyone goes okay, there's no reason for us to change at this point. But now we have a good reason to be clear that "Uh, yeah, we might have had a part..." --Masem (t) 19:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was reacting a bit more to the journal article, which had some eye-rolly lines like "Sony PlayStation is considered as “fifth generation” by both Wikipedia and Corts and Lederman, but as "third generation" and "fourth generation" respectively in Gretz [30] and Gretz [36], and as “32-/64-bit generation” by both Chintagunta et al. and Dubé et al". Who cares what the number is. Corts could mean something totally different by their definition of fifth generation, while Gretz's list of 3rd/4th generation consoles (especially if omitting the Wikipedia "first generation", which I agree with the paper is very shaky to call a generation at all) might contain the exact same list of consoles Wikipedia's 5th generation article does. That's what's important - otherwise it's like saying "America has apples, Quebec has pommes, Mexico has manzanas, why can't they agree?" They're all the same thing! They already agree! SnowFire (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rename Category talk:Xbox (4th generation) games

Category talk:Xbox (4th generation) games makes no sense now since we know the official name of the console, its Xbox Series X. Anyone have a reason not to change it? Can someone run a bot of some sort to do that? New exclusive games have been announced for it after all which won't work on previous Xboxes. Dream Focus 03:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This can be listed at WP:CFDS per WP:C2D. --Izno (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was trying to figure out what the difference was when people were edit warring over the two on an article I created. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Current_requests Dream Focus 17:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we're expecting another 4th gen Xbox console to be announce real soon (the Lockhart one), which is anticipated to be named "Xbox Series S". We don't know this for sure but it should not be a speedy request. --Masem (t) 17:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. As I responded there: So we have Xbox Series X and List of Xbox Series X games but the category for these is named something else. Consistency is important. Also the official website for it calls it this already. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/consoles/xbox-series-x/ So does the news media covering it. This is the official name. As for these "rumors", since when does Wikipedia go on such things? Seems ridiculous they'd announce one thing and not the other if there was more than one thing. And why release two consoles at once? If its just two versions of the same console, which has happened before, then it will have the same name. Dream Focus 15:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the key official statement that sets what we know that MS has multiple consoles planned beyond the Xbox Series X in their fourth generation of Xbox (not any rumor here) [2] - “The name we’re carrying forward to the next generation is simply Xbox,” said the Microsoft representative. “And at The Game Awards you saw that name come to life through the Xbox Series X.” In a separate quote, the representative told Business Insider: “Similar to what fans have seen with previous generations, the name ‘Xbox Series X’ allows room for additional consoles in the future.” Using "Xbox Series X" for the console and the games list for now is easy to change once we have a confirmation of a second console, but changing the category name is harder which is why it was set up as "Xbox (4th generation)". Now that MS is expected to announce this other console soon (august) is a rumor, but they have taken several steps that industry rumors from reliable sources all seem to indicate that they would have this console announced to come out later as the low-end version of the Xbox Series X (the S version comparible to the Xbox One S to the Xbox One X). --Masem (t) 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetime Studios redirects / AfD?

Hi everyone,

I stumbled upon the article of developer Spacetime Studios, which is in pretty bad shape. Of the games developed or published, four have links, one of which is a redirect to the main article. Pocket Legends, Star Legends: The Blackstar Chronicles and Arcane Legends are the only three with articles. I was thinking of redirecting some or all, but I'm not entirely sure if Spacetime Studios itself actually meets GNG. In the good ol' WP:VG/RS search engine, I get very results (by the way, is there a way to copy-paste the results?)

  • When I look up "Spacetime Studios", first I see "About 169,000 results", but on page 6, the total results drops to 55.
  • Arcane Legends goes from "About 419,000 results" to "About 15 results" on page 2.
  • Star Legends: The Blackstar Chronicles goes from "About 9,850 results" to "About 39 results" on page 4.
  • Pocket Legends goes from "About 223,000 results" to "About 70 results" on page 7.

I haven't gone through these thoroughly yet, but there's a bunch of fluff, WP:CHURNALISM and mentions there. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Firefox (Chrome doesn't work for it), you can copy paste a query that uses &q and spaces after : https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq&q=Spacetime%20Studios . --Izno (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox One X Enhanced titles

So, are they a platform? Do they mean that the Xbox One X needs listing as a separate platform in the infobox of existing titles? My own opinion is that they are not worthy of a platform. They're not a remake or remaster, they're basically just a texture pack patch and an upgrading of the sound files. Any opinions? - X201 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree it's a category at most; they're just patches. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They should just be a category; not an infobox or a lede thing generally, but can be mentioned in body (and should actually for a sourcing point). The list of Xbox One games should not those as one of the features. This should be true for the PS4 Pro, as well as what we expect for the Xbox Series X (that's why there's the "Optimized for Series X" branding) and what most are expecting to be a PS5 Pro version. These are not new plaforms, just optimized versions on the platform --Masem (t) 14:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Input on major console article reorganization

As I've talked here before, I'm at a stage that I'm preparing to do a major reorganization of the articles around Video game console that that I've outlined at Talk:Video game console#Massive reorganization of several articles proposed and would like input there. --Masem (t) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the game Zombie Carnaval/Tsunami

Can anyone take a look at this tiny article and comment on whether Zombie Carnaval or Zombie Tsunami is the correct name? Pl wiki article uses the Tsunami name (and shows a fair use logo for the other title). The game had its name changed. Since all we have as sources are metacritic reviews, I wonder if they are not messed up, or perhaps the other game which apparently forced a trademark name change is notable instead (it is not linked right now)? Seems like a bit of a mess, up to and including interwiki problems. And the claim for the name change is unreferenced... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if the current game is notable but I can attest that the other game of that supposedly caused the name change isn’t. The Zombie Carnaval made my Taito is a social sim and has had a metacritic entry with no critic or user reviews https://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/zombie-carnival whereas the entry for this Zombie Carnaval has multiple reviews, and why some of the sites are down, all the remaining reviews identify the game as an endless runner by Mobigame. Also, in the details and credits section for in Metacritic entries for both Zombie Carnaval and Zombie Tsunami contain a homepage link to to download Zombie Tsunami by Mobigame on the App Store. Based on that evidence Zombie Tsunami being Zombie Carnaval renamed is the logical conclusion.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the Referencing Web-Based Video Game News Outlets

Hi, I'm currently writing an article about a video game website, but my submission was declined due to a lack of proper sources. I was wondering which of the following websites I could cite as a credible source, and how I can check if websites meet the notability guidelines. Here are the websites:

Eurogamer; CNET; Polygon; NME; Game Rant; Launcher, The Washington Post Video Game Outlet; BGR; Mashable; Gamesradar; Sick Critic; HappyGamer; Nintendo Wire;

Which of the above can be considered credible, if any? And how should I go about finding credible websites to cite (bearing in mind that this kind of thing isn't present on JSTOR or Google Scholar)?

The article I'm writing is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nookazon

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squid45 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Squid45: Hi! We have compiled a resource for reliable sources writing about video games, which you can find at WP:VG/RS. Note that sources not mentioned on the list aren't necessarily unreliable, it just means they have not yet been discussed. Signs of reliability include having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and having a dedicated and experienced editorial staff (ie not a fansite); you can read more about this on WP:SOURCES.--AlexandraIDV 12:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that Eurogamer, Polygon and Games Radar are all on that list of RSes for us. NME, CNEt and WaPost are general good RSes for WP in general Also you should have plenty of sources - notability looks easily in the clear. One more I see just scanning: WaPost on data mining. --Masem (t) 14:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 20 to July 27)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

July 27

I'm not late, you're late... --PresN 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Nintendo data leak was also restored on July 25 despite the conversation here. I'm still of the mind that the leaked info should simply be added to the relevant articles instead of a standalone as I'm not sure how much impact the actual leak itself will have in the long run. --TorsodogTalk 04:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree we don't need a dedicated article on it yet, as long as we have a brief discussion of it at a Nintendo page, and any key relevant info that RSes catch on (like Luigi being playable in Mario64) can be added to the game articles. Speculation on any possible harm to Nintendo at this point... but if that does come to pass , then a separate article would make sense. --Masem (t) 06:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article violates WP:SUSTAINED as a "brief burst of news". There doesn't seem to be ongoing coverage on it, if that were the case I'd agree it merited an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we've seen RS'es literally call it "the biggest data leak in the history of the industry" I think a standalone article is pretty safe. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believed the consensus last time shouldn't be overturned. The impacts of the leaks on the industry are mostly theoractical. If these theoractical impacts materialised, then it can have its own article. OceanHok (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward keeping the article now. The leak keeps coming back up, as evidenced by the fact that it's back in the news again after the previous discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Axem, despite the fact that the coverage is fast and brief, it's been on a lot of people's mind and has still stood for the past 4 months, so I think an article that at least collects a brief amount of information that isn't disclosing any confidential information, is good until we can make a more suitable article in the future that may breach the law. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can give it a week or so, but if there's not much more coverage after that, then redirection/merging would be appropriate (depending on the state). It's not that information from the leak is illegal - what sources like Polygon and IGN report on we can include without any concerns for the most part, its just trying to justify "biggest leak of all time" at this point. If anything the biggest thing so far is everyone changing their ring tone to a clear recording of "Do a Barrel Roll". --Masem (t) 15:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of the article, I think that there's even more of a case for keeping the article now. As Salvidrim! notes, a ton of articles are calling it the most significant leak in industry history, especially considering that there's a ton of stuff that was previously considered lost to time (like Luigi's Super Mario 64 model). It was also in the news again a few weeks ago after the 3DS OS was leaked. Nintendo is reportedly actively searching for who leaked this to exact revenge too. JOEBRO64 20:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the leak has produced interesting tidbits of trivia about various games and consoles, and I absolutely believe that info should be added to the relevant games' and consoles' articles. At this point though, it doesn't seem like we need an article that basically just lists the information that was leaked combined with a few articles calling it a big leak. The biggest leak of video game trivia of all time is still just a leak about video game trivia in the end. --TorsodogTalk 22:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At worse, if we get rid of the article, we still want a redirect/section to point to (I had created Gigaleak and in Nintendo for that) that those brief tidbits can reference back, eg "In the 2020 Gigaleak, it was discovered that Luigo was to be a playable character for SM64." at that game. But let's give a bit of time and see if there's any further developers to warrant a need to keep. --Masem (t) 22:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hey there everyone. I'd appreciate it if some of you could weigh in here, since being one vs one it's getting me nowhere. Additional input will be welcome. Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone have already started this thread, I would also like to point out that additional comments would also welcomed in Talk:Paper Mario: The Origami King#Genre. The debate focuses on whether the newer Paper Mario games are RPG or action-adventure games. Caution advised: there are several walls of text... OceanHok (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Input on Genre

For anyone interested, there is a consensus being held at Talk:Paper Mario: The Origami King#Poll for genre to see if The Origami King is primarily a role-playing video game or it just has elements of a role-playing video game. More information is held at the talk page. Thanks for the input! Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Data Leaks articles

I was recently thinking of making an article or two surrounding certain topics in the 2020 Nintendo data leak, specifically one for the "Super Donkey" prototype. I understand notability from reliable sources are a big reason for making articles on this website, but I would like to ask a different question. Is any of the information on the subjects in the leak too sensitive for Wikipedia, for example images? CaptainGalaxy 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, all of the leaks are the legal property of Nintendo. They are thus stolen content and are thus illegal. Doesn’t mean we can’t report on them or describe them, as far as I know, but hosting the images would probably be a big no-no. Toa Nidhiki05 17:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. CaptainGalaxy 17:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hosting the images en masse is a no-no of course but fair-use of copyrighted material is a long-standing practice whenever appropriate. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use of copyrighted material is one thing, but fair use of stolen material is another. Toa Nidhiki05 21:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure about hosting the images, but I've noticed a lot of RSs do apparently think it's fine to host them, as a ton of the articles about the leak have of course featured screenshots, sprites, and the like. I may ask a help desk about this later. JOEBRO64 21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We barely know anything about Super Donkey other than that it was a Donkey Kong game that became Yoshi's Island. I don't see any possible scenario in which it becomes a standalone article. And like Toa Nidhiki05 I'm also not too sure about hosting images since the material was stolen. For instance, during the Sonic X-treme FAC one user had a problem with the article using an emulator screenshot from a leaked prototype because of legal stuff. JOEBRO64 19:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Task Force

I'm thinking about making a Minecraft Task Force as a subset of the Video Games Wikiproject. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or would like to participate if I did make this? Thanks, Squid45 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago somebody proposed an entire WikiProject for Minecraft; the consensus was that it was nowhere near big enough of a scope to warrant one. I doubt a task force is needed either, Minecraft is one game and there are not many articles that make a task force necessary. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minecraft has 4 games, but otherwise I agree. This is not a large enough topic area to warrant a dedicated project or task force. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo-Kazooie Good Topic Potential

The Banjo-Kazooie series is very close to Good topic status, all of the games of the series are good articles, even some of the more loosely connected stuff like Rare Replay, Diddy Kong Racing, and Project Dream. The main series article is the only one left.(Oinkers42) (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only question might be if Yooka-Laylee needs included as a clear spiritual successor. That would add two more articles that need GA, if so. Not sure they belong though. -- ferret (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not part of the franchise it should not be part of the topic. GamerPro64 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it shouldn’t belong.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=970834867"