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 64.229.167.158 (talk) at 04:14, 29 May 2017 (→Reception). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New articles - 5 May

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

28 April

29 April

30 April

1 May

2 May

3 May

4 May

5 May

Salavat (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New articles - 12 May

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

2 May

4 May

6 May

7 May

-- what a shame that it was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberix (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happens when articles don't come anywhere near meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8 May

9 May

10 May

11 May

12 May

Salavat (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP - Xbox One BC is not 'really emulation' so can be in infobox?

I had reverted this once, on the general idea that we do not include emulation and backward compatibility in infoboxes, only ports. The IP inserting has made a new argument in their edit note, here. In interest to avoid edit warring I've left the edit to stand for now. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the link the IP provided literally says that X360 games are run in a special X360->X1 emulation wrapper, customized to each game. It's a wonky sort of emulation, but it's still the X360 game itself being played, it's just in a custom emulator version instead of a standard emulator like the Nintendo VC. Should not be in the infobox. --PresN 16:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much my take, but if the IP had been right in some way, it would have affected many articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's been my understanding of it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same with the above - it's not equivalent to the work to make a port nor a remaster/remake, which are cases we would likely list in the infobox. BC compat is definitely something to add to to the article's prose and to appropropriate lists/categories, but shouldn't be in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wasn't this written down in the documentation too? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-establishing what platforms should go in infobox

Currently the wording at the infobox template says for the platform field The unabbreviated console or operating system family for which the game was specifically developed. This includes dedicated ports, but not games in emulation or services. There seems to be enough confusion that I believe we need better clarification.

To me the platform= field (and subsequently what affects the developer=/publisher=/distributor= and release date fields) should be limited to:

  • The platforms the game was planned for and released on, even if the release came months later (as often the case for Aspyr and their macOS ports)
  • Platforms the game was ported to in an official capacity by the dev/publisher or IP holder, even if not at the time of release (as many of the indies for the Switch are now, as well as games like Bayonetta/Vanquish on the PC).
  • Remakes or remasters of a game, if they don't merit a separate article. (for example, the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus remaster is a separate article, and so the dates of that remaster are not given in the individual article's infobox. However, for something like Bulletstorm's remaster, still in the same article, that is documented in the infobox) (See note below)

What should not go in the infobox:

  • Games run under emulation or as-a-service/cloud streaming; this includes Xbox One BC compat with 360 (and similarly Xbox 360 BC with Xbox Original), Virtual Console games, PS Now service games, and more. Effectively, if there is no significant creative work added to the title to make it run in emulation/service, it shouldn't be listed.
  • Unofficial/fan ports/emulation
  • Games re-released as part of a larger collections (See note below)
  • Reboots (as they will typically have their own page)

Note Considering both the remake/remasters with separate pages, and standalone game collections (ala Atari Vault or The Disney Afternoon Collection), I'm wondering if a field "Related titles" or the like might be useful to include in the infobox to help editors find where the game has been released as to help avoid editors from adding these extraneous releases as part of the separate game. I realize that this might be a bear on some Atari 2600/Sega Genesis games considering how many collects of these their are, but it can also be useful. Obviously, this information should be corroborated in the prose. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: can we also add something along the lines off that platforms are not synonymous with distribution channels? From time to time I see a mention of PlayStation Network or Xbox Live in the platform field. Availability on PSN/XBLA does not mean it can be played on every PSN-connected console or Xbox 360/Xbox One however. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely this should be affirmed.
I would also affirm that when referring to systems that editors should consistently use within an article the name of the release system at the point of the game's release, rather than the updated name. This is the whole OS X/MacOS situation that I've seen editors updating 5-8 year old games to change "OS X" to "macOS". We can all blame Apple for its stupid naming system but this is the best way for us to handle it. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1up.com

I was going to use an article from that site as a reference. But the site is dead. No matter, I'll just go to archive.org and use the wayback machine! Then I got the message: "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt.". So... what? Does that mean that all the 1up articles are just gone forever? They can't be used as references? Because using defunct websites and magazines are fine (no publication will last forever) but I need to actually read them to confirm the information on there.

This is the specific url: [1] Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1up is gone forever. --Izno (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So all that information is gone too forever? Just like that? No archives? Nothing? Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per a month ago, the internet archive is slowly unblocking the archives they've taken of sites that have a robots.txt, so hopefully at some point archived 1up.com pages will come back- if I remember correctly, the robots.txt file was only put on the site after it was shut down, so there should be archives in existence, if not currently available. --PresN 19:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IDV: Wow, that's good to know. Thanks for sharing. sixtynine • speak up • 04:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just another awesome aspect of the Internet and Free Market! SharkD  Talk  01:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA damaged by robots.txt and site changes

The FA Flight Unlimited III relies heavily on sources from Flightsim.com, which has just rearranged its site and put up a robots.txt exclusion. The sources I used are still online, but in a badly corrupted form. My first question: how would one go about asking Flightsim.com to edit their robots.txt exclusions to allow Internet Archive? I know WPVG has had success doing this with GameSpot in the past, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. If that fails, though, the sources are still online at Archive.is. Which brings me to my second question: has Archive.is become an acceptable tool on Wikipedia since I last checked? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that over time, Archive.org is going to ignore post-added robots.txt to allow access to content it had already cached, but we don't have a firm timeline for this. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yes, after a final, final RfC, archive.is is now acceptable for use on WP. --PresN 14:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All good news! I'll contact Flightsim's webmaster before I make a decision one way or the other. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing: Wikipedia:Using archive.is#Copyright and robots.txt may be of interest if you haven't seen it yet. — Gestrid (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a robots.txt added after the fact has much legal weight to be enforced for the entire past history of the site. So it's good to see that Archive.org is going to add past versions. However, I do fear that more sites are going to be using robots.txt in the future, and this may hurt archiving projects as archive.org and other sites become more popular. They will see it as a threat to the control of their material that needs to be stopped. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sakura Wars

Hi there, everyone. I've recently finished a large amount of work related to the Sakura Wars series. While not complete, I've created extensive articles on the first Sakura Wars, and its first three sequels 2: Thou Shalt Not Die, 3: Is Paris Burning? and 4: Fall in Love, Maidens. I'm not going to be doing work on the fifth game So Long, My Love for the time being, and I've burnt myself out slightly on this project. If anyone wants to take up these articles, feel free. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable work, nice job. TarkusAB 01:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very nice work. Amazing considering so few have been localized in any capacity. Best of luck with So Long, My Love. I did not enjoy that game at all, so I'd be hardpressed to be motivated to help much. But we've already been through the process before, ProtoDrake - you ask for help due to burnout, and then usually end up doing it yourself anyways! ;) Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: You didn't research four Japan-exclusive games within the space of a month to the point that you're sick of the words "Sakura" and "Wars". I'm not touching the fifth game until I've fully recovered my ability to work on it with my usual quality standards, which could be some time. ;) --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ProtoDrake - Makes sense. It was hard enough for me just trying to improve the JP-only Another Eden from "garbage class" to "start class" a month back, I can only imagine what it would be like working on all four of those Sakura Wars articles. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cat/AWB help

Anyone up for helping with a genre recategorization project? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 18#Category:Nintendo DS games by genre We might be able to automate it, but from my spot check, we'll need to manually check whether the games are in the right subgenre categories. I likely won't have the time for a while—anyone else interested? czar 03:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New articles - 19 May

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

9 May

10 May

12 May

13 May

14 May

15 May

16 May

17 May

18 May

19 May

Salavat (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neighbor (video game) has a draft at Draft:Hello Neighbor that only exists because an AFD put it there. The new version is a better start but suffers for the same reason the other article drafted. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno (another other editors): I gathered some sources for possible expansion of the article (commented out in the referenecs section), maybe these sources plus the Draft content could be merged to form a sup-stub article? I'm currently lacking the time to do it myself, though. Lordtobi (✉) 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible article topic

I was thinking about possible article topics for the VG project. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to create an article from scratch (summer classes), but one topic I thought of was Zeldathon. They have received some coverage since they started in 2009. Some (admittedly biased) coverage can be found on the website's press page. Obviously, some of it is from connected sources, but I believe at least some of it is useable. They even got noticed and received some huge donations by Scott Cawthon, creator of Five Nights at Freddy's, during their last marathon, which benefitted St. Jude's. Note that I would be able to help with some editing, but probably not a lot. — Gestrid (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If no one does make an article on it, I would probably create one sometime this year (After all, there is no deadline.), but I would still like to know if you guys think it meets our criteria. — Gestrid (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did a simple Google search for "Zeldathon" and didn't come up with any RS hits within the first few pages of results. I mean, its possible that maybe one would have to get more creative than that, but I wouldn't recommend making such an article at this rate... Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First-person party-based "blobbers"

I want to create a new sub-category of Category:Video games by graphical style for games like Might & Magic and Wizardry that are sometimes called "blobbers". Is it okay to use this term, or is the term too new? Is there another better term? Here is an explanation of what the term refers to. (Ignore the bit about D&D in that article. I don't know what he's talking about.) Thanks. SharkD  Talk  03:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other mentions of the term. SharkD  Talk  03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blobber = first-person dungeon crawler; from Wizardry and M&M, all the way to Etrian Odyssey and Legend of Grimrock. I've never seen the term "blobber" but it could be a redirect to the genre page and mentioned there. Sounds like there could maybe be either a subcat of Category:Dungeon crawler video games dedicated to Category:First-person dungeon crawler video games, or an independent Category:First-person video games where "blobbers" could intersect with the dungeon crawler one. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, "blobbers" are all party-based, and the category name would need to reflect this so that readers don't get confused. SharkD  Talk  05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short definition to here. SharkD  Talk  12:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created Category:First-person party-based dungeon crawler video games. Several games still need to be moved from Category:Dungeon crawler video games, most likely, since I am not familiar with all of them. SharkD  Talk  22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

Role-playing video game is currently assessed as B-Class article. I was wondering if it could be reassessed to GA or FA class. There are still a few "citation needed" tags here and there, but otherwise the article is pretty comprehensive with over 250 citations. SharkD  Talk  13:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% on what you're asking, so I'll answer a few options:
  • Can someone here just declare it a GA or FA? No- see WP:GAN and WP:FAC.
  • Is it good enough to pass GAN or FAC right now as it stands? Not right this second- a couple dozen cite needed tags, an "update needed" tag in Popularity and notable developers, a few spots where it's unclear whether the cite is for the entire paragraph or just the last sentence, there's a few spots I saw when skimming where it seems like you're using terms that may have been invented for the article as if they're standard, there's a few bald-faced statements like "The premise of most role-playing games tasks the player with saving the world, or whichever level of society is threatened." which I don't have a font size big enough to slap a "citation needed" on, which given that's the 4th paragraph of a monster-sized article doesn't imply good things for the rest of the article... etc.
  • Is it within range of GAN (FAC is a whole other level above that in terms of level of effort required) that you could reach there with some work? Yeah, I'd say so. Granted, I didn't more than skim it, but there's a lot of content there, that seems to be organized relatively sanely, and there's just a few holes to plug in that you could probably get through with some (well, a good deal of) work. --PresN 14:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I just discovered (and deleted) something worse: "The vast majority of RPG games that were successful were made from Japanese companies, making Japan a dominant country in an entertainment genre in East Asia, along with the Cinema of Hong Kong and the Korean wave, further increasing the prophecy that East Asian products are superior to those of the West." No citation of course. I guess I should read articles more closely, first. SharkD  Talk  19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Setting

I am exploring how to reproduce this list using Wikidata only. I was wondering if it would be okay to add a "setting" parameter to the infoboxes or wikidata records? Right now I don't think any games have such a parameter. The "setting" parameters I used in the list include such things such as "sci-fi", "fantasy", "modern", "historical" among others. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  00:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike books or movies, video games are not typically separated into their thematic genres, but their gameplay ones; as such, they're not considered one of the defining aspects of a game, and in fact many games would be either cross-categorical or simply defy categorization (what setting is Minecraft, for example?). I would oppose adding this to the infobox; it's not the kind of thing that can be clearly distilled into a single word or two for every game. --PresN 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Books/movies can be just as hard to classify. For instance, there are plenty of cross genres such as Science fantasy and Space Western. As for Minecraft, what makes it any different from other fantasy/steampunk games? SharkD  Talk  13:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the film project already has a hard enough time corralling genres in many films, to a point where I think they have it limited to a max of two genres with IAR applications? We'd have exactly the same problems, even more-so given how gameplay genres are often fought over. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And don't get me started on the genre-warring that goes on in the music world. The less we can delve into the subjective world of genre and classification, the better, in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I have created a few dozen of these lists, and combinations of the above four settings pretty much covers all of them. SharkD  Talk  14:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to reproduce this list in wikidata? --PresN 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia list is no longer being updated by anyone. Wikidata is more likely to be current. SharkD  Talk  13:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Wikidata goes, "genre" does not obey the Enwiki Infobox video game rules. That is, in Wikidata eyes, there's no issue with setting "science fiction" as the genre of a video game. Presumably, with sourcing. We need to be careful about discussing how to populate Wikidata here, and trying to base it on using our infobox rules or guidelines as a starting point. That is, if someone reads this section, then goes to Wikidata and starts deleting genres from video games, they will essentially be in the wrong. All we can really do is discuss how to utilize whats in Wikidata here on Enwiki. I.e. do we filter out genres we don't want when we pull the data. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggested a "setting" parameter. Because I think they *should* be separated. SharkD  Talk  14:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Wikidata doesn't have separate fields for this. "Genre" is both setting and 'video game type'. How do you determine if a genre is thematic or not? This has to be done within the framework of Wikidata. If enough data is available in Wikidata to make that determination, I could code for it and filter. This could possibly be done by making a new instance type, "video game genre", which is a sub-instance of "genre". Then move the video game genres down to this.... (@Izno?) Otherwise we'd have to make a hard coded list of "These are allowed video game genres" and assume all other genres to be "Thematic". But that's a separate issue from the fact that enwiki currently frowns on thematic genres for video games. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My original argument against having a separate "video game genre" property (it has previously been proposed) was that the kind of genres are distinguished by their typing in Wikidata. Video game genres are either direct or indirect subclasses of video game genre (Q659563) in Wikidata. This is presently a subclass of genre (Q483394), to which so-called "literary" genres also trace their heritage. An algorithm in Wikidata can filter for items of the one without the other based on checking other types. --Izno (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If by "thematic" you mean Theme (narrative), then no I don't think we should classify video games in that way. But I do think we can classify based on gameplay/technical differences (as we do currently) and setting (which we do not do). Also, I'm not sure "It will cause edit wars!" is a good rationale for not doing so, especially when we are free to list more than one genre in the infobox/database. SharkD  Talk  11:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Izno: Ok, that's what I was looking for. The video game genres already have their own class, so yes, I can filter by that. No need for any change in Wikidata structure. In response to SharkD: What you're talking about cannot possibly be solved here, in that you're basically redefining "genre". "Fantasy" for example is widely viewed as a "genre". Even if Enwiki were to decide to present "thematic" or "literary" genres as "setting" for video games, Wikidata would not follow and would even resist such an attempt to redefine it like that. However, because these items are categorized in Wikidata, it's possible to filter them differently here. They will always be "genres" in Wikidata, but if there is a consensus (Which I don't see happening at the moment), I could sort the genre field into two sets for different infobox fields. -- ferret (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can understand not wanting to put them in infoboxes. But it seems weird to not be able to put the thematic genres in wikidata. I mean, we have categories for this stuff, and if it's worth putting in a category it should be worth putting in wikidata, right? SharkD  Talk  22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can put them in Wikidata. They belong in the genre statement on Wikidata, same as "first person shooter" goes. That's all I've been saying. -- ferret (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. Also, what is the most convenient way to edit multiple wikidata records en masse? The default method such as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q214232 only allows me to edit one record at a time, and is kind of clunky. (I'm still not sure I can navigate these pages using only a keyboard.) On the other hand, TABernacle only seems to let me *add* values, not edit or remove them. Also, TABernacle doesn't let me add references. SharkD  Talk  23:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at d:WD:Tools. If you don't find something there, best to ask at d:WD:PC. --Izno (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata publication date

Our article on Star Wolves says the game was published first in 2004 in Russia. The wikidata page says December 2006. Do we list only English publication dates on wikidata? How should this discrepancy be resolved? SharkD  Talk  01:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should always list the first publication, and Wikidata is used by several different wikis, so it's not bound by what's relevant to people who speak English. I do not know how this should be done on a technical level, however.--IDVtalk 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that Wikidata is just missing the data (Presuming that our Russia 2004 date is sourced). Wikidata does not auto-import any information from different Wikipedias, outside of bots being ran. You can add it to Wikidata yourself just fine. None of our maze of Infobox rules here at enwiki apply on Wikidata, (and Wikidata has its own WP:N and WP:V separate from enwiki) but there's plenty of holes in the data that need filled in. -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The wikidata page does not say "Russia" or "North America" next to the date. How is this usually handled? SharkD  Talk  13:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I can see from this that there are additional flags for "platform" and "place of publication" when specifying a date. Hopefully, these too are standardized. SharkD  Talk  13:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most regions and countries will be easy to find. Wikidata does not enforce unique names so there will be multiples to sort through at times, though. Most items will have a description to help with this. Example for a tricky one are things like the first consoles in a brand. That is, make sure you do PlayStation (Q10677) as platform. PlayStation (Q1323662) refers to the brand. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you do about digital online releases? For instance, Final Fantasy VI was released on iOS, Android and PS4, but there is no "place of publication" for these releases. Is there a "worldwide" parameter that should be used in these cases? SharkD  Talk  16:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the release is world wide, you can just leave off "place of publication" entirely. Qualifiers are not required per say, only necessary where you need to differentiate two statements with the same value. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in the case of Final Fantasy VII, there is no company associated with the publication date. How do you specify whether Company A published the game in 1997, and Company B in 2015? Should the company name be listed there as well? The problem is that when you query the record, you end up with 16 results, since there are 2 publishers and 8 publication dates. But there should not be so many. SharkD  Talk  19:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Sorry to lean on you... In the case above, would you add a publisher qualifier to the publication date, or would you add publication date qualifiers to the publishers? -- ferret (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, the answer is: "both"? --Izno (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in a relational database you should only store a piece of information once. But then we should do this consistently across all articles. And "platform" will be affected as well. I do think the former (adding a publisher qualifier to the publication date) would be better than the latter. SharkD  Talk  21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that later ports of FFVII had different developers involved, too. This could be added beneath "publication date" as well, but the Enwiki article doesn't state which port was developed by whom. Which sources do we use for this kind of stuff? SharkD  Talk  02:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there supposed to be links to Wikipedia articles in the Wikidata records? For instance, on Final Fantasy VII there is no link to the article Final Fantasy VII. SharkD  Talk  17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. Wikipedia article links are in the top right corner. There are 37 links for FF7. EN is listed. -- ferret (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. I see them now. But for me they are all the way at the bottom. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The design is somewhat responsive. --Izno (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PC =/= Windows

Please stop putting PC as the platform when you mean Windows. Mac's are a type of a PC, as are Chromebooks, but none of them are Operating Systems or can run all the same programs. Platform should be one or more of:

Sorry if I missed a platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.252.196.215 (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people who watch this talk page are aware of this already - it is mostly a problem with older pages that haven't been fixed, and edits by well-meaning new editors who don't know about this yet.--IDVtalk 10:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. 77.252196.215, when you write a message on this talk page, you're mostly talking to the core, experienced people, many of which have written the video games guidelines itself. You don't need to tell us about this. We're the ones frequently fixing this sort of thing ourselves. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, I watch this page (and other project pages) so that I can learn more about the right way to do things. It might be in the guidelines but, personally, I don't mind people occasionally pointing out the obvious (providing that they don't spam or get aggressive), because there are people like me who aren't completely clueless but definitely haven't memorised the guidelines or absorbed all the best practices that are out there. Scribolt (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree, its just that, this particular sounded less like a friendly reminder, and more like a lecture. I could be wrong though. Regardless, I was just trying to convey that they were "preaching to the choir" when informing much of us here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind PC, is OnLive a platform? ;-) - X201 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, at least in terms of the infobox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization and table of in-game cultures and world leaders

Hi everyone,

For almost a year now I've been trying to remove this huge list of cultures and world leaders that appear in the Civilization series. It's a whopping 26K characters long table that shows which culture and a world leader appear in what game. To me, this is a classic WP:GAMECRUFT case: it doesn't say anything about the gameplay of the represented cultures and/or political figures, just says they're featured. On its talk page I've had several discussions, now with a anon IP, that keeps reinstating the list. I just accidentally broke WP:3RR on my phone, but I've reverted by last revert. The most recent discussion can be found here. I know that @Masem has chimed in before, any other input would be appreciated. Thanks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement with Soetermans, with the fact that we only need a few examples in prose of what it means to select a civilization and its leader (and of course, Nukemonger Ghandi ). There have been no third-party sources that describe or comment on the inclusion or absence of a specific civ from a game in the series, making the table clearly GAMEGUIDE and removable. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Soetermans as well. This is the type of thing WP:GAMECRUFT exists to combat. Tell the IP to send it to Gamefaqs or a Wikia or something. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, which is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it had gone, didn't realise it was still there. - X201 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. - X201 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem, @Sergecross73, @X201, if you haven't already, could you leave a message at the talk page as well? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft San Francisco

I noticed on South Park: The Fractured but Whole there is relink for Ubisoft San Francisco shouldn't that just be a redirect to Ubisoft for now? Govvy (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, redlinks are good, they encourage people to create articles that don't exist. Most of Ubisoft's development studios have their own articles, no reason why this won't at some point. - X201 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But until an article is created for it, it makes more sense just to redirect to Ubisoft. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, since the casual reader expects to find information on a certain topic when they click on it, for what reason I actually ran six of such cases through RfD a month ago, with the result being delete, which you seemingly disregarded when unnecessarily re-creating the redirect a few minutes back. Unless we actually find content for that page, I will likely list it at RfD again. Lordtobi (✉) 19:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
k, I was thinking of just linking to Ubisoft, but maybe I should leave it for now. I did notice there are a fair number of Ubisoft articles, maybe someone more local to the area can create one. Govvy (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are only helpful when creation of the article is imminent (within the next few days or weeks). It remaining a red link for any longer (say half a year or more) doesn't help at all. If the studio was notable enough, it would have had an article created by now, so I view that as a bad argument for not allowing it to be a redirect until then. I propose we either create the article within the next few days, keep it as a redirect to Ubisoft, or unlink it all together. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no time limit on creating a redlink. If the Ubisoft article had a paragraph about San Francisco linking it would make sense, but as is it tells the user nothing - X201 (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Ubisoft game will always have a link to Ubisoft, but between the different studios if one is redirecting back to the main article you just repeating a link in the article anyway, if you go by overlink rule then really you don't want to have a link do you? Govvy (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's probably best to just leave it unlinked instead of it being a red link for the next two or three years potentially, as if the studio was notable enough by now, an article would have been created. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think redlinks are okay too, but they tend to get killed on sight by most editors. Kind of like redshirts on Star Trek. OTOH, the type of people who stroll by and see a redlink and decide to write a short unsourced article on the subject aren't really welcome here any more either. These days the standards are higher. SharkD  Talk  17:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Game Pass

Wanted to get more input from the WikiProject on this. With Xbox Game Pass about to launch officially on 1 June, some users have included the debut catalog for the service. While there is some precedent for this—see EA Access—the nature of this particular service seems to make such a list inappropriate. Games will come and go from the service from time to time, per Microsoft's own description of it, whereas Electronic Arts has stated "once in the Vault, always in the Vault" (despite including language that says they actually can remove content with notice). As we don't have a list of all the films/series on Netflix, is one appropriate for Game Pass? Please register your opinion on the article's talk page, as well as at List of Xbox Game Pass games. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 12:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't believe those aren't FA articles" articles:

A bunch of articles that easily could be turned into FA articles if someone just hunkered down and worked on them. I'm shocked they haven't been.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an attempt was made to get Deus Ex to FA after Anachronox passed but man Deus Ex is hard to write up. If anyone is interested in working on one of these I would help. The Super Mario Kart article looks to be the most viable. GamerPro64 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With Mario Kart, the biggest thing would be overhauling the development section, as Retro Gamer just did a nice "Making of" article last month and Shumplations has translated some info from the Japanese strategy guide. Indrian (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With DX, keep in mind that Spector did a whole post-mortem at this year's GDC [2]. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Dark Souls article has basically nothing on the development of the game, so it shouldn't be considered a FAC. Instead, I'd replace that with Dota 2, which is pretty much an unofficial FA, which I will try to nominate (for the 2nd time) before TI7 in August. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that Dark Souls article has a lot of improvement tags on it still too, and many single sentences hanging out in the prose (not in paragraph form.) I wouldn't think that ones even approaching GA level yet really... Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Demon's Souls is a much better article that could probably quickly become a GA if somebody were to nominate it. EDIT: Oh, by working on Hidetaka Miyazaki's article, I've noticed that there is much more written about Demon's development than there is with first Dark Souls oddly, as the articles seem to show too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Theft Auto III was in decent shape before I started polishing it for GA last year. I intend to finish the job eventually, if nobody else does. – Rhain ☔ 01:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Tactics merger:

Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions have separate articles, but it's the exact same game. It's just a port, and it didn't even change that much. Plus most of the content in the articles repeats the same information. The Tactics Ogre PSP port actually changed much more but it's in one article. There's a long history of enhanced ports getting placed into one article. Metal Gear Solid 3 had an update titled Subsistance that was initially placed in separate articles before being merged.

This issue should be resolved soon before FFT goes onto the main page as a FA. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more of an "enhanced port"? It received a drastic re-translation, new anime cut-scenes, and a multi-player mode all not in the original game. I mean, it can be debatable if it needs its own article or not, but saying "Its just a port that didn't change much" doesn't seem like the most accurate overview here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Looking at it closer, even beyond my comment above, its a well-written GA with a well-detailed development section, and a reception that provides RS commentary on the changes, like the re-translation. Nothing needs to be "resolved" here. The article is completely fine as a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - It's more than just a port, but an expanded and reworked version of the original, with extensive development and reception sections. Such an extensive plot section may be a bit much as it's basically the same story, but to merge it outright isn't needed as it's more than capable of standing as its own game. Like the article I created for Final Fantasy Type-0 HD. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an enhanced port. So what? That's not enough to make it a new article. Lots of ports get new cutscenes and new translations. It's pretty standard. It's just additions to the main game. And the original Japanese still has the same dialogue, so it's not like the actual game was re-written. Chrono Trigger for the NDS has new cutscenes and a translation. Tactics Ogre got a new translation, gameplay overhaul, new cutscenes, etc. Should they get a new articles? I could go on. It can be covered in a few short sections in the original article without going over the same material in a new article. 60-70% of the article is the lede, plot, gameplay sections which are identical to the PS1 version. Take 4-5 short paragraphs from the War of the Lions "Development" and "Reception" sections and put them into the original article and you've now covered all the material in the PS1 and PSP versions in one article. It doesn't matter if it's "well written" or "GA" status. It only matters if it's a repeat article covering the same game that got a port.

I gave the example of MGS3 previously. The Subistance version added:

  • A fully rotatable third-person camera
  • Online multiplayer mode
  • Multiple mini-games and missions and modes

If this version had been made GA should it have been kept? Of course not, as it's just an enhanced re-release. Just like War of the Lions is for FFT. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's different, and received plenty of dedicated coverage about it, that's what. Look, I'm all for merging these back when it's this tiny stub that is nothing but junk like "On date x, the game was announced. On date y, it was released. The game is now HD. Reviewers thought it was good." But that is not the case here at all. There's substantial coverage with substantial content present. Slamming that into the FA isn't an improvement to an encyclopedia. I swear, some of you get so caught up in your GA/FA mania, its like you forget the whole purpose of the website - to build an encyclopedia. Culling down well written, well sourced content from notable subjects like this isn't conducive to that goal. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is GA/FA mania, since even by that metric merging a GA into an FA is a net loss. --PresN 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose I could have worded that better. In this particular case, it'd be "FA mania", but in most cases, it seems like people do this sort of stuff in relation to GAs and "Good Topics", with there generally being more editors writing GA-level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I hate the "other stuff exists isn't a justification" argument, because it's too easy to be really dismissive with it, but really. Your example of a counterpoint is a merge from 2006. It didn't get merged because it wasn't a GA- it got merged because it had no sources or solid development/reception sections about the differences. Could it support a separate article? Sure, maybe. You should consider writing it, not merging away existing solid articles. --PresN 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A comment: I'm a bit concerned that the plot section of War of the Lions seems longer than the original game and does not appear to clearly outline any differences that the text suggests may have been made. Arguably, per NOT#PLOT, the plot section on War should give a para or two summary for sufficient context in that article, dropping the Main template for the original game's plot, and if possible to source, any significant changes made for War of the Lions. (I don't know if there are any). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that too. That could definitely use a trim. I don't recall there being any major plotpoints being changed. A few extra characters added, but I don't think they influenced the overarching plot at all really. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's a stub or a GA. The criteria is: Can this be done in one article that avoids repetition or are the subject matters so different, and writing about them would take up so much space that there's a need for two articles? I think this is more hesitation to merge a GA article than anything else. But GA articles are not sancrosanct. And the answer is: yes these two articles can be covered in one article rather easily. Also, from a practical standpoint, it means that efforts in improving the FFT articles are divided into two articles needlessly, and it wouuld work so much better if there was one article. That's a lot of wasted and duplicated efforts.

On my sandbox, I've done a really quick merger as a prototype. User:Harizotoh9/sandbox. It's a very quick "proof of concept" rather than what I'd actually suggest as the final merger. I've taken the Development and Reception sections and placed them into the original FFT article. It's not that big, and it's not unreadable. It works pretty well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting too hung up on the GA part of the argument. It's less about the classification itself, and more about the fact of what got it to GA - that there's plenty of content and sourcing specifically about the War of Lions game. Prominence of sourcing and content is frequently used as metrics in merge discussions, so there's really no hope for a wholesale dismissal of that point. As for your example in the sandbox, it's alright, but certainly not an improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of putting it: Why do we have articles that are 75% exactly the same? Why not take the 25% difference and add it to the same article? It's nice that it got to GA status. Why not take the nice new material and put it into one article. That it got a lot of news and attention is fine, but it should not matter. I really want an explanation why it is absolutely neccesary that readers must read two separate articles. I just don't see it. BTW, I've played both versions and the actual differences are barely noticeable.
I feel like if a version of a game was released where the only difference was a character got a hat, and it got a lot of press, there'd be people defending that "Game + hat" should get a new article. Which is just silly. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to tell you if, on Wikipedia, your response to "its received lots of separate third party RS coverage and there's much content present", and your response is "it shouldn't matter". I can't break it down any further for you, because that's so fundamentally irreconcilable from how Wikipedia works. Beyond that, one immediate thing that comes to mind as far as why its better having separate articles, is that your draft proposal makes it far harder for a reader specifically looking for information on War of the Lions to find that specific content. If someone is specifically looking for content about that, they have to wade through a ton of prose. Again, your version isn't so much "bad" as it is a significant step backwards from an already done version, which wassn't broken to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge - The only meaningful metric: did the remake/port/whatever get independent sigcov in RS'es w/r/t to development, release and reception? (Development/release is important, if it is just reception/reviews it should be covered in the parent article like Tactics Ogre's PSP port with dozens of reviews). The answer for FFT:WotL is yes, it has plenty of independent sigcov of its development and release (in addition to reception). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria that has been cited several times is whether it has a lot of RS coverage. That criteria is not mentioned in any way on Wikipedia:Merging. Sources are relevant for deletion vs keeping, but not for mergering. It does mention this rule:

Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap."

Which these do. Significantly. There's no Exception rule for if the articles both have a lot of sources. And no, other articles don't count (I also question whether some of them should get separate articles and think they should be done by a case by case basis).

The FFT article is 4,078 words long. FFT:WotL is 3,890 words. The lede, gameplay, plot of both articles cover the exact same material. Same plot, same gameplay.

The lede, gameplay, plot section of FFT is 2,639 words. Or 64.71% of the article. The lede, gameplay, plot section of FFT:WotL is 2,383 words. Or 61.25% of the article.

So these articles overlap 62.25 to 64.71%, and I would consider that a "large overlap". Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT and WP:SIZE are relevant. The former does rely on reliable sources and the latter relies simply on "don't make the pages too big". --Izno (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For size, my test page for the merged articles is 5,514 words, so what I'm proposing does not violate any guidelines for size. The Final Fantasy 7 article in comparison is 9,343 words and the Evolution article, is 10,794. To additionally improve the pages, I would do more than just merging them. The ledes should be expanded, maybe plot/story could be trimmed slightly, and the development for the original game should be expanded bringing that section more to par with the War of the lions development. There are several sources on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm fine with the articles remaining separate. This subject could go either way, and both would have been acceptable. Had it started out as one article, I would have opposed a split. But it has existed as two articles since 2007, so not worth the effort to merge.
That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of redundancy in the gameplay and plot. I mean that plot, what utter tosh. Compare the gameplay and plot details on Halo: Combat Evolved vs. Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary. - hahnchen 10:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahnchen: I've done trimming and tidying which should deal with the majority of the repetition while preserving its merit as a standalone article. I've also added info and a reference about the studios which animated the game's new cutscenes. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New articles - 26 May

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

13 May

19 May

20 May

21 May

22 May

23 May

24 May

25 May

26 May

On a side note I will be away on holiday from 1 June to 18 June and wont be able to go through the new articles and update New article announcements or produce this weekly summary. If anyone is interested on covering this while I'm away that would be awesome otherwise I will do a catch-up when I'm back. Salavat (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Valve Corporation video games

List of Valve Corporation video games is up for featured list candidate if anyone is interested in reviewing. Has one support currently: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Valve Corporation video games/archive1. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft studio article assessments

Good day everyone, I would like to publicly address that a few (with which I mean a lot) of articles about Ubisoft's studios around the world a lacking harshly in quality, and in cases even content. Under special focus here fall the following:

They all follow the same scheme: Quick introduction with name (if applies, former name), location, maybe a founding date, and in rare cases founders or key personell (to counter this, a lot of original research made its way into these articles, in part also be me [shame on me]). Then, either an expanded lede or a "History" section follow as "they were made", "they developed x1", "they developed2", "they developed x3..n", but not much else, and finally, a list of games they apparently had a hand in. All of these articles are only lacklusterly sourced, or not sourced at all, wherefore I would like to inquire the community to deicde on each article if they are either notable and simply require better sourcing, or if they are not notable and should just be deleted. The latter option should not be replaced by redirecting to Ubisoft, as the average reader would expect to find information on the subject at given target page, which they will not (see related #Ubisoft San Francisco discussion above). If the prior option is chosen, we should work together on gathering the required sourcing. Furthermore, there are also a few articles that are independently notable, but still lack some sourcing, which are:

Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 15:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are/should have sources about Nadeo, Mainz, Ivory Tower, Montpellier, and Paris, given that each of them had developed some major franchises. Quebec and Toronto are considered as two of Ubisoft's future main studios, so they should have some sources as well. I think we can create an article called List of Ubisoft studios to mention the rest. They are notable, but there isn't much sources mentioning them. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At minimum, studios where notability beyond being able to mention their involvement with a notable game/series but nothing else, they should be include in sections under "Studios" within Ubisoft's article, or even perhaps a separate page "List of Ubisoft studios". That allows both separately-notable (Ubisoft Montreal for example) to be listed alongside those where only a few facts can be listed. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about merging all the articles into one article (List of Ubisoft studios), because that would make more sense to me. Govvy (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and keep the originals as redirects to that since they are valid search terms, and should any of these merged studios become separately notable, they can be recreated without admin involvement. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a list article would be a good idea (though I would favor a title like "List of Ubisoft subsidiaries", so to also include Quazal [which also needs improvement, but is notable!] et al., which is not technically a "studio", as well). Still we should decide on what is notable enough to stay independent of (e.g. as AdrianGamer stated above, which sums it up well, though I [currently] do not see a good one on Quebec and Toronto, only time will tell). Lordtobi (✉) 20:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly off topic, but anytime a game is fully made by one of Ubisoft's divisions (like Far Cry, Watch Dogs, The Division, etc) we should just go with "developed and published by Ubisoft" rather than "developed by Ubisoft x and published by Ubisoft". We don't go with "Developed by Square Enix Business division 1 and published by Square Enix" or "Developed by Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development and published by Nintendo" on Final Fantasy and Nintendo games, so why does Ubisoft get an exception? The exact studio belongs further down in the lead, written like The game was developed by Ubisoft's division in Montreal/Montreal division with a relevant link there.~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the difference here is that most Ubisoft studios are highly regarded on their own basis, have their own history, and lie anywhere across the globe, and are independently credited in game, while Square Enix or Nintendo have divisions that usually lie in the same city, have no public affairs (in most cases not even a notable mention on their website), and are not credited in games independently, rather under the "Square Enix" or "Nintendo" banners (and are regareded as such in RS, AFAIK [and if I'm not wrong here]). Generally, I'm not against your stylization of things, but I think we should go for consensus first, no? Lordtobi (✉) 18:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the specific studio is named commonly when a title is discussed (eg Ubisoft Montreal for the FC series), we should keep that approach. If a studio branch is not regularly named, we should not go out of our way to name it (but if still can be sourced, that's infobox material). --MASEM (t) 18:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata and Japanese titles

What are we supposed to do when there is no English title, but the Japanese title is used in its place? For instance, Kimi ga Yobu, Megido no Oka de. Is it better to leave them as they are? Or, should we blank the English title and copy the text to the Japanese title? Is there a special parameter for romanized Japanese titles? SharkD  Talk  08:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regions to include in console price list

Our video game hardware typically use the {{Infobox information appliance}} for the infobox, which has price fields, but that infobox (generic not to just video games) doesn't give any advice on regions to include for costs.

Because this field can attract pricing kudzu ("My region's not included, let me add it...") I think we need guidance on which regions should be included in price. To that end, I would say the following should only be used: US (largest consumer of video games), JP (second major market for video games), EU/UK but not both (Euro pricing is preferred but not all consoles have this standardized so the UK price works as a substitute) and AUS (as this nearly always reflects the high tariffs of shipping to that region). MASEM (t) 18:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Should a critic's comment about a game be added to a game's reception even if the game he/she commented on is not the topic of his review? No Complaint, No Care (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a reliable source, and it's being presented in the proper context, then sure. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a hypothetical question or are we talking about an actual situation? The reason being, if we are talking about a real review we can evaluate whether of not the coverage of the other game is sufficient enough to put in that games' reception section.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To give a hypothetical example, if a review for game X once referees to it a being like game Y in space and does not mention game Y again it should not be covered in the article for game Y. If on the other hand, the review make several comparisons between game X and Y then it may make sense to cover it.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=782782049"